Engineering Regulation & Evidence

My hope, since the 14th August 2018 has been that the proponents of the Engineers Registration Bill would not stretch the boundaries of credibility and professionalism by using the tragic collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa Italy to push their agenda. Disappointingly this happened less than 4 weeks after the fatal event, with Engineers Australia publishing an aggressive media release. The only positives I could see were the statement "Engineers Australia respects the right of the state Opposition to vote against the registration bill" and the inclusion finally of the word "regulation" instead of only the more benign "registration". Engineers Australia should similarly respect the right of their own members to oppose the registration bill.

The desperate push for mandatory registration and regulation of engineers who work in and for Victoria has not only been very badly managed in my opinion, but sadly yet predictably, it has become a negative and divisive clash of two sides. This is not surprising due to the proposed transfer of risk to individual engineers, increased cost and burden for business and the tantalizing potential windfall for the proponents. This Bill has been around for over 90 years and yet it is still struggling to pass through Parliament due to lack of widespread support. It has only got this far due to the current Labor government having the numbers to push it through the Lower House.

The secretive and aggressive management of the development and push for the Bill using so far unsubstantiated claims is coming home to roost. Questions, letters and emails remain unanswered, agreements to discuss amendments have been broken and dysfunctional dialogue has flowed in only one direction. Calls for evidence has led to silence. Lack of consultation with engineers and engineering companies, biased information prepared for MPs in the initial submissions, expensive negative media stunts on all platforms and the ongoing lack of consideration for opponents’ views has become increasingly tiresome.

Despite many calls for verifiable evidence to prove that regulating engineers actually leads to an improvement on any one of a number of metrics, not one piece of valid or credible evidence supporting the Bill has been forthcoming. Furthermore, even though countless comments questioning and opposing the bill have appeared online and have been sent to proponents, no opportunity for discussion has been offered. Public meetings have already started without the involvement of associations due to lack of leadership in this area. It's disrespectful to suggest that concerns can be dealt with after the Bill is passed into law. Opponents of the Bill have also had enough. Frustration is clear on both sides.

Lashing out and trying to force the issue is not the answer. A positive engineering industry in Australia must be based on respect, trust and credible, verifiable evidence based initiatives. How different this could have been if consultation and concerns for those affected by the Bill had genuinely been considered from the start and if public, two way dialogue had been advertised widely, invited openly and supported. It's not too late to begin open and respectful dialogue and repair the damage done. Without this diversity of thought, respect and inclusion of industry participants, a continuous spiral of distrust may result in an irrecoverable stalemate.

Here is what one highly experienced engineer, opponent of the Engineers Registration Bill and member of Engineers Australia had to say about the recent media release.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now they have crossed a line.

For the record, I have no respect for either side of politics, so my opinion is not “blatantly political” at all; but entirely professional and well-informed.

Ageing infrastructure is the problem, not the engineering profession.

In support of this assertion I address herein two types of failure, bridge failure and gas pipeline failure; and then progress to some questions directly relevant to the proposed Engineers Registration Bill.

The Engineers Australia media attachment nominates the Morandi bridge failure in Italy:

‘The recent catastrophic bridge collapse in Italy shows us that shonky infrastructure puts lives at risk. Innocent people lost their lives. It’s reckless to stand between any measure that lifts engineering standards and accountability,’ Ms Printz said.

A previous communication from Engineers Australia was much more reasoned and advocated investigation before leaping to conclusions.

https://www.createdigital.org.au/morandi-bridge-collapse-safety-infrastructure/

Colin Caprani, the same spokesperson quoted in the Engineers Australia article above, also contributed to a relevant article in the Australian Financial Review, citing the dangers of corrosion as a contributing factor to bridge failures. https://www.afr.com/business/bridge-infrastructure-at-risk-from-corrosion-as-trucks-get-heavier-engineers-say-20180904-h14x76

Also commenting for the AFR was Rob Heywood of Heywood Engineering Solutions in Brisbane, who emphasized that there are multiple factors contributing to failure of bridges. Along with Sean Brady, he is co-founder of Brady Heywood, a Brisbane firm specializing in forensic investigation of failures of bridges and other infrastructure.

In light of these spokesperson comments, would Ms. Printz please elaborate how, without the benefit of any findings of a formal investigation into the causes of the Genoa bridge failure, she knows exactly what happened in Italy and why it happened.

Would Ms. Printz please explain exactly why the infrastructure was “shonky”?

1. Was it a poor engineering design done decades ago on the basis of then-current engineering knowledge in bridge design? The history of the cable-stayed bridge design and its weaknesses is well established.
2. Was it corrupt practices in government management of infrastructure development and construction many years ago in a country which was and still is known for widespread corruption?
3. Was it failure of the responsible government entities to allocate adequate budget for maintenance of the aging infrastructure? Several news articles would indicate this was the case.
4. Was the bridge well outside its design life as has previously been reported?
5. Why did the responsible authorities not take appropriate action when even the original designer warned that it would fail without constant maintenance? https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/bridge-designer-warned-of-risk-of-collapse-decades-ago/news-story/aaede70a419bff54d6f4516ba216cfa3
6. Why did the responsible authorities not pay attention when the collapse of the bridge was predicted only a few years ago by Claudio Calvini? https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/in-ten-years-this-bridge-will-collapse-the-man-who-foresaw-a-tragedy-20180816-p4zxqf.html

Roger Boisjoly, engineer for Morton-Thiokol, had to live many years with the knowledge that the deaths of seven Challenger astronauts could have been prevented had his warnings about O-rings been heeded. Spare a thought for Claudio Calvini given the deaths of more than 40 innocent people in Genoa.

As current events are to be leveraged in this debate about the Bill, let us now consider the very recent news of a tragic gas pipeline failure near Boston, Massachusetts. An old pipeline network owned by Columbia Gas is reported to have experienced an overpressure event during “upgrading activities”; one person has been killed, many more injured and many homes destroyed.

Incredibly, it was also Columbia Gas which recently suffered catastrophic failure of a brand-new gas pipeline in West Virginia, when the Leach Xpress pipeline exploded. Fortunately, on that occasion the location was remote and no one was killed.

Even more incredibly, the Boston overpressure event has many similarities with the known causes of the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion in California in 2010. In their book "Nightmare Pipeline Failures", Andrew Hopkins and Jan Hayes, two very authoritative authors on contributing factors to failure, set out the ways in which both Pacific Gas and Electric and the responsible government regulatory authorities contributed to the San Bruno failure of a very old pipeline.

In 2011 a gas pipeline in Allentown, Pennsylvania exploded killing five and burning many houses. The very old cast iron pipeline had been recommended for replacement 30 years earlier, but the work was never done.

So why is all of this important in consideration of the Engineers Registration Bill?  

Because registration of engineers does not prevent failure of infrastructure; and because new legislation targeting engineers cannot fix the old problem of ageing infrastructure.

• Since 1925, long before the Morandi Bridge was designed and built, the Consiglio Nazionale Degli Ingegneri has regulated the engineering profession in Italy.
• All four USA States where the above gas pipeline failures occurred, already had in place licencing/registration schemes for engineers, but the schemes did not prevent failure or save lives.

Australia has many old bridges, and almost all major cities in Australia have reticulated gas pipeline networks, some of which are many years old. However there have not been any similar failures of bridges or gas pipelines resulting in loss of life, despite the absence of any scheme for registration of engineers. (The West Gate bridge was under construction when it failed; and the Tasman and Granville bridges were taken out by significant unplanned impact loading).

Society will grumble but put up with bumpy, potholed and clogged roads; burst water mains and occasional power outages. 

Society will not accept innocent deaths attributed to failure of bridges or burst gas pipelines; or bushfire deaths attributed to failure of electrical transmission infrastructure.

Responsibility for maintenance of ageing public infrastructure extends far beyond the engineering profession; and infrastructure failures cannot be linked to presence or absence of an engineering registration scheme.

In light of the above factual evidence showing clearly that registration of engineers does not prevent failure, would Ms. Printz please explain the following:

1. Exactly how would the Engineers Registration Bill prevent any similar failures of infrastructure in Victoria, and what precisely is the evidence supporting that claim?
2. How many innocent people have already lost their lives in Victoria as a direct result of government failure to adequately manage government responsibilities and provide effective regulatory oversight? Study the findings of the Royal Commission into the Black Saturday bushfires carefully before you answer.
3. Exactly which clauses of the Engineers Registration Bill will protect innocent Victorians from similar government failure to act on professional engineering advice and from failure of regulatory oversight?
4. Will Engineers Australia guarantee that any engineers assessed as competent by Engineers Australia will never make mistakes resulting in failure of infrastructure and loss of life?
5. Exactly how does mandatory Professional Indemnity insurance save lives decades after the engineering is completed? Compulsory Third Party insurance does not prevent road deaths; nor will mandatory PI insurance influence the competence of professional engineers.

Answer the questions Ms. Printz:

• If you cannot, you are the one being reckless.
• Professional engineers can prove their point. Can you?

Name Withheld

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you have any concerns at all with the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 being debated in the Victorian Parliament, I urge you to contact your local Upper House member. A list of Upper House (Legislative Council) members and their electorate can be found here.

Two independent surveys have been created to gather the views of those in the engineering industry in both Australia and overseas (the Bill extends to all states and engineering done overseas)

The survey specific to the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 (Vic) - Share your thoughts here ... https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/STYSGMT

The survey related to engineering regulation in general - Share your thoughts here ... https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XH3KHXS

Please share this article if you believe all engineers should know about the Professional Engineers Registration Bill 2019 and have the opportunity to share their concerns or opinions

More articles on Engineering Regulation in Australia

Debate | Innovation | Recognition | Penalties | Safety | Search & Seizure | Areas | asafervic | Cost Benefit | Evidence | Legal Advice

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As a member of Engineers Australia, I am obliged to state that my views are clearly separate from the views of Engineers Australia

#Innovation #Engineering #Engineers #Regulation #Registration #Parliament #Smallbusinesses #Legislation #Politics #Government #Engineeringmanagement #Business #Leadership #Australia #Survey #Safety #Evidence