COURSEWORK – CHEN60512

This coursework is related to the following:

• ILO 1. Appraise water availability, sources of pollution, and problems.
• ILO 2. Compare UK and EU legislation and calculate controlled release of waste.
• ILO 3. Design key water treatment units and devise water treatment plants.

The aim of this coursework is for you to understand how we can apply legislation on wastewater to determine
the treatment processes required, then design these treatment processes to produce a wastewater
treatment plant, and finally appraise the wastewater treatment plant. To achieve this you will have to
combine material taught in the module with independent research.

1. Introduction
Your team is part of a company that has been hired to design a new direct reuse wastewater treatment plant
in the United Kingdom. The plant is required to take up excess wastewater from a new chemical production
site and associated new residential area. The wastewater is therefore a mixture of process wastewater,
residential wastewater, and surface runoff. The wastewater enters the site of the new treatment plant
through a single large sewer line at the normal flow rate and composition shown in Table 1. The plant is then
required to provide potable water, meeting local requirements, to supplement that used by the larger
catchment area (i.e. provide as much water as possible and there is no need for exit storage). Due to the
particular site available for the treatment plant there is no restriction on the land available; however, the
plot size needed should be minimised where possible.

This design process will require the delivery of all the material listed in section 2.1. This will take the form of
two professional design reports and a review document. The first report will focus on the base design of the
water treatment plant taking the normal flow and composition as its basis – section 2.3.

The review document will focus on analysing a design that has been developed for the same site by an
external consultancy company (it should be noted here that they were given a newer specification of the
wastewater so it will differ from that in Table 1) – section 2.4. The second design report will focus on updating,
and costing of the same external consultancy design report – section 2.5. The developed design report and
required data for the review and the second design report will be provided when needed.

Table 1. Wastewater specification

Parameter Value
3 −1
Normal flow rate / m day 450,000
Temperature / oC 12
BOD / g m–3 220
sBOD / g m–3 111
COD / g m–3 580
sCOD / g m–3 210
rbCOD / g m–3 80
TSS / g m–3 180
VSS / g m–3 153
TKN / g m–3 35
NH4-N / g m–3 23
sON / g m–3 9

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 1

 nbsON / g m–3 1.1
TP / g m–3 6
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) / g m–3 100

Some Useful References (Check the course Online Reading for eVersions)
• J. C. Crittenden (2012) MWH's water treatment : principles and design; John Wiley and Sons.
• S. Moran (2018) An applied guide to water and effluent treatment plant design; Elsevier
• R. H. Perry and D. W. Green. (2008) Perry’s chemical engineers' handbook; McGraw-Hill.
• R. K. Sinnott and G. P. Towler. (2020) Chemical engineering design; Butterworth-Heinemann.
• G. Acampa, M. Gabriella Giustra, and C. Mariaserena Parisi. (2019) “Water Treatment Emergency:
Cost Evaluation Tools”; Sustainability; 11, 2609. doi:10.3390/su11092609.

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 2

 2. Assignment
2.1. Task
Develop a design for a water treatment plant that has the ability to treat the input flow rate and composition
to meet the relevant environmental discharge requirements:

• Specification of design objectives and constraints.

• Design of treatment block flow diagram and justification of choice of equipment.
• Overall mass balance for the treatment plant at normal flow.
• Detailed chemical engineering design (for each main piece of equipment) to allow operation at
normal conditions, including:
o An outline of the function of the equipment, i.e., how it works – chemical engineering
principles.
o Rate based sizing of the equipment including relevant internals.
o Detail of the design methods, data, and assumptions used, to include a summary of major
design/operating parameters and justification of these.
o Analysis and justification that the design will work, e.g., does it follow key rules of thumb,
referencing to existing designs.
o Scale drawing of equipment with internals and connections.
• Design of ancillaries and equipment connections e.g., pumps, pipes, and open channels.
• Represent the layout of the complete treatment plant.
• Review a plant design.
• Specify plant operation and management at peak flow rate.
• Estimated capital and operating costs.

2.2. Deliverables
Specifically, you are to prepare the following for submission:

1. A group work agreement.

A signed group work agreement form will be submitted through Blackboard. Please submit your file
as “<GROUPNAME>_agreement.pdf”, example for the group Gary it will be Gary_agreement.pdf.
2. A written base design report. The submission will be done through Blackboard. Please submit your
report file as “group_base_design_report.pdf”, example for the group Gary it will be
Gary_base_design_report.pdf.
3. A written review report. The submission will be done through Blackboard. Please submit your report
file as “group_review_report.pdf”, example for the group Gary it will be Gary_review_report.pdf.
4. A written updated design report. The submission will be done through Blackboard. Please submit
your report file as “group_updated_design_report.pdf”, example for the group Gary it will be
Gary_updated_design_report.pdf.
5. Two peer assessment scores for the other members in your group. Surveys will be provided for this
on Blackboard, after each of the design report submission, which you must complete.

2.3. Group Work Agreement (Deliverable 1)

As a group read through the group work ground rules document and then add the required information to
the agreement and sign the form.

This assignment is to get you and your group talking about roles and expectations as you work together
throughout the term. The more you bring this kind of communication to the surface, the richer group
experience you will have – and the less likely you are to experience conflicts. Remember that groups develop

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 3

norms – both stated and unstated – as they interact with each other over time. Recognize those norms and
use those to your benefit. Don’t take anything for granted.

2.4. Base Design Report (Deliverable 2)

One report should be submitted per group. The written report should comply to the page limit for each
section. Formatting should be Arial-font, font size 11, line spacing single and text alignment as justified. The
pages should be A4 with 2 cm borders (unless otherwise specified). The following sections should be included:

• Title page and abstract (max: 1 page)

• Specification of design objectives and constraints (max: 2 pages)
• Treatment plant block flow diagram and justification of equipment (max: 2 pages)
• A mass balance for the equipment at normal flow (suitable table containing all key information)
• Rate based sizing of the equipment at normal flow including analysis and justification of the various
underlying assumptions and evidence the equipment will operate (max: 4 pages per item)
• Layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries and connections shown with justification
(max: 1 A3 page and 2 pages)
• Conclusions (max: 1 page)
• References (Harvard style)

2.5. Review Report (Deliverable 3)

One report should be submitted per group. The written report should comply to the page limit for each
section. Formatting should be Arial-font, font size 11, line spacing single and text alignment as justified. The
pages should be A4 with 2 cm borders. The following sections should be included:

• Title page (max: 1 page)

• Base Design Report marks and feedback (on the marking form)
• Review of the reliability of the design based on the justification of the assumptions and justification
that the design will work (max: 2 pages)

2.6. Updated Design Report (Deliverable 4)

One report should be submitted per group. The written report should comply to the page limit for each
section. Formatting should be Arial-font, font size 11, line spacing single and text alignment as justified. The
pages should be A4 with 2 cm borders. The following sections should be included:

• Title page and abstract (max: 1 page)

• Adaptation of the plant to make sure that it will operate a peak flow (max: 4 pages)
• Estimated capital and operating costs, including discussion of the reliability of this cost estimate
(max: 4 pages)
• Conclusions (max: 1 page)
• References (Harvard style)

2.7. Peer Assessment (Deliverable 5)

Blackboard quizzes will become available after the submission of the two design reports, deliverables 2 and
4. Complete all the questions to rate your other group members performance and discuss the teamwork.
Please make sure to add some comments to justify your scores and to help your other group members
develop. Remember, write comments of the style that you yourself would want to receive.

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 4

 3. Assessment Criteria

Assessment
Criteria of Evaluation Mark / %
Weighting
1. Base Design Report-
1.1. Objectives and Equipment Selection 10%
1.2. Mass Balance and Rate Based Sizing 10%
1.3. Plant Layout 10%
1.4. Justification of Assumption and Design 20%
1.5. Overall Structure, Style, and Presentation 5%
2. Review Report-
2.1. Marking and Reliability Review 10%
3. Updated Design Report-
3.1. Adaptation for Peak Flow 15%
3.2. Capital and Operating Costs 15%
3.3. Overall Structure, Style, and Presentation 5%
Total: 100%

The peer assessment mark will be used as a scalar to the group report marks, one assessment for the base
design report, and one for the combined review and updated design report. Each caried out just after the
relevant report submission. People who complete these late (or do not complete these) will receive a 10%
penalty on their peer review score (taken separately per submission). If you receive a mark less than 16/20
(i.e., you can be satisfactory or exemplary with no reduction) this will be used to scale your mark down from
the group mark as in:

Total − 4
Final Mark = Assessment Mark × (min [1, ] − Late Penalty(0.1))
12

This means that the scale factor varies from 1 to 0 (technically –0.1, but it would be capped at 0).

Late Penalties
1. People who do not sign, or groups who submit the group work agreement late (or do not submit it),
without pre-approval of the unit providers, will receive a 10% penalty on their peer review score.
2. People who complete the peer assessment late (or do not complete it), without pre-approval of the
unit providers, will receive a 10% penalty on their peer review score.
3. Group members who do not attend the presentation, without pre-approval of the unit providers, will
receive a mark of 0 for the presentation.
4. Late submission of the report or presentation file will be subject to the University of Manchester’s
standard penalty as per the late submission policy. This penalty is 10% of the total assessment value
per 24 hours (or part thereof) until the work is submitted or no marks remain. This penalty will be
applied after the marking process automatically by the School’s Assessment team and unfortunately
the unit providers have no input into this process.

Please note that as this is group work it is excepted from any University of Manchester automatic extension
policies. This does not prevent you from submitting individual mitigating circumstances applications should
you have any during this coursework.

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 5

1. Base Design Report Marking Criteria
Note that if the page limit is exceeded for any section the marker will stop reading at the page limit.

1.1. Objectives and Equipment Selection (max: 2 + 2 pages)

Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional degree of originality and insight in equipment selection
and a high-quality block flow diagram provided with no missing
High
elements. Extremely relevant sources used to justify the equipment
Distinction
selected. There is a high-quality discussion and analysis of the
(≥ 80%)
constraints of the treatment plant and the design objectives are fully
justified.
Evidence of extensive study and authoritative grasp of equipment
selection and a high-quality block flow diagram provided with only
Distinction minor missing elements. Extensive relevant sources used to justify the
(70 - 79%) equipment selected. High level of discussion and analysis of constrains
of the treatment plant and design objectives have a good range of
sources for justification.
Good conceptual ability and grasp of equipment selection. A good
block flow diagram is provided with the main elements included.
Merit
Relevant sources used to justify the equipment selected. Very good
(60 - 69%)
discussion of design objectives and constrains which draws upon an
appropriate range of properly referenced sources for justification.
Adequate conceptual ability and grasp of equipment selection. A block
flow diagram is provided but with a number of elements missing or
Pass
some inaccuracies. Some referenced justification of the equipment
(50 - 59%)
selected is given. Good discussion of design objectives and constrains
that draws on a range of sources for support.
Compensable Limited conceptual ability and grasp of equipment selection with a
Fail block flow diagram lacking in a few ways. Some presentation of design
(40 – 49%) objectives, constrains, and equipment justification.
Poor conceptual ability and grasp of the selection of equipment. Bod
Fail
or incorrect block flow diagram provided. Bad or no attempt of
(< 40%)
presenting design objectives, constraints, and equipment justification.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 6

1.2. Mass Balance and Rate Based Sizing (max: table + 4 pages per item)
Range Description Mark / %
Mass balance presented with no missing information or errors.
Exceptional representation of design results with figures and/or tables
High that are consistent and aid effective communication. The discussion of
Distinction the design methods demonstrates a high level of critical evaluation that
(≥ 80%) is supported with insightful and comprehensive interpretation and
deep understanding of the results. The results are rigorous and very
convincingly sound/valid.
Mass balance presented with almost no missing information or errors.
Very good representation of design results with figures and/or tables
that are consistent and aid effective communication. The discussion of
Distinction
the design methods demonstrates a very good level of critical
(70 - 79%)
evaluation that is supported with insightful and comprehensive
interpretation and high understanding of the results. The results are
rigorous and convincingly sound/valid.
Mass balance presented with minor missing information or errors.
Good representation of design results with figures and/or tables that
Merit are consistent. The discussion of the design methods demonstrates a
(60 - 69%) good level of critical evaluation that is supported with good
interpretation and understanding of the results. The results are
arguably convincing.
Mass balance presented with minor missing information and/or errors.
Adequate representation of design results with figures and/or tables
Pass that are consistent. The discussion of the design methods
(50 - 59%) demonstrates an adequate level of evaluation that is supported with
good interpretation and understanding of the results. The results are
plausible.
Mass balance presented with some missing information and/or errors.
Compensable
Representation of the design results with figures and/or tables is
Fail
reasonably clear and easy to follow. Some errors in the results and
(40 – 49%)
interpretation are evident.
Mass balance is presented with clear errors. Bad or no attempt of
Fail
presenting the results. Superficial understanding of concepts and
(< 40%)
significant gaps and/or errors in the results.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 7

1.3. Plant Layout (max: 1 A3 page and 2 pages)
Range Description Mark / %
Excellent original layout of the complete treatment plant with
High ancillaries is shown with no errors. All items are clearly labelled. The
Distinction
plot layout is very clear and drawn to scale. The flow connections
(≥ 80%) between equipment are correctly routed. Exceptional analysis and
references of the design solutions provided.
Highly original layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries
is shown with no errors. All items are clearly labelled. The plot layout is
Distinction
clear and drawn to scale. The flow connections between equipment are
(70 - 79%)
correctly routed. Very good analysis and references of the design
solutions provided.
Good quality layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries is
shown with limited errors. All major items are clearly labelled. The plot
Merit
layout is clear and drawn to scale. The flow connections between
(60 - 69%)
equipment are mainly correctly routed. Good analysis and references
of the layout.
Adequate layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries is
shown with limited errors. All major items are clearly labelled. The plot
Pass
layout is mostly clear and drawn to scale. The flow connections
(50 - 59%)
between equipment are their but may be incorrectly routed. Adequate
analysis and references of the layout.
Adequate layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries is
shown with some errors. Most major items are clearly labelled. The
Compensable
plot layout is mostly clear and drawn to scale with only minor errors.
Fail
The flow connections between equipment are their but may be
(40 – 49%)
incorrectly routed. Basic analysis and references of the layout are
given.
Poor layout of the complete treatment plant with ancillaries is shown
with lacking either equipment or containing errors. Labelling is either
Fail
not clear or incorrect. The plot layout is not correctly drawn to scale.
(< 40%)
The flow connections between equipment are missing or incorrect. Bad
or no analysis of the layout is given.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 8

1.4. Justification of Assumptions and Design (within equipment and layout)
Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional degree of originality and insight provided within the design
of the treatment plant. A high level of analytical, problem-solving,
High
creative skills are shown with no assumptions missing or not correctly
Distinction
fully justified. The design solutions and layout have virtually no
(≥ 80%)
shortcomings and there is exceptional analysis to demonstrate that the
design will work.
Highly original, insightful, and creative design solutions provided for
the treatment plant. High level of critical thinking and interpretation
Distinction with a very good analysis and justification of assumptions and design
(70 - 79%) calculations. The design solutions and layout have virtually no
shortcomings and there is very good analysis to demonstrate that the
design will work.
Good grasp of design concepts, principles, theories, methodologies,
Merit and rules of thumb which are well justified with suitable references.
(60 - 69%) The design solutions and layout have limited shortcomings and there is
good analysis to demonstrate that the design will work.
Adequate ability to adapt standard design procedures and rules of
thumb as to obtain justified design solutions. Some conceptual ability
Pass
and grasp of analysis and justification of design assumptions and
(50 - 59%)
calculations with few weaknesses. There is adequate analysis to
demonstrate that the design might work.
Adequate ability to implement standard design procedures, rules of
Compensable thumb and obtain acceptable solutions. Basic level of analysis and
Fail justification of design assumptions and calculations with some
(40 – 49%) significant weaknesses. There is an attempt at analysis to demonstrate
that the design could work.
Insufficient or incorrect analysis and justification of the design of the
Fail
treatment plant. Bad or no attempt at analysis to demonstrate that the
(< 40%)
design could work.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 9

1.5. Overall Structure, Style, and Presentation (throughout)
Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional quality that is highly reader-friendly and contains no
High grammatical or spelling mistakes. The report is exceptionally
Distinction
coherence and there is clear logical links between all sections. Specified
(≥ 80%) formatting is followed with no errors. All figures and tables are clear
and have readable text. References perfectly follow the Harvard style.
Excellent written report with almost no grammatical or spelling
mistakes. There is a high level of coherence throughout the report, with
Distinction
a clear flow and logical links between the sections. Specified formatting
(70 - 79%)
is followed with no errors. All figures and tables are clear and have
readable text. References perfectly follow the Harvard style.
Good written report with minor grammatical and/or spelling mistakes.
There is good coherence throughout the report, with a clear flow and
Merit
some logical links between the sections. Specified formatting is
(60 - 69%)
followed with no errors. Nearly all figures and tables are clear and have
readable text. References follow the Harvard style.
Adequately written report with some grammatical and/or spelling
mistakes. There is some coherence throughout the report, with some
Pass flow and logical links between the sections, but some inconsistencies
(50 - 59%) maybe present. Specified formatting is followed with limited errors.
Nearly all figures and tables are clear and have readable text.
References follow the Harvard style.
Poorly written report with grammatical and spelling mistakes. There is
Compensable limited coherence throughout the report, with an attempt at links
Fail between the sections. Specified formatting is followed with limited
(40 – 49%) success. Many figures and tables are not clear and/or don’t have
readable text. References formatting contains errors.
The report is badly written that is lacking in logical structure, difficult
Fail
to read and no attempt has been made to adhere to the instructions
(< 40%)
for the report or references.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 10

 2. Review Report Marking Criteria
Note that if the page limit is exceeded for any section the marker will stop reading at the page limit.

2.1. Marking and Reliability Review (max: marking form and 2 pages)
Range Description Mark / %
Marking carried out very accurately and exceptional feedback produced for each
section that articulates the weaknesses and explains how sections could be updated
High for improvement.
Distinction Exceptional review of the design with critical discussion of the justifications of the
(≥ 80%) assumptions used. The design solutions have been well checked and there is
exceptional analysis to demonstrate that the design will work with highly suitable
references.
Marking carried out accurately and very good feedback produced for each section
that articulates the weaknesses and explains how sections could be updated for
improvement.
Distinction
Very good review of the design with critical discussion of the justifications of the
(70 - 79%)
assumptions used. The design solutions have been well checked and there is high
quality analysis to demonstrate that the design will work with highly suitable
references.
Marking carried out accurately and good feedback produced for each section that
articulates the weaknesses and attempts to explain how sections could be updated
Merit for improvement.
(60 - 69%) Good review of the design with discussion of the justifications of the assumptions
used. The design solutions have been checked and there is good analysis to
demonstrate that the design will work with suitable references.
Marking carried out with some accuracy and adequate feedback produced for each
section that attempts to articulates the weaknesses and explain how sections could
Pass be updated for improvement.
(50 - 59%) Adequate review of the design with discussion of the justifications of the
assumptions used. The design solutions have been checked and there is adequate
analysis to demonstrate that the design will likely work with suitable references.
Marking carried out with some accuracy and adequate feedback produced for each
section that attempts to articulates the weaknesses.
Compensable
Adequate review of the design with discussion of the justifications of the
Fail
assumptions used with some errors. The design solutions have been checked but it
(40 – 49%)
is not clear that adequate analysis has been provided to demonstrate that the
design will likely work.
Marking carried out with poor accuracy. Bad or no feedback produced for each
section.
Fail Bad or no review of the design with limited discussion of the justifications of the
(< 40%) assumptions. The design solutions have not been clearly checked and it is not clear
that adequate analysis has been provided to demonstrate that the design will likely
work.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 11

 3. Updated Design Report Marking Criteria
Note that if the page limit is exceeded for any section the marker will stop reading at the page limit.

3.1. Adaptation for Peak Flow (max: 4 pages)

Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional representation of design updates with figures and/or tables that are
consistent and aid effective communication. The discussion of the design methods
High demonstrates a high level of critical evaluation that is supported with insightful and
Distinction comprehensive interpretation. A high level of analytical, problem-solving, creative skills
(≥ 80%) are shown with no assumptions missing or not correctly fully justified.
Excellent changes to the original layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested
and justified.
Very good representation of design updates with figures and/or tables that are
consistent and aid effective communication. The discussion of the design methods
demonstrates a high level of critical evaluation that is supported with insightful
Distinction
interpretation. Analytical, problem-solving, and creative skills are shown with no
(70 - 79%)
assumptions missing or not correctly fully justified.
Very good changes to the original layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested
and justified.
Good representation of design updates with figures and/or tables that are consistent.
The discussion of the design methods demonstrates a good level of critical evaluation
that is supported with good interpretation and understanding of the results. The design
Merit
solutions and layout have limited shortcomings and there is good analysis to
(60 - 69%)
demonstrate that the design will work.
Good changes to the original layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested and
justified.
Adequate representation of design updates with figures and/or tables that are
consistent, although there might be some minor missing information and/or errors.
The discussion of the design methods demonstrates an adequate level of evaluation.
Pass
The design solutions and layout have limited shortcomings and there is adequate
(50 - 59%)
analysis to demonstrate that the design is plausible.
Adequate changes to the original layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested
and justified.
Representation of design updates with figures and/or tables are reasonably clear
Compensable although there might be some errors. The design solutions and layout have some
Fail shortcomings and there is an attempt to demonstrate that the design could work.
(40 – 49%) Adequate changes to the original layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested
but may contain errors.
Bad or no attempt of presenting the results. Superficial understanding of concepts and
Fail
significant gaps and/or errors in the results. Bad or incorrect changes to the original
(< 40%)
layout of the complete treatment plant are suggested.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 12

3.2. Capital and Operating Costs (max: 4 pages)
Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional degree of originality and insight in equipment costings and
High a high-quality summary of all the costs with no missing elements is
Distinction
provided. Extremely relevant sources used to justify the costings. There
(≥ 80%) is a high-quality discussion and analysis of the reliability of the costing
estimate.
Very good degree of originality and insight in equipment costings and
Distinction a high-quality summary of all the costs with no missing elements is
(70 - 79%) provided. Relevant sources used to justify the costings. There is a high-
quality discussion and analysis of the reliability of the costing estimate.
Good degree of originality and insight in equipment costings and a
Merit good summary of all the costs with almost no missing elements is
(60 - 69%) provided. Relevant sources are used to justify the costings. There is
good discussion and analysis of the reliability of the costing estimate.
Adequate ability to adapt standard costing procedures for the
equipment and a summary of all the costs with almost no missing
Pass
elements is provided. References used to justify the costings. There is
(50 - 59%)
an adequate discussion and analysis of the reliability of the costing
estimate.
Adequate ability to adapt standard costing procedures for the
Compensable equipment but with minor errors or omissions. A summary of all the
Fail costs with a few missing elements is provided. Limited references used
(40 – 49%) to justify the costings. There is some attempt at discussion and analysis
of the reliability of the costing estimate.
Bad or no costing procedures used for the equipment. A summary of
Fail all the costs is provided but has missing and/or incorrect information.
(< 40%) Limited or no references used to justify the costings. Bad or no
discussion and analysis of the reliability of the costing estimate.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 13

3.3. Overall Structure, Style, and Presentation (throughout)
Range Description Mark / %
Exceptional quality that is highly reader-friendly and contains no
High grammatical or spelling mistakes. The report is exceptionally
Distinction
coherence and there is clear logical links between all sections. Specified
(≥ 80%) formatting is followed with no errors. All figures and tables are clear
and have readable text. References perfectly follow the Harvard style.
Excellent written report with almost no grammatical or spelling
mistakes. There is a high level of coherence throughout the report, with
Distinction
a clear flow and logical links between the sections. Specified formatting
(70 - 79%)
is followed with no errors. All figures and tables are clear and have
readable text. References perfectly follow the Harvard style.
Good written report with minor grammatical and/or spelling mistakes.
There is good coherence throughout the report, with a clear flow and
Merit
some logical links between the sections. Specified formatting is
(60 - 69%)
followed with no errors. Nearly all figures and tables are clear and have
readable text. References follow the Harvard style.
Adequately written report with some grammatical and/or spelling
mistakes. There is some coherence throughout the report, with some
Pass flow and logical links between the sections, but some inconsistencies
(50 - 59%) maybe present. Specified formatting is followed with limited errors.
Nearly all figures and tables are clear and have readable text.
References follow the Harvard style.
Poorly written report with grammatical and spelling mistakes. There is
Compensable limited coherence throughout the report, with an attempt at links
Fail between the sections. Specified formatting is followed with limited
(40 – 49%) success. Many figures and tables are not clear and/or don’t have
readable text. References formatting contains errors.
The report is badly written that is lacking in logical structure, difficult
Fail
to read and no attempt has been made to adhere to the instructions
(< 40%)
for the report or references.

Comments

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 14

4. Peer Assessment Marking Criteria (Undertaken Twice)
The peer assessment will be undertaken twice. The first assessment will be just after the first report
submission and should be based upon the contribution to this design report. The second assessment will be
just after the second report submission and should be based upon the contribution to this review report.

Nothing Unsatisfactory Developing Satisfactory Exemplary

1 2 2 4 5
Collects very Collects a great
Does not collect Collects some
Research & little deal of
any information information –
Gather No contribution information – information – all
that relates to most relates to
Information some relates to relates to the
the topic the topic
the topic topic
Performs all
Performs nearly duties of
Fulfil Team
Performs nearly Performs a few all duties, and is assigned team
Role’s No contribution
no duties duties involved in duty role and helps
Duties
allocation to fairly allocate
duties
Usually does the Always does the
Rarely does the
assigned work, assigned work
Relies on others assigned work,
Share in rarely needs without
to do the work – often needs
Work of No contribution reminding – reminders –
work is of poor reminding –
Team work is of good work is
quality and late work is of poor
quality and on excellent quality
quality or late
time and on time
Listens, but
Usually doing
Is always talking sometimes talks
more of the
Listen to – never allows too much. Or Listens and
talking – rarely
Other No contribution anyone else to sometimes speaks a fair
allows others to
Teammates speak. Or does needs to be amount
speak. Or rarely
not speak pushed for
speaks
input

Total:

CHEN60512 Waste Management and Treatment: Coursework Assignment 15