LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE PLANNING STUDY 90 … WATER ALLIANCE PLANNING STUDY 90-11-37 ALFRED STREET PUMP STATION SPS02 STAGE 1 – UPGRADE OPTIONS STUDY AUG-12 Document Number: 7600-000-REP-PL-8128

LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE

PLANNING STUDY 90-11-37

ALFRED STREET PUMP STATION SPS02 STAGE 1 – UPGRADE OPTIONS STUDY

AUG-12

Document Number: 7600-000-REP-PL-8128

90-11-37 Alfred St Planning Study.doc.docx Date issued: 03/05/2012 Page 2 of 33 Rev: 1.0

Approval Register

Date

Project Manager Submitted 03/05/2012

Management Team Review

Program Review

Controlled Document – Change Register

Revision Section

Changed Change Description Initial Date

A All First release for LWA review AMcF 16/03/2012

0 All Final AS 03/05/2/012

1 All Final with formatting CT/CC 01/08/2012


Alfred St Planning Study Date issued: 03/05/2012 Page 3 of 33 Rev: 1.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 5

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Scope of study .................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Purpose of this document ................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Description of existing plant ................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.1 Pump station history .................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Base assumptions used in this evaluation ....................................................................................... 10

2.4.1 SPS02 Power consumption estimate ...................................................................................... 10

3. OPTIONS OUTLINE ......................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Option 1 – Refurbish existing line shaft pumps ................................................................................ 11

3.2 Option 2 – Replace existing pumps with dry well submersible pumps ............................................. 12

3.3 Examination of HV metering – applicable to both options ................................................................ 13

4. COST ESTIMATES .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Option 1 – Capital costs ................................................................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Electrical ................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1.2 Mechanical ............................................................................................................................... 15

4.1.3 Civil .......................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Option 1 – Operating costs ............................................................................................................... 16

4.3 Option 2 – Capital costs ................................................................................................................... 17

4.3.1 Electrical ................................................................................................................................... 17

4.3.2 Mechanical ............................................................................................................................... 17

4.3.3 Civil .......................................................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Option 2 – Operating costs ............................................................................................................... 17

4.5 Whole-of-life cost comparison .......................................................................................................... 17

5. QUALITATIVE OPTIONS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 19

5.1 Option 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 19

5.1.1 Workplace health and safety.................................................................................................... 19

5.1.2 Capital cost .............................................................................................................................. 21

5.1.3 Operational cost ....................................................................................................................... 22

5.1.4 People ...................................................................................................................................... 23

5.1.5 Reliability .................................................................................................................................. 23

5.1.6 Maintainability .......................................................................................................................... 24

5.1.7 Limitations / Constraints ........................................................................................................... 25



5.1.8 Environmental .......................................................................................................................... 25

5.2 Option 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 26

5.2.1 Workplace health and safety.................................................................................................... 26

5.2.2 Capital cost .............................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.3 Operational cost ....................................................................................................................... 28

5.2.4 People ...................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2.5 Reliability .................................................................................................................................. 29

5.2.6 Maintainability .......................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.7 Limitations / Constraints ........................................................................................................... 30

5.2.8 Environmental .......................................................................................................................... 31

6. MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 32

6.1 MCE Results ..................................................................................................................................... 32

7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 34

8. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 35

TABLES

Table 2-1: Pumped volume and head for power consumption comparison ................................................ 11

Table 3-1: Assessment of HV metering with LV motors ............................................................................. 13

Table 4-1: Whole of life cost comparison .................................................................................................... 18

Table 4-2: Whole of life sensitivity analysis................................................................................................. 19

Table 6-1: MCE assessment criteria and weightings .................................................................................. 32

Table 6-2: MCE results................................................................................................................................ 33

APPENDICES

Appendix A-1 Electrical upgrade options

Appendix A-2 Electrical options assessment drawings

Appendix A-3 Electrical options study cost estimates

Appendix A-4 HV LV tariff analysis

Appendix B Capital cost estimate

Appendix C Operational cost estimate

Appendix D Pump drawing

Appendix E Multi-criteria evaluation

Appendix F Minutes from workshop



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study has been undertaken to determine the best option for upgrading the Alfred Street Wastewater

Pump Station (SPS02). The upgrade is necessary to replace failing and aged assets that are considered no

longer serviceable, in terms of operational reliability, and in terms of current safety standards. This study

exclusively examines the following options:

1. Option 1 – refurbish the existing main pump station line shaft pumps, pipework and valves and

replace the motors and electrical switchgear with either:

a. Low voltage (LV) motors and variable speed drives (VSD) or

b. 3.3 kV motor and 3.3 kV VSDs.

2. Option 2 – remove existing line shaft pumps, drives and associated steelwork and replace with low

voltage dry mounted submersible type pumps. Connecting pipework and valves will also need to be

replaced as required. Replace switchgear and VSDs in low voltage.

A stakeholder consultation process, in the form of a workshop, was conducted as part of this study to identify

the criteria used for evaluation of these two options. The identified criteria has been used to conduct a

qualitative analysis. This analysis has then been used to further inform a quantitative multi-criteria evaluation

(MCE) of these options. The identified criteria used for this evaluation is given below:

1. Workplace health and safety

2. Capital cost

3. Operational cost

4. People

5. Reliability

6. Maintainability

7. Limitations & constraints

8. Environmental

This study concludes from both the MCE and a whole-of-life cost perspective Option 2 is the preferred

option. The net present value (NPV) analysis scores for the developed electrical options favour a LV

refurbishment with the site changed to high voltage (HV) metering. Although Option 2 has a capital cost of

$2,469,400 which is $391,400 more expensive than Option 1a, Option 2 has an NPV $585,746 lower than

Option 1a. The Option 2 capital cost is $360,600 lower than Option 1b and a NPV $2,907,324 lower than

Option 1b.

Option 1b also has operating costs significantly higher than the LV options due to the need for specialist HV

certified electricians to perform maintenance.



2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Scope of study

The Alfred Street Wastewater Pump Station (SPS02) is nearing the end of its life for much of the mechanical

and electrical equipment (refer previous reports1). This study has been undertaken to determine the best

option for upgrading the current facility. This study is referred to as Stage 1 – Mechanical and Electrical

Options analysis. Stage 2 is development of a design solution and budgetary costs based upon the

recommendations of this Stage 1 options analysis.

The upgrade has been identified by Allconnex Water (PIF – QP-2201) as being necessary to replace failing

and aged assets that are considered no longer serviceable, in terms of operational reliability, and in terms of

current safety standards.

This Stage 1 options analysis has assessed the following major options based upon current and future

operational demand for the station:



a. Low voltage motors and VSDs (low voltage is 415 or 690 V); or


2. Option 2 – Remove existing line shaft pumps, drives and associated steelwork and replace with low



Both options 1 and 2 have been considered in the following aspects:

All necessary upgrade works associated with the existing electrical infrastructure to enable any or all

pumps (main and bypass pump stations) to be operated at any time of day;

The cost benefit of importing the site power at HV compared with LV and the associated tariff

analysis;

Compliance with WH&S legislation by improving operational site safety associated with the

mechanical pump and electrical switchgear infrastructure;

Improving the overall reliability and availability of the plant, whilst combating the effects of aggressive

and corrosive gases in the atmosphere; and

Preparation of an NPV analysis of both options covering a 25 year life-cycle.

1 LWA report 901039-S-REP-ME-4000 (mechanical assessment) and 901039-S-REP-EL-6000 (electrical

assessment) dated May 2010



The original work description included an additional item as follows.

Development of an integrated control strategy that manages and co-ordinates both pump stations

(main and bypass pump stations) with a view to minimising pumping costs, down-stream flow

management (hydraulic loading versus system retention (septicity));

The integrated control strategy has been comprehensively covered in a third party report by SCADA

Engineering Pty Ltd2 so has not been addressed in this study.

2.2 Purpose of this document

This document summarizes the method of analysis undertaken and the results from the study. The intended

purpose is to identify the best option for progression into detail design and to provide sufficient background

information so the assessment is clear and justified.

This document is not intended to form the basis of budgetary allocation. The cost estimates have only been

performed for a comparison between options with a accuracy no greater than +/- 30%, not to ascertain the

true cost of the upgrade works.

Only the options detailed in the Scope of Study above have been considered. Other options including the

“do nothing” option have not been assessed.

2.3 Description of existing plant

The Alfred Street wastewater pump station is located on the west side of the Pacific Highway at Slacks

Creek, on the corner of Alfred Street and Nujooloo Road. The pumping station takes flows from its

designated catchment and pumps to the Loganholme WWTP. The site at Alfred Street contains both the

original pumping station, SPS02 and a newer Bypass Pumping Station, SPS069. A schematic of the station

and its associated rising mains is shown in Figure 2-1. The pump station under consideration here is the

original one, SPS02 and consists of a wet well and a dry well, with three vertical shaft split-case pumps

mounted in the base of the dry well. The 620 kW drive motors are located in the pump house at the top of

the dry well and the pumps are driven by vertical power shafts. The pumps are designated as Pump 1, Pump

2 and Pump 3.

During regular inflow periods a single pump is placed in operation, with each of the three pumps used on a

rotational basis to equalise the operating hours of each pump. During high inflow periods, Pump 1 is placed

in continuous operation and supplemented by either Pump 2 or Pump 3. Pumps 2 and 3 cannot be run

together as the pump 2 MCC is supplied via the pump 3 MCC. The pump 3 MCC is designed to carry the

load of one pump only.

2 Alfred Street SPS02 and SPS69 Waste Water Pump Stations – Control System Overview by SCADA

Engineering Pt Ltd dated 26/11/2011



With the two pumps in high speed operation, the station has a capacity of approximately 2400L/s. The

motors of Pumps 1 and 2 are equipped with switchboard mounted soft starters; Pump 3 is fitted with an

integrated motor/VFD driver. The existing pumps have two speeds (high and low).

Two DN750 suction pipes draw from the wet well to a common suction manifold serving the three pumps.

The discharges of the pumps are cross connected and deliver to rising mains which discharge to the

Loganholme WWTP. The southern rising main is fitted with a manually operated bypass/recirculation line

that discharges back into the wet well.

The motor room and dry well is serviced by an overhead bridge crane that allows the motors and pumps to

be lifted. The crane capacity is 6.3 t safe working load. The crane does not extend outside the building and

there is no loading bay, so equipment must be lifted into the building by a mobile crane and then transferred

to the bridge crane for internal handling.

The dry well is ventilated by means of an extraction duct extending from the bottom of the dry well adjacent

to Pump 1 to the mezzanine level, where the extraction fan is fitted. A back-up diesel-powered generator is

located on site in its own specific enclosure adjacent to the pump station building. The generator has a name

plate capacity of 2200 kVA but has been tested to 2500 kVA. It generates in 240/415 V. This generator is

primarily used as a standby power source for the pump station but is also occasionally used by Energex to

feed power into the grid during exceptionally high demand periods.

A second, newer wastewater pump station SPS69 is also located on site. To date, SPS02 is the primary

pump station and SPS69 is the standby station. Current planning is to reverse these roles when the new

rising main is constructed.

A more comprehensive description of the infrastructure including photographs is contained in the previous

LWA report Mechanical Condition Assessment Alfred Street Sewage Pump Station.3

2.3.1 Pump station history

1984 – Pump station completed and entered into service with Pumps 1 and 2

1997 – Station capacity expanded with addition of Pump 3

2002 – Pump 2 refurbished by TKL

2006 – Pump 1 refurbished by Logan Water

2009 – Motor replaced on Pump 3, new replacement motor fitted with soft starter as per motors on

Pumps 1 and 2. Soft starter developed current problems and soon replaced with VFD

2011 – Pump 3 overhauled.

3 LWA report 901039-S-REP-ME-4000 dated May 2010.



Figure 2-1: Schematic including proposed DN1200 rising main



2.4 Base assumptions used in this evaluation

The following data are assumed to apply to all options evaluated.

1. There is a project currently underway to duplicate the rising main from Alfred Street SPS to the

Loganholme WWTP and to convert the current duty pumping station (the one under consideration

here) to the standby/wet weather pumping station. Design is complete but tendering and

construction is yet to start. This study is based on the assumption that this work will proceed and the

existing duty PS will become the back-up.

2. The general mode of operation pursuant to the above will be to operate the pumps for one period

during the day (peak power tariff) and for one period during the night (off-peak tariff) for a minimum

of 1 hour each run to change the volume in the line. These hours of operation will only be exceeded

when wet weather inflows exceed the capacity of the duty station (1400 L/s with the current pumps).

Refer to Section 2.4.1 for a more detailed discussion on power consumption estimation for this

study.

2.4.1 SPS02 Power consumption estimate

As SPS02 will become the standby pump station, it is not possible to use historical power consumption

figures for future cost estimation. During dry weather, the pump station will only operate twice a day and

pump only 2 megalitres through the two old rising mains to ensure their daily turn-over. Flow rate was

assumed at 600 L/s meaning it can pump this volume in just under an hour.

Wet weather will result in SPS02 coming on line only when SPS69 cannot keep up with inflows. It would be

possible to do a rigorous analysis of the flow split between the stations if historical data is available.

However, as a rigorous analysis is not within the current study scope, a simple analysis was undertaken

based on rainfall records. It was assumed that part time wet weather pumping would be required when

rainfall exceeds 10 mm per day and that full time pumping would be needed when it exceeds 30 mm per

day. Historically, there are an average of 22 days per year when rainfall is between 10 and 30 mm and 9

days per year when it exceeds 30. For the part time pumping, it was assumed the station pumps for 12

hours a day at 1200 L/s and for full time pumping, the assumption was 1200 L/s for 24 hours per day (or

2400 L/s for 12 hours per day).

The above assumptions yielded the following volumes to be pumped per year. Pump head varies as it was

assumed flow rate will vary, given that VSDs are to be installed. Power consumption is then simply a function

of volume, head and total (pump and electrical) efficiency.



Table 2-1: Pumped volume and head for power consumption comparison

Scenario Days

pumping Annual Pumped

Volume by SPS02 Pump head

Dry weather pumping 333 666 MLpa 31 m at 600 L/s

Wet weather pumping 22 1140 MLpa 33 m at 1200 L/s

Very wet weather pumping 10 1037 MLpa 38.5 m at 2400 L/s

Total 365 2843 MLpa n.a.

Utilising the above volume and head values to calculate power consumption will only provide an indicative

estimate, but as it is only used for comparative purposes between the options, it is regarded as sufficiently

accurate enough for the purposes of this study. Using the above values in a power consumption estimate

yields a power consumption estimate approximately one third of the current whole station consumption

(SPS02 plus SPS69). It is therefore considered that the current consumption is within the order of

magnitude required for a comparative options analysis.

3. OPTIONS OUTLINE

3.1 Option 1 – Refurbish existing line shaft pumps

This option is to keep the existing mechanical infrastructure where possible and only replace or refurbish

plant where necessary. Much of the electrical equipment (distribution boards, motor control centres and

cabling) have been previously identified as needing replacement. This decision has not been revisited in the

current study. The motors of Pumps 1 and 2 will need replacing as their age means they are not be suitable

for running with variable speed drives. The motor and VSD on Pump 3 are less than 3 years old and should

not need replacing, but to ensure latest technology and interchangeability an allowance has been made to

replace both.

Pump 2 was refurbished in 2002 and Pump 3 was refurbished in 2006 (giving a life of 18 and 22 years

respectively). Pump 3, which was installed in 1997 is 15 years old and is approaching the time for

refurbishment, based on the experiences with the other two pumps. The approach conditions to suction on

Pump 3 is not ideal with the tee immediately before the suction bend, so wear on Pump 3 may be higher

than the other two units. Therefore, it would be prudent to include the refurbishment of Pump 3 in the capital

cost of this option.

In addition to the above, there are a number of issues that should be addressed as detailed in Section 10.2

of the previously referenced Mechanical Condition Assessment report. However, these generally fall into the

maintenance field and could be dealt with as on-going maintenance. Replacement of a number of valves on



the discharge side of the pump is recommended, so the cost of this work has been included in the capital

work estimate to ensure fair comparison between the options.

Under Option 1, there are two sub-options. These are to replace the motors and MCCs with either low

voltage (as is the current situation) or with high voltage equipment. High voltage (as per AS3000:2007) is

defined as 1000 volts or greater. If HV is selected, then Pump 3 motor and VSD will also need replacing.

For both LV and HV power supply, there will be modifications required to the building to fit in the necessary

switchboards. If HV metering and/or HV drives are chosen, then additional works will be required in the yard

external to the building. This would be a new Energex HV metering substation and (if HV drives are chosen)

a new HV switch room. These are discussed in more detail later in the report.

Electrical Upgrade options

The study included examination of different refurbishment options;

three options 415Ai, 415Bii and 415Biii, utilising low voltage motors retaining the existing transformer

configuration and the current LV metering

three options 415Bi, 415Bii and 415Biii utilising low voltage motors retaining the existing transformer

configuration but with HV metering

two options 415Ci and 415Cii with low voltage motors utilising a single 11kV/415V supply

transformer and HV metering, and

four options 3300A, 3300B, 3300Ci and 3300Cii for high voltage motors with high voltage metering

The options are discussed in more detail in Appendices A1, A2, A3 and A4, with the cost estimates

summarised in Table 3-1 below.

3.2 Option 2 – Replace existing pumps with dry well submersible pumps

This option will require the replacement of all the pumps and motors with dry mount submersible

pumps/motor units at the base of the dry well. Much of the pipework and fittings, from the suction elbow to

the discharge manifold, will also need replacement. This is because the layout and sizes of the new pumps

suction and discharge will not align with that of the current pumps.

Modifications to the building structure will also be required to accommodate the electrical boards and to allow

installation and removal of the much larger pump and motor units.

As the pumps are sealed units with mechanical seals, gland flushing water will not be required.

A constraint for the selection of the pumps is the lifting capacity and clear hook height (above the motor floor)

of the current bridge crane. Modifications of the building and even replacement of the crane can be carried

out, but these costs are best avoided if possible.



Three pump manufacturers were approached seeking suitable dry mount submersibles. Of these only one

(Xylem – Flygt) was able to offer a pump that was light enough for the existing crane to lift. Section 5.2.7.2

contains more discussion on the pump selection with respect to cranage.


The preferred electrical upgrade options identified for Option 1, following the undertaking of the NPV

analysis, will be applicable for application under option 2.

3.3 Examination of HV metering – applicable to both options

A study was undertaken to determine if converting the site to HV metering would result in net cost benefits.

HV metering reduces the on-going electrical tariffs and charges, so, while there is additional capital outlay,

this can be off-set against an annual saving. Appendix A4 details the HV and LV tariff values used for the

tariff comparison in this assessment. Table 3-1 utilises the electrical cost estimates (exclusive of on-costs

and construction contingency) of the options outlined in section 3.1 and applies a NPV analysis utilising the

saving from conversion of the facility to a HV metered site.

Table 3-1: Assessment of HV metering with LV motors

Description Electrical

works capital cost

Saving with HV metering

Present Value

Net Present Cost Rank

Option 415Ai 415V LV metering $912,800 $0 $912,000 6

Option 415Aii 415V LV metering $920,300 $0

$920,000 7

Option 415Aiii 415V LV metering $1,052,900 $0 $1,053,000 8

Option 415Bi 415V HV metering $1,197,300 $30,197 -$452,882 $744,000 1

Option 415Bii 415V HV metering $1,204,800 $30,197 -$452,882 $752,000 2

Option 415Biii 415V HV metering $1,337,400 $30,197 -$452,882 $885,000 5

Option 415Ci 415V HV metering $1,222,400 $30,197 -$452,882 $770,000 3

Option 415Cii 415V HV metering $1,259,900 $30,197 -$452,882 $807,000 4

Option 3300A HV metering $1,552,000 $30,197 -$452,882 $1,099,000 9

Option 3300B HV metering $1,718,000 $30,197 -$452,882 $1,265,000 11

Option 3300Ci HV metering $2,454,000 $30,197 -$452,882 $2,001,000 12

Option 3300Cii HV metering $1,699,500 $30,197 -$452,882 $1,247,000 10

NPV parameters Period 25 years

Net effective Disc Rate 4.39%



The net effective discount rate of 4.39% is established by reducing the LWA adopted discount rate of 9.35%

by an inflation rate of 4.75%.

LV Motor option

While option 415Bi achieved a higher rank than option 415Bii, due to a marginal cost advantage, option

415Bii does not have a restriction to the maintenance access to the LV drives.

It is therefore recommended that the option 415Bii be carried forward for further study for Option 1a.

HV Motor option

While options 3300A and 3300Cii achieved a higher rank than option 3300B they do not have permanent

generator power available to both pump stations. Via an informal inquiry placed into Energex, Energex

indicated they only had 2 off 1MVA 11kV generators neither of which would likely be available in an

emergency situation.

It is therefore recommended that option 3300B be carried forward for further study for Option 1b.

Overall NPV analysis

The overall NPV analysis scores utilising the electrical cost estimates favour the LV refurbishment options

with the site changed to HV metering. While these options have a higher initial capital cost they have the

lowest NPV.

It is therefore recommended that the option 415Bii be carried forward for further study for option 2.



4. COST ESTIMATES

The cost estimates have only been performed for a comparison between options, not to ascertain the true

cost of the upgrade works. They could not be considered as any more accurate than +/-30% and caution

should be exercised is using the estimates as a basis for budgetary allocation.

4.1 Option 1 – Capital costs

The capital cost of Option 1a (utilising electrical option 415Bii) is estimated at $2.08million. For Option 1b

(utilising electrical option 3300B) this rises to $2.83million. The distribution of costs is briefly given below and

the full cost estimate is included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Electrical

The following criteria apply to the electrical estimates for the financial models:

Cable CAPEX estimates have been based on typical per meter rates for HV and LV sub-mains.

Energex metering substation cost estimates are assumed to be exclusively at the owner’s costs and

are based on indicative costs applied by Energex to comparable installations. No formal application

has been made to Energex to undertake a cost study to provide accurate budget estimates for this

site.

Equipment unit costs were sourced from in-house information, previous project experience and with

major equipment cost estimates sourced from key supplier budget quotations.

The location of the Energex HV metering substation is selected to avoid the rising main thrust block

as detailed on available construction documentation. Additional costs may be applicable should the

installed thrust block location not match the as-construction drawing location and the actual location

impacts on the selected Energex HV metering substation location.

The electrical component of the works, inclusive of on-costs and construction contingency, is estimated at

$1.26 million for Option 1a and at $1.94 million for Option 1b.

4.1.2 Mechanical

For Option 1a and 1b, it was assumed that Pumps 1 and 2 would not need significant work given that they

were reconditioned a few years ago. An allowance of $105,000 was included in the capital cost for the

refurbishment of Pump 3.

For the Option 1a, the motor for Pump 3 may still be in good condition and suitable for continued use as it

was installed and converted to VFD in 2009. The motors of Pumps 1 and 2 will need to be replaced at a cost

of $84,000 each as they are nearing the end of their life and will not be suitable for running with VFDs.

However, for consistency amongst the equipment, an allowance has been made to replace all three motors

in the estimate.



For the Option 1b, all motors will need to be replaced at a similar cost to the LV motors mentioned above.

The other mechanical item that is included in the capital expenditure is the replacement of six valves due to

inoperability or poor condition.

Overall, the mechanical component is estimated at $720,000 including contingencies and other on costs.

4.1.3 Civil

For both Options 1a and 1b a new HV metering substation will need to be built on the site. There will be a

small amount of civil work clearing and levelling the site and providing a substation slab and fencing.

For the Option 1a, internal walls will need to be demolished and new ones built to provide an enlarged switch

room separated from the dry well. A raised floor from galvanized steel is also required for the proposed

bottom entry and exit electrical cubicles. New doorways will be required and single flight stairs internally and

externally will be needed to access the raised floor. The wall between the switch room and the motor room

will need to be extended up to the roof to seal the switch room from fumes generated in the pump well. For

Option 1a, the civil works is estimated at $90,000.

For Option 1b, the internal building works are generally not required as a new HV MCC will be constructed

externally on site. The cost of the demountable switch room and conduits is estimated at $210,000.

4.2 Option 1 – Operating costs

The main cost will be power supply and consumption. This will account for approximately $170,000 a year

based on the reduced pumping hours envisaged. There is very little difference between the LV and HV

options. Power consumption is therefore not a cost differentiator.

Once Pump 3 is refurbished, the pump life until next refurbishment or replacement could be expected to be

20 years or more, especially given that this station will become the standby. However, this pump model is no

longer manufactured, so maintenance costs will be higher than for one that has spare parts readily available.

It is typical to allow an average annual maintenance cost of 5% of the capital cost. For these pumps which

will require parts to be specially cast and machined, an annual allowance of 15% of the capital cost has been

included.

The third operating cost is staff based. It is anticipated that keeping the existing pumps running will be more

labour intensive than new pumps would be. It has been suggested that one additional maintenance staff

member will be required, but it is highly unlikely that an additional full time staff member will be needed. It

seems reasonable to assume the additional maintenance would not be more than 1 day per week (or 9

weeks per year). Therefore, an allowance of 20% of an assumed staff cost of $200,000 p.a. has been

included.

For the Option 1b, either one of the existing electricians would need to be trained and certified in HV works

or an additional electrician (staff member or contractor on call) would be required. Having a contractor on call

has been assumed at the annual cost of $100,000.



So, in summary, the annual operating costs used in this study are as follows;

Option 1a $254,000; Option 1b $354,000

A break-down of the operating costs is included in Appendix C.

4.3 Option 2 – Capital costs

The capital cost of Option 2 (utilising electrical option 415Bii), inclusive of on-costs and construction

contingency, is estimated at $2.47 million. The distribution of costs is briefly given below and the full cost

estimate is included in Appendix B.

4.3.1 Electrical

The provisions outlined in section 4.1 apply equally to Option 2. The electrical cost will be similar to Option

1a. The cost of motors is included in the mechanical component.

4.3.2 Mechanical

The main cost for this option is the supply of the dry-mount submersible pump-motor units at about $150,000

each. Due to the differing suction size and differing discharge size and orientation, much of the pipework

adjoining the pumps will need to be replaced. The framework supporting the existing drive shafts will also

need removal from the well.

Overall, the capital cost of the mechanical works for this option is approximately $1,070,000.

4.3.3 Civil

The only civil works that are additional to that required for Option 1a is the raising of the bridge crane to

accommodate the tall pump-motor units. It has been assumed at this stage that this is a relatively straight

forward job as the crane only needs to go up about 300 mm and that there is room to do this without raising

the roof. If this assumption proves to be false, then there will be additional cost resulting. The civil works cost

is estimated at $120,000.

4.4 Option 2 – Operating costs

As stated previously, power costs are about the same for all options. In terms of maintenance costs, the cost

to maintain the new current model pumps has been assumed at 5% of the purchase cost per annum. No

additional staff (mechanical or electrical) should be required for this option as the power is LV and the pumps

will be serviced off-site.

The annual operating cost for Option 2 is estimated at $191,000.

4.5 Whole-of-life cost comparison

The three options were evaluated on a whole of life basis using net present value calculations. The life was

set at 25 years and the effective discount rate set at 4.39%( LWA discount rate of 9.35% less inflation rate of



4.75%). The life is as given in the project brief and differs from the standard 40 years adopted in other LWA

planning studies. The 9.35% discount rate is based on the standard numbers used in the LWA for planning

purposes.

The following table shows the comparison amongst the options. Option 2 proves to be the lowest whole-of-

life cost despite having a higher capital cost than option 1a.

Table 4-1: Whole of life cost comparison

Option 1a - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in LV

Effective Discount Rate 4.39% Life 25

Capital Cost $2,078,000

Annual O&M Cost $253,848

NPV $6,052,233

Option 1b - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in HV

Effective Discount Rate 4.39%



NPV $8,373,811

Option 2 - New dry mount submersibles and MCC in LV

Effective Discount Rate 4.39%



NPV $5,466,487

Notes

9.35% Discount rate is from LWA planning spreadsheet based on Cardno report. Inflation rate allowance is 4.75%.

A sensitivity analysis was also carried out to determine how sensitive the results were to the parameters.

The altered parameters were a discount rate of 8% down from 9.35%, life basis of 15 years down from 25

years and removal of the allowance of additional maintenance staff from the operating costs.



Table 4-2: Whole of life sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis (NPV in $M)

Variable --> Base DR 8% Life 15 yrs no extra staff

Option 1a 6.1 6.5 4.9 5.4

Option 1b 8.4 9.0 6.8 6.2

Option 2 5.5 5.8 4.6 5.5

For all cases analyses except “no extra staff”, Option 2 remained the lowest cost. For the “no extra staff”

case, Options 1a and 2 could be considered the same within the accuracy of the study.

5. QUALITATIVE OPTIONS ANALYSIS

5.1 Option 1

5.1.1 Workplace health and safety

5.1.1.1 Electrical safety

General risks relevant to low voltage works also apply to high voltage installations. Additional sources of

risks for high voltage isolation and access include:

Induction from other circuits and communications equipment such as radio transmitters; build-up of

static charges due to weather conditions;

ferro-resonance

use of high capacity transformers (2.5MVA) will require an arc flash assessment with possible PPE

implications for working in/near electrical equipment

transferred earth potentials

feedback from secondary or tertiary systems

stored energy in high voltage capacitor banks and

working under or over other live conductors.

From an electrical safety perspective, the risks and consequences of an incident involving high voltage are

significantly higher. Under fault conditions, the higher potentials (voltages) and fault current levels release

high quantities of energy. Risk treatment measures should be adopted to reduce exposure to these risks.

Elements of safe systems of working for isolation and access in addition to the usual steps and precautions

taken for low voltage installations are detailed in Electrical Safe Code of Practice 2010 – Electrical Work.



Electrical Safe Code of Practice 2010 – Electrical Work provides practical advice to discharge electrical

safety obligations. Including ways to identify and manage exposure to risks of injury and property damage

caused directly or indirectly, by electricity.

Isolation of and access to all areas containing high voltage equipment shall only be undertaken by personnel

specifically trained/instructed and authorized to undertake such works.

5.1.1.2 Confined space

According to AS2865-2009 Section 1.5.5, the pumps’ dry well is considered a confined space. The standard

stipulates that enough access openings should be provided to facilitate the retrieval of injured personnel from

the space. The current design does not allow for such provisions as it blocks the top access to the well

leaving limited space for verbal communication and spare parts handling.

Furthermore, the line shafts support structure further limits accessibility by the overhead crane to the well,

which would increase the hazards in handling spare parts and conducting repair work.

5.1.1.3 Working at heights

Maintenance of line shafts bearings requires working at heights; adequate platforms installed to facilitate

personnel access are currently fitted. Nonetheless, the access platforms do not eliminate the hazard of

working at heights due to the bearings locations and taking into account the frequency at which these

bearings need to be maintained, inspected and repaired.

5.1.1.4 Rotating machinery

Exposed rotating parts are a potential hazard to personnel. These could be grouped into two categories; the

first is the pumps’ couplings which can be accessed unintentionally while working on the dry well floor and

could be the higher risk category. The second is the line shaft bearings and parts and is a lesser risk

category due to guards being fitted.

If option 1 is adopted, then risk mitigation measures to reduce the potential hazard of these two categories

should be implemented. As a minimum, a guard must be installed to the pump drive shaft coupling.

5.1.1.5 Hazardous atmospheres

The condition assessment report compiled in 2010 noted that wastewater leaks were present in the pipework

and from the pump sealing glands, resulting in obnoxious gas generation. These gases are considered a

hazard to both human and material. They could cause asphyxiation to personnel accessing the plant and will

also accelerate equipment and material corrosion.

If Option 1 is adopted, then ventilation of the plant needs to be revisited as discussed in the asset condition

assessment report.



5.1.1.6 Flooding risk

There is no difference between the options with respect to flooding from an external source (stormwater

flooding). Also, there is little difference between the options when it comes to flooding of the dry well from

pipe break. For Option 1, the motors and main electrical equipment are kept up at the motor room level and

will not be affected by the dry well filling.

5.1.1.7 Accessibility

Currently, the pumps, motors and shafts are lifted into the motor room by a mobile crane. From here the

internal bridge crane lifts and lowers the equipment into place. To lift out the pumps, the motors and drive

shafts must first be removed. This is time consuming but not inherently unsafe if correct procedures are

followed. The crane has a 3 metre clearance to the floor which gives ample room to move the equipment

around. This procedure does not need to change with proposed option 1.

5.1.1.8 Compartment segregation

It is necessary to seal/separate the electrical switch room from the dry well to minimise the effect of moisture

and corrosive H2S gasses on electrical components and equipment.

Compartment segregation can be achieved by using one of the following methods:

Extension of the switch room/drywell room separating wall to the roof line

Installation of a ceiling above the switch room

Introduction of positively pressurized ventilation system in conjunction with one of the two above

methods

Provision of a dedicated separate switch room building

The first of these alternatives has been adopted for costing purposes.

5.1.2 Capital cost

5.1.2.1 Pump cooling

The existing ventilation system appears to be adequate for the electric motors’ cooling. No capital

expenditure is expected if Option 1a or 1b is adopted. Some minor modifications might be necessary to

improve system performance but the cost of this is expected to be insignificant in relation to the scope of

options 1a or 1b.

5.1.2.2 IP/Ex rating of pump

The expected types of gases present in the pump station atmosphere are limited to the likes of hydrogen

sulfide, carbon dioxide and sulfur and nitrogen oxides: no hydrocarbons have been noticed or measured



previously. These gases are not considered explosive, so no special explosion proof or similar electrical

equipment categories are required.


The existing bridge crane adequately services the dry well and this will continue to be the case with Option 1.

Drive shaft bearings are currently accessed by fixed walkways and this will continue.

5.1.2.4 Leveraging cost of existing assets

Although Pump 3 needs refurbishing, Pumps 1 and 2 will have many years of serviceable life before needing

refurbishment or replacement. The value of these existing assets will be retained with Option 1. The standby

generator is relatively new and will continue to be of use for the LV option. However, the HV alternative

renders this generator superfluous unless SPS69 is kept on LV supply. If the whole site is converted to HV,

then Energex may be interested in purchasing or leasing the generator to allow grid feed-in during high

demand times. An alternative would be to put in a step-up transformer and retain the generator.

Option 1a makes best use of existing assets while option 1b is somewhat worse due to the generator

redundancy.

5.1.3 Operational cost

5.1.3.1 Energy cost

The energy costs used to determine operation expenditure are based on the energy tariff and demand

criteria outlined in Appendix A4. There is little difference amongst all three options in terms of energy

demand, so this is not a differentiator.

5.1.3.2 Mechanical parts

Replacement parts, especially for the pumps in this option, are not available anymore from the pumps’

manufacturer due to their age. Parts due for replacement are specially manufactured at specialty

engineering workshops. As these parts are ordered as ‘one-off’, their cost is usually higher. There is also

additional maintenance team labour time involved. For these reasons, Option 1 will be more costly in terms

of mechanical parts than Option 2.

5.1.3.3 Labour

In addition to the labour cost required to specially manufacture repair parts for the pumps, maintenance

requirements are also relatively higher. The cost is due to the number of components requiring regular

attention, despite the fact that maintenance activities can be carried out on site. These activities include

attending to line shaft bearings, pumps’ glands, steel structure supporting the line shafts, etc.


No additional operational cost is expected for this option. Refer discussion in section 5.1.2.1



5.1.3.5 Carbon tax

A carbon tax allowance has not been considered in the financial calculations within this report as currently it

is unclear as to whom the tax will be applicable and as to how the penalties will be applied. However, it is

expected that there will be little difference between the options with respect to a carbon tax.

5.1.4 People

5.1.4.1 Availability of staff

Allconnex Water personnel are currently not qualified to undertake high voltage works. High voltage

connections and disconnections are currently undertaken by a contractor.

Pipework and pumps maintenance and repair is a daily routine the current staff is very familiar with; hence,

there are no staff availability issues regarding this area.

5.1.4.2 Training of staff

Installation of high voltage equipment will require employing new staff specialized in the trade. Plumbers and

pipework fitters can carry a limited license to undertake low voltage work; however, undertaking the required

training to carryout high voltage work is not common in the local workforce.

5.1.4.3 In-house knowledge

In-house knowledge dealing with the current pumps and their drive systems is readily available. On the other

hand, high voltage experience is an exotic theme that has to be either outsourced or introduced.

5.1.4.4 Succession planning

This issue cannot be qualified at that stage; plumbing and pipework in the pump station is an in-house

knowledge shared between an adequate number of staff members, which secures succession. To the

contrary, there is no high voltage in-house knowledge and the trade will have to be introduced.

5.1.4.5 Staff retention

Refurbishing the existing system will provide the existing workforce with a familiar environment. However, we

do not believe that they will agree to undertake high voltage training as carryout high voltage work is not

common in the local workforce.

5.1.5 Reliability

5.1.5.1 Redundancy

The options study has been undertaken with a view to allowing the main and by-pass pump stations to be

able to be operated electrically independently subject to network capacity limitations.



The proposed Energex HV metering substation utilises a ring main unit and 1 high voltage meter for the HV

metering options. This configuration allows the site to maintain the current arrangement of having 2

independent points of supply from separate Energex substations.

The standby generation supply existing capacity was maintained for each option. Option 3300A investigated

the lower cost scenario of having generator supply only to the by-pass pumps station. Option 3300Cii

investigated the option of having a 11kV generator connection cubicle for use of a transportable transformer.

5.1.5.2 Interchangeability

Keeping the existing out-of-date pumps means that they are not interchangeable with current models and

need to be specially serviced. This means that a new pump cannot be brought in quickly and changed over

in the event of a catastrophic failure.


Cooling requirements in this option are limited to the motors at ground level. The dry well does not require

any cooling. The current installed system is proven to be reliable and meets the pump station requirements.

If high-voltage motors are adopted and their variable speed drives require additional ventilation, the current

system will have to be reconfigured and augmented. This should not change the current ventilation system

reliability.

5.1.5.4 Flood risk

Flooding of the dry well does not present a serious issue to the pumps as the motors are located up on the

motor floor. Seals and bearings on the pump and drive shafts would need to be inspected and

repacked/replaced after the water is pumped out. For this reason, there would be a longer period out of

service following a flood than for Option 2.

5.1.6 Maintainability

5.1.6.1 On-site versus off-site maintenance

This option will not change the manner in which maintenance activities are conducted and its level. No

improvement or depreciation is expected.

5.1.6.2 Ability to do low-level maintenance using in-house staff

All low level maintenance works are currently carried out on site. High voltage motors might require extra

measures, i.e. disconnecting power from pumps, to allow low level maintenance activities.

5.1.6.3 Clearing chokes

This is a feature of the current pumps and is adequate for the purpose; no additional activities are required to

implement other similar feature.



5.1.7 Limitations / Constraints

5.1.7.1 Building envelope

The building envelop does not present a constraint for this option. HV metering gear and HV switch room

(Option 1b) would be located external to the building.

5.1.7.2 Cranage

The current crane is suitable for Options 1a and 1b.

5.1.7.3 Structural issues

There are no structural issues identified with Option 1a and 1b. Some internal walls will need to be built or

demolished for Option 1a, but this does not present significant difficulty or cost.

5.1.7.4 Site restrictions

The site is reasonably constrained but there are two gates meaning vehicles accessing the pump house do

not need to turn around. The new HV metering yard and HV switch room (Option 1b) will fit on the site while

leaving adequate room for vehicular movements.

5.1.7.5 Power supply

Via an informal enquiry placed into Energex, Energex indicated that it is likely the existing network has

sufficient capacity available to run all three by-pass and main pump station pumps simultaneously. Formal

engagement of Energex to perform a load study is outside the scope of works for this stage of the options

study.

A risk does exist that the network may not have sufficient capacity to run all pumps simultaneously.

5.1.7.6 Noise

Refurbishment of the current system – whether high-voltage or low-voltage – will not increase the level of

noise above the current level except for the transformers noise. If high-voltage motors are adopted and their

variable speed drives require additional ventilation, extra noise level will be experienced. Nonetheless,

adequate attenuation could mitigate the issue.

5.1.8 Environmental

5.1.8.1 Reuse of plant

For the 415V option it is proposed to reuse the following existing electrical equipment associated with the

main pump station:

Standby 2250 kW diesel generator and associated manual transfer switch

Energex RMUs and transformers.



It is proposed to retain the existing by-pass pump station electrical installation including the existing Energex

11 kV RMU and transformer.

Upon the site becoming a HV metered site the existing Energex RMUs and transformers can be transferred

to Allconnex Water after payment of the Energex calculated residual equipment value in lieu of Allconnex

Water providing new equipment.

5.1.8.2 Carbon footprint

There is little difference between the options with respect to power consumption, so this is not a

differentiating factor. Therefore, the differentiation in the carbon footprint will be governed by the greenhouse

gasses produced in manufacturing new plant and structures.

Option 1a reuses the existing pumps and one of the existing motors, so should inherently have a smaller

carbon footprint than Option 2.

The only other apparent difference among the options is that the HV option will require the removal of the

only significant trees on site to build the HV switch room.

5.2 Option 2

5.2.1 Workplace health and safety

5.2.1.1 Electrical safety

Refer section 5.1.1.1

5.2.1.2 Confined space

According to AS2865-2009 Section 1.5.5, the pumps’ dry well is considered a confined space. The standard

stipulates that enough access openings should be provided to facilitate the retrieval of injured personnel from

the space. The drywell submersible pumps option will allow for such provisions as it will clear the top access

to the well from any installed equipment and furthermore, remove the line shafts support structure.

5.2.1.3 Working at heights

Working at heights will be limited to the handling of the pumps when they are being installed or removed.

These events are considered infrequent, major operations rather than frequent maintenance activities.

5.2.1.4 Rotating machinery

All rotating parts will be enclosed inside the pump-motor assembly; no potential hazard to personnel from

rotating equipment is envisaged. All rotating elements will be enclosed with restricted access.



5.2.1.5 Hazardous atmospheres

Given that the pumps and much of the pipework and fittings will be replaced in this option, the leakage of

wastewater into the well will be eliminated or greatly reduced. Therefore, the likelihood of the generation of a

hazardous atmosphere is greatly reduced compared with Option 1.

5.2.1.6 Flooding risk

For Option 2, the motors and cables leading to the motors are fully submersible, so no damage should occur

if the well floods. Therefore, this is not a differentiator between the options.


The pump/motor units are over 3 metres high, so there is little clearance below the bridge crane. The units

would need to be lifted into the motor room (by mobile crane) in a horizontal orientation. The bridge crane

would then need to stand it upright before it is lowered down the well. Tilting heavy equipment from

horizontal to vertical needs to be done carefully, to ensure the load does not swing. If the operator of the

bridge crane is not experienced, this could present a considerable hazard to safety. The structure could be

modified and the crane rails extended to outside the building, but that would not eliminated the risk as the

pump/motor unit will travel to site on the back of a truck in the horizontal position.

Please note: It could be argued that option 1 is less safe as there needs to be multiple lifts to remove a

pump. These multiple lifts are the motor and each segment of drive shaft. Each lift has a small risk

associated with it, so multiple lifts increase the overall exposure. However, it is felt that the heavy, tall

submersible pump/motors units for option 2 present more risk due to the nature of the lifts and the very

constrained (vertically) lifting environment.

5.2.1.8 Compartment segregation

The comments for Option 1a apply equally to Option 2. Refer section 5.1.1.8.

5.2.2 Capital cost


Drywell submersible pumps use the pumped fluid to remove the heat generated by the drive motor; i.e. no

extra external cooling is required. The existing ventilation system could be dedicated to the VSD units.

5.2.2.2 IP/Exd rating of pump

The expected types of gases present in the pump station atmosphere are limited to the likes of hydrogen

sulfide, carbon dioxide and sulfur and nitrogen oxides; no hydrocarbons were noticed or measured before.

These gases are not considered explosive; thus, no special explosion proof or similar electrical equipment

categories are required.




The bridge crane will have sufficient lifting capacity for the chosen pumps but will need to be raised in the

order of 300 mm to accommodate the height of the new pumps.

5.2.2.4 Leveraging cost of existing assets

As all pumps, motors and electrical equipment (and much of the pipework and fittings adjacent to the pumps)

are to be replaced; this option does not score well in terms of getting the most benefit from the existing

assets.

5.2.3 Operational cost

5.2.3.1 Energy cost

Refer Section 5.1.3.1

5.2.3.2 Mechanical parts

Spare parts for the new equipment should be readily available for at least the next 15 years. The supplier

should warrant their equipment for at least the first 2 years; this should eliminate the unscheduled

maintenance and repair cost. After the warranty period, the cost of parts is not expected to be as high as for

the current pumps.

5.2.3.3 Labour

Due to the configuration of the drywell submersible pumps, all maintenance and repair works will be carried

in a certified depot; this should reduce the load on the onsite personnel and thus cost. The labour cost

required to maintenance the existing line shafts components is eliminated.


No additional operational cost is expected for this option. Refer discussion in section 5.1.3.4

5.2.3.5 Carbon tax

Comments for Option 1 apply equally to this option.

5.2.4 People

5.2.4.1 Availability of staff

Pipework and pumps maintenance and repair is a daily routine the current staff is very familiar with; hence,

there are no staff availability issues regarding this area. Plumbers and pipework fitters employed by

Allconnex Water mostly carries a limited license to undertake low voltage work connections and

disconnections.



5.2.4.2 Training of staff

No extra staff training will be required; in-house knowledge is available for this option. Similar pumps

installed in Chetwynd St treatment plant are currently attended to by the same staff.

5.2.4.3 In-house knowledge

In-house knowledge dealing with drywell submersible pumps is readily available as discussed in the previous

subsection.

5.2.4.4 Succession planning

No succession planning is required as in-house knowledge is shared between an adequate number of staff

members.

5.2.4.5 Staff retention

The drywell submersible pumps option will provide the existing workforce with a familiar environment. Staff

retention would not be considered an issue in this case.

5.2.5 Reliability

5.2.5.1 Redundancy

Electrical Supply

Refer to section 5.1.5.1

5.2.5.2 Interchangeability

Option 2 rates higher than Option 1 as this option uses all new equipment to ensure interchangeability.


Cooling requirements in this option are limited to providing an acceptable indoor environment. The current

installed system will be retained as it proved to be reliable and meets the pump station requirements. Minor

modifications might be required which will not affect the system reliability.

5.2.5.4 Flood risk

As the pumps and motors are submersible, the flooding of the well does not present much of a problem to

this option.

5.2.6 Maintainability

5.2.6.1 On-site versus off-site maintenance

This option should allow more maintenance activities to be conducted on site together with its level of

complexity. Nonetheless, special working area might be necessary to carry out such activities.



5.2.6.2 Ability to do low-level maintenance using in-house staff

Undertaking low and medium level activities will be possible with the drywell submersible pumps as

conducted on other Allconnex Water sites.

5.2.6.3 Clearing chokes

This is a feature that can be specified for the proposed pumps if deemed required by Allconnex Water.

5.2.7 Limitations / Constraints

5.2.7.1 Building envelope

It is anticipated that the new equipment can be accommodated within the existing building envelope. The

only remaining risk is that the crane raising (see below) cannot be accommodate and that the roof will need

to be lifted slightly.

5.2.7.2 Crane

The chosen pump is 3060mm high from the base flange to the top of the lifting eye. The bridge crane on site

has a maximum hook clearance from the motor floor of 3000 to 3100 mm (approximate site measure).

Therefore, it is not practical to use the crane in its current configuration with the chosen pump. Possibilities

for rectifying the situation are:

1. Attempt to obtain a shorter motor that will fit in. Going to a higher voltage may reduce the motor

height but would require a special build for both the motor and the electrical equipment powering it.

2. Raise the crane running beams by 200 to 300 mm to ensure clearance. This may be possible

without lifting the roof but a detailed site measure would be required to confirm this.

3. Raise the roof and crane rails by say, 1000 mm to give plenty of clearance. Raising the roof may

require planning and building approval.

4. Cut a slot in the concrete motor room floor (and possibly in the well wall) to extend the end of the

current lifting void to the outside of the building. The crane rails would then need to be extended out

the side of the building so the crane could lift the pump to the vertical outside and then travel it in

through the slot before lowering it down the well. External posts (on piles to rock) would be needed

to support the ends of the new crane beams and possibly strengthening of the floor. Sealing/vermin

proofing the building wall through which the crane travels would also present considerable

challenges.

The second crane modification option is the most preferred and has been included in the cost estimate.

5.2.7.3 Structural issues

Provided the bridge crane can be raised sufficiently, there are no structural issues with this option.



5.2.7.4 Site restrictions

This is the same as Option 1a so is not a differentiator.

5.2.7.5 Power supply

The comments on Option 1 apply equally to Option 2.

5.2.7.6 Noise

Refurbishment of the current system will, most likely, decrease the level of noise below the current level

since the amount of air required will be reduced significantly.

5.2.8 Environmental

5.2.8.1 Reuse of plant

For the 415V option it is proposed to reuse the following existing electrical equipment associated with the

main pump station:

Standby 2250 kW diesel generator and associated manual transfer switch

Energex RMUs and transformers.

It is proposed to retain the existing by-pass pump station electrical installation including the existing Energex

11 kV RMU and transformer.

Upon the site becoming a HV metered site the existing Energex RMUs and transformers can be transferred

to Allconnex Water. This will occur after payment of the Energex calculated residual equipment value in lieu

of Allconnex Water providing new equipment.

5.2.8.2 Carbon footprint

As discussed previously Option 1 will have a better carbon footprint than Option 2 as three pumps and one

motor are to be retained.



6. MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION

A multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) was undertaken to determine the preferred option. This is a method of

including all relevant factors in a comparison amongst options, not just comparing on cost. The relevant

assessment criteria and ratings are shown in tabulated form in Appendix E.

The assessment criteria were developed in a workshop of all relevant stakeholders. The workshop also

ranked the developed criteria relative to each other to determine how important each was with respect to

each other. The minutes of the meeting (including a list of attendees) are included in Appendix F.

With the criteria set and rankings set in the workshop, the relative weightings were determined using a

paired comparison matrix. This provides a methodical way to assign weights rather than just arbitrarily

picking weightings. Each assessment criterion is compared with all others and scores assigned as to the

degree of preference one has over the other. The matrix is given in Appendix E and the table below shows

the resulting weightings applied to the criteria in the MCE.

Table 6-1: MCE assessment criteria and weightings

MCE assessment criteria and weightings

A Work health and safety 23.0%

B Limitations and constraints 21.0%

C Capital costs 12.0%

D Operational costs 12.0%

E People 12.0%

F Reliability 7.0%

G Maintainability 7.0%

H Environmental 6.0%

Total

100.00%

6.1 MCE Results

There were eight criteria developed by the workshop and each had a number of sub-criteria. Each sub-

criterion was given a score ranging from 1 (very poor) to 10 (excellent). The scores for all sub-criteria were

then multiplied by the previously developed weighting and then summed to give an overall score for the

option.



The following table shows the scores of each option against the criteria. A full break-down showing individual

scores for each sub-criterion is given in Appendix E. Results show that Option 2 scored the highest by a fair

margin, followed by Option 1a.

The areas in which Option 2 was significantly superior are Workplace Health & Safety and Operational

Costs. Option 1b was significantly worse in the criterion of People due to need for HV licenced electricians to

perform any maintenance on the HV MCC and motors. Option 2 was behind in “Limitations and constraints”

and “Environmental” due to the difficulty in fitting the new pumps in the building and due to the fact that

buying all new equipment must have a larger carbon footprint than reusing existing equipment.

Table 6-2: MCE results

Opt 1a – Refurbished

pumps with LV Opt 1b – Refurbished

pumps with HV Opt 2 –

submersibles

Workplace health & safety 86 86 152

Limitations and constraints 105 91 87

Capital costs 72 69 60

Operational costs 48 46 72

People 86 24 91

Reliability 42 44 51

Maintainability 35 23 44

Environmental 42 36 21

Total 517 419 579



7. CONCLUSIONS

This study was undertaken to examine the following options:



a. Low voltage (LV) motors and variable speed drives (VSD) or


2. Option 2 – remove existing line shaft pumps, drives and associated steelwork and replace with low



The study has revealed that the preferred option for refurbishment of the Alfred Street sewage pumping

station (SPS02) is Option 2. The study also revealed that there was considerable operating cost savings to

be made if the whole site is changed over to HV metering, due to the lower HV tariffs that apply.

The capital cost of Option 2 is estimated at approximately $2.47 million, which is more expensive than

Option 1a at $2.08 million. However, Option 2 has the lowest whole-of-life cost due to its lower operating

cost. Option 2 also came first in the multi criteria assessment by a fair margin.

Alfred St Planning Study


8. RECOMMENDATIONS

From both the MCE and a whole-of-life cost perspective Option 2 (with 415Bii configuration) is the preferred

option.

The first design task that should be undertaken is a detailed site measure-up to confirm that the crane

beams can be lifted sufficiently to allow the installation and removal of the submersible pumps, without

having to lift the roof of the building. Should the roof need lifting, then the MCE and cost estimates can be

revisited, but it is expected that the additional capital cost will not change the outcome of this study.

It is recommended that Option 2 with configuration 415Bii be carried forward for further study.

It is also recommended that the following be undertaken:

Undertaking a detailed site measure-up to confirm that the submersible pumps can be removed with

a crane without having to remove the roof of the building.

Detailed design be undertaken to produce construction drawings and specifications

Pumps and motors be changed to dry-mount submersibles and LV MCC and cabling be replaced

Site changed to HV metering




Alfred St Planning Study Date issued: 03/05/2012 Rev: 1.0

Appendix A-1 Electrical upgrade options




Multiple electrical refurbishment options were developed in 415V, 690V and 3.3kV configurations. Site

layouts and single line diagrams of the developed options are given in Appendix A2. A descriptive summary

of each of the options developed is as follows.

415V Electrical Upgrade options

The investigation into 415V options was broken down into three basic categories:

Installation of new equipment within the existing building

Installation of new equipment in a new building

HV or LV metering of the site power

415A options

Three variations of the 415A option were investigated. Electrically, the variations on the 415A option are all

identical and as such share the same electrical block diagram which is shown below.

Figure A1-1: 415A option block diagram

The three variations of the 415A option are outlined below.



Option 415Ai

This option incorporates the following:

LV metering is retained along with existing Energex transformers and ring main units

Existing generator and associated manual transfer switch are retained

Existing switchboards are removed

Existing variable speed drive and motor associated with pump No. 3 are assumed to be retained and

reused

Existing pump hall/switch room wall is partially demolished and new wall built to extend the available

switch room space.

The existing and new switch room walls are sealed to the underside off the roof or ceiling installed in

conjunction with mechanical ventilation to reduce the likely hood of moisture or H2S gases affecting

the new switchboards

Provision of new entry and exit doors

Provision of new switchboards, 2 off top entry variable speed drives and 2 off 415V motors

While this option is viable, the space between the variable speed drives restricts the maintenance to one

drive at a time. Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Ai.

Option 415Aii






reused

Existing pump hall/switch room wall is partially demolished and new wall built to extend the available

switch room space





Provision of new switchboards, 2 off bottom entry variable speed drives and 2 off 415V motors



Provision of a raised computer floor to allow bottom entry cabling for the variable speed drives

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Aii.

Option 415Aiii






reused




Provision of new switchboards, 2 off bottom entry variable speed drives and 2 off motors

Provision of a new purpose built transportable switch room

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Aiii.

415B option

Three variations of the 415B option were investigated. Electrically, the variations on the 415B option are all




Figure A1-2: 415B option block diagram

The three variations of the 415B option are outlined below.

Option 415Bi

This option incorporates all features of option 415Ai with the following modifications:

Conversion of the site to a HV metered facility

Purchase of existing 11kV ring main units and transformers from Energex

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Bi.

Option 415Bii

This option incorporates all features of option 415Aii with the following modifications:



Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Bii.

Option 415Biii

This option incorporates all features of option 415Aiii with the following modifications:





Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Biii.

415C option

Two variations of the 415C option were investigated. Electrically, the variations on the 415C option are


Figure A1-3: 415C option block diagram

The two variations of the 415C option are outlined below.

Option 415Ci



Purchase of existing bypass pump station 11kV ring main unit and transformer from Energex

Provision of a new 2.5MVA transformer for supply of power to the main pump station





Existing variable speed drive and motor number 3 are assumed to be retained and reused

The existing switch room walls are sealed to the underside off the roof or ceiling installed in




Provision of new switchboards, 2 off top entry variable speed drives and 2 off motors

While this option is viable, the space between the variable speed drives restricts the maintenance to one

drive at a time.

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Ci.

Option 415Cii




Provision of a new 2.5MVA transformer for supply of power to the main pump station



Existing variable speed drive and motor number 3 are assumed to be retained and reused

The existing switch room walls are sealed to the underside off the roof or ceiling installed in




Provision of new switchboards , 2 off top entry variable speed drives and 2 off

Provision of a raised computer floor to allow bottom entry cabling for the variable speed drives

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 415Cii.


The investigation into 690V options was discounted early for the following reasons:



Minimal advantage over 415V solutions

Insufficient site space for the provision of step-up or step-down transformers in addition to the

required 690V drive transformers

Two single line diagrams detailing the 690V concepts are given in Appendix A2.

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 690V.

The electrical block diagram for the two 690V options are shown below.

Figure A1-4: 690Vi option block diagram



Figure A1-5: 690Vii option block diagram


The investigation into 3300V options was broken down into three basic categories:

No generator backup for the main pump station

Generator back up via a step-up transformer for the main pump station

11kV generator standby supply

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 3300V.

The three variations of the 3300V option are outlined below.



Option 3300A






Provision of new switchboards and bottom entry variable speed drives


Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 3300A. The electrical block diagram for the 3300A

option is shown below.

Figure A1-6: 3300A option block diagram



Option 3300B





Provision of a new 2.5MVA 415V/11kV step up transformer for supply of generator power to the

whole facility


Provision of new switchboards and bottom entry 11/3.3kV variable speed drives


Provision of off new 3.3kV Motors

Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 3300B. The electrical block diagram for option 3300B is

shown below.

Figure A1-7: 3300B option block diagram



Option 3300Ci




Existing generator and associated manual transfer switch are removed

Provision of a new 2.25MVA 11kV standby generator





Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 3300Ci. The electrical block diagram for option 3300Ci

is shown below.

Figure A1-8: 3300Ci option block diagram



Option 3300Cii




Existing generator and associated manual transfer switch are removed

Provision of a 11kV connection cubicle for a portable standby generator





Refer to appendix A2 for drawings relevant to option 3300Cii. The electrical block diagram for option 3300Cii

is shown below.

Figure A1-9: 3300Cii option block diagram



Appendix A-2 Electrical options assessment drawings

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY



Appendix A-3 Electrical options study cost estimates

Option 415Ai 415V LV metering

Item No. Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount Total1 .1 .0 Energex works

.1 .1

.1 .2

.1 .31 .2 .1

.2 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $105,000 315,000$

.2 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 31,500$ 346,500$ 1 .3 .0

.3 .1 2500A breaker each 3 $20,000 60,000$

.3 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 12,000$

.3 .3 Auto transfer with interlocks each 1 $10,000 10,000$


.3 .5 1250A breaker each 2 $15,000 30,000$


.3 .7 250A breaker each 1 $2,000 2,000$

.3 .8 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 400$

.3 .9 Panel work/busbars m² 9 $2,500 22,500$ 144,900$ 1 .4 .1

.4 .1 36 pole db each 1 $5,000 5,000$

.4 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 1,000$ 6,000$ 4

1 .5 .0.5 .1 1250A breaker each 2 $15,000 30,000$ .5 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 6,000$ .5 .3 Panel work/busbars m² 5 $2,500 12,500$ 48,500$

1 .5 .1.5 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $400 4,000$ .5 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .5 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12 $300 3,600$ .5 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $300 2,400$ .5 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .5 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .5 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 10 $300 3,000$ .5 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .5 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 20 $300 6,000$ 35,500$

1 .6 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .7 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 6 $400 2,400$ 2,400$ 1 .9 .1 /m 8 $1,500 12,000$ 12,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .11 .1

.11 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$

.11 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 42,000$ 252,000$

SUBTOTAL $912,800

*Assumes No motor or VSD are retained

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

LV cables

Motors*

Sealing of roomDemolition of old board/cables

Demolition of old wallBuilding of new wall

MCC01

Ventillation allowance

Option 415Aii 415V LV metering


.1 .1

.1 .2

.1 .31 .2 .1

.2 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $100,000 300,000$


.3 .1 2500A breaker each 3 $20,000 60,000$




.3 .5 1250A breaker each 2 $15,000 30,000$


.3 .7 250A breaker each 1 $2,000 2,000$



.4 .1 36 pole db each 1 $5,000 5,000$



1 .5 .1.5 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $400 4,000$ .5 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .5 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 7.5 $300 2,250$ .5 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .5 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12.5 $300 3,750$ .5 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .5 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .5 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .5 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ 35,500$ 5

1 .6 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .7 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 6 $400 2,400$ 2,400$ 1 .9 .1 /m 8 $1,500 12,000$ 12,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m 24 $1,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .11 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .12 .1

.12 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $920,300


Motors*

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

MCC01

LV cables

Demolition of old board/cablesSealing of roomDemolition of old wallBuilding of new wallRaised floorVentillation allowance

Option 415Aiii 415V LV metering


.1 .1

.1 .2

.1 .31 .2 .1

.2 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $100,000 300,000$


.3 .1 2500A breaker each 3 $20,000 60,000$




.3 .5 1250A breaker each 2 $15,000 30,000$


.3 .7 250A breaker each 1 $2,000 2,000$



.4 .1 36 pole db each 1 $5,000 5,000$



1 .5 .1.5 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 20 $400 8,000$ .5 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .5 .4 VSD-01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 30 $400 12,000$ .5 .5 VSD-02 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 37.5 $400 15,000$ .5 .6 VSD-03 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 37.5 $400 15,000$ .5 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .5 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 25 $300 7,500$ .5 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 30 $300 9,000$ .5 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 35 $300 10,500$ 86,000$

1 .6 .1 /m 350 $50 17,500$ 17,500$ 1 .6 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .6 .1 /m² 36 $4,000 144,000$ 144,000$ 1 .7 .1

.7 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,052,900


Demountable switchrooomSealing of roomu/g conduits

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

MCC01

LV cables

Motors*

Option 415Bi 415V HV metering


.1 .1 RMU metering substation each 1 $112,000 112,000$

.1 .2 Substation civil section each 1 $25,000 25,000$

.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$

.1 .4 Residual value of existing Energex equipment /m 6 $10,000 60,000$ 222,000$

1 .2 .1 /m 125 $500 62,500$ 62,500$

1 .3 .1 VSD*.3 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $105,000 315,000$ .3 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 31,500$ 346,500$

1 .4 .0.4 .1 2500A breaker each 3 $20,000 60,000$ .4 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 12,000$ .4 .3 Auto transfer with interlocks each 1 $10,000 10,000$ .4 .4 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 2,000$ .4 .5 1250A breaker each 2 $15,000 30,000$ .4 .6 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 6,000$ .4 .7 250A breaker each 1 $2,000 2,000$ .4 .8 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 400$ .4 .9 Panel work/busbars m² 9 $2,500 22,500$ 144,900$

1 .5 .1.5 .1 36 pole db each 1 $5,000 5,000$ .5 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 1,000$ 6,000$ 5


1 .6 .1.6 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $400 4,000$ .6 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .6 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12 $300 3,600$ .6 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $300 2,400$ .6 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .6 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .6 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 10 $300 3,000$ .6 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .6 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 20 $300 6,000$ 35,500$

1 .7 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 6 $400 2,400$ 2,400$ 1 .10 .1 /m 8 $1,500 12,000$ 12,000$ 1 .11 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .12 .1

.12 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$

.12 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 42,000$ 252,000$ SUBTOTAL $1,197,300


Motors*

Sealing of roomDemolition of old wallBuilding of new wall

11kV cable

MCC02

DB02

MCC01

LV cables

Demolition of old board/cables


Option 415Bii 415V HV metering

Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount Total1 .1 .0 Energex works



.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .2 .1 /m 125 $500 62,500$ 62,500$

1 .2 .1.2 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $100,000 300,000$ .2 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 30,000$ 330,000$




1 .5 .1.5 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $400 4,000$ .5 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .5 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 7.5 $300 2,250$ .5 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .5 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12.5 $300 3,750$ .5 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .5 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .5 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .5 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ 35,500$ 55

1 .6 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .7 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 6 $400 2,400$ 2,400$ 1 .9 .1 /m 8 $1,500 12,000$ 12,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m 24 $1,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .11 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .12 .1

.12 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,204,800

Demolition of old wall

Motors*

Building of new wallRaised floor

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

MCC01

LV cables


Item No.

11kV cable

Demolition of old board/cablesSealing of room

Option 415Biii 415V HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .1 .1 /m 125 $500 62,500$ 62,500$





1 .5 .1.5 .2 MCC 01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 20 $400 8,000$ .5 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .5 .4 VSD-01 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 30 $400 12,000$ .5 .5 VSD-02 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 37.5 $400 15,000$ .5 .6 VSD-03 feeder 4/Ø 400mm² lot 37.5 $400 15,000$ .5 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .5 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 25 $300 7,500$ .5 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 30 $300 9,000$ .5 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 35 $300 10,500$ 86,000$

1 .6 .1 /m 350 $50 17,500$ 17,500$ 1 .6 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .6 .1 /m² 36 $4,000 144,000$ 144,000$ 1 .7 .1

.7 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,337,400


Sealing of roomDemountable switchrooom

11kV cable

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

MCC01

LV cables

u/g conduits

Motors*

Option 415Ci 415V HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .2 .1 /m 125 $500 62,500$ 62,500$

1 .3 .1 VSD*.3 .2 600kW 415V each 3 $105,000 315,000$ .3 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 31,500$ 346,500$



1 .6 .0.6 .1 2.5MVA transformer each 1 $90,000 90,000$ .6 .2 RMU each 1 $20,000 20,000$ .6 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 11,000$ 121,000$

1 .7 .1.7 .2.7 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .7 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12 $300 3,600$ .7 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $300 2,400$ .7 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .7 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .7 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 10 $300 3,000$ .7 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .7 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 20 $300 6,000$ 31,500$

1 .8 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .11 .1

.11 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$

.11 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 42,000$ 252,000$ SUBTOTAL $1,222,400


Motors*

Sealing of room

11kV cable

MCC02

DB02

2.5MVA substation

LV cables

Demolition of old board/cables


Option 415Cii 415V HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .2 .1 /m 125 $500 62,500$ 62,500$




1 .5 .0.5 .1 2.5MVA transformer each 1 $90,000 90,000$ .5 .2 RMU each 1 $20,000 20,000$ .5 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 11,000$ 121,000$

1 .6 .1.6 .2.6 .3 MCC 02 feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ .6 .4 VSD-01 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 7.5 $300 2,250$ .6 .5 VSD-02 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $300 3,000$ .6 .6 VSD-03 feeder 3/Ø 400mm² lot 12.5 $300 3,750$ .6 .7 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 8 $500 4,000$ .6 .8 MTR-01 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .6 .9 MTR-02 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ .6 .10 MTR-03 feeder 415V lot 15 $300 4,500$ 31,500$ 66

1 .7 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 12 $2,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 24 $1,000 24,000$ 24,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m 1 $35,000 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 .11 .1

.11 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,259,900


Motors*

Raised floor

11kV cable

VSD*

MCC02

DB02

2.5MVA substation

LV cables

Demolition of old board/cablesSealing of room


Option 3300A HV metering

Description Unit Quantity Rate Amount Total1 .1 .0 Energex works



.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .1 .1 /m 100 $500 50,000$ 50,000$


1 .3 .0.3 .1 MCC03 extension each 1 $10,000 10,000$ .3 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 1,000$ .3 .3 submain DB-02 feeder lot 30 $200 6,000$ 17,000$


1 .5 .0.5 .1 630A breaker each 5 $30,000 150,000$ .5 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 30,000$ 180,000$ .5 .3

1 .6 .1.6 .2 VSD-01 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .6 .3 VSD-02 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .6 .4 VSD-03 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .6 .5 MTR-01 feeder 3.3kV lot 20 $400 8,000$ .6 .6 MTR-02 feeder 3.3kV lot 25 $400 10,000$ .6 .7 MTR-03 feeder 3.3kV lot 30 $400 12,000$ 42,000$

1 .7 .1 /m 60 $50 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 .8 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .9 .1

.9 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$

.9 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 42,000$ 252,000$ 1 .10 .1 /m² 36 $4,000 144,000$ 144,000$

SUBTOTAL $1,552,000

Item No.

u/g conduitsDemolition of old board/cables

11kV cable

VSD

Main pumpstation LV supply

DB02

HV switchboard

Cables

Motors*

Demountable switchrooom

Option 3300B HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .1 .1 11kV cable (inc 50m for generator transformer) /m 150 $500 75,000$ 75,000$





1 .6 .0.6 .1 2.5MVA transformer each 1 $90,000 90,000$ .6 .2 -$ .6 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 9,000$ 99,000$

1 .7 .1.7 .2 VSD-01 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .3 VSD-02 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .4 VSD-03 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .5 MTR-01 feeder 3.3kV lot 20 $400 8,000$ .7 .6 MTR-02 feeder 3.3kV lot 25 $400 10,000$ .7 .7 MTR-03 feeder 3.3kV lot 30 $400 12,000$ .7 .8 Generator feeder 5/Ø 400mm² lot 10 $500 5,000$ 47,000$

1 .8 .1 /m 80 $50 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .10 .1

.10 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,718,000

VSD


DB02

HV switchboard

Cables



2.5MVA substation

Motors*

Option 3300Ci HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .1 .1 11kV cable (inc 50m for generator) /m 150 $500 75,000$ 75,000$





1 .6 .0.6 .1 2.5MVA transformer each 1 $800,000 800,000$ .6 .2 -$ .6 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 5% 40,000$ 840,000$

1 .7 .1.7 .2 VSD-01 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .3 VSD-02 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .4 VSD-03 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .5 MTR-01 feeder 3.3kV lot 20 $400 8,000$ .7 .6 MTR-02 feeder 3.3kV lot 25 $400 10,000$ .7 .7 MTR-03 feeder 3.3kV lot 30 $400 12,000$ 42,000$ .7 .8

1 .8 .1 /m 80 $50 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .10 .1

.10 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $2,454,000


VSD


DB02

HV switchboard

2.5MVA generator

Cables

Motors*


Option 3300Cii mod HV metering




.1 .3 11kV cable /m 1 $25,000 25,000$


1 .1 .1 11kV cable (inc 50m for generator) /m 175 $500 87,500$ 87,500$



1 .4 .1.4 .1 36 pole db each 1 $5,000 5,000$ .4 .2 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 20% 1,000$ 6,000$ 4 6kVA 2 hour UPS lot 2 $20,000 40,000$ 40,000$


1 .6 .0.6 .1.6 .2 400A 11 kV connection box each 1 $30,000 30,000$ .6 .3 Deliver and install the above equipment lot 1 10% 3,000$ 33,000$

1 .7 .1.7 .2 VSD-01 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .3 VSD-02 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .4 VSD-03 feeder 11kV lot 10 $400 4,000$ .7 .5 MTR-01 feeder 3.3kV lot 20 $400 8,000$ .7 .6 MTR-02 feeder 3.3kV lot 25 $400 10,000$ .7 .7 MTR-03 feeder 3.3kV lot 30 $400 12,000$ 42,000$ .7 .8

1 .8 .1 /m 80 $50 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 .9 .1 /m 12 $500 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 .10 .1

.10 .1 600kW each 3 $70,000 210,000$


SUBTOTAL $1,699,500

VSD


DB02

HV switchboard

2.5MVA generator connection box

Cables

u/g conduitsDemolition of old board/cablesMotors*




Appendix A-4 HV LV tariff analysis



Examination of HV metering

A study was undertaken to determine if converting the site to HV metering was going to be cost beneficial.

HV metering reduces the on-going electrical tariffs and charges, so, while there is a capital outlay, this can

be off-set against an annual saving.

The study utilised the following assumptions:

The peak maximum demand for the study was based on the January 2012 peak maximum demand

of 1197.4 kW was used as the maximum demand for each of the 12 months.

The annual energy use was based on the 2011 energy use of the existing facility at 1340816kWh.

The energy charge was based on the current EMI peak and off peak rates.

The environmental charges were based on the current 2011-2012 charges

The Network charges were based on the current Energex 2011-2012 published tariff schedule

The AEMO fees were based on the current 2011-2012 fees

The distribution loss factors (DLF) was based on the AEMO published 2011-2012 DLF for 11 kV bus

connected and LV bus connected values

The MLF was based on the current site MLF.

Metering charges were base d on current meter charges.

The application of the above charges generated a comparative annual electricity charges as follows:

Annual electricity cost based on LV tariff $264,839.99

Annual electricity cost based on HV tariff $234,642.93

Difference $30,197.06

LV metering pricing detailsCharges Usage Unit price months Loss Factor Total Price

EnergyQLD Peak 646376 4.7777 c/kWh 1.06492 $32,886.76QLD Off Peak 694439.6 2.2703 c/kWh 1.06492 $16,789.38

EnvironmentalGECs 1340816 0.0591 c/kWh $792.42LRECs 1340816 0.3957 c/kWh 1.0466 $5,552.85SRECs 1340816 0.9532 c/kWh 1.0466 $13,376.23

NetworkService charge 356 41.75 $/Day $14,863.00Energy 1340816 1.376 c/kWh $18,449.62Demand 1197.4 10.942 $/kW/Mth 12 $157,223.41

MarketAEMO Ancillary Fee 1340816 0.0432 c/kWh 1.0466 $606.22AEMO Market Fee 1340816 0.0392 c/kWh 1.0466 $550.09

Metering and otherMetering 1250 $/meter/annum $3,750.00Total $264,839.99

Peak 7.6441 c/kWh $175,836.41off peak 5.1367 c/kWhAverage 6.808384 c/kWh

HV metering pricing detailsCharges Usage Unit price months Loss Factor Total Price

EnergyQLD Peak 646376 4.7777 c/kWh 1.041517 $32,164.04QLD Off Peak 694439.6 2.2703 c/kWh 1.041517 $16,420.42

EnvironmentalGECs 1340816 0.0591 c/kWh $792.42LRECs 1340816 0.3957 c/kWh 1.0236 $5,430.82SRECs 1340816 0.9532 c/kWh 1.0236 $13,082.28

NetworkService charge 356 46.52 $/Day $16,561.12Energy 1340816 1.362 c/kWh $18,261.91Demand 1197.4 8.929 $/kW/Mth 12 $128,299.02

MarketAEMO Ancillary Fee 1340816 0.0432 c/kWh 1.0236 $592.90AEMO Market Fee 1340816 0.0392 c/kWh 1.0236 $538.00

Metering and otherMetering 1250 $/meter/annum $2,500.00Total $234,642.93

Peak 7.6301 c/kWh $147,360.14off peak 5.1227 c/kWhAverage 6.794384 c/kWh



Appendix B Capital cost estimate

Alfred St SPS02 Upgrade study Project No. 2114484AConcept study Client Ref. 0Cost Estimation Date: 30-Apr-12

Option 1a - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in LVITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNT

1 Establishment and general costs 5% 71,000$ Electrical

2 New HV metering 1 item 222,000$ 222,000$ 3 11 kV cabling 125 m 500$ 62,500$ 4 Demolition of old board/cables 12 m 500$ 6,000$ 5 VSD - 600 kW 415V - supply 3 each 100,000$ 300,000$ 6 VSD - install 10% each 300,000$ 30,000$ 7 MCC01 1 item 48,500$ 48,500$ 8 MCC02 1 item 144,900$ 144,900$ 9 DB02 1 item 6,000$ 6,000$

10 LV cabling 1 item 35,500$ 35,500$ Mechanical

11 Referbish Pumps 1 item 105,000$ 105,000$ 12 New pump motors - supply and install 3 each 84,000$ 252,000$ 13 Ventillation for switchboards 1 item 35,000$ 35,000$ 14 Small services (lights, power, water) 1 item 25,000$ 25,000$ 15 Replace valves 6 No. 13,000$ 78,000$

Civil16 Sealing of room 12 m 2,000$ 24,000$ 17 Demolition of old wall 6 m 400$ 2,400$ 18 Building of new wall 24 sq.m 500$ 12,000$ 19 Raised floor 24 sq.m 1,000$ 24,000$

Subtotal 1,483,800$ 20 Construction contingency 20% 297,000$ 21 Design, Project management & supervision 20% 297,000$

Total 2,078,000$

\\Apbnefps01\proj\L\Logan_Water\2114461A_LOGAN_WATER_CAPITAL_WORKS_PAR\05_WrkPapers\Electrical\Alfred St Pump Station - Planning Study 90-11-37\Cost estimate B.xls Printed: 3/05/2012 2:53 PM Page: 1 of 3

Option 1b - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in HVITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNT


2 New HV metering 1 item 192,000$ 192,000$ 3 11 kV cabling 150 m 500$ 75,000$ 4 Demolition of old board/cables 12 m 500$ 6,000$ 5 VSD - 600 kW 415V - supply 3 each 200,000$ 600,000$ 6 VSD - install 10% each 600,000$ 60,000$ 7 2.5 MVA transformer and RMU 1 item 99,000$ 99,000$ 8 LV supply 1 item 17,000$ 17,000$ 9 HV switchboard 1 item 216,000$ 216,000$

10 DB02 1 item 6,000$ 6,000$ 11 HV cabling 1 item 47,000$ 47,000$

Mechanical12 Referbish Pumps 1 item 105,000$ 105,000$ 13 New pump motors - supply and install 3 each 84,000$ 252,000$ 14 Small services (lights, power, water) 1 item 25,000$ 25,000$ 15 Replace valves 6 No. 13,000$ 78,000$

Civil16 u/g conduits 80 m $50 4,000$ 17 Demountable switch room 36 sq.m $4,000 144,000$ 18 Building of new wall sq.m -$ 19 Raised floor sq.m -$

Subtotal 2,022,000$

Construction contingency 20% 404,000$ Design, investigation and supervision 20% 404,000$ Total 2,830,000$


Option 2 - New dry mount submersibles and MCC in LVITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNT


2 New HV metering 1 item 222,000$ 222,000$ 3 11 kV cabling 125 m 500$ 62,500$ 4 Demolition of old board/cables 12 m 500$ 6,000$ 5 VSD - 600 kW 415V - supply 3 each 100,000$ 300,000$ 6 VSD - install 10% each 300,000$ 30,000$ 7 MCC01 1 item 48,500$ 48,500$ 8 MCC02 1 item 144,900$ 144,900$ 9 DB02 1 item 6,000$ 6,000$

10 LV cabling 1 item 35,500$ 35,500$ Mechanical

11 Dry mount submersible pumps and motors 3 each 151,500$ 454,500$ 12 New suction elbows 3 each 3,500$ 10,500$ 13 Remove shafts and support steel work 96 hrs 100$ 9,600$

14New discharge pipes (incl bends, check and stop valves) 3 each 15,000$ 45,000$

15 New discharge mainfold 1 item 20,000$ 20,000$ 16 Labour cost to install pumps and fittings 640 hrs 100$ 64,000$ 17 Ventillation for switchboards 1 item 35,000$ 35,000$ 18 Small services (lights, power, water) 1 item 25,000$ 25,000$ 19 Replace valves 6 No. 13,000$ 78,000$

Civil20 Sealing of room 12 m 2,000$ 24,000$ 21 Demolition of old wall 6 m 400$ 2,400$ 22 Building of new wall 24 sq.m 500$ 12,000$ 23 Raised floor 24 sq.m 1,000$ 24,000$ 24 Raise crane rail beams 1 item 20,000$ 20,000$

-$ Subtotal 1,763,400$

Construction contingency 20% 353,000$ Design, investigation and supervision 20% 353,000$ Total 2,469,400$




Appendix C Operational cost estimate

Alfred St SPS02 Upgrade study Project No. 2114484AConcept study Client Ref. 0Cost Estimation Date: 30-Apr-12

Per annum operating costs

Option 1a - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in LVDESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNTPower 1 Item 168,398$ Pump maintenance (average annual) 15% capex 303,000$ 45,450$ SPS operators (additional over base case) 0.2 item 200,000$ 40,000$ Other??? -$

Total 253,848$

Option 1b - Existing pumps, new motors and MCC in HVDESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNTPower 1 kWhr 168,653$ Pump maintenance 15% capex 303,000$ 45,450$ SPS operators (additional over base case) 0.7 item 200,000$ 140,000$ Other??? -$

Total 354,103$

Option 2 - New dry mount submersibles and MCC in LVDESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT RATE AMOUNTPower 339744 kWhr 0.09$ 168,709$ Pump maintenance 5% capex 454,500$ 22,725$ SPS operators (additional over base case) 0 item 200,000$ -$ Other??? -$

Total 191,434$




Appendix D Pump drawing



Appendix E Multi-criteria evaluation

Multi-criteria decision analysis spreadsheet Date:

Raw RoundedB C D E F G H I J Score % Score1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H A Work health and safety 28 23.1% 23.0%2A 2A 4A 4A 4A 6A 6A

1C 1D 1E 1F 1G 1H B Limitations and constraints 25 20.7% 21.0%2B 2B 4B 4B 6B 6B

1D 1E 1F 1G 1H C Capital costs 15 12.4% 12.0%1C 2C 2C 4C 4C

1E 1F 1G 1H D Operational costs 15 12.4% 12.0%2D 2D 4D 4D

1F 1G 1H E People 14 11.6% 12.0%2E 4E 4E

1G 1H F Reliability 9 7.4% 7.0%2F 2F

1H G Maintainability 8 6.6% 7.0%How 6 Major Preference 2GImportant: H Environmental 7 5.8% 6.0%

4 Medium PreferenceI

2 Minor PreferenceJ

1 Equal preference121 100.00% 100.00%

Paired comparison matrix scoring process1. Raw scores are determined by comparing A to B, A to C …., B to C… etc.2. The compared criteria each commence with a score of 1 (e.g. 1A, 1B when comparing A to B)3. The workshop participants are asked to agree which criterial has a preference, and if so is it minor, medium, major etc4. The preferred criteria is then given a score of 1, 2, 3 or 4 respectively5. Raw scores are automatically calculated6. Workshop participants agree on the nearest rounded scores

08/03/12

A

B

C

D

I

J

E

F

G

H

\\Apbnefps01\proj\L\Logan_Water\2114461A_LOGAN_WATER_CAPITAL_WORKS_PAR\05_WrkPapers\Electrical\Alfred St Pump Station - Planning Study 90-11-37\MCE LWA Alfred St PS Rev A.xls Printed: 16/03/12 9:06 AM Page: 1 of 1

Alfred St Pump Station Project No.Options analysis Client Ref.

Multi-criteria decision analysis spreadsheet Date: 08-Mar-12

Poor Fair Good V. Good Excellent Poor Fair Good V. Good Excellent Poor Fair Good V. Good Excellent

Code Sub# Sub-criteria Crit Wt Sub %% Sub% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A A1 Electrical safety 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 6 17 5 14 6 17

A A2 Confined space 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 2 6 2 6 4 12

A A3 Working at heights 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 3 9 3 9 6 17

A A4 Rotating machinery 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 2 6 2 6 9 26

A A5 Hazardous H2S gas indoor 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 4 12 4 12 7 20

A A6 Flooding risk 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 7 20 7 20 9 26

A A7 Accessibility 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 2 6 2 6 7 20

A A8 Compartment segregation 23.0% 12.5% 2.9% 4 12 86 5 14 86 5 14 152

B B1 Building envelope 21.0% 16.6% 3.5% 6 21 4 14 3 10

B B2 Craneage 21.0% 16.6% 3.5% 2 7 2 7 5 17

B B3 Structural issues 21.0% 17.0% 3.6% 5 18 5 18 3 11

B B4 Site restrictions 21.0% 16.6% 3.5% 5 17 4 14 5 17

B B5 Power supply 21.0% 16.6% 3.5% 7 24 7 24 7 24

B B6 Noise 21.0% 16.6% 3.5% 7 24 105 6 21 91 7 24 87

C C1 Pump cooling 12.0% 25.0% 3.0% 5 15 5 15 6 18

C C2 IP/EXD rating of pumps 12.0% 25.0% 3.0% 7 21 7 21 8 24

C C3 Crane accessibility 12.0% 25.0% 3.0% 5 15 5 15 4 12

C C4 Leveraging cost of existing assets 12.0% 25.0% 3.0% 7 21 72 6 18 69 2 6 60

D D1 Energy cost 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 5 12 5 12 5 12

D D2 Mechanical parts 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 2 5 3 7 8 19

D D3 Labour 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 3 7 1 2 6 14

D D4 Pump cooling 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 5 12 5 12 6 14

D D5 Carbon tax 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 5 12 48 5 12 46 5 12 72

E E1 Availability of staff 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 8 19 2 5 8 19

E E2 Training of staff 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 8 19 1 2 8 19

E E3 Inhouse knowledge 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 8 19 1 2 8 19

E E4 Succession planning 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 4 10 4 10 8 19

E E5 Staff retention 12.0% 20.0% 2.4% 8 19 86 2 5 24 6 14 91

F F1 Redundancy 7.0% 25.0% 1.8% 6 11 6 11 7 12

F F2 Interchangeability 7.0% 25.0% 1.8% 6 11 7 12 7 12

F F3 Pump cooling 7.0% 25.0% 1.8% 5 9 5 9 6 11

F F4 Flooding risk 7.0% 25.0% 1.8% 7 12 42 7 12 44 9 16 51

G G1 Onsite vs offsite 7.0% 33.0% 2.3% 3 7 3 7 7 16

G G2 Inhouse maintenance 7.0% 33.0% 2.3% 7 16 2 5 7 16

G G3 Clearing chokes 7.0% 34.0% 2.4% 5 12 35 5 12 23 5 12 44

H H1 Reuse of plant 6.0% 50.0% 3.0% 8 24 6 18 2 6

H H2 Carbon footprint 6.0% 50.0% 3.0% 6 18 42 6 18 36 5 15 21

100.0% 517 419 579

Sub-tot

TotalOption 1a - Refurb LV

Ranking - 2

Option 1b - Refurb HV

Sub-tot

Total

Ranking - 3

Option 2 - Dry well submersibles

Sub-tot

Total

Ranking - 1

\\Apbnefps01\proj\L\Logan_Water\2114461A_LOGAN_WATER_CAPITAL_WORKS_PAR\05_WrkPapers\Electrical\Alfred St Pump Station - Planning Study 90-11-37\MCE LWA Alfred St PS Rev A.xls Printed: 16/03/12 9:07 AM Page: 1 of 1



Appendix F Minutes from workshop

Meeting Minutes 001-MIN-90-11-37

Meeting Minutes Date issued: 18/01/2012 Page 1 of 4 Rev: 1.0

MEETING AGENDA

MEETING Planning Study Workshop - Alfred Street Mechanical and Electrical Refurbishments

MEETING No. 001 / 90-11-37

DATE 24 January 2012

START TIME 10:00AM END TIME 12:00PM

LOCATION Safety Room, Level 1 City Road, Beenleigh

CHAIRMAN Alan McFadyen MINUTE TAKER Chris Tanos

ATTENDEES / APOLOGIES

Present = Yes Name Abbr

1 Alan McFadyen AM

2 Anthony Domanti AD

3 Appiah Raveenthiran AR

4 Christopher Tanos CT

5 David Thomas DT

6 David Kent DK

7 Geoffrey Loy GL

8 Ian Cameron IC

9 Lester Bridgham LB

10 Nikki Marian NM

11 Saumuel Elyas SE

12 Uttam Saha US

13 William Hutchings WH

AGENDA

1 Introductions

2 Outline of workshop workflow

3 Alfred St Station Background – current operation and key issues

4 Objective of planning study

5 Scope of options under consideration

6 Evaluation criteria

7 Summary of workshop outcome and process going forward

8 Workshop close



RECORD OF WORKSHOP DISCUSSION

Attendee Statement LB

Allconnex has one (1) spare 600kW soft starter for Alfred Street.

LB Moving towards actuated valves. LB prefers Hydraulic actuated valves due to staffing constraints. Use of electric actuated valves was raised, but no consensus.

AD Combined Electrical/Mechanical efficiency of existing SPS02 pumps is very low (~68-76%)

SE Verification need of the actual efficiency of SPS02 pumps. Post Refurb (recent) and Pre-Refurb efficiency needed.

AM To distribute notes to all attendees. Criteria agreed in the workshop will be included in the final report as well.

AD The client’s position on a “Do nothing” solution needs to be recorded.

AM To follow up with client what their position is on “Do nothing” option.

AR: Do Nothing” will result in catastrophic failure of the pump station.

AR A full electrical evaluation of the electrical supply system is needed at Alfred Street. In parallel or after the Planning study.

DT Consider the existing permanent LV generator at site when evaluating the HV option.

LB All pumps in SPS02 currently exhibit relatively even wear.

EVALUTION CRITERIA GENERATED IN WORKSHOP

Criteria Sub-criteria Rank Comments

WH&S 1

Electrical safety

Confined space

Working at heights

Protecting machinery

Hazardous atmospheres Maximum 690V for Dry-mount submersible

pumps. Limited by pump manufactures

Flooding risk

Accessibility Crane access to the wet-well

Compartment segregation

Hazardous gases indoors

Capital cost 3

Pump cooling Potentially large cooling fans/system

IP/Exd rating of pumps

Accessibility Crane access to the wet-well

Leveraging cost of existing assets

Confirm cost of existing assets




Operational cost 3

Energy cost Almost 90% is energy cost at present

Mechanical parts

Labour

Pump cooling Potentially large cooling fans/system

Carbon tax

People 4

Availability of staff

Training of staff

In-house knowledge

Succession planning 2031 ultimate

Keeping staff

Reliability 5

Redundancy

Interchangability

Pump cooling

Flooding risk

Maintainability 6

Onsite v offsite maintenance

Ability to do low level maintenance using in-house staff

Clearing chokes

Limitations/Constraints 2

Building envelope

Crainage Weight and physical space restrictions

Structural issues Floor loadings and support beams for motors

Site restrictions Need for a new switchrooms

Power supply Available power from Energex/Powerlink

Noise Cooling systems/pump noise




Environmental 7

Reuse of plant

Not a new site so environmental impact is likely to be low from this change

Carbon footprint

Notes: Ranking – lower numbers are most important

Documents

LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE PLANNING STUDY 90 … WATER ALLIANCE PLANNING STUDY 90-11-37 ALFRED STREET PUMP STATION SPS02 STAGE 1 – UPGRADE OPTIONS STUDY AUG-12 Document Number: 7600-000-REP-PL-8128