westside regional wwtp outfall pressurization – aecom 201 – 3275 lakeshore road 250 762...

Prepared by: Date: October 30, 2015

AECOM 201 – 3275 Lakeshore Road Project Number : 60441342 Kelowna, BC, Canada V1W 3S9 www.aecom.com 250 762 3727 tel 250 762 7789 fax

Capability

Regional District of the Central Okanagan

Westside Regional WWTP Outfall Pressurization – FINAL REPORT

AECOM Regional District of the Central Okanagan Westside Regional WWTP Outfall Pressurization – FINAL REPORT

AECOM: 2012-01-06 © 2009-2012 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Rpt-01-Wwtp Outfall Pressurization-2015.10.6-Rev0

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports;

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by Consultant represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since Consultant has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, Consultant, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by Consultant and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

AECOM

201 – 3275 Lakeshore Road 250 762 3727 tel

Kelowna, BC, Canada V1W 3S9 250 762 7789 fax

www.aecom.com

Rpt-01-Wwtp Outfall Pressurization-2015.10.6-Rev0

October 30, 2016 Clarke Kruiswyk Project Manager Regional District of the Central Okanagan 1450 KLO Road Kelowna, BC V1W 3Z4 Dear Clarke Kruiswyk: Project No: 60441342

Regarding: Westside Regional WWTP Outfall Pressurization – FINAL REPORT Please find the enclosed final report outlining options to pressurize the WRWWTP outfall piping system and increase the effluent discharge capacity. This report presents three booster station options for consideration of further development in the detailed design. Each option includes a brief description, list of benefits and challenges, and estimate of probable cost. Due to the significant capital and operational costs associated with pressurizing the outfall pipe, we recommend the RDCO re-consider alternatives to increase the gravity outfall capacity before moving forward one of the effluent pumping options identified herein. If you have any questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Stephen Horsman, P.Eng., P.E. Project Manager

Encl. cc:



Table of Contents Statement of Qualifications and Limitations Letter of Transmittal Distribution List

page

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Design Consideration and Assumptions ...................................................................................... 1

2.1 Design Flow ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Effluent Outfall System ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Civil Siting and Removals .................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Electrical Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Operating Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 4

3. Development of Options ................................................................................................................ 5

3.1 Option 1: Vertical Turbine Pumps (1 Duty Pump) ............................................................................... 5 3.2 Option 2: Submersible Pumps (1 Duty Pump) .................................................................................... 8 3.3 Option 3: Submersible Pumps (2 Duty Pumps) ................................................................................. 11 3.4 Variation of Option 2 or 3: Submersible Pumps in Screw Inlet Basin ............................................... 13 3.5 Estimate of Probable Cost ................................................................................................................. 15 3.6 Evaluation of Options ......................................................................................................................... 16

3.6.1 Hydraulic Considerations ...................................................................................................... 16 3.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Considerations ........................................................................ 16 3.6.3 Capital Cost Considerations ................................................................................................. 16

3.6.3.1 Optional Cost Deductions ................................................................................... 16

4. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 17

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Effluent Outfall System Curves .................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2-2 Effluent Booster Pump Operating Levels ................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3-1 Vertical Turbine Performance Curves (1-Flowserve 18ENL) ....................................................................... 6

Figure 3-2 Vertical Turbine Pump Station Mechanical Layout ...................................................................................... 7

Figure 3-3 Submersible Pump Performance Curves (1-Flygt NP3306) ........................................................................ 9

Figure 3-4 Submersible Pump Station (1 Duty) Mechanical Layout ............................................................................ 10

Figure 3-5 Submersible Pump Performance Curves (2-Flygt NP3315) ...................................................................... 12

Figure 3-6 Submersible Pumps in Inlet Basin Mechanical Layout .............................................................................. 14

List of Tables

Table 2-1 WRWWTP Design Flows .......................................................................................................................... 1

Table 3-1 Capital Cost of Options ............................................................................................................................ 15



Appendices

Appendix A. Equipment Data Sheets Appendix B. Detailed Breakdown of Capital Costs


Rpt-01-Wwtp Outfall Pressurization-2015.10.6-Rev0 1

1. Introduction

The Westside Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WRWWTP) currently relies on two screw pumps to convey effluent flows to the 450mm outfall pipe and into Okanagan Lake. A head tank (tower) located at the discharge of the screw pumps allows the head to rise up to 350 m elevation (approximately 8 metres of driving head), as the effluent flowrates increase through the outfall piping. Hydraulic testing and analysis has revealed that the outfall is not capable of achieving the theoretical discharge rate under gravity operation and currently presents a bottleneck in the overall plant capacity. The RDCO is investigating options to pressurize the existing outfall pipe to increase the effluent discharge capacity and meet or exceed the current design flows through the plant. This report develops three solutions to increase the outfall capacity by pressurizing the WRWWTP piping system using booster pumps. Each option includes a description of scope, estimate of capital cost and summary of the respective benefits and challenges. Finally, recommendation of the preferred option is provided for further consideration and development in subsequent design phases.

2. Design Consideration and Assumptions

The following sections outline the key assumptions used to develop the conceptual design of the proposed outfall pressurization options.

2.1 Design Flow

The WRWWTP was upgraded in 2009 (Stage 3 Upgrade) to treat a peak wet weather flow of 389 L/s, and a maximum daily flow of 292 L/s. Hydraulic testing of the existing outfall indicates a maximum hydraulic capacity of approximately 170 L/s. With observed peak wet weather flows of approximately 150 L/s, the WRWWTP is operating at or near the hydraulic capacity of the effluent outfall system. RDCO is currently implementing upgrades retro-fitting the old bio-reactor basin to provide additional attenuation capacity, however, the effluent outfall will continue to present a significant restriction to the overall plant capacity. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the current and future anticipated design flows for the WRWWTP plant. Table 2-1 WRWWTP Design Flows

Condition Average Daily Flow,

m3/d (L/s)

Maximum Daily Flow,

m3/d (L/s)

Peak Wet Weather Flow,

m3/d (L/s)

Stage 3 (Current) 16,800 (194) 25,200 (292) 33,600 (389)

Stage 4 19,600 (227) 29,400 (340) 39,200 (454)

Stage 5 22,400 (259) 33,600 (389) 44,800 (519) Notes: Flow projections based on a 400 L/capita/day, maximum daily flows are 1.5 x the average daily flows, Peak wet

weather flows are 2.0 x the average daily flows.

For the purposes of this project we have assumed that the plant retention capacity, including the retro-fit bioreactor basins, will be capable of attenuating flows from the peak wet weather events up to the Stage 4 plant capacity. The Stage 4 maximum daily design flows will therefore serves as the target design capacity for the proposed effluent booster station. The following summarizes the design flows for the new effluent booster station:

Minimum Pump Design Flow 150 L/s Peak Pump Design Flow 350 L/s



2.2 Effluent Outfall System

As noted previously, hydraulic analysis of the existing outfall system indicates that the piping is limited to 170 L/s and is not capable of meeting the theoretical hydraulic design capacity, which is predicted at 220 L/s. In order to determine the anticipated operating conditions for the proposed effluent booster station we have taken consideration of both the measured (empirical) and the theoretical hydraulic performance of the WRWWTP outfall system. The empirical system curve shows reduced capacity compared to the theoretical system curve. There are several possible sources of this discrepancy but it is understood that air entrainment is the primary factor. Other factors such as the ovalization of the land portion of the outfall piping or restrictions in the effluent discharges have been identified as other potential factors of causing hydraulic restrictions in current outfall system. Using the data collected by Urban Systems1 in April and November of 20131, we developed an empirical system curve using a second order polynomial equation to establish a best fit line for the existing outfall arrangement. The theoretical system was developed using record drawing information provided by the RDCO. Both the empirical and theoretical system curves for the effluent outfall system are plotted in Figure 2-1. The shaded area shows the anticipated operating region for the proposed effluent booster station. Based on the measurements obtained by Urban Systems, the hydraulic capacity in the effluent pipe varies under the same head conditions. This is typical of a system being impacted by air entrainment, where the air pocket sizes and locations can vary during the operation. For this reason, we will assume that the pressurized outfall system will be capable of achieving any operating point within the region of the empirical and theoretical system curves.

1 Urban Systems Ltd. – “Westside Regional WWTP Outfall Capacity Analysis UPDATE”. January 29, 2014.

Figure 2-1 Effluent Outfall System Curves



The following assumptions were used to develop the empirical and theoretical system curves: Design elevations:

o Minimum effluent water level at the WWTP Effluent Screw Inlet Basin is 345.20 m; o Okanagan Lake Level is 341.75.

Outfall piping characteristics: o Buried 450 mm diameter Series 45 HDPE pipe, 352 metres in length; o Submerged 450 mm diameter Schedule 40 stainless steel pipe, 394 metres in length; o All outfall diffusers are open.

Maximum measured hydraulic capacity of the existing outfall using the screw pump tower varies between 150 and 170 L/s.

Maximum capacity required is 350 L/s to meet Stage 4 maximum day flow rate. Peak wet weather events at the Stage 3 and Stage 4 design flows will be attenuated using plant retention capacity.

Pump design range for the existing outfall: 150 L/s @ 3.8 m TDH and 350 L/s @ 27.1 m TDH. Empirical system curve based on the November 1st, November 2nd and April 1st flow measurements by

Urban Systems. The April #2 flow data provided in the Urban Systems report appear to be anomalies, likely due to significant air entrainment.

2.3 Civil Siting and Removals

During a site review with RDCO staff, several locations in the vicinity of the effluent screw pumps and tower were reviewed to locate the proposed effluent booster station. The area to the south of the existing screw pump tower was identified as the preferred siting location as it offered sufficient access, easy connectivity to flows upstream and downstream of the effluent screw pumps, and the least overall impact to the existing infrastructure. Both the abandoned outfall chamber and 750mm bypass piping are in this location but are not longer in-service. The suction side of the booster station can connect to the existing 750 mm diameter bypass effluent main or directly to the effluent chamber. For either approach isolation will be provided using either a butterfly valve on the 750 main or wall mounted slide gate. The discharge of the effluent booster station can tie into the buried 450mm effluent piping at the abandoned effluent chamber. A motorized control valve (or check valve) and chamber is needed on the effluent tower 450mm outlet piping to prevent flows from entering the inlet tower during the booster pump operation. Site removals to include relocating the oil separator on the screw pump inlet basin and removal of the abandoned effluent chamber.

2.4 Electrical Requirements

Power for the new booster pump station needs to be provided directly from the main distribution centre (CDP-B) located in the WRWWTP Administration Building. Plans to expand or retrofit MCC F or MCC F1 and utilize the existing feeders were abandoned due to capacity limitations within the upstream components (e.g. CDP-F, standby generators, transfer switches, etc.). As such, a new MCC will be provided to replace the existing MCC F1. The new MCC will be designed for three phase, 600 volt power and include harmonic filtering, effluent booster pump VFD’s, and effluent recycle drives, if required. Relocating some of the HVAC equipment may be required to maintain sufficient clearance around the new MCC. A new feeder between CDP-B and the new MCC can be routed through one of the spare 150mm diameter conduits within the existing duct banks. The existing effluent recycle pump starters can be relocated in the new MCC or moved to wall mount cabinets adjacent to the pumps.



Each pump will include a local disconnect to isolate the power to facilitate repair or maintain the equipment. Provision for back-up power to energize the effluent booster pumps has not been provided within the proposed design. Back-up power could be incorporated into the new MCC section, if required, with the addition of a new transfer switch for either temporary or permanent standby power capability.

2.5 Operating Conditions

The screw pumps will operate continuously when flows are less than 150 L/s. As flows exceed 150 L/s, the water level in the effluent tower will rise above the high level setpoint and the effluent booster station. When the high level condition is reached, the 450mm outlet piping on the effluent tower will be closed using a motorized isolation valve. Once the effluent tower outlet valve is closed, the effluent screw pumps will stop and the booster duty pump(s) will start and begin pumping to maintain a constant water level in the screw pump inlet basin. The screw pumps will return to operation when the effluent flows drop below 150 L/s. To prevent the water level from drawing down below the invert of the 750 mm bypass piping, a minimum water level of 345.20 m must be maintained in the screw pump inlet basin. The maximum water level in the influent basin is dictated by the UV channel water levels and must be maintained below the average UV operating level of 346.28 m. Prior to shutting down, the effluent booster station will pump the inlet basin water level down below the maximum screw pump water level of 345.65 m. Figure 2-2 shows the proposed operating levels for the effluent booster pumps in relation to the screw pump inlet basin. Figure 2-2 Effluent Booster Pump Operating Levels

PUMP OPERATING RANGE

SCREW PUMP HIGH WL ELE. 345.65 m

HIGH WL ELE. 346.28 m

LOW WL ELE. 345.2 m

750mm BYPASS



3. Development of Options

This section of the report develops the viable effluent booster station options considered to increase the effluent discharge capacity at the WRWWTP. The objective of each option is to convey all effluent flows between 150 and 350 L/s through the existing outfall piping. Each option includes a brief description, summary of required upgrades, capital cost estimate and list of the key benefits and challenges. The options are summarized as follows: Option 1 – Vertical Turbine Pumps (1 Duty Pump): construction of a new vertical turbine pump facility with two

pumps (1-duty, 1-standby) housed in an above ground booster station.

Option 2 –Submersible Pumps (1 Duty Pump): installation of a packaged lift station complete with an FRP wetwell and two submersible pumps (1-duty, 1-standby).

Option 3 – Submersible Pumps (2 Duty Pumps): installation of a packaged lift station complete with an FRP wetwell and three submersible pumps (2-duty, 1-standby).

A variant of Option 2 and Option 3 is discussed that includes installing the submersible pumps in the existing inlet basin and locating the valving in a chamber between the tower and the inlet basin.

3.1 Option 1: Vertical Turbine Pumps (1 Duty Pump)

Option 1 consists of constructing a new booster station containing two vertical turbine pumps to operate in a duty/standby configuration. The vertical turbine pumps will include cans connected to a common buried suction header supplied from the 750mm bypass piping. Use of a canned vertical turbine pump reduces construction complexity (minimizes concrete work), reduces operational complexity, and can more easily accommodate the addition of future pumps when compared to a cast-in-place concrete wetwell. Each pump will have above ground discharge piping, including a check valve and isolation valve that combine into a common header and exit the building through the floor before tying into the existing 450mm effluent outfall piping. The vertical turbine pumps will be mounted on concrete pedestals approximately 600mm above grade. A simple masonry block building will be constructed around the pumps to match the architecture of the recently constructed sludge dewatering facility. The structure will have minimum heating and is intended to protect the equipment from snow, freezing, and other environmental elements. Vertical turbine pumps have a characteristically steep pump curve, meaning they are typically capable of operating over a wider range of head and flow conditions. Based on the pump selection (Flowserve 18ENL), a single duty pump can meet both the minimum and maximum design flows. In order to achieve the minimum flow rate the pump speed needs to be turned-down slightly below 30 Hz, however, it remains above the minimum operating speed recommended by the pump manufacturer. Inspection of the pump curve in relation to the theoretical system curve reveals that the pump selection presents a risk of run-out2 as the hydraulic conditions of the outfall near the theoretical outfall capacity. Risk of run-out is only a concern at the lower flowrates and would need to be mitigated by throttling the discharge to prevent run-out from occurring. Hydraulic efficiency of the pump selection varies between 78% and 82% and the wire-to-water efficiency ranges between 75% and 79%. Both the low and high flow conditions are operating to the right of the Best Efficiency Point (BEP). At the low flow conditions the pump operates at 13% above the BEP flowrate. Best practice for pump design is to select a pump that

2 Run-out refers to the condition when an operating point is located outside of the far right hand side of the pump curve. Continuous

operation outside of the performance curve can result in motor overload, increased fluid temperatures, high vibrations, and premature equipment failure.



operates within +5% and -10% of the BEP flowrate. This is done to avoid premature equipment wear and higher replacement costs caused by increase radial forces and cavitation that can occur as a pump operates further from the BEP flowrate. A graph of the pump performance curve at the various operating speeds is provided in Figure 3-1. The mechanical layout for the vertical turbine pump station is presented in Figure 3-2. The following highlights some of the key considerations associated with this option.

Benefits Highest total efficiency

Majority of mechanical and electrical parts are accessible at grade

Challenges Low flow duty point > 5% above the BEP flow

Crane required to access the wetted pump parts

Figure 3-1 Vertical Turbine Performance Curves (1-Flowserve 18ENL)



Figure 3-2 Vertical Turbine Pump Station Mechanical Layout



3.2 Option 2: Submersible Pumps (1 Duty Pump)

Option 2 consists of a packaged lift station with two submersible pumps. A single duty pump can achieve the high and low flow conditions. The FRP wetwell depth will be approximately 4.0 m deep and sized to provide adequate submergence above the pumps. The lift station will connect to the existing 750 mm bypass piping to access effluent flows from the Effluent Channel and Screw Pump Inlet Basin. Discharge piping from the pumps will exit the lift station below grade and enter a pre-cast concrete valve chamber. The valve chamber will provide access to the isolation and check valves and include above ground operating stems on the isolation valves. An overhead davit crane is included to lift the submersible pumps out of the wetwell for maintenance or repairs. As noted previously, a single duty pump can achieve all operating conditions within the empirical and system curves. The turn-down required to meet the low flow condition (22 Hz) is greater than typically permitted for submersible pumps. Discussions with the vendor indicate that it is acceptable, however, written confirmation from the manufacturer is recommended prior to operating at these speeds. Alternatively, the minimum pump flowrate could be increased to 170 L/s – 180 L/s to achieve a minimum operating speed closer to 30 Hz. Both high and low operating points are within acceptable ranges of the BEP flowrate. Submersible pumps typically offer lower motor efficiencies and therefore reduced wire-to-water efficiencies. The hydraulic efficiency of the selected submersible pump remains relatively constant at 80% and a wire-to-water efficiency of 77%. The overall electrical efficiency for the submersible pumps is less than the vertical turbine pump option due to the lower power factors at lower pump speeds. A graph of the pump performance curve at the minimum and maximum operating speeds is provided in Figure 3-3. The mechanical layout for the submersible pump station is presented in Figure 3-2. A variant of this option includes constructing a concrete wetwell between the Effluent Channel and Screw Inlet Basin, which could be completed for a comparable overall capital cost. The following highlights some of the key considerations associated with this option.

Benefits Acceptable % BEP throughout operating range Reduced structure/building requirements

Challenges Submerge motor and rotating parts Operating at <30 Hz to meet low flow duty point



Figure 3-3 Submersible Pump Performance Curves (1-Flygt NP3306)



Figure 3-4 Submersible Pump Station (1 Duty) Mechanical Layout



3.3 Option 3: Submersible Pumps (2 Duty Pumps)

Option 3 consists of a new booster station comprised of a three submersible pumps located in a package FRP lift station. Connectivity and piping arrangements will be similar to Option 2, with the key difference being number of pumps. Each pump includes an independent discharge pipe exiting the wetwell. The pump discharge piping will be accessible in a buried valve chamber prior to combining into a single header and tying into the 450mm effluent pipe. Two duty pumps are needed to meet the high flow operating condition, while a single pump can achieve the low flow duty point. Pump performances for this option vary significantly from the BEP flow rate (+40% at high flow condition and -20% at the low flow condition) and present an increased risk of premature mechanical wear and/or failure. With two pumps operating, the total hydraulic efficiency is significantly reduced, resulting in only 63% efficiency at the high flow condition. As the flows reduce below the capacity of a single pump, approximately 300 L/s, then the hydraulic efficiencies improve to values closer to 80%. A graph of the pump performance curve at the various operating speeds is provided in Figure 3-3. The mechanical layout for the submersible pump station with two duty pumps is similar to Option 2. A variant of this option includes constructing a concrete wetwell between the Effluent Channel and Screw Inlet Basin, which could be completed for a comparable overall capital cost. The following highlights some of the key considerations associated with this option.

Benefits Minimum operating speed is close to 30 Hz

Single pump can achieve 75% of the operating range

Challenges >+5% of BEP flow at low flow duty point and >-10%

of the BEP flow at the high flow duty point Lowest overall electrical efficiency More mechanical parts



Figure 3-5 Submersible Pump Performance Curves (2-Flygt NP3315)



3.4 Variation of Option 2 or 3: Submersible Pumps in Screw Inlet Basin

Option 2 or Option 3 could be modified to include the installation of two submersible pumps in the existing Screw Pump Inlet Basin. The pumps can be located on the west side of the basin between the two existing screw pumps. Discharge piping for the two pumps will exit the west wall of the Inlet Basin and enter a valve access chamber where they combined into a common header pipe prior to connecting to the 450mm effluent pipe. Access to the pumps for maintenance could be accomplished using an overhead crane or construction of a monorail assembly above the pumps. For Option 3, this approach results in a reduction of the mechanical redundancy. The limited redundancy could be offset by maintaining a shelf spare pump, however failure of any component in the electrical and plumbing systems could result in a reduced level of service. The pump operating performance would be identical to that presented in Option 2 and Option 3 respectively. A sample mechanical layout for the submersible pumps in the Inlet Channel is presented in Figure 3-6. The following highlights some of the key considerations associated with this option.

Benefits Lowest capital cost

Minimal new construction

Challenges Limits future screw pump capacity

Highest impact during construction Reduced mechanical redundancy for the 2-duty

pump option



Figure 3-6 Submersible Pumps in Inlet Basin Mechanical Layout



3.5 Estimate of Probable Cost

Capital cost estimates for each option are presented in Table 3-1 and the detailed breakdown of the capital costs for are available in Appendix B. The following assumptions were made in the development of capital costs for the effluent booster station options:

The estimate is based on 2015 construction costs. Inflation and escalation to account for actual expected prices at the time of tendering are not included.

The impact of the PST in the amount of 7% is included within the estimate, but the GST in the amount of 5% is not included.

All estimates of capital cost include the assumed general contractor mark-up and profit of 10%. The estimates are intended to reflect the complete cost of construction.

All tie-in works can be completed during periods of low flow and using WRWWTP online attenuation. Assume a maximum downtime in effluent channel and inlet basin of 6 hours.

All capital costs include estimated additional engineering costs and 30% construction contingency. Table 3-1 Capital Cost of Options

Description Option 1 – Vertical

Turbine Pumps

Option 2 – Submersible

Pumps (1-Duty)

Option 3 – Submersible

Pumps (2-Duty)

1.0 General Requirements $ 175,000 $ 145,000 $ 175,000

2.0 Civil and Site Works $ 70,000 $ 82,000 $ 82,000

3.0 Architectural and Structural $ 128,000 $ 73,000 $ 73,000

4.0 Process Mechanical $ 412,000 $ 338,000 $ 450,000

5.0 Building Mechanical $ 25,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

6.0 Electrical, Instrumentation &

Controls

$ 293,000 $ 268,000 $ 327,000

Sub-total $ 1,103,000 $ 911,000 $ 1,112,000

Engineering and Contingency (30%) $ 371,000 $ 273,000 $ 334,000

TOTAL $ 1,474,000 $ 1,184,000 $ 1,446,000

OPTIONAL DEDUCTS

7.1 No Mechanical Redundancy ($ 350,000) ($ 200,000) ($ 200,000)

7.2 Delete PS Building ($ 250,000) ($ -) ($ - )

7.2 Install in Inlet Basin ($ -) ($ 350,000) ($ 350,000)

ADJUSTED TOTAL $ 874,000 $ 634,000 $ 896,000

The estimates of probable costs have been prepared using prices obtained from major suppliers and from data in AECOM’s possession from projects similar in nature and scope. However, the actual costs may be impacted by a number of factors which cannot be readily forecast. These include factors such as the volume of work in hand or in prospect for contractors and suppliers at the time of tender calls, future labour contract settlements, inflation and market escalation. For this reason, while the estimate has been carefully prepared by competent personnel, the actual costs may be above or below those outlined. The estimated capital costs listed in Table 3-1 are for comparison of options and budgeting purposes. The absolute cost associated with the preferred options should be validated with further engineering.



3.6 Evaluation of Options

3.6.1 Hydraulic Considerations

Option 2 offers the most favourable % of BEP flowrate through the full range of operating conditions between the empirical and theoretical system curves. At the low flow duty point the pump needs to operate at a higher minimum flow rate (i.e. >170 L/s) to maintain operating speeds above 30 Hz. This would result in more frequent starting and stopping of the pumps, however, this is not expected to be an issue given the available balancing capacity in the influent channel, Screw Pump Inlet Basin, and wetwell. Having a comparable wire-to-water efficiency as Option 1 and capacity to meet the full range of operating conditions at good % of BEP flow, Option 2 is considered to be the most favourable hydraulic selection. Option 1 offers better hydraulic conditions than Option 3 due to the higher hydraulic efficiency and ability to operate closer to the BEP flow at the low and high flow conditions.

3.6.2 Operation and Maintenance Considerations

Use of two duty pumps in Option 3 provides a more suitable minimum operating speed for the submersible pumps and allows greater operational flexibility. As noted previously, Option 2 needs to operate at a higher minimum flow rate to avoid operating at speeds below the manufacturer’s recommended minimum speed. Both Option 2 and Option 3 have reduced maintenance accessibility with all mechanical parts either being submerged or located below grade in a valve chamber. Option 1 is the most favourable from an operational and maintenance perspective with the majority of the mechanical components being accessible at grade and long mechanical component life. Another benefit of Option 1 is having non-wetted motors, which are easier to maintain and significantly less expensive to repair or replace.

3.6.3 Capital Cost Considerations

The estimated capital costs of the options range from $1,184,000 to $1,474,000, with Option 2 (1- Duty Submersible Pump) having the lowest capital cost and Option 1 (Vertical Turbine Pump) having the highest capital cost.

3.6.3.1 Optional Cost Deductions

Optional cost deductions where considered for each option to reduce the overall capital cost of the project. Building

The capital cost of Option 1 could be reduced by deleting the building surrounding the pumps. A similar approach has been followed for effluent pumps at other wastewater treatment plants, such as the City of Abbotsford’s JAMES WWTP. Initially, the WRWWTP effluent booster pumps would operate intermittently, if at all. To protect the pump discharge piping from freezing, insulation and heat trace would be needed. Mechanical and electrical components that are exposed to the elements are typically more expensive and experience reduced life expectancies due to the exposure to rain, snow and debris. Finally, snow removal and general housekeeping are more problematic with exterior pump installations. Based on the above considerations, it is not recommended to pursue Option 1 without constructing a building to control the operating environment for the equipment.



Use of Screw Pump Inlet Basin for Wetwell

Both submersible pumping options could be modified to eliminate the FRP wetwell by locating the pumps in the Screw Pump Inlet Basin. This presents a significant capital cost savings of $350,000 for both Option 2 and Option 3. The submersible pumps could be installed in the location of the future effluent screw pump. If and when the gravity capacity of the outfall pipe gravity is upgraded either by twining or replacement, the existing effluent tower and screw pump arrangement would be capable of conveying flows as high as 440 L/s3. The screw pumps and tower arrangement is significantly more efficient than the effluent booster pump station, meaning it may be more practical to install the third screw pump, realizing a total pumping capacity of 880 L/s and abandon the effluent booster station. Options that do not include installing pumps within the Inlet Basin offer greater long term benefit as booster pumps could continue to be used in the future to increase the WRWWTP’s effluent discharge capacity, redundancy and operational flexibility. Redundancy

Deleting the standby pump for Option 1 results in a $350,000 reduction in the project cost. while Option 2 and Option 3 could realize a $200,000 savings by eliminating the standby mechanical components. As flows through the WRWWTP increase and the effluent booster pumps are required to convey effluent flows for longer periods of time it is recommended that the RDCO increase the outfall capacity. Operationally, maintaining attenuation capacity during wet weather and peak loading periods would also be helpful in reducing the risk of discharging effluent to the ground. Option 3 maintains the highest degree of mechanical redundancy as it retains two pumps and redundant capacity up to 300 L/s.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the foregoing development and evaluation of options to pressurize the WRWWTP effluent outfall, we offer the following conclusions and recommendations:

The operational and maintenance drawbacks associated with Option 2 do not outweigh the $300,000 cost premium associated with Option 1 or Option 3. Additionally, the cost of Option 2 could be further reduced by eliminating the wetwell and locating the pumps within the Screw Pump Inlet Basin. For these reasons, Option 2 is the preferred approach to pressurize the WRWWTP effluent outfall system.

The continued presence of air entrainment and other unknown hydraulic restrictions in the effluent piping present a risk that the effluent booster station will further exacerbate these issues thereby limiting the ultimate capacity of the effluent booster station approach.

Given the significant capital cost associated with pressurizing the WRWWTP effluent discharge piping, it would be prudent to reconsider options to increase the effluent outfall piping capacity by gravity. At a comparable or nominal cost premium, increasing the gravity flow capacity of the outfall piping is considered more favourable than pressurizing the piping system to achieve higher effluent discharge rates.

3 Rated capacity of a single effluent screw pump. Note that the station could lift up to 880 L/s with the addition of the third screw pump,

however the outfall piping would need to be upgraded to accommodate these increases in flows.

AECOM Regional District of the Central Okanagan Appendix A

Appendix A – Equipment Data Sheets 1

Appendix A Equipment Data Sheets

: 441652277: EC-1455: 18ENL

: September 22, 2015

Pump / StagesBased on curve no.Flowserve referenceDate

/ 1

: VTP PumpCustomer reference

:

Service :

Customer

Item number:

Hydraulic Datasheet

Operating Conditions

Materials / SpecificationMaterial column code : -: B30 Pump specification

Total developed head

Water capacity (CQ=1.00)

NPSH available (NPSHa)

Capacity

Normal capacity

Water head (CH=1.00)

NPSHa less NPSH marginMaximum suction pressureRated suction pressure

l/s

ft

psigpsig

l/s

psigft

l/s

psig

Unit Rated Condition Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3

-

350.0

0.0

-

-Ample

-

38.40

0.0

-

-

0.0

150.0-

-Ample

5.40

0.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

- -

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

Liquid

Temperature / Spec. GravitySolid Size - Actual / Limit

Liquid type

Viscosity / Vapor pressure

Liquid description

cSt/psia

°F/in/in

Other

- / - - / -

Other -

- / -

-

- / -

PerformanceActual head psig 38.73 5.48 - -Hydraulic power 124hp 7.49 - -Pump speed

Casing working pressureDriver power

NPSH required (NPSH3)

Maximum power

Pump overall efficiency (CE=1.00)

Rated powerft%

hp/kWpsig

rpm

hphp

81.230.7

200 / 149177

79.4

153

1780

10.00 / 7.4612.6

9.4711.2

70979.15.4

-

-

-

-

-

--

--

--

---

(based on shut off @ cut dia/rated SG)Maximum allowable psig 285.0 285.0 --

Est. rated seal chamb. press.Hydrostatic test pressure psig

psig - -- -99.3 15.8 --

Impeller diameter, RatedImpeller diameter, Maximum/Minimum

inin/in

13.59 -13.59 -14.46/12.25 14.46/12.25 -/- -/-

Flow at BEP

Minimum continuous flow

Flow as % of BEP

Total head ratio (rated/max)

Maximum head @ rated dia

Suction specific speed

Head rise to shut offImpeller dia ratio (rated/max)Efficiency at normal flow

(US units)

%

%

%

l/s

l/spsig

%

%

105.1

-93.9

332.5

135.010020

78.2

79.41

105.3-

93.9

10020

75.3

53.812.60

113.3132.4

130.8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

---

--

--

-

-

-

Hydraulic selection : No specificationOther Requirements

Test tolerance : Hydraulic Institute Level ADriver Sizing : Max Power(MCSF to EOC) using SF

Construction : No specification

- / -60 / 1.00060 / 1.000 - / -

- / -- / -1.00 / -1.00 / -

Affinity v1.3.9.1Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights reserved.1 of 6

:: VTP Pump:: 441652277: September 22, 2015

: 350.0 l/s: 38.40 psig: 1.000: 1780 rpm

: 1: EC-1455: 18ENL

CURVES ARE APPROXIMATE, PUMP IS GUARANTEED FOR ONE SET OF CONDITIONS; CAPACITY, HEAD, AND EFFICIENCY.

Bowl performance shown below is corrected for materials, viscosity and construction.

CustomerItem numberServiceFlowserve referenceDate

Pump speedSpecific gravityHeadCapacity

Number of stagesBased on curve no.Pump size & type

: Hydraulic Institute Level ATest tolerance

Bowl head of 38.72 psig corresponds with 38.4 psig head at discharge flange adjusted for elevation and friction losses.

Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights reserved. Affinity v1.3.9.12 of 6

Construction Datasheet


Pump / StagesBased on curve no.

: 18ENL

: 441652277Flowserve referenceDate

/ 1: EC-1455

Pump / Stages


CustomerCustomer reference

ServiceItem number

:: VTP Pump::

: Flanged - Std Wall / Lined bowls: Enclosed: Colleted: None supplied: Flanged: Taneytown Specification

: 0.75 ft: 120.00 in

: Cast Iron A48 CL30: Bronze B148 C95200

: -: -: 1570.0 lb

: USEM

: Direct on line (DOL): -: -

: Packed Box: -

: -: 4.47 ft

-

-

-

: Bronze C84400: 416SS A582 Gr 416

Bowl construction / lined

Impeller fasteningImpeller type

Suction strainerColumn constructionColumn flange spec'nColumn dia (nominal)Column pipe lengthColumn section length

BowlImpellerBowl bearingBowl shaftBowl wear ringImpeller wear ringSuction strainer

Complete pumpMounting plateDriver(nett)

Pump paintSupport plate paintShipment type

ManufacturerPower / SF (Req' / Act')

Motor Thrust rating down/up

Amps-full load/locked rotorMotor startingInsulation

Driver TypeFrame size / Base diaEnclosure

Volts / Phase / Hz

Hollow shaft couplingVertical shaft type

ArrangementSize

Material code (Man'f/API)

Seal flush construction

Pit / sump depthPump length

mounting surface to bell/strainer bottom

Construction Driver Information

Materials

Weights (Approx.)

Paint and Package

Seal Information

Additional information

Notes

: 460 V / 3 / 60 Hz: - / -

: - / Packing: Graphite Fiberglass / -

Manufacturer / Type

Lineshaft brg spacingLineshaft diameterLineshaft coupling typeLineshaft bearings, qty

Lineshaft lubricationEnclosing tube diameterDisch size/rating/face

: 120.00 in: 2.19 in: Threaded coupling

: Open: Pumpage: -

Gland material

Seal flush plan

: Cast iron

: None: -

: -: -: -

TestingHydrostatic testPerformance testNPSH test

: None: None: None

Temperature riseBearings / LubricationMotor mounted by

: Hollow

: NEMA/over NEMA Electric...

: WP-1

: Customer

ColumnLineshaftLineshaft bearingLineshaft sleeveDischarge head

: None supplied: None supplied

: Steel A53 Type E GrB: 416 stainless steel: Rubber Buna-N

: Steel A53 Gr B/A36

-

Pump/driver coupling"TF" - Fab'd / Above grade Suct and Dischg

Support plate : None supplied

Lineshaft construction

: 16.00 in

: 1

: 16 inch / 150# ANSI / RF: N/A - No rigid coupling required

Duty typeEfficiency typeHazardous area classExplosion 'T' rating

Auxiliary seal device : -

Available well diameterMax dia below mtg surface

: -: 19.50 in

: 200 hp / 149 kW / 1.0 / 1.15

: 445

: -: -

: - / -

: 8000.0 lbf / 2400.0 lbf

: None supplied

Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights reserved. Affinity v1.3.9.13 of 6

:: VTP Pump:: -

: 18ENL: 1780 rpm / 1: 350.0 l/s / 38.40 psig: 200 hp / 149 kW / 445

: 441652277 : 460 / 3 / 60


: Packing: None

All dimensions are in inches unless otherwise specified: -

: -Item numberServiceCustomer PO #Flowserve reference

Customer

Volts / Phase / HzDriver power / FrameFlow / HeadPump speed / Stages Date

Certified by / Date :Seal typeSeal flush plan

Pump size & type Drawing number

Full Page GA Drawing

Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights reserved. Affinity v1.3.9.1

4 of 6

Additional Details


Based on curve no./1

: EC-1455

Date

: 18ENLPump / StagesCustomerCustomer reference

ServiceItem number

:: VTP Pump::

: 441652277Flowserve reference

Performance

Working Pressure Limits

Sump & Submergence

Materials

Duty Conditions

: 1Liquid descriptionQuantity of pumps

:: OtherLiquid type

FrequencyFlammableToxicH2SRated flow : 350.0 l/s

: No: No: No

Rated headNPSHaViscositySpecific gravityMaximum suction pressureRated suction pressureMaximum temperatureVapor pressure : 0.00 psia

: 60 °F

: 0.0 psig @ Suction Flange: 0.0 psig

: 1.000: 1.00 cSt: Ample ft: 38.40 psig @ Discharge Flange

AltitudePump length strategy used

: 0.00 ft: As required for NPSH and submergence

Requested pump materialSelected pump materialBowl materialFirst stage impeller materialUpper stage impeller materialBowl wear ring materialImpeller wear ring materialBowl shaft materialBowl bearing materialColumn materialLineshaft material

Hydraulic powerPump overall efficiencyNPSH3 @ impellerRated powerMaximum powerMotor ratingSuction specific speedMCSFRated impeller diameter

Minimum impeller diameterMaximum impeller diameter

Maximum headFlow at BEPFlow as % of BEPRated/max diameterHead rise to shut offRated/max headVisc. capacity correction factor (CQ)Visc. Head Correction Factor (CH)Visc. Eff. Correction Factor (CE)

Pump type : VTP Canned: 1780 rpmSpeed

Selection statusBusiness unitSelection status : Near Miss

: N/A

Bowl assembly MRWPColumn assembly MRWPDischarge region of discharge head MRWP

Bowl assembly MAWPColumn assembly MAWPDischarge region of discharge head MAWP

Bowl / Column Assemblies HTPHydrostatic Test Pressures

Discharge region of discharge head HTP

Flow Velocities and Nozzle Sizing

Additional PerformanceTorque rating (max power)Torque rating (rated power)Overall torque limit of pump shafts : VTP Pump

::

Combined bowl & column assembly lengthClearance from strainer/bearing hub to sump bottomAvailable submergence above bell lipReq. min. submergence above bell lip

: 124 hp: 81.2 %: 30.7 ft: 153 hp: 177 hp: 200 hp / 149 kW: 10,020 (US units): 135.0 l/s: 13.59 in: 14.46 in: 12.25 in: 79.41 psig: 332.5 l/s: 105.3 %: 93.9 %: 105.1 %: 78.2 %: 1.00: 1.00: 1.00

: 79.4 psig: 79.4 psig: 79.4 psig

: 522.0 psig: 366.0 psig: 285.0 psig

Nozzle sizing strategy based onDischarge nozzle design flowSuction nozzle design flowActual discharge inside diameterActual suction inside diameter : 17.25 in

: 15.25 in: 350.0 l/s: 350.0 l/s: Rated flow

: 99.3 psig / 99.3 psig: 99.3 psig

: B30: B30: CL30 C.Iron: Bronze: Bronze: None: None: 416 stainless steel: Bronze: Carbon steel: 416 stainless steel

: 4.47 ft: 10.00 in: 48.00 in: 35.00 in

Can length strategy used : As required for pump length

Suction region MRWP : 66.7 psig

Suction region MAWP : 282.0 psig

Suction region hydrotest pressure : 100.0 psig

Actual calculated discharge velocity : 9.75 ft/sActual calculated suction velocity : 7.62 ft/sActual calculated column velocity : 9.95 ft/sActual calculated can velocity : 4.77 ft/s

Discharge head material: Rubber Lineshaft Bearings: Carbon Steel

Open lineshaft bearing material

Suction can material : Carbon SteelEnclosed lineshaft bearing material : None

: 60 Hz

: 10.00 inClearance from bearing hub to can bottom

Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights rese... 1/2 Affinity v1.3.9.15 of 6

Additional Details


Based on curve no./1

: EC-1455

Date

: 18ENLPump / StagesCustomerCustomer reference

ServiceItem number

:: VTP Pump::

: 441652277Flowserve reference

: 0.0 psigRated suction pressure at suction flange

: 4,392.8 lbfThrust with runout head/max suction

: 38.72 psig

: 2,211.8 lbf

Min thrust limit for this design

Thrust Data

: 1,329.3 lbfThrust used for stand sizing

Thrust with runout head/rated suctionThrust with rated head/max suction

: N/A

C/L can suction flange to mounting surface

Efficiency Corrections

: N/A: 2,211.8 lbf

: N/AThrust with shutoff head/rated suction : 4,392.8 lbf

Head Corrections

: 38.4 psig

: 2,211.8 lbfThrust with rated head/rated suction

Column friction loss

Performance Corrections

Pump rated head at discharge flange

Thrust stand size

: 16.00 in

: 38.40 psig

: N/A

: 0.02 ftBowl head

Discharge pressure at discharge flange

Thrust stand selection method

Max thrust limit for this design: 1,329.3 lbf

Discharge head friction loss

C/L discharge flange to mounting surface

: N/AThrust with shutoff head/max suction

Thrust bearing location

: 0.32 psig: 16.00 in

Bowl efficiency after correctionPump overall efficiency

: 82.0 %: 81.2 %

Construction and Dimensions

Bowl Assembly Construction Bowl Assembly Dimensions: Flanged - Std Wall Bowl shaft diameterBowl construction

Bowl lining : Lined bowls Bowl O.D. : 17.50 in: 2.19 in

Impeller designImpeller fasteningQty of unbalanced, std design impellersQty of balanced, std design impellersQty of unbalanced, alt first stage impellers : 0

: 0: 1: Colleted: 2 Bell O.D : 17.50 in

Bowl assembly length to bell lip : 39.00 in: 5.67 inSuction bearing hub length below bell lip

Impeller eye to bell lip : 12.00 in: 13.59 inUpper stages impeller rated diameter

Qty of balanced, alt first stage impellers : 0 First stage impeller rated diameter : 13.59 in

Column Assembly Construction Column Assembly DimensionsColumn construction : FlangedColumn wall description : Factory Default Wall ThicknessLineshaft lubrication : Open lineshaft (product lube)Column flange rating : FLS "Standard"Shaft split : 2.19 in

Bearing span: Threaded coupling

: 120.00 inLineshaft diameter

Lineshaft coupling type: One piece shaft

: 120.00 in

: "TF" - Fab'd / Above grade Suct an...: 16.00 in

: 0.75 ftColumn length

: Hollow shaft driver

Discharge head design

C/L shaft discharge to mounting surfaceDischarge head flange spec./rating

: N/A - No rigid coupling required

: 150 lbs ANSI B16.5 or B16.47 Co...Discharge head size

Solid shaft coupling typeDriver shaft type

Shaft diameter through stuffing box

Discharge position

: 16.00 in

Max column segment length

: 2.19 in

: 0.38 in

Head shaft sealing method

Column wall thickness

: Packing

Discharge Head Assembly Construction

Column nominal diameter

: 23.00 inDischarge flange size

: 16.00 in

Discharge Head Assembly Dimensions

C/L shaft to discharge flange face

: N/ASolid shaft coupling size

: Above mounting surface: 16.00 in

Can Assembly Construction

Can inside length

Can Assembly Dimensions

: 150 lbs. ANSI/ASME B16.5 or B...Can outside length

: Canned pump complete with can

: Factory Default Pipe Schedule: None

Can nominal diameter : 30.00 inCan wall thickness

: 4.83 ft

C/L shaft to can suction flange face

Can wall descriptionCan drain type

: N/A

Can base flange spec./rating

Can suction flange size: 16.00 in: 23.00 in

Can suction flange spec./rating C/L can suction flange to mounting surface: ANSI/ASME

Can scope of supply

C/L shaft to can suction flange faceSuction position

C/L can suction flange to mounting surface: 23.00 in: 16.00 in

: Above mounting surface

: 0.38 in: 5.00 ft

Copyright © 2014 Flowserve. All rights rese... 2/2 Affinity v1.3.9.16 of 6

Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal f or pumping inwaste water applications. Modular based design with highadaptat ion grade.

Head

670 460mm670 460mm

80.8%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

[m]

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 [l/s]

Impeller

Frequency

Motor

Rated v oltage

-

Rated power

Rated speed

Number of poles

Rated current

600 V60 Hz

215 hp

6

1185 rpm

204 A

NT 3306/736 3~ 670

Motor #

3~

Inlet diameter

CT, NT 3306 735/ 745, 736/ 746

850 Ø28(4X)

85

0

99

0

X X

25

5*

650

400

34

5 4

35

300

400 525

70

G3/4

160

X - X

MAX. 2 CABLES 95-120mm² ADDITIONAL 150Kg

INCRE ME NTS A RE 90° .

TO 4 P OS ITIONS RE LA TIV E TO THE INLE T E LB OW.

P UMP CA N B E ROTA TE D A B OUT ITS CE NTE RLINE

NOTE :

* DIME NS ION TO INLE T E LB OW FLA NGE

50

19

45

20

20

33

0

70

80

5

11

03

22

95

22

20

V IE W

P INS TO A NCHOR P E DE S TA LS

DN

DN

FOR COOLING JA CK E T DRA IN

IS O

Impeller diameter 460 mmNumber of blades 3

N0736.000 43-44-6ID-D 215hpStator v ariant 6

Phases

Starting current 1300 A

Technical specification

Note: Picture might not correspond to the current configuration.

Power f actor

Ef f ic iency

1/1 Load3/4 Load1/2 Load


0.790.730.60

95.8 %96.3 %96.3 %

350 mmCurve ISO

T - Vertical Permanent, DryInstallation:

Configuration

Impeller material Grey cast iron

General

Discharge Flange Diameter 300 mm

Water, pure

Westside WWTPAECOM Kelow na-Jason Foster 2015-09-04

Last updateCreated on

2015-09-03Marius Bocu

Created byProject IDProject

Head

Efficiency

Total efficiency

Shaft power P2

Power input P1

NPSH-values

670 460mm670 460mm

80.8%

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

670 460mm670 460mm

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

670 460mm670 460mm

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

670 460mm (P2)670 460mm (P2)

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

670 460mm (P1)670 460mm (P1)

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

670 460mm670 460mm

32 m

80.3 %

77.2 %

184.2 hp

191.7 hp

5.72 m 351.97 l/s

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

[m]

0

20

40

60

[%]

80

120

160

[hp]

5

10

15

20

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 [l/s]

Motor #

60 Hz

Phases 3~

600 VNumber of poles 6

Rated power 215 hp

Starting currentRated current 204 A

Rated speed 1185 rpm

N0736.000 43-44-6ID-D 215hpStator variant

Number of blades 3

Power factor

NT 3306/736 3~ 670

Inlet diameter

Performance curve

Pump

Impeller diameter 460 mm

Motor

Rated voltage

1300 A

Efficiency

1/1 Load

3/4 Load

1/2 Load

1/1 Load

3/4 Load

1/2 Load

Frequency6 0.79

95.8 %

0.73

0.60

96.3 %

96.3 %

350 mm

Curve ISO


Water, pure





Head

670 460mm

80.8%

32 m

351.97 l/s0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 [l/s]

2 1

NT 3306/736 3~ 670Duty Analysis

Curve ISO

Indiv idual pump Total

2 326 l/s 33.2 m 180 hp 326 l/s 33.2 m 180 hp 79.2 % 0.119 kWh/m³ 5.31 m1 352 l/s 32 m 184 hp 352 l/s 32 m 184 hp 80.3 % 0.113 kWh/m³ 5.72 m

Pumps running Specific /System Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Pump eff. energy NPSHre

Water, pure

Curve issue 16





Head

Efficiency

Total efficiency

Shaft power P2

Power input P1

NPSH-values

670 460mm670 460mm

80.8%

55 Hz55 Hz

80.8%

45 Hz45 Hz

80.8%

40 Hz40 Hz

80.8%

35 Hz35 Hz

80.8%

30 Hz30 Hz

80.8%

670 460mm670 460mm55 Hz55 Hz45 Hz45 Hz40 Hz40 Hz35 Hz35 Hz30 Hz30 Hz 670 460mm670 460mm55 Hz55 Hz45 Hz45 Hz40 Hz40 Hz35 Hz35 Hz30 Hz30 Hz

670 460mm (P2)670 460mm (P2)

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz

40 Hz40 Hz35 Hz35 Hz

30 Hz30 Hz

670 460mm (P1)670 460mm (P1)

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz


30 Hz30 Hz

670 460mm670 460mm

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz

40 Hz40 Hz


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

[m]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

[%]

0

40

80

120

160

[hp]

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 [l/s]

NT 3306/736 3~ 670VFD Curve

Curve ISO





Head

670 460mm

80.8%

32 m

351.97 l/s

55 Hz

80.8%

45 Hz

80.8%

40 Hz

80.8%

35 Hz

80.8%

30 Hz

80.8%

01

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

1213

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

2425

26

27

28

29

30

3132

33

34

35

36

3738

39

40

41

42

4344

45

46

47

48

4950

51

52

53

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 [l/s]

2 1

NT 3306/736 3~ 670VFD Analysis

Curve ISO

2 60 Hz 326 l/s 33.2 m 180 hp 326 l/s 33.2 m 180 hp 79.2 % 0.119 kWh/m³ 5.31 m2 55 Hz 298 l/s 27.7 m 137 hp 298 l/s 27.7 m 137 hp 79.2 % 0.0991 kWh/m³ 4.59 m2 45 Hz 244 l/s 18.6 m 75.2 hp 244 l/s 18.6 m 75.2 hp 79.2 % 0.0667 kWh/m³ 3.33 m2 40 Hz 217 l/s 14.7 m 52.8 hp 217 l/s 14.7 m 52.8 hp 79.2 % 0.0533 kWh/m³ 2.76 m2 35 Hz 190 l/s 11.2 m 35.4 hp 190 l/s 11.2 m 35.4 hp 79.2 % 0.0416 kWh/m³ 2.23 m2 30 Hz 163 l/s 8.26 m 22.3 hp 163 l/s 8.26 m 22.3 hp 79.2 % 0.0316 kWh/m³ 1.74 m1 60 Hz 352 l/s 32 m 184 hp 352 l/s 32 m 184 hp 80.3 % 0.113 kWh/m³ 5.72 m1 55 Hz 322 l/s 26.7 m 140 hp 322 l/s 26.7 m 140 hp 80.3 % 0.0939 kWh/m³ 4.95 m1 45 Hz 263 l/s 17.9 m 76.9 hp 263 l/s 17.9 m 76.9 hp 80.3 % 0.0632 kWh/m³ 3.59 m1 40 Hz 234 l/s 14.1 m 54 hp 234 l/s 14.1 m 54 hp 80.3 % 0.0505 kWh/m³ 2.97 m1 35 Hz 205 l/s 10.8 m 36.2 hp 205 l/s 10.8 m 36.2 hp 80.3 % 0.0394 kWh/m³ 2.4 m1 30 Hz 175 l/s 7.94 m 22.8 hp 175 l/s 7.94 m 22.8 hp 80.3 % 0.0299 kWh/m³ 1.88 m

Pumps running Specific /System Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hyd eff. energy NPSHre





fosterj

Rectangle

NT 3306/736 3~ 670Dimensional drawing

CT,NT 3306 735/745, 736/746

850 Ø28(4X)

850

990

X X

255*

650

400

345

435

300

400 525

70

G3/4

160

X - X

MAX. 2 CABLES 95-120mm² ADDITIONAL 150Kg

INCREMENTS ARE 90°.

TO 4 POSITIONS RELATIVE TO THE INLET ELBOW.

PUMP CAN BE ROTATED ABOUT ITS CENTERLINE

NOTE:

* DIMENSION TO INLET ELBOW FLANGE

50

1945

2020

330

70

805

1103

2295

2220

VIEW

PINS TO ANCHOR PEDESTALS

DN

DN

FOR COOLING JACKET DRAIN

ISO





Patented self cleaning semi-open channel impeller, ideal f or pumping inmost waste water applications. Possible to be upgraded with Guide-pin®f or ev en better clogging resistance. Modular based design with highadaptat ion grade.

Head

637 407mm637 407mm

82%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 [l/s]

Impeller

Frequency

Motor

Rated v oltage

-

Rated power

Rated speed

Number of poles

Rated current

600 V60 Hz

110 hp

6

1185 rpm

112 A

NP 3315 MT 3~ 637

Motor #

3~

Inlet diameter

NP 3315 MT

BOLT Ø20 (4x)

(TO FURTHE S T P OINT)

Z Z

Z Z

MIN

LEVEL

23

3

233

60

3" GUIDE BARS

716

314

42

7

1224

45°

65

*39

4

47

5

359 116

17

61

135

851

372

32

8

1653

12

5

25

0

DN 250

500

RE F.LINE

CL O

F D

ISCH.

RE F.LINE

RE F.LINE

15

1 45°

16

4

50

4

* DIME NS ION TO E NDS OF GUIDE B A RS

V IE W

Impeller diameter 407 mmNumber of blades 3

N3315.180 35-35-6AA-W 110hpStator v ariant 4

Phases

Starting current 745 A

Technical specification

Note: Picture might not correspond to the current configuration.

Power f actor

Ef f ic iency



0.770.700.58

92.0 %92.0 %91.0 %

250 mmCurve ISO

P - Semi permanent, WetInstallation:

Configuration

Impeller material Grey cast iron

General


Water





Head

Efficiency

Total efficiency

Shaft power P2

Power input P1

NPSH-values

637 407mm637 407mm

82%

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

637 407mm637 407mm

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

637 407mm637 407mm

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

637 407mm (P2)637 407mm (P2)

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

637 407mm (P1)637 407mm (P1)

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

637 407mm637 407mm

28.9 m

80.9 %

74.7 %

85.1 hp

92.2 hp

3.59 m 181.1 l/s

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

[m]

0

20

40

60

[%]

405060708090

100[hp]

4

8

12

[m]

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 [l/s]

Motor #

60 Hz

Phases 3~

600 VNumber of poles 6

Rated power 110 hp

Starting currentRated current 112 A

Rated speed 1185 rpm

N3315.180 35-35-6AA-W 110hpStator variant

Number of blades 3

Power factor

NP 3315 MT 3~ 637

Inlet diameter

Performance curve

Pump

Impeller diameter 407 mm

Motor

Rated voltage

745 A

Efficiency

1/1 Load

3/4 Load

1/2 Load

1/1 Load

3/4 Load

1/2 Load

Frequency4 0.77

92.0 %

0.70

0.58

92.0 %

91.0 %

250 mm

Curve ISO


Water





Head

637 407mm [Pump 1+2]637 407mm [Pump 1]

82%

28.9 m

362.12 l/s0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 [l/s]

1 Pump

1

2 Pumps

1

NP 3315 MT 3~ 637Duty Analysis

Curve ISO

Indiv idual pump Total

2 / 1 181 l/s 28.9 m 85.1 hp 362 l/s 28.9 m 170 hp 80.9 % 0.105 kWh/m³ 3.59 m1 / 1 296 l/s 19.3 m 97.8 hp 296 l/s 19.3 m 97.8 hp 76.7 % 0.0743 kWh/m³ 8.81 m

Pumps running Specific /System Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Pump eff. energy NPSHre

Water

Curve issue 1





Head

Efficiency

Total efficiency

Shaft power P2

Power input P1

NPSH-values

637 407mm637 407mm

82%

55 Hz55 Hz

82%

45 Hz45 Hz

82%

40 Hz40 Hz

82%

35 Hz35 Hz

82%

30 Hz30 Hz

82%

637 407mm637 407mm55 Hz55 Hz45 Hz45 Hz40 Hz40 Hz35 Hz35 Hz30 Hz30 Hz637 407mm637 407mm55 Hz55 Hz45 Hz45 Hz40 Hz40 Hz35 Hz35 Hz

30 Hz30 Hz

637 407mm (P2)637 407mm (P2)

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz


30 Hz30 Hz

637 407mm (P1)637 407mm (P1)

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz


30 Hz30 Hz

637 407mm637 407mm

55 Hz55 Hz

45 Hz45 Hz

40 Hz40 Hz


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

[m]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

[%]

0

20

40

60

80

[hp]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

[m]

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 [l/s]

NP 3315 MT 3~ 637VFD Curve

Curve ISO





Head

637 407mm [Pump 1+2]637 407mm [Pump 1]

82%

28.9 m

362.12 l/s

55 Hz55 Hz

82%

45 Hz45 Hz

82%

40 Hz40 Hz

82%

35 Hz35 Hz

82%

30 Hz30 Hz

82%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

[m]

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 [l/s]

1 Pump

1

2 Pumps

1

NP 3315 MT 3~ 637VFD Analysis

Curve ISO

2 / 1 60 Hz 181 l/s 28.9 m 85.1 hp 362 l/s 28.9 m 170 hp 80.9 % 0.105 kWh/m³ 3.59 m2 / 1 55 Hz 165 l/s 24.1 m 64.9 hp 331 l/s 24.1 m 130 hp 80.9 % 0.0885 kWh/m³ 3.11 m2 / 1 45 Hz 135 l/s 16.2 m 35.5 hp 271 l/s 16.2 m 71.1 hp 80.9 % 0.0612 kWh/m³ 2.26 m2 / 1 40 Hz 120 l/s 12.8 m 25 hp 241 l/s 12.8 m 49.9 hp 80.9 % 0.0502 kWh/m³ 1.87 m2 / 1 35 Hz 105 l/s 9.77 m 16.7 hp 211 l/s 9.77 m 33.5 hp 80.9 % 0.0408 kWh/m³ 1.51 m2 / 1 30 Hz 90.2 l/s 7.18 m 10.5 hp 180 l/s 7.18 m 21.1 hp 80.9 % 0.0332 kWh/m³ 1.18 m1 / 1 60 Hz 296 l/s 19.3 m 97.8 hp 296 l/s 19.3 m 97.8 hp 76.7 % 0.0743 kWh/m³ 8.81 m1 / 1 55 Hz 270 l/s 16.1 m 74.6 hp 270 l/s 16.1 m 74.6 hp 76.7 % 0.0624 kWh/m³ 7.63 m1 / 1 45 Hz 221 l/s 10.8 m 40.9 hp 221 l/s 10.8 m 40.9 hp 76.7 % 0.0434 kWh/m³ 5.53 m1 / 1 40 Hz 197 l/s 8.51 m 28.7 hp 197 l/s 8.51 m 28.7 hp 76.7 % 0.0357 kWh/m³ 4.58 m1 / 1 35 Hz 172 l/s 6.52 m 19.2 hp 172 l/s 6.52 m 19.2 hp 76.7 % 0.0292 kWh/m³ 3.7 m1 / 1 30 Hz 147 l/s 4.79 m 12.1 hp 147 l/s 4.79 m 12.1 hp 76.7 % 0.0239 kWh/m³ 2.89 m

Pumps running Specific /System Frequency Flow Head Shaft power Flow Head Shaft power Hyd eff. energy NPSHre





NP 3315 MT 3~ 637Dimensional drawing

NP 3315 MT

BOLT Ø20 (4x)

(TO FURTHEST POINT)

Z Z

Z Z

MIN

LE

VE

L

233

233

60

3" GUIDE BARS

716

314

427

1224

45°

65

*394 47

5

359 116

1761

135

851

372

328

1653

125

250

DN 250

500

REF.LINE

CL O

F D

ISC

H.

REF.LINE

REF.LINE

151 45°

164

504

* DIMENSION TO ENDS OF GUIDE BARS

VIEW





AECOM Regional District of the Central Okanagan Appendix B

Appendix B – Detailed Breakdown of Capital Costs 1

Appendix B Detailed Breakdown of Capital Costs

WRWWTP Effluent Outfall Pumping Job No. 60441342Conceptual Estimate of Capital Cost: Option 1 Vertical Turbine Pump Station 1-Oct-15

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Extension

Price ($)

1.0 General Requirements 1 LS NA 175,000$

2.0 Civil and Site Work 1 LS NA 70,000$

3.0 Architectural and Structural 1 LS NA 128,000$

4.0 Process Equipment 1 LS NA 412,000$

5.0 Building Mechanical 1 LS NA 25,000$

6.0 Electrical, Instrumentation and Controls 1 LS NA 293,000$

Sub-Total Complete Project 1,103,000$

Engineering (additional design fees) 40,000$

Construction Contingency (approximately 30%) 331,000$

ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 1,474,000$

1) Engineering fees based on additional design and construction inspection costs new pump station building 2) Two canned vertical turbine pumps in a simple masonry block building3) Electrical fed directly from Main Distribution Centre CDP-B. VFDs located in new MCC to replacer MCC F14) Effluent tower isolation from effluent booster pump discharge using an automated isolation valve on the 450mm HDPE effluent pipe5) Roof access hatches provided for removal of pumps using an overhear crane

P:\60441342\400‐Technical\403 Cost Estimates\2015‐09‐22 Option 1 VT Pumps Page 1 of 3


Item No. DescriptionUnit of

MeasurementEst. Total Quantity

Unit PriceExtended Total

Price

1.1 Overhead/Indirect Costs (5% of project value) Lump Sum 1 $ 55,000 $ 55,000

1.2 Profit (10% of project value) Lump Sum 1 $ 110,000 $ 110,000

1.3 Mobilization\Demobilization Lump Sum 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

$ 175,000

2.1 Facility: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal m3 100 $ 25 $ 2,500

2.2 Facility: Imported Fill (300mm Granular Base) m2 45 $ 50 $ 2,240

2.3 Remove Existing Outfall Chamber LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

2.4 Relocate Oil Seperator Vault LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

2.5 Tie-in to Existing 750 Steel Pipe LS 1 $ 12,000 $ 12,000

2.6 750 Isolation Valve (Buried Service Butterfly Valve) each 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

2.7 Tie-in to Existing 450 HDPE Pipe LS 1 $ 8,000 $ 8,000

2.8 Effluent Tower Isolation Valve Chamber c/w Electric Actuator LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000

$ 70,000

3.1 Floor Slab/Footings m3 30 $ 1,200 $ 36,000

3.3 Door Pad LS 1 $ 1,500 $ 1,500

$ 38,000

4.1 Exterior Walls (Masonry Block w/ Loose Fill Insulation) m2 90 $ 500 $ 45,000

$ 45,000

7.1 Roof (Steel Beams, Q-deck, 92mm Insulation) m2 50 $ 500 $ 25,000

$ 25,000

8.1 Double Doors Each 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

8.2 Pump Access Hatches Each 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000

$ 20,000

15.1 200Hp Vertical Turbine Pumps Each 2 $ 135,000 $ 270,000

DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Yard Piping

DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS

Miscellaneous

TOTAL DIVISION 8 - OPENINGS

DIVISION 2 - SITE WORKS\REMOVALS

Site Works/Removals

TOTAL DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE

TOTAL DIVISION 2 - SITE WORKS\REMOVALS

DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE

TOTAL DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Effluent Booster Pumps

DIVISION 15 - PROCESS MECHANICAL

Valves and Piping

DIVISION 4 - MASONRY

Facility

TOTAL DIVISION 4 - MASONRY

Pump Station

DIVISION 7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

Roof

TOTAL DIVISION 5 - METALS

2015‐09‐22 Option 1 VT PumpsCapital Cost





Price

15.2 Pump Isolation Valves (400 mm Butterfly Valve) Each 2 $ 4,000 $ 8,000

15.3 Pump Check Valve (400 Silent Check) Each 2 $ 10,000 $ 20,000

15.4 Station Isolation Valve (450 mm Butterfly Valve) Each 1 $ 3,750 $ 3,750

15.5 Combination Air\Vacuum Relief Valve Each 2 $ 10,000 $ 20,000

15.6 750mm Black Steel Suction Header (Lined and Coated) LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000

15.7 450mm Black Steel (Lined and Coated) LS 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000

15.8 Process Piping Installation (35% of Piping Costs) Lump Sum 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000

$ 412,000

15.1 Ventilation Fan Each 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000

15.2 15 kW Unit Heater Each 2 $ 7,500 $ 15,000

$ 25,000

16.1 Power Distribution and Cables m 350 $ 80 $ 28,000

16.2 Main Control Centre Lump Sum 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000

16.3 200 Hp VFD's Each 2 $ 60,000 $ 120,000

16.4 Cable Tray, Grounding Installation, Lighting, Small Power Lump Sum 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000

16.5 Testing, Commissioning, Startup Lump Sum 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

$ 278,000

17.1 SCADA Software Integrator Cost Lump Sum 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

17.2 Field Instruments (including wiring) Lump Sum 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000


$ 15,000

1,103,000$

DIVISION 15 - BUILDING MECHANICAL

Piping

DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL

TOTAL DIVISION 15 - PROCESS MECHANICAL

TOTAL DIVISION 15 - BUILDING MECHANICAL

Heating and Ventiliation

TOTAL DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL

TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT COST SUB-TOTAL

DIVISION 17 - INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL

TOTAL DIVISION 17 - INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL

2015‐09‐22 Option 1 VT PumpsCapital Cost

WRWWTP Effluent Outfall Pumping Job No. 60441342Conceptual Estimate of Capital Cost: Option 2 Submersible Pump (1 Duty) 1-Oct-15


Price ($)







Sub-Total Complete Project 911,000$

Engineering (additional design fees) -$



1) No additional engineering fees associated with this option.2) Two Submersible Flygt NP3306 pumps installed in FRP wetwell.3) Electrical fed directly from Main Distribution Centre CDP-B. VFDs located in new MCC to replacer MCC F1.4) Effluent tower isolation from effluent booster pump discharge using an automated isolation valve on the 450mm HDPE effluent pipe.5) Davit crane provided to pick submersible pumps out of Inlet Basin and place on trolley beneath screw pumps.

P:\60441342\400‐Technical\403 Cost Estimates\2015‐10‐01 Option 2 Sub Pumps (1‐Duty) Page 1 of 3





Price




$ 145,000

2.1 Lift Station & Chamber: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal m3 260 $ 25 $ 6,500

2.2 Lift Station & Chamber: Imported Fill (300mm Granular Base) m2 40 $ 50 $ 2,000







$ 82,000

3.1 Lift Station Base m3 20 $ 1,200 $ 24,000

3.2 Valve Chamber (Discharge Piping) m3 20 $ 1,200 $ 24,000

$ 48,000

4.1 m2 0 $ - $ -

$ -

7.1 m2 0 $ - $ -

$ -

8.1 Davit Crane Each 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000

8.2 Valve Chamber Hatch Each 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

$ 25,000


15.2 FRP Lift Station LS 1 $ 160,000 $ 160,000






Facility


Pump Station


Roof


Yard Piping


Miscellaneous



Site Works/Removals




2015‐10‐01 Option 2 Sub Pumps (1‐Duty)Capital Cost





Price






$ 338,000


$ 5,000



16.3 215 Hp VFD's Each 2 $ 60,000 $ 120,000


$ 253,000




$ 15,000

911,000$



TOTAL CAPTIAL PROJECT COST SUB-TOTAL



Piping



Valves and Piping




WRWWTP Effluent Outfall Pumping Job No. 60441342Conceptual Estimate of Capital Cost: Option 3-Submersible Pump (2 Duty) 1-Oct-15


Price ($)







Sub-Total Complete Project 1,112,000$

Engineering (additional design fees) -$



1) No additional engineering fees associated with this option.2) Three Submersible Flygt NP3315 pumps installed in FRP wetwell.3) Electrical fed directly from Main Distribution Centre CDP-B. VFDs located in new MCC to replacer MCC F1.4) Effluent tower isolation from effluent booster pump discharge using an automated isolation valve on the 450mm HDPE effluent pipe.5) Davit crane provided to pick submersible pumps out of Inlet Basin and place on trolley beneath screw pumps.

P:\60441342\400‐Technical\403 Cost Estimates\2015‐10‐01 Option 3 Sub Pumps (2‐Duty) Page 1 of 3





Price




$ 175,000

2.1 Lift Station & Chamber: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal m3 260 $ 25 $ 6,500

2.2 Lift Station & Chamber: Imported Fill (300mm Granular Base) m2 40 $ 50 $ 2,000







$ 82,000

3.1 Lift Station Base m3 20 $ 1,200 $ 24,000

3.2 Valve Chamber (Discharge Piping) m3 20 $ 1,200 $ 24,000

$ 48,000

4.1 m2 0 $ - $ -

$ -

7.1 m2 0 $ - $ -

$ -

8.1 Davit Crane Each 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000

8.2 Valve Chamber Hatch Each 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

$ 25,000


15.2 FRP Lift Station LS 1 $ 160,000 $ 160,000


Yard Piping


Miscellaneous



Site Works/Removals








Facility


Pump Station


Roof







Price






$ 450,000


$ 5,000



16.3 110 Hp VFD's and Disconnects Each 3 $ 55,000 $ 165,000


$ 312,000




$ 15,000

1,112,000$


Piping



Valves and Piping




TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT COST SUB-TOTAL




westside regional wwtp outfall pressurization – aecom 201 – 3275 lakeshore road 250 762...

Documents