Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update April 2017 Thames Water Utilities Ltd Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options 356236 WCD WAM 40 A PiMS/356236/Documents 30 August 2016 Fine Screening Report Update Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update April 2017 Thames Water Utilities Ltd Clearwater Court, Vastern Rd, Reading, West Berkshire, RG1 8DB Mott MacDonald, 22 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 W www.mottmac.com Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description 01 29 September 2016 Ania Bujnowicz Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Draft for stakeholder comment Bill Hume Smith 02 21 April 2017 Jamie Radford Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Updated draft for stakeholder Ania Bujnowicz Bill Hume Smith comment Robert MacDonald Victoria Price Bill Hume Smith 03 25 April 2017 Jamie Radford Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Updated Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.14 and Figure 3.4 Information class: Secure This report has been prepared solely for use by the party which We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the commissioned it (the ‘Client’) in connection with the captioned report which is due to an error or omission in data, information project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person or statements supplied to us by other parties including the other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed client (‘Data’). We have not independently verified such Data terms of reliance with us (the ‘Recipient(s)’) may rely on the and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reliable and content, information or any views expressed in the report. We current as of the date of such information. accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability to any other recipient of this document. This report is confidential and Forecasts presented in this document were prepared using contains proprietary intellectual property. Data and the report is dependent or based on Data. Inevitably, some of the assumptions used to develop the No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, forecasts will not be realised and unanticipated events and is made and no responsibility or liability is accepted by us to circumstances may occur. Consequently Mott MacDonald any party other than the Client or any Recipient(s), as to the does not guarantee or warrant the conclusions contained in accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this the report as there are likely to be differences between the report. For the avoidance of doubt this report does not in any forecasts and the actual results and those differences may be way purport to include any legal, insurance or financial advice material. While we consider that the information and opinions or opinion. given in this report are sound all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it. We disclaim all and any liability whether arising in tort or contract or otherwise which it might otherwise have to any Under no circumstances may this report or any extract or party other than the Client or the Recipient(s), in respect of this summary thereof be used in connection with any public or report, or any information attributed to it. private securities offering including any related memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement. 356236/WCD/WAM/40/03 25 April 2017 Sharepoint/356236/Documents/BA14 Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update Contents Chapter Title Page Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background _______________________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 Structure of report___________________________________________________________________ 2 1.3 Stakeholder engagement _____________________________________________________________ 2 2 Statement of need 4 2.1 Requirement for a Water Resources Management Plan _____________________________________ 3 2.2 The TW Water Resource Zones ________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 The supply-demand balance situation ___________________________________________________ 4 2.4 London Water Resources Zone ________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Requirements for new resource options __________________________________________________ 7 3 Approach to fine screening and option appraisal of water resources 9 3.1 Overview of four-phased approach _____________________________________________________ 9 3.2 Developments in the fine screening approach between Phase 1 and Phase 2 ___________________ 12 3.3 Generic list of options _______________________________________________________________ 12 3.4 Feasibility assessments _____________________________________________________________ 12 3.5 Cross-option studies ________________________________________________________________ 13 3.5.1 Water treatment cross option study ____________________________________________________ 14 3.5.2 Treatment of Water to be Discharged to the Environment ___________________________________ 14 3.5.3 Network reinforcement cross option study _______________________________________________ 15 3.5.4 Raw water system cross option study __________________________________________________ 16 3.5.5 Operational philosophy ______________________________________________________________ 17 3.5.6 System Strategy ___________________________________________________________________ 18 3.6 Fine screening ____________________________________________________________________ 18 3.6.1 Environment & social dimension ______________________________________________________ 19 3.6.2 Cost dimension ____________________________________________________________________ 20 3.6.3 Promotability dimension _____________________________________________________________ 29 3.6.4 Flexibility dimension ________________________________________________________________ 31 3.6.5 Deliverability dimension _____________________________________________________________ 34 3.6.6 Resilience dimension _______________________________________________________________ 35 3.6.7 Screening decisions ________________________________________________________________ 39 3.6.8 Back-checking process ______________________________________________________________ 39 4 Generic screening of water resource management options 40 4.1 Generic option screening ____________________________________________________________ 40 5 London WRZ water resource options 42 5.1 Resource option types ______________________________________________________________ 42 5.2 Feasibility report findings ____________________________________________________________ 42 5.2.1 Water reuse ______________________________________________________________________ 42 5.2.2 New reservoirs ____________________________________________________________________ 45 356236/WCD/WAM/40/03 25 April 2017 Sharepoint/356236/Documents/BA14 Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update 5.2.3 Raw water transfers ________________________________________________________________ 50 5.2.4 Desalination ______________________________________________________________________ 53 5.2.5 Direct river abstraction ______________________________________________________________ 54 5.2.6 Aquifer recharge ___________________________________________________________________ 56 5.2.7 Aquifer storage and recovery _________________________________________________________ 57 5.2.8 Groundwater development ___________________________________________________________ 57 5.2.9 Removal of Deployable Output constraints ______________________________________________ 59 5.2.10 Catchment management ____________________________________________________________ 59 5.3 Exclusivities/Interdependencies _______________________________________________________ 61 5.4 Fine screening assessment __________________________________________________________ 61 5.4.1 Scenario analysis __________________________________________________________________ 63 5.4.2 Rejection reasoning ________________________________________________________________ 65 5.5 Next steps for water resource options passing fine screening ________________________________ 68 5.5.1 Deephams reuse __________________________________________________________________ 68 5.5.2 Beckton reuse ____________________________________________________________________ 68 5.5.3 Severn-Thames Transfer ____________________________________________________________ 69 5.5.4 Abingdon reservoir _________________________________________________________________ 69 5.5.5 Teddington direct river abstraction _____________________________________________________ 69 5.5.6 Beckton desalination _______________________________________________________________ 70 5.5.7 Crossness desalination _____________________________________________________________ 70 5.5.8 Groundwater options _______________________________________________________________ 70 5.5.9 Catchment management options ______________________________________________________ 71 6 SWOX WRZ resource options 72 6.1 Resource option types ______________________________________________________________ 72 6.2 Feasibility Report findings ___________________________________________________________ 72 6.2.1 New reservoirs ____________________________________________________________________ 72 6.2.2 Raw water transfers ________________________________________________________________
Recommended publications
  • HA16 Rivers and Streams London's Rivers and Streams Resource
    HA16 Rivers and Streams Definition All free-flowing watercourses above the tidal limit London’s rivers and streams resource The total length of watercourses (not including those with a tidal influence) are provided in table 1a and 1b. These figures are based on catchment areas and do not include all watercourses or small watercourses such as drainage ditches. Table 1a: Catchment area and length of fresh water rivers and streams in SE London Watercourse name Length (km) Catchment area (km2) Hogsmill 9.9 73 Surbiton stream 6.0 Bonesgate stream 5.0 Horton stream 5.3 Greens lane stream 1.8 Ewel court stream 2.7 Hogsmill stream 0.5 Beverley Brook 14.3 64 Kingsmere stream 3.1 Penponds overflow 1.3 Queensmere stream 2.4 Keswick avenue ditch 1.2 Cannizaro park stream 1.7 Coombe Brook 1 Pyl Brook 5.3 East Pyl Brook 3.9 old pyl ditch 0.7 Merton ditch culvert 4.3 Grand drive ditch 0.5 Wandle 26.7 202 Wimbledon park stream 1.6 Railway ditch 1.1 Summerstown ditch 2.2 Graveney/ Norbury brook 9.5 Figgs marsh ditch 3.6 Bunces ditch 1.2 Pickle ditch 0.9 Morden Hall loop 2.5 Beddington corner branch 0.7 Beddington effluent ditch 1.6 Oily ditch 3.9 Cemetery ditch 2.8 Therapia ditch 0.9 Micham road new culvert 2.1 Station farm ditch 0.7 Ravenbourne 17.4 180 Quaggy (kyd Brook) 5.6 Quaggy hither green 1 Grove park ditch 0.5 Milk street ditch 0.3 Ravensbourne honor oak 1.9 Pool river 5.1 Chaffinch Brook 4.4 Spring Brook 1.6 The Beck 7.8 St James stream 2.8 Nursery stream 3.3 Konstamm ditch 0.4 River Cray 12.6 45 River Shuttle 6.4 Wincham Stream 5.6 Marsh Dykes
    [Show full text]
  • Tc Walks Leaflet D5 (With 30 Years Logo)
    Introduction: This walk is approximately 11k long, taking about 3.5 hours to complete at a steady pace, along paved, gravel and unmade footpaths, K including parts of the London Loop and/or Ingrebourne Way FP136, as S R E L well as following some of the valley of the River Ingrebourne. C H U U R Q C E H H E Start: From the bus stand in Tees Drive at the junction with Noak Hill R S 1 O C O A L A D L C HILL FARM O E W K O Road (served by frequent bus routes from Hornchurch, Harold E 2 R N Wood and Romford), turn right into and cross Noak Hill Road D A ST. THOMAS’S CHURCH O onto the footpath opposite. Walk along this path and uphill for R L W IL 3 H about 500 metres to the junction with Church Road and K A O 1 N Chequers Road. Continue ahead along Chequers Road for MANOR FARM about 250 metres passed Manor Farm on your right until you E reach Lower Noke Close on the right. S DAGNAM PARK T 2 Turn right into Lower Noke Close through a large green metal A gate, signposted as the beginning of Ingrebourne Way FP136. 5 H 4 After about 250m the road turns left to go under the M25 (into H A DAGNAM HOUSE Wrightsbridge Road next to Old Macdonalds Farm). Continue ahead for about 300m along a C gravel path, which is an entrance to Dagnam Park (The Manor), with fields and woods on both MES sides.
    [Show full text]
  • Gate One Submission for Thames Water to Southern Water Transfer Date: 05 July 2021
    Strategic regional water resource solutions: Preliminary feasibility assessment Gate one submission for Thames Water to Southern Water Transfer Date: 05 July 2021 i Glossary Acronym Terms to use / Definition AA Appropriate Assessment - under the Habitats Regulations ACWG All Company Working Group AIC Average Incremental Cost AMP Asset Management Plan AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty BBOWT Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust BNG Biodiversity net gain BNL Biodiversity net loss CAP Competitively Appointed Provider CCG Customer Challenge Group – a regional CCG has been established by WRSE CCW Consumer Council for Water CEB Chemically Enhanced Backwash CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern CEMP Construction and Environmental Management Plan CO2 Carbon Dioxide CPO Compulsory Purchase Order DAF Dissolved Air Floatation DCO Development Consent Order – planning under the Planning Act 2008 Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DI Ductile Iron DO Deployable Output DPC Direct Procurement for Customers DWI Drinking Water Inspectorate DYAA Dry Year Annual Average EA Environment Agency EES Thames Water’s Engineering Estimating System EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ENG Environmental Net Gain ERD Energy Recovery Devices FD Ofwat Final Determination FEPS Final Effluent Pumping Station GAC Granular Activated Carbon HE Historic England HIOWWT Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust HRA Habitat Regulations Assessment ICA Instrumentation Control and Automation INNS Invasive Non-Native Species IP Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Iron Age Romford: Life Alongside the River During the Mid-First Millennium Bc
    IRON AGE ROMFORD: LIFE ALONGSIDE THE RIVER DURING THE MID-FIRST MILLENNIUM BC Barry Bishop With contributions by Philip Armitage and Damian Goodburn SUMMARY All written and artefactual material relating to the project, including the post-excavation Excavation alongside the River Rom in Romford assessment detailing the circumstances and revealed features of Early to Middle Iron Age date, methodology of the work, will be deposited including a hollow (possibly the remains of a structure), with the London Archaeological Archive and pits, ditches and an accumulation of worked wood. The Research Centre (LAARC) under the site hollow contained hearths and large quantities of burnt code NOT05. flint — such accumulations are usually referred to as ‘burnt mounds’. The date of the remains at Romford SITE LOCATION is significant since they substantially increase the evidence for settlement in this period in London. The site was centred on National Grid Refer- ence TQ 5075 8940, c.500m north of Romford INTRODUCTION town centre (see Fig 1), and was approximately 1 hectare in extent. Prior to the 1920s the site During October and December 2005 arch- was predominantly in agricultural use. Sub- aeological investigations were conducted at sequently a petrol garage was constructed on Romside Commercial Centre and 146—147 the North Street frontage and small industrial North Street, Romford in the London Borough units occupied other parts of the site. These of Havering (Fig 1). The investigations were were extended during the 1940s and 1950s undertaken as a requirement of a planning and continued in use until the recent redev- condition placed upon the proposed resident- elopment.
    [Show full text]
  • London LOOP Section 22 Harold Wood to Upminster Bridge
    V4 : May 2011V4 : May London LOOP Directions: Exit Harold Wood station by the stairs at the end of the platform Section 22 to join the LOOP route which passes the station‟s main exit. Harold Wood to Upminster Bridge Once outside the station and on Gubbins Lane turn left then left again into Oak Road. Follow the road straight ahead past Athelstan Road and Ethelburga Road – lots of Saxon names here - and then go down Archibald Road, the third street on the right. Go through the metal barrier onto the gravel road passing the houses on the right and the Ingrebourne River quietly flowing by on the left. Continue on the short stretch of tarmac road to the busier Squirrels Heath Road and turn right. Start: Harold Wood (TQ547905) Station: Harold Wood After a short distance turn left into the modest Brinsmead Road A which Finish: Upminster Bridge (TQ550868) leads to Harold Wood Park. Station: Upminster Bridge Go through the gate and turn immediately right onto the path. Just before Distance: 4 miles (6.9 km) the carpark turn left to follow the tarmac path along the avenue of trees, passing tennis courts on the right. At the end of the path turn left and go past the children‟s playground on the right. A footbridge comes into view on Introduction: This section goes through Pages Wood - a superb new the right. Go over the Ingrebourne River via the wooden footbridge to enter community woodland of 74 hectares, as well as other mysterious woodland, Pages Wood. Turn right and follow the gravel path.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholder Reference: Document Reference
    Stakeholder Reference: Document Reference: Part A Making representation as Resident or Member of the General Public Personal Details Agent’s Details (if applicable) Title Mrs First Name michelle Last Name hilton Job Title (where relevant) Organisation (where relevant) Address …Redacted… Post Code Telephone Number …Redacted… E-mail Address …Redacted… Part B REPRESENTATION To which part of the Pre Submission Epping Forest District Local Plan does this representation relate? Paragraph: Policy: SP 6 Green Belt and District Open Land Policies Map: Yes Site Reference: STAP.R1 Settlement: Stapleford Abbots Do you consider this part of the Pre Submission Local Plan to be: Legally compliant: No Sound: No If no, then which of the soundness test(s) does it fail? Positively prepared,Effective,Justified,Consistent with national policy Complies with the duty to co-operate? No Please give details either of why you consider the Submission Version of the Local Plan is not legally compliant, is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate; or of why the Submission Version of the Local Plan is legally compliant, is sound or complies with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible. Please use this box to set out your comments. I consider the plan is not legal due to the following reasons. Firstly the nature it was applied for, no previous correspondence was sent to the local residence prior to the site being added to the local plan. The site was only added 4 days prior to the current plan being issued and then the site reference was changed!! also the address has been published wrongly.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 9Ra MAY 1975 6069
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 9ra MAY 1975 6069 This application is to replace previous Permit No. posed scheme of artificial recharge of the ground-water 28/39/303120 For the same amount of abstraction. in the Lower Lee. Further details of the application are: in the Parish of A copy of the draft licence and of the plans deposited Chertsey, above. with if may be inspected free of charge at the office of the A copy of the application and of any map, plan or Solicitor to the Authority at Brettenham House (Third other document submitted with it may be inspected free Floor), Lancaster Place, London, WC2E 7EN, and at the of charge at Anningsley Park Farm Office at all reasonable office of the Divisional Manager, Lea Division, " The hours during the period beginning on 1st May 1975, and Grange", Crossbrook Street, Waltham Cross, Hertford- ending oh 5th June 1975. shire, EN8 8LX, at all reasonable hours during the period Any person who wishes to make representations about beginning 9th May 1975 and ending on 13th June 1975. the application should do so in writing to the Divisional Any person wishing to make representations about the Manager, Thames Conservancy Division, Thames Water draft licence should do so in writing to the Solicitor to Authority, Nugent House, Vastem Road, Reading, RG1 the Authority at Brettenham House, Lancaster Place, 9DB, before the end of the said period. London, WC2E 7EN, before the end of the said period. E. R. Hayes, on behalf of Mr. W. M. Vernon. After the expiry of the said period the Authority will be entitled to pass a resolution by virtue of which a 28th April 1975.
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD ENGINEER'S OFFICE Engineers' reports and letter books LEE CONSERVANCY BOARD: ENGINEER'S REPORTS ACC/2423/001 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1881 Jan-1883 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/002 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1884 Jan-1886 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/003 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1887 Jan-1889 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/004 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1890 Jan-1893 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/005 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1894 Jan-1896 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/006 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1897 Jan-1899 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/007 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1903 Jan-1903 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/008 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1904 Jan-1904 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/009 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1905 Jan-1905 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/010 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1906 Jan-1906 Lea navigation Dec 1 volume LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD ACC/2423 Reference Description Dates ACC/2423/011 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1908 Jan-1908 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/012 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1912 Jan-1912 Lea navigation/ stort navigation Dec 1 volume ACC/2423/013 Reports on navigation - signed copies 1913 Jan-1913 Lea navigation/ stort navigation
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Management Plan London Borough Of
    SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAIN LONDON LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD FINAL DRAFT v2.0 Quality Management Quality Management DOCUMENT INFORMATION Title: Surface Water Management Plan for London Borough of Enfield Owner: Ian Russell Version: v3.0 Status: Final Project Number: CS/046913 File Name: DLT2_GP4_Enfield_SWMP Final_V3.0 REVISION HISTORY Date of Summary of Changes Completed By Version Issue Initial draft SI 12/06/2011 1.0 Final Draft SI 01/08/2011 2.0 Final IR 05/01/2012 3.0 AUTHOR Name Organisation and Role Stephanie Ip Senior Consultant, Capita Symonds Ruth Farrar Consultant, Capita Symonds APPROVALS Name Title Signature Date Ruth Goodall Director, Capita Symonds Principal Consultant, Capita Michael Arthur Symonds Ian Russell Senior Engineer, LB Enfield Kevin Reid Programme Manager DISTRIBUTION Name Organisation and Role Ian Russell Senior Engineer, LB Enfield Kevin Reid Programme Manager, GLA RELATED DOCUMENTS Date of Doc Ref Document Title Author Version Issue i Acknowledgements Acknowledgements A number of people and organisations outside Enfield Council have contributed to this Surface Water Management Plan. Their assistance is greatly appreciated, and in particularly inputs and information provided by: • The British Geological Survey • British Waterways • Drain London Group 4 boroughs: o London Borough of Haringey o London Borough of Hackney o London Borough of Waltham Forest o London Borough of Newham o London Borough of Tower Hamlets • The Environment Agency • The Greater London Authority • London Councils • The London Fire Brigade • Network Rail • Thames Water • Transport for London and London Underground ii Executive Summary Executive Summary This document forms the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the London Borough (LB) of Enfield.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Flood Risk Assessment
    London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal First Review August 2014 Contents Page Updating the January 2014 Consultation Draft 3 Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Wider Policy Background 5 1.2 The London Plan 6 1.3 The Sequential Test 8 1.4 How to use this RFRA 9 Chapter 2 - Overview of Flood Risk to London 2.1 Tidal Flood Risk 10 2.2 Fluvial Flood Risk 15 2.3 Surface Water Flood Risk 23 2.4 Foul Sewer Flood Risk 27 2.5 Groundwater Flood Risk 28 2.6 Reservoir Flood Risk 29 Chapter 3 – Spatial Implications of Flood Risk 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Specific Development Areas 33 3.3 Main Rail Network and Stations 47 3.4 London Underground & DLR Network 48 3.5 Main Road Network and Airports 49 3.6 Emergency Services 51 3.7 Schools 52 3.8 Utilities 53 3.9 Other Sites 55 Chapter 4 – Conclusions and Look Ahead 56 Appendix 1 List of Monitoring Recommendations 57 Appendix 2 Glossary 59 Appendix 3 Utility Infrastructure within Flood Risk Zones 60 Appendix 4 Comparison of Flood Risk Data with 2009 RFRA 66 Appendix 5 Flood Risk Maps Separate Document London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal – First Review – August 2014 page 2 of 66 Updating the January 2014 Consultation Draft This document represents an update of the draft, that was published in January 2014, in the light of a three-month consultation. Alongside further assistance by the Environment Agency, this final version of the First Review was also informed by responses the Mayor received from TfL as well as the London Boroughs of Richmond, Havering and Southwark (see Statement of Consultation provided separately).
    [Show full text]
  • Lee Tunnel Pump Rag Test
    Maik Ulmschneider Lee Tunnel Pump Rag Test About the Project Thames Water Utilities Ltd is the UK’s largest water and sewerage company, serving 14 million customers across London and the Thames Valley. London’s 150-year-old Victorian network can no longer accommodate the excess sewage and rainwater. Therefore the 7.6 km Lee Tunnel is the first of two tunnels designed to capture and redirect 16 million tons of stormwater and sewage as part of the 25-km Thames Tideway Scheme. It will run beneath the River Thames through Central London. Buried 85 m underground six single-stage end-suction vertical waste water pumps (KSB SVP- 84) will lift the stormwater and sewage back to the surface, operating in a working range between 3,050 l/s at 87 m and 1,950 l/s at 17 m. Figure 1: Size Comparison Rag Test Requirements Clogging of pumps is a common problem for water companies. When fibrous material, plastics and other debris come together solid ropes can be formed which can lead to reduced pump performance and even pump failure. Then, there is the unpleasant matter of removing the blockage. For crucial pumping stations, such as the Lee Tunnel Beckton Shaft, it is essential to reduce the risk of pump clogging to an absolute minimum. MVB, the consortium comprising Morgan Sindall, Vinci Construction Grands Projects and Bachy Soletanche, which is working with Thames Water to construct the Lee Tunnel, have paid great detail to this aspect of the Lee Tunnel project. Lengthy comprehensive ‘Rag Tests’ Maik Ulmschneider have been performed on the SVP-84 Main Pump by its manufacturer KSB at its GIW Industries factory in Grovetown, Georgia USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026
    Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Prepared for: l Westminster City Council Prepared by: URS Corporation Limited November 2009 44935320 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 November 2009 Issue No 3 44935320 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report Project Title: Westminster Infrastructure Study and Plan Report Title: Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Project No: 44935320 Report Ref: Status: Final Client Contact Name: Mike Fairmaner, Sara Dilmamode Client Company Name: Westminster City Council Issued By: Document Production / Approval Record Issue No: Name Signature Date Position 1 Anthony Batten Prepared 09/11/09 Project Managers by Esther Howe Elena Di Biase 09/11/09 Research Consultant Natalie Thomas 09/11/09 Research Consultant Checked and Project Director Rory Brooke 09/11/09 approved by Document Revision Record Issue No Date Details of Revisions 1 March 2009 Original issue 2 October 2009 Revised draft 3 November 2009 Final report November 2009 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report November 2009 Westminster Infrastructure Plan: Technical Assessment 2006– 2026 Final Report LIMITATION URS Corporation Limited (URS) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Westminster City Council in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by us. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. Unless otherwise stated in this Report, the assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change.
    [Show full text]