Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Relocation Option

Griffith City Council
Griffith Water Reclamation Plant

Relocation Option
Investigation R epor t
March 2008
Griffith City Council
Griffith Water Reclamation Plant
Relocation Option
Investigation Report
HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd

A.B.N. 79 120 716 887
Level 5, 350 Kent Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone: (02) 9249 5100
Facsimile: (02) 9279 2700
Email: hsc@hydroscience.net.au
Document Control
Approved for Issue

Revision Author Reviewer
Name Signature Date
2 EJO AFR Andrew Fraser 7th March 2008
© HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd 2007

This document shall remain the property of HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd. Unauthorised use
of this document in any form is prohibited
Page 2
Executive Summary
Introduction
Griffith City Council (GCC) owns and operates the Griffith water reclamation plant (WRP), which
receives and treats wastewater from Griffith and surrounding areas. In order to meet the
requirements of the Department of Environmental and Climate Change (DECC), GCC has
commenced work on upgrading the WRP in its current location on Duchatel Road, west of
Griffith. To date, a concept design and a review of environmental factors (REF) study have
been completed.
Council has resolved to investigate the option of relocating the WRP to the Bilbul STP site. This
report compares project costs and schedules for upgrading the Griffith WRP at the existing site
and relocating the WRP to the Bilbul STP site.
Bilbul STP Site

The Bilbul STP site is located approximately 12 km east of the Griffith WRP and approximately
4 km from the eastern end of Griffith urban area. The existing Bilbul treatment plant consists of a
lagoon system serving the village of Bilbul. The effluent is discharged into three effluent
evaporation ponds. nother treatment plant owned by the De Bortoli winery is located directly to
the north-east adjacent the Bilbul STP.
Relocation Assessment
Design capacity
The relocated WRP will be designed for hydraulic capacity of 50,000 equivalent persons (EP) and
biological capacity of 60,000 EP. These are the same loadings as proposed for the Duchatel
Road Upgrade (HSc 2007).
Sewerage collection system modifications

Modifications to the existing sewerage collection system are required to redirect sewage to the
Bilbul site. This will be done by redirecting the four main pump stations in Griffith to pump to the
east, through a combination of existing and new rising mains. The system will be separated into
two streams to deliver wastewater to pump station PSG4 located in the east side of the city.
Transfer facilities
The new transfer pump station will be constructed adjacent to PSG4 to deliver the wastewater
to the Bilbul site through an 8 km, dual 500 mm diameter rising mains. The pump station will be
designed with variable speed drives (VSD) to adjust the pumping rate to provide wastewater
continuously to the treatment plant.
WRP facilities
It is anticipated that the Bilbul STP site evaporation pond area will be used to construct a new
treatment plant and the sludge holding ponds will be converted to wet weather storage.
The treatment plant would be similar to the one proposed for the Duchatel Road upgrade,
comprising inlet works, wet weather storage, civil site works, membrane bioreactors (MBR)
treatment, UV disinfection, chemical dosing, biosolids management, control building and
effluent management facilities.
Some facilities that exist in the Duchatel Road site are not available in the Bilbul site, including
inlet works, wet weather storage, chemical storage tanks, effluent ponds and sludge disposal
areas. These will be required to be constructed at the Bilbul site at additional cost. In addition,
site services including access road, water supply and power supply will need to be upgraded.
Y:\Jobs\A046 Griffith WRP Concept Design REF\Documents\A046-002_Relocation_Option_Report\Documents\Draft -

Final\A046-002_GCC_WPR_Relocation_Options_Rev2.doc
Page 3
The Bilbul site would enable a more compact design than the Duchatel Road site, as there are
no existing structures on site. This may act to reduce the cost of civil works, pipework and
internal roads.
Effluent management facilities

Treated effluent will be used on site, with the excess effluent discharged to a Murrumbidgee
Irrigation (MI) drainage canal adjacent to the Bilbul site, subject to MI approval and DECC
issuing a licence. It is understood GCC will pursue the opportunity for agricultural reuse in the
future. It is not considered likely that transferring effluent back to Griffith for urban reuse will be
economically feasible.
Regulatory requirements
The existing Bilbul STP does not have a DECC license to discharge treated wastewater. The
upgrade is likely to require an environmental impact statement (EIS), a more onerous process
than the REF completed for the Duchatel Road site.
Relocating the WRP to Bilbul will require a new licence from DECC and a Section 60 approval
from the Department of Water and Energy (DWE).
Cost Estimate
The estimated total construction and operating costs for the two alternative sites, excluding GST,
are shown in Table 1. The costs include the modifications required to the collection system and
the transfer system to the Bilbul STP.
Table 1: Stage 1 Preliminary Cost Estimate
Total Cost Operating Cost

WRP location ($ million) ($/year)
Bilbul site $ 50.6 $1,689,000
Duchatel Road site $ 24.0 $1,607,500
Timing
The project schedule could be impacted substantially if the option to relocation the facilities is
selected. It is anticipated that the projects will be delayed 12 -18 months plus extra construction
time.
The pollution reduction program (PRP) issued to GCC by the DECC requires GCC to upgrade the
GWRP by June 2009. The PRP is part of the licence for the operation of the GWRP, and GCC
may face prosecution if it does not comply with the PRP. It is unlikely that the target date of
June 2009 could be met with either option. DECC representatives have indicated, however,
that provided GCC proceeds with the upgrade project without delays, DECC would consider
extending the time to meet the requirements of the PRP.

Page 4
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................2
Bilbul STP Site .................................................................................................................................................................2
Relocation Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................2
Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................................................3
Timing .............................................................................................................................................................................3
Contents ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 Background.......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade .....................................................................................................7

1.2 Previous studies .....................................................................................................................................................7
1.3 Objectives..............................................................................................................................................................7
1.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................7
2 Bilbul STP Site..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................................9

2.2 Existing Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................9
3 Relocation Assessment ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Wastewater Loading .........................................................................................................................................11
3.1.1 Hydraulic loading ......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Biological loading......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Proposed design loading............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Effluent Quality....................................................................................................................................................12

3.3 Transfer Facilities .................................................................................................................................................12
3.3.1 Sewerage collection system upgrades...................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Stream 1......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.3 Stream 2......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.3.4 Transfer pump station ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.5 Transfer rising main ....................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.6 Other collection system facilities ................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Site Facilities.........................................................................................................................................................20
3.4.1 Water.............................................................................................................................................. 20
3.4.2 Power supply................................................................................................................................. 20
3.4.3 SCADA ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Page 5
3.4.4 Stormwater drainage.................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.5 Land ............................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.6 Access ........................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4.7 Site work ........................................................................................................................................ 21
3.5 Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................................................................21
3.5.1 Facilities similar to both WRP locations....................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Inlet works...................................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.3 Sedimentation tanks..................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.4 Civil site works............................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.5 Wet weather storage .................................................................................................................... 23
3.5.6 Control building ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.7 Chemical storage and dosing .................................................................................................... 24
3.5.8 Sludge disposal............................................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Effluent Management Facilities .......................................................................................................................24
3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 24
3.6.2 Murrumbidgee Irrigation discharge............................................................................................ 24
3.6.3 On-site recycled water uses........................................................................................................ 25
3.6.4 Agricultural reuse.......................................................................................................................... 25
3.6.5 Effluent management assessment .............................................................................................. 25
3.7 Regulatory framework.......................................................................................................................................25
4 Environmental Assessment....................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................26

4.2 Odours..................................................................................................................................................................26
4.3 Flora and Fauna .................................................................................................................................................26
4.4 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................................................26
4.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................................26
4.6 Heritage ...............................................................................................................................................................26
5 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 27
5.1 Construction Costs .............................................................................................................................................27

5.2 Operating Costs .................................................................................................................................................27
6 Impact on Sewerage Charges................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................28

6.2 Modelling .............................................................................................................................................................28

Page 6
7 Implementation............................................................................................................................... 31
7.1 Time Frame ..........................................................................................................................................................31

7.2 Schedule ..............................................................................................................................................................31
8 Abbreviations and Glossary...................................................................................................... 33
9 References......................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Existing Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................36
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................. 37
Proposed Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................37

Page 7
1 Background
1.1 Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade
Griffith City Council (GCC) owns and operates the Griffith water reclamation plant (WRP),
located on Duchatel Road approximately 3 kilometres west of the Griffith city centre. The WRP
receives and treats wastewater from residential and industrial customers in Griffith and
surrounding areas.
Treated effluent is discharged to Murrumbidgee Irrigation (MI) drainage canal which conveys
the water to Main Drain J, Mirrool Creek and Barren Box Swamp.
The Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) requires an improvement to the
quality of effluent in order to reduce the environment impact of the WRP. In addition, residents
of West Griffith have been impacted by odours from the plant.
GCC has resolved to upgrade the WRP in order to address these issues.
1.2 Previous studies

In 2004, GCC commissioned a study that considered possible alternatives to upgrading the WRP,
including possible relocation sites (WSL 2004). This study evaluated selection criteria in a
workshop forum to rank possible site. The selection criteria was based on 14 criteria including,
but not limited to, the following:
Buffer zone;
Prevailing wind;
Flora, fauna and natural heritage issues; and
Land Cost
Based on this investigation, Council decided that upgrading the WRP at the existing site was the
preferred option. Design of upgrades to the Griffith WRP have progressed to a concept design
level and included a review of environmental factors (REF).
The adopted process for the upgraded WRP is membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment. This is a
modern process that will meet the water quality objectives specified by DECC. The MBR process
has low odour impact, and it is expected that odours from the upgraded plant will not affect
residential properties (HSc/Hyder 2007).
1.3 Objectives
This investigation was commissioned by GCC in response to concerns by residents of West Griffith
regarding the proposed upgrade of the WRP in Duchatel Road.
The objective of this report is to estimate the cost and other impacts of constructing a new
WRP in a different location, and compare them to the proposed upgrade at the Duchatel Road
site.
The site of the existing Bilbul sewage treatment plant was adopted as the alternative location.
1.4 Methodology
This investigation reviewed site factors and identified works required for relocating the WRP to
the Bilbul site including:
Transfer facilities
Site facilities

Page 8
Treatment facilities
Effluent management facilities
Regulatory Framework
The main treatment process and effluent management for the Bilbul site will be similar to those
proposed for the Duchatel Road site, as defined in the concept design report (HSc 2007).
Additional works required for the relocation have been identified.
A preliminary environmental assessment has been carried out in order to identify any major
issues associated with relocating the WRP to the Bilbul site.
Capital and operating costs have been developed to provide differential costing between the
two sites. The cost estimates are based on the Department of Water and Energy (DWE)
Reference Rates Manual, suppliers’ prices and HSc’s experience. NSW financial planning model
(FINMOD) has been used to calculate the required typical residential bill to fund this option for
the next 30 years.
Scheduling impacts to GCC time frame in completing the construction of a new WRP have
been assessed and compared to the current project time line.

Page 9
2 Bilbul STP Site

2.1 Location
The Bilbul sewage treatment plant (STP) is located on the corner of Low and Prior roads in Bilbul,
approximately 12 km east of the Griffith WRP and approximately 4 km from the eastern end of
Griffith urban area as shown in Figure 1. The site is approximately 5.5 ha in size (WSL 2004),
measuring approximately 320 m long by 160 m wide. The surrounding land use is mainly
agricultural and is divided up into 20 ha blocks.
2.2 Existing Facilities

The existing treatment plant consists of a lagoon system serving the village of Bilbul. The plant
was constructed in 1990 and is designed with a capacity 310 equivalent persons (EP). The
treatment plant consists of primary and secondary oxidation lagoons designed for 33 days of
detention at average dry weather flow (ADWF) and a maturation lagoon designed for 30 days
of detention at ADWF (Public Works 1990). The oxidation of the Biological Oxygen Demand
(BOD) occurs without mechanical aeration. The effluent is discharged into three evaporation
ponds. Another lagoon is used for holding effluent during a wet year.
To the north-west of the site, three sludge lagoons are used to digest the sludge that
accumulates in the lagoons.
A separate treatment plant, serving the De Bortoli winery, is located adjacent to the Bilbul STP
within the same block of land, directly to the north-east. Plant upgrades are currently being
constructed.

Page 11
3 Relocation Assessment
3.1 Wastewater Loading
The hydraulic and biological loadings for the Griffith catchment area have been estimated in
the Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade Concept Design Report (HSc 2007).
3.1.1 Hydraulic loading

WRP relocation to the Bilbul STP site would include the flows from Griffith and from Bilbul. The
projected 2035 loadings for the relocated WRP are shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: Design Parameters (year 2035)
Parameter Total EP
Current loading 25,238
Growth (excluding Lake Wyangan) 14,630

Lake Wyangan area 8,625
Bilbul area 265 1
Total 48,493
Note 1: Based on a total estimated ET of 104 (GHD 2003) in 2030 plus 1.6 additional ETs per year.
3.1.2 Biological loading

The biological loading is expected to be similar to the existing site. A peak BOD concentration
of 400 mg/L was adopted by GCC for the Duchatel Road site upgrade. This loading is slightly
higher than normal domestic strength sewage, reflecting the potential for higher loads from
industry.
3.1.3 Proposed design loading

Loading to the WRP will remain as previously proposed for the Duchatel Road site. Table 3 lists
the preliminary design parameters used in estimating the cost for the relocation option.

Page 12
Table 3: Design Parameters
Design Criteria
No Parameter Unit Stage 1 Stage 2

1 EP loadings EP Hydraulic 37,500 Hydraulic 50,000
Biological 45,000 Biological 60,000
2 Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) ML/day 7.9 10.5
3 Peak dry weather flow (PDWF) ML/day 15.8 14.0
4 Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) 1 ML/day 23.7 31.5
5 Average BOD mg/l 250
6 Peak BOD mg/l 400
7 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 460
8 Total Nitrogen (TN) mg/l 50
9 Total Phosphorus (TP) mg/l 14
10 Electrical Conductivity (EC) μS/m 1200
11 pH pH unit 7
Note 1: PWWF is 3 *ADWF.
3.2 Effluent Quality

While the DECC is yet to be consulted about the required effluent quality discharged from the
Bilbul site, it has been assumed that they would be similar to the PRP requirements for the
Duchatel Road. These are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Effluent Quality Criteria

No Parameter Unit Limit
1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/l 10
2 Suspended Solids (SS) mg/l 15
3 Total Phosphorus (P) mg/l 0.3
4 Total Nitrogen (N) mg/l 10
5 Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/l 2
6 Oil and Grease mg/l 2
7 Thermo Tolerant Coliforms Cfu/100 ml 200
8 pH pH unit 6.5-8.5
3.3 Transfer Facilities
3.3.1 Sewerage collection system upgrades

The existing sewerage collection system delivers wastewater from the Griffith catchment area to
the WRP located in the west side of the city via four main pump stations identified as PSG1,
PSG2, PSG3 and PSG4. Figure 2 shows the schematic of the existing Griffith sewerage system.
Modifications to the sewerage collection system would be required to redirect the sewage to
the east side of Griffith. This would include redirecting the four main pump stations. A

Page 13
combination of existing and new rising mains would be needed to connect these pump stations.
It is proposed that the collection system be separated into two streams to deliver wastewater to
pump station PSG4 located in the east side. The option of providing multiple pump stations on a
single rising main exist, however only a maximum of two pump station connections are
recommended for each stream. This will provide a more flexible operational scheme collection
system and similar peak flows for each stream. A schematic of the proposed modifications is
shown on Figure 3.
Stream 1 would include, collecting wastewater from the following areas:
Current residents east of the city centre and Willandra Avenue via pump station PSG3;
Future residential development planned for North Griffith, Hanwood and South Griffith;
and
Future industrial development planned for South Griffith (Stage 2 and 3).
Stream 2 would include all the wastewater from residents currently connected to pump stations
PSG1and PSG2 and future residential development planned for South Griffith (Stage 1).
The remaining sewage collected at pump station PSG4 will be directed to a new transfer pump
station located adjacent pump station PSG4.

Page 16
The proposed modifications required to the existing collection system to deliver wastewater to
the Bilbul STP site are described below and shown on Figure 4. The transfer would proceed once
a new treatment plant has been commissioned. A detailed plan of the proposed shutdown
schedule would be required to reconnect the rising mains. The sewerage system collection
would be maintained during construction and shutdown timing would be critical, for there will
only be a very limited time available for shutdown.
3.3.2 Stream 1
Connect pump station PSG3 to rising mains: Approximately 400 metres of new dual
300mm rising mains are required to connect the existing rising mains to a location where
it is anticipated the north Griffith facilities will be connected in the future. From there, the
diameter of the dual main will be increased to 375mm to provide for the future capacity
from the north Griffith development. The new dual 375mm diameter rising mains will be
approximately 300 metres long and will connect to rising mains located east of the break
pressure facility. From there the wastewater will be delivered to pump station PSG4 via
the existing RG1A, RG1B and RG4 rising mains.
Upgrade pump station PSG3 and PSG7: Pump station PSG3 and PSG7 will be upgrade
as part of the existing development plan. The capacity of pump station PSG3 will
eventually be increased to provide two pumps sized for the ultimate capacity and a
standby pump. Pump station PSG7 will be upgraded in the future to deliver the
anticipated flows from the North Griffith development to the Duchatel Road site once
the outflow capacity is reached (GHD 2006). These upgrades required for the relocation
but are considered similar to planned upgrades proposed for the Duchatel Road site
and therefore costs have not been included for the relocation.
Connect PSG7 to rising mains: Planned development for the North Griffith
development includes connecting pump station PSG7 to the Griffith WRP via
approximately 2,300 metres of pipeworks. The relocation will require pump station PSG7
be connected to the new dual pipeline via approximately 1,800 metres of pipeline to
deliver wastewater collected at pump station PSG7 to the eastern side of the city. These
improvements would be required in the future once flows from the North Griffith
development increases above the outflow capacity of PSG7. The construction cost for
the pipeline extension for the current planned development and the construction cost
that would be required for the improvements associated with this relocation option are
considered similar. Therefore, costs for these facilities have not been included in the
estimated cost for the relocation project for it is considered that the cost is already
included in the anticipated development.
Connect South Griffith Industrial: Two areas located on the west side of Griffith have
been planned for future development in stage 2 and stage 3 (GHD 2003). If these areas
were developed the rising mains would need to be extended to PSG3 to deliver these
flows to the west side of the city. The extension would include approximately 2,400
metres of dual 200mm rising mains.
3.3.3 Stream 2
Connect pump station PSG1: PSG1 will be redirected to the east by connecting the
dual 200mm rising mains RG2A and RG2B. Based on estimated flows anticipated from
pump station PSG1 a diameter of 250mm is selected. RG2A and RG2B rising mains
between PSG1 and the intersection point with PSG2 are in poor condition and will need
to be replaced. At present these rising mains are only used during maintenance of rising
main RG4. All the current flow from pump station PSG2 goes directly to rising main RG4.
The options for this connection would be to build 2 new rising mains from pump station
PSG1 or direct pump station PSG1 directly into rising main RG4. For the purposes of this
study, it is anticipated that PSG1 will be combined with flow from PSG2 and delivered to
pump station PSG4 via new pipeworks to keep the two streams separate. This option
would be developed further if the Bilbul site option is selected.

Page 17
Upgrade pump station PSG2: Pump station PSG2 will be upgraded as part of the
existing development plan.
Upgrade rising mains RG2A and RG2B: Upgrades for rising mains RG2A and RG2B will
be required for either alternative downstream of pump station PSG2. Costs for these
upgrades have not been included in the additional cost estimate for the relocated WRP.
Connect rising mains RG2A and RG2B: The dual rising mains identified as RG2A and
RG2B will be used to deliver wastewater from pump stations PSG1 and PSG2 to a
common location between the two pump stations where a new 600mm pipeline will be
connected. The new 600mm pipeline will be approximately 1.9 km long and will be used
to deliver wastewater to pump station PSG4.

Page 19
3.3.4 Transfer pump station

A new transfer pump station located adjacent PSG4 will be required to deliver all wastewater
collected in the Griffith area catchment, and possible wastewater collected in the future
development for the Lake Wyangan area catchment, to the Bilbul site. The pump station will be
sized for peak wet weather flow of 6 x ADWF typical for sewage pump station.
The upgrading of the pump station will be staged as shown in the following Table 5.
Table 5: New transfer pump station capacity
Stage 1 Stage 2
No. of pumps 1 duty, 1 standby 2 duty, 1 standby

Capacity (L/s) 1 550 L/s 730 L/s
Note 1: Pump station capacity equal to 6 x ADWF.
Construction of the pump station wet well will include space for one additional pump that will
be installed in stage 2.
3.3.5 Transfer rising main

New pipeline facilities will be required to deliver wastewater from PSG4 to the Bilbul site. The
route is approximately 8 km. GCC would like to build a dual rising main for this purpose. Dual
rising mains will provide an alternative means of delivering wastewater to the Bilbul site if one
pipeline is out of service for any reason.
A preliminary assessment of the anticipated route for the potential pipeline was conducted on
22 January 2008. The pipeline route crosses two MI canals. The first canal is a supply canal,
adjacent to the proposed location of the new transfer pump station. The second canal is Main
Drain J, located along Burley Griffin Way. Main Drain J is the main drainage canal within the
Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, transferring runoff water from agricultural and urban areas to
Mirrool Creek and Barren Box Swamp.
A preliminary cost for the proposed transfer pipeline has been estimated using the following
criteria:
Ductile iron pipe material;
Maximum velocity at ultimate peak wet weather flow of 2.0 m/s;
Minimum velocity of 1.0 m/s during current peak wet weather flow; and
Detention time not to exceed 5 hours where possible.
Based upon these criteria, the dual rising mains are sized at 500mm diameter for a
maximum flow of 1.9 m/s during ultimate PWWF and a minimum flow of 1.4 m/s during
current PWWF with both pipelines is use.
The pump station will be designed with variable speed drives (VSD), enabling GCC to adjust the
pumping rate to avoid peaks at the treatment plant and save energy. The VSD will be
programmed to automatically increase the flow to achieve scouring velocity at regular intervals.
3.3.6 Other collection system facilities

Other upgraded sewerage collection facilities are required to meet anticipated population
growth in the area. These facilities are not included in the cost estimate provided in this report
since they are required regardless of whether the WRP is relocated.

Page 20
3.4 Site Facilities
3.4.1 Water
There is no water supply currently connected to the site. A 150mm water main located
approximately 1.5 km from the site would be connected to the Bilbul STP.
3.4.2 Power supply

No power supply is currently connected to the site. Power is available at the adjacent De Bortoli
treatment plant, but it is not known if the infrastructure is sufficient to supply power to the
proposed WRP.
If this option is developed further, Country Energy will be contacted and the closest available
connection made. Energy supplied to the GWRP will be purchased from council’s nominated
energy vendor via the Country Energy distribution network.
The preliminary estimate of the required power is 800 kw (1000 kVA) for Stage 1 and 1000 kw
(1250 kVA) for stage 2. It is proposed to install 1500 kVA on site, through two 750 kVA
transformers. Power factor correction equipment will also be incorporated into this supply
network to reduce wasted energy. This needs to be evaluated again during detailed design.
No allowance has been made in the cost estimates for bringing in power from a distance. If this
is required, it would add to the cost of the relocation.
3.4.3 SCADA
SCADA is used to monitor and control the system remotely. It is expected that the SCADA
system for the Bilbul site will be similar to the one proposed for the Duchatel Road site.
The SCADA network will communicate with GCC wide area SCADA system and other treatment
facilities over Council’s existing radio based link.
3.4.4 Stormwater drainage

The site drains to MI’s drainage canal located along Prior Road. The stormwater drainage
system will be retained. This will be limited to clean stormwater. A foul drainage system will
capture stormwater which may be contaminated.
The existing evaporation pond berms would be levelled and the site would be allowed to drain
over the natural course and into the MI drainage canals.
3.4.5 Land
It is anticipated that there is sufficient area within the Bilbul STP site for construction of the new
treatment facilities and wet weather storage. Further analysis is required to verify that the area
selected for development in this study is available.
If the site is not available, additional land will need to be purchased. The cost of acquiring 4 ha
of land is estimated at $20,000, a small amount when compared to the total project cost.
3.4.6 Access
The existing access road to the Bilbul Site branches off from Lowe Road. It is proposed to
maintain this point for site access. The road will need to be upgrade as part of the proposed
development at the Bilbul site and is included in the cost estimate.
The internal road system will be similar to the one proposed for the Duchatel Road site. It will
allow easy access for vehicles to the site components. Access is required for light vehicles used
by the operators, as well as for large trucks delivering chemicals and components of equipment.

Page 21
3.4.7 Site work

Fencing around the site will be maintained north of the evaporation pond and around the
treatment lagoons. Construction of a new fence and gate will be required around the site.
3.5 Treatment Facilities

The Bilbul site is sufficient to construct a new MBR treatment plant, provided that evaporation
ponds can be utilised. A preliminary site layout is shown on Figure 5.
The treatment facilities will be similar to those described in the concept design for the Duchatel
Road site upgrade (HSc 2007), with the following differences:
A new inlet works will incorporate coarse and fine screens
Excess wet weather flows will be diverted to wet weather storage ponds after screening,
but without primary sedimentation.
A new chemical handling area will be used
Digested sludge will be disposed of off-site

Page 23
3.5.1 Facilities similar to both WRP locations

A list of new facilities that have been proposed for the Duchatel Road site that will be
maintained for the Bilbul site is shown below. It is anticipated that costs for these facilities will
remain the same for either alternative.
Biological treatment tanks (bioreactors)
Membrane system
UV disinfection
Biosolids dewatering facilities and standby (geotube) systems
Control building with air blowers, motor control room, lab and office
Chemical dosing facility
3.5.2 Inlet works

The Duchatel Road WRP has an existing inlet works that would be utilised for the upgraded plant,
with the addition of fine screens.
A new inlet works will be required at the Bilbul site, incorporating the following processes:
1. flow attenuation
2. mechanical coarse screen
3. grit removal
4. diversion to wet weather storage
5. fine screens
3.5.3 Sedimentation tanks

The existing sedimentation tanks at the Duchatel Road site are included in the planned
upgrade, to provide sedimentation to wastewater that is diverted for wet whether storage. No
sedimentation tanks are proposed for a new facility located at the Bilbul STP site.
3.5.4 Civil site works

New treatment components at the Duchatel Road site were sited in areas available for
development. Consequently, the bioreactors will be located some distance from the inlet
works.
The Bilbul site would allow a more compact design, locating the inlet works in close proximity to
the bioreactors. Additionally, no conflicting existing facilities were identified in the preliminary
site assessment that would need to be avoided when routing civil site works.
3.5.5 Wet weather storage

When the flow into plant exceeds the capacity of the bioreactors or in case of major failure in
the bioreactor equipment, flows will be transferred to the emergency/ wet weather storage
ponds.
The Bilbul site will need storage similar to the planned storage at the Duchatel Road site of
approximately 40 ML. It is assumed for this study that the sludge holding ponds located in the
north-west portion of the site will be cleaned and converted to wet weather storage. If the
relocation option is selected, further evaluation will be required to insure that these ponds may
be used. Also, depths of these ponds need to be confirmed. For purposed of estimating cost
the depth of these ponds are assumed to be similar to the depth of the pond at the Griffith WRP.
Based on a surface area assessment, a total of two ponds will be required. One pond will

Page 24
remain for sludge holding during the construction and utilised for either sludge drying or
additional wet weather storage once construction has been completed.
3.5.6 Control building

A control building would be constructed to house the motor starters for the electrical
equipment, the SCADA system, the air blowers, the laboratory, site office and staff amenities.
The building for the Bilbul site will be larger than the building in the Duchatel Road site, as the
existing building at the Griffith WRP will be maintained to house some of the motor controls.
3.5.7 Chemical storage and dosing

Chemical storage tanks and dosing pumps exist at the Duchatel Road site, and will be utilised
for the proposed upgrade.
For the Bilbul site, a new chemical storage and dosing facility will be required. These will include
a bunded area, tanks and dosing pumps.
3.5.8 Sludge disposal

GCC plans to utilise permanently installed mechanical dewatering equipment and incorporate
the dewatered biosolids into the soil on site at the Ductatel Road site. The Bilbul site would need
to provide the same equipment for dewatering but does not have the land available to dispose
of the dewatered sludge onsite. This study assumes that the Bilbul site option would require a
new dedicated disposal truck that could transport the sludge to a landfill. Capital cost for
purchasing the disposal truck and operational cost for hauling the sludge have been included in
the cost estimate.
3.6 Effluent Management Facilities
3.6.1 Introduction
The existing Bilbul STP uses evaporation for effluent management. The additional surface area
required to use evaporative ponds sized for the Griffith WRP are prohibitive.
The MBR treatment process adopted by Council for the Griffith WRP and proposed for a new
treatment plant on the Bilbul site provides high quality water suitable for many types of recycling.
The main areas proposed for the Bilbul site for using recycled water will be similar to the existing
site as follows:
Discharge to MI drainage canal
On site maintenance and irrigation
Irrigation reuse for agricultural lands
These effluent management areas are discussed further in this section. It is unlikely that effluent
from the Bilbul site will be transferred to Griffith for urban reuse due to distance.
3.6.2 Murrumbidgee Irrigation discharge

MI controls the water supply and drainage system in the area. The existing Griffith WRP
discharges to the drainage system which eventually flows to Mirrool Creek.
A drainage canal exists along the north-west edge of the Bilbul site that could be used to
discharge effluent similar to the approach used at the Duchatel Road site. Discharges for both
options would flow into the through Main Drain J and Mirrool Creek to the Barren Box Swamp, for
reuse by downstream irrigators. MI agreement would be required.
Facility improvements would include an outfall box and improvements to the existing canal
between the site and Main Drain J. The size of the drainage canal is likely to have sufficient

Page 25
capacity to receive flows from the WRP. A complete analysis of the canal capacity, including
an environmental assessment would be necessary if the relocation option was selected.
3.6.3 On-site recycled water uses

An on-site recycled water system could be utilised in a manner similar to the approach taken for
the Duchatel Road site. Such uses include hosing down, sludge dewatering, screening and grit
washing. The recycled water would also be used for landscape irrigation.
3.6.4 Agricultural reuse

The location of the Bilbul STP site, in the midst of an agricultural area, creates an opportunity for
using recycled water on farms. Council has advised that there may be opportunities to supply
recycled water for irrigation on private land for horticulture, viticulture, orange orchards and rice
farming. During drought periods when allocations are reduced it is likely that all of the users
described above would be interested in this and would be able to take all the effluent from the
WRP.
As identified in previous studies, salinity may be an issue for this type of use. The influent to the
plant has high salinity, with electrical conductivity (EC) around 1200 μs/cm (around 800 mg/L of
dissolved salts). None of the conventional sewage treatment processes, including the MBR
process, reduce the salinity of the water, and therefore it can be expected that a similar level of
salinity will exist in the effluent of the plant. Typically crops and grasses that may be considered
for reuse of the effluent have tolerance for salinity levels of up to 800 μs/cm (around 500 mg/L).
The high salinity of the effluent is likely to limit the agricultural use of effluent, unless it can be
reduced.
Options available that could reduce salt concentration include dilution with canal water, source
salt reduction, reverse osmosis (RO) and/or electro dialysis removal (EDR). These options are
similar for both sites.
3.6.5 Effluent management assessment

Initially, effluent would be reused on-site, with the excess discharged to the MI Canal, subject to
MI and DECC approval. It is expected GCC would pursue opportunities for agricultural reuse in
the future.
For both location options, the approach to effluent reuse would be similar. One advantage at
the Duchatel Road site would be that the existing storage ponds could provide approximately
500 to 600 ML of effluent storage which would be vital in any future effluent management
scheme. At this time, effluent storage ponds will not be required for the MI discharge option. If
the MI discharge option is not available, effluent storage ponds would need to be added at the
Bilbul site. Cost for this potential addition has not been included in the cost estimate below.
3.7 Regulatory framework

The existing Bilbul STP does not have a licence to discharge treated effluent. If the proposed
Griffith WRP was relocated to the Bilbul site, DECC licence and the Department of Water and
Energy (DWE) section 60 approvals would be required.

Page 26
4 Environmental Assessment
4.1 Requirements
What follows is a preliminary environmental assessment for the existing STP Bilbul Site. The existing
use of the site is sewage treatment. However, constructing a water reclamation plant with a
capacity of 50,000 EP may be considered a significant change from the current use.
The environmental assessment required for relocating the WRP to the Bilbul site will be either a
review of environmental factors (REF) as completed for the Duchatel Road site, or a more
detailed assessment in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The upgrade of Bilbul STP may not be an exempt development under clause 107 of the State
Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007. It is more likely to fall within the category of
Division 18 Sewerage Systems in the SEPP Infrastructure, which requires an EIS to be prepared. A
‘significance of impact assessment’ is required to determine if an EIS is required.
It is expected that the use of recycled water may require the preparation of a separate EIS.
4.2 Odours
The site is located in the vicinity of 20 ha blocks used mainly for agricultural production. Most of
the residential houses are located in Bilbul village which is approximately 1.2 km to the north.
The proposed MBR process has low odours that are unlikely to impact neighbouring properties.
The only potential source of odours is the inlet works, which will be provided with ventilation and
odour treatment facilities.
Even though odour impacts are likely to be negligible, GCC may nominate a buffer zone of
400m, similar to that at the existing STP. It appears that no houses are within 400 m from the Bilbul
STP, the closest being approximately 600 m to the north. This needs to be confirmed.
4.3 Flora and Fauna

The Bilbul site is located on agricultural land that has been heavily modified and degraded. The
surrounding area is also agricultural land with similar characteristics. It is not likely that the flora
and fauna will impact this project. A complete Flora and Fauna assessment will be needed if
this option is chosen.
4.4 Geology and Soils

There are likely similar geology and soil constraints present at both WRP locations. If the Bilbul site
option is selected, further site specific investigations will be require to confirm mitigation
measures. Since a sewage treatment plant exists on the Bilbul site there is a potential for land
contamination. During construction mitigation for land contamination will need to be
managed.
4.5 Groundwater
Geotechnical and a field investigation will be required for the Bilbul site if further consideration is
proposed. It is possible that high groundwater table is a constraint, similar to the Duchatel Road
site. These are listed in the REF for the upgrade of Griffith WRP (HSc/Hyder 2007).
4.6 Heritage
As the site has been disturbed, it is unlikely that heritage issues exist. However, a heritage
assessment would be required for the new site if Council was to progress the relocation of the
WRP to the Bilbul site.

Page 27
5 Cost Estimates
5.1 Construction Costs
The estimated construction cost for the GWRP and the relocation site option, excluding GST, are
shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Preliminary Cost Estimate for relocation option

$ million, excluding GST
Design and
Total Cost
Project
Option Construction Management Contingencies Stage 1 Stage 2
Bilbul WRP Cost 1 $21.6 $2.5 2 $4.3 $28.4 $6.0
Transfer Facilities 3 $15.6 $1.9 4 $4.7 $22.2 $2.4 5
Total for Bilbul site $37.2 $4.4 $9.0 $50.6 $8.4
Total for Duchatel
$18.75 $1.5 $3.75 $24.0 $6.0
Road site 6
Notes:
1. Including effluent management as described above
2. Including EIS
3. Excluding decommissioning cost for GWRP or abandoned pipelines
4. Including concept/detailed design and REF
5. Only includes additional cost for collection and transfer facilities if relocation is selected
6. From HSc 2007.
5.2 Operating Costs

The annual operating costs are listed in Table 7.
Table 7: Estimated Annual Operating Costs

Annual Operating Costs Qty Unit Unit cost Total
Labour 1 10,650 HRS $70.00 $745,500
Chemicals 1 LS $150,000 $150,000
Power 2 1,350,000 KWH $0.11 $148,500
Supplies 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Equipment and Maintenance 1 LS $55,000 $55,000
Sampling and Laboratory Analysis 1 LS $300,000 $300,000
Membrane Replacement ($2M per 10 years) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Sludge Hauling Cost (approx 80 trips per year) 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Membrane Cleaning (2 membrane per year) 2 LS $10,000 $20,000
Total for Bilbul Site $1,689,000
Total for Duchatel Road site $1,607,500

Note 1: including an additional 250 HRS for hauling sludge to landfill.
Note 2: including an additional 400,000 KWH for operation of the transfer facilities.
Note 3: Source (HSe 2007).

Page 28
6 Impact on Sewerage Charges

6.1 Introduction
As shown in the previous section, relocating the WRP to the Bilbul site is estimated to cost
significantly more than upgrading the plant at the Duchatel Road site.
The NSW Financial Planning Model (FINMOD) was used to assess the impact of the relocation on
sewerage user charges. FINMOD is a long-term financial planning tool used by local water
utilities in NSW to forecast the required user charges for water supply and for sewerage services.
The input data to FINMOD includes growth rates, developer charges, operation maintenance
and administration cost and capital works program. FINMOD is owned and maintained by the
DWE.
6.2 Modelling
Two cases were created using FINMOD, one for each locations. The input data for both cases is
similar with the exception of the capital works program and operations cost.
The results of the modelling indicate that:
For the Duchatel Road site, the estimated typical residential bill (TRB) will need to
increase from the current $376 pa to $440 pa.
For the Bilbul site option, the TRB will need to be increased to $525 pa.
These figures are in 2008 dollars. This will need to be adjusted annually for the effect of inflation.
Upgrading the WRP at the Duchatel site will require borrowing in the order of $23 million while
relocating the WRP to the Bilbul site will increase the required borrowing to $48 million.
Graphic presentation of the input data and the results is shown below.
Figure 6: Typical Residential Bills
Typical Residential Bills (2007/08$)

600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
1 Duchatel Road 2 Bilbul

Page 29
Table 8: FINMOD Inputs

Inputs Duchatel Road Bilbul Site
Average Growth Rate (%) 1.9 1.9
Inflation Rate (%) 2.5 2.5
Borrowing Interest Rate (%) 6.5 6.5
Investment Interest Rate (%) 5.5 5.5
Typical Developer Charges ($/ET) 1,769 1,769
Total Capital Works (2007/08 $M) 74.5 103
Grants for Capital Works (2007/08 $M) 0.0 0.0
Minimum Cash and Investment 1.4 0.4
(2007/08 $M)
Cash and Investment at Final Year 8.2 13.9
(2007/08 $M)
Borrowings Outstanding at Final Year 0.8 1.4
(2007/08 $M)
Figure 7: Total Capital Works
Total Capital Works

30000 30000
25000 25000
20000 20000
15000 15000
10000 10000
5000 5000
0 0
Case 1 Case 2
Total Capital Works (2007/08 $M) 74.5 103.0

Page 30
Figure 8: Borrowing Outstanding
Borrowing Outstanding
50000 50000
45000 45000
40000 40000
35000 35000
30000 30000
25000 25000
20000 20000
15000 15000
10000 10000
5000 5000
0 0

Page 31
7 Implementation
7.1 Time Frame
The pollution reduction program (PRP) issued to GCC by DECC requires GCC to upgrade the
GWRP by June 2009. The PRP is part of the licence for the operation of the GWRP, and GCC
may face prosecution if it does not comply with the PRP.
As discussed later in this section, it is unlikely that the target date of June 2009 could be met with
either option. DECC representatives have indicated that provided GCC is proceeding with the
upgrade project without delays, DECC would consider extending the time to meet the
requirements of the PRP.
7.2 Schedule
The project schedule will be impacted substantially if the option to relocate the WRP to the Bilbul
site is selected. Council would need to complete the following project tasks:
Review of environmental factors (REF) or EIS;
Concept design, including new concept design for transfer facilities not included in the
previous report.
The new transfer facilities add complexity to the design and are likely to extend project
construction. The reason is that the WRP in the Bilbul site must be ready and commissioned
before the transfer system is commissioned. There are also no backup facilities as exist in the
Duchatel Road site. The commissioning will require additional planning and resources.
Further, relocating the plant to the Bilbul site will require the construction of pipes in the Griffith
urban area. These construction activities would have impact on the residents of Griffith.
Figure 9 below compares the schedule of the two options for upgrading the GWRP. If GCC
selects the Bilbul site option, it is anticipated that the projects will be delayed approximately 12-
18 months.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Key Project Task Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Griffith WRP
REF and Concept Design Reports/ Adoption
Membrane Selection Tender/ Selection/ Adoption
Detailed Design Tender/ Design/ Adoption
Construction and Commissioning
Tender/ Construction/ Commissioning
WRP Relocation to Bilbul
EIS* and Concept Design Reports/ Adoption
Detailed Design Tender/ Design/ Adoption
Construction and Commissioning
Tender/ Construction/ Commissioning
* If EIS is not required an REF and concept design would take 6-8 months
Legend
Consulting Engineer Task Council Adoption

Griffith City Council Task Contractor Task
Figure 9
Griffith Relocation WRP
Schedule Comparison
Page 33
8 Abbreviations and Glossary

ADWF Average dry weather flow.
Biological The amount of biological matter (typically expressed in BOD) arriving at
loadings the plant.
Bioreactor The part of the WRP where the biological process of bacteria
consuming the organic matter is carried out.
Biosolids Also known as sludge.
The by product of wastewater treatment, contains mainly organic
material.
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand.
A measure of organic pollutants in wastewater (both soluble and
particulate)
CFU Colony forming unit.
A measure of microbiological pollution, typically as CFU per 100 millilitre
of water.
DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change.
Previously EPA. The department that regulates environmental
discharges through licences.
DWE Department of Water and Energy.
Previously DEUS. The department that oversees water and wastewater
operations by local government in NSW.
EP Equivalent persons (or equivalent population).
The loadings generated by one person. In this report the hydraulic
loading of 1 EP is 210 L/day; and the biological loading is 70 gram BOD.
FINMOD Financial planning software for NSW water utility.
GCC Griffith City Council.
The local water utility in the Griffith LGA, owner of the WRP and
proponent of this project.
GWRP Griffith Water Reclamation Plant.
The facility that treats wastewater on Duchatel Road, Griffith.
HSc HydroScience Consulting.
Authors of this report.
Hydraulic The flow rate to the plant.
loading
L or l Litre.
L/s Litres per second.
LGA Local government area.
MBR Membrane bioreactor.
A secondary / tertiary wastewater treatment process based on
membrane for solids separation.
Mg Milligram
1/000 of a gram.
MI Murrumbidgee Irrigation.
ML Megalitre.

Page 34
A million litres.
ML/d Megalitres per day
PDWF Peak dry weather flow.
PRP Pollution reduction program.
Part of DECC licence, requiring Council to upgrade the performance
of the treatment plant.
PS Pump Station
PWWF Peak wet weather flow.
RAS Return activated sludge.
The sludge stream that is recycled to the activated sludge process.
SCADA System control and data acquisition.
The software system used to monitor and control the plant.
SS Suspended solids.
Also known as non filterable residue (NFR). The measure of particulate
pollutant in the wastewater.
Thermotolerant Also known as faecal coliform.
coliform Indicator bacteria used to measure the microbiological pollution.
TPS Transfer pump station.
TRB Typical residential bill.
UV Ultraviolet (light).
Process use for disinfection.
VPN Virtual private network.
The system of communication between the plant and GCC central
computer.
VSD Variable speed drive.
A device that operates electric motor at variable speeds. When
coupled to a pump, allows operating the pump at variable flow rates.
WAS Waste activated sludge.
The sludge stream that is removed from the process, to become
biosolids.
WRP Water Reclamation Plant.
Also known as wastewater treatment plant or wastewater treatment
works.

Page 35
9 References
7. HSc 2007. Griffith City Council – Upgrade of GWRP Options Report; HydroScience
Consulting.
8. HSc/ Hyder 2007. Upgrade of GWRP Review of Environmental Factors (REF);
HydroScience Consulting and Hyder Consulting.
9. Public Works 1990. Griffith Sewerage Augmentation Bilbul Sewerage Treatment Works,
Civil Drawings.
10. WSL 2005a. Griffith City Council GWRP Upgrade - Concept Design Report; Ecowise
Environmental; WSL Consultants Pty Ltd.
11. WSL 2005b. Griffith City Council GWRP Upgrade - Water Recycling Investigation; Ecowise
Environmental; WSL Consultants Pty Ltd.
12. WSL 2004. Griffith City Council Griffith Water Reclamation Project Report on Re-Location
Workshop; Ecowise Environmental; WSL Consultants Pty Ltd.
13. GHD 2006. North Griffith Sewerage Scheme – Review Sewerage Masterplan; GHD Pty Ltd.
14. GHD 2003. Griffith Long Term Capital Works Plans Report on Sewerage; GHD.

Appendix A
Existing Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis
HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd.
Client: Griffith City Council (GCC)
Project: GWRP Relocation Option -MBR Plant
Currency: Australian dollars, GST excluded ADWF = 240 L/EP/day Used by GCC for the initial estimates
Date: March 4, 2008 ADWF = 210 L/EP/day Used by HSc for the current estimates
Prepared By: EJO PWWF = 6 x ADWF
Checked By: GAZ
Existing Collection System Capacity

Pump
Discharge Discharge Velocity (w/ Velocity (w/ Peaking
Size Size one in both in Factor
Pump Capacity (no 1) (no 2) operation) operation) Hydraulic Capacity estimated at 240L/EP/day (Pump
PWWF at 6x Capacity/
Pump Station L/s ML/d mm mm m/s m/s ET EP ADWF (L/s) (L/s) ADWF)
PSG1 100 8.64 300 300 1.415 0.354 2,609 6,000 17 100 6
PSG2 160 13.82 200 200 5.096 1.274 4,174 9,600 27 160 6
PSG3, one pump 140 12.10
PSG3, two pumps 230 19.87 300 300 3.255 0.814 6,000 13,800 38 230 6
PSG4 196 16.93 600 0.694 5,113 11,760 33 196 6
Existing Collection System Load
Current Load estimated at 240 L/EP/day 1 Current Loading 2
ADWF PWWF PWWF at 6x

Pump Station ET EP (L/s) (L/s) ET EP ADWF (L/s) (L/s)
PSG1 1,857 4,272 12 71 1,962 4,512 11 66
PSG2 5,176 11,904 33 198 5,466 12,571 31 183
PSG3 (both pumps) 2,648 6,090 17 102 2,796 6,431 16 94
PSG4 710 1,632 5 27 749 1,724 4 25
10,390 23,898 66 398 10,973 25,238 61 368
1 Based on PWWF capacity in GHD Griffith Long Term Capital Works Plans, Report on Sewerage (May 2003)
2 Based on loading at 210 L/EP/day and total daily loadings of 25,238 (HSc 2007)
Planned Development
Received by Stage 1 (2001-2010) 1 Stage 2 (2011-2020) 1 Stage 3 (2021-2030) 1 to 2035 2 Total
Pump ET EP ET EP ET EP ET EP ET EP
Area Station
Collina PSG4 850 1,955 250 575 640 1,472 276 635 2,016 4,637
South Griffith Residential PSG3 700 1,610 350 805 750 1,725 286 657 2,086 4,797
Yoogali PSG4 200 460 80 184 0 0 280 644
Hanwood PSG3 50 115 50 115 55 127 0 0 155 357
South Griffith Industrial (S1) PSG2 695 1,599 43 99 738 1,697
South Griffith Industrial (S2/S3) PSG3 361 830 662 1,523 63 146 1,086 2,498
Lake Wyangan 3 PSG7 3,750 8,625
1 Based on GHD Griffith Long Term Capital Works Plans, Report on Sewerage (May 2003) Total (excluding Lake Wyangan) 6,361 14,630
2 Based on total projected 2035 loading (excluding Lake Wyangan) of 14,630 EP (HSc 2007) Lake Wyangan 3,750 8,625
3 Based on GHD, North Griffith Sewerage Scheme, Review Sewerage Masterplan (December 2006) Total Load for Planned Development 10,111 23,255
Appendix B
Proposed Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis
HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd.
Client: Griffith City Council (GCC)
Project: GWRP Relocation Option -MBR Plant
Currency: Australian dollars, GST excluded ADWF = 240 L/EP/day Used by GCC for the initial estimates
Date: March 4, 2008 ADWF = 210 L/EP/day Used by HSc for the current estimates
Prepared By: EJO PWWF = 6 x ADWF
Checked By: GAZ
Existing Collection System Capacity Anaylsis
Recommended
Current Pump Pump Station
Future Capacity to East Side of City Station Capacity Capacity
ADWF PWWF PWWF Is
(at 210 L/EP/day) (at 3 x ADWF) (at 6 x ADWF) Upgrade
Pump Station ET EP (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) Required? (L/s) Notes
PSG1 1,962 4,512 11 33 66 100 No 100
PSG2 6,204 14,269 35 104 208 160 Yes 208 Similar to planned Fac
PSG3 6,123 14,083 34 103 205 230 Yes 205 Similar to planned Fac
PSG4 3,045 7,004 17 51 102 196 No N/A Replaced by NTPS
PSG7 3,750 8,625 21 63 126 121 N/A 126
48,493 118 354 707
Proposed Collection System (Steam 1)
Rising Main A Rising Main B Approx Velocity Approx Velocity
Diameter Diameter Approx PWWF w/one main w/ two mains
Pipe Receive Flow from (mm) (mm) (L/s) (m/s) (m/s) Notes
RG3A, RG3B (Exist) PSG3 300 300 205 2.902 1.451 No upgrade required
N1 A/B PSG3 300 300 205 2.902 1.451 No upgrade required
N2 A/B PSG3 and PSG7 375 375 331 2.998 1.499 No upgrade required
RG1AorB and RG4 (Exist) PSG3 and PSG7 500 300 331 1.687 1.240 No upgrade required
RG4 PSG3 and PSG7 600 0 331 1.171 No upgrade required
N6 A/B South Griffith 200 200 80 2.548 1.274 No upgrade required
Proposed Collection System (Stream 2)

Diameter Diameter Approx PWWF w/one main w/ two mains
N3 A/B PSG1 250 250 100 2.038 1.019 No upgrade required
RG2A, RG2B (Exist) PSG1 200 200 100 3.185 1.592 Upgrade will be required, pipeline in poor condition
RG2A, RG2B (Exist) PSG2 200 200 208 6.624 3.312 Upgrade will be required, similar for both options
N4 PSG1 and PSG2 600 0 308 1.090 1.090 No upgrade required
New Transfer Pump Station (TPS)
ADWF PWWF PWWF Recommended
(at 210 L/EP/day) (at 3 x ADWF) (at 6 x ADWF) Pump Capacity
ET EP (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) (L/s) Notes
Stage 1 16,304 37,500 91 273 547 550 One Pump
Stage 2 21,739 50,000 122 365 729 730 Two Pumps
New Conveyance Facility Pipeline (N5 A/B)

Diameter Diameter Approx Flow w/one main w/ two mains
ADWF (Stage1) NTPS 500 500 91 0.464 0.232
PWWF (Stage 1) NTPS 500 500 550 2.803 1.401
PWWF (Stage 2) NTPS 500 500 730 3.720 1.860
Experience.
Innovation.
Integration.
Quality.
D E SIGN PL AN N IN G
Advanced wastewater treatment Integrated water cycle management
Water recycling and reuse Development servicing plans
Water treatment Best-practice management
Pumping stations Demand/drought management
SYDNEY Pipelines and channels Strategic business planning
Level 5, 350 Kent Street
Sydney, NSW 2000 Irrigation Financial and triple bottom line
ph: 02 9249 5100
fax: 02 9249 2700
www.hydroscience.net.au

Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Relocation Option

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Relocation Option

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griffith City Council

Griffith Water Reclamation Plant

HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd

Approved for Issue

2 EJO AFR Andrew Fraser 7th March 2008

© HydroScience Consulting Pty Ltd 2007

Bilbul STP Site

Sewerage collection system modifications

Y:\Jobs\A046 Griffith WRP Concept Design REF\Documents\A046-002_Relocation_Option_Report\Documents\Draft -

Effluent management facilities

Table 1: Stage 1 Preliminary Cost Estimate

Total Cost Operating Cost

Y:\Jobs\A046 Griffith WRP Concept Design REF\Documents\A046-002_Relocation_Option_Report\Documents\Draft -

1.1 Griffith Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade .....................................................................................................7

2 Bilbul STP Site..................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Location .................................................................................................................................................................9

3 Relocation Assessment ............................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Wastewater Loading .........................................................................................................................................11

3.1.1 Hydraulic loading ......................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.2 Biological loading......................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.3 Proposed design loading............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Effluent Quality....................................................................................................................................................12

3.3.1 Sewerage collection system upgrades...................................................................................... 12

3.3.2 Stream 1......................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.3 Stream 2......................................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.4 Transfer pump station ................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.5 Transfer rising main ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.6 Other collection system facilities ................................................................................................ 19

3.4 Site Facilities.........................................................................................................................................................20

3.4.2 Power supply................................................................................................................................. 20

3.4.3 SCADA ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Y:\Jobs\A046 Griffith WRP Concept Design REF\Documents\A046-002_Relocation_Option_Report\Documents\Draft -

3.4.4 Stormwater drainage.................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.5 Land ............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.6 Access ........................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.7 Site work ........................................................................................................................................ 21

3.5 Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................................................................21

3.5.1 Facilities similar to both WRP locations....................................................................................... 23

3.5.2 Inlet works...................................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.3 Sedimentation tanks..................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.4 Civil site works............................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.5 Wet weather storage .................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.6 Control building ............................................................................................................................ 24

3.5.7 Chemical storage and dosing .................................................................................................... 24

3.5.8 Sludge disposal............................................................................................................................. 24

3.6 Effluent Management Facilities .......................................................................................................................24

3.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 24

3.6.2 Murrumbidgee Irrigation discharge............................................................................................ 24

3.6.3 On-site recycled water uses........................................................................................................ 25

3.6.4 Agricultural reuse.......................................................................................................................... 25

3.6.5 Effluent management assessment .............................................................................................. 25

3.7 Regulatory framework.......................................................................................................................................25

4.1 Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................26

5 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 27

5.1 Construction Costs .............................................................................................................................................27

6 Impact on Sewerage Charges................................................................................................... 28

6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................28

Y:\Jobs\A046 Griffith WRP Concept Design REF\Documents\A046-002_Relocation_Option_Report\Documents\Draft -

7.1 Time Frame ..........................................................................................................................................................31

8 Abbreviations and Glossary...................................................................................................... 33

Existing Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis ...................................................................................36

Proposed Sewerage Collection System Capacity Analysis ...............................................................................37

Flora, fauna and natural heritage issues; and

Effluent management facilities

Ductile iron pipe material;

Maximum velocity at ultimate peak wet weather flow of 2.0 m/s;

Detention time not to exceed 5 hours where possible.

A new inlet works will incorporate coarse and fine screens

A new chemical handling area will be used

Digested sludge will be disposed of off-site

Biological treatment tanks (bioreactors)

Biosolids dewatering facilities and standby (geotube) systems

Chemical dosing facility

Discharge to MI drainage canal

On site maintenance and irrigation

Irrigation reuse for agricultural lands