Annex A4 Teddington DRA

Annex A4: Teddington DRA
Conceptual Design Report
Standard Gate two submission for London

Water Recycling SRO
Notice – Position Statement
This document has been produced as the part of the process set out by RAPID for the development
of the Strategic Resource Options (SROs). This is a regulatory gated process allowing there to be
control and appropriate scrutiny on the activities that are undertaken by the water companies to
investigate and develop efficient solutions on behalf of customers to meet future drought resilience
challenges.
This report forms part of suite of documents that make up the ‘Gate 2 submission.’ That submission
details all the work undertaken by Thames Water in the ongoing development of the proposed SRO.
The intention at this stage is to provide RAPID with an update on the concept design, feasibility,
cost estimates and programme for the schemes, allowing decisions to be made on their progress.
Should a scheme be selected and confirmed in the Thames Water final Water Resources
Management Plan (WRMP), in most cases it would need to enter a separate process to gain
permission to build and run the final solution. That could be through either the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 or the Planning Act 2008 development consent order process. Both options
require the designs to be fully appraised and, in most cases, an environmental statement to be
produced. Where required that statement sets out the likely environmental impacts and what
mitigation is required.
Community and stakeholder engagement is crucial to the development of the SROs. Some high-
level activity has been undertaken to date. Much more detailed community engagement and formal
consultation is required on all the schemes at the appropriate point. Before applying for permission
Thames Water will need to demonstrate that they have presented information about the proposals
to the community, gathered feedback and considered the views of stakeholders. We will have
regard to that feedback and, where possible, make changes to the designs as a result.
The SROs are at a very early stage of development, despite some options having been considered
for several years. The details set out in the Gate 2 documents are still at a formative stage.
Disclaimer
This document has been written in line with the requirements of the RAPID Gate 2 Guidance and to comply
with the regulatory process pursuant to Thames Water’s statutory duties. The information presented relates to
material or data which is still in the course of completion. Should the solutions presented in this document be
taken forward, Thames Water will be subject to the statutory duties pursuant to the necessary consenting
process, including environmental assessment and consultation as required. This document should be read
with those duties in mind.
Annex A4: Teddington DRA Scheme
Conceptual Design Report
Document no: J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D
Thames Water Utilities Ltd

J698
London Water Recycling

13 October 2022
Annex A4: Teddington DRA Scheme Conceptual Design Report
Client name: Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Project name: London Water Recycling
Client reference: J698 Project no: B22849AP
Document no: J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D
Date: 13 October 2022
Jacobs U.K. Limited

2nd Floor, Cottons Centre T +44 (0)203 980 2000
Cottons Lane www.jacobs.com
London SE1 2QG
United Kingdom
Copyright Jacobs U.K. Limited @ 2022.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and redistribution without written permission is prohibited. Jacobs, the Jacobs logo, and all
other Jacobs trademarks are the property of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
NOTICE: This document has been prepared exclusively for the use and benefit of Jacobs’ client. Jacobs accepts no liability or
responsibility for any use or reliance upon this document by any third party.
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Scheme Overview and Location........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Scheme Overview and Location .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Gate 1 Development................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Sizing and Phasing ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Sizing and Phasing of Scheme ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3.2 Constraints Impacting Solution Sizing and Phasing ................................................................................... 5
1.4 Links with Other Options, Schemes and Elements.................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Dependencies ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4.2 Mutual Exclusivities .................................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Conceptual Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Design Principles .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 London Effluent Reuse SRO Design Vision ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Scheme Components and Operating Philosophy ...................................................................................................15
2.2.1 Assessment of Source Flow Availability .........................................................................................................15
2.2.2 Source Water (Mogden STW Final Effluent) Abstraction Design Components ..............................16
2.2.3 Treatment Design Components ........................................................................................................................16
2.2.4 Conveyance Design Components .....................................................................................................................21
2.2.5 Operating Philosophy............................................................................................................................................26
2.2.6 Inter Site Control System Requirements .......................................................................................................28
2.2.7 Power Requirements..............................................................................................................................................29
2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Energy Recovery and Renewable Energy Opportunities ................30
2.2.9 Richmond Lock and Weir .....................................................................................................................................31
2.3 Opportunities and Future Benefits Realisation ........................................................................................................32
2.3.1 Thames Lee Tunnel extension ...........................................................................................................................32
2.3.2 Other Key Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................32
3. Scheme Delivery ..............................................................................................................................................................34
3.1 Overview of Construction Process .................................................................................................................................34
3.1.1 Tertiary Treatment Plant ......................................................................................................................................34
3.1.2 Conveyance ...............................................................................................................................................................34
3.1.3 CDM Implementation ............................................................................................................................................37
3.2 Transportation of Construction Materials and Spoils ............................................................................................37
3.2.1 Segment Delivery....................................................................................................................................................37
3.2.2 Spoil Disposal ...........................................................................................................................................................37
3.2.3 Vehicle Movement during Construction ........................................................................................................38
3.3 Delivery Programme ...........................................................................................................................................................38
4. Water Resources ..............................................................................................................................................................40
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D
5. Assumptions and Risks ..................................................................................................................................................41

5.1 Key Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................................................41
5.2 Key Risks ..................................................................................................................................................................................41
6. Glossary and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................................................43
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D
Executive Summary
This report sets out the conceptual design for the Teddington Direct River Abstraction (DRA) scheme. This
scheme was identified in the Water Resources Management Plan 2019 (WRMP19) Direct River Abstraction
Feasibility Study and WRMP19 Fine Screening process by Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL) and identified
as a part of the Strategic Resource Option (SRO) London Effluent Reuse by the Regulators’ Alliance for
Progressing Infrastructure Development (RAPID).
As a part of London Effluent Reuse SRO, Teddington DRA scheme was submitted for the standard Gate 1
assessment by RAPID, and it was agreed to be continued to be funded to Gate 2 as part of the standard
gate track.
The SRO Gated process by RAPID, working alongside the regional planning stakeholder groups, will provide
regulatory oversight of a set of regional water resource management plans that will adopt consistent
assumptions to form a nationally coherent view.
Design elements in this report are listed below:

 50 Ml/d Tertiary Treatment Plant at Mogden STW (WRSE Ref. TWU_KGV_HI-RAB_teddington dra 50)
 75 Ml/d Tertiary Treatment Plant at Mogden STW (WRSE Ref. TWU_KGV_HI-RAB_teddington dra 75)
 Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel from Mogden STW to Teddington (WRSE Ref. TWU_WLJ_HI-
TFR_teddingtondramog/ted)
 Abstracted Raw Water Transfer from the River Thames to Thames Lee Tunnel (WRSE Ref. TWU_KGV_HI-
TFR_teddingtondrated/tlt)
Table S-1: Scheme Summary.
Name Teddington DRA
Gate-2/ WRSE TWU_KGV_HI-RAB_teddington dra 50, TWU_KGV_HI-RAB_teddington dra 75, TWU_KGV_HI-
Reference TFR_teddingtondrated/tlt, TWU_WLJ_HI-TFR_teddingtondramog/ted
Scheme Type Resource and Conveyance
WRZ London. Potentially, Affinity Water’s WRZ if Teddington DRA supplies water to Thames to Affinity
Transfer (T2AT) SRO.
Engineering Scope A portion of final effluent from Mogden STW would undergo treatment at a new Tertiary
Treatment Plant within the Mogden STW boundary, sufficient to allow discharge into the river. The
Treated Effluent would then be transferred to a new outfall location on the River Thames,
upstream of Teddington Weir. The new River Thames Direct River Abstraction would be located
upstream of the Treated Effluent discharge location and would connect into the Thames Lee
Tunnel (TLT) which will convey the raw water to the Lee Valley reservoirs in East London.
Benefit 46Ml/d and 67Ml/d Dry Year Annual Average (DYAA) and Dry Year Critical Period (DYCP)
Deployable Output for the capacities of 50Ml/d and 75Ml/d respectively
Mutual exclusivities Combined capacity of Teddington DRA, Mogden Water Recycling and Mogden South Sewer
schemes are subject to a limit of 200Ml/d.
Interdependencies Teddington DRA scheme is a potential source for one of the options in Thames to Affinity Transfer
(T2AT) SRO.
Teddington DRA scheme does not have dependencies on other options.
To provide an additional resource to London WRZ, the following elements may also be required:
 Additional treatment capacity at Water Treatment Works (WTWs) in East London.
 Potential additional transfer through TLT extension from Lockwood Shaft to the River Lee
Diversion upstream of King George V Reservoir
 Additional treatment capacity at Kempton WTW.
 Upgrade to raw water systems in West London (not currently in CDR)
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Thames Water Utilities Limited (TWUL) are engaged in development of Strategic Regional Water Resource
Options (SROs) under the guidance of the Regulators’ Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development
(RAPID). RAPID was formed to help accelerate the development of new water infrastructure and design future
regulatory frameworks, with collaboration between Ofwat, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Drinking Water
Inspectorate (DWI).
Water resource options were developed for the reuse of Sewage Treatment Works (STW) effluent or blackwater
(untreated sewage) reuse and direct river abstractions in London as part of TWUL’s Water Resource Management
Plan 2019 (WRMP19). London Effluent Reuse has been identified as SRO in the Price Review 2019 (PR19) Final
Determination (London Effluent Reuse SRO). At PR19, Ofwat announced a development fund for strategic water
resource solutions linked to “Gates” to ensure efficient delivery and to protect customers. TWUL has been
allocated funds to investigate and develop integrated strategic regional water resource solutions, including
London Effluent Reuse SRO, between 2020 and 2025 to support long term resilience. The London Effluent
Reuse SRO solution was submitted for the standard Gate 1 assessment by RAPID in 2021, and it will continue to
be funded to Gate 2 as part of the standard Gated process in 2022.
London Effluent Reuse SRO incorporates four schemes: two schemes for reuse of final effluent from Mogden
STW (Mogden Water Recycling scheme) and Beckton STW (Beckton Water Recycling scheme), a direct river
abstraction scheme (Teddington Direct River Abstraction (DRA) scheme) and a fourth, blackwater or sewer
mining treatment option within the Mogden STW catchment (Mogden South Sewer scheme). Abstracted effluent
or sewage in these schemes is to be treated in each case through an Advanced Water Recycling Plant (AWRP) or
a Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) and discharged to the River Thames or the River Lee Diversion for abstraction
as a water resource.
This report sets out the conceptual design for the Teddington DRA scheme. The proposal for the Teddington
DRA scheme can be summarised as:
 A portion of final effluent from Mogden STW would be subject to treatment at a new Tertiary Treatment
Plant (TTP) located at Mogden STW. The Treated Effluent would be transferred to a new outfall on the
River Thames upstream of Teddington Weir.
 A new abstraction from the River Thames, upstream of the Treated Effluent discharge location, would
transfer water into the Thames Lee Tunnel for transfer to the Lee Valley Reservoirs in East London.
Definitions of glossary and abbreviations in this report could be found in section 6 Glossary and Abbreviations.
1.2 Scheme Overview and Location

1.2.1 Scheme Overview and Location
This scheme will abstract a proportion of final effluent at Mogden STW (See (1) in Figure 1-1). The abstracted
final effluent would be treated in a new Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) within Mogden STW boundary, and
Treated Effluent from the TTP would be conveyed and discharged into the River Thames just upstream of
Teddington Weir which marks the river's tidal limit (see (2) and (3) in Figure 1-1). Then, the same quantity of
water will be abstracted from the River Thames immediately upstream of the discharge location (see (4) in
Figure 1-1), abstracted water would be pumped into a shaft connecting into the Thames to Lee Tunnel (TLT)
which crosses the site. The TLT will convey flows to the Lee Valley Reservoirs for treatment at Coppermills Water
Treatment Works (WTW).
Tertiary treatment is required to improve the effluent quality prior to discharge to the non-tidal section of the
River Thames, upstream of the Teddington Weir. As the discharge location of the Treated Effluent will be in the
most downstream section of the non-tidal section as well as being downstream of all the existing raw water
intake points for WTWs, the water treatment design would focus on achieving water quality consent parameters
suited to the receiving water environmental requirements for discharge to the freshwater River Thames and not
on Drinking Water Standards. Addition of ferric for phosphorus removal, Nitrifying Sand Filters (NSFs) for further
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 2
ammonia reduction and mechanical filters for BOD removal would be proposed for the tertiary treatment, and
wastewater from the tertiary treatment plant (TTP) could be returned to Mogden STW inlet works.
There is minimal vacant land available within the Mogden STW site for development. It would be therefore
proposed that TTP would be built in the footprint of existing storm tanks. Some of the existing storm tanks may
need to be deepened to maintain the existing storm storage capacity at Mogden STW.
There is an opportunity that the abstracted water would be further transferred through a TLT extension from
Lockwood Shaft near the Lockwood Reservoir to the River Lee Diversion upstream of the King George V (KGV)
reservoir. The TLT extension is proposed as part of the Beckton Water Recycling scheme, to enhance resilience
in water supply systems in East London. In addition, Thames to Affinity Transfer (T2AT) SRO considers
Teddington DRA as one of their potential water source options.
The Teddington DRA scheme will supply London Water Resource Zone (WRZ). This scheme would benefit East
London through the TLT. However, if the flow from the Teddington DRA scheme is conveyed through the TLT to
East London, a fraction of flow currently abstracted from the River Thames to the TLT at the intake in Hampton
could be diverted to WTW in West London. Consequently, deployable output of Teddington DRA scheme may
possibly benefit West London.
Figure 1-1: Teddington DRA Scheme Overview
1.2.2 Gate 1 Development

In WRMP19, the capacity of Teddington DRA scheme was proposed to be 300Ml/d. However, river modelling
studies based on the 300Ml/d scenario identified that one of the likely impacts of the scheme would be a high
increase in water temperature in the freshwater River Thames locally above Teddington Weir and in the Upper
Tideway because of abstracting cooler river water and replacing with discharge of warmer Treated Effluent at
Teddington. Therefore, a 300Ml/d Teddington DRA scheme was rejected in WRMP19 process.
A scheme with advanced treatment (Reverse Osmosis and UV Advanced Oxidation Process) at Mogden STW and
transfer and discharge directly into the TLT was also investigated in WRMP19. However, due to space constraints
at Mogden STW, this alternative scheme was also rejected at WRMP19 stage.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 3
In Gate 1, conceptual design of Teddington DRA scheme had been progressed assuming that the maximum
scheme size would be 150Ml/d. However, during Gate 2, a size of75 Ml/d was adopted on the Teddington DRA
scheme as a result of concerns raised by the Environmental Agency over potential impact within the River
Thames from the scheme up to 150 Ml/d. This constraint has been investigated further through Gate 2, and
environmental investigations has concluded that impacts on river temperature would be acceptable up to the
scheme size of 100Ml/d. Maximum scheme size of 100Ml/d is now recommended for going forward, and further
design details of a 100Ml/d scheme will be developed in the next design stage (see section 1.3).
A 3.5m-diameter tunnel, which had been originally proposed in WRMP19 for 300Ml/d scheme, was retained as
the primary conveyance option for Treated Effluent transfer from the TTP at Mogden STW to Teddington
discharge in Gate 1 conceptual design, whilst a smaller-diameter conveyance option has been developed in Gate
2 for smaller scheme sizes.
The conveyance route and designs proposed in Gate 1 were further reviewed in conjunction with various aspects
such as environmental, planning and engineering for Gate 2. Gate 2 design development includes walk-over
surveys, scheme operational philosophy and hydraulic and pumping strategy development and incorporation of
planning strategy. This has enabled a greater understanding of the constraints and reduced uncertainty in
delivery of the schemes.
Table below list the key design changes from Gate 1 to Gate 2.
Table 1-1: Key Design Changes from Gate 1 to Gate 2
Gate 1 Conceptual Design Gate 2 Conceptual Design
Maximum scheme size had been assumed to be at 150Ml/d. Environmental studies during Gate 2 showed impacts on
river temperature would be acceptable up to the scheme size
of 100Ml/d. Maximum scheme size of 100Ml/d is
recommended for going forward.
A 3.5m-diameter tunnel with 3 shafts had been proposed for A 1.8m-diameter tunnel with 8 shafts, which would
Treated Effluent transfer from Tertiary Treatment Plant in accommodate 100Ml/d flow, was proposed for Treated
Mogden STW to Teddington Discharge. Effluent transfer from Tertiary Treatment Plant in Mogden
STW to Teddington Discharge.
1.3 Sizing and Phasing

1.3.1 Sizing and Phasing of Scheme
This adopted sizing of 75Ml/d has been investigated further through Gate 2, and environmental investigations
has concluded that impacts on river temperature would be acceptable up to the scheme size of 100Ml/d.
Maximum scheme size of 100Ml/d is now recommended for going forward, and further design details of a
100Ml/d scheme will be developed in the next design stage.
The table below shows recommendations for the scheme sizes of Teddington DRA scheme and its sub-options.
The total scheme size is selectable from multiple sub-option sizes for TTP (i.e. 50Ml/d and 75Ml/d). A100Ml/d
scheme could consist of two 50M/d TTP sub-options with phasing. However, opportunities and benefit of a
single-phase development of a 100Ml/d TTP may be considered in the next design stage.
Conveyance assets would not be constructed in phases because it is not expected that phasing of construction of
conveyance elements would bring cost or social benefits. The size of the 1.8m-diameter Treated Effluent
Transfer Tunnel is dictated by the practicable distances between proposed shafts which is governed by Health
and Safety considerations during construction. The area is heavily urbanised, and land available for new shaft
construction is severely limited which leads to a trade-off between tunnel diameter and shaft spacing.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 4
Table 1-2: Recommendations for Teddington DRA Scheme Size

Scheme Description of Constraint Scheme Sub-Options
Name Scheme
Teddington Final effluent harvest, Combined maximum capacity of Tertiary Treatment 50 Ml/d
DRA tertiary treatment and 200 Ml/d made up of: Plant 75 Ml/d
scheme convey treated Mogden Water Recycling – 150 Conveyancing (e.g., tunnel, pipes, outfall
effluent to River Ml/d max and intake)
Thames. DRA for Mogden South Sewer – less than 50
discharge to Thames Ml/d
Lee Tunnel (TLT) Teddington DRA – 100 Ml/d max
1.3.2 Constraints Impacting Solution Sizing and Phasing

The key constraints impacting the solution sizing or phasing are:
 Increases to receiving water body temperature: The environmental assessment so far identified that
temperature increases to the receiving water body during periods of operation constrained the scheme
size to 100Ml/d or below, while discharge velocity does not appear to be a constraining factor. Refer to
Annex B of Gate 2 Report for details on the investigations on environmental impacts on the receiving
water body.
 Availability of source water: Combined maximum capacity of Teddington DRA, Mogden Water Recycling
and Mogden South Sewer would be 200Ml/d due to availability of final effluent from Mogden STW. See
section 2.2.1. for assessment of source water availability.
 Availability of land at Mogden STW for development: The site is very developed with little available
land, thus necessitating a solution which modifies existing storm tanks to release space for the TTP
development. Footprint of existing storm tanks would be sufficient to accommodate a 100Ml/d TTP. A
single-phase development of TTP may be preferred to phased development due to availability of land in
the STW.
 Availability of land for conveyance or tunnel shafts: The nature of the urban or sub-urban environment,
and designated sites limits open-cut trenching pipeline options and constraints the potential shaft
locations. The diameter of Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel is dictated by the practicable distances
between proposed shafts rather than flow capacity of the tunnel.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 5
1.4 Links with Other Options, Schemes and Elements

1.4.1 Dependencies
Water resource options require several different elements (from source to treated water transmission) to be
implemented for the resource option to deliver benefit. Table 1-3 lists system elements that may be required to
deliver a full water resource utilisation for this scheme. Water network reinforcements required irrespective of
the specific scheme selected, have not been included.
Table 1-3: Interdependent Elements
Type Interdependent Elements
Water Sources N/A
Abstraction and Conveyance  Additional raw water conveyance systems to transfer raw water from West London
intakes on the, River Thames to Kempton WTW (if the Teddington DRA flow is
conveyed through TLT to East London and the flow currently abstracted at Hampton
Intake into TLT is used in Kempton WTW).
 TLT extension from Lockwood Shaft to River Lee Diversion upstream of King George V
Reservoir (KGV) is potentially required, depending on water network reinforcement
strategy in East London.
Water Treatment Works  Additional treatment capacity at WTWs in East London.
 Additional treatment capacity at Kempton WTW
Potable Water Network  Potable network reinforcements.
Reinforcement
Others  Teddington DRA scheme is identified as one of potential water source options for T2AT
SRO.
1.4.2 Mutual Exclusivities

The combined capacity/ yield of Teddington DRA scheme, Mogden Water Recycling scheme and Mogden South
Sewer scheme is limited to 200Ml/d because the three schemes use final effluent of Mogden STW or sewage
from the Mogden STW catchment as a water source as detailed in section 2.2.1. These three schemes could be
mutually exclusive when the cumulative capacities exceed the limit.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 6
2. Conceptual Design
2.1 Design Principles
2.1.1 Overview
During the Gate 2 Conceptual Design process, the All Company Working Group (ACWG) issued “ACWG Design
Principles, Process and Gate 2 Interim Guidance” to maintain consistency throughout SROs.
The ACWG Design Principles comprise the four principles of the National Infrastructure Commission (Climate,
People, Place, Value) with two cross-cutting principles that apply across all four categories. Table 2-1
summarises approaches taken in Gate 2 conceptual design.
2.1.2 London Effluent Reuse SRO Design Vision

For the London Effluent Reuse SRO, Thames Water have set out their design vision: to create a resilient water
future for customers in Greater London and the Southeast. This design vision focuses on the key principles of
climate, people, places and value. Thames Water supports the need to protect the environment and our climate
through the principles of sustainability, while ensuring the water supply, to our people, is resilient in terms of
quality and quantity. Thames Water endeavours to create this resource supply in ways that meet the needs and
expectations of our customers and all stakeholders. The project will protect and enhance the natural
environment whilst providing the best value to customers.
Growing populations, climate effects and reduction in suitable raw water supply for the region mean there will be
a significant supply deficit in future periods of dry weather.
Conventional water resources are becoming strained and so innovative, sustainable solutions such as water
recycling are increasingly important. Thames Water is committed to delivering a new water recycling strategic
resource option (SRO) to meet the future needs by the early 2030’s.
The scale of the challenge is reflected in the extent of the supply deficit the region will see in drought conditions.
This will require scheme sizes having the potential to deliver an additional 300Ml/d of new water. By employing
water reuse schemes in the region, Thames Water can avoid reliance on additional river abstraction thereby
protecting local rivers and reservoir habitats.
As a company, Thames Water needs to deliver wide-ranging solutions, including demand management and
leakage reduction, new storage facilities, new transfers from other companies and enhanced network capacity.
These present challenges in terms of protecting the environment and providing best value to customers, but also
offers opportunities to take significant steps in delivering a design vision to create a resilient water future. The
London Effluent Reuse SRO presents an opportunity to deliver this vision, that is regionally focused, resilient for
the future and supporting us in protecting the environment.
Thames Water’s starting point is that it will deliver value for money by applying the best in worldwide design and
construction. It is recognised that good design saves resources and reduces carbon footprint; therefore, our
commitment through the early design stages will ensure that all viewpoints are considered.
Thames Water’s design vision commitment is:
 To provide a secure, resilient and high-quality new resource of raw water to Greater London and
supplement the water supply to the region, ensuring beautiful and functional design with a pride of
being a part of the community.
 Through robust and detailed environmental and ecological assessments, to protect and promote the
recovery of nature and achieve Environmental Net Gain, while limiting and mitigating any effects on the
local environment.
 To develop solutions that provide social amenity value, environmental benefits and any additional
values to the region.
 To work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure the best value for the customer and the
environment, meeting needs of the communities.
 To create a long-term, sustainable solution that recycles an existing resource to reduce the
water footprint.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 7
Table 2-1: Overview of Gate 2 Design Approaches to ACWG Design Principles

ACWG Design Principles ACWG Gate 2 Indicators Approach in Teddington DRA Documentation Targets
Gate 2 Designs in Gate 2
Submission
Cross Cutting Design Principles
1. Be specific: Develop project- 1. Draft Design Vision, Narrative See section 2.1.2 for Design Vision of CDR section 2.1.2 1.1. Development of project specific vision
specific design vision and and Principles. London Effluent Reuse SRO. and principles mapped against the NIC
principles based on an The Gate 2 Report content gives an Gate 2 Report and ACWG Principles.
understanding of the objectives overview of the design vision for this 1.2. Development of a clear, concise
of each project and the people scheme and the London Effluent Reuse narrative describing the story behind
and places it will affect. SRO as a whole. your Vision and Principles.
2. Safe and well: Actively and 2. Outline Designers Risk Principal Designer was appointed in CDR section 3.1.3 2.1. No accidents, incidents or harm to
collectively develop designs that Assessment highlighting conformance with the CDM Regulations people during construction and
can be built, used, and potential significant and/or 2015. Please see section 3.1.3 for CDM Gate 2 Report - operation.
maintained without unusual risks with potential implementation and outline of the Annex C: Water 2.2. Use of best practice procedures in
unacceptable risks to the health mitigations. potential significant and/ or unusual risks Safety Plan design risk management following HSE
and safety of workers - in the scheme. Guidance and CDM Legislation.
particularly during hazardous Drinking Water Safety Plans have been 2.3. Design informed by understanding
construction and operational created for this scheme to ensure the potential risks to the public and
activity. Manage risks to customer’s and environment’s safety is management of these so far as
members of the public paramount for the design vision. reasonably practicable. Use of
thoughtfully with an approach appropriate guidance including but not
that balances maximising limited to:
wellbeing benefits with
protection from risks that could a. RoSPA and the National Water Safety
cause significant harm. Forum's Guiding Principles for
Managing Drowning and Water Safety
Risks.
b. Visitor Safety in the Countryside.
2.4. Consideration of security early in the
design of fence, gate and boundary
treatments.
Climate
1. Nature knows no boundaries: 1. Evidence of collaborative Design work, cost estimate and carbon Gate 2 Report – 1.1. Collaborative working across companies
Water is essential to all life and working across companies. analysis have been carried out in section 7 and with stakeholders.
managing our response to 2. Evidence of working with coordination with ACWG to ensure 1.2. Timely - preparation of proposals ready
climate change is a collective Regulatory, Statutory (and, where collaboration across companies. to construct in 2025-2030 will involve
and urgent activity. Projects must practicable, local) stakeholders Regular meetings have been held with early and rigorous development of
be developed to work across Environment Agency (EA), Natural
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 8
Submission
companies and/or legislative including Catchment Partnerships England (NE) and Port of London Gate 2 Report - design objectives followed by
boundaries to develop where appropriate. Authority (PLA) to discuss scheme Annex D: proposals.
sustainable solutions and 3. Design Vision and Principles benefits and impacts, and opportunities Engagement Report 1.3. Alignment with other relevant
environmental enhancement for informed by this engagement for enhancement. Local Council (London environmental policy, plans and
the wider benefit of society. (Stages 1-6 of design process). Borough of Hounslow, Richmond upon strategies such as Catchment
Thames and Kingston upon Thames) Management and Local Nature
have also been contacted for discussion. Recovery Plans (see also Place 2).
2. Resource and carbon efficient 1. Submissions to meet In Gate 2, it was attempted to establish Gate 2 Report – 2.1. Lifecycle Carbon: Projects shall support
throughout: Projects shall seek expectations of RAPID Gate 2 carbon efficient strategies based on Net section 6.5 the water industry commitment to
to reuse existing assets, Guidance. Zero 2030 route map, as well as PAS achieve Net-Zero in terms of
eliminate waste (including waste 2. Narrative on the SRO approach 2080. Opportunities of increasing Gate 2 Report - operational carbon in accordance with
of water) and make efficient use to avoiding and reducing the use efficiency of transportation were Annex B: the industry roadmap. Projects must be
of materials and transport across of carbon and other resources investigated, considering use of barges Environmental and efficient in embodied carbon in both
the whole of the project lifecycle. and Inclusion of the approach in for shipping spoils from tunnel Regulatory construction and operation.
the Design Vision and Principles. construction. Details of carbon efficient Assessments 2.2. Projects should investigate if existing
strategies are in section 2.2.8 of this infrastructure assets could be
CDR, and environmental reports are in repurposed and reused.
Annex B of the Gate 2 Report. CDR section 2.2.8
2.3. Projects should look to avoid
Optimised design to reduce material unnecessary construction and minimise
waste and carbon use have been use of materials.
accounted for, including the main design 2.4. Projects should seek to minimise the
principle to reuse the Mogden STW land use and waste of water.
for the tertiary treatment plant.
3. Resilient and adaptable: Design 1. Submissions to meet DO analysis was carried out for climate CDR section 2.2.1 3.1. Designs should be developed to include
for anticipated future demand at expectations of RAPID Gate 2 change scenarios. The combined proportionate measures to anticipate
the appropriate scale. Build in Guidance noting the climate maximum capacity of Teddington DRA Gate 2 Report - future extreme events and stresses so
the resilience to absorb and change scenario(s) the schemes and Mogden Water Recycling schemes Annex C: Drinking that they can resist, absorb, recover
recover from the impacts of the have been designed to cope with. were determined based on drought Water Safety Plan and, where necessary, be adapted.
extreme events and incremental 2. Review of local plans and conditions/ scenario, excluding 3.2. Designs would support the digitisation
stresses likely to arise from strategies that may impact infiltration and trade flow from the of the network at a catchment level
climate change. resilience* available flow (see section 2.2.1). using data to inform design, optimise
In accordance with the Drinking Water solutions and improve operational
Safety Plan, this scheme has had a efficiency in real time.
detailed assessment to allow for 3.3. Where proposals add to the resilience
mitigation of any effects caused by of the broader system this should be
abstraction / discharge of flows at the
River Thames.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 9
Submission
accounted for in its social value (see
Value 3).
3.4. The layout and design of specific
elements of infrastructure should be
taken in cognisance of planned future
development of the immediate area.
3.5. Deploy nature-based approaches to
resilience wherever possible (see also
Place 2).
People
1. Understand and respond to your 1. Indicator for Target 1.1 to be The Design Vision sets out the key Gate 2 Report – 1.1. Reliable supply of water to customers
Community's needs: Develop a decided by others. principle of customer engagement to section 3.4 1.2. Designs developed to maximise their
full understanding of the social 2. Initial appraisal of the scheme demonstrate the quality and security that social value.
context that will be impacted by and its potential to contribute to water reuse brings. Drinking Water Safety Gate 2 Report – 1.3. Proposals reflect local community views
the project over its lifecycle. the UN's Sustainable Plans were carried out at these early Annex C: Drinking as to how they interact with and
Design for how local Development Goals - or other stages and a Planning Consultant has Water Safety Plan experience the infrastructure as far as
communities will encounter the Social Value evaluation process provided detailed input and direction to possible.
infrastructure in their everyday (see also Value 2 and 3). meet the requirements of regional/local
lives during both construction policy. Gate 2 Report –
3. Review of relevant regional/local Annex D:
and operation. policy and demographic As part of the scheme site and
conveyance route appraisal, potential Engagement Report
information and narrative around
how it has shaped the draft Vision options have been assessed under a
and Principles for the option. multi-criteria framework (section 3.4, Gate 2 Report –
Gate 2 Report). Annex G: Planning
Report
2. Engage widely, early and 1. Summary of feedback from Continuous and open communication Gate 2 Report – 2.1. Stakeholders and communities
meaningfully: Work with stakeholders (either project between stakeholders has been carried section 7 understand the need for the scheme
stakeholders and local specific or received to date out with stakeholders such as the EA, NE, and the nature/appearance of the
communities to develop their through the WRMP/Regional PLA, DWI, NAU and Ofwat. Digital 3D Gate 2 Report – proposed solution(s).
understanding of the importance Plan process) and narrative graphics of the proposed intake screen Annex D: 2.2. The views of local stakeholders have
of nature and water around how it has shaped the at River Thames have been prepared to Engagement Report shaped the design, where possible.
conservation. Develop co- draft Vision and Principles for the enhance effective communication with 2.3. Engagement and consultation with
design approaches to aspects of option. stakeholders, in addition to scheme communities has influenced the design
the design of infrastructure and 2. Inclusion of engagement schematic diagrams (section 1.2). Early Gate 2 Report –
Annex G: Planning (including but not limited to site
associated landscape where activities within the design and collaborative engagement has been selection, layout, materials, detailing)
practicable. programme of the project plan undertaken with regulators and key Report
making it more acceptable to them.
stakeholders as above to identify key
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 10
Submission
for Gate 3 and beyond showing issues, agree approaches to monitoring 2.4. The project provides the public with
adequate time for community and assessment, and then review information on the importance of water
(public) consultation to inform findings and consider mitigation and/or nature conservation (e.g.
both site selection (where requirements. through information boards, artwork or
possible) and developed design. digital information)).
3. The development of tools that
will enable successful
engagement (e.g. digital models
for visualisation/animation, GIS
systems, precedent pictures of
similar schemes/components) *.
4. Survey information on local
needs and preferences in design*
3. Improve access and inclusion: 1. Mapping of interface with PRoW The Gate 2 Planning Consultants have Gate 2 Report – 3.1. Find opportunities to improve people's
Consider how people move network* prepared plans for engaging the Annex D: health, wellbeing and understanding of
around your works. Maximise 2. Evidence of engagement with community and accounting for their Engagement Report the natural environment, through
opportunities to support active local access groups* concerns and desires. Considerations access to waterside and green spaces
travel and improve recreational 3. Review of Local Cycling and were made in option designs to minimise Gate 2 Report – for recreational and other purposes
access to waterside and green Walking and Infrastructure Plans negative visual and auditory effects for Annex G: Planning (see Note 1).
spaces that can improve (LCWIPs) information or similar the local community, such as keeping Report 3.2. Maximise opportunities for workers to
outcomes for wellbeing, health, and note of how the project may most of engineering assets in public access sites via sustainable transport
local economy, social inclusion impact/enhance it.* areas below ground, with above-ground during construction and operation.
and education. assets blended into the local surrounds. Minimise disruption to travel routes in
A dedicated Navigation Assessment has areas affected by a project during
been undertaken to determine potential construction and operation.
for impacts on river users in the Thames
Tideway at key locations identified by the
PLA.
Further engagement and community
activities will occur at Gate 3 and onward.
Place
1. Take care: Develop proposals in 1. Evidence of place-based The Gate 2 options appraisal includes Gate 2 Report – 1.1. Achieve Environmental Net Gain (ENG).
the spirit of stewardship looking balanced, holistic and long-term detail of frequent collaborative reviews section 3.4 1.2. Adopt measures in the design that
to both the past and future of decision making in the between the engineering, environmental, enhance the environment and help
each context to understand and description of design planning and commercial designers for CDR section 2.1.2 avoid future problems - e.g. adoption of
develop its landscape, cultural this SRO. These reviews significantly SuDS solutions that improve cooling,
heritage, health and influence the design development of the
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 11
Submission
sustainability. Work with considerations and development schemes in line with the place-based Gate 2 Report - attenuate surface water run-off and
partners to secure the long-term of design vision and principles. principles. Annex B: improve infiltration and biodiversity.
success of all measures. 2. Statement on SRO approach to The majority of permanent land Environmental and 1.3. Have clear and realistic long-term
achieving Environmental Net requirements for this scheme are on land Regulatory strategies for how operational and
Gain within the Design Vision and currently owned by Thames Water, with Assessments mitigation proposals will be managed
Principles. minor land acquisition required for and maintained. Develop partnerships
3. Evidence of review of adopted things such as conveyance shafts, which Gate 2 Report – with local communities where this has a
(or emerging) spatial plans, would be entirely below-ground post- Annex D: mutual benefit.
strategies for the areas impacted construction. Planning reviews and Engagement Report 1.4. Develop proposals in light of a clear
by your works*. engagement with local authorities are understanding of the area’s landscape
4. Landscape/townscape character underway to best mitigate any new and history.
developments. Gate 2 Report –
assessments and approach to Annex G: Planning
design specific to context.* Report
2. Protect and promote the 1. Statements on your approach to In Gate 2, baseline ecological surveys Gate 2 Report - 2.1. Achieve at least 10% Biodiversity Net
recovery of nature: Focus on the achieving BNG and aspirations to have been carried out in the potential Annex B: Gain (BNG).
role of landscape, its capacity to contribute to the recovery of plant sites and conveyance routes where Environmental and 2.2. Deploy nature-based approaches to
accommodate infrastructure and nature within Design Vision and the project could impact the local Regulatory integration and mitigation as the first-
shape places. Work Principles. May include specific ecosystem and the nature. The findings Assessments choice solution where possible.
collaboratively and employ reference to local Green-Blue of surveys are being considered in the 2.3. When looking at options to provide
holistic, landscape-scale Infrastructure Strategies/ option appraisal process to select the Gate 2 Report – compensation or enhancement
approaches that support and (emerging) Local Nature optimum locations and conveyance Annex D: prioritise measures that support
deliver biodiversity net gain as Recovery Plans, catchment routes. Engagement Report achieving good ecological condition for
well as multiple other benefits. management plans and other Measures to protect and promote nature affected watercourses and bodies as a
measures to improve watercourse and ensure the BNG target will be whole. When making an intervention,
quality. established in the future design stage mitigate infrequent impacts by
based on the ecological survey data and developing proposals that keep them
characteristics of the sites/ routes local and short lived.
selected through the option appraisal
process.
2.4. Work with landowners and land
Engagement with local EA and NE managers to develop mutually
officers on potential BNG opportunity beneficial solutions where practicable.
sites further supported this work.
3. Design all features beautifully, 1. Set out with opportunities and The proposed River Abstraction and CDR section 2.1.1, 3.1. Develop a utilities architecture that
with honesty and creativity: Our aspirations for high quality design Outfall would be located on the River 2.2.4 speaks to its purpose and enhances its
utility infrastructure can be a within Design Vision and Thames which is an iconic natural context. This applies to buildings,
source of pride and a positive Principles. heritage location for Londoners and for structures and landscape.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 12
Submission
contribution to its context. 2. Development of a project plan the world. Ensuring engineering and 3.2. Develop designs and, where
Develop proposals that reveal stating how these aspirations will functional integrity, the London Effluent appropriate, artworks that bring
and celebrate its importance, be developed/achieved. Reuse SRO will deliver designs of these narrative (meaning), beauty and
provide visual delight and leave 3. Favourable independent design components beautifully with a pride of interest to the proposals.
a positive legacy. review outcomes* being a part of the community. It is 3.3. Consideration of context in every aspect
4. See also Place 1. planned that architects and landscaping of design including its location, layout,
specialists will be engaged in design form, scale, appearance, landscape,
work at the future stages, with minimal materials and detailing.
consequences visually and for
local access.
Value
1. Maximise embedded value: Work 1. Evidence of multi-disciplinary Planning professionals, terrestrial habitat Gate 2 Report – 1.1. Early multidisciplinary input informing a
collaboratively across input into site selection* (See ecologists, carbon and energy analysts section 3.4 design that solves multiple problems at
specialisms and with Note 2). joined the Gate 1 design team which once.
stakeholders to maximise the 2. Initial project and, where consisted of engineering and 1.2. Design of infrastructure capable of
benefits of the scheme by being appropriate, site appraisals environmental consultants. As for adaptation to reasonable future
smart with the location and (including constraints and engineering designs, inputs from an demands (see also Climate 3).
arrangement of elements and opportunities) undertaken by a outfall/abstraction design specialist, a 1.3. Site selection processes and layouts
design of mitigation within the multi-disciplinary team (steps 1- high-voltage electrical overhead line that assist (or as a minimum, do not
project scope and budget. 5 in design development specialist, geotechnical engineers and a prevent) local development except
process). structural engineer were introduced at where absolutely necessary.
3. A statement within the Design Gate 2 to improve design development.
1.4. Reinstatement, landscape and
Vision on the SRO's aspirations Site and conveyance route appraisal mitigation proposals that improve the
and capability to deliver have been started in Gate 2, and it is existing situation, - e.g. through better
embedded value which should expected to be completed in Gate 3. biodiversity, carbon sequestration,
include Social Value, BNG surface water infiltration and reduced
and ENG. run-off.
1.5. Deliver benefits efficiently by exploiting
the two-way relationship between
infrastructure and natural capital to
enable multiple benefits to be delivered
simultaneously.
2. Understand how you could 1. A description of potential Teddington DRA scheme is identified as CDR section 1.4 2.1. Strategic project selection is informed
provide additional value: Identify opportunities to work with other one of potential water source options for by cross-sectoral engagement to
opportunities to contribute wider projects/partners to achieve T2AT SRO. There is a potential maximise social benefit and reduce the
regional benefits outside of the wider benefits. opportunity that DO from Teddington use of customers money (see note 3).
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 13
Submission
project scope. In particular look 2. A statement within the Design DRA scheme would replace raw water 2.2. Work closely with partners and focus on
for synergies with relevant Vision on the SRO's aspirations from Hampton Intake and provide landscape scale schemes that improve
catchment management plans and capability to deliver benefit to West London, if it partners with hydrology, aquatic ecology and
and proposals that support the additional value. water supply reinforcement projects in reduce/sequester carbon and provide
delivery and enjoyment of a West London. opportunities for access to recreation
healthy water environment. and visual delight.
2.3. Be honest and realistic with partners as
to what you might be able to offer as an
organisation.
3. Capture and measure embedded 1. Details of the best-value metrics WRSE is progressing further assessments Gate 2 Report – 3.1. Gathering of project specific data and
and additional value: Have clear used in determination of the of the options, considering factors section 4.3 improvement in the tools we have to
narratives about how you are Regional Plans and WRMPs and a beyond cost to deliver additional value, measure and monitor added and
contributing to society beyond clear narrative on how these have improve the region’s environment additional value across the sector.
the core scope of your project. influenced option selection so far. further and benefit wider society. Wider 3.2. Full consideration of potential benefits
Quantify these benefits so they 2. Inclusion of a description within resilience benefits of each solution have in the Cost Benefit analysis and
can be considered meaningfully the project plan of how these will been reassessed. Details of the best- investment case for the SRO.
in conversations on value, be developed and monitored at value metrics used are described in 3.3. Clear communication of value of the
financing and risk. Share your subsequent gates. section 4.3 in Gate 2 Report. scheme to stakeholders, communities
experience and knowledge 3. Initial narrative (description) of and within the industry.
widely. the value of the scheme in
plain English.
*Activity may occur at Gate 2 or Gate 3 depending on maturity of the proposals.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 14
2.2 Scheme Components and Operating Philosophy

The conceptual design for each of following option components are developed in this report:
 Mogden STW Final Effluent abstraction
 Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) at Mogden STW
- 50Ml/d-yield Tertiary Treatment Plant
- 75Ml/d-yield Tertiary Treatment Plant
 Waste Stream Collection and Discharge at Tertiary Treatment Plant in Mogden STW
 Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel from Mogden STW to Teddington Discharge site on the River Thames
 Treated Effluent Discharge to the River Thames, upstream of Teddington Weir
 Teddington River Abstraction
- Intake from the River Thames, upstream of Teddington Weir
- Abstracted Raw Water Transfer
- Thames Lee Tunnel connection
The conceptual design for the following potential option component is included in the Beckton Water Recycling
Conceptual Design Report:
 TLT extension from Lockwood Reservoir Shaft to River Lee Diversion upstream of King George V
Reservoir (KGV)
2.2.1 Assessment of Source Flow Availability

In Gate 1 conceptual design, a check of final effluent flow recorded in Mogden STW from 2016 to 2020 was
carried out, and it was found that the Dry Weather Flow (DWF), as a nonparametric 80% exceeded daily flow,
during this period was 420Ml/d and the Average Daily Flow (ADF) was 494Ml/d at the proposed final effluent
abstraction location.
However, these values include infiltration and trade flows which may reduce significantly in drought conditions.
Therefore, availability of source flow was considered further in Gate 2, and a review was undertaken of projected
flows received by the Mogden STW in Strategic Overview of Long term Assets and Resources (SOLAR) analysis
(SOLAR, AMP6 ver. 4.2 updated on 10 July 2019).
SOLAR estimates STW influent in the future, utilising predicted population growth. All flows into Mogden STW
essentially leave the site as final effluent though there is a small amount of volume loss during treatment which
account for sludge and evaporation.
According to SOLAR, projected domestic flow to be received by Mogden STW in 2031 would be 305Ml/d.
Domestic flow does not include infiltration or trade flows, and it is assumed that domestic flow would not reduce
significantly during periods of drought. Therefore, this value would provide a conservative estimate of available
effluent from Mogden STW during drought conditions.
Table below lists approximate source flows required for different option sizes in Mogden Water Recycling,
Teddington DRA and Mogden South Sewer schemes. These three schemes would use final effluent from Mogden
STW as their water source. For example, an approximately 252Ml/d of final effluent would be required for a
200Ml/d capacity of Mogden Water Recycling scheme. Because the projection of available final effluent from
Mogden STW would be 305Ml/d, it would be recommended that combined maximum capacities (total yield of
Treated Effluent/ Recycled Water) of Teddington DRA, Mogden Water Recycling and Mogden South Sewer would
be 200Ml/d.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 15
Table 2-2: Yields of Treated Effluent/ Recycled Water and Abstraction of Final Effluent/ Sewage in
Mogden Water Recycling, Teddington DRA and Mogden South Sewer Schemes
Flow Units Yield of Treated Effluent/ Estimated Abstraction of Final
Recycled Water Effluent or Sewage*
Mogden Water Recycling Ml/d 50 63
Ml/d 100 126
Teddington DRA Ml/d 50 58
Ml/d 75 87
Mogden South Sewer Ml/d 50 60
*Mogden Water Recycling and Teddington DRA schemes would abstract Final Effluent from Mogden STW, while South Sewer scheme would
abstract untreated sewage from the catchment of Mogden STW.
2.2.2 Source Water (Mogden STW Final Effluent) Abstraction Design Components
The existing 3m wide, 2m deep final effluent channel runs along the South edge of the Mogden STW from West
to East, and to the North alongside the existing storm tanks on the East side of the STW. Overflows from the
existing storm tanks directly discharge into the final effluent channel along the eastern perimeter of the storm
tanks. Therefore, final effluent would be abstracted upstream of the storm tank overflow along the southern
edge of the existing storm tank to prevent untreated storm tank overflows being transferred to the treatment
facilities. Abstracted final effluent will be treated in the new TTP within Mogden STW.
2.2.3 Treatment Design Components

The Treated Effluent discharge would provide compensation flow upstream of the Teddington Weir following
raw water abstraction a little further upstream. The discharge location will be in the most downstream reach of
the non-tidal section of the river Thames and downstream of all existing raw water abstraction points; it is
therefore considered that the Treated Effluent is not required to conform to Drinking Water Standards. The
tertiary treatment design is therefore focused on achieving environmental quality consent parameters for the
discharge to the freshwater River Thames.
At this stage of design, conditions for the discharge of Treated Effluent to the River Thames are based on that of
the Hogsmill STW discharge permit which is for the same reach of the river as this proposed discharge. The
Hogsmill STW Discharge permit has tighter Emission Limit Values (ELVs) for Suspended Solids, BOD, Ammonia
and Phosphorus discharge and the selected tertiary treatment will reduce these parameters contained within the
Mogden STW final effluent. The proposed process comprises tertiary nitrification to reduce 95%ile ammonia
compliance and chemical dosing and tertiary filtration for 95%ile phosphate compliance and Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) compliance.
There are opportunities to consider alternative treatment trains and development of the conceptual design as
the project progresses and this level of tertiary treatment may not be required depending on the performance of
Mogden STW in the future. Therefore, treatment designs described in this report are indicative.
2.2.3.1 Water Quality
2.2.3.1.1 Mogden STW Secondary Effluent Quality

A summary of the key water parameters is presented in Table 2-3. The key Hogsmill STW discharge consent
values are also included for reference when considering these basis of design parameters. The Hogsmill STW
also currently discharges into the same reach of the river as is the proposed TTP, therefore, it provides a
reasonable basis for establishing the Treated Effluent design envelope.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 16
Table 2-3: Key TTP Feed Water Quality Parameters

Parameter Unit Average 95%ile Hogsmill STW
Discharge Permit
General
BOD mg/l 5.4 12.2 9 (95%ile)
Phosphorus mg/l 3.5 5.4 1 (annual average)
Ammonia. NH₃ mg/l 0.4 1.7 3 (95%ile)
Suspended Solids mg/l 15.7 36.0 25 (95%ile)
pH ph Unit 7.4 7.6 6.5-9.5
Alkalinity (as CaCO₃) mg/l 201.2 230.4 N/A
BOD
The existing Mogden STW provides full carbonaceous and nitrification activated sludge treatment. The Mogden
STW final effluent has a 95%ile BOD concentration of 12.2mg/l. Treatment to reduce BOD concentrations in the
discharging water is required to achieve the discharge consent of 9mg/l on a 95%ile basis. This requires a high
degree of solids reduction. This is proposed via tertiary cloth pile filters. Further sampling of final effluent
soluble and particulate BOD fractions may be required as conditions for the discharge consent are consolidated
in discussion with the regulator.
Phosphorus
The existing Mogden STW does not include chemical dosing for phosphorus removal. Phosphorus reduction is
required to achieve the existing Hogsmill STW consent level of 1mg/l total phosphorus (annual average).
Chemical phosphorus removal via ferric sulphate dosing and tertiary filtration has been designed to achieve a
discharge concentration 50% of the Hogsmill STW phosphorus consent of 1mg/l.
Ammonia
The Mogden STW final effluent has a 95%ile BOD concentration of 1.7mg/l which is well below the 3mg/l
Hogsmill consent, indicating that tertiary Ammonia removal may not be required if a similar consent was
determined by the EA for the Teddington Treated Effluent discharge. This presents an opportunity to rationalise
and optimise the treatment process as the design progresses but at this stage nitrifying sand filters have been
included on the basis that further ammonia reduction may be required.
Suspended Solids
The existing Mogden STW comprises conventional activated sludge and final settlement tank treatment trains to
produce a secondary clarified effluent. The secondary effluent has a 95%ile suspended solids concentration of
36mg/l which will need to be significantly reduced to meet compliance with the Hogsmill STW discharge
consent of 25mg/l. Solids reduction via tertiary cloth pile filtration has been proposed in this conceptual design.
Design development will further consider the risk of fluctuation in solids loading, recognising the upgrade works
ongoing at Mogden STW and future likely process performance. The final effluent ratio of Total Suspended Solid
(TSS) to BOD appears high and existing process performance will be further considered as design progresses.
2.2.3.1.2 Treated Effluent Quality

The Hogsmill STW currently discharges into the same reach of river and therefore this discharge consent has
been used as a proxy for the Treated Effluent quality target and used as the basis of design. Appropriate water
quality targets will be confirmed through engagement of the EA.
The TTP Treated Effluent quality has been projected as shown in the table below, assuming indicative tertiary
treatment process, including ferric sulphate dosing, Nitrifying Sand Filters (NSFs) and mechanical cloth filters.
As shown in Table 2-4, the proposed TTP treatment process could achieve the discharge consent targets of the
Hogsmill STW based on 95%ile Mogden STW Final Effluent quality. As the design progresses, it is recommended
to undertake frequent final effluent quality monitoring to demonstrate a robust dataset which reflects recent
final effluent discharge quality.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 17
Table 2-4: Proposed TTP Projected Treated Effluent Quality

Parameter Unit Mogden STW Final Projected Water Quality Hogsmill STW
Effluent (95%ile of of TTP Treated Effluent Discharge Permit
data 2004 - 2020) (95%ile)
BOD mg/l 12.2 7 9 (95%ile)
Phosphorus mg/l 5.4 0.5 1 (annual average)
Ammonia. NH₃ mg/l 1.7 0.1 3 (95%ile)
Suspended Solids mg/l 36.0 10 25 (95%ile)
pH ph Unit 7.6 6.8 6.5-9.5
Alkalinity (as CaCO₃) mg/l 230.4 174 N/A
2.2.3.2 Proposed Treatment Scheme

As described above, suspended solids, BOD, ammonia and phosphorus would be the main parameters of concern
for this TTP design. A two-stage tertiary treatment process consisting of nitrifying sand filters and mechanical
cloth filters would address the high suspended solids concentration fed to the plant. Nitrifying sand filters allow
for nitrification and TSS/BOD removal. Chemical phosphorus removal through ferric sulphate dosing could be
upstream of final tertiary cloth pile filters to achieve the assumed total phosphorus compliance requirements.
Indicative treatment process for Teddington DRA scheme would be:

 Ferric sulphate dosing (for chemical phosphorus reduction)
 Nitrifying Sand Filters (for ammonia, BOD and suspended solids reduction)
 Mechanical Cloth Filters (for final solids reduction)
 Associated backwash and desludging equipment for filter units
Chlorination of the Treated Effluent prior to transfer, together with de-chlorination prior to discharge, may be
required for virus reduction, following further water quality analysis and development of pathogen
removal targets.
2.2.3.2.1 Ferric Sulphate Dosing

Ferric sulphate would be dosed to the incoming Final Effluent stream via direct injection to a coagulation tank
for effective mixing and contact time for phosphorus precipitation. A dedicated ferric sulphate storage tank and
dosing skid would be supplied. Ferric dosing requirements have been estimated based on average Final Effluent
phosphorus concentrations to achieve a Treated Effluent output concentration of 0.5mg/l.
The assumed dose point could be upstream of the tertiary nitrifying sand filters, but as design progresses, it may
be considered to be better suited upstream of the tertiary cloth pile filters depending upon the performance
assessment of specific supplier selection. The TTP feed stream has a high phosphorus content and large
quantities of chemical sludge can be generated upon addition of ferric which could be problematic for nitrifying
sand filters and may impact the filters’ ammonia reduction efficiency. Chemical sludges generated through
backwash would be returned to the Mogden STW, upstream of primary treatment and downstream of storm
overflow points.
2.2.3.2.2 Nitrifying Sand Filters (NSF)

Continuous flow nitrifying sand filters are proposed to provide BOD, ammonia, and solids reduction. The sand
filter can handle peak solids loadings for short periods of time whilst achieving ammonia removal through an
attached biomass nitrification process. For this, a process air supply is required. Nitrifying sand filter units can
operate in a continuous contact filtration process with no moving parts meaning they do not need to be taken
offline making it an ideal model for this TTP design. The proposed filter vessel would be housed and built into
tanks with a 2m bed height. The 50Ml/d and 75Ml/d designs will consist of 5 No. and 8 No. banks of ten filter
cells, respectively.
A summary of indicative unit configuration and sizing is provided in Table 2-5.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 18
Table 2-5: Indicative NSF Configurations

Scheme Design 50Ml/d 75Ml/d
Design Hydraulic Loading Rate 58Ml/d 87Ml/d
Filter Banks 5 8
Total Filter Cells 50 (10 per bank) 80 (10 per bank)
Total Filter Area 300m² (60m² per bank) 480m² (60m² per bank)
Total Filter Media Volume 765m³ (153m³ per bank) 1,224m³ (153m³ per bank)
Ammonia Removal 87.7kg/day 131.6kg/day
Dirty wash water is collected and returned to the wastewater return pumping station for return to the head of the
Mogden STW.
Air supply for nitrification is supplied using containerised compressed air systems. The filter media would consist
of natural, graded quartz sand which commonly does not need replacing.
2.2.3.2.3 Mechanical Cloth Filters

Mechanical cloth filters would provide a final solids removal barrier. These units comprise filter discs with cloth
type filter pile used to capture suspended solids particles all installed in tanks.
As water flows into the concrete tank, suspended solids and other contaminants accumulate on the outside of
the filter media, causing the water level in the filter to rise. Backwashing would occur sequentially such that not
all discs are backwashed at the same time to allow for full flow operation. Suction pumps would be used for
backwashing which are supplied with the package unit, with dirty backwash being discharged through a solids
collection system.
During the operation of the filter unit, accumulated solids build-up results in sludge layer formation on the
bottom of the tank. Sludge pumps would be used and included within the unit to de-sludge the tank, using the
same solids collection system. As with backwashing the de-sludging process would occur sequentially, allowing
for the continuous operation of the filter to provide a filtered effluent.
Dirty wash water and sludge could be transferred to the wastewater return pumping station for return to the
head of the Mogden STW.
Table 2-6: Indicative Mechanical Cloth Filter Configurations
Scheme Design 50Ml/d 75Ml/d
Design Hydraulic Loading 52.2Ml/d 78.4Ml/d
Rate
Filter Units 3 (Duty/Duty/Standby) 4 (Duty/Duty/Duty/Standby)
Total Filter Discs 84 (28 per unit) 112 (28 per unit)
Total Filter Area 420m² (140 m² per bank) 560m² (140 m² per bank)
Backwash Suction Pumps 36 (12 per unit) 48 (12 per unit)
2.2.3.2.4 Chemical Dosing

The units for the TTP would not require chemical cleaning or chemicals for enhanced backwashing. The only
chemical usage could be phosphorus removal.
Ferric Sulphate solution would be dosed upstream of tertiary filtration for chemical phosphorus removal and
formation of flocs for downstream solids removal. Ferric sulphate solution would be dosed to a coagulation tank
for mixing efficiency.
Chemical deliveries to the TTP would be via a common hard standing area which would drain to a dedicated
chemical spill tank so that any accidental spills could be contained, treated and disposed of in an
appropriate manner.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 19
There might be biofilm growth and operational intervention might be required to clean/disinfect the conveyance
system to Teddington discharge. This would require consideration of further waste streams and disposal routes.
As design develops and the operational regime design is developed, the need for conveyance maintenance,
prevention of growth, need for scouring, cleaning and/or sweetening flow will also need to be further reviewed.
2.2.3.2.5 Process Unit Summary

Indicative process units are summarised in the following tables.
Table 2-7: Indicative 50Ml/d Process Unit and Structure Sizes
Process item Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate
building / Length Width Height above
structure area (m) (m) ground
(m2) (m)
Wastewater Equalisation Tank - 20 9 -
Final Effluent Pumping Station 268 26 11 6
Coagulation Dosing Chamber 257 20 9 10
Nitrifying Sand Filter (NSF) 1125 39 29 9
Mechanical Cloth Filter 142 12 12 4
Chemical Storage 242 11 21 8
Treated Effluent Pumping Station Shaft - - 15 -
Treated Effluent Pumping Station 268 26 11 6
Table 2-8: Indicative 75Ml/d Process Unit and Structure Sizes

Process item Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate
building / Length Width Height above
structure area (m) (m) ground
(m2) (m)
Wastewater Equalisation Tank - 25 11 -
Final Effluent Pumping Station 301 27 11 6
Coagulation Dosing Chamber 257 25 11 10
Nitrifying Sand Filter (NSF) 1362 42 33 9
Mechanical Cloth Filter 212 12 18 4
Chemical Storage 345 11 31 8
Treated Effluent Pumping Station Shaft - - 16 -
Treated Effluent Pumping Station 301 27 11 6
2.2.3.3 Waste Streams Management

The operation of NSF and mechanical cloth filters result in backwashing and desludging waste streams that
could be collected in the Wastewater Equalisation Tank prior to discharge to the Wastewater Return Pumping
Station and returned to the inlet of the Mogden STW.
Projected quality parameters of the waste stream are shown in Table 2-9.
In Gate 2 design, it was assumed that Mogden STW would have sufficient capacity to accept the return of the TTP
backwash waste streams, however further assessment is required to confirm this at future stage.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 20
Table 2-9: Projected TTP Waste Stream Flow and Composition

Parameter Units 50Ml/d Plant Design 75Ml/d Plant Design
Waste Stream Flow Ml/d 8 12
pH ph Unit 6.8 6.8
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/l 174 174
Suspended Solids mg/l 400 400
Suspended Solids (Load) kg/d 3,220 4,830
BOD mg/l 45 45
BOD (Load) kg/d 361 542
Ammonia mg/l 12 12
Ammonia (Load) kg/d 95 142
Phosphorus mg/l 0.5 0.5
Phosphorus (Load) kg/d 4 6
2.2.4 Conveyance Design Components
2.2.4.1 Conveyance Design General Considerations

The general assumptions used to develop the conceptual design of this tunnel are listed below:
 The proposed tunnel would have an Internal Diameter (ID) of 1.8m.
 The spacing of intermediate shafts is limited by operational, health and safety considerations governed
by the diameter and construction techniques. A maximum safe distance (for H&S purposes during
construction) of 1000m has been assumed between shafts and is based on industry best practise (British
Tunnelling Society (BTS) and the Pipe Jacking Association (PJA) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
Tunnelling and Pipejacking Guidance for Designers (known as the PJA Guidance).
 The direction that the tunnel would be driven between shafts, which shaft sites will contain drive shafts
and which will contain reception shafts, would ultimately be a decision made later in the design process,
with input from stakeholders including the contractor for the works.
 Based upon the requirements to drive a 1.8m ID tunnel using a tunnel boring machine (TBM), drive
shafts would require to be approximately 10.5m ID with a construction site area of approximately
2500m2. Reception shafts are also assumed to be 10.5m ID. Given the reduced tunnelling operations at
reception shafts, the construction site area would be correspondingly reduced.
 Considerations would be given to the items, including but not limited to, below in the site/ route
selection process:
- Area of land available.
- Ease of access for construction vehicles and transportation of material.
- Distances between shafts.
- Minimising impact to surrounding areas.
- Nature of the land and its current use for ease of procurement.
- The 3rd party impacts of the shaft locations.
- A review of other underground assets and services and ensuring there are no clashes or that mitigation
measures are minimised.
The conveyance route will be selected through stakeholder engagement as the design develops with
supplementary information including route geology.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 21
2.2.4.2 Conveyance Route

The treated effluent transfer tunnel is envisaged to be constructed in multiple drives using a trenchless method,
such as ‘pipe jack’ technology. Pipe jacking is an alternative method of lining a tunnel, as distinct from a
segmental lining. It is a technique that is used from very small diameters (microtunnelling) up to 2500mm ID.
Powerful hydraulic jacks are used to push specially strengthened pipes through the ground behind a shield or
TBM. The TBM is received at a reception shaft and may be launched onwards in a series of drives or taken away
to start again at another drive shaft. The pipes remain in the ground and are cement-grouted into place,
displacing any lubricating fluid used during the jacking process.
The first shaft would be within the Mogden STW site close to the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP), and
the proposed shaft at Teddington discharge would be located in close proximity to the River Abstraction Site on
the River Thames.
There will be several intermediate shafts along the tunnel route between a drive shaft and a reception shaft.
Drive shaft compounds will have a larger land requirement than reception shaft compounds due to their
purposes as TBM launch sites which require more area for material transportation and storage as well as
plant logistics.
2.2.4.3 Tunnel Shafts

Indicative shaft details for the Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel are listed in Table 2-10 below:
Table 2-10: Mogden STW to Teddington Tunnel Indicative Shaft Details
Shaft Shaft Internal Approximate Approximate Approximate
Diameter Ground Level Shaft Depth (m) Shaft Base
(m) (mAOD) Level (mAOD)
Mogden STW Shaft Site 10.5 7.1 27.1 -20
Shaft Site 2 10.5 8.8 27.5 -18.7
Shaft Site 3 10.5 8.2 25.3 -17.1
Shaft Site 4 10.5 7.1 22.2 -15.1
Shaft Site 5 10.5 6.3 20.4 -14.2
Shaft Site 6 10.5 6.2 19.4 -13.2
Shaft Site 7 10.5 7.7 19.4 -11.6
Teddington Shaft Site 10.5 7.2 17.9 -10.7
2.2.4.3.1 Mogden STW Shaft Site

The proposed shaft at Mogden STW would be located within Thames Water-owned land at Mogden STW near
the proposed TTP.
A shaft is required for construction of the tunnel. After commissioning, the shaft would be used to transfer
Treated Effluent from the treatment works to the main tunnel. There is sufficient land within Mogden STW for
construction of the shaft although the site is relatively constrained. Some amendments to normal operational
access would be required during the works.
2.2.4.3.2 Intermediate Shaft Sites

Several intermediate shafts would be required along the route to launch and receive the TBM undertaking the
tunnel construction. Drive shafts would be used to facilitate access to the tunnel, launch the TBM, remove spoil,
store materials and jacking pipes and provide ventilation during construction.
The intermediate shafts for this size of tunnel would have an internal diameter of 10.5m and would be capped
with a concrete cover after completion of the works. The shaft concrete cover would be permanent and would be
positioned below the ground surface to minimise impacts on current use of the land, with access covers for
personnel and plant accessible at ground surface.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 22
2.2.4.3.3 Teddington Shaft Site

A shaft would be required at the Teddington discharge site for construction of the tunnel and to transfer Treated
Effluent from the invert of the tunnel to the River Thames outfall. The location of the proposed shaft is close to
the River Thames to reduce the distance to the discharge point and to limit the impact of construction activities.
The shaft concrete cover would be permanent, and would be positioned below the ground surface, with access
covers for personnel and plant at ground surface.
2.2.4.4 Treated Effluent Discharge Arrangement

Treated Effluent would be discharged into the River Thames upstream of the Teddington Weir. The Treated
Effluent will then blend with the main river flow and compensate for the abstraction being made at the new river
intake to the Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT) upstream of the discharge. The new river outfall structure would be
designed to reduce the discharge velocity into the river of less than 0.3m/s. This low velocity is intended to
minimise disturbance to the aquatic life in the river as well as to avoid introducing turbulent currents that may
disturb boats or other craft using the river.
The new river outfall would be a buried reinforced concrete structure. The buried structure is intended to be
unobtrusive, although access covers and covers to valve spindle might be visible at the ground level. The Treated
Effluent would discharge at the surface of the river. The riverbank at the location of the discharge outfall would
extend over the river edge as a vertical timber wharf. Vertical bars would be fitted under the wharf structure to
prevent unauthorised access and to prevent accumulation of debris when not in use.
Modelling work is being carried out to confirm suitable discharge velocities for the Teddington Weir fish pass and
to ensure that there are no adverse effects on scouring and on the fish as well as to limit the effect on navigation.
Design of the outfall is to be further developed through feedback from modelling results and conversations with
regulatory authorities and local communities.
2.2.4.5 River Abstraction Arrangement

The river intake at Teddington would be located immediately upstream of the proposed new outfall. The
indicative arrangement of river abstraction is shown on the figures below. The intake would comprise of coarse
screens, mechanical fine screens and a settling chamber to remove sand or silts that may be drawn in. A low
velocity intake with eel screen (self-cleaning band screen) is considered at this stage.
For the intake to work effectively the screens would be positioned in the river flow, some 3 to 5m from the
riverbank. This is to prevent silting or blocking of the intake. To minimise the visual impact, the overall height of
the structure and screens could be minimised in the detailed design to blend in with the existing topography.
The mechanical and electrical (M&E) equipment would be secured in kiosks and a permanent fenced enclosure
would be required. In addition, a power supply and vehicular access to the intake structure would be needed.
Designs and arrangement of the river intake structure will be further developed through conversations with
regulatory authorities, confirming design requirements from the environmental and functional aspects. In
addition, it is recommended that landscape specialists and architects be engaged into the design work to provide
a positive legacy with visual delight in the community.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 23
Figure 2-1: Indicative 3D Visualisation Representation of Teddington DRA Intake on the River Thames –
Bird Eye’s View
Figure 2-2: Indicative 3D Visualisation Representation of Teddington DRA Intake on the River Thames -
Elevation View
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 24
2.2.4.6 Raw Water (River Water) Transfer Pipeline and Connection to TLT at Teddington
A Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT) Connection Shaft is proposed near to the proposed river intake at the River Thames,
adjacent to the location of the Treated Effluent outfall. A connection shaft would extract flows from the intake on
the Thames via a pumping station.
Abstracted flow in the Raw Water Transfer Pipeline would be monitored by a flow meter in a chamber located
after the pumping station. The flow meter would be connected to the inter-site control system to control pumps
in the TTP, Lockwood Reservoir Pumping Station and the Teddington River Abstraction, such that flows in the
entire conveyance system will be centrally controlled.
Connection to the TLT would be via a shaft positioned close to the existing tunnel which would be connected via
an adit or a vertical connection from the base of the shaft. Flow would be conveyed via pipework to the base of
the shaft where it would connect into the tunnel.
The TLT was designed to work as a gravity system; however, due to the limitations of the vertical alignment of
the tunnel, under certain conditions, the tunnel could operate as a siphon at higher flow rates. The impact of
introducing additional flows at Teddington on the TLT will be further assessed at the next stage of the project.
2.2.4.7 Tunnel Profile and Existing Infrastructure

The depth of the Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel would vary from an invert level of -20.0mAOD at Mogden
STW to -10.7mAOD at Teddington. The tunnel would be with a gradient of 1:500, sloping uphill from Mogden
STW to Teddington. This would enable the tunnel to be drained down back to Mogden STW which would have
operational advantage if taking the tunnel out of use or in event of a process treatment quality failure reaching
the tunnel. There may be an opportunity to reverse this slope with pumps being used to discharge the water in
the tunnel into the River Thames.
These depths would locate the tunnel within London Clay based upon available borehole records. The depth is
assumed to provide sufficient clearance beneath the top of clay along the entire alignment. Further ground
information along the route will be required to confirm tunnel profile.
As the tunnel would be within London Clay, it is not envisaged that the tunnel and shaft construction would
present any significant risks associated with ground movement. A first phase settlement analysis will be required
to estimate predicted settlements.
An initial review of services information indicated the tunnel would not clash with any major transportation or
utilities in the vicinity. A preliminary investigation of third-party crossings along the Teddington and Mogden
STW tunnel corridor was undertaken based on available information. The only significant transport infrastructure
would be the overground railway and A316 Chertsey Road. Discussions with relevant asset owners will be
required to confirm the permissible settlements for crossings and depths of buried utilities. Some assets will
need pre-and post-condition surveys, as part of the agreement, together with any protection, repair, or
monitoring to allow construction to proceed.
2.2.4.8 Pumping Stations

Pumping stations (PS) are required for raw water abstraction, inter process and Treated Effluent pumping. The
key pumping requirements would be as follows.
 Final Effluent Pumping Station: To abstract final effluent from the existing final effluent channel in
Mogden STW and transfer to the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) in proximity to the abstraction
location within the STW. This PS would be located within Mogden STW.
 Wastewater Pumping Station: To transfer wastewater generated through treatment in TTP to the inlet of
the Mogden STW for treatment. This PS would be located within Mogden STW.
 Treated Effluent Pumping Station: To transfer Treated Effluent from the proposed TTP in Mogden STW
to the first tunnel shaft of Treated Effluent Transfer Tunnel which would lead to Teddington discharge
location on the River Thames. This PS would be located within Mogden STW.
 Teddington Shaft Discharge Pumps: To lift conveyed Treated Effluent from the tunnel shaft at the
Teddington Discharge site on the riverbank and discharge through the outfall. The pumps would be
located inside the tunnel shaft at the Teddington Discharge site.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 25
 River Abstraction Pumping Station: To transfer raw water abstracted from the River Thames at the
proposed Teddington Intake to the TLT connection in proximity. This PS would be located near the
Teddington Intake.
2.2.5 Operating Philosophy

The water recycling schemes would operate intermittently as required during periods of drought in the Thames
Water Drought Plan framework. Anticipated operational utilisation rates are set out in section 4.1 in the Gate 2
Report.
It was assumed that the water recycling schemes would be utilised and operated as one of the strategic drought
schemes in the Thames Water Drought Plan and that the trigger of utilisation would be same as the strategic
drought schemes in the current Drought Plan. Strategic drought schemes are sources of water that are permitted
for use during drought period but are not used as part of day to day’ baseline supply. Thames Water Draft
Drought Plan 2022 lists five strategic drought schemes including Thames Gateway Water Treatment Works
(TGWTW).
In the Thames Water Drought Plan, utilisation of the strategic drought schemes is triggered by:
 Naturalised flow over Teddington Weir receding down to 3000Ml/d on average for 10 days during the
course of a drought event (defined as having a Drought Event Level (DEL) equal to or greater than DEL1,
and Reservoir storage levels having fallen to the 800-700/600Ml/d flow requirement at Teddington
Weir.
2.2.5.1 Operating Modes

Operations of international and domestic water reuse and desalination plants, including the Thames Water
Gateway Desalination plant, were reviewed. Interviews with technical and operational staff from these plants
were held to assess practicability of various operational modes.
The types of operating modes considered were:

 Normal Operation: Treatment plant and conveyance assets are operating in normal automatic control
(25-100% of maximum capacity) and delivering Recycled Water or Treated Effluent to the intended
discharge location.
 Hot Standby: Operating mode where a plant runs at a proportion of total flow (25% or less of maximum
capacity), with a ‘duty’ stream under Normal Operation and with parts of the plant in standby and is able
to return into Normal Operation mode within a day to two weeks. Conveyance assets would transfer part
of, or all Treated Effluent/ Recycled Water generated in the plants for “sweetening”.
 Cold Standby: Operating mode where process units are available to return to Normal Operation mode
within several weeks. Recycled Water or Treated Effluent would not be produced or be produced in
minimal amount of flow which would be run to waste. Conveyance assets would be drained down.
 Care and Maintenance: Operating mode under which the asset is not delivering any water, but
maintenance is carried out in order to keep the plant serviceable and able to return into Normal
Operation mode within a few months. Process assets would be in preservation mode to allow
maintenance only, and any maintenance flows from the plant would be run to waste. Conveyance assets
would be drained down.
 Non-operational: Treatment plant and conveyance element are out of service and there is minimal
ongoing expenditure.
Non-operational mode would pose major risks to the treatment plant. Fully offline treatment assets are unlikely
to be suitable for restart without major replacement works and lengthy re-commissioning which could be costly
and not practicable. The Cold Standby mode may not be recommended as it would offer negligible benefits over
the Hot Standby mode posing higher risks due to the conveyance assets being drained down.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 26
2.2.5.2 Operating Models

Three operating models were assessed at Gate 2:
 Continuous Sweetening Flow Model: The system would be in Hot Standby mode during non-drought
periods and would generate Treated Effluent/ Recycled Water at lower rate (i.e., 25% of full capacity or
less) to enable timely recommissioning when supply is required.
 Cautious Restart Model: The system would be in Hot Standby mode during non-drought periods for
approximately 6 months of the year (in the months of high likelihood of droughts) to facilitate timely
recovery to Normal Operation mode. During the other 6 months, the system would be in Care and
Maintenance mode, with the conveyance drained and any flows through the plant for maintenance
would be discharged back to the STW inlet. Alternatively, the conveyance system could be kept full, and
a very small sweetening flow slowly discharges at the proposed outfall following periodic operation of
the plant. However, additional chlorination would likely be required to prevent biomass build-up. The
process and conveyance assets would require relatively complex ramp-up procedures each year from
Care and Maintenance mode to Hot Standby mode.
 Infrequent Restart Model: The system would be in Hot Standby mode during non-drought periods for
approximately 3 months of the year (in the months of highest likelihood of droughts) to facilitate timely
recovery to Normal Operation mode. During the other 9 months, the system would be in Care and
Maintenance mode, with the conveyance drained and any flows through the plant for maintenance
would be discharged back to the STW inlet. The process and conveyance assets would require relatively
complex ramp-up procedures each year from Care and Maintenance mode to Hot Standby mode.
The Continuous Sweetening Flow model, which would have high operational costs, but with lower operational
complexity and risks, would be recommended for all the London Effluent Reuse SRO schemes at this stage.
Details of operating model will be further reviewed and optimised in terms of costs, carbon output,
environmental impacts, operational complexity, reliability and security.
Teddington DRA scheme has two differing factors from the other London Effluent Reuse schemes in operation
and maintenance.
 The tertiary treatment process is simpler in terms of re-commissioning the plant from Care and
Maintenance mode into Hot Standby mode and only has one conveyance asset for the Treated Effluent
transfer (tunnel from Mogden STW to Teddington).
 However, the proposed Nitrifying Sand Filter process would take up to 6 to 8 weeks to fully establish the
nitrification process for start-up once the biomass on the sand filter has been lost.
2.2.5.3 Tertiary Treatment Plant Chemical Consumption

The TTP would not require chemicals for cleaning purposes. Ferric sulphate would be used at the plant for the
purposes of phosphorus removal during operation.
2.2.5.4 Maintenance Requirements
2.2.5.4.1 Tertiary Treatment Plant Process Units

The minimum flow rate to the Nitrifying Sand Filter should be generally at 4m3/m2/h, and it is important to keep
flows constantly to maintain biomass on the filter. Failure to maintain biomass will result in significantly reduced
nitrifying capabilities resulting in a higher ammonia concentration. Establishing biomass would take 6 to 8 weeks
during the summer and may be longer during the winter period.
The mechanical filters would operate by filtering water through filter discs fitted with filter pile type cloth. The
filters are generally capable of being started up within a short period of time. They can be operated at low or no
flow; however, they will require periodic backwashing when not in use. The water being filtered passes through
the pile cloth, so the solids collect on the outside of the pile cloth creating a head loss. At a pre-set water level,
the cleaning cycle would be initiated. Cleaning equipment may consist of suction shoes and suction pumps.
Since the water flows from outside to inside of the disc, the tank around the discs will see some settlement of
solids occurring (and other such debris) which creates a build-up of sludge at the bottom of the tank. This sludge
could be removed by sludge pumps.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 27
Backwash suction shoes and suction pumps as well as sludge pumps would be maintained and serviced in
accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and might be sent for inspection and rebuild after 10
years operation.
2.2.5.4.2 Conveyance
When in Normal Operation, the tunnel from Mogden STW to Teddington would operate with the shafts at either
end acting as balancing tanks. Treated Water would be pumped into the shaft at Mogden STW and pumps at
Teddington shaft would draw water out at the other end of the tunnel. A single networked control system would
simultaneously control the pumps at the two shafts to maintain water levels within a controlled range to suit the
pumps and to provide the driving head to push the water along the connecting tunnel.
When the scheme is in Care & Maintenance mode, the tunnel would be pumped dry and left drained until it is
used again. Modern tunnels suffer very little ground water ingress therefore the tunnel can remain drained with
minimal risk. Periodic inspections of the tunnel to confirm the condition when drained and clearing out of any
settled materials or organic matter infrequently would be required.
The pumps would need regular maintenance and periodic operation to keep parts operable when the system is
in Care & Maintenance mode.
The outfall structure is intended to require minimal maintenance. Inspections would be carried out to ensure the
structure, including access covers, have not been damaged and that it does not represent a hazard to the public.
The valve operation would be checked, and a visual internal inspection of the buried structure would be carried
out. The inspection would monitor the build-up of any silt inside the structure and check for the accumulation
of debris.
The new river intake screen on the abstraction would require regular inspection and maintenance. Mechanical
and electrical equipment would require regular maintenance in line with the equipment manufacturer’s
recommendations. After periods of inactivity, it is important that the screens are cleared of any debris and the
silt trap is cleaned to ensure the intake will operate effectively.
2.2.5.5 Fail Safe Shutdown System

In the event of a water quality failure, the scheme would “fail safe”, via a run-to-waste back to the Mogden
Sewage Treatment Works. The treatment facilities would be monitored at Critical Control Points (CCPs) for the
required water quality parameters and will initiate an auto-shutdown/ diversion of flow in the event of
registering out of bound (“critical limit”) quality parameters or catastrophic failure of the plant.
If the Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) fails due to the events such as power loss and treatment or chemical failure,
then there would be a lock in of flow passing through the plant (with offline balancing tanks to store pass
forward flow during shutdown if necessary). The Final Effluent Transfer Pumping Station, which would be feeding
the TTP, would automatically shut down on failure.
The locked in process flow would then be run-to-waste with all flows passing to the Tertiary Treatment Plant’s
Wastewater Return Pumping Station, to return all locked-in flows to the Mogden STW inlet works for treatment.
2.2.6 Inter Site Control System Requirements

The followings might be required for the inter site control system:
 Communication links between the Mogden STW and the River Abstraction Pumping Station (PS) may be
required to relay PS operational status and control. In the event of a power outage at Teddington River
Abstraction site, Treated Effluent transfer from Mogden STW to Teddington would stop.
 Communication links between the Mogden STW and the Teddington Shaft PS might be required to relay
PS operational status and control. In the event of a power outage at Teddington Shaft PS, the Treated
Effluent transfer from Mogden STW to Teddington would stop.
 Communication link between the River Abstraction PS and Teddington Shaft PS might be required to
relay operational status between sites. In the event of a power outage at either site, conveyance at the
other site would stop.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 28
 Connection to the wider Thames Water Production Planning system might be required to regulate
operating capacity based on current river and reservoir levels.
2.2.7 Power Requirements

There are three sites requiring new or upgraded power supplies:
 Mogden Sewage Treatment Works (STW)
 Teddington Shaft Pumping Station (PS)
 River Abstraction Pumping Station (PS)
2.2.7.1 Potential Power Requirements at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works

The existing High Voltage (HV) power distribution network within Mogden STW could be utilised to supply power
to the new Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP). However, the existing Mogden STW power supply may need to be
upgraded or modified. Additionally, HV feeders to the new HV switchboard/ transformer located locally to the
treatment process may need to be provided by the existing HV switchboards. This may require the existing HV
switchboards to be modified.
Should there not be sufficient power capacity available at Mogden STW and modification of the existing
infrastructure is not feasible, a new 11kV power supply may need to be arranged terminating at the new HV
Switchboard. A supply transformer may be located outdoors in a fenced enclosure adjacent to a new Electrical
Building in TPP site.
The power supply for TTP could be potentially used to provide power to the TBM for tunnel construction, prior to
construction of the TTP. The supply could be utilised by the TBM on a temporary basis until such time that
tunnelling is completed and thereafter the supply would be transferred to the TTP HV Switchboard on a
permanent basis.
2.2.7.2 Potential Power Requirements at Teddington Shaft Pumping Station

The location of the pumping station would require a first-time LV power supply provided by the local DNO. The
new power supply to the site would terminate at the site LV MCC. The MCC would provide power for discharge
pumps which would be located within the shaft as well as to building services and ventilation for the electrical
building. The pumps would be controlled by VSD motor starters housed within the MCC. The MCC might require
a building sufficiently sized to include both the MCC alongside DNO metering and communication equipment.
2.2.7.3 Potential Power Requirement at River Abstraction Pumping Station

The River Abstraction Pumping Station would require a first-time LV power supply provided by the Local DNO.
The new power supply to the River Abstraction Pumping Station will be terminated at the PS MCC. The PS MCC
may provide power to abstraction pumps, band screens, washwater pump and to building services and
ventilation.
In the event of a supply failure, the River Abstraction Pumping Station will require standby power in order to
match abstracted flows from the River Thames with the discharged flow from the proposed TTP. The MCC will
have a generator incomer section incorporated into the design with space onsite allocated for the inclusion of a
standby generator, diesel storage tank and bunding.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 29
2.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Energy Recovery and Renewable Energy

Opportunities
Estimates of capital carbon (embodied carbon) and operational carbon for London Effluent Reuse schemes
could be found in section 6. of the Gate 2 Report and Annex A.5 of the Gate 2 Report.
To maximise alignment with PAS 2080 and the Water UK Net Zero 2030 Routemap, the emissions hierarchy,
which is detailed in the figure below, would be followed when deciding which approach to prioritise to mitigate
emissions. This prioritises in order demand reduction, efficiency gains and renewable energy integration before
pursuing offsets to remove residual carbon emissions. Due to the complexity and long lifetime of these schemes,
it is important to take a holistic approach to carbon mitigation, which uses a combination of approaches.
Figure 2-3: Emission Reduction Hierarchy

Capital emissions represent the majority share of total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the short term - as
such, focusing on reducing capital emissions will likely yield significant reductions across the early stage of a
site’s operational life. A focus on 'designing out' carbon can reduce both capital and operational emissions, in
particular for building heating and plant efficiency.
While annual operational emissions are less than those released due to material sources, over time, across the
lifetime of a site operational emissions would contribute significantly. Therefore, reducing operational emissions
will achieve the great reduction of GHG emissions in the long term. This approach is also line with the Water UK
and TWUL targets of net zero operational carbon by 2030.
It should be noted that operational GHG emissions from electricity demand would be zero for London Effluent
Reuse SRO because all electricity purchased would be zero carbon via either a Renewable Energy Guarantee of
Origin (REGO) contract or Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) as per Water UK Net Zero 2030 commitment.
However, carbon values reported in section 6.5 and Annex A.5 of Gate 2 Report include electricity carbons
for operation.
Table below lists the potential GHG mitigation approaches, providing a high-level ranking of their potential
impact on emissions reduction, including potential influence on reduction of scope 2 and scope 3 carbon, and
alignment with the emissions hierarchy.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 30
Table 2-11: Summary and Ranking of Potential Carbon Emission Reduction Approaches for London
Effluent Reuse schemes
Approach to Emissions Potential for Ability for List of options
mitigate carbon Hierarchy emissions Thames Water
emissions Category reduction to Influence
Energy management & Emissions High High - Improved pump efficiency
efficiency (highest reduction - Metering
priority) - Smart control systems
- Catchment level analytics
Renewable energy on Renewable energy High High - Solar
site - Wind
- Storage
Procured Renewable Renewable energy High High - Sleeved power purchase
Energy agreement (PPA)
- Synthetic PPA
- Private Wire PPA
- REGO-backed Green Tariffs
Resource Efficiency and Emissions High Low - Supply chain contracts
Chemical Supply reduction - Reduced resource use
Embodied emissions Emissions Moderate High - Low carbon concrete
reduction reduction - Low carbon steel
- Recycled materials
- Locally sourced materials
Engineering design Emissions Moderate Moderate - Conveyance routes
reduction - Land use
- Building size
- Building heating
Construction emissions Emissions Low Moderate - Reduced transport
reduction - Vehicle energy use
- Renewable onsite power
- Temporary buildings
Insets Offset Low Moderate - Peatland restoration
- Grassland restoration
- Tree planting
Offsets (lowest priority) Offset Low High - UK Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS)
- Voluntary Offset Market
2.2.9 Richmond Lock and Weir

The Port of London Authority (PoLA) owns and operates Richmond Lock and Weir, which is also the base for the
Upper River Harbour Service patrols between Putney and Teddington Lock. They operate the lock and the weir in
accordance with the Richmond Footbridge, Sluice, Lock and Slipway Act 1890 and Port of London Act 1968 (as
amended), which requires an upstream water level of 1.9m to 2.0m AOD is maintained to ensure sufficient water
depth for navigation upstream during all tidal ranges.
Situated between Teddington and Richmond, the weir comprises three vertical steel sluice gates suspended from
a footbridge. Each gate weighs 32.6 tonnes and is 20 metres wide and 3.64 metres in depth.
For around two hours each side of high tide, the sluice gates are raised into the footbridge structure above,
allowing ships and boats to pass through the barrage. For the rest of the day the sluice gates are closed and
passing river traffic must use the lock alongside the barrage.
PoLA raised concerns that the depleted water in the downstream reach (due to reduction in Mogden STW
effluent discharging) would result in a greater differential head across the weir gates leading to greater loss of
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 31
flow under and around the gates impacting their ability to maintain upstream water level in accordance with
their operating agreements under the Acts. The weir gates have gaps beneath them where the apron they close
onto has scoured over the years, this leakage increasing is the concern. PoLA confirmed that at very low river
levels they are challenged already in maintaining the required upstream depth.
Initial hydraulic assessment in Gate 2 assumed a range of gaps under the weir gates where the apron has been
scoured against a maximum differential head now and with future reduced downstream depth in low flow
conditions (50mm) to assess the change in potential losses under the weir gates. The findings are that less than
1% additional flow under the gates is anticipated. We do not believe this would materially impact the upstream
depth being maintained. At future Gate stage we will consider this in more detail with PoLA.
2.3 Opportunities and Future Benefits Realisation

2.3.1 Thames Lee Tunnel extension
In the London Effluent Reuse SRO, Beckton Water Recycling scheme proposes a 3.5m-diameter Recycled Water
Transfer Tunnel from the existing Lockwood Reservoir Pumping Station (PS) site, where the terminal shaft of
Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT) located, to the proposed outfall at River Lee Diversion upstream of the existing inlet of
the King George V Reservoir (KGV), which is the largest and the most upstream of the Lee Valley reservoirs.
Currently, flow from TLT is pumped to Lockwood, Banbury and High Maynard reservoirs through Lockwood
Reservoir PS. There is an opportunity that the existing TLT Lockwood shaft and pumping station would be
modified to provide a bypass feed to the proposed 3.5m-diameter Recycled Water Transfer Tunnel (TLT
extension), such that all or a portion of DO from Teddington DRA scheme and potentially the other existing flow
within TLT could be transferred to the KGV inlet.
This arrangement could potentially bring significant resilience benefit to the East London water supply system
because KGV currently can only be filled by the River Lee Diversion which can have flow below the hands-off flow
condition, restricting abstraction in drought conditions.
Benefit of DO from Teddington DRA being transferred to KGV will be investigated through modelling of the cross
London raw water supply system.
2.3.2 Other Key Opportunities

Other key opportunities identified in the conceptual design are listed in Table 2-12 below.
Table 2-12: Key Opportunities – Teddington DRA Conceptual Design
Category Opportunities
Process System There is an opportunity to rationalise and develop best outcome treatment requirements through pilot
Design work and/or full engagement with stakeholders with regards to expectation of treatment processes,
customer acceptability and engagement and environmental outcomes. There may be an opportunity to
reduce the tertiary treatment requirements by optimising the treatment process.
Process System There is an opportunity to reduce the ferric sulphate dosing requirements for phosphorus removal
Design upon confirmation of phosphorus discharge limits.
Process System There is an opportunity that a platform could be built above the existing storm tanks for Tertiary
Design Treatment Plant construction. This solution may negate requirements for deepening existing storm
tanks to maintain the total storm storage capacity for STW. Further structural and geotechnical
investigation will be required to assess feasibility of this option.
Conveyance The pumping station at the Teddington Abstraction site could be combined within the structure of the
System proposed connection shaft at TLT. This could reduce the land area and length of the pipe required.
Design
Conveyance If the tunnel diameter was increased to 3.5m then the number of intermediate shafts could be reduced.
System Design In addition, a TBM could be arranged so that the spoil could be handled at one shaft. This gives the
opportunity of potential removal of spoil via barge on the River Thames by any shaft sited close to the
river. However, this opportunity would come at significantly higher capital cost than the smaller
diameter option which is currently proposed.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 32
Category Opportunities
Conveyance Optimum tunnel diameter has been chosen based on practical construction, as a pure hydraulic
System Design analysis would indicate a reduced diameter may be feasible for the scheme in small capacities but may
introduce construction complexity. Alternative methodologies could be explored to deliver a more
economical solution if the scheme is selected in a small capacity such as 50 Ml/d.
Synergy with other There is a possibility that Mogden STW will require additional storm storage capacity in the future. Due
TWUL Objectives to the engineering scope to either deepen or modify the storm tanks at Mogden STW to provide space
for Mogden STW for the new Tertiary Treatment Plant, there is an opportunity to synergise and meet the requirement by
upgrade upgrading additional existing storm tanks as part of Teddington DRA scheme. This may increase the
value of the project.
Synergy with other There are future requirements for increased capacity at Mogden STW for growth which are likely to
TWUL Objectives require process intensification within the existing plant footprints and tanks. The technology selected
for Mogden STW could offer a synergy with the TTP as final effluent quality may be improved, meaning less tertiary
upgrade treatment would be required.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 33
3. Scheme Delivery
3.1 Overview of Construction Process
3.1.1 Tertiary Treatment Plant
It is proposed that a new Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) is constructed within the Mogden STW. However, there is
no vacant land available in the Mogden STW. The primary option considered during Gate 2 is to deepen some of
the eight existing storm tanks located to the east of the STW, which would allow the storage capacity of the
storm tanks to be maintained on a smaller footprint, thereby freeing up land for the TTP.
Gate 2 conceptual design work confirmed that the site for the existing storm tanks could accommodate TTP up
to 100Ml/d capacity, maintaining the existing storm storage capacity.
Alternatively, the TTP could be built on a platform built above the existing storm tanks. Feasibility of this
opportunity will need to be investigated further. Optimal design will be further considered in the future
design work.
As the Mogden STW will be in operation during the construction of the new TTP, deepening of the existing storm
tanks would need to be carried out in sequence, replacing them with the new deeper storm tanks. It would be
desirable to complete the storm tank replacement in the season of low precipitation. Timing and procedures of
construction would be determined through discussion with the EA and plant operation. A temporary relaxation
for the required storm storage capacity may be required during the construction. Construction of the TTP would
be carried out after completion of the storm tank replacement.
The TTP would be located within the Mogden STW, therefore, the existing infrastructure in the Mogden STW,
including access roads, drainage and services as well as boundary fencing, access barriers/gates and security,
could be utilised during construction.
3.1.2 Conveyance
3.1.2.1 Tunnel Construction

The tunnel alignment between Mogden STW and Teddington discharge site would be excavated using a tunnel
boring machine (TBM) and the tunnel lining would be pushed in by pipe-jacking. The TBM would be lowered to
the base of a drive shaft, from where it would excavate to a reception shaft with the lining jacked in behind using
hydraulic rams fixed in the base of the launch shaft. The TBM would have a bored diameter of approximately
2.2m to include for the pipe thickness and an overcut, which provides clearance to enable the machine to
advance and steer and to facilitate jacking of the lining. The annulus left would be grouted soon after tunnel
lining is completed. The pre-cast segments that follow the TBM are divided into separate pipe categories: lead
pipes that are located at the front of the drive, trail pipes that follow the pipeline drive and the intermediate
jacking stations that are used to provide additional jacking forces to extend longer drive lengths. For an assumed
internal pipe diameter of 1.8m the outside diameter would typically be 2140mm and the length of the segment
2.47m. Every third or fifth pipe would include socket holes that allow to apply grout or lubrication in order to
reduce friction during jacking.
The internal diameter of the tunnel of 1.8m has been assumed as this is the minimum recommended diameter
for the drive lengths of up to 1000m based upon current HSE guidelines. This is to allow the escape of workers
from the tunnel in an emergency. The ease of emergency evacuation can be difficult in a small tunnel,
particularly past spoil conveyors, muck skips and other equipment.
The type of TBM depends on the ground conditions expected. Although there is little existing ground
investigation data, in this area we would anticipate that the subsoil the TBM is to excavate would be London Clay,
albeit geotechnical anomalies are always a possibility.
The choice of drive location and direction of drive depends on factors such as the available space at each shaft
site, likelihood of impact to the surroundings, ease of material supply and spoil removal.
Back shunts will normally be required at the base of the drive shafts, to set up the backup equipment for the
TBM, which typically includes the rail-mounted skips, ventilation kit, spoil conveyors, electrical power. Typically,
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 34
the back shunt would be constructed with a sprayed concrete lining and its length would depend on the length
of the carriage train.
3.1.2.2 Shaft Construction

This conceptual design indicates the most likely shaft construction method, but the final choice will depend on
many factors, particularly details of the ground conditions that would emerge from ground investigations, as well
as construction and operational health and safety considerations.
3.1.2.2.1 Segmental Shaft Construction

Segmental lining is the most common method of construction, and often preferred, as it is generally the quickest
and least expensive, and it can be adapted to many ground conditions. Segments are installed by two methods,
caisson jacking or underpinning, and the method used depends on the ground and groundwater conditions:
 Caisson jacking involves the assembly of segmental rings on the surface over a cutter head and jacking
this into the ground. As the assembly advances, ground is excavated from inside and additional rings are
placed on top. This method is particularly suitable in soft ground. After it reaches the required depth, the
annulus around the shaft is grouted to limit further ground movements and mobilise friction with the
surrounding soil. In wet ground, to balance water pressure, the shaft is left full of water, and ground is
excavated below water. This is termed a ‘wet caisson’.
 Underpinning involves excavating ground below existing rings and installing segments beneath these.
This process is repeated to the base of the shaft and then the annulus is grouted. The method is most
applicable when the ground is stable on excavation and there are limited inflows of ground water.
It is common practice to start a shaft by caisson jacking in softer superficial soils and switch construction to
underpinning, or SCL shaft construction, if ground conditions improve, but the reverse cannot happen.
3.1.2.2.2 Sprayed Concrete Lining Shaft Construction

Sprayed concrete lining (SCL) requires good stable ground conditions with self-supporting soil such as London
Clay and is therefore not suitable for all ground conditions. As openings are easier to create in SCL linings than
segmental linings, it is sometimes advantageous to switch from segmental to SCL at the base of shafts where
openings are most often located. Typically, SCL will be used to construct the lower part of the shaft once the
segments are within the London Clay formation. The SCL lining will normally require a secondary in-situ concrete
lining to form a smooth surface and for control of seepage.
3.1.2.3 Outfall Construction

The proposed outfall located upstream of the Teddington Weir is intended to discharge Treated Effluent into the
River Thames. The outfall structure is intended to be discrete and would be mostly buried in the riverbank. An
open excavation would be required to construct the outfall structure. The working area would be secured during
construction by security hoarding around the site perimeter and access to the site would be controlled.
The foundations of the structure would be below the river level and a temporary U-shaped steel sheet pile wall
would need to be built out from the riverbank 2 to 3m into the river to allow a dry excavation for construction.
Depending on the specific site ground conditions, the steel sheet pile wall may be extended around the whole
excavation perimeter. A blinding layer of concrete would be laid across the bottom of the excavation to give a
stable working level.
The structure base, walls and internal weir of the outfall could be cast in situ. The top cover slabs are likely to be
precast concrete planks and could be cast off site and craned into position. Once complete, the structure would
be backfilled to the original ground profile and the temporary sheet piles would be removed. The riverbank
profile on either side of the structure would be reinstated, as would the surface along the river and over the
outfall opening to the river.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 35
3.1.2.4 River Abstraction Construction

The proposed river intake at Teddington would be located immediately upstream of the new outfall structure
and is intended to abstract from the River Thames.
An open excavation would be required to construct the new intake. The working area around the excavation
would be secured during construction by security hoarding around the site perimeter and access to the site
would be controlled.
The foundations of the structure would be below the river level and a temporary steel sheet pile caisson would
be installed around the excavation area to allow construction to proceed. A blinding layer of concrete would be
laid across the base of the excavation to give a stable working level. The length of the sheet piles required will
depend on the site-specific ground conditions.
The new intake structure would be constructed from reinforced concrete. The structure base and walls would be
cast in situ and the top cover slabs are likely to be precast concrete planks and could be cast off site and craned
into position. When complete, the excavation would be backfilled around the structure and the mechanical and
electrical equipment could be installed. The temporary sheet piles would then be removed and the riverbank
profile on either side of the structure would be reinstated. Mechanical and electrical equipment at ground level
would be enclosed in kiosks or by secure fencing. The permanent works would also include installation of
electrical power supply, vehicular access and connection pipework to the TLT.
3.1.2.5 Raw Water (River Water) Transfer Pipe and Thames Lee Tunnel Connection
To abstract flow from the river and direct it into the Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT), a pumping facility and connection
will be required into the existing tunnel. The depth to tunnel invert is approximately 40m, the TLT is 2.6m ID and
the incoming pipe would be 1.2m ID. For safety of construction the shaft should be a minimum of 7.5m ID, which
should also be sufficient for installing the internal pipework. It is assumed that it will be highly desirable to
minimise the period of shutdown of the TLT. An assessment of the impact of construction works in the vicinity of
the live TLT is required to determine implications to operation of the TLT and to determine limitation of
construction works.
The proposed construction method would be:

 Sink 7.5m diameter shaft directly over the TLT, using segments or Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL)
 Construct underream 8m diameter in lower part of shaft. This is to mitigate hydraulic flotation forces on
the shaft base
 Construct shaft base and portal structure over top of TLT
 In TLT depressurisation break into top of TLT and construct pressure structure like other TLT shafts
 Install pipework to TLT connection in shaft
 Re-open tunnel
The TLT is constructed by a version of Wedge Block Technology called Donseq, this works using the external
pressure of the ground locking wedge blocks through friction. The connection will have to be carefully designed
to ensure structural integrity of the tunnel is maintained. This will require a limited shutdown of the TLT to
undertake preparatory works. As the TLT is such a critical asset with limited opportunity for outages it will take
significant planning. TLT undergoes temporary periodic shutdowns for inspection and maintenance works. Upon
further discussion with the asset owner this period of time could be used as an opportunity to carry out
construction works.
The precise method of construction to intercept the existing tunnel may alter according to operational
limitations and the contractor’s preferences.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 36
3.1.3 CDM Implementation

During the Gate2 process, the Principal Designer (i.e., Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited) was appointed by TWUL
in accordance with the Construction Design and Management (CDM) Regulations 2015.
Potential key and location-specific construction phase hazards have been identified by the design team. Site
visits were carried out by the design team to verify feasibility of the conceptual designs as well as to gather
information on site conditions which could potentially cause health and safety hazards. Hazard information was
also gathered from geotechnical review and previous knowledge of the hazards associated with the ground and
locations of the proposed works.
Potential measures which could be taken to eliminate the hazards or to mitigate the risks during Gate 2 were
incorporated into the conceptual design, fundamentally through the route vertical and horizontal alignment
process, and potential actions to facilitate elimination or mitigation actions to be taken at the future design
stages were identified.
Particular significant or unusual health and safety risks associated with Teddington DRA scheme include:
 Existing Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT) was constructed in “Don-Seg” segments, which are unbolted and held
in position by compression against the ground. There are potential safety risks and difficulties during
construction in connection to the TLT, as a result of dismantling these segments, which would need to be
internally supported.
 Proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) is proposed to be built in the footprint of existing storm tanks
in Mogden STW. To maintain the existing capacity of the storm tanks, some of the storm tanks would be
deepened. There are potential safety risks during construction, which are associated with structural
integrities of the existing storm tanks and excavation possibly through water bearing gravels.
 Ensuring that sufficient space is provided for construction compounds, laydown, deliveries and spoil and
waste disposal to allow segregation and separation of plant and workers in Mogden STW.
 Potential Tunnel route would have river crossings which could lead scour hollow risks.
A new or extended appointment of Principal Designer is required to be made on completion of Gate 2. The
hazard information collected in Gate 2, as well as the potential measures identified to be taken at the future
stages will be provided over to Principal Designer appointed at the next design stage. Key activities following
completion of Gate 2 will likely include the initial compilation of Pre-Construction Information, the identification
and planning for intrusive ground investigations and monitoring to understand the site-specific risks from
hazards such as contamination, complex hydro-geology, unexploded ordnance (UXO) and buried obstructions
utilities, and the establishment of action plans to address key hazards which apply across much of the
conveyance route and shaft locations. Further enquiries would need to be made to establish records of key
critical structures which impact the construction such as the existing TLT and the foundations of bridges
and gantries.
3.2 Transportation of Construction Materials and Spoils

3.2.1 Segment Delivery
The work sites would require segments to be delivered for shaft and tunnel construction. These would be
transported to site using Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGVs). The number of HGVs for transportation of shaft/tunnel
segments and the tunnel secondary lining (if applicable) has been estimated, see section 3.2.3.
3.2.2 Spoil Disposal

The work sites would generate spoil from shaft excavation, the drive shaft would also generate spoil from tunnel
excavation. The spoil produced would normally be transported along tunnels using skips, which are hoisted to
surface at shafts, or by conveyors.
An area would be required at the construction sites for temporary storage of the spoil to enable tunnelling work
to proceed for 24 hours per day, while waiting for transport off site by lorry during daytime working hours or
transfer to barges or rail wagons if these forms of transport are possible. If a slurry machine is used for
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 37
tunnelling, further space would be required for a plant for separation of spoil from the slurry mix before it is
transported off site.
Other methods of spoil removal could be considered at a later stage such as barge transportation for sites
located near to the River Thames. The use of barges would reduce the impact of tunnel works on the surrounding
traffic network. Rail transport is unlikely suitable in this area.
3.2.3 Vehicle Movement during Construction

A summary of indicative vehicle movements for spoil disposal and material transportation during construction
are presented in the following tables:
Table 3-1: Summary of Indicative Vehicle Movement Estimation for the Tertiary Treatment Plant
Construction
Option Estimated total no. Estimated total no. of Comments
Element of HGVs for spoil HGVs for concrete, rebar
and structural fill
TTP 50Ml/d 400 2100 It was assumed that excavated materials from
deepening Storm Tanks will be used to fill the
site for TTP.
TTP 75Ml/d 500 2300 It was assumed that excavated materials from
deepening Storm Tanks will be used to fill the
site for TTP.
Table 3-2: Summary of Indicative Vehicle Movement Estimation for Shaft and Tunnel Construction
Shafts Estimated total Estimated total Comments
no. of HGVs for no. of HGVs for
spoil segments
Mogden STW Site Shaft 600 100 Shaft sinking at Mogden STW site
Construction
Intermediate Shafts 3000 600 Combined Intermediate Shaft Sites along the
Construction tunnel routes.
Intermediate Shafts Tunnel 3400 1300 TBM drive between the Intermediate sites.
Construction
Teddington Site Shaft 400 80 Shaft sinking at Teddington site.
Construction
TLT Connection Shaft 400 40 Tunnel Connection
3.3 Delivery Programme

Table 3-3 shows approximate indicative duration of programme elements. Potential schedule for contract
management elements could be found in Annex F of the Gate 2 Report.
Realistic procurement periods have been assumed within delivery programme based on experience within the
construction industry. Potential programme savings could be made by:
 Utilising standard products and equipment could result in shorter procurement durations.
 Work elements were assumed to be sequential with minor overlap (e.g. civil work followed by MEICA
work in treatment plant construction, no concurrent shaft construction, etc.). This also represents the
most robust schedule for project delivery. A contractor may decide to undertake works concurrently
potentially leading to a shorter overall construction duration for these elements.
 There is 3 - 6 months of commissioning at the end of each main construction component (e.g.
conveyance, treatment plant, river abstraction, etc.). Commissioning could happen concurrently as parts
of construction stage. Therefore, there is an opportunity to reduce these periods when designs mature.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 38
 The working calendar was assumed to be 5-day work week with no allowance for night working. If
planning consent can be granted for 24-hour or weekend working, construction duration could be
reduced.
 Conservative production rates for construction schedules were used.
Table 3-3: Indicative Duration of Programme Elements (Teddington DRA)
Project Phase Approximate Duration (months)
Pre-Construction Stage 17
Detailed Design 14
Procurement 11
Enabling Works 10
Construction Stage 27
Commissioning Stage 13
System Commissioning Works 8
Performance Testing 6
Defects Period 11
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 39
4. Water Resources
The Deployable Outputs (DO) for Teddington DRA were estimated as 46 and 67 Ml/d, for both the Dry Year
Annual Average (DYAA) and the Dry Year Critical Period (DYCP), for the capacities of 50 Ml/d and 75 Ml/d
respectively. Details of the estimation of DO for the London Effluent Reuse SRO could be found in the Thames
Water draft Water Resources Management Plan 2024. This scheme will benefit the London WRZ.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 40
5. Assumptions and Risks

The information presented in this document relates to material or data which is still in the course of completion.
Should the solutions presented in this document be taken forward, Thames Water will be subject to the statutory
duties pursuant to the necessary consenting process, including environmental assessment and consultation as
required. This document should be read with those duties in mind.
5.1 Key Assumptions

Key assumptions that have been made in this conceptual design report are listed below:
 The TTP would be situated on the site of the existing storm tanks requiring deepening existing tanks to
maintain capacity. It was assumed structural conditions of existing facilities and geotechnical conditions
will be suitable to perform required work.
 The raw water quality in the River Thames at the intake location is the same quality of the water already
in the Thames Lee Tunnel which is currently abstracted at Hampton Intake and will therefore be suitable
for discharge into the Lee Valley reservoirs.
 There will be no obstacles with purchasing additional land required.
 It has been assumed that wastewater from the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant will be directed to the
inlet of the Mogden STW. These flows are assumed not to cause any concern to the hydraulic and
treatment capacity in the Mogden STW.
 It was assumed that the abstraction location will be the north bank of the River Thames upstream of the
Treated Effluent discharge location and Teddington Weir, this has been assessed as part of the
environmental assessments detailed in Annex B of Gate 2 Report.
 Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for parameters of design of Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP) are
not available. However, it has been assumed the discharge consent for the Hogsmill STW, which
discharges relatively upstream of the proposed TTP discharge location will be indicative of the
acceptable discharge consent. This will be reviewed and revised, and changes will be incorporated into
the design as further information becomes available.
 It is assumed that TWUL have assessed and will further assess the in-combination water resources
modelling of flows in the Thames Lee Tunnel (TLT) to ensure that at all times, the Teddington DRA
scheme would be able to suitably discharge abstracted flows to the TLT without hydraulically
overloading the asset.
5.2 Key Risks

Key risks associated with this scheme are listed as follows:
 The treatment technologies have been selected, assuming that the discharge requirements for the
existing Hogsmill STW will be applicable to the Treated Effluent discharge for the Teddington DRA
scheme. There is a risk that requirements for water treatment will be more onerous for the Teddington
DRA scheme.
 It is proposed to return the TTP waste streams, which include NSF and cloth filter backwash and
desludging, to the inlet of the Mogden STW. Should assessment indicate the STW does not have
sufficient capacity, alternative wastewater treatment will be required.
 Ferric dosing quantities are based on average phosphorus content within the Mogden STW final effluent.
Any change in operation at the Mogden STW that could result in a change in final effluent phosphorus
content will have an impact on this design. Additionally, any increase in phosphorus loading is likely to
increase solids loading to the NSF and a settlement stage, such as primary clarification or lamella
system, prior to the filter plant may be required. Further monitoring and sampling of the Mogden STW
final effluent is required.
 There is a risk that structural conditions of the existing storm tanks and associated facilities in Mogden
STW are not suitable for the proposed construction methods and that different construction methods
will need to be used for modifying the existing storm tanks and TTP construction.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 41
 There is a risk that geotechnical conditions around the existing storm tanks in Mogden STW are not
suitable for the proposed construction methods and that different construction methods will need to be
used for modifying the existing storm tanks and TTP construction.
 The TLT has limited shutdown availability to carry out the connection of a new intake.
 The TLT construction type makes the connection of a new shaft or adit more difficult than anticipated.
 Further modelling of the TLT is required to understand the impact of the Teddington intake at higher
flows and when the tunnel might be performing as a siphon.
 There is a risk that tunnel or shaft construction will encounter unexpected ground conditions.
 The proposed tunnel would cross several existing infrastructure networks. Mitigation measures for
potential settlement need to be considered in more detail.
 The nature of the urban or sub-urban environment, and designated sites limits open-cut trenching
pipeline options and constraints the potential shaft locations.
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 42
6. Glossary and Abbreviations

Term Definition
London Effluent Reuse Term to describe the Strategic Resource Option group for all four schemes as set out in the PR19
SRO Final Determination.
London Effluent Reuse Term when describing an individual option of the SRO.
Scheme
Beckton Water Option to develop a water reuse/recycling plant at Beckton STW including abstraction, treatment
Recycling scheme and conveyance scope. One of the four schemes in London Effluent Reuse SRO.
Mogden Water Option to develop a water reuse/recycling plant at a site near Kempton WTW for Mogden STW
Recycling scheme effluent including abstraction, treatment and conveyance scope. One of the four schemes in
London Effluent Reuse SRO.
Mogden South Sewer Option to develop a sewage reuse/recycling plant at a site near Kempton WTW for untreated
scheme sewage from South Sewer which discharges into Mogden STW, including abstraction, treatment
and conveyance scope. One of the four schemes in London Effluent Reuse SRO.
Teddington DRA Option to develop a water reuse plant at Mogden STW taking effluent for tertiary treatment then
scheme discharging to River Thames including abstraction, treatment and conveyance scope. One of the
four schemes in London Effluent Reuse SRO.
Final Effluent Water treated and discharged from existing secondary treatment process in Beckton Sewage
Treatment Works or Mogden Sewage Treatment Works
Treated Effluent Water treated in the proposed Tertiary Treatment Plant (TTP)
Recycled Water Water treated in the proposed Advanced Water Recycling Plant (AWRP)
catchment The area of region where all water flows to a single point, e.g., for a wastewater catchment, all
wastewater flows to a single STW for treatment.
component The key engineering items that contribute to each option e.g. pipeline, advanced water recycling
plant.
concentrate The concentrated waste stream produced by the Reverse Osmosis membranes.
conveyance Refers to the assets which make up a transfer of fluid from one location to another, e.g. pipeline,
tunnel, pumping station and outfall.
scheme Refers to the overall system for one of four ‘Options’ within the London Effluent Reuse SRO for
providing water resource benefit to the region, e.g. Beckton Water Recycling, Mogden Water
Recycling, Teddington DRA and Mogden South Sewer.
Acronym Definition
ACWG All Company Working Group
ADF Average Daily Flow
AMP Asset Management Plan
AOP Advanced Oxidation Process
APS Asset Planning System (Thames Water system)
AWRP Advanced Water Recycling Plant
BNG Biodiversity Net Gain
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CCPs Critical Control Points
CDC Coagulation Dosing Chamber
CDM Construction Design Management
CDR Conceptual Design Report
CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern
CS Chemical Storage
DAF Dissolved Air Floatation
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 43
Acronym Definition
Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DI Ductile Iron
DNO Distribution Network Operator
DO Deployable Output
DPC Direct Procurement for Customers
DRA Direct River Abstraction
DWI Drinking Water Inspectorate
dWRMP Draft Water Resource Management Plan
DWSP Drinking Water Safety Plan
DYAA Dry Year Annual Average
DYCP Dry Year Critical Period
EA Environment Agency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELV Emission Limit Value
ENG Environmental Net Gain
EPB Earth Pressure Balance
EQS Environmental Quality Standard
EQT Equalisation Tank
FEPS Final Effluent Pumping Station
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GIS Geographic Information System
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HSE Health and Safety Executive
HV High Voltage
ICA Instrumentation Control and Automation
ID Internal Diameter
KGV King George V Reservoir
M&E Mechanical & Electrical
MCC Motor Control Centres
MCF Mechanical Cloth Filter
MEICA Mechanical, Electrical, Instrumentation, Control and Automation
Ml/d Mega litres per day
NIC National Infrastructure Commission
NSFs Nitrifying Sand Filters
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
PACl Polyaluminium Chloride
PCV Prescribed Concentration or Value
PR19 Price Review 2019
PRoW Public Right of Way
PS Pumping Station
RAPID Regulatory Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development
REM Remineralisation
RGF Rapid Gravity Filtration
RO Reverse Osmosis Building
ROPS RO Feed Pumping Station
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 44
Acronym Definition
ROT RO Feed Tank
RPv1 Regional Plan version 1
RWPS Recycled Water Pumping Station
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SINC Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation
SOC Strategic Outline Case
SOLAR Strategic Overview of Long term Assets and Resources
SPA Special Protection Area
SRO Strategic Resource Option
SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest
STT Severn Thames Transfer
STW Sewage Treatment Works
TBM Tunnel Boring Machine
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TEPS Treated Effluent Pumping Station
THM Trihalomethanes
TLT Thames Lee Tunnel
TN Total Nitrogen
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solid
TTP Tertiary Treatment Plant
TWUL Thames Water Utilities Ltd
T2AT Thames to Affinity Transfer
UF Ultrafiltration Building
UFPS UF Feed Pumping Station
UV Ultraviolet
UVAOP UV Advanced Oxidation Process Building
WRMP19 Water Resource Management Plan 2019
WRMP24 Water Resource Management Plan 2024
WRSE Water Resource South East
WRZ Water Resource Zone
WTW Water Treatment Works
J698-TD-DOC-210001-0D 45

Annex A4 Teddington DRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex A4 Teddington DRA

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Annex A4 Teddington DRA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex A4: Teddington DRA

Conceptual Design Report

Standard Gate two submission for London

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

London Water Recycling

Client name: Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Jacobs U.K. Limited

Copyright Jacobs U.K. Limited @ 2022.

5. Assumptions and Risks ..................................................................................................................................................41

Design elements in this report are listed below:

1.2 Scheme Overview and Location

Figure 1-1: Teddington DRA Scheme Overview

1.2.2 Gate 1 Development

1.3 Sizing and Phasing

Table 1-2: Recommendations for Teddington DRA Scheme Size

1.3.2 Constraints Impacting Solution Sizing and Phasing

1.4 Links with Other Options, Schemes and Elements

1.4.2 Mutual Exclusivities

2.1.2 London Effluent Reuse SRO Design Vision

Table 2-1: Overview of Gate 2 Design Approaches to ACWG Design Principles

2.2 Scheme Components and Operating Philosophy

2.2.1 Assessment of Source Flow Availability

2.2.3 Treatment Design Components

2.2.3.1 Water Quality

2.2.3.1.1 Mogden STW Secondary Effluent Quality

Table 2-3: Key TTP Feed Water Quality Parameters

2.2.3.1.2 Treated Effluent Quality

Table 2-4: Proposed TTP Projected Treated Effluent Quality

2.2.3.2 Proposed Treatment Scheme

Indicative treatment process for Teddington DRA scheme would be:

2.2.3.2.1 Ferric Sulphate Dosing

2.2.3.2.2 Nitrifying Sand Filters (NSF)

A summary of indicative unit configuration and sizing is provided in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Indicative NSF Configurations

2.2.3.2.3 Mechanical Cloth Filters

2.2.3.2.4 Chemical Dosing

2.2.3.2.5 Process Unit Summary

Table 2-8: Indicative 75Ml/d Process Unit and Structure Sizes

2.2.3.3 Waste Streams Management

Table 2-9: Projected TTP Waste Stream Flow and Composition

2.2.4 Conveyance Design Components

2.2.4.1 Conveyance Design General Considerations

2.2.4.2 Conveyance Route

2.2.4.3 Tunnel Shafts

2.2.4.3.1 Mogden STW Shaft Site

2.2.4.3.2 Intermediate Shaft Sites

2.2.4.3.3 Teddington Shaft Site

2.2.4.4 Treated Effluent Discharge Arrangement

2.2.4.5 River Abstraction Arrangement

2.2.4.7 Tunnel Profile and Existing Infrastructure

2.2.4.8 Pumping Stations

2.2.5 Operating Philosophy

2.2.5.1 Operating Modes

The types of operating modes considered were:

2.2.5.2 Operating Models

2.2.5.3 Tertiary Treatment Plant Chemical Consumption

2.2.5.4 Maintenance Requirements

2.2.5.4.1 Tertiary Treatment Plant Process Units

2.2.5.5 Fail Safe Shutdown System

2.2.6 Inter Site Control System Requirements