diseño conceptual de un muelle

Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual Design Study

September 2005

Conceptual Design Study Prepared for

Gunns Limited

Ref 20024505.00

Date September 2005

Prepared by Cristian Alfred

Reviewed by Michael Coull

Revision History

Authorised Revision Revision Date Details Name/Position Signature

B 26/09/2005 Conceptual Study Report- Final Michael Coull

C 14/12/2005 Conceptual Study Report- Final Michael Coull

D 21/02/2006 Conceptual Study Report- Final Michael Coull

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd Level 11, 44 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000, PO Box Q410, QVB Post Office NSW 1230, Australia T +61 2 8295 3600 F +61 2 9262 5060 www.maunsell.com ABN 20 093 846 925

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd 2006

The information contained in this document produced by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd.

Specification - Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual Design Study K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D (Public).doc Revision C September 2005

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Design Criteria 2

2.1 Wharf Geometry 2 2.2 Environmental Data 2

2.2.1 Tidal Planes 2 2.2.2 Wind 3 2.2.3 Waves 3 2.2.4 Currents 3

2.3 Design Vessels 3 2.4 Design Loads 4

2.4.1 Cargo 4 2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads 4 2.4.3 Other Material Loads 4 2.4.4 Cranes 4

2.5 Services 5 2.5.1 Lighting 5 2.5.2 Power 5 2.5.3 Water 5 2.5.4 Stormwater 5 2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials 5

2.6 Service Life 6 3.0 Geotechnical Conditions 7 4.0 Wharf Concepts 8

4.1 Location 8 4.2 Concepts Considered 8

4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges 8 4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways 9 4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf 9

4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs 9 4.3.1 Comparative Budget Costs 9 4.3.2 Comparison of Options 10 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges 10 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways 10 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf 10

4.4 Discussion of Options 11 4.5 Preferred Option 11 4.6 Notes on Budget Costs 11

5.0 Modifications to Preferred Scheme 13 5.1 Portainer Crane Option 13

5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading 13 5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements 13 5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs 14

5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option 14 5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs 14


6.0 Conclusions 15 Appendix A Supplementary Information a Appendix B Drawings b


1.0 Introduction Gunns Limited (Gunns) is proposing to develop a new pulp mill on a site adjacent to the Tamar River in North Eastern Tasmania. The site is situated between Big Bay and Dirty Bay on the northern shoreline of the River Tamar. A locality plan is included in Appendix A. This area also hosts Gunns existing wood chip berths upstream, and the Hydro Electric Berth downstream, from the site. The pulp mill will produce pulp in 250kg pulp bales, which will be placed into 2000 kg pulp units. The pulp units will be shipped in pulp carriers to overseas markets. A wharf facility is required to provide the infrastructure necessary for the tie-up of a bulk carrier vessel and to allow the pulp units to be loaded onto the vessel. The wharf will be approximately 224 metres long, and suitable for use by purpose built pulp carriers of up to 40000 45000dwt and general cargo vessels of up to 5000 dwt. Gunns has commissioned Maunsell to carry out a conceptual design of a wharf facility for the pulp mill. This report presents Maunsells work on the study.


Page 1

2.0 Design Criteria To allow the wharf concepts to be established, a number of criteria must be considered. The following design criteria for the wharf have been developed: Wharf Geometry. Environmental Data. Design Vessels. Design Loads. Services. Service Life.

2.1 Wharf Geometry The wharf geometry adopted for the purposes of this study and nominated by Gunns is as follows: Loading quay (wharf deck) is 224m long. Wharf deck level of RL+5m. Depth along berthing face to allow for vessel draft of 12m. The width of the quay allows tractor trailers to pass each other. The adopted width of the quay is

20m. The width of the approach trestles is 10m.

2.2 Environmental Data The following environmental data have been considered in this study: Tidal planes. Wind. Waves. Currents.

2.2.1 Tidal Planes

The following tidal planes, extracted from the Hydrographic Map Aus 168, are relevant and have been considered in formulation of the concept design: Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 3.4m Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) 3.1m Mean Sea Level (MSL) 1.9m Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) 0.7m Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) 0.0m


Page 2

2.2.2 Wind

Wind data was not available. AS1170 has been used to calculate likely wind velocities on site.

2.2.3 Waves

Wave climate has been estimated for a Category 1 terrain (water surfaces) using fetch lengths and average water depth. The maximum fetch length is approximately 10km to the north-west. An average water depth of approximately 10m has been assumed. The corresponding significant wave height expected for the site is approximately 1.9m with a period of 5 seconds. The wharf deck level at RL+5m is sufficiently high to avoid overtopping by waves and is suitable.

2.2.4 Currents

Port of Launceston Authority (PLA) current records were received from Gunns. The records comprised data sets of current measurements taken on 22 June 2005 at various locations and at multiple depths in the vicinity of the site. This data is included in Appendix A. This data shows several data runs taken at the surface, at 4.5m depth and at 9m depth. From this data, an average current velocity of 0.8m/s has been adopted for the concept design.

2.3 Design Vessels The facility is required to cater for Open Hatch Bulk Carriers (OHBC) and Gearbulk vessels (General Cargo vessels). In addition to these, the facility is also required to accommodate barges. Details of the vessels considered in the design are noted below:

Max Vessel Min Vessel Barge* Barge* Type

OHBC

Star O Class

Gearbulk vessel

Heavy Plant & Equipment

Port of Launceston No. 4 Barge

Dead Weight Tonnage (dwt)

40,661tonne 5,000tonne

(to 40,000tonne)

- -

Loaded Displacement Tonnage

48,661tonne 7,500tonne to 45,000tonne

1000 ton (approx) 80tonne

Length OA 199m 105m to 200m 50m 24.4m

Beam 32.26m 15.8m to 32m 15m 7.8m

Laden draught 12.02m 6.4m to 12m 3m 1.66m

Laden freeboard 4.5m 2.7m to 4.5m 0.5m 0.5m

* Note Barges will require fender piles or lower fender face panels over the length of wharf at which it will berth.

The design vessel (OHBC) is self loading. Gunns has advised that the vessels would not be shifted during loading. The vessel includes two overhead gantries that may load the ship simultaneously. Based on a laden draft of 12.02m, it is proposed that a minimum underkeel clearance of 1m be adopted. A minimum of 13m depth for the maximum design vessel will thus be required below LAT, thus the seabed level adjacent to the wharf face is to be RL-13m or lower. It is expected that berthing would be carried out in relatively sheltered conditions, and that under these conditions, vessels would berth at approximately 0.1m/s. Based on quarter point berthing and this


Page 3

assumed berthing velocity, it is expected that for normal operations, the berthing energy would be 21.5ton-m. Assuming an accidental berthing factor of 2 (in accordance with BS6349: Part 4, Cl 4.9.1), then the berthing energy would increase to 43ton-m. From these assumptions, it is anticipated that 1.0m dia. cone fenders or similar may be used along the berthing face. Modified fendering will be required to accommodate barges due to their low freeboard. It is anticipated that 80 tonne bollards would be used along the wharf and 100 tonne quick release hook assemblies be used on the dolphins.

2.4 Design Loads 2.4.1 Cargo

The OHBC and Gearbulk vessels will carry pulp stacks, organised into 32 tonne units. It is anticipated that the units would be stacked and stored in a warehouse adjacent to the wharf. The stacking of units would be carried out by forklifts, and transportation of these to the wharf would be carried out by terminal tractors and trailers. It is assumed that pulp stacks will not be placed on the wharf.

2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads

Terminal tractors and trailers would be loaded such that the maximum total combined load of a single tractor trailer will be 90 to 100 tonnes. The trailers would be approximately 3.6m wide, have three axles and be designed to support 64 tonnes (2 pulp units). In accordance with standard axle spacing dimensions, it is assumed that the axle spacing would be approximately 1.25m in elevation and 2m in plan between the wheels. The terminal tractor trailers would be similar to the Kalmar terminal tractor trailers, used in Australian ports. The terminal export operations considered involve the continuous shuttling of pulp units to the wharf where they are loaded onto the vessel by the ships gear.

2.4.3 Other Material Loads

Salt will be unloaded from the Gearbulk vessels and either unloaded into truck loading hoppers or placed directly on the deck by retrieval by front end loaders into trucks. Measures will be required to address potential structure durability issues that will arise from this operation.

2.4.4 Cranes

Mobile Cranes

The wharf site will be used as a staging point for the importation of select equipment during the construction of the new pulp mill. The size of some of this equipment impedes its transportation via road, thus the new wharf will receive such items. It is expected that this gear will be brought onto site via barge and unloaded off the barge at the wharf with the use of mobile cranes. Mobile cranes will also be used for the occasional unloading of heavy cargo from vessels once the wharf is operational. The mobile cranes expected to operate in this capacity are the following: 400 tonne Liebherr mobile crane. 2 no. 100 tonne Gottwald cranes lifting together.


Page 4

Allowance has been made for a heavy lift bay to facilitate the operation of these mobile cranes.

2.5 Services The following Services were considered: Lighting Power Water Fire Containment of Hazardous Materials

2.5.1 Lighting

General operational lighting on wharf for trucking operations and on mooring dolphins for line handling will be required. For the purposes of reducing potential impact on neighbouring properties, lighting will be baffled as required. Cope lighting would also be provided along the berthing face of the wharf.

2.5.2 Power

General power would be provided on the wharf. General Purpose Outlets (GPOs) would be positioned along the wharf approximately every 40 metres.

2.5.3 Water

Potable water will be provided on the wharf. A non-potable water main would also be installed on the wharf for deck and hopper wash down and fire fighting. An approved (by the Fire Brigade) 150 diameter main, will need to be provided with hydrants at 60m centres for adequate coverage. Both potable and non-potable water services on the wharf would be connected to water mains on land.

2.5.4 Stormwater

Kerb and guttering would be provided and a stormwater system would be provided to drain the facility. The stormwater system would comprise stormwater pits on the working platform and approach trestles which would drain into Gross Pollutant Traps (GPT) installed on the wharf (suspended off the deck) or installed on land.

2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials

It is understood that hazardous materials including liquid caustic soda, sulphuric acid bullets, and salt would be handled on the wharf. These substances would be handled in specified bunded areas on the wharf. The bunded areas will drain into a GPT through valves, installed on the deck, which will be open when chemicals and other hazardous materials are not being handled. At times when chemicals are being handled, these valves will be locked shut to guard against the possibility of a spill into the stormwater system and to contain the spill in the bund. Pipework would be provided on the wharf to allow for the pumping of caustic soda from the vessel to a tank and transfer pump on the reclaimed land. The caustic transfer pipe outside the bunded area will be installed inside a second outer pipe for safety and for containment of any leak should this occur. As noted in Section 2.5.3, potable water will be provided on the wharf for a safety shower and eyewash for emergency washdown.


Page 5

Salt handling operations will occur on the wharf and run off from this area will be through the stormwater system into a GPT as for normal stormwater.

2.6 Service Life The design life of the structure, as advised by Gunns, is 50 years. The design life will be achieved with the use of quality materials and with prudent design detailing including the use of quality concrete mixes, adequate concrete cover for reinforcing steel, the protection of steel piles such as paint systems, the use of cathodic protection to steel and the use of trafficable chemically resistant coatings to concrete in areas where hazardous materials are to be handled.


Page 6

3.0 Geotechnical Conditions Although geotechnical information of the site is limited at present, geotechnical information for the No. 1 Wood Chip Berth upstream of the site has been supplied by PLA. The No 1 Woodchip berth is located approximately 2000m upstream of the proposed site. The borelog records which have been made available show that sound rock may be found close to the surface. The boreholes are located approximately 130m from the shoreline on average, and all boreholes show the presence of rock close to the surface that is overlain with silty material. Data for 11 boreholes for this berth show that the silty material is between 1m to 2m in depth and that it overlays fractured and weathered dolerite. The weathered dolerite varies in depth, but may be expected to be 2 m to 3 m on average before encountering solid rock. Although similar conditions may be found at the proposed location of the pulp mill wharf, two scenarios have been considered for the options given the unavailability of site specific geotechnical information, namely: Hard rock being found at a shallow level below the river bed. Hard rock being found at reasonable depth (10m -15m) below the river bed.


Page 7

4.0 Wharf Concepts 4.1 Location The site is located between Big Bay and Dirty Bay on the Northern shoreline of the River Tamar. The location of the wharf concepts is based on PLA Drawing 18D-129, dated 27 June 2005 as supplied by Gunns. This drawing is in Appendix A. The river bathymetry of the site (shown on PLA Dwg. 18D-129) suggests that a constant drop in depth from 0 to 6m exists from the shoreline for about 160m. From this point however, contours suggest a sharp drop in depth with an RL-12m contour appearing on average at approximately 180 m from shore. Given the assumed required depth for acceptable underkeel clearance (RL -13), the wharf face is situated approximately 185m from the shoreline. To account for adequate clearance, the berth face has been located some 28m downstream of the footprint originally nominated by Gunns (as shown on PLA Drawing 18D-129). Placing the wharf at this location will result in there being no need for dredging or blasting of any materials from the riverbed to accommodate the design vessels at maximum draft.

4.2 Concepts Considered Three wharf concepts were assessed in this study: Option 1- Piled Deck with Approach Bridges. Option 2 - Piled Deck with Approach Causeways. Option 3 - Bulkhead Wharf. Details of each concept are provided below.

4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK001 and sketch 20024505 SK004 in Appendix B. This option comprises a complete suspended structure on piles and 2 mooring dolphins. The suspended structure consists of two approach trestles, each approximately 10m wide and 95m long, and a wharf deck, 20m wide and 224m long respectively. Generally, this suspended structure consists of an in-situ reinforced concrete deck on prestressed concrete planks supported by precast concrete headstocks. The facilitys mooring dolphins (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension and supported on piles) are positioned upstream and downstream of the wharf deck with an offset of approximately 30m from the approach trestles and a setback of 10m from the berthing face. Catwalks provide access to the dolphins. Pile size and pile bent spacings for the wharf were adopted after considering the geotechnical conditions (as described in Section 3). For the shallow rock scenario, the piles are steel tubes of 1,066mm diameter with pile bent spacings at 14m. The total thickness of the concrete deck for this scenario is 700mm. For the deep rock scenario the steel tubular piles are 760mm diameter with bent spacings reduced to 6m. The total thickness of the deck for this scenario is 450mm.


Page 8

For shallower rock, the piles will be driven to refusal with reinforced concrete anchors constructed to anchor the piles into the rock. For deep rock, the piles will be driven to a nominated level or to refusal in the rock depending on the soil conditions and depth of rock.

4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK002 in Appendix B. This option comprises a suspended structure on piles and approach causeways with 2 mooring points. The suspended structure consists of two short approach trestles and a wharf deck with dimensions being 10m wide and 20m long, and 20m wide and 224m long respectively. Similar to Option 1, the suspended structure consists of an in-situ deck on prestressed planks supported by precast concrete headstocks. The approach causeways are approximately 70m long and are constructed from rock fill with the embankments lined with rock armour to protect against erosion. The mooring points (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension and also supported on piles within embankment) are positioned upstream and downstream of the wharf deck with an offset of approximately 40m and a setback of 10m from the berthing face. Similar to Option 1, the pile size and pile bent spacings for the suspended structures for the shallow rock and deep rock scenarios are 1,000mm diameter at 14m spacing and 750mm diameter at 6m spacing respectively. Deck thicknesses are 700mm and 450mm respectively. Piling work will be as noted for Option 1.

4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

This scheme is shown in sketch 20024505 SK003 in Appendix B. This option is essentially reclaimed land with a bulkhead wall forming the berth line. The bulkhead wall is constructed using steel tubular piles with welded clutches, tie rods and anchor piles. Retained fill comprises excavated material from the pulp mill site. This option includes mooring points similar to those of Option 2 (approximately 4m x 4m in dimension and also supported on piles) that are positioned within the fill at the extreme ends of the bulk head wall.

4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs 4.3.1 Comparative Budget Costs

Comparative construction budget costs were prepared for each Option. The comparative construction costs were based on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors.


Page 9

4.3.2 Comparison of Options

Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges

Advantages Disadvantages Relative low cost for both shallow and

deep rock schemes. Least impact on river hydraulics. Least impact on river siltation.

For shallow rock scheme, piles would require temporary support unless end over end construction is adopted.

Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways

Advantages Disadvantages Relative low cost for both shallow and

deep rock schemes.

The causeways would impact on the river hydraulics which may cause eddy shedding and changes in river streamlines.

The causeways would act as groynes which may cause accretion/erosion of the riverbanks and collect river borne debris.

For the shallow rock scheme, piles would require temporary support unless an end over end construction is adopted.

The option requires fill (approximately 63,000m3) to be provided from the pulp mill excavation earthworks which may not be readily available. Soft material on the river bed may also require replacement or treatment. Armour rock is also required for facing of the embankments. It is additional to this volume and will need to be sourced either from the pulp mill site or purchased from a suitable quarry.

There may be siltation issues related to release of fines from material placed in the river.

There may be loss of fines from the fill which will require additional fill to compensate.

Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

Advantages Disadvantages Development of large reclamation area

behind the bulkhead which can be used for open air storage.

More than twice the cost of Options 1 or 2. The bulkhead structure is difficult to construct

in that the anchor wall and tie rods will need to be installed and supported prior to backfilling the bulkhead wall. It is considered undesirable to place the significant fill volumes that would be required to enable the bulkhead to be driven into fill.

There is likely impact on river hydraulics which


Page 10

may cause eddy shedding and changes in river streamlines.

The reclamation will act as a groyne which may cause accretion/erosion of the riverbanks and collect river borne debris.

The scheme requires significant fill volumes (approximately 300,000m3) to be provided from the pulp mill excavation earthworks which may not be available. Soft material on the river bed may also require replacement or treatment. Armour rock required for facing of the embankments is additional to this volume and will need to be sourced either from the pulp mill site or purchased from a suitable quarry.

There may be siltation issues related to release of fines from material placed in the river.

There may be loss of fines from the fill which will require additional fill to compensate.

4.4 Discussion of Options The comparative costs show that the piled deck with approach causeways (Option 2) would be the least expensive to build. However, this assumes that rock will be readily available from the pulp mill excavation earthworks at no extra cost. If rock required for the fill is not available from the pulp mill site, the construction cost would be expected to increase. It is noted that the cost differences are negligible between the deep rock and shallow rock schemes. Option 3 is the least favourable option given the high construction cost and possible significant impact on the river hydraulics. High costs would be expected given the relative difficulty of installing a bulkhead wall. This option also assumes that rock will be readily available from the pulp mill excavation earthworks at no extra cost. There is a potentially significant cost increase if rock is required at deeper levels as well. Option 1 appears to present best value (within 5% of Option 2) and vastly superior hydraulic characteristics. Impacts on river hydraulics would be negligible. This option also places no reliance on fill being obtained form the pulp mill site, removing a potential cost uncertainty. It is noted that the cost difference between the deep rock and shallow rock schemes is negligible.

4.5 Preferred Option Given the above, the preferred option for the wharf facility is Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges. Although this option was found to be marginally more expensive than Option 2, its advantages from an environmental view and cost risk lead to the conclusion that it is preferred over Options 2 and 3.

4.6 Notes on Budget Costs Although the budget rates used are deemed to be adequate for the purposes of comparison, Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd has no control over the cost of labour, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, neither has it control over contractors methods for determining prices, competitive bidding or


Page 11

market conditions. The opinion of probable construction cost produced by Maunsell has been made on the basis of best judgement as an experienced and qualified engineering consultant, familiar with the construction industry. As Maunsell is not a qualified Quantity Surveyor, nor does it employ quantity surveyors, Maunsell cannot and will not guarantee that any tenders or actual construction costs will not vary from this opinion of construction cost.


Page 12

5.0 Modifications to Preferred Scheme 5.1 Portainer Crane Option Gunns has identified that containers may also be utilised in the near future for the transportation of pulp and, as a result, a portainer crane option has been considered. The portainer crane scheme is based on the preferred option (piled deck with approach bridges) with additional crane beams and intermediate piles being introduced to support crane loads and tie down. Other modifications to the preferred option scheme include the provision of a crane maintenance area. For the portainer crane operation, the necessary wharf modifications are considered in two stages. Stage 1 includes works that are built into the wharf at the time of initial construction. Implementing the Stage 1 works will reduce the cost of those items that would be difficult to build into the facility at a later time. Stage 2 includes works that can be deferred until a later time without the need for significant modification of the constructed wharf. For the size of vessels using the facility (40,000dwt) the overall hatch coverage length is approximately 150m. With buffers placed clear of the approach road the coverage of the crane would be 177m (224m-20m-27m).

5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading

It is anticipated that the rail mounted ship to shore crane would be as follows:

General Dimensions Rail Gauge 25.4m Length of crane between buffers 27m Reach 40m Distance between wheel bogie centrelines

12m

Loading Wheels per leg 8 no. Distance between wheels 1m Load per wheel 60 tonnes

5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements

The modifications to the preferred scheme (Option 1) include the addition of 2 crane beams (front and rear), extra piles to support the crane loads and a crane maintenance area as shown in Sketch 20024505 - 007 in Appendix B. As shown in the sketch, the rear crane beam would be tied to the main wharf deck by a strut at each headstock location. The strut may be constructed from either a steel tube section or a precast concrete member. If a steel tube connection was preferred, chemical anchors may be used to connect the tube between the rear beam and the wharf headstocks. To accommodate a concrete member, a corbel would be constructed on the front face of the rear crane beam and on the back face of the wharf headstocks. It is anticipated that the Portainer Crane would be installed some time after commissioning of the wharf and thus only the front crane beam would be provided in the initial construction (Stage 1). The front crane beam would be constructed along the front row of piles. For the shallow rock condition, an


Page 13

additional 1066OD piles will be required on the front row to reduce the beam span from 14 m to 7 m. For the deep rock condition, the front row piles will need to be increased from 760OD to 914OD. A rebate for the later installation of a crane rail and power supply cable (if required) can be provided in the front crane beam as part of the Stage 1 works. The rebate can be filled with a low strength concrete until the rail is required. No allowance had been made at this stage for a cable pit adjacent to the front beam. This would be retrofitted at Stage 2. The rear crane beam would be built as Stage 2 and prior to the commissioning of the Portainer Crane and its construction would most likely be carried out from the existing deck. Provision may need to be made for the stacking of hatch covers. For the purposes of this report it is assumed that trucking operations will not be constricted by the ships hatch covers i.e. the hatch covers can be stacked on the wharf deck. If this were unacceptable, then additional decking would be required between the rear of the wharf and the rear crane beam.

5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs

Construction budget costs were prepared for the Portainer Crane Option. The construction costs were based on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors.

5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option Gunns has identified that a heavy lift area would give greater flexibility in operation of the wharf. This heavy lift area would be used initially for the unloading of large/heavy equipment brought via barge (required for the construction of the mill) and once the wharf is operational, be used for the occasional unloading of heavy cargo from vessels. The heavy lift area would consist of supplementary parallel RC beams that would be installed in the mid section of the wharf. The heavy lift area would be located as shown in the Drawings.

5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs

Construction budget costs were prepared for a Heavy Lift Area. The construction costs were based on budget rates and responses from enquiries to suppliers and contractors


Page 14

6.0 Conclusions A number of options for constructing a new wharf required for the export of pulp material from Bell Bay have been investigated. The evaluation process considered likely construction costs and environmental implications relative to the site. The preferred scheme of a piled deck with approach trestles (Option 1) offers a number of advantages. These include: There is no fill used (with the exception of the reclaimed land by others). The variation in price between deep rock and shallow rock schemes are not significant, indicating

that ground conditions will not have a significant impact on final costs. The wharf layout would have the least impact on river hydraulics. It is anticipated that its

construction would have negligible eddy shedding effects and imperceptible changes to river streamlines.

The wharf layout would have the least impact on river siltation and accretion/erosion of river banks.

The feasibility of making provision in the wharf for the later use of a portainer crane was also considered. If a portainer crane operation is to be utilised then staged implementation of the works is feasible and will reduce the overall capital costs.


Page 15

Appendix A Supplementary Information

Specification - Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual Design Study K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D (Public).doc Revision C September 2005 Page a

Area of enlargement

RIVER TAMARPROPOSED PULP MILL

PROPOSED LOCATION OF WHARF FACILITY

LOCALITY MAP

SURVEY DATE 22/06/2005LOCATION BIG BAY AREATIME OF HW or LW HW BELL BAY 1148 3.42m

File Name Float ID Depth No Easting Northing Time Set Drift Rate m/s

LALSASC.CST 1 486444 5445925.8 150706 0 0 0LALSASC.CST 2 486430.4 5445944.1 151036 323.4 22.8 0.11LALSASC.CST 3 486412 5445957.1 151750 305.2 22.5 0.05LALSASC.CST 4 486374.5 5445967.5 153305 285.5 38.9 0.04

LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 1 492631.1 5444116.1 133938 0 0 0LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 2 492455.8 5444260.4 134600 309.5 227.1 0.59LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 3 492367.1 5444355.6 134934 317 130.1 0.61LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 4 492277 5444454 135230 317.5 133.4 0.76LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 5 492197.6 5444563.3 135544 324 135.1 0.7LR-R-1.CST SURFACE 6 492139.1 5444638.8 135745 322.2 95.5 0.79

LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 1 492540 5444289.7 141215 0 0 0LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 2 492502.5 5444349.3 141402 327.8 70.4 0.66LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 3 492457.5 5444413.5 141615 325 78.4 0.59LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 4 492377.3 5444522.1 142000 323.6 135 0.51LR-R-2.CST SURFACE 5 492291.9 5444638 142410 323.6 144 0.69

LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 1 492499.5 5444273.2 143336 0 0 0LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 2 492398.6 5444372.5 143644 314.5 141.6 0.75LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 3 492291 5444487.3 144019 316.9 157.3 0.73LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 4 492160.5 5444631.5 144438 317.9 194.5 0.75LR-R-3.CST SURFACE 5 492105.8 5444693.9 144629 318.8 83 0.75

LR-R-4.CST SURFACE 1 492069.9 5444747.5 145318 0 0 0LR-R-4.CST SURFACE 2 492021.3 5444802.3 145504 318.4 73.2 0.69

LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 1 492564.7 5444158.8 134208 0 0 0LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 2 492471.5 5444253.1 134629 315.3 132.6 0.51LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 3 492412.5 5444301.3 134842 309.2 76.2 0.57LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 4 492325.6 5444396.1 135147 317.5 128.6 0.7LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 5 492240.8 5444496 135459 319.7 131 0.68LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 6 492195.3 5444552.1 135643 321 72.2 0.69LR-4M-1.CST 7 4.5 7 492115.1 5444640.9 135941 317.9 119.7 0.67

LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 1 492519.6 5444279.1 141256 0 0 0LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 2 492484 5444329.3 141436 324.7 61.5 0.62LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 3 492411.3 5444422.9 141801 322.2 118.5 0.58LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 4 492351.2 5444499.1 142051 321.7 97 0.57LR-4M-2.CST 7 4.5 5 492258.4 5444604.8 142541 318.7 140.7 0.49

LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 1 492523.6 5444251.5 143413 0 0 0LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 2 492445.2 5444328.1 143738 314.3 109.6 0.53LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 3 492361.3 5444411.8 144119 314.9 118.5 0.54LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 4 492206.4 5444588.8 144851 318.8 235.2 0.52LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 5 492105 5444705.2 145359 318.9 154.4 0.5LR-4M-3.CST 4.5 6 492052.9 5444764.4 145643 318.7 78.9 0.48

LR-9M-1.CST 9 1 492481.5 5444050.9 134113 0 0 0LR-9M-1.CST 9 2 492413.6 5444123.9 134411 317.1 99.7 0.56LR-9M-1.CST 9 3 492330.5 5444220.3 134748 319.2 127.3 0.59LR-9M-1.CST 9 4 492256.6 5444294.5 135046 315.1 104.7 0.59LR-9M-1.CST 9 5 492177 5444372.4 135351 314.4 111.4 0.6

LR-9M-2.CST 9 1 492504.5 5444273.2 141317 0 0 0LR-9M-2.CST 9 2 492468.5 5444318.8 141502 321.7 58.1 0.55

LR-9M-3.CST 9 1 492410.7 5444204.4 143520 0 0 0LR-9M-3.CST 9 2 492328.5 5444286 143851 314.8 115.8 0.55LR-9M-3.CST 9 3 492244.1 5444370 144239 314.9 119.1 0.52LR-9M-3.CST 9 4 492051.7 5444572.3 145109 316.4 279.2 0.55

Appendix B Drawings

Specification - Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility Conceptual Design Study K:\20024505_00_BELLBAYPM\Eng-Plan\Reports\Bell Bay Pulp Mill Wharf Facility - Report - Rev D (Public).doc Revision C September 2005 Page b

GU

NN

S LIM

ITED

FOR

INFO

RM

ATIO

N O

NLY

FOR

INFO

RM

ATIO

N O

NLY

GU

NN

S LIM

ITED

GU

NN

S LIM

ITED

FOR

INFO

RM

ATIO

N O

NLY

GU

NN

S LIM

ITED

FOR

INFO

RM

ATIO

N O

NLY

Table of Contents1.0 Introduction2.0 Design Criteria2.1 Wharf Geometry2.2 Environmental Data2.2.1 Tidal Planes2.2.2 Wind2.2.3 Waves2.2.4 Currents

2.3 Design Vessels2.4 Design Loads2.4.1 Cargo2.4.2 Terminal Tractor and Trailer Loads2.4.3 Other Material Loads2.4.4 Cranes

2.5 Services2.5.1 Lighting2.5.2 Power2.5.3 Water2.5.4 Stormwater2.5.5 Containment of Hazardous Materials

2.6 Service Life

3.0 Geotechnical Conditions4.0 Wharf Concepts4.1 Location4.2 Concepts Considered4.2.1 Option 1 Piled Deck with Approach Bridges4.2.2 Option 2 Piled Deck with Approach Causeways4.2.3 Option 3 Bulkhead Wharf

4.3 Comparison of Options and Construction Costs4.3.1 Comparative Budget Costs4.3.2 Comparison of Options

4.4 Discussion of Options4.5 Preferred Option4.6 Notes on Budget Costs

5.0 Modifications to Preferred Scheme5.1 Portainer Crane Option5.1.1 Typical Portainer Crane Dimensions and Loading5.1.2 Modifications due to Portainer Crane Requirements5.1.3 Portainer Crane Option Comparative Costs

5.2 Heavy Lift Area Option5.2.1 Heavy Lift Area Comparative Costs

6.0 ConclusionsAppendix A Supplementary InformationAppendix B Drawings

diseño conceptual de un muelle

Documents

wharf facility report

bulkhead wharf

wharf concepts

wharf geometry

preferred option

design loads

design criteria

design vessels