5.ve volume 1_ve_burton

CONFIDENTIAL
England
VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY
for
BURTON SITE UPGRADE PROJECT
VOLUME 1
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
14th
March 2005
Sandy McLure
AVERAC Inc.

Volume 1 VE Burton.doc 14 March 20052
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................4
2. BACKGROUND & CURRENT STATUS ...........................................................4
2.1 General...........................................................................................................4
2.2 The Marmite Process .....................................................................................5
2.3 Engineering and Phasing for Extract Factory ................................................5
2.4 Final Evaporator (Wiegand 2)........................................................................5
2.5 Bulk Storage...................................................................................................6
2.6 Effluent Treatment .........................................................................................6
3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND CRITICAL ISSUES...........................................7
4. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS ..........................................8
5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS ..................................................................................9
5.1 Methodology..................................................................................................9
5.2 The Results...................................................................................................10
5.3 Automation...................................................................................................10
5.4 Hygiene and Cleaning..................................................................................12
5.5 Extract Factory Process................................................................................13
5.6 Layout ..........................................................................................................13
5.7 Effluent Treatment .......................................................................................14
5.8 Final Evaporator (Wiegand 2)......................................................................15
5.9 Bulk Storage in place of Drums...................................................................15
6. EFFECT ON CAPITAL PROPOSAL BUDGET................................................16
7. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................16
Figure 1 : Ideas Accepted with Costs Estimated .........................................................18
Figure 2 : Ideas Accepted but no Costs, Ideas Rejected ..............................................19

FACILITATORS CONTACT DETAILS
The Value Engineering Study was facilitated by Sandy McLure assisted by Jon Kirk
of the Engineering Excellence Team, Port Sunlight.
Dr. Alexander (Sandy) McLure
Averac Inc.
12 Seabrook Court
Montgomery Village
MD 20886
USA
Tel. & Fax: +1 301 926 2744
Mobile: +1 301 529 9546
E Mail: sandy.mclure@comcast.net
Jon S Kirk
Cross Divisional Engineering Excellence Team (EET)
Research & Development Port Sunlight
Quarry Road East
Bebington
Wirral
CH63 3JW
Tel: +44 (0)151 641 1919
Fax: +44 (0)151 641 1844
E Mail: Jon.Kirk@ .com

1. INTRODUCTION
This document is the first of two volumes reporting the Value Engineering
Workshop for the Burton Site Upgrade Project held from 22nd to 25th February
2005 at the Ramada Newton Park Hotel, Newton Solney. This volume
provides a summary of the key recommendations whilst Volume 2 contains
full details of the procedures employed, the discussions that arose during the
study and the working papers for the ideas generated.
The Value Engineering Study started with the preparation of a brief for the
study. The process started during a Briefing Meeting held by telephone
conference on 19th January 2005. The participants were Mark Wearing and
Martin Beckford in Burton-Upon-Trent, Jon Kirk in Port Sunlight and Sandy
McLure in the USA. This Briefing Meeting discussed project objectives and
critical issues and the scope, objectives and constraints for the Value
Engineering Study. Sandy McLure subsequently circulated a Value
Engineering Brief. This Brief was then the basis for the Handbook for the
Workshop. The Handbook was distributed to the Workshop Team members.
Value Engineering for major capital investment projects in was introduced in
1994 and, since that time, more than 80 studies have been carried out. Since
Value Engineering has been successful in effecting improvements and value in
general in a number of projects, it was decided to apply it to the Burton Site
Upgrade Project.
2. BACKGROUND & CURRENT STATUS
2.1 General
The Burton Site Upgrade Project comprises two main parts:
 bringing the site infrastructure up to an appropriate standard,
 redeveloping the Extract Factory for the manufacture of Marmite.
The capital proposal was signed in 2003 and work started in the second half of
that year. The proposed redevelopment will result in an increase in capacity
for the manufacture of Marmite and this increase will cover the next 7-10
years of Marmite sales.
Some parts of the site infrastructure improvements are either nearing
completion or have been ordered. For the redevelopment of the Extract
Factory, an order has been placed with an Engineering Contractor, Lorien
Engineering Solutions Ltd, to design and implement the work. Some orders
for new equipment have been placed with suppliers such as GEA. There are
also parts of the Upgrade Project which are less well-developed such as the
Effluent Treatment, the replacement of drum storage by bulk storage and the
replacement of the Final Evaporator. Hence, the scope of the Value
Engineering Study covered:
 Extract Factory Re-development,

 Effluent Treatment,
 Bulk Storage in place of Drum Storage,
 Replacement of the Final Evaporator.
2.2 The Marmite Process
The process of making Marmite is not completely understood. Therefore, in
2004, a lot of effort went into researching the process to understand it better.
Foods Research Centre, Vlaardingen, were involved and believed that they
could design a better process. They looked into reverse osmosis, membrane
technology, and different types of centrifuges but, in the end, they concluded
that the existing process was the best route to follow, albeit with some
simplification and improvements.
Although the proposed process is much the same as the existing one, some of
the steps are connected in a different way. Trials for the simpler process were
carried out in the factory in the summer of 2004 with accelerated product
testing being completed by October 2004. In parallel, discussions went on
with equipment suppliers. By December 2004, the project team was able to
order the main items of new equipment:
 GEA Westfalia: centrifuges and polishing centrifuge,
 GEA Wiegand: evaporator.
2.3 Engineering and Phasing for Extract Factory
In the autumn of 2004, the design of the layout was started for the Extract
Factory. The key questions concerned feasibility and phasing. Complicating
the design work was the poor condition of floors and walls. Lorien
Engineering Solutions was engaged to carry out a study. They produced a
design and a plan with 6 or possibly 7 phases to implement the design. An
Invitation to Tender (ITT) was produced for the Engineering, Procurement &
Construction Management (EPCM) and the document was tendered by four
bidders including Lorien. The latter won the tender and took part in the Value
Engineering Workshop.
2.4 Final Evaporator (Wiegand 2)
The ITT did not include what could be seen as Phase 8: the replacement of the
final evaporation stage (Wiegand 2 Evaporator). The current equipment is
relatively old and incurs higher than desirable maintenance costs to keep it
operating satisfactorily. The performance of the equipment has some inherent
variability, contributing to the range of D Savoy (the final product from the
extract process) in grades 1-6. An up-to-date design will be more consistent
and have a control function that will limit the variation in product properties
(namely solids content), which is an enabler for bulk storage of D Savoy.

Early Equipment Management techniques will be applied to ensure that the
replacement improves upon the existing set up.
2.5 Bulk Storage
The intention is to replace the existing drum storage by bulk storage. The
problem is that bulk storage has still to be confirmed as feasible. If the
feasibility can be proved, then there will be significant savings in labour and
other costs.
In the present Extract Process, the product (D Savoy) from the Final
Evaporator is stored in drums (180 kg, stainless steel). The D Savoy cools
from 60°C. to about 20-25°C. in the drums. The product varies in grade,
something which the proposed process aims to improve upon. The product
sets at ambient temperature. When the product is required for filling, drums of
product have to be selected for blending to produce the grade of product
required. Pneumatic piston pumps are used to transfer the product from the
drums to a holding tank. The product is at ambient temperature during the
transfer but is then heated to 38-40°C in the holding tank. Lobe pumps
transfer the product to the filling machine which is a positive displacement
system. It is important to avoid physical shear of the product as discolouration
will result.
2.6 Effluent Treatment
Effluent Treatment was also within the scope of the Value Engineering Study.
The current Effluent Treatment plant is nearing the end of its working life and
is becoming increasingly costly to maintain. When the capital proposal was
submitted, the intention was to be just under the contamination consent level
for direct discharge of effluent. It is still thought that this is just about
achievable when the new extract process is commissioned. However,
discussions with Severn Trent (the local water and effluent company) have
indicated that, even if the factory’s discharge was consistently below the
consent level, they do not have the capacity in their current system to handle
the volume of effluent and there will be no change in the immediate future.
Also, the cost of treating the factory’s effluent (based on a Mogden formula
calculation) is high enough to make investing in a dedicated treatment plant
attractive (possibly, a two-year payback period).
Anaerobic digester treatment of the effluent has been the subject of trials in
the past and this is the route that is now under study. The process produces
biogas (methane) which could be burned in the boilers. The study is being
carried out in conjunction with Loughborough University. The current
discussion is about research in 2005 that will investigate the treatability of the
factory’s waste streams in an anaerobic plant and recommend the technology
to pursue for implementation in 2006.

Ethanol comes with the spent yeast slurry from the brewery. There is typically
4% ethanol in the slurry along with yeast, water and debris. The ethanol
comes out of the raw material as it goes through the process but the main part
is removed in the first stage evaporation. The ethanol is discharged as a
constituent of the factory’s effluent and contributes to the Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) regulated by the discharge consent.
Consideration has been given to separating the ethanol from the yeast slurry
before processing and then concentrating and burning the ethanol in the
boilers. However, there is concern about risks of handling hazardous
chemicals on site and the increase of complexity. Since the anaerobic route is
most likely to be chosen for all factory effluent, the separation of ethanol from
yeast slurry is unlikely to be pursued.
3. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND CRITICAL ISSUES
At the beginning of the Value Engineering Workshop, the Project Objectives
and Critical Issues were reviewed by the Workshop Team. The Project
Objectives were confirmed as:-
 To secure the process of making Marmite and, hence, the continuation
of Marmite as a UK Foods product;
 To bring the Extract Factory up to an “A” rating in the framework
standards as opposed to the “C” rating that it would currently merit;
 To achieve the best options of economics for the production of
Marmite;
 To create a factory that everyone is proud of.
All four objectives, though, must be achieved without changing the product,
i.e., the consumer must not detect any change in Marmite.
Critical Issues for Evaluation were confirmed :-
 Product quality is currently considered very high so potential changes
to the process or plant raise anxieties.
 The contracts with the brewers for the raw material must continue
unhindered so, the factory must continue to produce Marmite
throughout the proposed modifications.
 The framework standard rating of “A” must be achieved by the end of
2006, although a “B” in that year followed by an “A” in 2007 might be
acceptable.

 The cost savings in the capital proposal have to be achieved.
 The headcount reduction of 12 by the end of 2005 has to be achieved.
 The programme for implementation of the project is sensitive to
phasing and timing. The civil engineering works have some
uncertainties such as the condition of the ground underneath the floors
that have to be taken up and replaced.
 Commissioning of the new equipment has to go according to plan.
 The plant is big, consumes a lot of energy and creates a lot of effluent.
There is little room, therefore, for mistakes when commissioning and
testing product as the losses could be enormous.
 The design work for less well developed areas such as the changeover
to bulk storage has still to be done and generates cause for concern.
4. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS
The Team also discussed the Workshop Objectives and Constraints. The
objectives of the Value Engineering Study were confirmed as :-
 Confirmation that the implementation plan recently completed is the
best one and, if not, how can it be improved in terms of cost, timing,
phasing, etc.
 Look for potential cost reduction particularly in operating costs and
Repairs 2.
 Create “breathing space” within the project implementation
particularly for the civil engineering works, given that there are
uncertainties in these areas.
 Foster team building within the project team and its extensions. The
Engineering Contractor has just been appointed and the Value
Engineering Workshop is an excellent introduction to the project.
 Take the opportunity to reduce risk in the project through the
examination of the project that happens during the workshop.
There were a number of constraints on the Workshop :-
 Completion of the project and its milestones must not be delayed.
 Process route is now fixed and cannot be changed.

 The manpower resource at Burton is limited so the project must not put
a strain on these resources.
 There are financial constraints on both capital and Repairs 2
expenditure. R2 in particular has to be treated as a variable allowance
since the company has not been so profitable in recent times.
 The good relationships built up during the implementation of Early
Equipment Management (EEM) have to be maintained. Hence,
changes to design have to be made with the knowledge and agreement
of the EEM team.
5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
5.1 Methodology
The Value Engineering process of Information Gathering, Function Analysis,
Cost & Benefit Analysis, Idea Generation, Filtering & Evaluating Ideas,
Development of Selected Ideas and Final Agreement was followed for the
Project. During the idea generation phase of the workshop, 142 ideas were
recorded with relatively few repeats.
The list of ideas was filtered to eliminate those which were considered to be
impracticable, not acceptable or cost savings were reckoned to be negligible.
Ideas which increased capital cost but added value to the project were also
recorded.
The remaining ideas were then evaluated to assess their priority in terms of the
potential capital cost savings that they might deliver, the saving in operating
costs that might be achieved and the reduction in project implementation time
that might be feasible. Ideas which were concerned with safety, legal or
environmental areas were given a high priority.
Some ideas accepted at the first filter were rejected at the second evaluation.
After this filtration and evaluation, there were 37 ideas which were put
forward for further, more detailed development. Some ideas had the potential
to increase capital cost. In some cases, it was clear that they represented an
improvement in the project design.
The ideas for development were categorised in groups. The Workshop Team
was divided into three syndicates for idea development with each syndicate
taking on groups of ideas, viz., :-
 Layout, Programme, Civil Works/Finishes
 Effluent, Cleaning/Hygiene
 Extract Process, Automation.
The syndicates had to complete an Idea Development sheet for each idea
giving a description of the idea, its feasibility and the impact on both capital

and operating costs. These Idea Development sheets were used as the basis
for the presentations to the Workshop Team on Day 4 of the Workshop.
Care was taken when accepting ideas at the Final Evaluation to distinguish
between those ideas which could be accepted without further investigation,
i.e., Accepted Unconditionally, and those which did require further
investigation, Accepted Conditionally. This distinction allowed the Workshop
Team to reach a consensus rather than resorting to voting.
5.2 The Results
In summary, of the 37 ideas put forward for idea development :-
 16 ideas were accepted unconditionally, i.e., the Workshop Team
was unanimous in recommending that the ideas should be
implemented and no difficulty could be foreseen (see Figure 1).
 11 ideas were accepted conditionally, i.e., they were subject to
further investigation (see Figure 1).
 10 ideas were rejected because they do not bring any benefit to
the project.
Summary information for the ideas accepted is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Of the 27 ideas accepted, 3 have the potential to reduce the Capital Cost by
£70,000 along with an Operating Cost saving of £20,000 per year.
However, a further 11 of the 27 ideas recommended spending additional
Capital of £707,000 to save £485,000 per year in Operating Cost. There
were 3 ideas with no capital cost implication but an operating cost saving of
£30,000 per year. The overall net capital cost addition recommended was
£637,000 and operating cost saving was £535,000 per year.
There were 10 Ideas rejected at the Final Evaluation. Summary information
for the ideas rejected is shown in Figure 2. Of the 10 ideas rejected, 2
recommended adding capital, although 1 of the 2 had an operating cost saving.
The other 8 rejected ideas did not include cost estimates.
Action owners and timings are given for the ideas which were accepted. Note
that all ideas generated are listed in Volume 2 with a comment giving the
reason for those rejected. Ideas developed and subsequently rejected have the
idea development sheet included in an appendix to Volume 2.
5.3 Automation
There were 5 ideas accepted in the area of Automation which recommend
adding Capital cost.

Idea 14 : MES level on top of control system – Accepted Conditionally
A Manufacturing Execution System (MES) installed above the SCADA
system will collect data from that system and help to run the Extract Factory
more effectively. The MES system would control maintenance timetables,
store availability, plant optimisation incorporating early warning alarms, plant
activity levels, quality control, production levels and all extract production.
The MES will require an additional £200,000 in capital cost and about
£75,000 per year for the software licence and maintenance. To offset these
costs, there will be savings in reducing the paper trail, administration time and,
of course, higher efficiency.
Idea 40 : Central Management System for Process Temperature Control –
Accepted Conditionally
At present, temperature control for the process is carried out from a number of
separate systems. The copper temperatures are run from a Siemens S5 system
and press temperatures controlled from PCS7. One system should be installed
to control all temperatures. High level probes are also required in certain
tanks. Traceability for CCPs could be monitored. There would be less
wastage due to level probes in place and there would be less manual
manipulation for operator. Area becomes more auditable. The capital cost of
the system is estimated at £150,000. The saving, though, could be £100,000
per year.
Idea 30 : Use wireless PC control system – Accepted Unconditionally
The proposal is to use wireless keyboards and a mobile phone alarm system to
keep the operator informed of plant status at all times. Develop the system for
mobile PC use around the plant and not just in one location. Design system to
contact operator/engineer by mobile phone informing him of plant status or
alarm situation. Flexibility for the operator will be improved, giving him
immediate contact with maintenance staff. There is a low cost of
implementation. There will be fewer delays to production due to breakdowns.
Capital cost will be approximately £10,000.
Idea 97 : Use plasma screens for plant monitoring – Accepted
Unconditionally
The proposal is to install large plasma screens to show plant status and
operating data and to allow staff to review plant drawings. The idea is to
make information more visible. It was agreed to consider initially one screen
for plant monitoring only. One screen would cost about £5,000.
Idea 53 : Install web cams inside plant for operational decisions – Accepted
Unconditionally

Install a facility to keep constant view on specific items within the plant via
web cam or CCTV camera. Via a PC, it will be possible to view parts of the
plant at a touch of a button. The cost of a system is about £2,000. Reductions
in product loss at the sieve overflow could be £10,000 per year.
5.4 Hygiene and Cleaning
Idea 32 : Have no internal/open drains, no floor drains – Accepted
Unconditionally
The Extract Factory has many open drains for hosing down equipment with
water. An alternative way of working is proposed in which spillages and use
of water for cleaning are kept to a minimum. In turn, this would allow a plant
with few drains and even no drains. One problem with such a system is that
the traps in the drains that are installed tend to dry out and allow foul smells to
enter the plant. The proposal, therefore, is to install a few drains with a
tundish design. There is no trap but a ball blocking the discharge flush with
the floor for floor discharge. Product can be discharged into the same type but
with a raised tundish and sealing ball. The capital cost saving could be around
£30,000 and a further £20,000 per year saving in effluent costs due to the
lower volume of water.
Idea 47 : Improve building services in the plant – Accepted Conditionally
The idea is to replace existing building services with systems designed for the
future. The services should be positioned “off the walls” and as straight and
simple as possible. Cables should be single-stacked on open, vertical,
stainless steel trays. Advantage is that the services are then easier to clean and
modify when required. The additional capital cost is estimated at £100,000.
Cleaning and maintenance savings are estimated at £30,000 per year.
Idea 11 : Stop fouling the plant to reduce cleaning – Accepted Conditionally
An electrical device has been tested on areas of pipe-work and seems to
reduce fouling. Fouling results from organic substances burning onto to pipes
or precipitating out. Inorganic Calcium salts precipitate out and stick to walls.
Yeast slurry contains hard water. More hard water is added from the bore hole
and South Staffordshire mains water. The trials are still continuing and results
are not yet known. If the trials are successful, 10 devices costing £25,000,
including installation, will be installed. The saving due to a reduction in
cleaning is estimated at £50,000 per year.
Idea 41 : Review plant hygienic design/zoning, e.g., hand wash stations, etc. –
Accepted Unconditionally
Define hygiene and operational standards based on risk assessments of
individual zones. Zones: 1. Effluent; 2. Tanker off-loading, coppers/external
tanks; 3. Internal areas, general (enclosed process); 4. Finished product filling

(product exposed). 5S methods should be used to define systems, layouts,
procedures etc. There should be hand wash and changing facilities when
moving from one zone to another. Routes and conditions need to be decided
based on layout of key areas. Improved hygiene standards will result (a site to
be proud of). There must be no risk to product quality. Standard work-wear
will be used in the main areas, additional work-wear for other areas, Zones 1,
2 & 4. The additional capital cost could be £25,000. The saving in High Viz
jackets will be offset by other work-wear costs.
Idea 64 : Develop cleaning area for process equipment – Accepted
Conditionally
Provide a cleaning area for separator bowls, sieves and valves. The exact
location must be decided in conjunction with the layout study described in
Idea 24 (see later under Layout). There is a potential saving of £10,000 per
year in reduced manual handling and time taken to clean.
5.5 Extract Factory Process
Idea 79 : Refurbish the old press or not? – Accepted Unconditionally
At the Final Evaluation, the Workshop concluded that the old press needed to
be refurbished as soon as possible. The additional cost will be around
£50,000. The risk is that the new equipment will not necessarily improve the
performance of the S1 presses. Hence, the need to have back up from the old
press.
Idea 5 : Remove or reduce 90°C step on autolysis – Accepted Conditionally
In the present process, autolysis takes place at 60°C in the coppers. The
contents are then heated to 90°C over 2 hours to kill the yeast and deactivate
enzymes. However, it may also be possible to achieve this at a lower
temperature, say, 75°C which could be done at the first evaporation stage. An
action has been noted to find out the temperature. There is a potential saving
of £15,000 per year in steam costs.
5.6 Layout
Idea 24 : APV room to become new control room – Accepted Unconditionally
The title of the idea changed during the course of syndicate discussion to
keeping the existing server and workstation rooms (within the APV area) but
change the workstation room into a new MCC room and build a new single
storey control room and offices at the heart of the plant.
It allows space in the APV room for possible future installations. It limits risk
in relocating servers and allows dedicated ventilation for servers and MCC

without new air handling equipment. The quick test lab (Idea 66) is
incorporated in the new control room. Single storey building instead of two
storeys will reduce capital cost and installation time and eliminate risk of
tripping on the stairs. There could be a net capital cost saving of £30,000.
Further layout design is required.
Idea 33 : Develop new entrance and amenity block – Accepted Conditionally
Not currently in the estimated cost is an upgrade to the existing changing
rooms, toilets, dining area and office space. There has to be facilities for male
and female changing, toilets and showering, dining area (approx 200 sq m)
and main entrance to the Extract Factory. It was agreed that such an upgrade
is essential to bring these facilities into line with the upgraded factory. The
additional cost is estimated at £40,000.
Idea 63 : Place anti-foam tank outside – Accepted Unconditionally
Anti-foam is currently dosed into the fill line to the coppers and to the RVFs.
After the project, it will only be required by the coppers. The idea is to
relocate the anti-foam tank from the RVF area to near the coppers. It is
proposed to relocate the anti-foam tank outside beside the coppers in Phase 1.
Pallecons will be used for feeding the RVFs in the period before they are
removed. The anti-foam tank can be connected directly to the coppers fill
line. A caustic supply will be added for cleaning the tank once per week.
There should be a £10,000 decrease in Repairs 2 costs due to one move
instead of two.
Idea 45 : Eliminate Fork Lift Trucks (FLT) from the plant – Accepted
Unconditionally
Design layout so that Fork Lift Trucks are not required to enter the working
area of the factory for operational purposes. One-off access for maintenance
activities should still be catered for in the design. There is a potential saving
of £5,000 per year in hire charges.
5.7 Effluent Treatment
Idea 135 (2) : Review Effluent Treatment Proposals – Accepted Conditionally
Two options were considered: (1) Putting all the effluent down the foul drain
for handling by Severn Trent but they cannot take the volume; (2) Installing an
anaerobic treatment plant and generating biogas to burn in the boilers. The
second option seems the more likely at present but the situation could change
dramatically if Coors build their own treatment plant and reduce their
discharge to Severn Trent. Option 2 requires an additional capital investment
of about £100,000 for biogas handling. However, this investment would have
a rapid return from the saving in effluent discharge and from the biogas offset

by increased operator input and maintenance. The net operational saving
would be £370,000 per year.
Loughborough University have been commissioned to study the options. Note
must also be taken of Idea 6 which proposes putting the REF into the effluent.
The additional capital required would be £250,000 but would generate annual
savings of £348,000 per year.
Idea 2, Recycling Effluent Streams at earliest opportunity must also be
considered. A decanter, valves and automation might cost £400,000 in capital
but would generate savings of £258,000 per year from the increase in value of
the REF.
5.8 Final Evaporator (Wiegand 2)
Idea 9 : Review Process at Wiegand 2 – Accepted Unconditionally
The review proposed the installation of larger feed tanks to provide more
consistent solids content in the Wiegand 2 feed. It is also necessary to
automate final solids control in the Wiegand 2 evaporator. The capacity of the
new Wiegand 2 should be in line with the capacity of the new equipment.
Only one discharge line increases the risk of cross contamination.
Bigger tanks result in better blending and a more consistent product (fewer
grades). Longer runs are possible without interruption. The potential savings
have still to be quantified (less cleaning, reduced handling and sorting in
blending, less starting and stopping, less sampling, lower running cost). The
idea should introduce the ability to produce all final products, so the vacuum
pans can be removed.
Further investigations are required.
Prior to the VE Workshop, it was estimated that the cost of replacing the final
evaporator was likely to be around £500,000 instead of the £900,000 allocated
to that project in the 2003 capital proposal. This saving of £400,000 can be
made available to other projects in the capital proposal. Confirmation of the
amount will come when a budget quotation is received from one of the
potential suppliers, Wiegand or Alfa Laval.
5.9 Bulk Storage in place of Drums
Two ideas mentioned storage of product: Idea 102, Do not store in bulk, fill on
line; and Idea 138, Develop pilot system for bulk storage and transportation.
Unfortunately, both ideas were taken out before idea development. Therefore,
there was no detailed examination of bulk storage in place of drums.

6. EFFECT ON CAPITAL PROPOSAL BUDGET
The Summary of Results shows that there were many more ideas
recommending capital cost additions than capital cost savings. The capital
cost additions were for good reasons, though, i.e., to save additional operating
costs. Note that this is in line with the objectives for the Value Engineering
Workshop. If all the ideas recommended for acceptance were implemented,
the net additional capital required would be £637,000. There is a very small
amount of Repairs 2 cost involved. The additional capital investment could
generate net operating cost savings of £535,000 per year. Hence, the payback
on the investment is rapid. On the other hand, the capital proposal was
approved in 2003 and it is unlikely that an increase in capital investment will
be sanctioned. There is a possible solution, though
As noted in section 5.8, a potential capital cost saving of £400,000 has been
identified for the project to replace the Final Evaporator. This saving in
capital can be used to fund the ideas recommended for acceptance by the VE
Workshop. It is possible that there may be further savings in the capital cost
for replacing the Final Evaporator. It is also possible that there will be capital
cost savings in the projects for Effluent Treatment and Bulk Storage of D
Savoy. In summary, the UK Foods Project Team is reasonably confident that
some or all of the recommended additions can be implemented without
exceeding the overall expenditure limits of the capital proposal.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The Workshop Team applied the Value Engineering process to the Burton Site
Upgrade Project. There were more ideas recommending the addition of
capital cost than reduction of capital cost. If all the recommendations were to
be implemented, an additional capital investment of £637,000 would be
required. However, the investment would generate operational cost savings of
£535,000 per year, giving a rapid return on investment. The Project Team is
reasonably confident that the net capital cost additions can be accommodated
within the overall budget of the capital proposal. For example, prior to the VE
Workshop, a potential capital cost saving of £400,000 was estimated for the
replacement of the Final Evaporator.
There were 27 ideas recommended for implementation which will improve the
value of the project. Only 3 ideas recommended a capital cost saving totalling
£70,000. One of the three had a £20,000 per year operational cost saving.
The largest additions of capital cost concerned Automation. A Manufacturing
Execution System (MES) is recommended costing £200,000 and a Central
Management System for Temperature Control costing £150,000, although the
latter will save an estimated £100,000 in operational costs.
The other area involving large capital costs was Effluent Treatment. Two
different options were discussed. The most likely option seems to involve the

installation of an anaerobic treatment plant. Additional capital of £100,000 is
required but operational savings of £370,000 per year seem feasible.
The layout of the Extract Factory received a lot of attention and
recommendations were made for the locations of the control room, MCC
room, training room and equipment washing. A decision was taken to
minimise the number of floor drains and keep the plant as dry as possible.
The Final Evaporator (Wiegand 2) was reviewed and suggestions made and
recorded. The Bulk Storage in place of Drums was not discussed in detail.
The Workshop Team concluded that the Value Engineering Workshop had
helped to clarify their understanding of the project and would assist in
ensuring that the value of the project is optimized.
The Workshop Team :-
Martin Beckford (MB), Fred Brotherton (FB), Antony Carter (AC), John
Drake (JD), Gordon Elkin (GE), Phil Harrison (PH), John Howson (JH), Peter
Kennard (PK), Thomas Leo (TL), David Murkin (DM), Brian Noon (BN),
Marcel Stevens (MS), Grahame Walker (GW), Mark Wearing (MW), Jeff
Williams (JW)
Facilitators :- Sandy McLure (SM), Jon Kirk (JK)

Figure 1 : Ideas Accepted with Costs Estimated
Idea Description Capital Operating Remarks Action Completion
No. Saving Saving Owner by
NB: Negative figures are cost additions £'000s £'000s
per year
Ideas accepted unconditionally saving Capital/R2 cost :-
24 APV room to become new control room 30 As on developed idea sheet AC On-going
32 Have no internal/open drains, no floor drains 30 20 Details to be confirmed and costs to be checked GE 14-Mar-05
63 Place anti foam tank outside 10 Cost becomes Repairs 2 item. Needs detailed design PK 31-Mar-05
Sub-total of Capital/R2 Savings & Operating Savings 70 20
Ideas accepted unconditionally adding Capital cost :-
30 Use wireless PC control system -10 Define brief and software requirements MB 31-May-05
41 Review plant hygienic design/zoning eg. handwash stations etc. -25
Framework standards/self-audit. Communication of workware
change.
MB 14-Apr-05
53 Install web cams inside plant for operational decisions -2 10 Define brief and software requirements MB 30-Jun-05
79 Refurbish old press or not ? -50 Refurbish, yes ASAP. JW Immediate
97 Use plasma screens for plant monitoring -5 Prepare specification, obtain quote MB 30-Jun-05
Sub-total of Capital Additions (Operating Saving) -92 10
Ideas accepted conditionally adding Capital cost :-
11 Stop fouling the plant to reduce cleaning -25 50 Awaiting trials on coppers PH On-going
14 MES level on top of Control system -200 -75 Look for other savings to fund MES MB/RG 30-Sep-05
33 Develop new entrance and amenity block -40 Look into DDA compliance/costs GE 31-Mar-05
40 Central MS for process temperature control -150 100 Identify gap between proposed and current MB 30-Apr-05
47 Improve building services in plant -100 30 Build into design/plant PK On-going
135 Review effluent treatment proposals -100 370
Both options to remain open. Loughborough report scheduled
Q1 2006. Savings are Option 2.
MW 31-Mar-06
Sub-total of Capital Additions, Net Operating Saving -615 475
Ideas accepted saving Operating Cost:-
5 Remove/reduce 90°C step on autolysis 15 Conditional Confirm de-activation temp. of enzyme GW 30-Jun-05
45 Eliminate FLTs from plant 5 Unconditional Integrated into Layout design MB 31-Mar-05
64 Develop cleaning area for process equipment 10 Conditional See layout Idea 24 (above)
Sub-total of Operating savings 30
Net totals for Capital/R2 (addition) and Operating (saving) -637 535

Figure 2 : Ideas Accepted but no Costs, Ideas Rejected
Idea Description Capital Operating Remarks Action Completion
No. Saving Saving Owner by
NB: Negative figures are cost additions £'000s £'000s
per year
Ideas accepted unconditionally but no costs estimated :-
9 Review process at Wiegand 2 Review to continue MW/MB 31-May-05
55 Develop a training centre within the plant Incorporate into layout GE On-going
61 Locate sieves in cleaning area Confirm layout MB 25-Feb-05
65 Define scope of CIP requirements Follow guidelines on idea sheet MB 31-Mar-05
66 Develop quick test lab Included in Idea 24 (See Figure 1)
111 Fast curing seamless floor finish Proposed finishes to proceed GE On-going
117 Remove all/some internal walls Incorporate into design GE 31-Mar-05
Ideas accepted conditionally but no costs estimated :-
2 Re-cycling effluent streams at earliest opportunity See Idea 135 (2) and Idea 65
6 Ref into effluent See Idea 135 (2)
106 On line monitoring by equipment suppliers Verify with suppliers MB 31-Mar-05
Ideas rejected at Final Evaluation :-
16 Review/change filter press operation Pass on to QM Maintenance Pillar.
18 Totally enclose Wiegand 1 -50 Cost of so doing is unnecessary
19 Alternative to Russell Finex sieve Consider auto-control valve on feed JW 30-Apr-05
26 New floor over existing slabs Not suitable for existing buildings
60 Remove mezzanine level Very expensive and it is Repairs 2
93 Review layout to enable earlier installation of De-bittering tanks Not practical
101 Status lights for alarms on all equipment -20 10 Don't want every alarm linked
122 Consider stopping process to optimise project phasing Scope of work within Phases requires final agreement.
137 Investigate alternatives for final concentration Needs investigation by experts
142 Remove wash solids and use S2 press for S1 duty Not immediate priority but investigate in future

5.ve volume 1_ve_burton

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 5.ve volume 1_ve_burton

Similar to 5.ve volume 1_ve_burton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

5.ve volume 1_ve_burton