SBSMR 20004 Revision D - Response to RFI

TABLE D.10 BUFFER NODE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.7)

BUFFERS (CHECK REPORTING TABLE C10) COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP.

 

Does the treatment nade reflect the vegetated
area receiving sheet flow only?

 

Is the percentage of upstream area buffered
consistent with catchment plans?

 

Does the buffer area accurately reflect the
percentage impervious area as shown on the
development plans?

 

“1. % |e) S

Is the exfiltration rate set to zero?

 

If an exfiltration rate has been used, has the
secondary drainage link been used to return the
exfiltrated flows to the model? (Section 4.1)

 

 

 

 

TABLE D.11 PROPRIETARY & CUSTOM PRODUCTS (INC GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS) NODE ASSESSMENT
CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.8)

   

PROPRIETARY & CUSTOM PRODUCTS COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP

(CHECK REPORTING TABLE C11)

Are the proposed pollutant reduction efficiencies
independently verified using a method suited to
local conditions (Section 4.8)?

 

Does the data provided include performance
results under dry weather flows (to account for J
potential pollutant leeching)? (Y/N).

 

Is the assumed high-flow bypass rate consistent J
with manufacturer specifications? (Y/N)

UNLESS “YES” HAS BEEN ANSWERED TO ALL THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE THE PROPOSED POLLUTANT REDUCTION RATES

CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS BEING REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIT'S PERFORMANCE.

 

ls the storage volume modelled consistent with
the proposed unit?

 

Is the expected maintenance frequency a Vv
reasonable assumption?

 

ls the storage volume large enough to contain all V
sediments and gross pollutants received by unit
during inter-maintenance periods?

 

 

 

 

MUSIC MODELLING GUIDELINES Version 3.0 - 2018