Original source · versioned page text
Attachment 4 - Stormwater Managment Plan
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (17.2 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Plans and drawings
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawn HOLISTIC
STORMWATER & WASTE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOSED CAR WASH
&
TAKE AWAY FOOD & DRINK OUTLET
SUBJECT SITE:
34 ELM STREET,
COOROY, QLD, 4563
LOT 4 - 6 of RP 72698
CLIENT:
CHRIS KING & JOANNE HILL
DATE:
TH
27 SEPTEMBER 2022
JOB NO:
20-032 CIV- REV A
A.B.N. 811 428 67 114
PO Box 3494, Mornington, Vic, 3934
Tel: 0416 114 573
[email protected]
www.tmcdesign.com.au
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of pages 2 to 73 (of 90)
Page 2
CONTENTS
1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW ..................................................................... 3
2. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................ 4
3. EXISTING LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PATTERNS............................... 5
4. STORMWATER MANAGAMENT ....................................................... 6
4.1. Pre/Post Developed Site Run-Off Co-Efficients ................................... 6
4.2. Roof Stormwater Harvesting ................................................................ 7
4.3. Overall Developed Site Music Model ................................................... 8
4.4. Site WSUD Treatment Measures ........................................................... 9
5. WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ....................................... 10
5.1. Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................... 10
5.2. Car Wash Waste Water Treatment System ........................................ 11
5.3. Car Wash Water Use Model ................................................................. 12
5.4. Expected Car Wash Site Patronage And Sewer Discharge ............... 13
5.5. Estimated Annual Site Patronage ...................................................... 16
5.6. Annual Mains Water Usage & Sewer Discharge With/Without
Recycling Compared. ........................................................................... 16
6. CAR WASH STORMWATER POLLUTION CALCULATOR ................ 18
7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 21
APPENDIX A: SPEL Stormsack
APPENDIX B: SPELBasin
APPENDIX C: Car Wash Recycle Unit
APPENDIX D: Australian Car Wash Association-
Stormwater Statement/Environmental Policy
-2-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 3
1. PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
TMC Building Design Group has been engaged by Chris King & Joanne Hill to prepare a holistic
Stormwater and Waste Water Management Plan for the proposed Car Wash and Take Away
Food & Drink Outlet at 34 Elm Street in Cooroy.
The proposed new development building and works consists of:
1. Two (2) Automatic Car Wash bays,
2. Two (2) Self-Serve Wash Bays,
3. Two (2) Super Bays,
4. Three (3) Vacuum bays,
5. Two (2) Dog Washes,
6. A Plant Room, Secure Storage and Store Room with staff amenities,
7. Fenced Bin area,
8. Stand-alone Take Away Food and Drink Outlet with attached Disabled Public Toilet,
9. Suitable landscaping and seated area.
This report will investigate the full water cycle management for the site including;
A. Stormwater Management,
i. Compare Pre-Developed Site -v- Post-Developed Site runoff coefficients,
ii. Model Stormwater harvesting from roofed areas,
iii. Overall developed site Music Model,
iv. Overall developed site water quality improvement systems to be adopted.
B. Waste Water Management,
i. Expected Car Wash and Dog Wash site patronage,
ii. Mains Water usage and Sewer discharge with and without recycling equipment,
iii. Customer Average Weekday, Peak Weekend, Flagship Event site daily patronage,
iv. Compare Annual Mains Water usage and sewer discharge with and without
recycling.
C. Cooroy & LGA Car Wash Stormwater Pollution Calculator.
i. Current conditions- Pre- proposed Car Wash development,
ii. Future conditions- Post- proposed Car Wash development.
-3-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 4
2. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The original site (prior to demolition) was the “Cooroy Motel & Caravan Park”. The site had a
combination of permanent buildings, stand-alone cabins/caravans, with bitumen/concrete
driveway areas forming a loop through the site. Refer Figure 1 for an aerial image.
Subject Site
Figure 1: Original Site Aerial Image (pre-demolition works), Source Google Earth.
-4-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 5
3. EXISTING LOCAL AREA DRAINAGE PATTERNS
The subject site has a 1.2M slope from the north-western corner (the corner of Elm Street and
Diamond Lane- high side) to the south-eastern corner of the subject site on Opal Street (low
side).
As seen in Figure 2; The subject site is located along a ridge line in the local catchment area-
being that the overland flow from the railway line falls towards the site, but then splits to travel
down Opal Street (and through the properties to the south) or travels to the north and down
Tewantin Road/Diamond Lane (and through the properties further north).
Run-off from the existing Motel/Caravan site was by both downpipes/driveway pits into an
underground piped stormwater system that connected into the existing underground piped
stormwater network. Landscaped areas also drained from the site as overland sheet flow,
exiting the site via the driveway onto Opal Street (south-east corner) or along Diamond Lane
(along the northern boundary).
Local underground stormwater infrastructure exists along Opal Street, commencing at the
corner with Elm Street. It is proposed to connect the subject site’s new underground
stormwater discharge point into the existing stormwater drainage pipe/pit near the proposed
site entry driveway near the south-eastern corner of the site on Opal Street.
Figure 2: Site Contour Plan (Source: Noosa Shire Council- IntraMaps, Dated: 27th Spet 2022)
-5-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 6
4. STORMWATER MANAGAMENT
A holistic site approach has been adopted for the design of the stormwater, stormwater
harvesting and on-site retention use (via the car washing process), stormwater quality treatment
and site stormwater discharge.
A Commercial Car Wash use is a rare use that can use a lot of mains water if not designed
correctly. However, it is because of this water demand that it also has the ability to make great
use of any captured rainwater (ie: harvested and retained stormwater) and draw down on this
stored water quickly which maximises the chances of the underground retention tanks being
able to store the design storm event volume effectively with a small chance of overflow even for
the largest of storm events.
The overall site will have the stormwater comply with the following requirements:
1. Noosa Shire Council- Noosa Plan 2020 requirements and standard drawings,
2. Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QDUM),
3. Department of Transport and Main Roads Road Drainage manual,
4. AS/NZS 3500.3 – Plumbing and Drainage, Part 3: Stormwater Drainage.
Refer to the attached plan, Sh: C1- which depicts the Preliminary Stormwater Layout Plan. This
plan clearly shows the locations of the proposed down pipes from the roofed areas, their
connection into the underground storage retention tanks, all driveway stormwater pits and
associated pipework, the water quality treatment device and connection into the existing
stormwater pipe or stormwater pit (TBC with Council).
4.1. PRE/POST DEVELOPED SITE RUN-OFF CO-EFFICIENTS
The subject site has an overall site area of 2,014 M2.
The overall area of the developed site will be reduced by a 2.0 M width along the northern
boundary due to the requested road widening on Diamond Lane. This area of 80.4 M2 shall be
deducted from the effective site area.
There is a 2.0M wide footpath area between the Super Bays and the adjoining property (Bowls
Club) to the east of the site which totals 96.6 M2. This area shall also be deducted from the
effective site area.
This yields an effective overall site area of 1,837 M2 that shall be designed for.
The pre-existing motel, cabins and bitumen impermeable areas occupied 1,414 M2 of the
effective site area (ie: only the impermeable areas inside the effective site area have been
included). This yields an existing overall site impermeable coverage of 77%. This would result in
a pre-existing site run-off co-efficient of 0.85 over an effective area of 1,837 M2.
The post-developed site has a total of 800 M2 of roofed area being directly connected into the 2
No. 20,000 L underground Retention tanks for re-use onsite. These tanks have been oversized to
cater for the 1% EAP design storm event, these tanks will not contribute to the overall site
stormwater discharge. Hence, this roofed area has been removed from the overall site run-off
co-efficient calculation. Other areas include; non-roofed landscaped areas total of 199 M2, there
is 24 M2 of roofed area that does not connect into the Retention tanks, and driveway/paved non-
roofed impermeable areas total 814 M2. This results in a post-development site run-off co-
efficient of 0.49 over the effective area of 1,837 M2.
This fact alone assures that the post-developed site will have a greatly reduced overall site
stormwater volume and peak flow discharge than the pre-developed site.
-6-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 7
4.2. ROOF STORMWATER HARVESTING
In order to calculate the optimal size of the underground retention tank/s and the volume of
stormwater that actually falls onto the roofed areas; a review of the Bureau of Meteorology
(BOM) historical daily rainfall data is undertaken, refer Figure 3 + 4 below. These tables identify
that over the past 26 years the mean number of days per year that equal or exceed 25mm of
daily rainfall is 17.7 days. The site retention tanks have been designed to cater for double this at
50mm of daily rainfall, which will total 40 kL minimum of water storage.
Figure 3; BOM Climate Statistics for the closest weather station- Tewantin RSL Park.
-7-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 8
Figure 4; BOM Detailed Rainfall Statistics for the closest weather station- Tewantin RSL Park.
Additional modelling during the construction documentation stage will help refine this
retention storage volume, regardless of the result a minimum 40 kL of retention rainwater
storage volume will be provided.
4.3. OVERALL DEVELOPED SITE MUSIC MODEL
The overall proposed preliminary stormwater design for the site has been conducted in
accordance with the Noosa Plan 2020, Part 9.4.8 Water Quality and Drainage Code. The resultant
treatment train is shown in Figure 5 below. This MUSIC (Model for Urban Stormwater
Improvement Conceptualisation) Model below only shows one (1) No. 20kL Retention rainwater
tank, where it is proposed to install two (2) No. 20kL Retention tanks.
Figure 5; MUSIC Stormwater Treatment Train and Effectiveness Model
This MUSIC model, the Proposed Preliminary Stormwater Site Layout Plan and this report shows
compliance (meets or betters the minimum design requirements) with the required
Performance Outcomes of the Stormwater Drainage Design P01 – P05, the requirements of the
Stormwater Quality and Protection of Receiving Waters P06-P09, and also Hydrology and waterway
stability PO10 – PO13 (Note: that some areas/requirements are not applicable or relevant to the
proposed works).
-8-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 9
4.4. SITE WSUD TREATMENT MEASURES
Each proposed driveway stormwater pit will have a SPEL Stormsack installed (refer to Appendix
A for further details) or an approved equivalent. These storm sacks are fitted into each drainage
pit to capture the gross pollutants (ie: sediment, litter, oil and grease) at the source. They are
easy to clean and maintain, and have the below features as seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6; SPEL Stormsack product features.
The final piece of the treatment train is the SPELBasin; which is a SQIDEP approved modular
Bioretention System, refer to Appendix B for further information and below in Figure 7 for a
table of the treatment efficiencies provided by this unit. Its size and capacity make it an ideal
solution for stormwater treatment trains that require a high pollutant reduction in a small
footprint. It can be used in place of standard catch basin structures, rain gardens, bioretention
cells and media filters. As a self-contained treatment train, it incorporates the following
treatment components screening, hydrodynamic separation, media filtration and a bioretention
filter. Given the subject site characteristics, ie: existing and proposed site levels/contours,
locations of the proposed landscaped areas, location of the proposed legal point of discharge,
location and depth of the existing sewer pipe traversing through the site etc… it would not be
possible or preferable to install a non-proprietary raingarden or bioretention system in the
landscaped area. As this product is a self-contained SQIDEP approved treatment module, can be
built into the landscaped area; it is the preferred system to be adopted on this particular site. It
will also make future maintenance easier due to the modular chambers of the design making it
simple to maintain given the surrounding driveway and footpath areas.
Figure 7; SPELBasin product features.
The SPELBasin can be easily integrated within the proposed landscaped area and will have a
suitable by-pass pit/pipe system for larger site stormwater flows. The SPELBasin will be planted
with specific plant species that thrive in Bioretention environments- refer to the proposed
Landscaping Plan for further details. Maintenance for the above unit/s shall be in accordance
with SPEL Stormwater requirements.
-9-
TMC Building Design Group
Page 10
5. WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Refer to the Preliminary Sanitary Drainage Layout Plan for the waste water plumbing layout for
the Car Washing process on Sh: H1 of the Application Drawings. This plan details how the waste
effluent water for the car wash is to be plumbed. During the construction documentation stage,
the additional plumbing for the Car Wash sink in the Secure Storage room, WC and Take Away
Food & Drink Outlet, and Disabled Toilet etc… will be added to this plan.
5.1. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The existing 150mm dia. sewer pipes and an existing Sewer Manhole can be seen traversing
through the subject site, refer to the Existing Conditions Layout Plan refer Sh: 1 of the
Application Drawings, and Figure 8 below. Preliminary discussions have been had with Unity
Water’s Development Services team, in particular Tony Stockman, whereby it has been verbally
agreed with, subject to further documentation being provided (during the construction
documentation process), for two (2) additional sewer manholes to be provided and the existing
150mm dia. sewer pipe to be suitably diverted around the proposed Super Bay 1 building, refer
to the Proposed Site Layout Plan, Sh: 2 of the Application Drawings for the new Sewer Manhole
and diverted sewer pipe locations.
Train Station Car Park LEGEND
Diamond Lane
Opal Street
Subject Site
Figure 8; Dial Before You Dig Unity Water Sewer + Water Map
- 10 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 11
5.2. CAR WASH WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
A detailed description of the Car Wash Waste Water treatment system is as follows;
2,000L Silt pits will be installed in the Automatic Wash Bays which will be connected into a series
(3 pits in total) of twin reclaim pits (~4,000L capacity each), which will be connected to the
Recycle System. To cater for of effluent overflow; the final reclaim pit will also be connected into
a minimum 12,000L Holding Pit. For effluent recycling from the Automatic Wash Bays to occur,
the recycle unit will be placed in the Plant Room (with duty and stand-by pumps). Refer to
Appendix C for details of the Reclaim unit.
2,000L Silt pits will be installed in each Self-Serve and Super Wash Bay which will discharge into
the minimum 12,000L Holding Tank. The Holding Tank will have a duty and standby pump to
pump the effluent water to the Oil Water Separator. The Oil Water Separator will treat the
effluent water to the acceptable level and then discharge via gravity into the site’s sewer
discharge location (TBC with Unity Water). The Oil Water Separator will be a Fox Environmental
FX10,000 unit that will operate at a 7,200 L/hr maximum treatment capacity. This FX10,000 unit
is an oversized unit (based on the expected maximum effluent volume to be treated) which has
been selected to ensure the minimum 12,000L Holding Tank will be required to store minimal
effluent- even when the site is functioning at its maximum potential.
All on-site sanitary/Dog Wash effluent water will connect into the sewer discharge pipe after the
Oil Water Separator. Each Dog Wash tub will be fitted with a suitable hair trap that is cleaned on
a weekly basis.
Particular attention to the Car Wash wash bay design has been given so that no waste water or
effluent escapes from the wash bay areas and discharges into the stormwater system. This is
achieved by giving all wash bays a 100-200mm minimum fall from the perimeter of the wash bay
to the silt pit in the centre of the respective bay. Also, the roofed areas over all Self-Serve and
Super Wash Bay areas have a suitable roof overhang (minimum of 1.0M) to prevent stormwater
from entering into the wash bays and thereafter into the sewer system. There is a strip drain
provided at the exit of the Automatic Wash Bays and the entry area of these wash bays is also
contained in a bunded and drained area (via 600L Silt Pits) to help with water from escaping
from this entry area. The silt pits between the Automatic Wash Bays and between the Self-Serve
Wash Bays and Super Bays will be interconnected with pipes to prevent any overflow of effluent
water escaping from these wash bays.
The car wash will operate as a five-star water rated Car Wash. The car wash equipment used at
this facility is rated under the Car Wash/State Government water rating scheme. A trade waste
discharge licence will be obtained from Unity Water prior to construction commencing.
- 11 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 12
5.3. CAR WASH WATER USE MODEL
The water usage requirements for the different types of wash bays varies substantially (ie:
automatic wash bays can use 5 times the amount of water than self-serve wash bays), as does
the water usage for the different brands/manufacturers of car washing equipment that can be
specifically installed on a Car Wash site. The below data is based on the Automatic wash bays
being the PDQ Laserwash 360+, the Self-Serve wash bays being the Prowash iWash Classic, and
the Dog Wash unit being a K9000 Twin dog wash unit.
Table 1 (below) specifies the different use areas of the Car Wash and lists the typical mains water
demand volume requirement per wash. The Auto Bay with Reclaim (Recycling) shows how
much recycled water and fresh (mains) water can be used in each car wash cycle. An adjustment
is made for water losses through drive off of between 10-15% (depending on the wash bay
type). Finally, the volume of effluent water that is discharged to sewer is listed. You can see how
great the variation is between the fresh water usage and sewer discharge for the Auto Bay when
using/not using a recycling system.
Tables 2 + 3 (below) show the maximum number of car washes that can occur in the different
types of wash bay per hour and lists the total peak demand of fresh (mains) water and peak
sewer discharge. Note that these two tables combine the absolute limit of every wash bay
working at 100% maximum capacity for an entire hour.
- 12 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 13
5.4. EXPECTED CAR WASH SITE PATRONAGE AND SEWER DISCHARGE
The proposed Car Wash hours of operation are between 5am to 10pm – 7 days per week. Table 4 shows a breakdown of the expected Car Wash
site patronage for a typical average weekday itemised into each different type of wash bay.
The Total System Capacity references the total water effluent (in Litres) that is to be discharged into the Holding Pit and treated by the Oil Water
Separator each hour. The Oil Water Separator Discharge Capacity references the output volume of the selected unit FX10,000- which can output
7,200L/hour. The Holding Tank Storage Spare Capacity refers to the additional volume of effluent water per hour that the Oil Water Separator can
treat prior to beginning to store excess effluent water in the Holding Pit. The Purple and Green shaded areas compare the system without/with
auto bay recycling system installed. The difference in the sewer output volume is substantial at ~20kL- even for an ‘average weekday’ operation!
- 13 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 14
Table 5 shows a breakdown of the expected Car Wash site patronage for a typical peak weekend itemised per hour into each different type of wash
bay. This could actually be a Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday combination- but an annual allowance of this ‘Peak Weekend’ occurrence would
be for an allowance of 2 days per week.
Again, the difference in sewer effluent discharge when not using/using a recycle system is almost 25kL!
- 14 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 15
Table 6 shows a breakdown of an expected Car Wash site patronage for a Flagship or event day itemised into each different type of wash bay. This
type of event would be an irregular occurrence, but could be because of the site ’Grand Opening Day/Weekend’ or a fundraising day to support a
local community group or local sporting organisation. An annual allowance of this ‘Flagship Event’ occurrence of 7 times per year has been made in
the overall site annual water usage and sewer discharge calculations. In actual fact, the occurrence of this type of event is more likely to be only 2-4
times per year.
Again, a point to note the vast difference in sewer discharge of over 40kL when not using and using a recycling system.
- 15 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 16
5.5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL SITE PATRONAGE
Following from Tables 5 to 6; the overall annual estimated site patronage is shown in Table 7
(below). Whereby the Average Daily Mid-week and Peak Daily Weekend site patronage has been
scheduled to occur for 51 weeks of the year, and the Flagship Event Day patronage has been
modelled as occurring for 1 week (ie: 7 days) over the course of the year.
5.6. ANNUAL MAINS WATER USAGE & SEWER DISCHARGE
WITH/WITHOUT RECYCLING COMPARED.
Table 8 combines much of the previous data and tables for the annual fresh water demand and
annual sewer discharge when NOT using a recycling system.
The subsequent calculations then combine this data with the effects of the on-site stormwater
harvesting to show a reduction in volume of the mains water that is needed. This Median (Decile
5) rainfall total of 1,458 mm/year has been taken from Figures 3 + 4. The Median (Decile 5)
rainfall total represents the annual median (decile 5 or 50th percentile, ie: 50%) total precipitation
that has occurred at the subject site over the past 27 year history. This Median (Decile 5) is the
preferred measure (over the arithmetic mean) of a typical rainfall from a metorological view
point- as it negates the potential of a skewed rainfall annual result due to one extreme rainfall
event.
- 16 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 17
Table 9 shows the same information as Table 8- but with a recycling unit being installed for the
treatment of the effluent water from the Auto Wash Bays.
It can easily be seen that the inclusion of rainwater harvesting from the roofed areas, combined
with the inclusion of the recycle unit for the Auto Wash Bays a great reduction in both the
demand of fresh (mains) water of nearly ~58% or ~9 ML per year is achieved. Similarily, there is a
reduction in Car Wash site effluent discharge of ~61% or ~9 ML per year.
Thus, the approval of the proposed Cooroy Car Wash with both stormwater harvesting and
water recycling measures installed is clearly evident.
The proposed Wastewater Management and Effluent Disposal system will comply with the
performance outcomes required by the Noosa Plan 2020, Part 9.4.8 Water Quality and Drainage
Code PO15 to PO16.
- 17 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 18
6. CAR WASH STORMWATER POLLUTION CALCULATOR
To give a complete understanding of the environmental benefits of the proposed Car Wash
development, a comparison with the current car washing practises of the Cooroy Primary (PTA)
and Secondary (STA) Trade Areas need to be made. Table 10 gives a detailed population,
household size and vehicle ownership breakdown- this data has been sourced from the
Economic Needs Report.
The frequency of car washes per annum has been sourced from resources provided by the
Australian Car Wash Association (ACWA) and past surveys.
The Economic Needs Report has identified the lack of suitable Car Washing facilities in the LGA,
whereby the closest commercial Car Wash facility is around 15km away! As such, the uptake of
the local Cooroy PTA and STA using these facilities is considered to be very minor, with many
preferring to wash their vehicle at home.
Given the nature of the Cooroy PTA and STA; it is considered that only 65% of vehicles that are
being washed at home or at work would actually drain directly into the local stormwater system.
This figure would be higher in a more built-up urban area due to the higher percentage of
impermeable areas (ie: bitumen and concrete roadways and driveways) draining into the local
stormwater system.
The resultant outcome is that currently around 14.4 ML of car wash effluent water will discharge
into the local Cooroy stormwater system.
Refer to Appendix D for additional information that has been published by ACWA with regards
to the ACWA Stormwater Statement- which provides education steps within the community
about car washing, responsible vehicle washing methods, critical pollutants commonly found in
car wash effluent water etc… Also the ACWA Environmental Policy Statement is also included
which contains information about Stormwater Pollution, Water Efficiency and the public
education campaign.
Also, refer to the following link http://thedirtytruth.com.au/ which has information and videos
with regards to stormwater pollution and community education.
- 18 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 19
Table 11 gives a breakdown of the different pollutant types that are commonly found in effluent
water from washing your vehicle at home. This pollution load is currently directly discharged
into the local stormwater system. The table shows that the pollution loading is well above what
is generally expected when compared with the levels commonly found in the natural marine
water environment.
Table 12 is similar to Table 10; but with the addition of the proposed Cooroy Car Wash customer
usage being included in the table. This table includes the total estimated Cooroy car wash
patronage of 67,712 vehicles per annum (as taken from Tables 8 + 9). It also assumes that there
is a smaller percentage of people that still use an alternative commercial car wash- even though
these facilities may not be directly located in the Cooroy PTA or STA.
Car Washing is often seen as an opportunistic use; in that it is most common to be used by
passing trade (ie: by customers from the adjoining two Service Station sites) or passers-by. Car
Washes are most successful when they are in a convenient location that is easily accessible- such
as being on the way to/from the school drop-off/pick-up, on the way to/from doing your food
shopping, on the way to/from visiting family/friends or an appointment etc... Usually, Car
Washes that are not in a direct path of travel or line of sight are often not as successful as they
are not used as an ‘opportunistic’ habit and the customer needs to drive out of their way to use
the car wash facility.
- 19 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 20
As the proposed Cooroy Car Wash is proposed to be located between the two (2) existing
Service Stations, on the ‘service’ side of the railway line; it is in an ideal location for a Car Wash
business to be successful.
Table 12 goes on to show that with the inclusion of the proposed Cooroy Car Wash there will be
an estimated annual reduction of over 33,300 times that a car will not be washed at home/work
every year and subsequently have the contaminated effluent water drain into the local
stormwater system. This results in a reduction of around 4 ML of contaminated stormwater not
draining into the local stormwater system- a massive 38% reduction due to the proposed Cooroy
Car Wash facility!
Table 13 goes on to calculate the resultant decrease in pollution load which discharges into the
local stormwater system. By approving the proposed Cooroy Car Wash there will be a reduction
of around 800 kg/year of suspended solids, a 28% drop in heavy metal loading such as copper,
lead and zinc, a reduction of over 230 kg/year of total organic carbon, a reduction of around
20kg/year of Hydrocarbons and a reduction of around 110 kg/year of surfactants entering the
local stormwater system. This is a substantial improvement on the current local car washing
practices and the merit of this and resultant ecological improvement to the local waterways,
marine life, plant and animal habitat should not be discounted.
If the estimated patronage of the proposed Cooroy Car Wash site increases over that estimates,
these figures will further decrease contaminated discharges into the local stormwater system.
- 20 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 21
7. CONCLUSION
The proposed holistic Stormwater and Waste Water Management Plan has been designed by a
professional with 18 years of experience in designing/detailing all aspects of car washes; from
Planning to Structural/Civil/Hydraulic Engineering and Architectural drafting/building design
construction documentation, and Car Wash Equipment layout documentation. It is assured that
the highest standards and car wash best practices have been followed in the documentation of
this proposal.
The proposed Stormwater and Waste Water Management Plan gives a complete analogy of how
the proposed Cooroy Car Wash can benefit the local environment and reduce the current
discharge of polluted stormwater including reducing the volume of Physico-Chemical, Heavy
Metals and Organic Pollutants by 48% based on the current car washing practices of the primary
and secondary trade areas that are currently discharged into the local stormwater system.
The proposed inclusive Stormwater design shows great innovation in being able to harvest
~96% of annual rainfall events for total re-use in the Car Wash washing process. Thereby
reducing the demand on the local mains water by over 1.1 ML per year (based on the 50%
rainfall annual total). Due to the large roofed area contributing to rainwater harvesting, this
reduces the contributing site area that yields rainfall run-off in a design storm event. This
ensures that the proposed Car Wash development will reduce the volume and peak flow rates of
stormwater site discharge than the currently being experienced by the pre-developed site!
The proposed Stormwater quality treatment train consists of SQIDEP approved products and
exceeds the minimum stormwater quality improvement targets.
The “car wash” use is a growing routine that is widely accepted by the public as an
environmentally friendly and responsible, convenient, cost-effective method of washing their
vehicle or dog. The proposed building works, stormwater and waste water treatment systems is
a hugely positive impact in the area and will not have any negative effects on the local
infrastructure.
Should you have any questions or seek any clarification on the information provided, I invite you
to contact me directly via telephone on 0416 114 573 or email [email protected] for a
timely response.
Yours Faithfully,
Tracey Digitally signed by Tracey
Michaels
Michaels Date: 2022.10.06 11:47:51
+11'00'
TRACEY MICHAELS B.ENG (Hon), M.ENG (Mgmt)
Designer/Director
TMC Building Design Group
- 21 -
TMC Building Design Group
Page 22
APPENDIX A SPEL Stormsack |] TMC Building Design Group
Page 23
SPEL Stormsack At Source Gross Pollutant Trap spel.com.au © oat) © s = O — 2 wo a. Ww joy in water
Page 24
APPLICATIONS
• Council storm drain retrofits
• Commercial / retail / residential
• Litter prone urban areas
• Scrap metal / solid waste / oil storage
• Part of treatment train
• Construction sediment / erosion
BENEFITS
• an be modelled in MUSIC in conjunction with
C
bio-retention
• Low cost gross pollutant capture
• Quick & easy installation
• Simple maintenance
• At source capture
• Adjusts to custom pit sizes
The SPEL Stormsack is specifically designed for the The SPEL Stormsack was introduced to the Australian
capture of gross pollutants: sediment, litter, and oil market in 2012 and field testing is underway at several
and grease. Ideally suited for storm drain retrofits, the locations in South-east Queensland. Laboratory testing
SPEL Stormsack’s unique design allows maintenance has shown capture of 99.99% of gross pollutants up to
to be performed using conventional vacuum suction the bypass flow rate.* Further results will be provided
equipment. as they become available.
SPEL Stormsack filtration solutions are highly Recommended minimum clearance from bottom of
engineered water quality devices that are SPEL Stormsack to inside bottom of vault is 50mm.
deployed directly in the stormwater system to Typical frame adjustability range of 127mm in each
capture contaminants close the surface for ease of direction.
maintenance. Easily retrofitted into new or existing
structures, SPEL Stormsack filtration technology is a
decentralized approach to stormwater treatment that
essentially repurposes traditional site infrastructure and
customizes it to meet specific site water quality goals.
In this way, it satisfies important objectives of today’s
LID (Low Impact Development) criteria.
From an operations perspective, catch basins with
SPEL Stormsack filters are also easier and quicker to
clean out because pollutants are trapped just under the
grate.
2 SPEL Stormsack
Page 25
HOW IT WORKS
This technology is a post developed stormwater
treatment system. The SPEL Stormsack provides
effective filtration of solid pollutants and debris typical
of urban runoff, while utilising the existing or new storm
drain infrastructure. The Stormsack is designed to rest
on the flanges of conventional catch basin frames
and is engineered for most hydraulic and cold climate
conditions.
Installation procedures shall include removing the
storm grate, cleaning the ledge of debris and solids,
measuring catch basin clear opening and adjusting
flanges to rest on grate support ledge. Install SPEL
FEATURES
Stormsack with splash guard under curb opening so
the adjustable flanges are resting on the grate support
ledge. Install corner filler pieces. Reinstall storm grate
directly on support flanges rise shall be no more than
3mm.
Pollutant Efficiency
Maintenance: Typically the SPEL Stormsack is
Gross Pollutants (GP) 100%
serviceable from the street level, and therefore
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 61% maintenance does not require confined space entry
into the catch basin structure. The unit is designed to
Total Phosphorus (TP) 28% be maintained in place with a vacuum hose attached to
a sweeper or a vactor truck. Use only SPEL replaceable
Total Nitrogen (TN) 45%
parts.
*Contact Spel to confirm approved performance for the project LGA
Application Regulatory Issue Target Pollutants
Council Storm Drain Retrofits At-source litter capture Sediment, Litter, O&G
Commercial/Retail/Residential Stormwater Compliance Sediment, Litter, O&G
Litter Prone Urban Areas Cost effective litter control Litter ≥ 5 mm
Scrap Metal/Solid Waste/Oil Storage/Etc Industrial Multi-Sector General Permit Gross Pollutants, O&G
Part of Treatment Train Council Stormwater Quality Improvement Targets Sediment, Litter, O&G
Construction Sediment/Erosion Sediment Control Plan Sediment/Erosion Control
Features Standard SPEL
Stormsack to suit
1. Ultra-Durable Aluminium Frame Pit Sizes
• Available in 450x450mm, 600x600mm,
1. 450x450mm
600x900mm and 900x900mm sizes
• Custom pit arrangements upon request 600x600mm
Black Poly Surround riveted to Frame 900x600mm
2.
• Can be cut to suit on site
900x900mm
Reinforced Stormsack Bag
3. • Bag has sewed eyelets Custom
• Square bottom design for even distribution sizes (i.e.
Karabiners attach Bag to Frame for easy 1200x900mm)
4.
service & replacement can be
manufactured on
5. 5. Aluminium Support Angles & Fixings
short lead times
spel.com.au 3
Page 26
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
6 5 4 3 2 1
580
180 220 180 ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
D D
1
180
30 80 80 8
2
30
B B 7
80
220
580
C:\Users\robin\Documents\Vault\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\Mount Frames - 450 x 450\SP15-BB4600-S.idw
80
3
ISOMETRIC VIEW
C C
180
4
580
180 220 180
135
5
30
TYP PLAN VIEW
2
180 220 180
48
45
6
100
135
221
52
30
ISOMETRIC VIEW
68 275 EXPLOSION
B B
SECTION B-B
400
PARTS LIST
ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION
300
1 1 COVER POLY PLASTIC HDPE
2 1 METAL FRAME STAINLESS STEEL 304
3 12 CARABINER CLIP ALUMINIUM
4 1 CATCHMENT BAG HDPE
5 1 BAG SUPPORT - METAL MESH STAINLESS STEEL 304
6 2 STRAP 50mm POLYESTER
275
7 4 GAL. SUPPORT BRACKETS GALVANIZED
ELEVATION VIEW 8 20 BLIND RIVET STAINLESS STEEL 304
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. R.R. 08/11/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the SPEL STOMSACK A
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date SSS.4545.C1
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 08/11/2021 R.R. INITIAL RELEASE please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK
specifications.
SP15-BB4600-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
155
12 122 122 122
8
D D
12
1
122
A A 2
700
390
122
3
7
C:\Users\robin\Documents\Vault\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\Mount Frames - 600 X 600\SP15-BB4610-S.idw
122
45°
4
155
C ISOMETRIC VIEW C
5
155 390 155
700
6
PLAN VIEW
700
TYP
2 110 110 155 390 155
48
43
25
ISOMETRIC VIEW
100
100 100
57
EXPLOSION
397
B B
397
PARTS LIST
450
ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION
350
500 1 1 COVER POLY PLASTIC HDPE
2 1 METAL FRAME STAINLESS STEEL 304
SECTION A-A
3 12 CARABINER CLIP ALUMINIUM
4 1 CATCHMENT BAG HDPE
5 1 BAG SUPPORT - METAL MESH STAINLESS STEEL 304
6 2 STRAP 50mm POLYESTER
500
7 4 GAL. SUPPORT BRACKETS GALVANIZED
ELEVATION VIEW 8 24 BLIND RIVET STAINLESS STEEL 304
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. R.R. 08/11/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the SPEL STOMSACK A
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date SSS.6060.C1
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 08/11/2021 R.R. INITIAL RELEASE please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK
specifications.
SP15-BB4610-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
4 SPEL Stormsack
Page 27
TECHNICAL DRAWINGS
6 5 4 3 2 1
150 700 150 ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
A NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
D D
185
25 130 130 130 130 130 25
8
22
1
143
2
700
330
143
C:\Users\robin\Documents\Vault\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\Mount Frames - 600 X 900\SP14-SK3450-C.idw
7
45° ISOMETRIC VIEW
22
185
C 3 C
4
A
1000
PLAN VIEW 5
TYP
2 700
130 130 130 130 185 330 185
48
6
100
48
100
100 ISOMETRIC VIEW
50
EXPLOSION
B B
PARTS LIST
450
430 ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION
350
1 1 COVER POLY PLASTIC HDPE
SECTION A-A 2 1 METAL FRAME STAINLESS STEEL 304
3 16 CARABINER CLIP ALUMINIUM
4 1 CATCHMENT BAG HDPE
5 1 BAG SUPPORT - METAL MESH STAINLESS STEEL 304
800 6 2 STRAP 50mm POLYESTER
ELEVATION VIEW 7 4 GAL. SUPPORT BRACKETS GALVANIZED
8 24 BLIND RIVET STAINLESS STEEL 304
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. R.R. 08/11/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the SPEL STOMSACK A
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date FRAME 900 x 600
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 08/11/2021 R.R. INITIAL RELEASE please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK
specifications.
SP14-SK3450-C
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
1000
640 ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
8
20 150 150 150 150
D D
1
20
150
7
C:\Users\robin\Documents\Vault\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\Mount Frames - 900x 900 - INLET 600X600 (750X750)\SP19-SK13240-S.idw
150
A A
1000
640
150
2
45°
150
3
C ISOMETRIC VIEW C
4
PLAN VIEW 5
1000
180 640 180
95 95 95 95 95 95
48
100
6
52
100
50
103 103
750 ISOMETRIC VIEW
835 EXPLOSION
B 660 B
500
SECTION A-A
400
750 PARTS LIST
ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION
1 1 COVER POLY PLASTIC HDPE
2 1 METAL FRAME STAINLESS STEEL 304
3 28 CARABINER CLIP ALUMINIUM
4 1 CATCHMENT BAG HDPE
835
5 1 BAG SUPPORT - METAL MESH STAINLESS STEEL 304
ELEVATION VIEW 6 2 STRAP 50mm POLYESTER
7 4 GAL. SUPPORT BRACKETS GALVANIZED
8 28 BLIND RIVET STAINLESS STEEL 304
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. R.R. 08/11/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the SPEL STOMSACK A
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date SSS.7575.C1
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 08/11/2021 R.R. INITIAL RELEASE please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION CHK
specifications.
SP19-SK13240-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
spel.com.au 5
Page 28
INSTALLATION DETAILS
6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISION HISTORY
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER CREATION DAT CHECKED BY
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.MAKIN 15/10/2015
D GRATE STORMSACK
D
GRATE
DETAIL 'A' SUPPORT FRAME SUPPORT FRAME
STORMSACK OIL BOOM STORMSACK WITH
GRATE
SUPPORT FRAME 80µm FILTER MESH
& INNER MESH
(FOR 600x900 , 900x900 , 450x450)
D:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\INSTALLATION\SP15-ST10970-S.idw
450mm
C C
DETAIL 'A'
MIN. 150mm
B
B B
SECTION VIEW
NOTE: BY USING THE STORMSACK THE GRATE
WILL BE APPROX. 3-5mm HIGHER
ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TOLERANCE: ALL DIMENSIONS 10mm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
CLIENT: The drawings must not be disclosed to any third Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL Environmental Sydney.
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.MAKIN 15/10/2015
© SPEL Environmental - This drawing is the property of SPEL
Check Date
A Environmental ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on
demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the
TITLE
SPEL STORMSACK A
proposal and contracts of SPEL Environmental with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form.
Verified Date INSTALLATION GUIDE
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard GRATED PIT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL Environmental accepts no responsibility for any loss or SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. N.T.S A3 1
Request No. 1
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change,
please check with SPEL Environmental for confirmation of current CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
specifications. SP15-ST10970-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 5 4 3 2 1
REVISION HISTORY
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER CREATION DAT CHECKED BY
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.MAKIN 15/10/2015
DETAIL 'A'
STORMSACK SOLID TOP
D SUPPORT FRAME COVER D
OIL BOOM STORMSACK WITH
80µm FILTER MESH
& INNER MESH TOP COVER
SUPPORT FRAME
DETAIL 'D'
D:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\STD ITEMS\PRODUCTS\STORMSACK\SPEL STORMSACK\STORMSACK FRAME & GA - FINAL VERSION 2015\INSTALLATION\SP15-ST10980-S.idw
C C
(FOR 600x900 , 900x900 , 450x450)
DETAIL 'A'
STORMSACK EQUAL ANGLE
450mm
SUPPORT FRAME
STORMSACK
SUPPORT FRAME
B B
MIN. 156mm
DETAIL 'D'
SECTION VIEW
ISSUE FOR APPROVAL
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TOLERANCE: ALL DIMENSIONS 10mm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.
CLIENT: The drawings must not be disclosed to any third Drawn Date PROJECT
parties without written permission from SPEL Environmental Sydney.
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.MAKIN 15/10/2015
© SPEL Environmental - This drawing is the property of SPEL
Check Date
A A
Environmental ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on
TITLE
demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the SPEL STORMSACK
proposal and contracts of SPEL Environmental with the expressed
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form.
Verified Date INSTALLATION GUIDE
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard SIDE ENTRY PIT
terms and conditions.
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL Environmental accepts no responsibility for any loss or SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. N.T.S A3 1
Request No. 1
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change,
please check with SPEL Environmental for confirmation of current CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
specifications. SP15-ST10980-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
6 SPEL Stormsack
Page 29
SPEL Stormsack
At Source Gross Pollutant Trap
NSW HEAD OFFICE QLD MAIN OFFICE VIC & TAS OFFICE
100 Silverwater Rd, Silverwater NSW 2128 130 Sandstone Pl, Parkinson QLD 4115 897 Wellington Rd Rowville VIC 3178
PO Box 7138, Silverwater NSW 1811 P: +61 7 3271 6960 P: +61 3 5274 1336
P: +61 2 8705 0255 P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: 1800 810 139 | E: [email protected]
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
QLD SUNSHINE COAST BRANCH VIC GEELONG BRANCH
19‑27 Fred Chaplin Circuit, Bells Creek, QLD 4551 70 Technology Close, Corio,
P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: +61 3 5274 1336
P: 1800 810 139 | E: [email protected]
SA OFFICE WA OFFICE NZ OFFICE AUCKLAND
9 Hampden Road, Mount Barker SA 5251 2 Modal Crescent Canning Vale WA 6155 100 Montgomerie Road Airport Oaks
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected] P: +61 8 9350 1000 P: +64 9 276 9045
P: 1800 335 550 E: [email protected] E: [email protected]
NZ OFFICE WANGANUI NZ OFFICE WELLINGTON PHILIPPINES OFFICE METRO MANILA
43 Heads Road Wanganu New Zealand 41 Raiha St Porirua Wellington New Zealand Unit 2210 Lumiere Residences
P: +64 6 349 0088 | E: [email protected] P: +64 4 239 6006 | E: [email protected] Pasig Boulevard, Pasig City
P: +61 2 8705 0255
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
SINGAPORE OFFICE UK OFFICE UNITED KINGDOM USA OFFICE CLEVELAND
512 Chai Chee Lane, #06-04 Bedok Lancaster Rd Shrewsbury SY1 3NQ UK 4548 Industrial Parkway Cleveland,
Industrial Estate, Singapore 469028 P: +44 (0)1743 445200 | E: [email protected] Ohio 44135
P: +61 2 8705 0255 P: +61 2 8705 0255
P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
We believe clean water is a
right not a privilege and we
work to ensure a joy in water
experience for you with your
children and grandchildren.
100 Silverwater Rd, Silverwater NSW 2128 Australia
Phone: (02) 8705 0255
Email: [email protected]
spel.com.au
SPEL Stormwater accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from any
person acting on this information. The details and dimensions contained in this document
may change, please check with SPEL Stormwater for confirmation of current specifications.
0522
Page 30
APPENDIX B SPELBasin TMC Building Design Group
Page 31
SPEL Basin Modular bio-retention basin SQIDEP),., VERIFIED) } spelstormwater joy in water spel.com.au
Page 32
APPLICATIONS
• Car parks & shopping centres
• Council depots
• Industrial estates
• Heavy vehicle maintenance
• Transport depots & loading bays
• Tunnels
• Highways & transport corridors
• Recycling yards
• Airport aprons & tarmacs
BENEFITS
The SPELBasin is an advanced stormwater treatment
system that works with natural forces to provide
superior pollutant removal. Delivered as a pre-
fabricated, compact and self-contained treatment
system, the SPELBasin utilises HORIZONTAL FLOW
bioretention technology and multistage pre-treatment. • Built-in bypass available with all configurations
Easy to size, install and maintain, the SPELBasin is • All configurations utilise a pre-treatment chamber
ideally suited for the urban environment – treating which contains:
runoff from parking lots, roadways, residential and • Litter capture
commercial developments and/or retrofit applications.
• Sediment chamber
Available in numerous sizes and various inlet • Pre-filter cartridges
configurations, including internal high flow bypass, the
SPELBasin is clearly the most versatile and innovative
stormwater treatment system.
Verificatio
Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol (SQIDEP) n Certificate
Reference –
Maintenan Number: SA-YY SQIDEP VC
ce VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE YY/MM/VC
performed • Stormwate
durin r Technology
Applicant Information g monitoring A was
monitorin • This main period; Cond maintained once
g ition per annum
tenance includ s over the 3
Applicant Name Example Pty cartri
Ltddge; ed complete year
• No other replaceme
maintenan Thnte ve of the techn
• This NSW ce2000 rif ology
Applicant Address 2 Puddles wasSydney
Way,
verified with
was performed
during the
•
icatio
company. a Statutory moni
th n of Verif
Declaration e aptored perio thes Refe icatio
+61 2 1234 5678 from plica d;e
Phone Number catcthe
hmmain tion ce Claims renc n
e Nu Certific
Verified • entstenan of St is co mbe ate –
The ; orm nditi r: SA SQ
Email method to [email protected]
• The moni num wat onal -YYY IDEP
per er Te upon
model in technology
toring progr
am included hect ber of St chno ; Y/M
M/V
VC
• are
Website MUSIC www.example.com.au
scour and
as well as the
struc
information Th
on e the of ca ormwat logy
A C
settling; ture it was footperformantchm er Te in Re
house10d%withi pr ce ofenthe siden
• The subm
itted MUSI • per n, in tot accou
of th nt t area chnolo tia
maximum C model and Mai 10 units e hofor ; gy A im l an
d Co
structure;
and minim DPR
um structures provides
nten
descdesig anguide of St using st plem mm
n
, and calibr ribed ce mus or
lines for mwat ru ct en ted er cial
Verified Technology • The subm Stormwater Technology A
itted, calibr
•
The
ated k value
3
in th s fort be
e DPR; the sc he
er Te ure mus
ch t be
refle
cts 3,
technology ated is 25 month nolo 000
with 3 node MUSIC model provi 0 L/a methdesig
des
dule
d an gy A; betwee units
Issue Date below;YYYY
dd Mmmm s and prima • s; od ofn mode d co n 10
ry andAn mpl 0 m3
ex dary links as flowralling
secon the eted ±
and ternal te pe
per the image annu
Reviewed Documents • Quality Assurance Project Plan, Stormwater mod
Technology byA, r un ally
•
MUS elle pass fo it of
Stor as pe
d ap
Consultant A, 2025 IC m prop r flows mw
ater
r th
at
odel riate grea Tech
• Quality Assurance Project Plan Approval, Stormwater sTechnology
bein ly in ter th
g pr MUS an th no logy
A, Stormwater Australia, 2025 epar IC; e de A
ed in sign
acco TFR
• Detailed Performance Report, Stormwater Technology A, rdan is im
Consultant A, 2028 ce w plem
ith th ente
e de d,
• Laboratory Report, Stormwater Technology A – University X, 2021 tail
abov
e.
• Statutory Declaration, Consultant A, 2025
A, 2025
• The input criterMUSIC model file, Consultant
• Calibrated
ia for each
o Structure node are;
node
▪ high flow
Technology Information bypass = X 3
▪ Area = m /s
Y m2
Applicant’s Total Suspended Solids▪ (TSS)
Depth =70 Zm %
Verified Total Phosphorus (TP)▪ Orifice diam 30 %
eter = W mm
Performance Total Nitrogen (TN) ▪ Weir lengt 30 %
Claims ▪ FootprintNilh%= V m
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons to be scale
Gross Pollutants Stormwate Nilr % d according
o Generic Technology to 100 m 3
node A per 10 units
Others, please detail: of
▪ high flow
bypass = X 3
▪ TSS reduc m /s
________________________________________________________ _______
tion = 70 %
▪ TP reduc
tion = 30 %
▪ TN reduc
© Stormwater © St tion = 30 %
or
AustraliaYYYY mwa 1
© Stormwater Australia YYYY ter Au
strali
a YY
YY
2
SPEL Basin
3
2
Page 33
FEATURES 0d Pre-treatment chamber 6 Pre-filter cartridge Captures incoming runoff and contains the first three Provides the third stage of treatment by physically and stages of treatment. chemically capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. @ Grate type catch basin inlet @ Wetland chamber A standard grate type traffic rated catch basin opening directs Provides the final stage of treatment through a stormwater into the system. combination of physical, chemical and biological processes. © Catch basin insert filter Q Discharge chamber Provides the first stage of treatment by capturing trash Contains flow control, high flow bypass and optional & litter, gross solids, and sediment. drain down filter. @ Settling chamber 6 Multi-level flow control Provides the second stage of treatment by separating Orifice plates and/or valves are used to control the out larger suspended solids. flow through the treatment stages. Volume Sizing MUSIC Modelling The SPEL Basin Modular Wetlands system can be The SPELBasin Modular Bioretention System is designed to treat flows from detention systems or modeled [typically in MUSIC] for each project based on directly off hardstand surfaces. Contact SPEL for more the site specific requirements. information. Tested Treatment Efficiencies* Pollutant Efficiency Gross Pollutants (GP) 99% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 86% Total Phosphorus (TP) 65% Total Nitrogen (TN) 50% *Contact Spel to confirm approved performance for the project LGA spel.com.au
Page 34
DRAWINGS
Drawing 2LPS
6 5 4 3 2 1
900 900
D D
1340
A A
DISCHARGE CHAMBER
OUTLET
C C
PLAN VIEW
INFLOW GATE
INLET WATER
SPEL STORMSACK
TRANSFER SYSTEM
ISOMETRIC VIEW
E:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\PRODUCTS\BASIN\MODULAR WETLAND-2021\MWS-L-3-6 (2Lps)\STANDARD\SP21-MB19890-S.idw
600 X 600
1300
FLAUSHOUT PORTS
B B
MEDIA FILTER
OUTLET
OUTLET WATER
PRETREATMENT CHAMBER BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER TRANSFER SYSTEM
1800
COARSE SEDIMENT
FILTER 1920 RIGHT END VIEW
OUTLET
SECTION A-A
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.M 13/04/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
SPEL BASIN A
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM 2.0
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard MWS- L-3-6/2 LPS - SPEL STORMSACK
terms and conditions. GENERAL ARRAGEMENT
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.M 14/07/2015 please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No.
CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER DATE CHECKED BY
specifications. RN1799 SP21-MB19890-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
Drawing 4LPS
6 5 4 3 2 1
900 1800 900
D D
OVERALL WIDTH 1340
A A
OUTLET
C PLAN VIEW C
FLAUSHOUT PORTS INLET WATER
TRANSFER SYSTEM
ISOMETRIC VIEW
MANHOLE COVER
INFLOW GATE
E:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\PRODUCTS\BASIN\MODULAR WETLAND-2021\MWS-L-4-13 (4Lps)\STANDARD\SP21-MB19910-S.idw
SPEL STORMSACK
600 X 600
OUTLET WATER
OVERALL HEIGHT 1300
CONTROL & RISER
B B
OUTLET
PRETREATMENT CHAMBER BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER DISCHARGE CHAMBER
COARSE SEDIMENT OUTLET WATER RIGHT END VIEW
FILTER TRANSFER SYSTEM MEDIA FILTER OUTLET
3620
3720
ELEVATION VIEW
SECTION A-A
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT:
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.MAKIN 13/04/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
SPEL BASIN A
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM 2.0
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard MWS-L-4-13 - 4 LPS - SPEL STORMSACK
terms and conditions. GENERAL ARRAGEMENT
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.MAKIN 14/07/2015 please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER DATE CHECKED BY
specifications. RN1799 SP21-MB19910-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
4 SPEL Basin
Page 35
DRAWINGS
Drawing 6LPS
6 5 4 3 2 1
900 3000 900
D D
A A
1340
OUTLET
PLAN VIEW
C C
INFLOW GATE FLAUSHOUT PORTS INLET WATER
OUTLET WATER
TRANSFER SYSTEM ISOMETRIC VIEW
SPEL STORMSACK TRANSFER SYSTEM
600 X 600
E:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\PRODUCTS\BASIN\MODULAR WETLAND-2021\MWS-L-4-17 (6Lps)\STANDARD\SP21-MB19930-S.idw
MANHOLE COVER
COARSE SEDIMENT
FILTER
OUTLET WATER
CONTROL & RISER
1300
B B
OUTLET
PRETREATMENT CHAMBER BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER DISCHARGE CHAMBER
OUTLET WATER RIGHT END VIEW
TRANSFER SYSTEM MEDIA FILTER
OUTLET
4820
4920
ELEVATION VIEW
SECTION A-A
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
CLIENT: The drawings must not be disclosed to any third
Drawn Date PROJECT :
parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER .
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.MAKIN 13/04/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
SPEL BASIN A
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM 2.0
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard MWS-L-4-17 - 6 LPS - SPEL STORMSACK
terms and conditions. GENERAL ARRAGEMENT
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
A3 1 1
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, N.T.S
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.MAKIN 13/04/2021 please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No. CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER DATE CHECKED BY
specifications. RN1799 SP21-MB19930-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
Drawing 10LPS
6 5 4 3 2 1
900 4200 900
D D
A A
1340
OUTLET
PLAN VIEW
C C
FLAUSHOUT PORTS INLET WATER OUTLET WATER ISOMETRIC VIEW
TRANSFER SYSTEM TRANSFER SYSTEM
E:\Vault Working Folder\Designs\SPEL\PRODUCTS\BASIN\MODULAR WETLAND-2021\MWS-L-4-21 (12Lps)\STANDARD\SP21-MB19950-S.idw
INFLOW GATE
SPEL STORMSACK
600 X 600
OUTLET WATER
CONTROL & RISER
1290
B B
OUTLET
PRETREATMENT CHAMBER BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER DISCHARGE CHAMBER
COARSE SEDIMENT
OUTLET WATER
RIGHT END VIEW
FILTER MEDIA FILTER
TRANSFER SYSTEM OUTLET
6020
6120
ELEVATION VIEW
SECTION A-A
TOLERANCE: All Dimensions to Closest 10 mm & +/- 30 mm ALL INTERCONNECTING PIPEWORK, PITS AND ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE BY OTHERS
The drawings must not be disclosed to any third PROJECT :
CLIENT: parties without written permission from SPEL STORMWATER . Drawn Date
Unauthorised disclosure may result in prosecution. M.MAKIN 13/04/2021
© SPEL STORMWATER - This drawing is the property of SPEL
STORMWATER ABN: 83 151 832 629 and is subject to return on Check Date TITLE
A demand. It is submitted for the use only in connection with the
proposal and contracts of SPEL STORMWATER with the expressed
SPEL BASIN A
conditions that it is not to be reproduced or copied in any form. Verified Date MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM 2.0
This data must only be used in accordance with our standard MWS-L-4-21 - 10 LPS - SPEL STORMSACK
terms and conditions.
GENERAL ARRAGEMENT
© Copyright Approved Date
SPEL STORMWATER accepts no responsibility for any loss or
damage resulting from any person acting on this information. SCALE SIZE SHEET REV
The details and dimensions contained in this document may change, A3 1 1
N.T.S
please check with SPEL STORMWATER for confirmation of current Request No.
1 INITIAL RELEASE M.MAKIN 13/04/2021 CUSTOMER CODE : DWG No.
REV DESCRIPTION DESIGNER DATE CHECKED BY
specifications. RN3345
16385-TD SP21-MB19950-S
6 5 4 3 2 1
spel.com.au 5
Page 36
SPEL Basin
Modular bio-retention basin
NSW HEAD OFFICE QLD MAIN OFFICE VIC & TAS OFFICE
100 Silverwater Rd, Silverwater NSW 2128 130 Sandstone Pl, Parkinson QLD 4115 897 Wellington Rd Rowville VIC 3178
PO Box 7138, Silverwater NSW 1811 P: +61 7 3271 6960 P: +61 3 5274 1336
P: +61 2 8705 0255 P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: 1800 810 139 | E: [email protected]
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
QLD SUNSHINE COAST BRANCH VIC GEELONG BRANCH
19‑27 Fred Chaplin Circuit, Bells Creek, QLD 4551 70 Technology Close, Corio,
P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: +61 3 5274 1336
P: 1800 810 139 | E: [email protected]
SA OFFICE WA OFFICE NZ OFFICE AUCKLAND
9 Hampden Road, Mount Barker SA 5251 2 Modal Crescent Canning Vale WA 6155 100 Montgomerie Road Airport Oaks
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected] P: +61 8 9350 1000 P: +64 9 276 9045
P: 1800 335 550 E: [email protected] E: [email protected]
NZ OFFICE WANGANUI NZ OFFICE WELLINGTON PHILIPPINES OFFICE METRO MANILA
43 Heads Road Wanganu New Zealand 41 Raiha St Porirua Wellington New Zealand Unit 2210 Lumiere Residences
P: +64 6 349 0088 | E: [email protected] P: +64 4 239 6006 | E: [email protected] Pasig Boulevard, Pasig City
P: +61 2 8705 0255
P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
SINGAPORE OFFICE UK OFFICE UNITED KINGDOM USA OFFICE CLEVELAND
512 Chai Chee Lane, #06-04 Bedok Lancaster Rd Shrewsbury SY1 3NQ UK 4548 Industrial Parkway Cleveland,
Industrial Estate, Singapore 469028 P: +44 (0)1743 445200 | E: [email protected] Ohio 44135
P: +61 2 8705 0255 P: +61 2 8705 0255
P: 1300 773 500 | E: [email protected] P: 1300 773 500 E: [email protected]
We believe clean water is a
right not a privilege and we
work to ensure a joy in water
experience for you with your
children and grandchildren.
100 Silverwater Rd, Silverwater NSW 2128 Australia
Phone: (02) 8705 0255
Email: [email protected]
spel.com.au
SPEL Stormwater accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from any
person acting on this information. The details and dimensions contained in this document
may change, please check with SPEL Stormwater for confirmation of current specifications.
0922
Page 37
‘>. Sustainabilit -S m Warlshiap SPEL Basin SQIDEP (v1.3) Independent Evaluators Joint Report September 2020
Page 38
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4
EVALUATORS INDEPENDENCE DECLARATIONS................................................................................................................ 4
STATUTORY DECLARATION BY INDEPENDENT MONITORING SCIENTIST ............................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
REVIEW DOCUMENTS............................................................................................................................................... 5
SIPPY DOWNS SPEL BASIN ....................................................................................................................................... 5
PERFORMANCE CLAIM.............................................................................................................................................. 8
SITE BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 8
2. SQIDEP COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................................ 11
COMPARISON OF INFLOW CONCENTRATIONS .............................................................................................................. 20
DISSOLVED INORGANIC NITROGEN............................................................................................................................ 21
POLLUTANT REMOVAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 21
REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 21
RAINFALL REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 25
CHERRY PICKING OF STORM EVENTS ......................................................................................................................... 27
3. EVALUATION OF ENDURING PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 29
4. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 30
5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 33
6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 34
7. APPENDIX A – TYPICAL CONCENTRATIONS ............................................................................................ 35
8. APPENDIX B – STATISTICAL CHECK ......................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX C – RAINFALL AT PALMWOOD ACROSS TESTING PERIOD .................................................................................. 42
FIGURE 1 SPEL BASIN DIAGRAM AND CATCHMENT TEST LOCATION (DRAPPER, 2019) ......................................... 6
FIGURE 2 SQIDEP PATHWAYS ................................................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 3 STREETVIEW OF MONITORING STATION (GOOGLE STREETVIEW , IMAGE CAPTURED JUNE 2017) ..... 10
FIGURE 4 RADAR RAINFALL CHECKS ..................................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 5 REPORTED RAINFALL AND MONITORING RECORDS. ............................................................................ 27
FIGURE 6 FINAL AGREED POLLUTANT REDUCTION PERFORMANCE .................................................................... 31
TABLE 1: TYPICAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR ROAD CATCHMENTS ..................................................... 20
TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATIONS AND ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS ................................................. 22
2
Page 39
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
DOCUMENT VERIFICATION
SQIDEP Independent Evaluation
Project Name
Stormwater Australia
Client Contact
J485
Project Number
Sqidep_Evaluation_R01
Document Name
Document History
Issue To Date Version Author Reviewer
Stormwater Australia 25/06/20 V01 CMB,AA,TP CMB
Stormwater Australia 04/09/2020 V02 CMB, ML CMB,ML
Version History
Version Comment
V01 Initial Version
V02 Joint Independent Evaluators Report
Climate Change Statement
A wide range of sources, including but not limited to the IPCC, CSIRO and BoM, unanimously agree that the
global climate is changing. Unless otherwise stated, the information provided in this report does not take into
consideration the varying nature of climate change and its consequences on our current engineering practices.
The results presented may be significantly underestimated; flood characteristics shown (e.g. flood depths,
extents and hazards) are may be different once climate change is taken into account.
Disclaimer
This report is prepared by Afflux Consulting Pty Ltd for its clients' purposes only. The contents of this report are
provided expressly for the named client for its own use. No responsibility is accepted for the use of or reliance
upon this report in whole or in part by any third party. This report is prepared with information supplied by the
client and possibly other stakeholders. While care is taken to ensure the veracity of information sources, no
responsibility is accepted for information that is withheld, incorrect or that is inaccurate. This report has been
compiled at the level of detail specified in the report and no responsibility is accepted for interpretations made at
more detailed levels than so indicated.
3
Page 40
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
1. Introduction
This document reports on the independent evaluation of an application by SPEL Stormwater
(hereafter SPEL) to have Stormwater Australia approve a SPEL Basin under the
requirements included in Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation Protocol
(SQIDEP) v1.3 (hereafter referred to as SQIDEP) published in 2019 by Stormwater
Australia. SQIDEP v1.3 is available on Stormwater Australia’s website at the time of
reporting.
This is a joint report prepared by Independent Evaluators, Chris Beardshaw, a Director of
Afflux Consulting and Mark Liebman, a Director of Sustainability Workshop. The
Independent Evaluators were engaged by Stormwater Australia on a fee for service basis to
carry out an independent evaluation of a SPEL Basin which can be described as a modular
bioretention system.
Evaluators Independence Declarations
It is declared that both evaluators, Chris Beardshaw and Mark Liebman, are completely
independent and neither Independent Evaluator has any conflict of interest with respect to
this engagement.
We jointly declare that:
We are not, nor have we ever been employed or commissioned by the Applicant, SPEL
Stormwater. We have not been involved in the design or development or monitoring of the
SPEL Basin. We have undertaken this assessment without prejudice and in good faith.
Signed: Chris Beardshaw Signed: Mark Liebman
Signature: Signature:
Statutory Declaration by Independent Monitoring Scientist
Dr Darren Drapper has signed a statutory declaration in accordance with SQIDEP.
Background
Stormwater Australia published the Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Evaluation
Process (SQIDEP) in January 2019. The SQIDEP process seeks to “provide a uniform set of
criteria to which stormwater treatment measures can be field-tested and reported. These
criteria should guide and inform field monitoring programs seeking to demonstrate pollutant
removals for stormwater treatment measures included in pollutant export modelling software.
Future revisions of the protocol are anticipated to also include laboratory testing.”
(Stormwater Australia, 2019).
The SQIDEP process is shown below in Figure 2. Two pathways for evaluation exist under
the protocol and this application involves local field testing. The Independent Evaluators
4
Page 41
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
have not been involved with this project prior to this evaluation, for example at QAPP stage
and have not been privy to the QAPP.
Review Documents
The following documents form the basis of this independent evaluation:
1) Associate Professor Terry Lucke and Ms Oriana Sanicola, Evaluation of Treatment
Performance of SPEL Basin at Sippy Downs, May 2018, Stormwater Research
Group, University of Sunshine Coast.
2) Dr Darren Drapper and R. Biggins, SPEL Stormwater, Field Monitoring of a SPEL
Basin at University of Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr, Sippy Downs QLD 4556,
Issue 1, 10 October 2019.
3) SPEL Basin Monitoring setup (digital video)
4) SPEL Basin Technical Design Guideline, revised August 2020.
5) Dr Darren Drapper and E. Hancock, SPEL Stormwater, Field Monitoring of a SPEL
Basin at University of Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Dr, Sippy Downs QLD 4556,
SQIDEP Body of Evidence Application Supplementary Report, Issue 1, 31 July 2020.
Sippy Downs SPEL Basin
A SPEL Basin was submitted for evaluation against the SQIDEP protocol in October, 2019.
Testing for the system was conducted over the period from March 2017 to April 2018 by the
University of Sunshine Coast (USC), with the testing criteria adapted to meet the SQIDEP
Protocol (released subsequent to the testing period). USC is an independent organisation
that undertook the testing on a fee for service basis.
The basin installation is on Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs and can be seen in Figure 1.
Greater description is contained in review documents 1 and 2.
A review of the site and catchment conditions is shown below. The field monitoring claims to
have met all of the criteria of the SQIDEP protocol, and this claim is evaluated in this report.
5
Page 42
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Figure 1 SPEL Basin Diagram and Catchment Test Location (Drapper, 2019)
6
Page 43
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs Dn ee ee Figure 2 SQIDEP Pathways e| . . 7 AFFLUX CONSUL | Qi STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS orkshop
Page 44
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Claim
The SPEL Basin performance claim is as follows:
This Body of Evidence (BOE) claim is based only on field test results from the Sippy Downs
test site. It is not based on any overseas test data.
It is noted that gross pollutants were not tested however the system tested includes a SPEL
Storm Sack draining into a stormwater pit. It is reasonable to assume that any gross
pollutants (particle size > 3mm) would be captured in the Storm Sack component of the
device. Even if the Storm Sack were to blind and go into bypass the gross pollutants would
be captured (up to the high flow bypass rate) within the stormwater pit upstream of the basin.
It is important to note this claim includes the performance benefit of both a Storm Sack and
the SPEL Basin filtration components so that any MUSIC model should not have a SPEL
Stormsack placed upstream of the device as its already included in the overall performance.
Hydrocarbons were not tested and the claim was revised to exclude it.
Site Background and Assumptions
The catchment is a small road catchment in Sippy Downs, Sunshine Coast. The catchment
was checked for changes across the monitoring period (March 2017- April 2018). Aerial
photography was taken across this period as can be seen below in Plates 1 to 4.
The broader catchment was maturing across the period, though no specific changes to the
road catchments are seen. It is suspected that some of the developing catchment loads may
have been transported into the monitored catchment in the early parts of the monitoring
program. Otherwise the catchment seems to be in typical condition and suitable for
monitoring.
8
Page 45
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Plate 1 May2016 with SPEL Basin highlighted in red
Plate 2 Dec 2017 with SPEL Basin highlighted in red
Plate 3 Nov 2018 with SPEL Basin highlighted in red
9
Page 46
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Plate 4 April 2020 with SPEL Basin highlighted in red
Independent checks of the catchment in Google street view were also made refer to Figure 3
below.
Figure 3 Streetview of monitoring station (Google Streetview , Image captured June 2017)
10
Page 47
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
2. SQIDEP Compliance
The key criteria for testing are listed in SQIDEP in Table 3 – Minimum data and qualifying event requirements for assessment (SA, 2019) and
are repeated here for comparison. Table 1 below assesses the Application for compliance with the criteria included in SQIDEP v1.3.
Table 1 SQIDEP Compliance Table
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
Min number of 15 or enough events to achieve 90% confidence interval 18 complying events reported. Compliance
events USC reported that influent and
effluent results were significantly
different at a 90% confidence
interval.
Min rainfall Sufficient to collect minimum sample volume for lab testing. USC reported this was initially Compliance
depth 2mm of rainfall, but this was
revised to 1mm in 10minutes.Lab
test results were provided for
each complying event.
Inter event Minimum 6 hours dry No two events monitored on Compliance
period same day.
Device Size Full size Used a full size single modular Compliance
device with a high flow bypass
claim of 10 l/s.
11
Page 48
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
Runoff Target pollutant profile of influent and effluent The road catchment is Compliance
Characteristics representative of a typical
catchment. Catchment inflow
was analysed for percentage of
dissolved nitrogen in the influent.
On average 57% of Total
Nitrogen influent is comprised of
dissolved nitrogen species. This
should future-proof this
application for any potential
changes to this aspect of
SQIDEPv1.3. It also confirms the
catchment is representative of a
broad range of catchments.
Runoff volume At least 2 events should exceed the 75% of the TFR and 1 event USC has reported peak flow rates Compliance
or peak flow greater than the TFR. The TFR for the device is claimed to be 10 for the range of events. 2 events
l/s. exceed the TFR and a further 3
events exceed 75% of the TFR.
Automated Composite samples on a flow or time weighted basis Composite samples on a flow
sampling weighted basis every 500 L.
Minimum 80% of field test collections should have at least 8 per event. USC has reported the number of Compliance
number of aliquots. Of the 19 events which
aliquots triggered sampling, only one
12
Page 49
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
event collected less than 8
aliquots.
Hydrograph At least 50% of qualifying storms should include the first 70% storm USC reported the hydrographs Compliance
coverage coverage however did not report the
percentage of coverage. Visual
assessment of the hydrographs
which also included the sampling
time demonstrates in excess of
70% coverage for all complying
events. The 22nd November
storm had approximately 60%
coverage however was a non-
compliant storm event (for other
reasons).
Drapper reported that 7 events
did not achieve 80% hydrograph
coverage. These were excluded
to ensure hydrograph coverage
was higher than 80%.
Drapper’s Supplementary Report
reported hydrograph coverage
significantly exceeded the
minimum coverage requirements
of SIDEP v1.3.
13
Page 50
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
Hydrograph Multiple peaks should be accounted for (at least 1 occurrence). Most hydrographs included in the Compliance.
coverage BOE application show multiple
peaks with sample collection
occurring such that samples were
collected near peaks and on
rising and falling limbs.
Grab sampling Not Applicable Not applicable.
Sampling Sampling occurred upstream of Compliance
locations the SPEL sack and up and
downstream of the SPEL basin.
The subject of this claim is the
performance of the SPEL Basin
measured by comparison of its
upstream location (which is
downstream of the SPEL Sack) to
its downstream location which is
downstream of the Basin outlet.
The claim does not include the
performance of the SPEL Sack.
The claim is independent of the
SPEL Sack but inclusive of the
filter cartridge which filters flows
prior to entry to the Basin.
14
Page 51
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
Chemical and As identified in the QAPP. QAPP not sighted. Not applicable
physical to a BOE
analytes application.
Min and max Refer to Table 1 in SQIDEP repeated below: All events where the maximum Compliance.
concentrations individual concentration exceeded
within range Table 1 values was excluded from
the data set and deemed a non
complying event.
The average of TSS, TP and TN
influent values were well within
the maximum averages in Table
1.
Analytical NATA accredited sample handling and analytical methods A suite of analytes was analysed Compliance
methods by ALS Environmental. ALS have
NATA accreditation for their
analytical methods.
Flow Inlet, outlet and bypass, as applicable. Flow recorded at outlet only. Compliance
measurement
location The likely hydraulic retention of
the device is considered small
and therefore it is unlikely to
15
Page 52
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
retain or detain flows to any
material extent.
Accordingly, the claim does not
include a claim for a volumetric
reduction and so flow monitoring
of the outlet only is acceptable
Precipitation A pluviometer is required A pluviometer was used to Compliance
Measurement monitor rainfall in 0.2mm
increments.
Rainfall 5 minutes or less. Not reported but based on Unknown.
recording reported rainfall hyetographs it
interval appears to report at a high
frequency.
Rainfall <0.25mm 0.2mm adopted. Compliance
recording
increments
Pluviometer To be calibrated twice during the monitoring period. Dr Drapper has signed a statutory Unknown.
calibration declaration stating that the
pluviometer was calibrated
annually by Drapper
Environmental Consultants.
16
Page 53
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
Performance The target pollutants and testing rationale must be described in the QAPP was not submitted as part Compliance.
Indicators QAPP and Detailed Performance Report. of the application.
Claiming TSS, TP and TN and
Gross Pollutant reductions. TSS,
TP and TN were measured. The
initial claim included
hydrocarbons by inference
however these were not tested
and it was agreed to remove
these from the claim.
Gross pollutants were not
specifically measured however it
is considered that gross pollutants
are solids with a particle size
greater than 3mm and which
could not physically flow through
the device. It is noted that a
floatable gross pollutant may
become buoyant and flow out of
the system during extreme high
flow bypass events. However the
gross pollutant claim is
considered justifiable on the basis
of the nature of the device which
includes a littler basket and filter
17
Page 54
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
cartridge of sorts – both of which
would typically be credited with
gross pollutant capture. The
caveat here is that every
installation of SPEL Basin must
include a SPEL Sack at the entry
pit.
Performance ER and CRE. If CRE average and median > 10% difference Both ER and average CRE was Compliance.
Indicators inspect dataset. reported. The evaluators
determined the median CRE and
found median CRE aligned very
closely with ER and the difference
was less than 10%. The
difference between ER and
average CRE was found to be >
10%. It was agreed with the
Applicant that an average of ER
and average CRE would be
adopted as a conservative
approach that enables both
metrics to be used and gives
them equal weighting. We note
that adoption of average CRE in
lieu of median CRE reduced the
18
Page 55
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Performance Performance Requirement Monitoring action or result Compliance or
Criteria non
compliance
final agreed pollutant reductions
by a few percentage points.
19
Page 56
In summary, Table 1 shows there is a high degree of compliance with SQIDEP v1.3. It is
considered unlikely that the rainfall gauge was calibrated a second time during the analysis
however the Independent Evaluators have assessed the significance and risk of a non
conformance as low. In addition, using historical rain radar records we have verified that
field test pluviograph rainfall records generally match radar records.
A number of other checks on the data have been performed and are reported below.
Comparison of Inflow Concentrations
Influent concentrations are impacted by a range of factors including antecedent conditions
and catchment activity. Antecedent conditions allow accumulation of pollutants between
events and it is possible to examine reported influent concentrations to identify indicative
trends.
The inflow concentrations from this study were compared to previous studies of road
catchments for cross-reference. In particular, the pollutant concentrations of TSS, TP and
TN were extracted from Duncan (1999) which examined 42 (road) sites across Australia. A
follow-up study, and one that is in close proximity to Sippy Downs was conducted by
Drapper and Lucke (2015) for catchments within the South-East Queensland region. The
pollutants concentrations from both studies are summarised below along side the inflow
concentrations found at Sippy Downs (Table 1). Full graphs are shown in Appendix A.
The most noticeable point between the studies is the pollutant concentration range. Drapper
and Lucke (2015) cited that the inflow concentrations observed in that study were
significantly different to results of Duncan (1999). And similarly, the Sippy Downs
concentration ranges vary differently to those of the comparison studies, however they are
still considered realistic. This highlights the difficulty of quantifying pollutant runoff
parameters, and consequently, modelling inflows. It is noted that Sippy Downs appears to
be on the low end of the spectrum which would yield a conservative result. Any MUSIC
generic node developed from this Application would be applicable to both clean and dirty
sites.
We also note mean TSS influent concentrations, at 147mg/L are about 50% of default
MUSIC road EMC values but not untypical for a new well sealed road, mean TN
concentrations at 1.72 mg/L are not far off typical MUSIC default values at 2.2 mg/L while
the TP loads were considered to be about 33% of default MUSIC values for a sealed road,
i.e. low.
Table 1: Typical pollutant concentrations for road catchments
Duncan (1999) Drapper and Lucke Current study –
study (2015) study Sippy Downs
TSS (mg/L) 60 – 700 (n=42) 1.45 – 5800 (n=325) 16 – 1130 (n=19)
TP (mg/L) 0.1 – 0.8 (n=25) 0.08 – 26 (n=325) 0.03 – 1 (n=19)
TN (mg/L) 1 – 9 (n=17) 0.38 - 8.5 (n=325) 0.2-8.9 (n=19)
Page 57
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
This claim is for TSS, TP and TN. It does not include subspeciation of nitrogen. However
the Independent Evaluators have assessed the influent concentrations to determine if there
were unusually high organic nitrogen loads which might skew the claim and not be
consistent with a site that is reasonably representative.
We found that dissolved nitrogen is the dominant (> 50% by mass) form of nitrogen on this
site. The testing and analysis finds that the device performance is statistically significant in
relation to TN removal and this indicates the device is removing both particulate and some
forms of dissolved nitrogen.
Pollutant removal and statistical analysis
The statistical analysis and methodology for determining significance was reviewed. It was
found that the steps taken follow standard procedures for evaluating stormwater data.
Typically stormwater concentration data is not normally distributed, as denoted from a
Shapiro-Wilk normality test. Log10 transformation does result in normality of the data. Paired
Student T-test can be used on the transformed dataset to test significance between data
sets.
Afflux Consulting undertook its own Paired Student T-test and found the same result as
those reported by the Stormwater Research Group (see Appendix B).
Reported Concentrations Analysis
While the performance of the device is based on changes between influent and effluent
concentrations as reported and elsewhere the influent concentrations are examined (see
above) for representativeness of the recommended installation type, it is considered
worthwhile to examine the influent concentrations with respect to antecedent conditions to
gain an understanding of how the catchment is behaving.
Pollutant concentrations in runoff are influenced by a range of conditions that include the
type, intensity and timing of catchment activity, and can be influenced by specific events that
add to loadings, and detailed analysis is beyond a simple correlation with antecedent dry
weather (ADW)conditions.
In general, it is expected that
• prolonged ADW will lead to increased pollutant concentrations; and
• some pollutants (e.g. Total Suspended Solids) will exhibit a more definitive
correlation with ADW.
Influent concentrations are listed in Table 2 for three ranges of ADW. Given the nature of
the catchment (e.g. road) it is not expected that TP or TN pollutant will be significant and it
is not possible to draw any definitive conclusions from these results, however they show (on
average) higher results for TSS for longer ADW periods and gives some level of comfort that
the catchment is behaving in terms of currently accepted build and wash off conceptual
models.
21
Page 58
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Table 2 Comparison of Concentrations and Antecedent Conditions
Antecedent
TSS TN
Dry Period TP (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Date (Hrs)
13/06/2017 13 107.00 0.16 2.30
SHORT ADWP (<24Hrs)
7/07/2017 11 256.00 0.55 8.90
8/07/2017 11 196.00 0.24 2.30
23/09/2017 11 142.00 0.24 3.00
3/10/2017 11 72.00 0.08 0.70
21/11/2017 13 61.00 0.04 0.40
22/11/2017 11 22.00 0.04 0.10
29/11/2017 11 34.00 0.04 0.10
AVERAGE 111.25 0.17 2.23
29/03/2017 14 42.00 0.04 0.40
MEDIUM
<100Hrs)
(>24Hrs,
ADWP
12/11/2017 37 176.00 0.15 0.70
4/03/2017 51 30.00 0.04 0.50
AVERAGE 82.67 0.08 0.53
14/03/2017 267 25.00 0.03 0.20
LONG ADWP (>100Hrs)
20/03/2017 146 1130.00 1.00 7.30
18/05/2017 242 134.00 0.11 1.40
5/07/2017 336 122.00 0.08 0.90
1/11/2017 123 137.00 0.13 1.40
25/12/2017 254 16.00 0.05 0.70
31/12/2017 121 41.00 0.05 0.70
18/04/2018 264 46.00 0.03 0.50
AVERAGE 206.38 0.19 1.64
The catchment condition has also been considered for any correlations to reported data. As
can be seen in the background information some adjacent catchment development was
occurring in the early parts of the testing period (Error! Reference source not found.).
Reviewing the data it can be seen that in general the TSS loadings are higher in the first 6
months of the testing period, with the catchment settling down after this period. There could
be some correlation with the vegetation growth within the system, however an establishment
chronology is not given and could not be assessed. Certainly, the vegetation is well
established by June 2017 (Figure 3).
We note that the Evaluators have not been given any recent photographs of the installation
and the health and robustness of the vegetation in the device approximately 3 years after
commission is unknown.
22
Page 59
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
A number of anomalies, which have subsequently been addressed in a supplementary
report prepared by Drapper Environmental Consultants, were also seen in the qualifying
events (Table 5 in USC, 2019) and are shown below.
• TSS below LOD – shown in orange highlights – makes minimal difference to overall
averages
• Less than 8 aliquots – shown in green. This applies to less than 20% of the total
number of samples and therefore meets the criteria
• 50% of storms to have at least 70% of hydrograph coverage – the supplied graphs
seem to indicate this, but further clarification was sought and confirmed as noted
below.
It is noted the supplementary report addressed these points as follows:
1) A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of reporting at the LOD
and 50% of the LOD. It was found by Drapper that reporting at the LOD or 50% of
the LOD as is prescribed by SQIDEP makes about 1-2% difference. We note that
USC was not consistent in their reporting of LOD events but this was corrected by Dr
Drapper in the Supplementary Report.
23
Page 60
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
2) It is noted that some other minor reporting errors by USC were corrected in the
Drapper Supplementary Report.
3) The Drapper Supplementary Report also identified the percentage of hydrograph
coverage. Only one of the storms (22/11) recorded less than 70% of the hydrograph
coverage and this was later excluded due to excessively high pollutant
concentrations (outlier) anyway.
The final SQIDEP Compliant Storm results is extracted from Drapper’s Supplementary report
and shown below:
24
Page 61
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
The final claim is as follows:
Rainfall Review
The monitoring site was equipped with both a tipping bucket rainfall gauge and (outlet) flow
meter to assist with identification of qualifying storm events (depth/ duration), determination
of antecedent dry weather periods and to assist with determination of required sampling
frequency (i.e. number of aliquots).
This information is presented in the report in tabular and graphical format and described
against protocol requirements. The closest BOM gauge depths are shown in Appendix C.
25
Page 62
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Checks were carried out to examine the historical rainfall record (historic radar) and a
number of selected events as a ‘sensibility check’ to verify the on-site measurements were in
line with what should be expected.
Events
Radar records were used to examine historic rainfall. This is able to provide an indication of
rainfall occurrence and intensity. Figure 4 shows radar results for the 7th July and the
corresponding flow rates provided in ‘SQIDEP BOE Application - Supporting Information’.
In general terms:
• Higher rainfall intensities should manifest as higher peak flows through the device:
• Flow peaks through the device should match altered intensity as a storm front
passes; and
• The duration of an event (from start to finish) should match the radar record.
Figure 4 Radar Rainfall Checks
For the majority of events provided for analysis the observations indicate a reasonable
match in storm and flow peaks between the site recordings and meteorological results, with
two exceptions for the 8th July 2017 and 23 September 2017.
Both these days report relatively low flow through the device (i.e. less than 0.5l/s) and
reported rainfall depth for these events were 5.4 mm and 6.6 mm respectively. Scrutiny of
the flow rainfall depth for other days indicates a higher order of flow response. As such, it is
possible that the characterization of the storm event is incorrect and has been plotted
incorrectly. Given the overwhelming correlation of the other events to the data, the rainfall
and event data is generally accepted.
Note that it is possible that the sample collected on the 8th July was as a result of continuing
flow generated by the event on the 7th July, however the radar record does not appear to
indicate that there was sufficient rainfall on the 23rd September to generate the tabled data.
26
Page 63
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Cherry Picking of Storm Events
SQIDEP v1.3 does not explicitly require that sequential storm events be monitored and
reported. None the less, the Independent Evaluators have checked for evidence of cherry
picking.
We have reviewed all storms that were excluded from the data set. Dr Drapper included in
his Detailed Report a summary of the rainfall and storms that occurred during the monitoring
period. This table is extracted and shown below:
Figure 5 Reported rainfall and monitoring records.
The chart shows that there were 6 recorded storm events, intense events with an average
depth of about 50mm which failed to capture more than 80% of the hydrograph and were
therefore discarded. There are also a number of events where either the inlet or outlet
sample was not obtained presumably due to mechanical or some kind of equipment failure
or simply because no outflow occurred. These are credible events and are considered
typical of any monitoring dataset noting that flow and quality monitoring equipment is
notoriously unreliable.
Analysis of the spread of reported events also indicates some events where performance
was high and equally some events where performance was not great. A “cherry picked”
dataset would, by definition, only include events with good performance. The duration of the
monitoring period, which is considered relatively short at 13 months, is indicative of a study
which did not wait for high performing events to occur.
At the request of the Evaluators, Dr Drapper also provided data logs for storm events which
were excluded and these demonstrated that there was a failure of equipment to record for
example the first 100mm of rainfall. It is noted this is not a fully independent data analysis
however it adds to the body of evidence to demonstrate cherry picking was not undertaken.
27
Page 64
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
On a first principles basis and assuming good faith by all parties, this study has the
hallmarks of a robust scientifically sound assessment, i.e. it was undertaken with as much
independence as is feasible, i.e. independent measurement, independent reporting and
oversight and independent evaluation (peer review) and is considered representative of
typical field conditions and therefore repeatable under typical conditions.
28
Page 65
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
3. Evaluation of Enduring Performance
The Independent Reviewers have endeavoured to consider the long term enduring
performance of the SPEL Basin.
The device includes an ion exchange element. The cation exchange capacity of the media
has been confirmed to have a long life-time at typical hydraulic loading rates and this
indicates the device would not need to have its media replaced to maintain chemical water
quality outcomes within the life expectancy of the media.
However the media may be subject to blocking and reduced hydraulic conductivity from
occlusion by sediment. The SPEL Basin system includes a littler basket and filter cartridge.
Both of these can be easily maintained, without replacement, and will add significantly to the
life expectancy and functionality of the device as they prefilter sediment.
A sensitivity analysis of the device was undertaken by modelling its performance in MUSIC
with a 40% reduced high flow bypass rate. Assuming the hydraulic conductivity and
consequently the high flow bypass was reduced by 40% (indicative of partially clogged filter
media) the performance of the device would reduce by 2-3%, i.e. marginally.
It was agreed with SPEL to include a requirement in their Technical Design Guideline that if
the media was observed to not fully drain down to its lowest level within 2 hours that the
media be investigated and if required replaced. This would ensure that hydraulic
conductivity was maintained at reasonable levels and the TFR would be maintained in turn
ensuring that the claimed treatment train effectiveness would be achieved in the longer term.
It is noted that it is not possible nor required of the Evaluators to determine the life of the
device or the media and we are confident that under similar conditions to the test site that
the device will have a reasonable life expectancy. It is recommended that SPEL continues
to monitor at least the hydraulic performance of the SPEL Basin to confirm its long term
performance and range of media life-expectancy under both light and heavy pollutant
loading rates.
29
Page 66
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
4. Discussion
Our independent evaluation finds that:
1) As shown in Table 1, The testing regime and results comply with SQIDEP protocol
requirements.
2) In addition, the catchment parameters, expected runoff concentrations, and rainfall
mapping to event recording are within standard, or expected guidelines though it is
noted this site is considered “clean” or lightly loaded relative to default EMC values
adopted in MUSIC. Of itself, this implies that, based on diminishing returns, the
performance claims are more difficult to achieve and therefore conservative however
the device itself may demonstrate clogging more prematurely on more heavily loaded
sites. In this sense the field test may not have stress tested the device as much as it
will experience in the real world. None the less the claim is considered valid and
generally representative.
3) The field study appears to be a scientifically sound study and would be repeatable
under similar conditions which it is noted are deemed representative.
4) There will be some sites where media life is reduced due to higher sediment loads
and we note this SQIDEP claim and this independent evaluation do not involve a
claim against expected media life. This however is addressed in part by the need for
the asset owner to observe draining times and if draining times fall below 2 hours to
then investigate if the media is blocked and needs replacing.
5) The cation exchange capacity of the media is reportedly very high and indicates the
CEC is very unlikely to limit media life.
6) We were unable to assess the longer term vegetative health of the system though
during the investigation rigorous and healthy plant growth was evident.
7) We did not find evidence of cherry picking of storm events.
8) We found that the dominant forms nitrogen in this study were dissolved nitrogen
indicating that filtration, absorption and adsorption are occurring.
Final Agreed Pollution Reduction Performance
The final agreed pollutant reduction performance can be seen in
Figure 6 and includes total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and gross
pollutant claims.
30
Page 67
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Based on the testing regime and submitted results TSS, TP, TN and gross pollutants can be
evaluated in this process. It is however acknowledged that by association and by reference
to other scientific studies hydrocarbons will be removed though no credit given.
Figure 6 Final Agreed Pollutant Reduction Performance
Scalability and Hydraulic Loading Rate
The question of scalability of these results has been considered as part of this review. The
design treatment rate of 10L/s was tested in the field and at least 4 events out of the
qualifying 18 events approach or exceed this value. Of these larger events there is a spread
of CRE values, with some well below the claimed reductions and some above. Viewing
these results more critically it would seem that the antecedent conditions, and shape of the
hydrograph are just as important precursors to the CRE as the actual flow rate. Clearly more
field data may better define these correlations, however given the 90% confidence rate
already, the care taken to remove outliers and non-qualifying events and defined SQIDEP
protocol it is accepted that natural variations will occur and that a treatment rate of 10L/s is
an acceptable limit.
How this 10L/s plays out in installations is a further consideration. SPEL have stated that
their preference is to procure the application in 10L/s modules. If this is adhered to then this
should have a level of acceptable saleability. Given that these are modules are only
procured by one manufacturer applying this limit this should minimise the misuse of this limit
– the same cannot be said for many other nutrient removal applications in the market.
However, this should strongly be written into any technical guideline associated with the
modules, so that any prospective purchaser or asset owner is aware of this limitation.
We note that this study tested a SPEL Basin accepting runoff from an 850m2 catchment.
Using a City of Gold Coast template this produces an annual hydraulic load rate of about
215m/year. We would therefore consider that a hydraulic loading rate up to 250m/year
would be an acceptable load rate for the device. Should the load rate for example increase
to say 500m/year then the same results found in field study would not be repeatable.
Limitations of Acceptance
The limitations of the acceptance of these testing results include:
1. The results are for a road based catchment. The results lie within acceptable inflow
limits for this type of catchment and based on the analysis are found to be
acceptable. This does not necessarily relate to other catchment types, though it is
31
Page 68
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
noted that hard stand catchments will behave similarly. Cleaner, roof catchments
may not achieve the same pollutant reduction targets.
2. The results are for a hydraulic loading rate up to 250m/year. Should the hydraulic
load rate exceed this, the results and life expectancy of the media would be expected
to decline in line with excessive loading on the device.
3. The results are reliant on the maintenance of the device being consistent with the
manufacturers guidelines and those that are contained in the report. Most importantly
the cleaning of the Storm Sack and filter cartridge at regular intervals.
4. The life expectancy of the device and the media is unknown. In discussions with the
manufacturer the testing is consistent to at least the 6 year mark. It is suggested that
an estimated lifespan of both media and the whole device be written into any
technical guidelines as the filter material will deteriorate over time.
5. The acceptance of these results is reliant on the installation being similar to that
shown in this analysis. Alternative installations may result in different outcomes.
Recommendation for Associated Technical Guidelines
The results of this analysis can be seen to be reliant on a number of factors, a number of
which could be tied strongly to a set of technical installation and maintenance guidelines. As
such it is strongly recommended that the SQIDEP results be tied to a product guideline to
ensure future consistency.
32
Page 69
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
5. Conclusions
Based on the results presented and the analysis shown in this report, the authors are
satisfied that the BOE Application complies with the SQIDEP protocol and the performance
reduction claims shown at Figure 6 have been agreed.
It is recommended that these results and acceptance be packaged with the MUSIC nodes
and a technical guideline.
33
Page 70
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
6. References
Duncan, H.P. (1999), Urban Stormwater Quality: A Statistical Overview, Report 99/3,
Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, February 1999.
Drapper, Darren & Lucke, Terry. (2015). Characterisation of Stormwater Pollutants from
Various Catchment types in South-east Queensland.
Drapper D., (2019), SQIDEP Body of Evidence Application Supporting Information, Drapper
Environmental Consultants, Springfield Lakes, QLD
Lucke T., Sanicola O., (2018), University of Sunshine Coast, Evaluation of Treatment
Performance of SPEL Basin at Sippy Downs, University of Sunshine Coast
34
Page 71
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
7. Appendix A – Typical Concentrations
Typical concentration graphs from Duncan et. al (1999) for road catchments:
35
Page 72
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Typical pollutant concentrations from Drapper et. al (2005):
36
Page 73
SQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
8. Appendix B – Statistical check
Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test
Normality test of raw TSS data:
Normality test of raw TP data:
Normality test of raw TN data:
37
The text continues on page 74.