Council archive · source document
F0002-AA007595-AAR-10-SMP · MCU14/0102.05
Attached to the e-mail Revised Amendments to the SMP MCU14/102.05.
Very large file (17.2 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
2.2 SPEL Puraceptor Sizing
The sizing of the SPEL Puraceptor is based on the Rational Method that is common practice among water
engineers to determine the treatment flow rate as a result of rainfall events. The geographical location of the
site by means of its latitude and longitude figures is used along with the Intensity-Frequency-Duration (IFD) data
provided by the Bureau of Meteorology to determine the amount of Rainfall Intensity relevant to the duration
of time of concentration of the catchment area and 3 month ARI (Annual Recurrence Interval).
2.3 SPEL Puraceptor Application Areas
Typically, fuel stations have been required to install a blind sump to capture any hydrocarbon spills. A blind sump
is effectively an underground tank that has no outlet. These sumps have been designed with an upstream
drainage network to capture runoff from the under-canopy areas and the fill box used by tankers to refill
underground tanks. These areas have traditionally been considered the “high-risk” areas for fuel spills, and so
treatment measures have focussed on capturing and retaining runoff/spills from these areas for subsequent
removal via vacuum truck. In reality, a hydrocarbon spill is a higher risk anywhere on a fuel station site in
comparison to a residential catchment, for example. It is considered, therefore, that runoff from all areas of fuel
stations should be treated. Where this becomes problematic with blind sumps, is that they provide no treatment
and are simply capture systems. Therefore, they must be emptied each time they are full. In many cases, blind
sumps fill with stormwater that occupies, and reduces, hydrocarbon volume should a spill occur. The solution is
to implement a treatment system that can remove hydrocarbons from stormwater runoff, allowing treated
water to escape, yet retain hydrocarbons and seal the system if a spill occurs. This is the function provided by
the Puraceptor.
2.4 Performance Analysis
SPEL Puraceptor devices have undergone rigorous and comprehensive testing for total suspended solids, heavy
metals and hydrocarbons. The reduction values listed within are from flow tests conducted by the University of
South Australia Hydraulics Research Laboratory (UniSA) and at HR Wallingford United Kingdom.
2.4.1 University of South Australia Testing – Oil & TPH
Tests were performed at the UNISA Hydraulics Research facility with the device in flow mode, with the following
results. Test methodology was done to European Standard BS EN 858.1 Section 8.3.
The oily water mix compiled by the UniSA was specifically made to replicate service station runoff. This field
testing illustrates that for an inflow of 5699 mg/l (5% over test target level of 5000 mg/l), which was expected
to have deleterious effects on the performance of the unit, the SPEL Puraceptor was able to treat the runoff to
a TPH concentration complying with the most stringent standards. This, highlights the conservative and rigorous
character of the testing conducted by UniSA. As such, the Puraceptor is considered to qualify as a Class 1 light
liquid separator in accordance with EN 858-1. Moreover it should be noted that Environmental Authorities
HEAD OFFICE POSTAL EMAIL ABN spel.com.au
100 Silverwater Road PO BOX 7138 [email protected] 83 151 832 629
Silverwater NSW 2128 Silverwater NSW 2128
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
F0002-AA007595-AAR-10-SMP.PDFRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 17.2 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.