Folks:
We have a project (existing imperviousness > 50%) where we have calculated that through a combination of green roof, pervious pavers, landscaped open space, and a rainwater cistern we can reduce the peak discharge rate and quantity by 25% per LEED reqs for SSc6.1. Based on rainfall patterns, we assume that we need to draw down the cistern in 2 days to accommodate potential back-to-back storms. It's really unclear to us whether or not it is acceptable to draw down the cistern by draining into the storm sewer or whether we must infiltrate, evapotranspire, or otherwise reuse all of the water on site. We'll use the cistern for irrigation in summer, but otherwise it is effectively serving as a detention tank.
Is detaining stormwater and then discharging it to the stormwater acceptable, provided you reduce the peak 24 hr discharge rate per LEED requirements? This certainly has benefits (we are in a CSO area) but does not seem to meet the full intent. My confusion is compounded by the language on LEED User (above):
"Is it an acceptable strategy to capture the rainwater into tanks and discharge it into the public sewers after the rainstorm reducing the peak discharge?
This is a common strategy for reducing peak rate, which will help you comply with SSc6.1, but you'll need to add onsite reuse or infiltration to meet SSc6.2 requirements."
I don't see why onsite reuse or infiltration are required to meet SSc6.2 (other methods remove TSS), and so it makes me think that this should say "you'll need to addd... to meet SSc6.1 requirements."
Thanks for your help,
Michael
Michael DeVuono
Regional Stormwater LeaderArcadis North America
LEEDuser Expert
187 thumbs up
March 21, 2013 - 7:23 am
Michael, if you are using the volume reduction of the reuse within the cistern, you can not drawdown the cistern into the storm drains. While this slow-release method would reduce peak rate (this is what the above reference was referring to), it does not reduce runoff volume or quantity.
Unless there are some local regs at work here, I would be a little more aggressive with the drawdown time. Recent studies by the Villanova University Urban Stormwater Partnership show that the chance of back to back 2-year storms occurring within 3 days is around 2%.
I have recently completed 2 projects that mitigate the 2-year volume increase using capture/reuse. I have successfully argued that the water really only needs to drawdown within 2 years, because it is a theoretical "2-year volume."
To meet in the middle, we design our capture/reuse systems to use the required volume within the 7 month irrigation season in the Northeast.
Hope that helps.
Sherman Aronson
Sr. AssociateBLT Architects
4 thumbs up
June 2, 2015 - 4:29 pm
I have a similar question for SSc6.1 Case 2. On previous projects we have used on-site storage containers, in addition to increased vegetation, to reduce the storm water quantity runoff by 25% on mostly impervious sites. It sounds now that the water contained must be used on the site for planting, irrigation, various water uses, and CANNOT be slowly released into the public storm system after the storm is over. Is that correct? We thought that the calculation method can show the the runoff during the storm is reduced by more than 25%, the equivalent of reduced CF of water. Is that not how it is to be used?
Michael DeVuono
Regional Stormwater LeaderArcadis North America
LEEDuser Expert
187 thumbs up
June 3, 2015 - 7:32 am
Sherman, Case 2 is about reducing volume of runoff. You can capture the volume on site, but you must reuse at least 25% greater than the pre-development volume.
Example, if your 2-year pre-development volume is 100 cf, and 2-year post-development is 200 cf, you must reuse (or infiltrate) at least 125 cf of your post-development volume. The remaining 75 cf can be discharged wherever.