v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
EPA 832-F-01-005
September 2001
Storm Water
Technology Fact Sheet
On-Site Underground Retention/Detention
DESCRIPTION
One of the major components of storm water
management is flow control, particularly in newly-
developed areas where buildings, parking lots,
roads, and other impervious surfaces replace open
space. As imperviousness increases, there is less
area available for infiltration, and the amount of
runoff increases. This may cause streams to be
more prone to flash floods. Many municipalities
now require newly-developed areas to maintain pre-
development runoff conditions and to implement
measures to capture or control the increase in peak
runoff for a design storm event.
Several different types of storm water Best
Management Practices (BMPs), including
retention/detention ponds, storm water wetlands,
and underground storage structures, can provide
storm water volume control. These BMPs capture
flow and retain it until it infiltrates into the soil
(storm water retention) or release it slowly over
time, thereby decreasing peak flows and associated
flooding problems (storm water detention). Several
of these options, including storm water wetlands
and large detention ponds, require relatively large
land areas, making them less of an option in areas
where land costs are high or where land availability
is a problem. In many of these areas, such as
parking lots for malls or other developed sites in
highly urbanized areas, storing storm water
underground on the site may be the best option.
Underground storm water retention/detention
systems capture and store runoff in large pipes or
other subsurface structures (see Figure 1). Storm
water enters the system through a riser pipe
connected to a catch basin or curb inlet and flows
into a series of chambers or compartments for
storage. Captured runoff is retained throughout the
storm event, and can be released directly back into
surface waters through an outlet pipe. Outlet pipes
are sized to release stored runoff at pre-
development flow rates. This ensures that there is
no net increase in peak runoff and that receiving
waters are not adversely impacted by high flows
from the site. Some systems are also designed to
exfiltrate stored runoff into the surrounding soil,
where it helps to recharge the groundwater table.
Underground retention/detention systems can be
constructed from concrete, steel, or plastic
materials. Each material has advantages and
disadvantages and specific applicabilities, which
are discussed in the following sections.
APPLICABILITY
Underground retention/detention systems are
primarily used in newly-developed areas where
land cost and/or availability are major concerns.
They are not usually designed for retrofit
applications. Most systems are built under parking
lots or other paved surfaces in commercial,
industrial, and residential areas. Perforated
underground retention systems that release stored
storm water into the subsoil are recommended only
for areas with well-drained soils and where the
water table is low enough to permit recharge. Some
pretreatment such as sediment traps or sand filters
may be necessary for infiltration to eliminate
sediment and other solids that could clog the
system.
On-site underground retention/detention systems
provide peak runoff flow control and can store
storm water for future release back into the
environment. However, they are not designed
-------
Riser inlet to catch
basin or curb inlet
Header
Band
Barrels
f
Outlet pipe (sized
to control runoff)
Source: Modified from Contech Construction Products, Inc., 2000.
FIGURE 1 SCHEMATIC OF PIPE-BASED UNDERGROUND STORM WATER
DETENTION SYSTEM
specifically to enhance water quality; therefore,
other storm water BMPs may be required to provide
storm water treatment. Underground retention/
detention systems are often used in "treatment
trains," which consist of a number of storm water
BMPs that provide both storm water treatment and
storage. For example, storm water entering the
underground detention structure in Hauge
Homestead Park in Everett, Washington, is first
collected from a parking area through a catch basin,
then flows through a series of vegetated swales,
then into a storm water pipe with a sump, all of
which filter out sediment and pollutants before the
runoff reaches the detention chambers. Runoff is
then released into a pond at a controlled rate, where
further pollutant removal occurs (City of Everett,
Washington, Department of Parks and Recreation,
2000).
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
This Section presents the overall advantages and
disadvantages of on-site underground
retention/detention systems. The advantages and
disadvantages of specific designs and construction
materials (concrete, steel, plastic) for underground
retention/detention systems are discussed in the
Design section.
Advantages
• The primary advantage of the on-site
underground storm water retention/
detention system is that it captures and
stores runoff, thus helping meet the
requirement to maintain pre-development
runoff conditions at newly-developed sites.
• These systems are ideal for highly
urbanized areas, particularly in areas where
land is expensive or may not be available
for ponds or wetlands.
• These systems can be installed quickly. For
example, construction and installation of a
6' by 4' by 156' concrete system was
installed under a car dealership in
Tennessee in 3 days (Sherman Dixie
Concrete Industries, Inc., 2000).
-------
• These systems are very durable. Once in
the ground, most systems can last more than
50 years.
• Because these systems are underground,
local residents are less likely to have access
to them, making them safer than ponds or
other aboveground storm water BMPs.
Disadvantages
• The primary disadvantage of the on-site
underground storm water detention
structures is that they are not designed to
provide storm water quality benefits.
However, if they are included in a
treatment-train type system, underground
detention systems can be an important part
of an overall storm water management
process.
• These systems may require more excavation
than surface ponds or wetlands.
• Recharge of the groundwater from an
underground retention unit may contribute
to groundwater contamination if flow from
the site is directly discharged into the
retention system before pretreatment.
Therefore, EPA does not recommend that
percolation systems be designed for sites
with coarse soils or high groundwater
tables.
• These systems are more difficult to
maintain and clean than aboveground
systems.
DESIGN CRITERIA
On-site underground retention/detention systems
are designed to provide a predetermined amount of
storage volume within a specified area. System
designs can range from simple storage pipes or
chambers to complex systems consisting of
multiple pipes or chambers, with accompanying
joints, crossovers, multiple inlets and access points.
At a minimum, each system must have an inlet, an
outlet, and a structure to access the chamber
(Pacific Corrugated Pipe, 2000). All other design
elements are site, project, and material-specific, as
described below.
Among the most important elements to consider
when designing underground retention/detention
systems are the size, shape, and physical
characteristics of available space available for the
system. These factors will influence how the system
is constructed and what type of construction
material is chosen. Depending on the specific
application, design engineers have utilized different
materials, including concrete pipes and other
concrete structures, steel pipes, and plastic pipes, in
designing underground retention/detention
structures. Each material has different advantages
and disadvantages under different scenarios. The
type of material to be used in any individual
application should be determined by site and
application-specific conditions.
Site-specific considerations that may influence the
type of material used in an individual application
include:
• The depth and area of allowable excavation
space. For example, to maintain the
structural integrity of corrugated steel and
high density polyethylene pipe systems,
more fill is required below, between, and
above the pipes than when using concrete.
• The shape of the area available for the
system. For example, is the available space
one continuous area where a large vault
could be placed, or does it have angles
which might make a pipe system more
appropriate?
• The depth of the water table. For example,
there are some concerns that plastic pipes
may float upward in areas with high water
tables.
• The construction costs (including material
and labor costs) for different materials.
Table 1 summarizes the physical characteristics of
these materials. Additional considerations include
local ordinances, which may preclude the use of
some types of materials for certain applications.
For example, Fairfax County, Virginia, does not
-------
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
FOR UNDERGROUND STORM WATER RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS
Concrete
Construction Material
Plastic
(HOPE)
Steel and Aluminum
(CMP)
Shapes
Spatial Requirements
Rigidity/Flexibility
Fill Requirements
Other Requirements
Available Sizes
Handling
Rectangular vaults or
circular pipes
Primarily continuous space
with no angles
Very rigid, does not require
fill to maintain rigidity; not
flexible
Requires minimum fill
above structure
None
Multiple sizes that can be
pre-cast or cast-in-place
Circular pipes
Can be fitted into irregular
and angled spaces
Rigid, requires fill for
stability; not flexible
Requires minimum fill
between and above pipes
Requires minimum spacing
between pipes. Water
table must be below level
of pipe
Multiple pipe diameters are
available; all are pre-
manufactured
Requires moving equipment Can be moved by hand
Circular pipes, semi-circular
pipe-arches, or other
special shapes
Can be fitted into irregular
and angled spaces
Rigid, requires fill for
stability; can withstand
some shifting without
breaking or buckling
Requires minimum fill
between and above pipes
Requires minimum spacing
between pipes
12" to 144" diameters and
pipe arches are available
pre-assembled. Larger
diameter pipe and pipe-
arches are available for
assembly on-site
Requires moving
equipment
Source: Compiled by Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 2000.
allow plastic pipes to be used for underground
retention/detention systems for residential areas. In
contrast, plastic pipe has been the favored option
for systems built by the Department of Parks and
Recreation in Everett, Washington.
Once appropriate construction materials are
determined for a specific application, design must
determine the amount of storage volume required
by the system. As discussed above, many areas
have adopted a policy of no net increase in runoff
for a design storm event for newly-developed areas.
Thus, the required storage volume is the difference
between pre and post-development runoff. In other
areas, local requirements dictate how much of a
given storm must be captured and treated, and the
required storage volume can be calculated using
this value. For example, the City of Malibu,
California requires post-construction treatment
control BMPs to treat the first 0.75 inches of
rainfall over a 24-hour period (City of Malibu,
2000b). In contrast, the Department of Public
Works in Everett, Washington, requires systems to
be designed for the 6-month, 24-hour storm (City of
Everett, Washington, Department of Public Works,
2000).
After the required storage volume has been
determined, the design engineer can examine the
site to determine what configuration will maximize
storage while minimizing the size of the excavated
area. Concrete structures, such as box culverts,
tend to provide greater storage volume per
excavated area because of their rectangular shape
(allowing more storage volume per cross-sectional
area) and the fact that they can provide one
continuous chamber. Pipe systems, on the other
hand, tend to store less runoff per excavated area.
There are several reasons for this. First, round
pipes and pipe arches have less storage volume per
cross-sectional area than do square structures, such
as box culverts. In addition, pipes are often laid
-------
parallel or at intersecting angles, reducing the
amount of storage per excavated area. Pipes also
require specific amounts of space for fill between
them. While this promotes the structural integrity
of the pipes, it reduces the amount of excavated
area available for storage. These requirements
make the largest diameter pipe that meets the
minimum cover requirements the most economical.
For example, doubling the diameter of the pipe
usually doubles the cost of the pipe, but quadruples
the storage volume. In addition, the ability to angle
and arrange pipes in series of different lengths may
make them good choices when the space available
for storage is not continuous. Several
manufacturers have produced CD-ROMs to aid in
the design and configuration of pipe systems.
PERFORMANCE
On-site runoff controls, such as underground storm
water retention/detention systems, are designed to
control storm water quantity and they have little
impact on storm water quality. Thus, underground
storm water retention/detention systems alone will
not satisfy most local storm water regulations. For
example, Fairfax County, Virginia, requires both
storm water management (i.e., storm water volume
control) and storm water BMPs (i.e., storm water
quality control) (Fairfax County, Virginia, 2000).
Therefore, most underground retention/detention
systems are coupled with other water quality BMPs,
such as catch basins, curb inlets, water quality
inlets, sand filters, or sumps. This "treatment train"
can help to improve the water quality of the overall
storm water control system, particularly during the
first part of a rain event when pollutants may be at
their highest concentrations. BMPs may be located
either upstream or downstream from the
retention/detention system. Fairfax County, which
reviews storm water plans for new development,
encourages planners to include sand filters or other
water quality control devices upstream of an
underground detention system. The City of Malibu,
California, recommends a treatment train system
(City of Malibu, California, 2000b). One system
that the city has looked at includes a sedimentation
basin, a detention basin, then a sand filter (City of
Malibu, California, 2000a). A new project in
Hauge Homestead Park in Everett, Washington,
includes storm water BMPs both upstream and
downstream of the detention area.
When designing a treatment train, design engineers
must ensure that downstream BMPs are designed
for the appropriate flow from the underground
retention/detention system. For example, the City
of Alexandria, Virginia, found that long drawdown
times from underground retention/detention
systems could result in continuous flow into
downstream sand filters, which could cause the
resuspension of accumulated phosphorous (City of
Alexandria, VA, 2000). Therefore, Alexandria does
not recommend the use of sand filters downstream
from most retention/detention systems.
While underground storm water retention/detention
systems are not specifically designed to provide
water quality benefits, they do often improve water
quality. As storm water is retained before it is
released back into the environment, suspended
solids may settle out, thereby reducing the overall
pollutant load. For example, in the City of Everett,
Washington, local regulations require that at least
15 percent of the 6-month, 24-hour storm runoff be
retained above ground, usually in a biofiltration
area. The remainder of the runoff can be stored
below ground, where suspended solids are allowed
to settle out before the water is released back into
the environment (City of Everett, Washington,
Department of Public Works, 2000). However,
unless the system is properly maintained, settled
solids may eventually fill the system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Once underground storm water retention/detention
systems are installed, they require very little
maintenance. They have no moving parts and
remain intact for many years. A major concern
with the use of corrugated steel or polyethylene
pipes has been that the pipes might crack or buckle
over time because of the weight of the soil
surrounding them. However, a study of corrugated
steel pipe (CSP) underground storm water detention
structures in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area conducted by the National Corrugated Steel
Pipe Association (NCSPA)(NCSPA, 1999) found
that all of the systems were performing well. None
of the pipe systems inspected, some of which had
-------
been in place for up to 25 years, showed signs of
buckling, cracking, or bending. In only one case
had the joints of pipe sections separated.
Underground storm water retention/detention
structures must be cleaned periodically to remove
accumulated trash, grit, sediments, and other debris.
The installation of catch basins or grates at the inlet
will reduce trash accumulation, but suspended
solids will still be carried into the storage area,
where they may settle out and accumulate on the
bottom of the structure. The structures need to be
cleaned to remove this accumulated material, which
should be tested to determine if it contains any toxic
or hazardous materials, and then disposed according
to local regulations regarding storm water residuals.
In Fairfax County, Virginia, where there are over
300 underground storm water retention/detention
structures installed at commercial/industrial sites,
private owners of the structures are required to sign
a maintenance contract with the County that
commits the owner to maintain the structure
appropriately. Fairfax County also provides owners
with a maintenance checklist and plans to inspect
these structures regularly (i.e., at least once every
five years) to ensure that they are functioning
adequately. If an owner fails to maintain the
structures, the maintenance agreement allows the
County to perform the required maintenance at the
expense of the owner.
The City of Everett, Washington, takes ownership
of underground storm water detention systems
constructed in residential developments under
existing rights-of-way, such as sidewalks or streets.
The city conducts annual inspections of system
outlet structures and looks for an accumulation of
sediment at the outlet as an indicator that the system
needs to be cleaned. Crews are then dispatched to
perform the clean-outs. The City also regularly
inspects private systems and issue notices to owners
when sediment accumulation is noted (City of
Everett, Washington, Department of Public Works,
2000).
COSTS
Costs for underground storm water
retention/detention structures are highly variable
and depend primarily on the types of materials used
(concrete vaults, metal or plastic pipes) and the
amount of storage volume desired. The type of
materials used will greatly affect construction and
installation costs, because they dictate the size of
the excavation required to achieve the necessary
storage volume. As discussed in the Design
section, to ensure their strength and rigidity, plastic
and steel pipes have specific requirements for
spacing, fill type and fill volume, all of which effect
the size of the excavation. Concrete structures do
not have the same level of fill requirements.
Another consideration is the amount of time
required to handle and assemble the various pieces
of the system. Steel and plastic pipes tend to be
lighter and easier to handle than concrete vaults;
however, large diameter pipes and "pipe arch"
structures (which are delivered as separate sheets
and must be bolted in place) may increase handling
time requirements.
While costs for specific types of underground
detention systems can be highly variable, they can
be very economical, especially compared with
alternatives. The primary alternative to an
underground storm water detention structures is an
aboveground wet detention pond. While
construction costs for ponds are generally lower
than for underground storage units (ponds can cost
between $17.50 and $35 per cubic meter of storage
area [Center for Watershed Protection, 1998]), land
used for a surface pond cannot be used for any other
purpose. This is not true for underground
retention/detention systems, where the land above
can be utilized for parking lots or other purposes,
maximizing the economic potential of the land. In
Everett, Washington, underground detention
structures are often used in conjunction with
aboveground ponds in storm water management.
While local regulations require some surface
treatment of storm water, the majority of runoff can
be stored underground, minimizing the need for
large surface ponds that are both costly and require
economically-valuable land. Everett also
encourages the use of concrete underground storage
systems, which allows the pond to actually be
placed directly on top of the underground storage
area, again making maximum use of the available
land (City of Everett, Washington, Department of
Public Works, 2000). Underground
retention/detention systems can also be economical
-------
when compared to infiltration trenches. An
engineering estimate prepared for a commercial
installation in Glen Burnie, Maryland, showed that
a 150,000 cubic feet detention system consisting of
60" corrugated steel pipe covered by stone would
cost approximately $453,000 and occupy only 0.94
acres, while a stone infiltration trench that could
store the same volume would occupy 1.43 acres and
cost $576,000 (Contech, Inc., 2000). The major
differences in cost between these two options were
that using only stone required a larger excavation,
and the stone fill and increased labor for placing the
stone fill was more costly than the cost of material
and labor for installing the pipe.
As discussed above, underground storm water
retention/detention structures can vary greatly in
cost, depending on the materials utilized, the
excavation, construction, and installation costs, and
the storage volume required. For example,
construction of the underground storm water
retention/detention segment of the Boneyard Creek
project in Champaign, Illinois, which consisted of
the installation of six 11-foot diameter corrugated
steel pipes (comprising 24,600 cubic meters of
storage) cost approximately $9 million, plus
contingencies (City of Champaign, Illinois, 2000).
When combined with a larger, aboveground storm
water retention/detention pond, this project
provides enough retention/detention for a 25-year
storm event, preventing the perennial flooding of
Champaign's Campustown section and saving local
businesses from flood damage and lost business.
Engineer's estimates for installation of CSP
systems in Arizona are approximately $84 per cubic
meter of storage (Pacific Corrugated Pipe Co.,
2000). For example, to capture the first inch of
runoff from a one acre plot, 72 feet of 96-inch CSP
would be installed at a cost of $8,650. Costs are
scalable and increase proportionally to increases in
the amount of land served or the amount of runoff
stored.
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe was
utilized to construct an underground storm water
detention system at the T.F. Green Airport in
Providence, Rhode Island. The parking lot was
created when an existing neighborhood was
demolished to create extra parking areas. The site
had a high water table and no runoff was allowed to
leave the site. The contractor designed five
separate systems of 24-inch HDPE pipe, with the
largest systems consisting of approximately 2,500
linear feet of pipe each, to contain the runoff. The
total storage volume was 1,420 cubic meters.
While the contractor determined that 36-inch pipe
was the most cost effective option, this would have
had required regrading before installation while
maintaining three feet of soil between the pipe and
the groundwater as required by Rhode Island
regulations. The total project cost was $250,000,
which included 9,200 linear feet of 24-inch HDPE
pipe, inspection ports, filter fabric, filter sand
bedding, nine inches of stone fill around each pipe,
and almost three feet of fill over the pipes
(D'Ambra Construction Co., Inc., 2000, and
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., 2000).
There are trade-offs in costs between pipes and
other systems, such as concrete vaults. In some
cases, costs for concrete storage structures can be
lower than those for plastic or corrugated steel
pipes. Because they require less area to achieve the
same storage volume, less area may need to be
excavated for concrete structures than for pipe
systems. This may reduce excavation costs. Using
complete precast concrete sections can decrease
assembly time, further reducing costs. However,
these low costs may be offset by the higher costs of
handling concrete. Installation of a 156-foot long
section of 6-foot by 4-foot concrete precast box
culvert (106 cubic meters) at a car dealership in
Knoxville, Tennessee, was completed in 3 days and
cost approximately $85,000 (Sherman Dixie
Concrete Industries, Inc., 2000).
Case Study: Hauge Homestead Park. Everett.
Washington
The City of Everett, Washington, undertook a
project to detain increased runoff generated from
new facilities (including a dock, a pier, restrooms,
and walkways) in Hauge Homestead Park on Silver
Lake. Only 4 acres of land was available for the
park, some of which was required for a wet
detention pond to capture runoff generated from the
facilities. However, because space was so limited,
the Parks and Recreation Department wanted to
minimize the size of the pond while still providing
-------
the required treatment. The solution was to build
an underground storm water retention/detention
system upstream of the pond to store excess runoff
until it was released at a controlled rate into the
pond. Because the flow into the pond was
controlled, engineers could design a smaller pond
that still achieved the same pollutant removal
efficiency. The underground retention/detention
system was composed of 350 feet of 36-inch HDPE
pipe, which provided 2,847 cubic feet (80.6 cubic
meters) of storage. When added to the 804 cubic
feet of shallow pond and 1,869 cubic feet of deep
pond, the storage capacity exceeded the 5,130 cubic
feet required to handle a 25-year storm event. The
total cost for the underground detention system,
including materials and installation, was $28,190
(City of Everett, Washington, Department of Parks
and Recreation, 2000).
Case Study: Homestead Village Hotel Brookfield,
Wisconsin
In order to meet the requirements for no net
increases in runoff volume from the construction of
the Homestead Village Hotel in Brookfield,
Wisconsin, engineers designed an underground
retention/detention system consisting of 549 feet of
72-inch concrete pipe. Many new development
projects in the suburban Milwaukee area utilize
retention/detention ponds to control runoff because
land is usually available; however, in this case, the
hotel was built into the side of a hill, and
construction of a pond required re-grading the site
and increased costs. Thus, the system was built in
a ring around the hotel, with all roof and floor
drains connected to the system. The designers
chose concrete pipe for several reasons:
• The large size requirement (72 inch pipe);
• The owners wanted a 100-year plus product
lifespan;
• Multiple openings were required in the pipe
for the drain inlets and the designers felt
that concrete pipe would maintain its
strength under these conditions;
• This pipe required a relatively small amount
of fill.
• Both HDPE pipe and CSP were eliminated
as alternatives based on concerns that the
soil conditions would corrode CSP pipe and
seals required for HDPE pipe did not meet
the State pressure-testing requirements.
The system storage capacity is 120,000 gallons,
with outlets through 7-inch diffuser perforations
and also through a 12-inch outlet pipe, which
eventually flows into a roadside ditch, then into a
nearby stream. Overall project costs were
approximately $267,000, including sanitary and
storm sewers (APS Concrete Products, Inc., 2000,
and National Survey & Engineering, Inc., 2000).
Material costs for the concrete pipe accounted for
approximately $75,000 of this total.
Case Study: Jordan Landing. West Jordan. Utah
Jordan Landing is a retail mall in West Jordan,
Utah, covering 80 acres and consisting of retail
stores and parking lots. The complex had no
requirement to detain runoff onsite. One option for
runoff generated by the site was to divert the runoff
to storm water structures downstream. However,
these structures were not large enough to handle the
increased flows, and the cost of constructing the
piping to convey the runoff downstream and
enlarging the downstream controls was deemed too
high. Therefore, the owners opted to detain the
runoff onsite.
Because space was at a premium on the site, the
designers chose on underground retention/detention
as the best option to control runoff. They
considered several options for the detention system,
including corrugated steel pipe, aluminum pipe,
HDPE pipe, concrete vaults, and reinforced
concrete boxes, before deciding that 48-inch
aluminum pipe was the best option. The other
options all had major drawbacks: CSP required an
expensive coating to protect it from site soil
conditions, significantly increasing costs; costs for
HDPE pipe were high because the system design
required numerous expensive "T" fittings; the only
reinforced concrete boxes immediately available
came in specific pre-manufactured sizes that did not
fit the site (in some places on the site there was
only six feet of allowable excavation); and concrete
vaults were too large and expensive.
-------
The selected system utilized helical aluminum pipes
fastened with aluminum bands. The system was
installed by first laying down the header pipes,
which were designed so that the barrel pipes could
be laid directly into them, saving costly fittings.
The barrels were then fitted into the header, and
bands were used to connect the pipes together.
Six separate galleries of aluminum pipe were
initially constructed. A seventh was added later.
Altogether, the project utilized 20,000 feet of pipe
and achieved 7,120 cubic meters in storage volume.
The overall construction costs for the project were
$1.2 million (Nolte Associates, 2000).
A summary of comparative costing information for
on-site underground storm water retention/detention
systems is provided in Table 2.
REFERENCES
Other Related Fact Sheets
Handling and Disposal of Residuals
EPA832-F-99-015
September, 1999
Water Quality Inlets
EPA 832-F-99-029
September 1999
Wet Detention Ponds
EPA 832-F-99-048
September 1999
be found at the
Other EPA Fact Sheets can
following web address:
http ://www. epa. gov/o wrm'tnet/mtbfact.htm
1. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., 1997.
Technical Note 2.120 Re: Storm Water
Detention/Retention System Design.
2. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., 2000.
Materials provided to Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc., by Steven Marsh, Advanced
Drainage Systems, Inc.
3. APS Concrete Products, Inc., 2000. Dennis
Stevens, APS Concrete Products, Inc.,
personal communication with Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc.
4. Center for Watershed Protection, 1998.
Costs and Benefits for Storm Water BMPs.
TABLE 2 COMPARATIVE COST INFORMATION FOR ON-SITE UNDERGROUND STORM
WATER RETENTION/DETENTION PROJECTS
Material
Length of Pipe
(feet)
Diameter of
Pipe (inches)
Maximum
Instantaneous
Storage
Volume (cubic
meters)
Overall Cost
Boneyard
Creek,
Champaign,
IL
CSP
8,600
132
24,600
$9,000,000
Jordan
Landing
Mall, West
Jordan, UT
Aluminum
20,000
48
7,120
$1,200,000
T.F. Green
Airport,
Providence,
Rl
HOPE
12,500
24
1,420
$250,000
Hauge
Homestead
State Park,
Everett, WA
HOPE
350
36
81
$28,190
Homestead
Village
Hotel,
Brookfield,
Wl
Concrete
549
72
454
$267,000
Car
Dealership,
Knoxville,
TN
Concrete Box
Culvert
156
6' x 4' box
106
$85,000
Source: Compiled by Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 2000.
-------
5. City of Alexandria, VA, 2000. Bill Hicks,
Department of Public Works, personal
communication with Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc.
6. City of Champaign, IL, 2000. Jeff Smith,
Department of Public Works, personal
communication with Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc.
7. Contech Construction Products, Inc., 2000.
Patrick Pusey and Dutch Van Schoonveld,
Contech Construction Products, Inc.,
personal communication with Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc.
8. D'Ambra Construction Co., Inc., 2000.
John Oliver, D'Ambra Construction Co.,
Inc., personal communication with Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc.
9. Dewberry & Davis, Inc., 2000. George
Kovats, Dewberry & Davis, Inc., personal
communication with Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc.
10. Everett, Washington, Department of Parks
and Recreation, 2000. Ryan Sass, City of
Everett, Washington, Department of Parks
and Recreation, personal communication
with Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
11. Everett, Washington, Department of Public
Works, 2000. Jane Zimmerman, City of
Everett, Washington, Department of Public
Works, personal communication with
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
12. Fairfax County, Virginia, 2000. Steve
Aitcheson, Fairfax County Municipal Water
Management, personal communication with
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
13. Malibu, California, 2000a. Rick Morgan,
City of Malibu Department of Public
Works, personal communication with
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
14. Malibu, California, 2000b. Rick Morgan,
City of Malibu Department of Public
Works, memorandum to applicants for new
development regarding New Development
Standards to Reduce Water Pollution,
March 3, 2000.
15. National Corrugated Steel Pipe Association,
1999. "Condition Survey of Corrugated
Steel Pipe Detention Systems."
16. National Survey & Engineering, Inc., 2000.
Fred Spelshaus, National Survey &
Engineering, Inc., personal communication
with Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
17. Nolte Associates, 2000. Paul Hacunda,
Nolte Associates, personal communication
with Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
18. Pacific Corrugated Pipe Company, 2000.
Darwin Dizon, Pacific Corrugated Pipe
Company, personal communication with
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
19. Sherman Dixie Concrete Industries, Inc.,
2000. Al Hogan, Sherman Dixie Concrete
Industries, Inc., personal communication
with Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
20. Thompson Culvert Company, 2000. Chris
Hill, Thompson Culvert Company, personal
communication with Parsons Engineering
Science, Inc.
21. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., 2000.
Molly Rogers, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,
Inc., personal communication with Parsons
Engineering Science, Inc.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
American Concrete Pipe Association
Josh Beakley
222 West Las Colinas Boulevard, Suite 641
Irving, TX 75309
City of Champaign, Illinois
Jeff Smith
Department of Public Works
702 Edgebrook Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
-------
Contech Construction Products, Inc.
Phil Perry
P.O. Box 800
Middietown, OH 45044
Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
George Kovats
8401 Arlington Blvd.
Fairfax, VA 22301
Nolte Associates
Paul Hacunda
710Rimpau Ave.
Corona, CA 92879-5725
Pacific Corrugated Pipe Company
Darwin Dizon
P.O. Box 2450
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Vanasse Hangen Brastlin, Inc.
Molly Rogers
530 Broadway
Providence, RI 02909
Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
Larry Gavan
203 Governor Street, Suite 213
Richmond, VA 23219-2094
The mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
For more information contact:
Municipal Technology Branch
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Mail Code 4204M
Washington, DC 20460
IMTB
Excellence in ^^ compliancethrough optimal technical solutions
MUNICIPAL TECHNOLOGY B R A T
------- |