Regional Act 537 Plan
for
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
November 2006
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan
Regional Act 537 Plan for the VFSA
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Section 1 – Previous Planning
Section 2 – Physical and Demographic Analysis
Section 3 – Existing Sewage Facilities
Section 4 – Future Growth and Land Development
Section 5 – Alternatives for Proposed Wastewater Disposal Facilities
Section 6 – Evaluation of Alternatives
Section 7 – Institutional Evaluation
Section 8 – Justification for Selected Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan
Regional Act 537 Plan for the VFSA
Table of Contents
Appendices:
A. Valley Forge Sewer Authority Article of Incorporation
B. Member Municipality Report
C. Member Municipality Validation Report
D. Preliminary Effluent Criteria
E. Detailed Cost Breakdown of Alternatives
F. PNDI Correspondence
G. PHMC Correspondence
H. Member and Partner Municipality Flow Projections
I. Planning Agencies and Municipalities Correspondence
J. Proof of Public Notice and Comments
K. Member and Partner Municipality Plan Adoptions
Executive Summary
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Plan Summary E-1
B. Sewage Treatment Plant Alternatives E-3
C. Implementation Schedule E-4
D. Resolutions of Adoption E-5
E. Comments from Planning Agencies and Municipalities E-5
F. Public Notice E-5
G. Resolution of Inconsistencies E-5
Appendices:
H. Member and Partner Municipality Flow Projections
I. Planning Agencies and Municipalities Correspondence
J. Proof of Public Notice and Comments
K. Member and Partner Municipality Plan Adoptions
Figures:
None
Exhibits:
None
Executive Summary
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page E-1
A. PLAN SUMMARY
This Regional Act 537 Plan presents the basis for establishing and implementing the long-term
wastewater treatment needs for the areas served by the Valley Forge Authority (VFSA). The
VFSA is comprised of the Townships of Schuylkill, East Pikeland and Charlestown and provides
wastewater treatment services to Easttown, East Whiteland, Tredyffrin and Willistown
Townships and Malvern Borough. Herein, this group of eight (8) Municipalities is referred to as
the Service Area Municipalities. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) approved a two-part process whereby the individual municipalities would assess
service area needs and determine wastewater flow projections. Once approved by the
municipalities and the PADEP, this information would be used by the VFSA to perform an
alternative analysis and select an alternative for serving the long-term needs of the communities
in their service area. The goal of the process was to best meet the needs of the communities
while addressing the PADEP rules and regulations along with local issues. The VFSA has been
actively addressing the many and varied issues of this process since the mid 1990’s.
In 1993 the VFSA determined that wet weather flows revealed a potential hydraulic overload of
the plant by 1995. The PADEP required the VFSA to adopt a management plan to “ration”
EDUs to the municipalities. The PADEP also required the initiation of the regional planning
process to address the future wastewater treatment needs of the VFSA service area.
The preparation of the Regional Plan began in 1994. The VFSA retained a consultant to compile
the information prepared by the communities and address the long term conveyance and
treatment needs of the region. Sections 1 through 3 of this Plan were based on information that
originally was prepared in 1993 and earlier by Gannett Fleming, Inc. Due to the nature of the
regional planning process, it has taken to the year 2006 to complete the process, which is
elaborated in Section 5 authored by the VFSA staff and their engineer of record, Buchart Horn,
Inc. (B-H). Obviously population projections made in 1993 are now actual numbers and differ,
some less some more, from the original projections. In order to keep this plan as current as
possible, the sections dealing with wastewater flows and loadings have utilized up-to-date flow
projection information from the individual municipalities which can be seen in Table 4-8 and
Executive Summary
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page E-2
Appendix H. Sections 5 through 8 reflect those numbers. The PADEP recognizes the issues
associated with having to redo the first portion of the Plan and has indicated that as long as the
flow projection data is as current as possible, no revision to the first four (4) sections is required.
For clarity, minor updates have been interjected into the first three (3) sections, and Section 4 has
been updated based on the latest growth estimates in each community served. In these instances,
dates of pertinent data are included so that the update is apparent.
Associated Planning
Wastewater from portions or all of Charlestown, Easttown, East Whiteland, Tredyffrin, and
Willistown Townships and Malvern Borough is transported through the Valley Creek Trunk
Sewer (VCTS), which is owned and operated by Tredyffrin Township, to the VFSA wastewater
treatment plant. Tredyffrin Township is conducting Act 537 planning for the VCTS and the
Wilson Road Pumping Station, which is a critical component of the VCTS, to determine if the
conveyance facilities have adequate capacity to convey the projected wastewater flows to the
VFSA wastewater treatment plant.
With the exception of the Wilson Road Pumping Station, the VCTS has adequate capacity to
convey the projected wastewater flows for the next five years. The capacity of the Wilson Road
Pumping Station, however, will need to be expanded within the next 5 or 6 years. Act 537
planning for the Wilson Road Pumping Station and VCTS is nearing completion and is expected
to be approved in March 2007.
Various alternatives were considered for increasing the capacity of the Wilson Road Pumping
Station, including installing larger pump impellers, installing larger pump impellers and motors,
installing a fourth pump and motor, peak flow storage and off-peak pumping of excess flows,
locating and removing excessive infiltration/inflow, and no action. The recommended
alternative is to install larger pump impellers and motors. The changes will increase pumping
station capacity to 20.16 mgd (peak flow rate), which will be sufficient to meet the wastewater
conveyance needs of the municipalities through the year 2025. The increased pumping station
capacity matches the current capacity of the Wilson Road Pumping Station force main.
Executive Summary
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page E-3
B. Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion Alternatives
Three (3) main alternatives and nine (9) subalternatives were identified as viable options or
interim options to satisfy the wastewater management needs established by the Service Area
Municipalities. The following alternatives were considered for treatment and discharge of a
portion or all on the additional projected wastewater flow from the VFSA member
municipalities.
1. Divert flow to other existing treatment facilities.
1A. Divert French Creek Pump Station discharge to Phoenixville.
1B. Divert Pickering Creek Pump Station discharge to Phoenixville.
2. Construct satellite wastewater treatment facilities.
2A. Locate a satellite plant at Cromby and divert French Creek Pump Station discharge.
2B. Locate a satellite plant at French Creek Pump Station and divert effluent to Cromby
outfall.
3. Upgrade/expand the existing wastewater treatment facilities.
3A. Upgrade existing plant with step feed, primary chemical feed and UV disinfection.
3B. Same as alternative 3A but add a 4th final clarifier.
3C. Same as alternative 3E but add a 3rd primary clarifier.
3D. Innovative alternatives
3E. Same as alternative 3B but add a 3rd aeration tank.
These alternatives can be implemented individually or in combination to meet the wastewater
treatment needs of the study area. Section 5 provides descriptions and preliminary analyses of
each of the nine (9) subalternatives identified.
The selected alternative from Section 5 is 3E (Expand the existing wastewater treatment plant by
upgrade it with complete mix, activated sludge, UV disinfection, adding a 3rd aeration tank, and a
Executive Summary
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page E-4
4th final clarifier). A PADEP approved screening process of the alternatives was utilized for
evaluation. The reasons for elimination of the other alternatives are presented in Section 5.
Cost of Implementation
Table 6-4 includes a present worth evaluation of the forward flow portions of the alternatives
considered. Conceptual level capital costs based on 2006 dollars for upgrading capacity for
treating forward flow, sludge processing, and plant improvements are $10.35 million, $3.62
million, and $6.91 million, respectively. Capital expenditures for expansion and improvements
identified in this Plan will be shared by the Partners on a flow based cost allocation. The
Partners will provide funds for the pending project from funds on hand or through loans or bond
issues.
C. Project Implementation Schedule
Table E-1. Implementation Schedule
Date Task
November 2006 VFSA Approval (November Board Meeting)
December 2006 Submit 537 Plan to Municipalities and County
Planning Agencies and Health Department
February 2006 Public Advertisement of Plan
March 2007 Approval obtained from all Agencies
May 2007 VFSA Adopts
July 2007 Submit to PADEP
October 2007 PADEP approval
January 2008 Design Contract
December 2008 Complete Design
April 2008 Obtain Permits
August 2009 Award Contract
September 2009 Begin Construction
December 2010 Begin Operations
Executive Summary
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page E-5
The VFSA is committed and has the organizational structure in place to implement this project.
The individual municipalities have expressed their desire to finalize this planning document,
adopt, and implement the selected alternatives.
D. Original, signed sealed Resolution of Adoption by Municipalities
The partner and member municipalities were provided the opportunity to review and adopt the
recommendations of this Plan Update. Appendix K provides copies of each municipal Resolution
of Plan Adoption.
E. Comments from the various planning agencies
The VFSA has submitted this plan and requested comments from the various municipal and
county planning agencies. Correspondence documenting plan submission and responses are
provided in Appendix I of this Plan Update.
F. Proof of Public Notice and results of 30 day written comment period
On XX/XX/XXXX the recommendations of this Plan Update are to be listed in The Phoenix.
Proof of this publication, which also established a 30 day written public comment period is
provided in Appendix J of this Plan Update. Any written comments received as a result of the
publication of the Plan Update will be addressed and included in Appendix J.
G. Resolution of Inconsistencies
As documented in Section 6 of this report, the recommendations of this Plan Update are basically
consistent with the environmental regulations associated with wastewater disposal and plan
development.
Section 1
Previous Wastewater Planning
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Introduction and Planning Objectives 1-1
B. Summary of Existing Wastewater Planning 1-5
C. Summary of Municipal and County Planning 1-13
Appendices:
A. Valley Forge Sewer Authority Article of Incorporation
B. Member Municipality Report
C. Member Municipality Validation Report
Figures:
1-1. Public Sewered Areas, Chester County, PA
Exhibits:
None
Section 1 Previous Wastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-1
A. Introduction and Planning Objectives
History
The Valley Forge Sewer Authority (VFSA) was organized in the late 1960s by the Townships of
Schuylkill, East Pikeland, and Charlestown in Chester County, Pennsylvania for the purposes of
acquiring, constructing, maintaining, owning or leasing sewer systems and sewage treatment
works. On November 1, 1970 VFSA entered into an agreement to provide wastewater treatment
services to the following municipalities in Eastern Chester County: Easttown Township, East
Whiteland Township, Malvern Borough, Tredyffrin Township and Willistown Township (Valley
Creek Trunk Sewer (VCTS) Municipalities). The VFSA and each VCTS Municipality has a
specific reserved capacity at the Valley Forge Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), located in
Schuylkill Township. The initial reserve capacities were established in the Valley Forge STP
Agreement of 1970. The VCTS Municipalities and the municipalities comprising the VFSA are
hereafter defined and referred to as the Service Area Municipalities.
The Valley Forge STP is the largest wastewater treatment plant in terms of treatment capacity in
Chester County. The plant was constructed in 1977 to meet a projected design year (1985)
capacity requirement of 8.0 million gallons per day (MGD). The construction of the treatment
plant and collection and conveyance systems resulted in cleaning up the surface water and
groundwater in the region by collecting domestic wastes from malfunctioning and failing on-lot
sewage disposal systems. The wastewater facilities were designed to correct this situation first in
the areas where the problems were most severe, and then to eliminate the existing and potential
water quality problems in other areas within the Service Area Municipalities. These facilities
were also intended to eliminate severe odors, which had been arising from saturated leach fields
and cesspools. The construction of public sewers substantially mitigated these problems in the
Service Area Municipalities.
Through the mid 1980s, the Valley Forge STP's average daily flows remained below its
maximum treatment capacity. The original design flow was not realized in 1985 due to a general
regional slow down in development in the early 1980’s, but as development within the Service
Area Municipalities increased during the later part of the 1980’s, the VFSA recognized the
importance of initiating a regional planning process to examine future wastewater needs.
Section 1 Previous Wastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-2
The Regional Planning Process
In October 1987, a two-part regional planning process was developed and agreed upon by the
Service Area Municipalities. In the first part of the planning process, the Service Area
Municipalities were asked to prepare individual Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plans for the purpose
of providing the VFSA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
with information concerning development potential, proposed expansions to the service area
boundaries, and other documentation related to the development of wastewater flow projections.
The intent was to allow each individual Service Area Municipality to evaluate its development
potential and determine its wastewater needs and priorities within the Act 537 framework. One
of the VFSA’s policies is that it will not, on its own, initiate extension of the service area
boundaries; each municipality must initiate any service area revisions.
In the second part of the process, the information prepared by the Service Area Municipalities
would be used by the VFSA to prepare a regional wastewater facilities plan which in turn, would
be adopted by each Service Area Municipality. PADEP approved this two part plan in a letter
dated May 31, 1988. The municipalities also approved this approach through a series of
documents, copies of which are included in Appendix A. From 1987 to the present, each of the
Service Area Municipalities prepared Act 537 plans, and they have either initiated the approval
process within their own municipality, or have submitted plans to the PADEP for approval. The
status of the Service Area Municipalities’ plans at is summarized in Table 1-1.
Section 1 Previous Wastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-3
Table 1-1. Status of Municipal Act 537 Plans Valley Forge Sewer Authority Partner Municipalities
Municipality Plan Reviewed Municipal Adoption DEP Status Comments
Charlestown Township 4/1989 6/05/1989 Approved 6/17/2002 Plan indicates that no additional capacity needed based on
projected development until 1999.
Easttown Township 3/07/88, rev. to
9/92
7/06/1992 last
approval Approved 3/13/2000 Agreement with Tredyffrin for transmission of 1.484 MGD
through Valley Creek Trunk Sewer (VCTS).
East Pikeland Township 8/26/1991 1/1991
Submitted 12/2/1991 –
conditionally approved
12/9/1994
Plan does not clearly indicate how flow projections were
estimated.
East Whiteland Township 8/12/91 No Approved 11/27/2002 Township plans to obtain further capacity when VFSA increases
treatment capacity at plant.
Malvern Township 11/1993 11/16/1993 Approved 5/12/1995 Borough plans to sell 85,000 gpd of its reserved capacity to
Easttown Township.
Schuykill Township 10/1994 Yes Approved 1996 DEP granted conditional approval in 1996 because of the
incomplete regional plan.
Tredyffrin Township 5/1993 12/13/1993 Approved 12/12/1994 Township maintains agreements with Easttown, E. Whiteland, and
Malvern for use of VCTS.
Willistown Township 7/03/1990 rev.
to 2/06/1991 5/1991 Approved 3/28/2000
Plan notes that Township has elected to purchase an additional
allocation of 200,000 gpd to provide buffer against any changes in
land use policy.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-4
In the spring of 1993, the VFSA reviewed the flow projections provided by the Service Area
Municipalities in the 1992 Chapter 94 Report and determined they did not portray a realistic
projection of wet weather flows. Average daily flows exceeded 8.0 MGD (the then current
capacity) during early 1993. On September 22, 1993, the VFSA provided revised hydraulic
loading projections to PADEP. These projections indicated a potential hydraulic overload by
1995. In response to the revised projections, PADEP acknowledged the projected overload and
directed the VFSA to follow a planning module processing procedure based upon individual
Service Area Municipalities’ EDU commitment lists, first developed in 1991. PADEP also
directed the VFSA to submit a schedule for the preparation and implementation of the regional
Act 537 Plan. The schedule was submitted in December 1993, and the VFSA initiated the
second part of the regional planning process.
The VFSA continues to monitor the remaining STP capacity, and work with the Service Area
Municipalities to encourage infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction. The I/I reduction effort has been
successful and is having a tangible positive effect upon the VFSA system. This is especially true
in Easttown where the projected capacity requirements have been reduced down to their original
reserve capacity of about 1.5 mgd. The planning module procedure plan approved by the Service
Area Municipalities and required by PADEP continued until the STP was rerated to 9.2 MGD in
2000. Since the rerate, new planning modules have been processed on a first come, first serve
basis and are incorporated into each municipalities current Chapter 94 Report.
Planning Objectives
In accordance with the approved plan of study, this Act 537 Regional Plan is being prepared to
meet the following objectives:
1. Identify wastewater planning related to the VFSA that has been previously
undertaken or is planned.
2. Address future treatment plant capacity requirements for the VFSA Service Area
Municipalities.
3. Analyze the existing conveyance system owned and operated by the VFSA to
identify available capacity and problem areas in the system.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-5
4. Gather and analyze data supporting wastewater flow projections to the VFSA
system for short and long-term planning horizons, prepared by the municipalities.
5. Identify future public sewer service areas in the overall region, based on Service
Area Municipalities' Act 537 plans.
6. Analyze alternatives for additional VFSA conveyance facilities and VFSA
wastewater treatment facilities.
7. Evaluate the feasibility of implementing alternative treatment and disposal
methods.
8. Recommend a plan and its implementation schedule.
The VFSA was selected by the municipalities as the lead agency to develop the regional plan,
and after PADEP approval, implement it. The intent of the regional planning process is to
produce a regionally approved and viable document, which supersedes previous wastewater
planning, documents and provides a tool for wastewater facilities management. Toward this end,
the Authority has made every effort to address the comments, suggestions, and concerns of the
Service Area Municipalities, as well as the numerous parties, agencies and groups who have
expressed an interest in this process.
Additionally the VFSA is coordinating their planning efforts with the Service Area
Municipalities involved with the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer System.
B. Identify and summarize all existing wastewater planning and management
activities previously undertaken and determine consistency status.
Existing Wastewater Planning Documents
? Master Sewer Plan, Revised Edition 1970, for Chester County, Pennsylvania
The Chester County Master Sewer Plan, 1970 revised edition, was prepared by Roy F.
Weston Engineers. It was originally published in 1968 and was revised, in part, to
address the planning of a regional system to serve Tredyffrin, Easttown, Willistown, and
East Whiteland Townships and Malvern Borough.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-6
The alternative proposed was the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant in
Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, PA. It was estimated that the proposed
regional wastewater treatment plant would receive a flow of 3.53 MGD by 1978 and 5.97
MGD by 1988.
Due to the relatively great distance of three (3) of the western most municipalities (East
Whiteland Township, Willistown Township and Malvern Borough) from the proposed
regional plant, an alternative plan was suggested. The alternative proposed that
Tredyffrin and Easttown Townships follow the regional plan and have Willistown, East
Whiteland, and Malvern share a joint plant on Little Valley Creek. An additional
alternative proposed for Easttown Township involved conveying sewage to the Radnor-
Haverford-Marple Authority facilities.
As stated previously in this report, the VFSA was organized in the late 1960's by the
Townships of Schuylkill, East Pikeland, and Charlestown and on November 1, 1970
VFSA entered into an agreement to provide wastewater treatment services to the
communities of Easttown Township, East Whiteland Township, Malvern Borough,
Tredyffrin Township, and Willistown Township. All of these Service Area Municipalities
have portions of their township served by the Valley Forge STP, which was constructed
in 1977.
? Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Valley Forge Area Wastewater
Treatment Facility, Chester County, Pennsylvania (September, 1974)
An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for the Valley Forge STP in
September 1974 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region Three. The purpose of the EIS was to give meaningful consideration to the
environmental issues involved in the project, rather than dictate the ultimate solution to
water quality management for the area. The EIS examined the relationship of the
proposed treatment plant to land use plans, policies and controls of the affected area. The
report presents population and growth assumptions used to support the project and to
determine secondary population and growth impacts resulting from the proposed action
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-7
and its alternatives. The EIS also addresses how the project would conform or conflict
with the objectives of approved or proposed Federal, state and local land use plans,
policies and controls, and the positive and negative impacts of the project on the
environment.
As a result of the analysis of all possible alternatives, including environmental effects,
costs, and risks of each such alternative, the EPA concluded that the most appropriate
alternative was an 8 MGD wastewater treatment plant utilizing a completely mixed
activated sludge process with the processed sludge to be landfilled. The report further
concluded that the proposed systems would alleviate existing health hazards, prevent
surface and subsurface water contamination, and with adequate planning of land use and
the publicly owned treatment facilities, provide ways to prevent urban sprawl and insure
orderly future growth.
? Individual Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plans - Summary of VFSA Participation
Information
The following are excerpts from or summaries of the information provided in the most
recent versions of the VFSA Service Area Municipalities' Act 537 Plans. Please note that
as of this writing; only three of the VFSA Service Area Municipalities have plans
approved by PADEP. Therefore, there may be minor revisions to the information
presented in this document, as each municipality moves closer to approval; however, this
will not impact upon the conclusions of this Regional Plan.
Charlestown Township (Approved 6/17/2002)
Wastewater disposal needs will be primarily related to future residential land use and
industrial development in areas zoned for Planned Residential Development (PRD) and
industrial and commercial land use in the southern portion of the Township near and
primarily south of the Turnpike. This area is projected to be serviced by the VFSA sewer
system.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-8
The majority of Charlestown's residences and businesses will continue to employ
conventional or alternate subsurface absorption area systems. As the cost of extending
community sewerage systems outside the original VFSA Service Area is appreciably
higher than within the VFSA Service Area, reliance on the on-lot methods will continue
during the major part of the time frame considered in their Plan.
East Pikeland Township (Approved 12/9/1994)
East Pikeland is a member municipality of the VFSA. The public sewer system in the
Township is designed, monitored, maintained and owned by the VFSA. The majority of
residents in East Pikeland Township are connected to the VFSA. With the exception of
two community systems, the remaining residents rely on individual on-site systems. A
minor portion of West Vincent enters the VFSA system through East Pikeland. This was
approved by agreement in order to alleviate potential public health issues from on-lot
system malfunctions from existing homes outside VFSA’s service area.
Easttown Township (Approved 3/13/2000)
Easttown Township's Act 537 Plan was last revised September, 1992 and adopted by the
Township July 6, 1992. It was approved by PADEP on November 6, 1992.
Easttown Township is well established with respect to sanitary sewage facilities. The
Township areas planned for eventual public sewer service include a number of residential
infill developments, institutional or school facilities, and households currently using onlot
disposal systems. The majority of the collection systems in the Township drain to a
network of 13 pump stations for conveyance through Tredyffrin Township to the Valley
Forge STP. Some small peripheral areas of the Township drain by gravity to Tredyffrin
and Radnor Townships.
Approximately sixty percent of the remaining parcels in the Township that are planned
for eventual inclusion into the public sewer system are in the planning or construction
phases. The development of these parcels necessitates the retrofitting and/or expansion
of some pump stations in the system and associated gravity line extensions.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-9
All multi-family dwelling areas are connected, or are planned for connection, to the
public sewer system. That being the case, and since all other undeveloped areas in the
Township are zoned for single-family dwellings on very large lots, there is no necessity
for any community on-lot systems.
East Whiteland Township (Approved 11/27/2002)
East Whiteland Municipal Authority owns the sewage collection system and leases its
operation to East Whiteland Township. The eastern two-thirds of the Township
including all of Route 30 is now served by the public sewer system. The Township needs
more capacity to accommodate development in western areas of the Township.
Seven private package treatment plants operate in East Whiteland Township. These
treatment plants are generally located in the southern and western portions of the
Township. One community on-lot sewage disposal system is operated at the K.D.
Markley Elementary and Intermediate School.
Approximately one third of the East Whiteland Township land area relies on individual
on-lot disposal systems. The two concentrated areas of on-lot disposal systems are: the
area between Swedesford Road and U.S. Route 30 from Penflex to the Township line,
and the area east of PA Route 352, and north of Summit Road.
Malvern Borough (Approved 5/12/1995)
Malvern Borough's Act 537 Plan was last revised November 1993 and adopted by the
Borough on November 16, 1993. It was submitted to PADEP and is currently under
review. The Borough is almost completely served by the public sewer system. The
Valley Forge STP treats all wastewater flows.
There are no public sewage facilities provided south of First and Second Avenue. This
area, which is made up of the property owned by Malvern Prep and Malvern Retreat and
a few single-family residential units, is served by on-lot sewage disposal systems. The
Borough does not intend to construct a public sewer system in this specific area.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-10
There are also unsewered areas located in the northeast and northwest corners of the
Borough. There are no dwelling units located in these areas. Future wastewater flow
from both of these areas is proposed to be connected to the public sewer system and
conveyed to the Valley Forge STP. The remainder of the Borough is connected to the
public sewer system, which is maintained by the Borough.
Schuylkill Township (Approved 1996)
Schuylkill Township's Act 537 Plan was last updated in October 1994. The Plan
describes anticipated township development by watershed area from 1998 to 2002. In
addition, the Plan describes the number of equivalent dwelling units (EDU's) expected to
be added to the VFSA system.
Two treatment plants serve the public sewage areas of the Township. The majority of
sewered EDUs (approximately 96%) are treated by the Valley Forge STP.
Approximately four percent (4%) of the sewered EDU's are treated at the Phoenixville
Borough's STP.
Overall, seventy percent (70%) of existing dwelling units located within Schuylkill
Township are connected to public sewers. The balance of the Township’s residential
units is served by individual on-lot disposal systems.
Tredyffrin Township (Approved 12/12/1994)
Tredyffrin Township's Act 537 Plan was revised in May 1993, adopted by the Township
on December 13, 1993 and approved by PADEP. The Tredyffrin Township Municipal
Authority's Paoli Area sewerage project (public sewers connected to the VFSA system)
was completed and placed into operation in 1978, thereby eliminating many documented,
malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal systems and providing that area of Tredyffrin
Township with public wastewater facilities. The Paoli Area project, the Authority's
largest to date, included over 30 miles of sewers and four wastewater pumping stations.
Many miles of sewers, and an additional pumping station, have been constructed in this
area since 1978 by various developers.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-11
In 1987, to help alleviate a hydraulic overload at a treatment plant in Upper Merion, the
Cassatt Road pumping station was constructed to divert flow from the Township's Trout
Run drainage area to the Valley Forge STP. This flow has been redirected back to the
Upper Merion plant.
Furthermore, a small portion of the northern section of the Township, which is currently
served by individual on-lot disposal systems, may be connected to the public sewer
system.
Willistown Township (Approved 3/28/2000)
Willistown Township's Act 537 Plan was last revised February 6, 1991 and adopted by
the Township in May, 1991. It was conditionally approved by PADEP on October 16,
1991.
The Township's public sewer system connected to the Valley Forge STP is located in the
northern portion of the Township. The system crosses the ridge separating the Crum and
Valley Creek Watersheds. In addition to this system the Township has nine private or
community treatment facilities. Those areas not served by public or community system
rely on private on-lot disposal systems. According to the Chester County Health
Department (CCHD) there is evidence of on-lot malfunctions in these areas.
The plan recommends that additional capacity be acquired from the VFSA necessary to
meet the future wastewater treatment needs of the northern portion of the Township.
? Municipal Wasteload Management Annual (Chapter 94) Reports
Municipal Wasteload Management Annual Reports are intended to provide a review of
the hydraulic and organic loads on sewerage facilities for the past year and insure that
there is sufficient time to plan and construct needed additions to wastewater treatment
plants. Each Chapter 94 Report provides wastewater flow estimates for a five year
planning horizon.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-12
The VFSA maintains current records regarding the future growth expectations of the
eight communities that are served. Near term growth projections are identified by the
communities and utilized to project the five year future needs, described in the Chapter
94 reports prepared by the VFSA and submitted to the PADEP on a yearly basis. Each
community’s submittal is included as an appendix to VFSA’s yearly submittal to the
PADEP.
The eight communities have maintained a dialogue with the VFSA in order to prepare for
the longer term wastewater needs that are addressed in this Act 537 Plan. Although these
communities are not entirely built out, the future growth courses of these municipalities
have been fairly well defined over the years, and therefore, although the rates of
development may vary based on market conditions, the EDU estimates summarized and
presented in this subsection provide a high degree of confidence.
Adequacy of Previous Planning for Service Area
The Chester County Sewage Plan of 1970 recognized the need to provide regional systems to
serve the entire Pickering Creek, French Creek, and Valley Creek Drainage Basins. The
recommended feasibility studies for the individual municipalities were completed. Due to the age
and general scope of this document, this regional plan will replace the 1970 study as the official
Act 537 Planning study for the VFSA Service Area.
The Valley Forge STP EIS noted that, “the provision of less than 8 MGD capacity for the
treatment plant would not be prudent.” In addition it recommended that revised comprehensive
land use plans and 537 sewage facility plans should be completed as soon as possible to guide
development in the Design Service Area to meet projected 1985 sewer service demands. The
plant was constructed and each of the Service Area Municipalities has prepared revisions to their
individual Act 537 Plans. Although the EIS provides valuable information on the natural and
physical characteristics of the service area, its main emphasis was to evaluate impacts of the
plant at its design year of 1985. Therefore, this document will not be utilized for evaluating
future capacity needs of the service area.
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-13
Sewage facilities planning which has been implemented through official plan revisions (planning
modules) and addenda are referenced in the individual municipal Act 537 Plans, where
appropriate.
C. Identify and summarize all existing municipal and county planning documents,
including land use plans and zoning maps and regulations.
Municipal Planning Documents
The population and wastewater flow estimates prepared by the individual Service Area
Municipalities reflect a number of different variables which impact local development. These
variables include each community's comprehensive land use plan, zoning ordinance, and land
development and subdivision regulations. Each municipality designates a sewer service area
boundary or boundaries, depending on the number of public sewer service areas and
infrastructure needs. The basis for this regional plan is the projections and wastewater facilities
needs identified by the Service Area Municipalities in their Act 537 Plans. As part of the
regional planning process these projections and methods were reviewed for consistency with the
Act 537 planning guidelines and the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Issues
concerning individual plans were discussed with the municipal representatives during the
development of the regional plan.
County Planning Documents
? Landscapes: Managing Land in Chester County (1996-2020)
Landscapes is the land use policy plan for Chester County and was first adopted in 1996,
which includes the County's vision for the year 2020. Landscapes and its associated
Livable Landscapes map were updated in 2000. It recommends that development be
encouraged in designated "Suburban" and "Urban" Landscapes, or "Suburban" or "Rural
Centers" instead of in "Rural" and "Natural" Landscapes.
The Suburban Landscape is to contain a mix of uses and higher densities of development
than those found in the Rural Landscape. In order for this pattern to occur, Landscapes
Section 1 PreviousWastewater Planning
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 1-14
supports the provisions of infrastructure and public services, such as public sewer
systems. VFSA’s draft Regional Plan supports Landscapes Policies to:
? Encourage coordination between municipalities and authorities to ensure consistency
with land use plans.
? Maintain or expand existing sewer and water facilities to support development in
Urban and Suburban Landscapes.
? Sewage Facilities Inventory - 1991
The Chester County Planning Commission prepared this document to update its
Community Facilities Inventory of 1985. The inventory shows the geographic location
of sewage collection, conveyance, and treatment facilities in the County, as of 1991 (see
Figure 1-1). According to the document, approximately 60% of the Chester County
population relies on public sewage facilities for the collection, treatment and disposal of
wastewater (1990 Census). The inventory also notes that the most thoroughly sewered
areas of the County are in the central and eastern sections of the County along Routes 30
and 202. The Valley Forge STP is noted as being the largest treatment facility in the
County in terms of sewage flows.
Growth has been significant in recent years. Whereas VFSA Service Area sewered
EDUs totaled 19,400 in December of 1993, the VFSA now services 25,540 as of year end
2005.

Section 2
Physical and Demographic Analysis
Table of Contents Page No.
A/B. Municipal Borders and Sewer Service Areas 2-1
C. Soils 2-4
D. Geography 2-5
E. Topography 2-7
F. Potable Water Supplies 2-8
G. Wetlands 2-10
Appendices:
None
Figures:
Figure 2-1. VFSA service area
Figure 2-2. Designated and potential connection areas in Service Area Municipalities to Valley
Forge STP
Figure 2-3. Major surface water bodies and drainage basins
Exhibits:
None
Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-1
A/B. Prepare exhibits depicting planning areas, municipal boundaries, and sewer
service areas utilizing USGS topographic maps, municipal comprehensive
maps, and sewer service maps.
Regional Setting
The VFSA Service Area is regionally located in Eastern Chester County, adjacent to
Montgomery and Delaware Counties in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Figure 2-1 shows the
regional setting of the VFSA service area and illustrates the area’s proximity to the Schuylkill
River, Valley Forge National Historical Park and major transportation routes such as the
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Schuylkill Expressway, and State Routes 202, 422 and 23. The area’s
proximity to the City of Philadelphia and its access to a major transportation network have
contributed to its desirability for residential as well as commercial/office development.
Sewer Service Area
The extent of the VFSA Service Area is shown in more detail on Figure 2-2 and includes areas
currently designated or proposed by the Service Area Municipalities for connection to and
treatment by the Valley Forge STP. Prior to construction of the STP in 1977, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to address the plant’s projected impacts and to define areas requiring corrective action. The EIS
identified two service areas: The Initial Service Area and the Design Service Area. The Initial
Service Area contains the most severe health hazards and activities that were degrading water
quality in the area. The Design Service Area was defined as the minimum area to which service
was intended to be extended by 1985, the design year of the treatment plant. A few areas within
Charlestown Township and a small area in West Vincent Township are the only changes to the
Design Service Area projected in the 1974 EIS.
At the start-up of the plant, in October 1977, the estimated number of equivalent dwelling units
(EDUs) to be connected was approximately 3,000. As of December 1993, the VFSA Service
Area included approximately 19,400 EDUs.
The 2005 year end EDUs totaled 25,540.


Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-4
C. Soils
The service area has six soil associations, or general groups. The following gives the typical
characteristics of these associations:
? Penn-Croton-Bucks Association - Deep, silty soil.
? Glenelg-Manor-Chester Association - Generally shallow to deep, silty and channery
soils, ranging from level to steep, but primarily gently to moderately sloping.
? Edgemont Association - Moderately deep, well drained.
? Hagerstown-Conestoga-Guthrie Association - Deep, silty soils.
? Neshaminy-Chrome-Conowings Association - Moderately deep and silty.
? Neshaminy-Glenelg Association - Moderately deep to deep, well-drained, silty,
channery and gravelly.
The soil types are influenced by the geologic formation(s) which underlie them. Graphitic
gneisses and grandiorite are generally overlain by deep and well-drained soils like those in the
Glenelg-Manor Soil Association. The Stockton Formation is primarily overlain by a thin soil
layer, typically of the Penn-Croton-Bucks series. Due to the solution channels which form in
limestone and dolomite in Chester Valley, the soils overlying the Conestoga, Elbrook and Ledger
Formations are generally well-drained and of the Hagerstown-Conestoga-Guthrie Association.
The Chickies Formation is overlain by deep, often strong, well-drained soils, e.g., the Edgemont
Association. The Serpentinite and Wissahickon Schist have deeply weathered rock which
generally improves the percolation characteristics of the overlying soil. Soils such as those in the
Neshaminy-Chrome-Conowings Association overlay these formations.
Specific descriptions of the local soil types found in the VFSA Service Area Municipalities may
be found in the individual municipalities' plans.
Major Drainage Basins
The VFSA service area is divided into two major drainage basins. The majority of the service
area is within the Schuylkill River Basin with the smaller southern portion within the Delaware
River Basin. The area is further divided into sub-major drainage basins: French Creek, Pickering
Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-5
Creek, Valley Creek, Darby Creek, Crum Creek, and Stony Run. The major surface water
bodies and drainage basins are shown on Figure 2-3.
The French and Pickering Creeks are located in the northern portion of the service area. French
Creek flows in an east, southeast direction through the central portions of West Vincent and East
Pikeland Townships and through the northern portion of Schuylkill Township. Pickering Creek
flows eastward through the southern portion of East Pikeland and the northern portion of
Charlestown Township, and then eastward, then north through the central portion of Schuylkill
Township. Flow from these creeks empties into the Schuylkill River. The Valley Creek
watershed flows in a northeast direction through East Whiteland and Tredyffrin Townships and
empties into the Schuylkill River.
The Darby and Crum Creek watersheds are located in the southern portion of the service area.
Darby Creek flows southeasterly through the central portion of Easttown Township. Crum Creek
flows southeasterly through the central and eastern portions of Willistown Township. Both
creeks continue to flow in a southeasterly direction and empty into the Delaware River.
The Stony Run Drainage Basin is found in the northwestern edge of the service area, adjacent to
French Creek and located in East Pikeland Township.
Descriptions of the smaller streams, lakes and impoundments located in the VFSA Service Area
Municipalities may be found in the individual plans.
D. Geologic Features
The geologic features underlying the service area are made up of complex, folded and altered
rocks of varying ages and of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary origins. The following is a
brief summary of the major rock formations underlying the service area.
The northwestern portion of the sewer area is primarily underlain by graphitic gneiss and
granodiorite. These formations characteristically have low permeability. The Stockton

Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-7
Formation is located in the northeastern portion of the service area and is comprised of layers of
sandstone, siltstone and conglomerates. It has moderate to high porosity and permeability, and
provides good surface drainage.
The central portion of the service area is underlain primarily by the Conestoga, Elbrook and
Ledger Formations, which are comprised of limestone and dolomite. These formations
commonly contain solutions channels. The north-central portion of the service area is underlain
by Chickies Formation, which is composed of quartzite, which resists erosion and weathers very
slowly.
The southeastern portion of the VFSA service area is underlain by felsic gneiss, which is highly
resistant to weathering. The central southern portion of the VFSA service area is predominately
underlain by the Wissahickon Formation and Serpentine. Wissahickon Schist and Serpentinite
are moderately to high weathered rocks that provide good surface drainage.
The above-mentioned formations and rocks underlay the majority of the service area. More
detailed descriptions of the underlying geologic formations may be found in the individual
municipalities' plans along with the required mapping.
E. Topography
The service area lies within the Piedmont Province of the Appalachian Highlands. Most of the
ridges tend northeast-southwest. The Piedmont is an area of fairly deep, sharp valleys. The
service area's most steeply sloping land is primarily along the North and South Valley Hills. The
moderately sloping land is predominately in the Pickering Creek Basin. The gentle slopes are
located mainly within Chester Valley.
The service area is comprised of three major physiographic regions: the Schuylkill Valley,
Triassic Lowland, Chester Valley, and West Chester-Paoli Plain. The Schuylkill Valley and
Triassic Lowland, which includes portions of the French and Pickering Creek drainage basins, is
characterized by relatively level, gentle lowlands. Chester Valley, which includes the Little
Valley Creek and Valley Creek drainage basins, extends northeast and southwest across the
Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-8
middle of Chester County. In particular, the southern portions of Charlestown, East Whiteland,
Tredyffrin, and the northern-most portions of Malvern Borough and Willistown Township fall in
the Chester Valley. The West Chester-Paoli Plain, which includes the Crum and Darby Creek
drainage basins, consists of gently rolling terrain.
The topography in the study area is affected by the geologic formation underlying the area. The
topography of the land overlying the graphitic gneiss and granodiorite depends upon the local
variation of the rock hardness, but is generally hilly with medium relief and has natural slopes
which are fairly steep and stable. The Stockton Formation is comprised of rock which erodes
easily and therefore forms gently rolling hills or relatively flat lowlands.
The Conestoga, Elbrook and Ledger formations provide topography with rolling valleys, hills of
low relief, and natural, gentle and stable slopes. Felsic gneiss provides topography of rough hills
of medium to high relief, and natural slopes, which are fairly steep and stable. Serpentinite
weathers easily and has topographic characteristics including undulating hills of low relief
having gentle, stable slopes. The Wissahickon Formation provides undulating hills of medium
relief, and natural slopes which are moderately steep and stable.
Detailed local topography and, in particular, identification of steep slopes in the VFSA Service
Area Municipalities is provided in the individual plans.
F. Potable Water Supplies
The population in the VFSA Service Area obtains drinking water from public water suppliers
and private wells. Major water supply systems in the VFSA Service Area are summarized in
Table 2-1.
Groundwater availability in the VFSA Service Area is limited by the low porosity and
permeability of most of the underlying rock formations. These crystalline rock formations in the
county provide some available groundwater in the fractures and fissures. The Triassic sediments
located in the Stockton Formation provide the best groundwater yields in the area. Groundwater
Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-9
pollution is possible in areas where the sandstones are particularly permeable. The limestone
underlying the Chester Valley has variable groundwater yields. The channels create the potential
for groundwater contamination to be carried long distances in unpredictable patterns.
Table 2-1. MajorWater Systems Servicing VFSA Service Area Municipalities
MajorWater Supply
Systems
Location of Supply
Area within VFSA
Service Area
Population Served
Water Source(s)
Philadelphia Suburban
Water Company
Easttown, Tredyffrin,
Schuylkill, Charlestown
East Whiteland and
Willistown Townships
N/A (Serves more
than VFSA Service
Area Municipalities)
Crum, Perkiomen, and
Neshaminy Creeks and
Schuylkill River intakes
Nichols MHP Water
System
Schuylkill Township 27 One well
Phoenixville Water
System
Schuylkill and East
Pikeland Townships
N/A (Serves more
than VFSA Service
Area Municipalities)
Schuylkill River intake
Phoenix MHP Water
Systems Nos. 1 and 2
East Pikeland Township 171 Three wells
Citizens Utilities
Home Water Company
East Pikeland Township 10,768 Schuylkill River intake
Three wells
Merlin Hills Water
System (owned by
Citizens Utilities)
East Pikeland Township 313 One well
Fox Knoll Water
Company
Small portion of south
central East Pikeland
Township
N/A One well
Deerfield Knoll Water
System
Willistown Township 260 Two wells
Plumsock Road
Homeowners Assoc.
Willistown Township 100 Two wells
Malvern Courts Water
System
East Whiteland
Township
220 Two wells
Philadelphia Suburban
Water Company
Malvern Borough 3,100 Three wells
N/A - Not Available
Source: Chester County Planning Commission, Water Facilities Inventory, 1991
Section 2 Physical and Demographic Analysis
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 2-10
G. Wetlands
A review of the National Wetland Inventory quadrangles that include the VFSA Service Area
(Phoenixville, Collegeville, Malvern, Valley Forge, West Chester and Media) has shown that
Palustrine wetlands are scattered throughout the Service Area due to the presence of a number of
surface water bodies. The individual municipalities' plans provide more detailed information on
the wetlands located in the Service Area.
Section 3
Existing Sewage Facilities
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Description of Existing Sewage Facilities
a. Wastewater Treatment 3-1
b. Collection System 3-7
B. Description of Areas Using Onlot Sewage Disposal Systems 3-10
C. Solids Handling 3-13
Appendices:
None
Figures:
3-1. Treatment Plant Site Layout
3-2. Treatment Plant Schematic
Exhibits:
None
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-1
A. Identify, map, and describe municipal and non-municipal, individual and
community sewerage systems in the planning area.
VFSAWastewater Treatment System
The Valley Forge STP is owned and operated by the VFSA and is located in Schuylkill
Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. A site plan of the treatment plant is included as
Figure 3-1. The VFSA finances, owns and operates the Valley Forge STP in accordance with the
provision of the agreements signed on November 1, 1970; the Valley Forge Sewage Treatment
Plant Agreement; the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer Agreement; and the East Whiteland Trunk Line
Agreement.
Treated effluent is discharged into the Schuylkill River at a point located approximately 2000
feet upstream from Pawling Road. The plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit No. 0043974 is dated July 19, 2004 and expires on July 31, 2009. It states that
the average monthly flow of effluent discharged from the plant shall not exceed 9.2 MGD. The
permit also establishes effluent discharge limits and requirements. These parameters are
summarized in Table 3-1.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-2
TABLE 3-1. Discharge Parameters for the Valley Forge Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharge
Parameter
Average
Monthly
(lbs/day)
Average
Weekly
(lbs/day)
Average
Monthly
(mg/l)
Average
Weekly
(mg/l)
CBOD-5
(5-1 to 10-31)
1535 2302 20.0 30
CBOD-5
(11-1 to 4-30)
1918.0 3069.0 25.0 40
Suspended
Solids
2302 3453 30.0 45
Ammonia as N
(5-1 to 10-31)
614 --- 8.0 ---
Ammonia as N
(11-1 to 4-30)
1228 --- 16.0 ---
Fecal Coliform (200 colonies/100 ml as a geometric average)
pH (Within limits of 6.0-9.0 standard units at all times)
Dissolved
Oxygen
(Minimum of 5.0 mg/l at all times)
Total Residual
Chlorine --- --- 0.5 ---
In addition, the following parameters are required to be monitored only: total lead, zinc, arsenic,
cadmium, selenium, silver, mercury, copper, free cyanide, and hex chromium.
Description of Treatment Process
The Valley Forge Sewer Authority Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was constructed in the mid-
1970's with a design hydraulic capacity of 8.0 MGD. Design constituents loadings were 16,680
lbs/day [250 mg/L] for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD-5); 16,680 lbs/day
[250 mg/L] for total suspended solids [TSS]; and 2,000 lbs/day [30 mg/L] for ammonia nitrogen
(NH4-N). Presently, the plant is permitted at a not-to-exceed monthly average flow of 10.4
MGD, and a not-to-exceed average annual flow of 9.2 MGD. Hydraulic capacity is defined as
“the rated hydraulic capacity of the treatment facility and is used to help determine whether a
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-3
hydraulic overload exists. Monthly average effluent discharge limitations are 20/25 mg/L for
CBOD-5; 30 mg/L for TSS; and 8/16 mg/L for NH4-N.
Mainstream wastewater processing as depicted in Figure 3-2, consists of influent
metering/distribution, primary clarification, mechanically aerated activated sludge, final
clarification, and chlorination for effluent disinfection. Sludge stream processing consists of
primary underflow degritting, gravity co-thickening of primary and waste activated sludge,
centrifuge dewatering, and dewatered cake stabilization via post-lime addition. Stabilized biosolids
disposal is by contracted hauling/disposal services.
The original plant design is unique in that it allows for operation of two parallel mainstream
treatment trains. At the influent/metering structure, control gates and two parallel Parshall
flumes distribute and measure flow to Side No. 1 and Side No. 2 of the plant, each side
consisting of a primary clarifier, aeration tank, and final clarifier in the original design. In 1992,
a third, larger final clarifier was built and is aligned with Side No. 2 and the original two final
clarifiers are now aligned with Side No. 1. The aeration tanks effluent distribution chamber was
also modified to accommodate flow splitting to the final clarifiers, and a new return activated
sludge distribution chamber was constructed to maintain segregation of RAS for the two
treatment trains. A weir box was added to the influent/metering structure to allow for
distribution of in-plant recycle flow to Side No. 1 and Side No. 2 by weir gate settings.
Previously, the side-stream recycle flow was dedicated to Side No. 2.
The original designed and constructed plant included a pressure filtration system for clarified
effluent suspended solids removal and a heat treatment system for biosolids stabilization. These
have since been decommissioned. The pressure filtration tanks are in place in the Operations
Building basement and are available for reuse for hauled-in wastewater storage/feeding. Most of
the heat treatment equipment has been removed. The decant tank (DT) and the decant aeration
tank (DAT) have been retained and serve as receiving/storage tanks for hauled-in wastewaters.
Original piping/pumping equipment associated with these tanks remains and serves for transport
of the stored hauled-in wastewaters to the process application points.


Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-6
Influent wastewater streams enter the plant through an influent metering chamber. Compatible
liquid wastewaters are accepted from tank trucks at a septage acceptance facility where this
wastewater receives pretreatment consisting of screening and grit removal. Following
equalization it is pumped to the existing gravity thickening. Trucked wastes are accepted during
normal working hours.
Description of Problems
There were no significant problems with the existing facilities at the Valley Forge STP during
2005 and this excellent performance was documented in the 2005 Engineer’s Annual Report.
Upgrading or Expansion of Treatment Facilities
The Valley Forge STP was upgraded by the addition of a final clarifier and upgrading the
chlorine contact tanks. This work was completed during 1992 and placed into service in
December of 1992. The clarifier and contact tank remained in service in 1993 and refinement of
the operation of the instrumentation occurred in 1993. Since the initial preparation of this
document, the VFSA has accomplished the plant re-rate to 9.2 mgd, which was completed in
2000. Several improvements have been made in recent years including:
? Upgrading plant controls with improvements such as variable frequency drives (VFDs),
and process logic controllers (PLCs).
? Adding a biosolids mixing and conveyance system to mix hydrated lime with bio-solids
cake and convey the material from centrifuges to tractor trailers.
? Replacement of the plant’s main motor control centers with new modern equipment.
Description of Operation and Maintenance Requirements
According to the VFSA's 2005 Engineer's Annual Report, operation and maintenance of the
Valley Forge STP was performed adequately. The treatment plant is staffed 16 hours per day,
five days per week. The operation of the treatment plant is monitored on weekends and staffed
five hours per day on Saturday and Sunday. Remote alarms acknowledge emergency conditions
that alert the staff to respond to the facility during unattended hours.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-7
The plant's Operations and Maintenance Manual is routinely maintained. Ongoing improvements
to the preventive/predictive maintenance and annual treatment unit inspection programs are
continuing. Short and long-range planning is formalized for machinery rehabilitation, upgrades
and replacements; facility repair and upgrades; and vehicle replacement and upgrades. The
implementation of a computerized Operations and Maintenance Management System is
complete. This system automatically creates schedules for planned and preventative maintenance
work.
Major VFSA Service Area Sewer System Components (Collection System)
The VFSA finances, owns and operates its collection and transmission facilities in East Pikeland,
Charlestown and Schuylkill Townships’ independent of the 1970 Agreement. The other VFSA
Service Area Municipalities are responsible for the financing, ownership and operation of their
collection and conveyance system independent of any agreements, and are also parties to
agreements where they use facilities in downstream municipalities.
Two major agreements have been signed with respect to sewer system components within the
VFSA Service Area: the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer (VCTS) Agreement and the East Whiteland
Trunk Line (EWTL) Agreement. In accordance with the VCTS Agreement, Tredyffrin is
responsible for financing, ownership and operation of the VCTS within Tredyffrin, the main
pumping station and the force main to the Valley Forge STP. East Whiteland, in accordance
with the EWTL Agreement, is responsible for the financing, ownership and operation of the
EWTL within East Whiteland.
Trunk Lines
The two major wastewater trunk lines that convey flow to the Valley Forge STP are the VCTS
and EWTL. The portion of the VCTS located in Tredyffrin Township was financed, and is
owned and operated by Tredyffrin. All of the wastewater flow to the Valley Forge STP from
Tredyffrin, Easttown, East Whiteland, Willistown Townships, Malvern Borough, and a portion
of the VFSA flow from Charlestown is conveyed to the plant via Tredyffrin’s VCTS facilities.
These facilities include gravity sewers and force mains, the Little Valley Intercepting Sewer and
the Wilson Road Pumping Station and force main. The 1993 flow through the Wilson Road
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-8
Pumping Station was 5.192 mgd. The 2005 flow through the Wilson Road pumping station was
6.126 mgd.
The EWTL is financed, owned, and operated by East Whiteland Township. The EWTL conveys
flow from East Whiteland, Malvern and Charlestown. The 1993 flow through the EWTL was
1.67 mgd.
Pumping Stations
Wastewater generated by the sewered service areas in East Whiteland, Easttown, Malvern,
Tredyffrin, Willistown, West Vincent, Charlestown, East Pikeland, and Schuylkill Township is
ultimately discharged to the common influent chamber of the plant's influent/metering structure
from two main pumping stations --- the Wilson Road Pump Station in Tredyffrin (30-inch force
main) and the Pickering Creek P.S. in Schuylkill Township (20-inch force main). Note: The
Wilson Road Pumping Station is the subject of a separate Act 537 Plan by Tredyffrin Township.
Pickering Creek P.S. has a firm discharge capacity of 5.6 MGD, and an installed pumping
capacity of 12.6 MGD. Comminutors at these pumping stations macerate solids prior to
pumping. A composite sampler at the plant's influent/metering structure samples the combined
pumped-in raw wastewater.
The major pumping stations within the area have been identified in the following table. Their
locations have been identified on Figure 2-2, Existing Sewage Facilities.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-9
Table 3-2. Major Service Area Pumping Stations
Pumping Station Owner
Rated
Maximum Daily
Capacity
(MGD)
1993 Average
Daily
Flow (MGD)
2005 Average
Daily
Flow (MGD)
Pickering Creek VFSA 4.750 0.780 1.165
White Horse Road VFSA 4.600 0.681 0.874
Pot House Road VFSA 3.200 0.592 0.690
French Creek VFSA 2.900 0.440 0.600
Mill Lane East Whiteland 2.073 0.415 0.967
Station 3 Malvern 1.710 0.396 0.269
Berwyn Easttown 1.526 0.630 0.858
Wilson Road P.S. Tredyffrin 16.272 1.706 6.131
Darby Road Tredyffrin 1.008 0.479 0.385
*Major pumping stations were identified as those having a rated capacity of 1.0 mgd or more.
Force Mains
The Wilson Road force main receives wastewater flow from Tredyffrin, Easttown, East
Whiteland, Willistown Townships, Malvern Borough, and a portion of the VFSA flow from
Charlestown. The design capacity of the force main is 8.393 MGD.
VFSA System Compliance with MunicipalWasteload Management Regulations
According to the VFSA 1993 Chapter 94 Report, none of the 1993 average daily flows at the
major pumping stations within the VFSA exceeded their rated capacities. Also, none of the
highest daily flows exceeded the major pumping stations' capacities. The projected maximum
daily flows for the major pumping stations were determined for ultimate build out of the service
areas.
More recently the report entitled, “Validation of the Member Municipality Collection System
Portion of the Regional Act 537 Plan,” November 2005, stated that the VFSA flow projections
do not exceed the flow allocation of any pump station capacity. Any long term capacity Issues
may be addressed as the 30-plus-year-old pumps stations are modernized.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-10
Description of Operation and Maintenance Requirements of Major VFSA Service Area
Sewer System Components
A formal predictive/preventative maintenance program covers all VFSA-owned pumping
stations, which are visited routinely, several times per week. Each pumping station has on-site
emergency power and portable bypass pumping capability. All stations have auto transfer
electrical back up systems.
In the VFSA owned collection system, problem sewer lines are routinely flushed. The VFSA
has annual contracts for right-of-way clearing and I/I correction. The annual I/I study and
corrective action plan includes: key manhole monitoring, plug and weir testing in problem areas,
internal video inspection and cleaning and grouting where necessary.
VFSA has sufficient staffing assigned to maintain the collection system. Repair maintenance
activities are supported by a plant maintenance staff assigned to duties at the VFSA treatment
plant and collection system.
B. Identify, map, and describe areas that utilize individual and community onlot
sewage discharge and, unpermitted collection and disposal systems.
The following are summaries of or excerpts from the municipalities’ most recent Act 537 plans
regarding on-lot sewage disposal systems. More detailed information can be found in the
individual plans.
Charlestown Township
A large portion of the Township is serviced by on-lot disposal or alternative systems. The
greatest concentration of the sewage disposal problem areas was in the northern portion of the
Township in the Tyrone Farms neighborhood, an area which was served by a community
sewerage system. Further discussion on malfunctions of the systems and soil limitations in the
Township is included in Sections 3 (C) and (D) of the Township’s Act 537 Plan.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-11
East Pikeland Township
The majority of residents in East Pikeland Township are connected to the VFSA. With the
exception of two community systems, the remaining residents rely on individual on-site systems.
According to East Pikeland’s Act 537 Plan, after considering the cost of extending sewer lines,
many Township residents will not be connected to the VFSA. These residents, for the most part,
will utilize individual on-lot systems. The Township has been divided into five study areas in the
Plan. The Plan provides information on the current wastewater disposal methods used and the
alternatives and proposed recommendations for future wastewater planning in each of the study
areas.
Easttown Township
Four areas in the Township are not planned for public sewers. All are large lot zoning (80,000
sf) and all have soils suitable for on-site sewage. The first area is Waynesborough Country Club.
The second area is the YMCA tract, located in the northwest portion of the Township. These two
tracts have existing uses served by public sewer. However, future use and capacity issues dictate
that on-lot systems be considered. The other two areas are in the southern portion of the
Township. One is the southwest corner of the Township around White Horse Road. The second
is in the south central portion of the Township in the vicinity of the easterly portion of Waterloo
Road. All multi-family (community) systems are already connected, or are planned for
connection, to the public sewer system.
EastWhiteland Township
Approximately one third of East Whiteland Township relies on individual on-lot disposal
systems. Existing systems have operated with few reports of malfunction. According to the Act
537 Plan, the Chester County Health Department reported two concentrations of on-lot disposal
system malfunctions in the Township: the area east of PA Route 352, north of Summit Road, and
the area between Swedesford Road and U.S. Route 30 from Penflex to the Township line. The
malfunctions are primarily due to shallow depth to bedrock and other soil characteristics which
prevent adequate percolation.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-12
Malvern Borough
The area in the Borough that does not have public sewers is owned by Malvern Prep, Malvern
Retreat, and a few single-family residential units located along Paoli Pike and on South Warren
Avenue just south of Second Avenue. These areas utilize on-lot sewage disposal facilities for
wastewater disposal. A small area of ground located in the far northeast corner of the Borough
that abuts Willistown Township and an area of ground in the northwest corner of the Borough
that is located north of the railroad tracks and that abuts East Whiteland Township both do not
have public sewers. Currently, there are no buildings on the latter two parcels of land. There are
no known malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal facilities in the Borough.
Schuylkill Township
According to the Township's Act 537 Plan Update, approximately 30% of the residential units
located within Schuylkill Township utilize individual on-lot disposal systems. These systems
include cesspools, conventional septic system with absorption fields, and elevated sand mounds.
There is one area in the Township which is experiencing on-lot system malfunctions.
Approximately four to five existing malfunctioning units are located in the vicinity of Route 29
and Creek Road. The Plan indicates that these units will be connected to the planned
Charlestown Hunt interceptor.
The Township is currently updating its 1976 holding tank ordinance and intends to adopt an
individual on-lot management ordinance and implement an on-lot management program this
year.
Tredyffrin Township
There are approximately 500 on-lot sewage systems in Service Area A of Tredyffrin Township.
All but about 10 to 15 of the 500 serve individual homes. It has been assumed, based on permit
records that approximately half of these systems were constructed since Act 537 and Chapter 73
regulations were enacted. Most of the malfunctions occurred due to the age of the systems and
because over one-half of the original systems predated present design standards and are
approaching the end of their life expectancies. In 1991, Gannett Fleming, Inc. met with
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-13
representatives of the Chester County Health Department to discuss the existing problem areas in
Service Area A. As a result of these discussions, ten specific areas were identified as having
permitting problems or malfunctions. More detailed information can be found in Section 6.1.1 of
Tredyffrin Township’s 1993 Act 537 Update.
Willistown Township
The distribution of on-lot system malfunctions shows a concentration in the central portion of the
township directly south of Malvern Borough. Comparing the soil suitability for on-lot disposal
systems to the concentration of failing systems indicates soils, which are severely limited by
flood plain and high water table areas. Remaining sites of on-lot malfunctions were not
concentrated in any one area although most occur in the northern half of the municipality. These
failures can be attributed to poor soil conditions, age of systems, and a lack of maintenance.
C. Identify wastewater bio-solids and septage generation, transport, and disposal
methods.
Primary bio-solids, waste activated sludge, and hauled-in-septage are co-thickened in the plant's
two gravity thickeners, which supply thickened bio-solids to the centrifuge feed pumping system.
Concentrated bio-solids from each thickener flows through an in-line grinder prior to pumping
by its associated progressive-cavity feed pump. Two solid-bowl centrifuges located on the upper
level of the Operations Building dewater thickened bio-solids. Centrate from the dewatering
operation is discharged to the plant's side stream storage tanks, referred to as the in-house
loading tanks (IHLT). Centrate is returned to the head of the plant for processing. Centrifuge
feed bio-solids is conditioned prior to dewatering by polymer addition from the drypolymer/
solution makeup and feed system. Dewatered bio-solids cake discharged from the
centrifuges drops down to a screw conveyor system whose purpose it is to mix the bio-solids
cake with the hydrated lime while carrying it outside of the building to a trailer attached to a
jockey truck. The lime conditioned bio-solids are piped to a trailer located on a jockey truck.
Trailers are removed from the site on a daily basis so as to minimize odors. The trailers are
transported by tractor-trailer by a private contractor to permitted farmland where it is used as a
natural fertilizer.
Section 3 Existing Sewage Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 3-14
VFSA secures its own landfill disposal approvals. The current biosolids disposal contractor,
Synagro, hold permits for agricultural, landfill, and compost disposal sites. Synagro is
responsible for coordinating biosolids disposal to any of these sites to satisfy its overall biosolids
management program.
Section 4
Future Growth and Land Development
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Municipal and County Planning Documents 4-1
B. Future Growth Areas and EDU Projections 4-1
Appendices:
None
Figures:
None
Exhibits:
None
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-1
A. Identify and briefly summarize all municipal and county planning documents
adopted pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
See Section 1 for summaries of this information.
B. Future growth areas and EDU projections
The VFSA Service Area includes parts of eight (8) municipalities and provided wastewater
collection, conveyance and treatment to approximately 25,511 EDUs as of the end of 2005. The
Service Area is located in Eastern Chester County, an area whose growth continues to be
influenced by suburban expansion outward from Philadelphia through Chester, Delaware, and
Montgomery Counties.
The VFSA maintains current records regarding the future growth expectations of the eight (8)
communities that are served. Near term growth projections are identified by the communities
and utilized to project the five-year future needs, described in the Chapter 94 reports prepared by
the VFSA and submitted to the PADEP on a yearly basis. Each community’s submittal is
included as an appendix to VFSA’s yearly submittal to the PADEP. The eight (8) communities
have maintained a dialogue with the VFSA in order to prepare for the longer term wastewater
needs that are addressed in this Act 537 Plan. Although these communities are not entirely built
out, the future growth courses of these municipalities have been fairly well defined over the
years, and therefore, although the rates of development may vary based on market conditions, the
EDU estimates summarized and presented in this subsection provide a high degree of
confidence. The following discussion provides a summary of these short and long term
estimates of growth rates which were used to establish the EDU and long term capacity needs of
the VFSA.
Some historical perspective on development patterns and growth is provided in Appendix B,
which is from the draft Act 537 report prepared in 1994.
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-2
Partner Municipalities (Easttown, East Whiteland, Malvern, Tredyffrin, Willistown)
Easttown Township
As of the end of 2005 Easttown had a total of 3,511 EDUs contributing about 1.4 mgd to the
VFSA wastewater treatment plant. Easttown estimates that by 2010, there will be an additional
240 EDUs served by the VFSA. The compilation of the near term subdivision growth is listed in
Easttown’s latest Chapter 94 Report Submittal. The corresponding average daily flow rate
projected in 2010 is 1.423 mgd. Thirty years later, by year 2035, Easttown Township projects a
total of 4,115 EDUs that will contribute 1.523 mgd to the VFSA system roughly equaling its
current treatment plant reserve capacity. Therefore, Easttown projects that additional capacity is
not needed to serve their long term growth needs. Table 4-1 is the long term EDU and average
daily flows projected by Easttown Township for the next 30 years.
Table 4-1. Easttown EDU/Flow Growth Estimates
Year Easttown EDU’s Average Daily Flow (mgd)
2005 3,511 1.357
2010 3,751 1.423
2015 3,824 1.443
2025 3,973 1.484
2035 4,115 1.523
It is noted that Easttown has made and is making significant progress is reducing infiltration and
inflow (I/I) within their service area.
East Whiteland
At the end of 2005 East Whiteland had a total of 5,393 EDUs contributing about 1.97 mgd to the
VFSA wastewater treatment plant. East Whiteland estimates that by 2010, there will be an
additional 1,622 EDUs served by the VFSA. The compilation of the near term subdivision
growth is listed in Easttown latest Chapter 94 Report Submittal. Virtually the entire area
encompassed by East Whiteland will be served by the VFSA at total build out, and East
Whiteland expects that the growth rate will be relatively steady for the next 30-years.
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-3
Table 4-2 presents East Whiteland’s projected EDU and average daily flow rates to the VFSA
treatment plant.
Table 4-2. East Whiteland EDU/Flow Growth Estimates
Year EastWhiteland EDU’s Average Daily Flow (mgd)
2005 5,393 1.963
2010 7,015 2.409
2015 8,469 2.809
2025 10,288 3.309
2035 12,469 3.909
The current reserved capacity for East Whiteland is 1.940 mgd compared to an average daily
flow of 3.909 mgd. Therefore at build out, East Whiteland will require an additional 1.97 mgd
of treatment plant reserve capacity to serve their long term needs.
Malvern Borough
As of the end of 2005 Malvern Borough had a total of 1,658 EDUs contributing about 0.329 mgd
to the VFSA wastewater treatment plant. Malvern estimates that by 2010, there will be an
additional 52 EDUs served by the VFSA. The compilation of the near term subdivision growth
is listed in Malvern’s latest Chapter 94 Report Submittal. Malvern’s future growth rates are
outlined below in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3. Malvern EDU/Flow Growth Estimates
Year Malvern EDU’s Average Daily Flow (mgd)
2005 1,658 0.329
2010 1,710 0.352
2015 1,730 0.358
2025 1,850 0.391
2035 1,973 0.425
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-4
Malvern’s current reserve capacity is 0.543 mgd; therefore at build out, Malvern Borough will
not exceed its current reserve capacity.
Tredyffrin
At the end of 2005, the total number of EDU’s connected to the VFSA system from Tredyffrin
was 5,967.
By 2035, Tredyffrin expects additional growth to result in an average daily flow 2.1 mgd
resulting from EDU growth of an additional approximate 2,900 EDUs. Tredyffrin’s current
reserve capacity at the VFSA treatment plant is 2.001 mgd; therefore Tredyffrin will require an
additional 0.099 mgd of reserve capacity.
Willistown
As of the end of 2005, the total number of EDU’s connected to the VFSA system was 2,521,
contributing an average daily flow of about 1.2 mgd. Most of Willistown’s growth is expected to
occur over the next 5 years and the specific developments are described in Willistown’s latest
Chapter 94 report. The growth is expected to occur as detailed in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. Willistown EDU Growth Estimates
Year Additional Willistown EDUs
2006 285.5
2007 208
2008 242
2009 240.5
2010 59
In the longer term, Willistown estimates their ultimate EDU count to increase by about 10% to
3,075 EDU’s in 2035, resulting in an average daily flow rate of 1.348 mgd. The current reserve
capacity for Willistown Township is 1.064 mgd, resulting in the need for an additional 0.284
mgd of reserve capacity at the treatment plant.
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-5
Member Municipalities (Charlestown, East Pikeland, and Schuylkill Townships)
Charlestown
The VFSA treatment plant serves approximately 549 EDU’s in Charlestown Township.
Projected future growth in Charlestown Township is outlined by subdivision in Table 4-5. It is
expected that by 2015, there will be an additional 336 EDUs and by 2020 there will be another
additional 409 EDUs resulting in a total of 1,294 EDUs by 2020. At build out, expected to occur
by 2025, it is estimated that there will be another 389 EDUs added, resulting in a total of 1,683
EDUs served by the VFSA treatment plant.
Table 4-5. Charlestown EDU Projection by Subdivision
Zoning Amendment under consideration by Charlestown Twp.
East Pikeland
The VFSA treatment plant serves approximately 2,600 EDU’s in East Pikeland. Projected future
growth in East Pikeland Township is outlined by subdivision in Table 4-6. It is expected that by
2015, there will be an additional 260 EDUs and by 2020 there will be an additional 157 EDUs
resulting in a total of 3,015 EDUs by 2020. At build out, expected to occur by 2025, there will
be a total of 3,117 EDUs served by the VFSA treatment plant.
Drainage Basin
2004
Yr. End
EDUs
Platted EDUs
as of 12/2004
5 Yr
Proj. Proposed EDUs
10 Yr.
Proj. Undeveloped Land
20 Yr.
Proj.
Total
EDUs
Lee Tire Blvd. (3010) 301 Commons@ GV 28 Volpi 60 Behind Spring Oak 15
DeVault Meats 34 Griffin 33 Across from Spring Oak 6
Late Spring Dev. 10 Cellucci 11 Yellow Spring's Road 7
Laurabrooke 20 Warner Lane 12 Rte 29 & Chrlstwn. Rd 35
Spring Oak Bus.
Center 53
Charlestown
Saloon 10
North Side of School
Farm Residence 1
Charlestown
Elementary 13
Adj. To Laurabrooke-
Phoenix Pike 25
20 Single Family 20 DeVault Meats (add’l) 65
*DeVault Areas 250
Remaining Acreage
throughout basin 198
Route 401
Charlestown
Meadows 191
Sidley Road 248 Adj. To Chas. Oaks 32
VALLEY CREEK DB 549 336 409 389 1,683
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-6
Table 4-6. East Pikeland EDU Projection by Subdivision
Drainage Basin
2004 Yr.
End
EDUs
Platted EDUs
as of 12/2004
5 Yr
Proj. Proposed EDUs
10 Yr.
Proj. Undeveloped Land
20 Yr.
Proj.
Total
EDUs
Rte 724 North of Rte 23
- New Act 537 Service
Area – added by
Kimberton
Meadows 23
Phoenixville
Crossing
Schuylkill Rd.
112
Rte 724 @ Rte 23 20
East Pikeland Twsp Corp. 2
Kimble Drive (2008) 77 Barn at Croft 3
Kimble Drive (3008) 22 Kimberton 2 Campbell Tract 35
French Creek (2009) 2,384 Brimful Farm 2 Cornerstone Bank 1.0 Emery Oil Co. 3
French Creek (3009)
West Vincent (4009) 88
27
Coldstream
Crossing 141
Fitzsimmons
French Creek Inn
1.0
6
Fish & Game
Frog Hollow Miller Rd
N.
0
20
Hares Hill@ Camp
Council
Deer Run Lane 3
*
Henry Co. 3
Heritage Coccia 25 Rte 113 - Shelly's 6
Kimberbrae 3 Steimer 5
Kimberton
Square 10 Weinstein 45
Kimberton Valley
Homes 6
Main Line
Animal Rescue
Miller Machine
Shop
Pothouse Road 7
Shick 3
St. Basil 1
Western Road 3
Yentis 6
Kimberton
Elementary
School 22
FRENCH CREEK PS 2598 260 157 102 3,117
Schuylkill
The VFSA treatment plant currently serves approximately 3,058 EDUs in Schuylkill Township.
Consistent with the Draft Regional Plan, the Board of Schuylkill Township approved amending
EDU projections to include an additional 294 EDUs at build out, plus an additional 63 EDU’s for
commercial development resulting in about 360 additional EDU’s at build out. The Plan
estimates this growth to occur at the rate shown in Table 4-7.
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-7
Table 4-7. Schuylkill EDU Growth
Time Frame Additional Schuylkill Twp. EDUs
2005-2010 149
2010-2015 132
2015-2035 76
Total 357
Member Municipality Reserve Capacity
The Member Municipalities’ projected capacity requirement at build out of 1.957 mgd, based on
the historical flow rate of 240 gpd per EDU, is less than the current reserve capacity of 2.128
mgd. Therefore the Member Municipalities will not require additional reserve capacity at the
treatment plant at build out.
Summary
Table 4-8 summarizes the projected EDU counts and corresponding flow rates for the 5, 10, 20
and 30-year projections. Based on the growth estimates presented in the foregoing discussion, in
10-years the capacity required at the treatment plant of approximately 9.73 mgd will exceed the
existing plant rated capacity of 9.2 mgd by about 0.5 mgd. Similarly, the plant’s rated capacity
will be exceeded by 1.41 mgd in 20 years and by 2.24 mgd in 30 years. At that time the capacity
needed will be 11.44 mgd.
Section 4 Future Growth and Land Development
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update – November 2006 Page 4-8
Table 4-8. EDU and flow projection (Present – 2035)
Present 5-year 10 year 20 year 30 year
2005 2010 2015 2025 2035
Municipality
Current
Reserved
Capacity
gpd Edu gpd edu gpd edu gpd edu gpd edu
Partner Municipalities
Easttown 1,523,000 1,357,000 3,511 1,423,000 3,751 1,443,000 3,824 1,484,000 3,973 1,523,000 4,115
East Whiteland 1,940,350 1,963,000 5,393 2,409,000 7,015 2,809,000 8,469 3,309,000 10,288 3,909,000 12,469
Malvern 543,650 329,000 1,666 352,000 1,710 358,000 1,730 391,000 1,850 425,000 1,973
Tredyffrin 2,001,000 1,128,000 5,996 1,540,000 6,853 1,840,000 7,849 1,970,000 8,432 2,100,000 8,904
Willistown 1,064,000 1,221,000 2,785 1,235,000 2,817 1,281,000 2,922 1,324,000 3,020 1,348,000 3,075
Partner subtotal 7,072,000 5,998,000 19,351 6,959,000 22,146 7,731,000 24,794 8,478,000 27,563 9,305,000 30,563
Member Municipalities
Charlestown 549 212,400 885 310,560 1,294 403,920 1,683 403,920 1,683
East Pikeland 2,598 685,920 2,858 723,600 3,015 748,080 3,117 748,080 3,117
Schuylkill 3,058 769,680 3,207 801,360 3,339 819,600 3,415 819,600 3,415
VFSA subtotal 2,128,000 1,479,635 6,205 1,668,000 6,950 1,835,520 7,648 1,971,600 8,215 1,971,600 8,215
Trucked waste
(365 day basis) 140,000 165,000 165,000 165,000 165,000
Total Average Daily
Flow (mgd) 9.20 7.62 25,556 8.79 29,096 9.73 32,442 10.61 35,778 11.44 38,751
Additional Capacity
Needed (mgd) (None) 0.532 1.41 2.24

Section 5
Alternatives for Proposed Wastewater Disposal Facilities
Table of Contents PageNo.
A1 and A2. Potential for Extending Conveyance Facilities 5-1
And Providing Treatment to Future Development Areas
And Unsewered Areas Within the Planning Area
A3, A4, and
A5. Alternatives for Collection and Treatment Facilities 5-1
? Eliminated Alternatives 5-3
? Retained Alternatives 5-4
? Evaluation of Retained Alternatives 5-10
? Selected Alternative 5-30
? Solids Thickening and Dewatering Capacity 5-30
? STP Improvements 5-37
Appendices:
Appendix D. Preliminary Effluent Criteria
Appendix E. Detailed Cost Breakdown of Alternatives
Figures:
5-1. Centrifuge Production Based on Feed Concentration
5-2. Aerial View of Proposed Modifications to STP
Exhibits:
None
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-1
A.1. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for providing sewage
treatment service to future development areas and existing development areas, not
currently served by public sewer, within the planning areas for the wastewater
treatment and disposal facilities.
and
A.2. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for extension of existing
Borough conveyance facilities to provide sewer service to future development
areas and existing developed areas, not currently served by public sewer, within
the planning area.
See section 4 of the Regional Act 537 Plan for the summary of each individual municipality’s
Act 537 Plan, and refer to each report for more in-depth information.
A.3. Perform an evaluation of the potential for continued use of existing sewage
treatment facilities through repair, upgrading, reduction of hydraulic or organic
loadings, or improved operation and maintenance practices.
and
A.4. Perform an evaluation to address the potential need for the construction of
new sewage treatment or conveyance facilities.
and
A.5. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for repair or replacement of
existing collection and conveyance system components.
Background
Section 5 of the Regional Act 537 Plan describes and evaluates a number of alternatives, which
would satisfy the future wastewater management needs of the Valley Forge Sewer Authority
(VFSA). This section was originally completed in April 2003. Due to age of the flow projections
when the Regional Plan was completed, the flow projections of the Member and Partner
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-2
municipalities needed to be reviewed and updated. In conjunction with the flow analysis, the
Authority elected to review, update and supplement the various wastewater management
alternatives previously presented in Section 5 of the 2003 Plan. Due to the comprehensive nature
of the new evaluation, Section 5 was completely rewritten.
In 2005, an Ad Hoc committee was formed for the purpose of reviewing and assisting the VFSA
in establishing future capacity needs in accordance with the Act 537 planning process, and in the
selection of the optimal strategy for subsequent engineering and implementation. The committee
consisted of representatives from Schuylkill Township as well as VFSA staff, Authority
members, and the engineer of record, Buchart-Horn, Inc.
Flow projections have been updated in Section 4 of this Regional Act 537 Plan and describe the
projected capacity needs over the next 30-years. The original design of the VFSA wastewater
treatment plant was based on a capacity of 8 MGD. In 2000, the plant was rerated to 9.2 MGD.
Future average flow rates are projected by this Act 537 Plan to be as follows:
Table 5-3. Projected Average Flowrates.
Years
Projected Flow
Capacity Needed
(MGD)
Current 7.6
10 9.7
20 10.6
30 11.52
Section 5 describes the process by which the concept strategy for the optimal alternative was
determined. A series of committee meetings were held in 2005 for the purpose of identifying
potential alternatives for the required capacity. This list, known as the “long list", was finalized
at a committee meeting on June 29, 2005.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-3
Screening of Alternatives
Following the establishment of the “long list”, the committee met Thursday, August 11, 2005 at
VFSA with the objective of reviewing the draft flow projections and screening out those
alternatives which were not worthy of further study because they were either not feasible, too
costly, or in some other way, not practical. The result of this work was a manageable “short list”
of alternatives requiring a more detailed technical evaluation.
Technical reasons for screening from the long list were identified and discussed to assure that
there were no alternatives eliminated unless the committee could say with reasonable certainty,
that further evaluation was not warranted. The long list is summarized below along with the
results of the screening evaluation performed on August 11, 2005. The alternatives are presented
in two categories: Eliminated Alternatives, and Retained Alternatives (those considered viable
for further evaluation).
Eliminated Alternatives
Alternative 1 - Enter into an agreement for a privately owned and operated wastewater
treatment plant (partial capacity need alternative)
This alternative consists of utilizing a privately owned treatment plant to provide service to
VFSA customers. While developers have constructed such facilities elsewhere, there are no such
treatment plants that can provide the needed capacity to the VFSA at the present time. Plans for
any such future facilities are too undefined to evaluate in detail. Accordingly, Alternative 4 was
eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternative 2 - Construct a satellite facility at Church Farm School and spray irrigate the
property
This alternative consists of a new satellite wastewater treatment plant to be located at the
location of the Church Farm School near Route 30 in East Whiteland Township. The treated
wastewater effluent would be used to spray irrigate the property.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-4
This alternative was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons:
1. Conveyance distances would require significant construction costs.
2. The amount of property needed to meet spray irrigation requirements and store
wastewater during the winter is significant and would not be cost effective or practical.
3. Public acceptance of such a facility will be difficult to obtain due to concerns for airborne
aerosols from wind action.
Alternative 3 - Encourage the sale of capacity among partner municipalities
This alternative consists of selling or exchanging existing treatment capacity from those partners
with excess capacity to those who require capacity. Such exchanges would make more efficient
use of the existing STP’s capacity. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration,
because even if the most efficient use of capacity were accomplished through agreements
between partners, this alternative would not provide a sufficient amount of needed capacity to
meet the VFSA’s future needs.
Alternative 4 - Encourage the partner municipalities to divert their flows to other
Townships
This alternative consists of partner municipalities (East Whiteland, Easttown, Malvern,
Tredyffrin, and Willistown Townships) diverting wastewater flows that would have otherwise
been conveyed to the VFSA for treatment, to other townships that are not part of the VFSA.
Based on conversations with Partner representatives it does not appear that the partners of the
VFSA would support such an alternative. Accordingly, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Retained Alternatives
The following alternatives identified by the Ad-Hoc committee were considered feasible for
further evaluation.
Alternative 1 – Purchase Capacity at another Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative 1 consists of diverting wastewater from the VFSA to another treatment plant owned
and operated by a nearby authority. This alternative would be accomplished by diverting existing
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-5
wastewater pumping station flow through a new conveyance line toward the treatment facilities
of the nearby authority. An inter-municipal agreement for the required conveyance and treatment
service would be established with the nearby authority.
Authorities considered as candidates for a municipal agreement consisted of Phoenixville, Oaks,
Spring City, Upper Merion, and East Vincent.
Advantages
? The existing VFSA wastewater treatment plant stays essentially the same. Rented
capacity means that the VFSA will be paying for another authority to treat some or all of
our additional wastewater treatment capacity needs.
? Odor potential can be kept to existing locations where it can be most cost effectively
controlled. Odors resulting from the additional flows are off loaded to a “landlord.”
? Bureaucratic and siting difficulties may be minimized, since the treatment plant for which
the VFSA would be purchasing capacity already exists.
Disadvantages
? Costs will be established by the “landlord,” and will escalate based on their management
capability. VFSA would lose this degree of cost control. Costs will potentially escalate at
a higher rate than those alternatives where VFSA operates all of their own wastewater
treatment facilities for the needed capacity.
? Depending on the specific alternative, significant capital costs will be incurred for new
wastewater conveyance lines and pumping station modifications.
? Right-of-Ways and condemnation costs for new wastewater conveyance could be
significant and time consuming.
? This alternative may not provide sufficient capacity to meet the VFSA’s long term needs.
Alternative 1 – Results of Screening
Capacity from Phoenixville was retained for further evaluation. Phoenixville’s management staff
indicated that they would supply the required information for the VFSA to do a feasibility study.
Flows may be diverted from either VFSA’s French Creek Pump Station or the Pickering Creek
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-6
Pump Station to Phoenixville, resulting in capacity of about 0.6 MGD or 1.0 MGD, respectively.
Eliminated from further evaluation were the following variations of Alternative 1:
? Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (Oaks)
Although discharging some or part of the wastewater flow to the Lower Perkiomen Valley
Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) would be feasible, the LPVRSA Board of Directors
decided that they were not interested in pursuing this option in detail. Their position is
documented in a Letter from Barbara Cepko to the VFSA dated August 15, 2005.
? Upper Merion
The pumping distance was (approximately 6.8 miles) considered too great to make this
option economically feasible.
? East Vincent
The pumping distance (approximately 5.8 miles) was considered too great to make this
option economically feasible.
? Spring City
This treatment facility does not have the capacity to accommodate the quantities of
wastewater that would be needed if the French Creek Pump Station (FCPS) were diverted to
Spring City. The FCPS is the closest VFSA pumping facility to the Spring City plant.
? Wilson Road Pumping Station Location
Treated wastewater would have to be discharged into a high quality stream (Valley Creek),
or a new conveyance line leading to a Schuylkill River outfall would have to be constructed
at a considerable expense. This option would not be economically feasible compared to the
other available alternatives.
Alternative 2 – Construct a Satellite Treatment Facility – Discharge near Cromby
This alternative consists of constructing a satellite wastewater treatment plant at a location that is
separate from the existing plant and in one of the incorporating municipalities. Potential sites
consist of the area around the FCPS and at or near the Cromby electrical power generating plant.
If the satellite treatment plant were constructed near the FCPS, then the treated effluent would be
pumped to the Cromby site where it would be discharged to the Schuylkill River after being
combined with the treated discharge from the electrical power plant. If the treatment plant were
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-7
constructed at the Cromby site, untreated wastewater would be pumped from the FCPS to the
Cromby site where it would be combined with the power plant’s untreated wastewater and
treated by a new satellite wastewater treatment plant.
Constructing a new treatment plant near the FCPS with discharge to the French Creek was
considered as a separate alternative, but it was not considered to be feasible because of the higher
quality requirements for the treated wastewater that would be imposed for new treated
wastewater discharges to the French Creek. Accordingly, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Advantages
? The VFSA would maintain control of all its capacity and does not relinquish this to a
“landlord.” This assures stability of management and control.
? The existing wastewater treatment plant would stay essentially the same for a period of
time until the capacity of the existing plant and the Cromby plant is exceeded. The
expected time period is approximately 10 years. All initial improvements would be at the
new location.
? Some electrical and other operating costs would be saved because pumping distances and
“cascade” pumping would be reduced. Currently, the FCPS discharge is pumped through
three additional pumping stations before it reaches the existing VFSA treatment plant.
Disadvantages
? There would be administrative considerations to locating a new wastewater treatment
plant such as permitting and siting.
? The new treatment plant location would only address a portion of the ultimate needs of
the VFSA. Approximately 0.6 MGD could be delivered from the FCPS compared to the
capacity needs of about 3 MGD as outlined in Replacement Section 5.
? There would be significant capital costs for construction of a new wastewater treatment
plant, which would probably be greater on a cost per gallon basis than most of the plant
expansion strategies outlined in the description of Alternative 3.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-8
? Odors could be a potential problem from two locations and not just one. This is especially
true if the satellite wastewater treatment plant were constructed near the FCPS, which is
in close proximity to an outdoor shopping mall and a fished stream.
? The scale economy of one large treatment plant would not be enjoyed; instead, the
Authority would be constrained to two separate facilities, including a smaller plant that
would be generally less efficient on the cost to treat per gallon.
? Laboratory services would have to practically double in number of analysis performed. In
addition, samples would have to be transported to the existing laboratory.
? Transport of sludge to the existing treatment plant would result in additional truck traffic,
labor costs, and additional operating costs for the VFSA versus alternatives that do not
include two wastewater treatment plants.
? In general, operating costs would be higher with two treatment plants versus one
treatment plant.
Alternative 2 - Results of Screening
Alternative 2 was retained for further evaluation.
Alternative 3 - Increase capacity at the existing treatment plant maintaining a single
discharge point
This alternative consists of providing additional capacity to the existing treatment plant through
some combination of newly installed and constructed process equipment, or technological
improvements to existing equipment. Several variations on this approach could be used to meet
either long term or short-term capacity needs depending on the time frame of implementation.
Variations on this alternative could be implemented to provide either partial or the total
additional capacity needed. The options within this approach may range from converting the
existing process to a more efficient process thereby gaining more capacity without adding in kind
additional tanks and process equipment thereby gaining capacity while using the same
technology.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-9
Advantages
? The operating costs are likely to be less than those alternatives that are being evaluated
which include a satellite plant. Maintenance costs will be reduced since all preventative
and repair functions will be carried out in one location with a smaller staff.
? Management control would be kept in the hands of the VFSA. This is an advantage
versus those alternatives that include an inter-municipal agreement where future pricing
would be in the control of those providing the service.
? Sludge processing would be operated and maintained at the one existing location where
there is existing capacity versus other alternatives where sludge may have to be processed
at a separate location.
? Odor potential resulting from VFSA wastewater can be kept to one location where it can
be most cost effectively controlled. This is an advantage over alternatives that include a
satellite treatment plant where expenses and problems resulting from odors may result
from two separate treatment plant locations.
? Potential for permit violations is minimized with one discharge point and one permit.
Similarly environmental liability is limited to one location and controlled entirely by
VFSA.
? Laboratory analysis and monitoring/permitting administration efforts are minimized.
Assuming that the discharge permits conditions for monitoring would be similar to
VFSA’s existing permit, the monitoring requirements and associated expense for a
satellite plant may nominally double.
? Discharge to the Schuylkill River is the least restrictive alternative from a regulatory
perspective.
Disadvantages
? The existing wastewater treatment plant would get marginally larger depending on the
specific alternative that is selected.
o There could be as many as one more primary clarifier, aeration tank and
secondary clarifier.
o A third primary clarifier, assuming no additional process changes, may result in
the potential of creating more odors.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-10
o Additional sludge processing would result in the potential of generating additional
odors, although these sources can be readily controlled.
Alternative 3 - Results of Screening
Alternative 3 was retained for further evaluation. It was decided to evaluate a broad range of
Alternative 3 capacity upgrade strategies - from those that upgrade the technology to provide
additional capacity while minimizing additional tankage and mechanical equipment, to those that
use the same technology and expand upon the existing plant "in kind".
Evaluation of Retained Alternatives
The results of the evaluation identified alternatives that would be evaluated in further detail. This
section presents the analysis of the retained alternatives, which are as follows:
Alternative 1 – Pump wastewater from the member municipalities (Schuylkill, East Pikeland,
and Charlestown Townships) to the existing Phoenixville wastewater treatment facility for
treatment. Such a strategy would require that appropriate conveyance facilities be constructed by
VFSA at their expense. A contract for service would be negotiated and executed between the
VFSA and Phoenixville. The two (2) options considered within this study include:
Alternative 1a - Diversion of flows from the French Creek Pump Station to Phoenixville’s
French Creek Interceptor, and
Alternative 1b - Diversion of VFSA’s Pickering Creek Pump Station flow directly to the
Phoenixville Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Alternative 2 – Construction of a new “satellite” wastewater treatment plant. Two options were
considered within the Alternative 2 strategy.
Alternative 2a - Locating the plant near the French Creek Pump Station and conveying the
treated wastewater to the Exelon’s Cromby Facility for commingling and discharge with
Exelon’s existing wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-11
Alternative 2b - Conveying the untreated wastewater from the French Creek Pump Station to the
Cromby site. The new satellite treatment plant would be located at the Cromby site.
Alternative 3 – Expand the capacity of the existing VFSA wastewater treatment plant by
providing the improvements and capacity upgrades that would be required to meet additional
capacity requirements. Within Alternative 3, this study considers a range of capacity upgrade
strategies ranging from conversion of the existing complete mix process to step feed, to
expansion of the existing treatment process in kind by way of adding more primary, aeration, and
secondary settling tanks. The sub-alternatives are described as alternatives 3a, through 3e.
Alternative 3a - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process.
Alternative 3b - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process and add a 4th secondary clarifier.
Alternative 3c -Add a 2nd aeration tank, a 4th secondary clarifier, and a 3rd primary settling tank.
Alternative 3d - Innovative alternatives such as the use of media processes
Alternative 3e - Add a 2nd aeration tank and a 4th secondary clarifier.
The alternatives described above are general strategies intended to provide a technically sound
basis for a conceptual evaluation. Once a general strategy is selected, the specific concept needs
to be developed to an appropriate level of detail prior to beginning implementation and the
detailed design.
For this evaluation, the preliminary effluent criteria provided by PADEP, included in Appendix
D, is used for evaluation of the alternatives. The present treatment plant’s discharge permit has
requirements for the removal of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), and ammonia. These limits require nitrification to take place in the
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-12
treatment plant and nitrification is the current limiting factor in the biological treatment process
at the Authority’s existing facility.
At this time, the Authority understands that PADEP has not imposed denitrification requirements
on any wastewater treatment plants located along the Schuylkill River. However the potential
for additional denitrification was considered in the detailed evaluation of alternatives.
It is important to note that the existing gravity thickeners are generally overloaded on the basis of
solids load mainly as a result of trucked wastewaters. Sludge thickening and dewatering capacity
is discussed later in Section 5. In spite of the present shortfall condition in thickening capacity
because of trucked in wastewaters, the VFSA has been routinely meeting its discharge permit
requirements. However it is noted that the current shortfall in thickening capacity is an item that
should be addressed in any expansion capacity strategy. In 2005, approximately one-half (½) of
all solids processed at the VFSA wastewater treatment plant originate from trucks discharging to
the treatment plant’s septic dump station. Accordingly any plant expansion alternative should
consider in detail, the impact that trucked wastewaters have on the treatment process. At a
minimum, additional gravity thickening and a 3rd dewatering device should be utilized if VFSA
is to expand its capacity while maintaining or growing its current level of trucked wastewaters
accepted at the plant.
Such consideration of solids handling and processing should also include a detailed evaluation of
what ancillary upgrades, if any, need to be implemented if a technology upgrade is to be utilized
for biological wastewater treatment. For example, use of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
(IFAS), discussed in a following subsection may be optimal; however this option may require
additional separate treatment of septage, and pretreatment to eliminate screenable wastes. Such
factors need to be considered in greater detail than what is provided in the context of this
conceptual alternatives analysis.
VFSA also has the ability to reduce the amount of trucked wastes accepted at the treatment
facility. Although this may not be preferred, but it offers the Authority some flexibility in the
evaluation of alternatives associated with solids handling.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-13
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
PADEP approved capacity of the VFSA STP at 9.2 MGD. This capacity was the result of the
plant rerate from 8.0 MGD to 9.2 MGD approved by the PADEP in 2000. To support the rerate
to 9.2 MGD, Buchart-Horn (B-H) prepared a report entitled, “Re-rate Feasibility Evaluation for
the Valley Forge Sewer Authority, July 1997”. The evaluation included an assessment of the
capacity and recommended upgrades of each individual component of the existing wastewater
treatment plant to achieve a capacity upgrade from 8.0 MGD to 9.2 MGD. The results of the
assessment are summarized in Table 7 of the report, reprinted as Table 5-1, below.
Table 5-1. Process Unit Capacity
Process Unit Actual
Capacity
Proposed Capacity
for Re-rate Comments
Influent Structure 21.4 MGD 9.2 MGD No modifications required
Primary Clarifiers 10.0 MGD 9.8 MGD No modifications required
Aeration Basins 12.0 MGD 9.5 MGD
Requires additional oxygen supply to
satisfy nitrification requirements.
Consideration to be given to baffling
the tank to provide plug flow versus
complete mix.
Final Clarifiers 10.3 MGD 9.5 MGD
Modify return sludge drawoff
nozzles on FC Nos. 1 and 2.
Chlorine Contact Tank 11.0 MGD 9.4 MGD
Raise effluent weir to increase
sidewater depth and use additional
available tankage and pipe at tank
inlet for contact time.
Gravity Thickeners
44,964 ppd
2.997MGD
34,847 ppd
0.66 MGD
Convert the existing decant tank for
use as a third gravity thickener.
Primary Sludge Pumps 10.5+ MGD 9.6 MGD No modifications required
Return Sludge Pumps 84% 45-70% No modifications required
Waste Sludge Pumps 10.5+ MGD 9.5 MGD No modifications required
Sludge Dewatering 43,200 ppd 31,657 ppd No modifications required
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-14
The 1997 evaluation included recommended upgrades to be considered or needed to rerate the
plant to 9.2 MGD, as follows:
1. Consider baffling the aeration tanks to achieve more efficient plug flow conditions versus
the existing complete mix system.
2. Modify the return sludge draw off nozzles on final clarifiers No. 1 and 2.
3. Convert the existing decant tank for use as a third gravity thickener.
4. Raise the effluent weir of the chlorine contact tank to increase side water depth and use
additional available tankage and tank inlet pipe to provide additional contact time.
Following that evaluation, a field study was performed to document that there is sufficient
aeration capacity for a rated treatment plant capacity of 9.2 MGD with no tank modifications.
The results of this evaluation, indicating that no additional aeration tanks were needed at an
average daily flow of 9.2 MGD, were approved by PADEP.
Items 2 through 4, above were designed by B-H for the VFSA and installed under a construction
permit issued by PADEP. Following the conversion of the decant tank (DT) to a thickener, this
tank was then converted to a septage holding tank for better solids equalization capacity for
trucked in wastewaters. This conversion reduced thickening capacity back to pre-rerate levels.
As a sludge thickener, the DT tank did not achieve underflow sludge concentration sufficient for
its continued use as a thickener.
After completion of the re-rate improvements, the “actual” capacities of the individual process
units within the existing plant range from 9.2 MGD to 21.4 MGD. The current limiting
processes consist of the aeration tanks, final clarifiers, and chlorine contact tank, each with an
“actual” capacity of about 9.5 MGD. The next limiting process is the primary clarifiers, which
have an “actual” capacity of 9.8 MGD. However starting in 2002 through mid-April of 2004, the
VFSA operated consistently at an annual average flowrate of about 7 MGD with only one
primary clarifier in service while producing effluent that consistently met effluent requirements.
For the purposes of this plant expansion evaluation, it is assumed that all alternatives would
include new ultraviolet (UV) disinfection to replace the existing chlorination/dechlorination
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-15
system. Although VFSA has operated the chlorination system with no major incidents since the
facility was started up in the mid-70s, future regulatory requirements relating to risk management
have motivated many similar facilities to upgrade to UV disinfection. VFSA would require
additional chlorination/dechlorination capacity to meet its long term future needs, and it would
therefore be timely to upgrade their disinfection system concurrent with the capacity expansion.
Alternative 1 – Construct a New SatelliteWastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative 1 consists of constructing a new wastewater treatment facility that would treat
wastewater flows from the French Creek pumping station’s service area. This treatment plant
would contain all capability to treat wastewater and discharge the treated wastewater into the
Schuylkill River at or near the existing Exelon Cromby wastewater treatment plant outfall.
Because of the relatively small size of the satellite treatment plant, there would be no solids
treatment other than thickening to about three (3) percent solids. The solids from the satellite
plant would be trucked to the existing plant for processing and dewatering. Processing and
dewatering of sludge at the satellite plan would require additional facilities. It would also require
more operating labor to manage biosolids processing at two separate locations, and therefore this
option was not considered in detail.
For purposes of defining the costs associated with this alternative, it is assumed that:
? A fully automated sequencing batch reactor treatment plant would be utilized at the
satellite facility. This is a fairly common technology for new wastewater treatment
facilities of this size.
? Liquid sludge at a production rate of about 5,000 gallons per day would be trucked from
the satellite plant to the VFSA treatment plant for processing.
? The existing plant laboratory would perform routine effluent analysis, and the VFSA
would have to maintain a second discharge permit for the satellite facility, resulting in
additional laboratory labor and supply costs.
For estimating lifecycle costs, it has been assumed that Alternative 1a would require the
following upgrades at the existing VFSA plant after 10 years of operation:
? New UV disinfection.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-16
? A fourth secondary clarifier.
? Conversion of the aeration system to step feed similar to Alternative 3a.
Further, it was assumed that operating costs would not vary significantly between this alternative
and Alternative 3 (existing plant expansion) because of increased flows from growth that would
occur 10 years into the future and beyond.
Advantages
? The major advantage of this alternative is that there would be less expansion needed at
the existing plant.
? There would be some marginal power savings associated with pumping wastewater from
the French Creek pumping station to the new satellite plant instead of to the existing
VFSA treatment plant by way of four pumping stations in a cascading series.
Disadvantages
? The costs to operate and maintain two treatment plants would be greater than one
treatment plant. The potential economy of scale of one treatment plant versus two would
be lost. Additional operating cost items consist of:
1. Trucking sludge from the satellite plant to the existing plant. This operation would
require either VFSA to pay a licensed tank truck driver or contract for this service.
2. Travel time for personnel to operate and maintain the satellite plant.
3. Maintenance of two discharge permits, including the required laboratory services and
the related regulatory risks.
4. The potential of the satellite plant as a second odor source. In addition, the existing
Pothouse, Whitehorse, and Pickering pump stations would have to be modified to
accept flow rates that were well below their design capacity. Failure to adequately
address this problem would result in the pumping stations becoming problematic
sources of odor and potential increase in corrosion of concrete wet wells and other
concrete structures.
5. An average flow of only about 0.7 MGD could be delivered from the French Creek
station. This rate is not sufficient to meet VFSA’s long-term needs. Such an
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-17
approach would be marginal in meeting VFSA’s 10-year needs and is a disadvantage
of this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Pump Wastewater to Phoenixville for Treatment
Alternative 2 consists of rerouting the wastewater that is currently pumped to the existing VFSA
WWTP to the existing Phoenixville Wastewater treatment plant. There are 2 subalternatives
considered:
Alternative 2a – Pump wastewater from the existing French Creek Pump Station to
Phoenixville’s French Creek Intercepting Sewer, which feeds the Phoenixville Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Alternative 2b – Pump wastewater from the existing Pickering Creek Pump Station to the
Phoenixville Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Alternative 2a - Pump Wastewater from the Existing French Creek Pump Station to
Phoenixville’s French Creek Intercepting Sewer which feeds the Phoenixville Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Alternative 2a would require the following components:
? Construction of a conveyance line from the existing French Creek Pump Station to
Phoenixville’s French Creek Intercepting Sewer.
? Modifications of the VFSA’s French Creek pump station to divert flows to the new
conveyance line.
? Construction of additional capacity at the Phoenixville WWTP.
Buchart-Horn estimates that the construction costs for the conveyance line and pump station
modification would be approximately $2 million. All detailed cost estimates are in Appendix D.
In addition, an average flow of only about 0.7 MGD could be delivered from the French Creek
station to Phoenixville. This would be insufficient to meet VFSA’s long-term needs. Such an
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-18
approach would be only marginal at best in meeting VFSA’s 10-year needs, and inadequate for
long-term needs without additional capacity from another source.
Phoenixville provided the following estimates for connection and treatment costs for their
system:
Tapping Fee $7.40/gallon
Treatment Cost $2.56/1000 gallons
These costs were used in calculating this alternatives capital and life cycle cost. For estimating
lifecycle costs, it has been assumed that Alternative 2a would require the following upgrades at
the VFSA plant after 10 years of operation:
? New UV disinfection.
? A fourth secondary clarifier.
? Conversion of the aeration system to step feed similar to Alternative 3a (plant expansion).
Further, it was assumed that operating costs would not vary significantly between this alternative
and Alternative 3 because of increased flows from growth that would occur 10 years into the
future and beyond.
Advantage
? VFSA’s needs for expansion at the existing treatment plant would be delayed. As
discussed above, it does not appear as if there would be sufficient capacity provided from
diverting wastewater flows from the French Creek Station away from the VFSA
treatment plant.
? There would be some marginal savings in operating costs related to power saved from
eliminating the multiple pumping of the French Creek Pump Station flow through the
VFSA cascading system.
Disadvantages
? A major disadvantage of this alternative is the higher capital and operating cost. The
commercial rates charged by Phoenixville based on their rate schedule results in capital
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-19
and operating cost that are prohibitive relative to the alternatives that include an
expansion in capacity at the VFSA treatment plant.
? As a customer of another municipality, VFSA would lose some control over the service
that is provided to their customers. There is a risk that cost for service would escalate at a
higher rate than for those alternatives where VFSA provides all of the wastewater
conveyance and treatment service.
? This alternative does not completely satisfy the long-term wastewater management needs
of the VFSA without providing future expansion facilities at the VFSA plant.
Alternative 2b - Pump Wastewater from the Existing Pickering Creek Pump Station to the
Phoenixville Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative 2b would require the following components:
? Construction of a conveyance line from the existing Pickering Creek Pump Station to
Phoenixville’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
? Modifications of the VFSA’s Pickering Pump Station to divert flows to the new
conveyance line.
? Construction of additional capacity at the Phoenixville WWTP.
Buchart-Horn estimates that the construction costs for the conveyance line and pump station
modification would be approximately $2 million. If flow were diverted from the Pickering
Creek Station, adequate capacity would exist for VFSA’s service capacity for more than 10
years. The total capacity of the existing plant and the Pikering diversion provides 10.6 MGD and
the 10-year need is 9.9 MGD. This only provides a marginal amount of safety factor at best.
The cost to connect and treat wastewater at Phoenixville under this alternative is the same as that
for Alternative 2a.
For estimating lifecycle costs, it has been assumed that Alternative 2b would require the
following upgrades at the VFSA Plant after 10 years of operation:
? New UV disinfection.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-20
? A 4th secondary clarifier.
Further, it was assumed that operating costs would not vary significantly between this alternative
and Alternative 3 because of increased flows from growth that would occur 10 years into the
future and beyond.
Advantages
The advantages of Alternative 2b are that the VFSA’s needs for expansion at the existing
treatment plant would be delayed and reduced.
Disadvantages
? A major disadvantage of this alternative is the higher capital and operating cost. The
commercial rates charged by Phoenixville as indicated in their rate schedule would result
in capital and operating costs that were prohibitive relative to the alternatives that include
an expansion in capacity at the existing VFSA treatment plant.
? As a customer of another municipality, VFSA would lose some control over the service
that is provided to their customers. There is a risk that cost for service would escalate at a
higher rate than for those alternatives where VFSA provides all of the wastewater
conveyance and treatment service.
? Unlike Alternative 2a, there would not be any savings resulting from lower power usage
at the pump stations. All four components of the cascade pumping system (i.e., French
Creek, Pothouse, Whitehorse, and Pickering Creek pump stations) would still be
necessary.
Alternative 3 – Expand Capacity of Existing VFSA STP
As noted previously, there are a number of ways that capacity expansion can be achieved,
ranging from conversion to step feed, the use of fixed media processes, use of membrane
processes, and/or provisions of additional tanks in kind. For this study, the following options
were included for evaluation:
Alternative 3a - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-21
Alternative 3b - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process and add a 4th secondary clarifier.
Alternative 3c - Add a 2nd aeration tank, a 4th secondary clarifier, and a 3rd primary settling tank.
Alternative 3d - Innovative alternatives such as media processes.
Alternative 3e - Add a 2nd aeration tank and a 4th secondary clarifier.
Alternative 3a – Step Feed Process Conversion
Alternative 3a consists of the converting the existing complete mix process to step feed. As
described in the “Biological Process Evaluation” by BCM Engineers prepared August 2004,
“Step feed is a modified operating procedure that is feasible in the existing activated sludge
tankage.”
A similar strategy was proposed by Buchart-Horn in their “Rerate Feasibility Study”. The BCM
study concluded that if the existing process were converted to step feed, then the existing
treatment plant could adequately treat up to 11 MGD of wastewater with the same or more
operating flexibility as exists at present. However, while this is readily possible from a biological
kinetics perspective, an increase of influent flow beyond current levels will present difficulties in
the operation of the secondary clarifiers. Conversion to step feed would require that the current
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations be maintained at approximately the same
levels while average daily influent flows increased to 11 MGD. There would be potential losses
in operating flexibility in the secondary clarification process which is likely to result in risks to
consistently meeting effluent permit requirements for total suspended solids (TSS).
It is noted that if the treatment plant were converted to a step feed process, according to the
PADEP’s “Domestic Wastewater Facilities Manual”, additional secondary clarification will be
necessary to treat an average daily flow of 11 MGD.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-22
As discussed previously, trucked wastewaters also present potential impact to the aeration and
secondary clarification process that would not exist if the treatment plant only treated its
connected customers. Alternative 3a is the plant expansion alternative with the least operating
flexibility and as a result would be impacted the greatest.
While the potential for loss of operating flexibility exists, implementation and testing of the step
feed process can be performed well before the time additional capacity is actually needed. By
implementing this alternative in the near future, the VFSA will be able to gain a better idea as to
whether the loss of operating flexibility will be significant.
Alternative 3a may be feasible for flow rates of up to 10 MGD if chemical precipitation is added
in the primary tanks in addition to a conversion to step feed. Ferric chloride can be added to the
treatment plant influent. Chemical addition with appropriate detention time and mixing upstream
of the primary settling process would serve to precipitate additional amounts of colloidal
biochemical oxygen demand material which would normally pass through the primary settling
process and require biological treatment in the aeration system. Instead of passing through the
primary treatment process, these precipitated solids would be settled, collected, and removed
upstream of the biological process thereby reducing the biochemical oxygen demand on the
downstream secondary system. This strategy would provide additional biological treatment
capacity without an increase in additional new tanks and their associated capital cost. However,
the operating costs associated with chemical addition are significant.
Enhanced primary treatment by chemical addition will reduce the amount of waste activated
sludge (WAS) that is produced in the process since the loading to the aeration system is reduced.
WAS is generally difficult to dewater, however the additional precipitated metal-containing
solids that occur in the primary settling process are similarly difficult to dewater. For this
evaluation, it was assumed that these two changes would offset each other. However, the specific
impact that plant expansion has on the solids processing would need to be evaluated in detail in
the context of the long-term solids management plan at VFSA.
For estimating lifecycle costs, it has been assumed that Alternative 3a would require the addition
of a fourth secondary clarifier after 10 years of operation.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-23
Advantages
? The advantage of this alternative is that it may be initially implemented without the
addition of new tanks and their associated capital cost up to an average daily flow of 10
MGD. According to the evaluation performed by BCM engineers, the process will
provide 11 MGD of rated capacity for the aeration tank, not including any additional
capacity that may be gained by improvement to primary settling via chemical addition.
According to the Regional Act 537 flow projections, 11 MGD would provide for VFSA’s
capacity needs up to about 2030. However, treating influent flow beyond 10 MGD
(about 2020) without a fourth secondary clarifier poses an unacceptable risk.
? Capital costs are delayed or avoided for an extended period of time if growth projections
do not materialize as planned.
? Alternative 3a utilizes technologies that are the same or similar to those currently used at
the wastewater treatment plant. No major operating or maintenance changes would need
to be implemented.
? Alternative 3a may be implemented and tested before the capacity is actually needed. If it
is found to be acceptable to meet the VFSA’s intermediate term capacity needs, then
additional wastewater treatment plant upgrades may be postponed or only constructed
when long-term development occurs. Implementation of Alternative 3a may enable
VFSA to meet its long-term capacity needs without additional tanks and with minimal
chemical addition for an extended period of time; especially if development growth does
not occur at the rate that is projected. However, it is important to evaluate whether this
alternative will be able to consistently meet effluent quality requirements.
Disadvantages
? From an operating perspective, Alternative 3a may be acceptable as an interim step,
however, assuming that long-term growth projections materialize as projected, plant
additions beyond those included in Alternative 3a would be needed in the future.
? This alternative has the least operating flexibility and therefore is the Alternative with the
most risk. It is also subject to negative effects resulting from the trucked wastewater
business.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-24
? Alternative 3a is unlikely to provide sufficient treatment plant capacity if a future
regulatory requirement for denitrification is imposed by PADEP. A significant plant
upgrade would be needed at that time.
? Operating costs would increase due to chemical costs which are significant. Process
optimization may result in lower costs for chemicals, however increases in chemical
costs, due to increasing commodity prices may also offset this process optimization.
? The potential for chemical costs to increase over time are a disadvantage compared to
those alternatives that include higher capital cost but lower operating costs. The chemical
sludge could also impact upon VFSA’s successful land application program for biosolids.
? The biological treatment process increase in capacity would be gained from conversion
by a complete mix to step feed. Although the gain in capacity would be achieved
according to biological kinetics, the step feed process is not as resistant to upsets
compared to the present complete mix process which is the optimal process for avoiding
process upsets. Some loss of operating flexibility would occur.
? This alternative may be subject to upsets in the biological system from trucked
wastewaters due to fluctuating organic loads. The present complete mix system is more
forgiving to inconsistent influent characteristics as compared to step-feed.
Alternative 3b - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process and add a 4th secondary clarifier.
Alternative 3b is the same as 3a, except that Alternative 3b includes the addition of a 4th
secondary clarifier that is similar in capacity to secondary clarifier No. 3. With the fourth
clarifier there would not be a loss in operating flexibility from additional hydraulic loading to the
secondary clarification system. Provided the conversion to step feed maintains nitrification with
no loss of operating flexibility, the VFSA would be able to achieve a rated capacity of 11.3
MGD which is sufficient to meet its capacity needs until about 2030.
Advantages
? Alternative 3b includes all of the advantages as Alternative 3a. The process would utilize
processes that are similar to those that are currently practiced at the present wastewater
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-25
treatment plant. Alternative 3b would readily achieve the capacity needed through 2024
of 11.3 MGD.
? Alternative 3b is not expected to require chemical addition to the primary tanks, and
therefore these significant operating costs could be avoided.
? The presence of a 4th secondary clarifier provides a considerable amount of operating
flexibility, which would not exist with alternative 3a. Therefore it is inherently less risky.
Disadvantages
? The biological treatment process increase in capacity would be gained by conversion
from a complete mix to step feed. Although the gain in capacity would be achieved
according to biological kinetics, the step feed process is not as resistant to upsets
compared to the present complete mix process. Some loss of operating flexibility would
likely occur.
? Alternative 3b which includes conversion to step feed, would be subject to upsets to the
biological system from trucked wastewaters. To some extent the impacts would be
partially mitigated by additional secondary settling capacity, but not entirely. The present
complete mix system is more forgiving to inconsistent influent characteristics compared
to step-feed.
? The inclusion of a fourth secondary settling tank is a significant capital cost compared to
Alternative 3a.
? Alternative 3b would not provide the capability of denitrification. If future denitrification
were required, additional aeration tank capacity would have to be provided in the future.
? Alternative 3b does not include additional primary settling capacity. However, it is noted
that in 2002 through mid April of 2004, the VFSA STP routinely operated with one of the
two primary clarifiers out of service at an annual average daily flow of about 7 MGD.
Therefore the operating data suggests that additional primary clarification is not needed.
Alternative 3c - Add a 2nd aeration tank, a 4th secondary clarifier, and a 3rd primary settling tank
Alternative 3c is the same as Alternative 3e except that it includes the addition of a third primary
clarifier. This alternative would essentially increase the primary clarification capacity by 50%,
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-26
aeration capacity by 50%, and the secondary clarification capacity by 33%. This alternative
nominally provides the treatment plant with a rated capacity that is well beyond the 30-year
projected capacity requirement. It would do so utilizing the same flexible technology extended
air activated sludge that was part of the original plant design. No significant different O&M
procedures would be needed.
Advantages
? Alternative 3c would enable VFSA to upgrade to a denitrification plant with minimum
future changes, should this become a future effluent permit requirement.
? Of all the options considered within Alternative 3, 3c is the alternative that features the
maximum amount of operating flexibility.
? If Alternative 3c is implemented, it is unlikely that VFSA would ever need to add
additional tanks into the foreseeable future.
Disadvantages
? Although providing the maximum operational flexibility, Alternative 3c would have the
highest capital cost.
? The addition of a 3rd primary clarifier may result in the potential for more odors since
primary clarifiers are more likely to be sources of odor.
? For a future conversion to a denitrification plant, it may be desirable to maintain BOD
loadings to the aeration system by reducing BOD removal in the primary clarifiers.
Alternative 3d - Innovative Alternatives
Alternative 3d consists of an upgrade of the current complete mix activated sludge system to an
innovative process designed to increase system capacity without the construction of additional
tanks. Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) is a process that may be applicable to a
capacity expansion at the VFSA. The IFAS process combines fixed and suspended biological
growth in one reactor by adding fixed or suspended media to an existing activated sludge basin.
The suspended growth continues to behave like a conventional activated sludge process, while
the fixed growth on the added media effectively increases sludge age, so complete nitrification
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-27
can occur. The fixed growth remains in the reactor, so solids loading on the final clarifiers are
not increased. Essentially the concept includes making the aeration system more concentrated
while using the media for increasing activated sludge age. While the concept would work well
for increasing capacity without the increase of the aeration tanks a 4th secondary clarifier should
be provided. In addition, there would need to be several capital changes to the existing
treatment plant to make it work effectively.
Such changes include:
? Improved influent screening and grit removal. This system would also require odor
control.
? Replacement of the existing surface aeration system with a diffused air blower system,
either coarse or fine bubble. Some of the existing surface aeration may be usable as a
supplement.
? Plant hydraulics must be evaluated in detail. There may be changes required to make the
process work hydraulically.
? The optimal IFAS process must be evaluated and selected.
? It is likely that the plant instrumentation would need significant upgrades.
? Changes in biosolids characteristics could impact the solids handling processes.
? Trucked waste characteristics would have the potential to adversely affect the process;
therefore, additional monitoring and/or regulation of loads may be required. Alternatively
separate facilities to treat trucked wastes may be required thereby reducing the capital
cost advantage of this alternative. It is likely that implementation of an IFAS process
would need to be implemented only concurrent with a reduction of trucked wastewaters
or the installation of separate facilities to biologically treat trucked wastewaters.
If VFSA were to pursue Alternative 3d, it would be necessary to perform a detailed conceptual
study to establish the optimal IFAS process and equipment additions and upgrades that would be
required.
For this evaluation a detailed analysis of the various IFAS processes and associated capital costs
was not performed. These processes are typically used where a capacity increase and/or effluent
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-28
requirement upgrade of an existing facility are needed and additional tanks cannot be constructed
because of space requirements or some other reason. It appears that the VFSA has adequate
space for the plant expansion alternatives described above; however, if there is an objective to
upgrade the plant’s capacity without adding tanks, then it would be appropriate to evaluate the
various IFAS alternatives in detail along with the supplemental process changes and trucked
wastewater acceptance changes that would be needed to accommodate IFAS.
Advantages
The advantage of an IFAS process is that it would be designed to make use of the existing
treatment plant footprint. In concept, the required additional capacity could be added without
adding any additional large process tanks.
Disadvantages
? The IFAS strategy would result in significant changes from the current activated sludge
process and the overall stability of the system could potentially be lessened compared to
other expansion strategies.
? Implementation of an IFAS process would require a detailed evaluation as to the optimal
specific process, ancillary equipment and instrumentation changes needed to make it
work dependably. There is the potential that the trucked waste would need to be more
carefully regulated or pretreated so as to maintain the stability of the treatment process.
Alternatively separate treatment facilities could be added for trucked wastewaters.
? While it has not yet been rigorously established, the costs for conversion of the present
process to an IFAS process are expected to be significant. In their August 2004 process
evaluation, the engineering firm BCM estimated the equipment costs to convert the
current WWTP aeration basins to a Moving Bed Biological Reactor (MBBR) system at
$1.8 million for equipment alone. This estimate did not include the equipment necessary
to upgrade the pretreatment system. Total capital costs to convert to an IFAS process may
be more than $5 million.
Alternative 3e - Add a 2nd aeration tank and a 4th secondary clarifier – Retain the current
complete mix activated process
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-29
Alternative 3e maintains the current treatment process and includes the addition of a 3rd aeration
tank and 4th secondary clarifier. The 3rd aeration tank will enable VFSA to maintain the stable
complete mix system while providing the needed capacity for its future growth. For this
evaluation, it is assumed that the new aeration tank would be sized similarly to the two existing
aeration tanks and the 4th secondary clarifier would be sized to match secondary clarifier No. 3,
therefore maintaining hydraulic symmetry throughout the treatment plant.
Advantages
? Alternative 3e would enable VFSA to maintain the same technologies that are currently
used to treat its influent wastewaters. With excess tank capacity resulting from expanding
with similarly sized tanks, the VFSA would meet its future capacity needs and maintain
operating a sufficient level of flexibility.
? The additional aeration tank, although a significant capital cost, will enable VFSA to take
tanks out of service for routine maintenance without a significant amount of risk of
effluent permit violations.
? As with Alternative 3b, 3e would not require chemical addition to the primary clarifiers
thus avoiding significant chemical costs.
? Primary clarifiers have a higher potential for odors compared to secondary clarifiers and
aeration tanks. The lack of an additional primary clarifier assures that odor potential will
not increase.
? If there were a future requirement to provide denitrification, Alternative 3e should have
sufficient aeration tank capacity to provide denitrification without the addition of more
tankage by utilizing one of the integrated fixed film activated sludge systems.
Disadvantages
? Alternative 3e does not include additional primary settling capacity. However, it is noted
that in 2002 through mid April of 2004, the VFSA STP routinely operated with one of
two primary clarifiers out of service, an annual average daily flow of about 7 MGD
thereby indicating an excess of operating capacity on a routine basis. This capacity would
need to be documented and approved by the PADEP.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-30
? The inclusions of a fourth secondary clarifier and a third aeration tank are significant
capital costs.
Alternative 4 – No Action
The final alternative considered was the "no action" alternative. This would not allow for the
treatment of any of the additional projected flow to be generated in the VFSA Service Area.
Table 5-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative 4.
Advantages Disadvantages
- No cost.
- Future wastewater flows in the service area
indicate that additional wastewater facilities
will be necessary to address the needs of the
service area municipalities.
Selected Alternative
Alternative 3e is the recommended alternative because it is the alternative that provides the
optimal combination of operating flexibility, minimal risk, and appropriate capital costs
considering the short and long term capacity needs of the VFSA.
Solids Thickening and Dewatering Capacity
In addition to the need to address the liquid treatment capacity, it is also necessary to address the
capacity of the sludge and biosolids treatment processes. This section provides a summary of the
solids thickening and dewatering needs of the VFSA wastewater treatment plant. Additional
capacity and upgrades are recommended as follows:
? Provide an additional gravity thickener for a total of three (3) gravity thickeners.
? Provide two (2) new state-of-the-art dewatering devices that each have a capacity of
1,350 lb/hour.
? Provide all associated appurtenances to accommodate this equipment.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-31
The existing solids thickening and dewatering system consists of a splitter box, two (2) 40-foot
diameter gravity thickening tanks with mechanical sludge withdrawal, two centrifuge feed
pumps, a bulk polymer tank, two (2) centrifuges (each with a polymer feed system), a hydrated
lime storage silo, two (2) lime day tanks with feed conveyors, and a dewatered biosolids
conveyor/mixing system.
When the plant was rerated from an average daily design capacity of 8.0 to 9.2 MGD in 2000,
there was no additional dewatering equipment installed. Extending the hours that the equipment
was operated accommodated dewatering additional biosolids beyond the original design intent.
Extended hours of dewatering equipment operation were also used to accommodate services for
the septage and trucked wastewater hauling service. Thickening was address by converting an
existing decant tank (DT) to a thickener.
The existing equipment was well built and is well maintained; however, the existing centrifuges
have been in continuous service for over 30 years and are not state-of-the-art technology.
Based on the original plant design concept, the expansion of the gravity thickening capacity
would be approximately 53% to accommodate an increase in average flow from 8.0 to the longterm
projected flow. This increase would result in the need for a 3rd gravity thickener that is
approximately the same diameter as the existing thickeners. A larger new thickener could be
added at a relatively small increase in construction cost to provide additional operational
flexibility. Such a larger thickener would also enable VFSA to more easily accommodate trucked
wastewaters, as well as maintenance outages without significant process disruption.
The VFSA currently operates two (2) centrifuges to dewater the gravity thickened biosolids.
Each centrifuge has a capacity of approximately 900 dry pounds per hour, resulting in a total
plant capacity of 1,800 dry pounds per hour. Similarly, assuming additional thickening capacity
and future acceptance of trucked wastewaters, the VFSA would have to operate up to 3 shifts per
day with existing dewatering equipment. Without trucked wastewaters, VFSA could meet its
long term future dewatering needs without additional capacity, and overtime levels could
actually be reduced versus current levels. The continued acceptance of various types of trucked
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-32
wastewaters is a decision. The VFSA needs to make this decision based on the overall operating
philosophy and market conditions. Such factors have the potential to change over time.
Since the existing centrifuges are over 30-years old, it would be beneficial to add new state-ofthe-
art equipment, which could provide additional capacity and increased efficiency thereby
reducing operating and maintenance costs in the long run. In addition to modernizing the plant,
new equipment would enable VFSA to provide excess dewatering capacity, which would both
provide operating flexibility as well as enable VFSA to accept trucked wastewaters, while
reducing operating costs for overtime..
Based on the original plant design concept, the expansion of the dewatering capacity would be
approximately 50% to accommodate an increase in average flow from 8.0 to the long-term
projected flow. Replacement of the 2 centrifuges with new dewatering devices with 50%
additional capacity each would result in providing the needed capacity while also upgrading the
dewatering equipment to the most modern technology.
Thickening
The VFSA currently operates two (2) gravity thickeners, each 40 feet in diameter. An analysis of
the hydraulic and solids’ loading to the thickener indicates that sufficient hydraulic capacity
exists, but the thickeners have inadequate solids loading capacity. This solids loading thickening
capacity shortfall exists whether or not the VFSA continued acceptance of trucked wastewaters;
however, because solids from the trucked wastewater business amounts to almost half (½) of the
total solids processed, the capacity shortfall will be much greater with the continued future
acceptance of trucked wastewaters.
Hydraulics
On a daily average basis (based on May 2005 through April 2006 data) VFSA’s thickeners
receive a typical loading of 675,000 gpd. The two (2) tanks have an area of approximately 2,500
square ft, resulting in a hydraulic loading of 240 gpd/square foot. According to WPCF MOP 8,
“thickeners generally are designed on a rise rate of 400 to 800 gpd/square foot. Excessive liquid
detention time is to be avoided as septic conditions can result and cause odors.” Therefore our
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-33
current loading of 240 gpd/square foot is well below the design criterion of 400 to 800
gpd/square foot, and additional hydraulic capacity is not needed.
Solids Loading
Below are the VFSA’s average solids loadings from May 2005 through April 2006 data, along
with design criteria per the Water Environment Federation’s Manual of Practice for Design
(WEF MOP 8):
Table 5-4. VFSA’s Average Solids Loading, May 2005 – April 2006.
Source Average lb/day Required Area lb/ft2
(PerWEF MOP 8)
Required
Area (ft2)
Waste Activated
Sludge
6,143
Secondary Sludge
2.65
2,318
Primary Sludge 5,463 Primary Sludge 10 546
Subtotal (Waste
Activated and
Primary Sludge
11,606 2,864
Trucked Waste
(DAT/DT)
17,704 Primary sludge 10 1,770
Total Required
(includes trucked
waste)
24,947 4,634
Available with DT 3,210
Available w/o DT 2,500
The current capacity with the DT utilized as a thickener is 3,210 square feet of surface area.
Even if the VFSA eliminated trucked waste receipt and put the DT into service as a thickener,
the present solids loading requirement would only be met only marginally. Please note that the
DT tank does not contribute very much capacity because of its relatively small diameter. The
thickener system is overloaded in terms of solids loading and additional capacity is needed.
The VFSA is able to operate the treatment plant successfully at present loadings, because of the
excess of organic capacity that currently exists in the remainder of the treatment system.
Overloading the thickeners results in excess organic discharge over the thickener effluent weirs
into the plant internal recycle stream. This organic discharge is recycled back to the head of the
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-34
plant for treatment. Although this operating flexibility enables VFSA to manage the capacity
shortfall in an acceptable manner, their may be negative implications with regard to odor. As the
numbers of connected customers increase according to the growth projected in this Act 537 plan,
this excess organic treatment capacity will decrease and the deficit of thickening capacity will
result in substantial risk of process upsets. As a result, effluent quality will suffer.
The recommended thickening capacity is 4,045 square feet of surface area for a connected flow
of 11.3 MGD with no trucked waste. To include the existing trucked waste business volume and
an assumed increase of 10% overall growth of the business, the recommended thickening surface
area is 6,045 square feet. The two 40-foot diameter units and one (1) additional 57.5-foot
diameter unit are needed to meet this requirement. Without inclusion of the septage business, the
existing gravity thickening capacity is marginal, and a third thickener is recommended to allow
for maintenance outages of one thickening tank to prevent solids handling disruptions.
Furthermore, additional gravity thickening capacity could improve the efficiency of the
centrifuges by providing higher centrifuge feed solids concentrations. This claim is clearly
demonstrated in the chart below of monthly 2004 data. The correlation of higher thickened solids
content to dewatered cake solids is clear.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-35
Figure 5-1. Centrifuge Production Based on Feed Concentration.
In summary:
? The existing thickening capacity is marginal at present without inclusion of trucked
wastewaters. With the presence of trucked wastewaters, the VFSA’s thickening capacity
is insufficient for current loadings.
? Additional thickening capacity is needed to accommodate future connected customers.
? A third thickener sized at about 57.5 feet in diameter could accommodate future growth
while providing the necessary flexibility to handle maintenance outages with a minimum
of operational disruption.
? To add operational flexibility, a thickener could be added.
Dewatering Capacity
The available dewatering capacity is 17,520 hours per year based on both centrifuges operating
continuously. The actual 2005 dewatering hours was approximately half (½) of that total or
8,790 hours. The actual operating hours include both machines operating 5 days per week
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-36
between two (2) and three (3) shifts per day, depending upon trucked waste loading. During
2005, the VFSA processed approximately 4,700 dry tons of biosolids products.
Based on data from the last 5 years recorded in the “Valley Forge Sewer Authority Annual
Summary”, the average solids production from connected customers versus trucked waste are as
follows:
Table 5-5. Average Solids Production From Connected Customers Versus TruckedWaste.
Year
Dewatered Solids
from Connected
Customers (dry tons
per day)
Dewatered Solids
from Trucked
Wastewater
Business (dry tons
per day)
Total Dewatered
Solids (dry tons
per day)
2005 6.2 5.9 12.1
2004 10.1** 5.5 15.6**
2003 7.2 5.7 12.9
2002 7.0 4.2 11.2
2001 6.3 4.2 10.5
Average 6.7 5.1 11.8
**Outlier. Not included in average
The data indicates that about 43 percent of the solids dewatered at VFSA originate from the
septage business.
The following are the estimated sludge dewatering capacity requirements for the projected
growth estimated to occur 10, 20, and 30 years into the future:
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-37
Table 5-6. Estimated Sludge Dewatering Capacity Requirements.
Years
Projected Flow
Capacity
Needed (MGD)
Dewatered
Solids From
Connected
Customers (dry
tons per day)
Dewatered
Solids From
TruckedWaste
Business (dry
tons per day)
Total
Dewatered
Solids (dry
tons per
day)
Current 7.6 5.8 5.1 10.9
10 9.7 7.4 6.0 13.4
20 10.6 8.1 6.0 14.1
30 11.4 8.7 6.0 14.7
Table 5-6 above indicates the VFSA can meet its dewatering capacity requirements into the
distant future for its connected customers if the current operating time is maintained. If the
septage business is maintained, additional run time is required or the dewatering capacity per
hour must be increased with an additional machine or with machines of greater capacity.
Considering the existing centrifuges are over 30 years old, there may be benefit in replacing the
units with new larger units. Such an upgrade will provide the operating flexibility to maintain or
even grow the trucked wastewater business. Increased dewatering capacity will also provide
VFSA with the flexibility to reduce operating hours to less than two (2) full shifts.
Replacement of the two (2) centrifuges with new dewatering devices each with 50 percent
additional capacity would provide the needed capacity while also upgrading the dewatering
equipment to the most modern technology.
Plant Improvements
This section outlines the improvements that would logically be made to the VFSA STP
concurrently with an expansion of the existing STP. The items described in this section are not
required to meet future connected capacity needs; however, these items will serve to upgrade and
modernize the plant. The improvements described in this section are considered conceptual and
subject to more detailed engineering evaluation.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-38
The existing STP, constructed in the mid-1970’s, was well-built and has been well-maintained.
However, the available technology features and advancement in equipment have improved over
the last 30 years and it would be appropriate to upgrade the treatment in order to provide stateof-
the-art equipment and automation. Some of these improvements, if implemented, will also
provide savings in operating and maintenance costs.
In summary, the recommended upgrades are as follows:
? Influent chamber modifications
? New centralized plant automation.
? Upgrades to the existing chlorine building.
? Additions and modifications to the Control Building odor control system.
? Additions and modifications to the influent and primary influent odor control system.
? Operations and Maintenance Building upgrades.
? In-house loading tank system and recycle stream handling improvements.
? A day bin for biosolids.
? A blend tank for dewatering feed.
? Existing biosolids conveyor system upgrade.
The following describes in conceptual terms, the recommended improvements and rational basis
for these recommendations.
Influent Chamber Modifications
Several modifications are needed to be conducted to prepare for the increased flows in the future.
These constructions items include but are not limited to:
? Forcemain changes and upgrades
? Bypassing around influent meters and channels, and connection to existing site piping
downstream
? Gate replacement
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-39
Centralized Plant Automation
The existing treatment control system consists of the original 1970’s technology plus advances
that were made by the VFSA staff in recent years. Allen Bradley process logical controllers
(PLCs) are used to control the aeration, dewatering, and polymer systems. To modernize,
centralize and expand the plant’s control systems, the following upgrades are recommended:
? Ethernet data highway. Graphical interface with the network, which includes indication
of parameters and control. Access to data highway via the internet for access of data as
well as control.
? Implementation of a user-friendly graphical interface package such as Wonder Wear®
? Monitoring parameters online such as pH, temperature, D.O. (upgraded technology for
measurement) TSS, Organic Load (or other BOD derivative), Ammonia, others as
required. And indication on network graphic interface.
? Wireless data transmission from remote plant locations where this is found to be cost
effective and needed.
? Capability to easily access key process data for analysis from authorized PCs.
? An upgraded maintenance software package.
Chlorine Building Renovation
The existing building contains three rooms that house chlorine and sulfur dioxide storage,
chlorine and sulfur dioxide feed equipment, effluent sampling equipment, and utility water
(treated effluent) pumps.
The plant expansion alternative includes the conversion from gaseous chlorine disinfection to
ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. This conversion will allow renovation of the building use to
include the following:
? UV system maintenance room for UV module lifting hoists, a space to clean UV bulbs,
spare parts storage area, local instrument indicators and controls.
? Chemical storage of liquid sodium hypochlorite and feed equipment for periodic return
sludge chlorination.
? The utility water pump system is 1970 technology and has been a source of maintenance
problems. It should be replaced with more modern equipment with increased capacity.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-40
? A new effluent monitoring station with appropriate online analyzers is also
recommended.
Added Odor Control for Control Building
The off gasses from the Control Building recycle tanks, existing centrifuges, degrit area, DT
tank, and DAT tank are treated in an activated carbon treatment system. This system is effective
in removing the compounds that cause most of the odor from the treatment plant – sulfur
containing compounds (including hydrogen sulfide). However, the more complex compounds
and those derived from ammonia (amines) are not entirely removed by the existing system.
Therefore, additional controls are recommended for treating odors from the Operations Building.
For the purposes of this study, a two stage chemical wet scrubber system is considered as the
needed improvement. The specific components and design will be evaluated in further detail
prior to implementation.
Permanent Installation of Primary Settling Tank Odor Control
Previous odor studies suggest that a significant portion of the potential odors associated with the
normal operation of the STP may come from the quiescent surfaces of the primary tanks. The
VFSA staff has conducted tests utilizing iron salts to oxidize hydrogen sulfide and thereby
reduce odors in the influent to the WWTP. These tests showed promise in the summer of 2005.
The additional testing being conducted in the spring and summer of 2006, indicates that potential
for excess light solid precipitants from the process. Accordingly alternate odor control chemicals
that do not produce precipitated solids are being evaluated.
It is recommended that upgrades to this system be added concurrently with the required capacity
upgrades. Such upgrades would consist of a permanent installation of chemical addition
equipment, including chemical storage tanks and metering equipment.
Additionally, covers for the open sections of the tanks could be added to the primary clarifiers;
however, these must be designed to enable safe and easy routine maintenance of the tanks, as
well as providing ventilation that is adequate to prevent corrosion beneath the covers of the
tanks.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-41
The specific type of odor control upgrades for the influent should be evaluated in more detail. If
a permanent system for odor control chemical addition is decided upon, then an optimal dosing
philosophy should be established that balances considerable chemical costs with the potential for
odor in the surrounding communities.
Upgrade Operations Building
The existing Operations Building is over 30 years old and there has not been a renovation of the
building since the plant was commissioned. Renovating the building would update the operations
and maintenance areas while providing a safe and pleasant working environment for the VFSA
employees. The renovation would encompass the existing Control Room, lunch room, locker
room, and maintenance shop. It would include upgrading the appearance and ventilation system
in these rooms as well as providing better functionality therein. Such renovations would include
upgrading lifting cranes, compressors, and equipment.
In addition, there is a large potential work area that is currently occupied by pressure filters that
were built but never commissioned. These filters were converted to trucked wastewater storage,
but this converted system has not been used to date due to lack of need. Improvements to the
Operations Building should include the removal of these large pressure filters and conversion of
the space to a usable workspace for maintenance activities and parts storage.
In-House Loading Tank Improvements
Recycle flows consisting of gravity thickener overflow and centrifuge centrate are routed by
gravity to a sloped-bottom rectangular “in-house” loading tank located below the ground level of
the operations building. There is a larger operating tank and a smaller spare tank. Four (4) pumps
operated in parallel to return the internal wastewater flows back to the plant influent structure.
These tanks were originally designed to store treated water as part of the pressure filter system.
However, they were converted to handle these generally high strength wastewater streams.
Off gas from the in-house is presently routed to the existing Phoenix activated carbon system.
This odor control system also treats odors from the degrit cyclone area, conveyor system and
centrifuge vent.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-42
Although the system works satisfactorily, it is not without certain operating and maintenance
problems. The ceilings of these tanks, which are a portion of the buildings first floor, were not
designed for high strength wastewater. Corrosion of the ceiling has occurred and it must be
coated on a regular basis. There is some risk of structural failure.
In addition, these tanks do not have a means for easily removing solids that accumulate at the
bottom and top of the tank. As a result, the VFSA must pay a contractor to clean the tank on a
yearly basis, and this could cost about $15,000 per cleaning, or more.
The recommended improvement for this system includes:
? Adding a pumped mixing system.
? Replacing the concrete ceiling.
? Adding larger access hatches
? Improving the ventilation.
Solids Processing Improvements
The current solids processing consists of gravity thickening followed by centrifuge dewatering,
mixing with hydrated lime, and daily loading onto trailers for hauling to land application sites.
This appears to be a viable means of processing and utilization into the foreseeable future.
In addition to adding capacity via new state-of-the-art dewatering devices, there are several
improvements to this system that are recommended:
Day Bin for Biosolids
Currently, dewatered biosolids fall from the centrifuges into an existing shaftless screw conveyor
system. There, the solids are mixed with hydrated lime and conveyed into a 40 cubic yard
contractor-owned trailer that is positioned with a VFSA-owned Jockey Truck. This system
requires the trailer to be jockeyed every 20 minutes or so to evenly load the biosolids. This
operation is a labor-intensive task. The installation of the new day bin would eliminate this task
as trailers could be loaded by the contractor’s drivers. This improvement would free up an
operator for other O&M duties. In addition, with appropriate odor controls, a day bin could
practically eliminate the truck loading operation as a significant source of plant odor.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-43
The day bin would be sized for the volume of biosolids that would be generated over a two or
three day period, resulting in a capacity of about 200 wet tons.
The day bin would contain additional mechanical equipment such as the loading mechanisms on
the bottom that would require normal maintenance. This additional maintenance would be offset
by the reduced O&M costs for the existing jockey truck.
In addition to the day bin, modifications to the existing conveyor system would be necessary to
properly load the bin. At the least, one of the existing conveyors would have to be extended in
order to reach the top of the bin.
Blend Tank for Dewatering Feed
The existing gravity thickener bottoms are used to feed the centrifuges. The gravity thickeners
are subjected to variability in their influent characteristics that result from three separate sources
of influent (primary, waste activated and trucked sources). The variability in influent
characteristics also affects the consistency of the thickener bottoms, and makes it more difficult
to produce a consistently dry cake and optimize use of chemicals. The function of a blend tank
will be to take in thickener bottoms, and mix it thereby producing a consistent dewatering
process feed.
Conveyor Modifications
The existing conveyor system has adequate capacity to meet the additional dewatering
equipment that is being considered. An extension, as described in the forgoing subsection would
be needed to feed the day bin. As with VFSA’s existing system, most conveyor system designs
used at other plants do not include replication of the conveying equipment, because any failure
could be fixed relatively quickly. However, some replication of equipment would provide a
margin of safety to keep the dewatering process operating during conveyor liner replacement and
repair activities. Appropriate conveyor modifications should be considered as part of the specific
changes that are being considered to increase and upgrade the solids handling system.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-44
Figure 5-2 depicts a general aerial view of the existing treatment plant with the proposed
modifications.
Figure 5-2. Proposed wastewater treatment plant layout
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative is rejected, because it fails to satisfy objectives of Act 537 Plan, and
it is inconsistent with objectives and policies of municipal planning documents and state
regulations.
Section 6
Evaluation of Alternatives
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Consistency 6-1
B. Resolution of Inconsistencies 6-3
C. Water Quality Standards 6-3
D. Capital and Operating Costs/Present Worth Analysis 6-3
E. Funding Methods 6-4
F. Phased Implementation 6-13
G. Legal Authority 6-13
Appendices:
D. Preliminary Effluent Criteria
F. PNDI Correspondence
G. PHMC Correspondence
Figures:
None
Exhibits:
None
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-1
A. Perform an evaluation of all viable alternatives identified in the previous
section of the Plan for consistency with all related municipal, county, and state
planning documents and programs including copies of notification and
responses from all appropriate planning agencies.
As discussed in Section 5, Alternative 3e was the selected alternative, which involved the
construction of a second aeration tank and a fourth secondary clarifier.
Table 6-1. Consistency Evaluation of Selected Alternative from Section 5.
Evaluation
Category
Consistency Comments
Yes No
Plans developed
under the Clean
Streams Law or
Section 208
X All water discharged into the waters of the Commonwealth must satisfy
the requirements assigned by Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DEP). Alternative 3e will be constructed
and operated within the requirements of DEP.
The selected alternative is consistent with the objectives of the Clean
Stream Laws.
Municipal
Wasteload
Management Plans
(Chapter 94)
X The alternative is associated with treatment of projected flow not the
creation of new flow. This alternative will aid in the prevention of an
overload hydraulically or organically resulting from the projected
connections; therefore, the alternative does not conflict with Chapter 94.
The selected alternative is consistent with the objectives of the Chapter
94.
Plans developed
under the Clean
Water Act
N/A Not applicable. No federal funding anticipated.
Chester County
Landscapes 1996-
2020-
Comprehensive
Plan – Policy
Element.
X The Comprehensive Plan indicates that improvements shall be
consistent with land use policy to maintain and upgrade existing sewer
and water facilities, to address problems, and to support revitalization
and development activities. The alternative should not adversely impact
that plan.
The selected alternative is consistent with the objectives of Chester
County’s Comprehensive Plan.
Municipal
Comprehensive
Plans
X This Act 537 Plan addresses the maximum wastewater load associated
with the eight Townships that comprise the region in the vicinity of
VFSA. The values associated with the plan were determined from the
zoning requirements of each township.
The selected alternative is consistent with Municipal Comprehensive
Plans.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-2
Evaluation
Category
Consistency Comments
Yes No
Antidegradation
requirements
(Chapters 93, 95,
102)
X No exceptional or high quality streams will be impacted by the
alternatives. Construction activities associated with expansion of
existing facilities would be subject to statewide Erosion and
Sedimentation controls. Preliminary effluent criteria have been
established by PADEP and are included in Appendix E.
The selected alternative is consistent with Antidegradation
requirements.
State Water Plan
(Subbasin #2)
X The Schuylkill River in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is
listed as impaired in the StateWater Plan. The impact of this listing is
not yet known because TMDLs for the river have not been established.
PADEP will control the TMDL by the limits established for the permit.
The selected alternative will not produce non-point pollution.
Therefore, the alternative will not adversely impact the intent of the
State Water Plan.
The selected alternative is consistent with the State Water Plan.
Pa. Prime
Agricultural Land
Policy
X All of the construction associated with the selected alternative would
occur on property owned by the VFSA. Therefore, agricultural land
will not be impacted.
The selected alternative is consistent with the PA Prime Agricultural
Land Policy.
Chester County
Stormwater
Management Plans
(Act 167)
X All construction will be permitted in accordance with applicable
stormwater management plans. Currently, there is no reason to suspect
that the selected alternative cannot satisfy the requirements of these
plans. Therefore, there will be no impact upon the stormwater
management plans
Each alternative is consistent with Chester County Stormwater
Management Plan.
Wetland
Protection
(Chapter 105)
X A review of the wetlands maps indicated that there are no wetlands in
the vicinity of construction. Therefore, the impact upon wetland
should be none. Additionally, all construction will be designed and
permitted in accordance with Chapter 105.
The selected alternative is consistent with Chapter 105.
PNDI Review X A PNDI Project Environmental Review was conducted on March 27,
2006 and the results showed three (3) potential impacts with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, PA Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, and PA Fish and Boat Commission. The receipt of this
search is included in Appendix F. Information was sent to these
agencies for further review and responses were received indicating no
potential effect as long as there is no disturbance within any wetland.
For the PA Fish and Boat Commission, if there will be any direct or
indirect on any wetland, a habitat suitability assessment for bug turtles
must be completed. The responses are included also in Appendix F.
The selected alternative is consistent with the PNDI.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-3
Evaluation
Category
Consistency Comments
Yes No
PHMC Review X A request was sent to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission for analysis of potential impacts on archaeological
resources as a result of the construction activities. A reply was received
indicating a high probability exists that archaeological resources may
occur with the proposed permit area, and can be seen in Appendix G. If
federal funding were being pursued for the construction an appropriate
survey would need to be conducted to determine the exact potential of
effect.
There is no federal funding being pursued for the construction of the
selected alternative; therefore, the selected alternative is consistent with
the requirements of PHMC.
B. Provide copies of correspondence indicating resolution of any inconsistencies
with appropriate planning agencies.
No inconsistencies were noted. All correspondence regarding the PNDI and PHMC can be seen
in Appendix F and G, respectively.
C. Perform and evaluation of all identified viable alternatives with respect to
applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations, other technical,
legislative, or legal requirements.
The VFSA STP currently discharges effluent to the Schuylkill River under NPDES Permit No.
PA 0043974. In preparation for the evaluation of alternatives to expand the STP, a request was
made to PADEP for effluent criteria at the new design flow rate. Preliminary effluent limits for
the expanded STP were provided by PADEP, as referenced previously and are included in
Appendix D. The selected alternative is capable of meeting the specified criteria.
D. Prepare opinions of probable construction costs, including allowances for soft
costs such as engineering, legal, and administrative costs, for each of the
identified viable alternatives. Prepare operating cost estimates for each
alternative and perform a present worth analysis to finance the alternative.
and
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-4
E. Prepare an analysis of funding methods available to finance the identified
viable alternatives, including documentation to support which alternatives and
financing scheme, in combination, is most cost effect.
Expansion Alternative Capital Costs
Conceptual level construction costs for each alternative were estimated by Buchart-Horn and
included a 25% contingency. Buchart-Horn’s documentation to support these estimates is
included as Appendix D. Note that the estimates do not include Alternative 3d, which is the
construction of an IFAS process. A more detailed evaluation would be necessary to establish
reliable construction costs for IFAS. Table 6-2, below summarizes the estimated project costs
for the expansion alternative. All of the alternatives listed as “Alternative 3” (i.e., b, c, d)
include the addition of UV disinfection. Estimated project costs for a 3rd thickener, dewatering
devices and other plant improvements are presented in separate tables later in this section. For
evaluating capital costs and the present worth of alternatives, a 25% factor is applied for
associated project costs such as engineering, legal, finance and other administrative expenses.
The capital cost comparison is based on a flow rate of 11.4 MGD. The cost of delayed expansion
items for each alternative is added in so an equal comparison can be made.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-5
Table 6-2. Estimated Project Cost for the Expansion Alternatives
Alternative
No. Alternative Description
Estimated 2006
Construction
Cost
(million $)
Associated
Project Cost
@ 25%of
Construction
Estimated Total
Capital Cost
(2006)
1a Locate a Satellite Plant at Cromby $10.02 $2.50 $12.52
1b Locate a Satellite Plant at French Creek,
Discharge at Cromby $10.65 $2.66 $13.31
2a
Divert French Creek pump station and
discharge to Phoenixville, including
Phoenixville Tapping Fee
$7.43 $1.86 $9.29
2b
Divert Pickering Creek pump station to
Phoenixville, including Phoenixville
Tapping fee.
$6.46 $1.62 $8.08
3b Alt. 1a plus add a 4th Clarifier $4.65 $1.16 $5.81
3c Alt 1c plus add a 3rd Primary Clarifier $10.10 $2.53 $12.63
3e Current process plus add a 3rd
Aeration Tank and 4th Clarifier $8.28 $2.07 $10.35
Based on the conceptual project cost estimates, Alternative 3b is the least costly.
Expansion Alternatives Estimated Operating Costs
Table 6-3, presents the estimated operating costs of each expansion alternative. This comparison
was based on the projected 10-year flow rate of 10 MGD to provide the expected average annual
cost for the 20-year period. Beyond the 10-year flow projection, the alternatives that include flow
diversion of the French Creek pump station (Alternatives 1a, 1b, and 2a) would require
additional capital and operating costs to meet longer term capacity requirements. This is because
an average flow of only about 0.7 MGD could be delivered from the French Creek station. This
would be insufficient to meet VFSA’s long-term (20-year) needs. In addition, such an approach
would be only marginal in meeting VFSA’s 10-year needs.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-6
Table 6-3. Estimated 2006 Annual Operating Costs (Expressed per $1,000 unless otherwise
noted)
NULL = OPERATIONS BASED ON CURRENT PLANT CONDITIONS (2006)
Operating costs for alternative 3d were not developed.
Highlights of the operating cost summary include:
? Operating cost increases for various alternatives that include modifications and upgrades
of the wastewater treatment plant are generally related to treating additional wastewater
flows such as increased power, chemical addition, and solids transportation and disposal.
? Alternative 3d - IFAS processes should be considered in further detail. Operating costs
(not presented in Table 6-3) are likely to be competitive with the other plant expansion
alternatives.
Alternative No. Null 1a 1b 2a 2b 3b 3c 3e
Operating Expenditures:
Administrative Operating Costs 244 314 314 244 244 244 244 244
Benefits 77 100 100 77 77 77 77 77
Administrative Insurance 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Operating & Maintenance Admin. Supplies 83 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Operating and Maintenance Salaries 851 922 922 851 851 867 872 869
Operating and Maintenance Benefits 301 326 326 301 301 307 308 307
Electricity and Energy 370 398 398 398 398 398 398 398
Pump Station Power 156 48 48 48 168 168 168 168
Chemicals 324 385 385 385 385 385 385 385
Laboratory Supplies 96 117 117 97 97 97 97 97
Miscellaneous Supplies 34 39 39 34 34 34 34 34
Solids Transportation and Disposal 590 693 693 613 613 613 613 613
Corrosion and Odor Control 211 267 267 227 227 227 227 227
Predictive Maintenance 71 86 86 71 71 71 71 71
Landscaping 21 26 26 21 21 21 21 21
Maintenance Materials 43 53 53 43 43 43 43 43
Annual Services and Special Projects 69 79 79 69 69 69 69 69
Property and Liability Insurance 56 69 69 57 57 57 57 57
Metered Sewer usage to Phoenixville (~0.7
MGD) 0 0 0 654 654 0 0 0
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (2006 Million $) 3.44 4.01 4.01 4.28 4.40 3.77 3.77 3.77
Difference vs. No Action Alternative 0 565 565 835 954 322 328 324
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-7
? Relatively higher operating costs for the Phoenixville wastewater diversion (Alts. 2a &
2b) are due to the high-metered rates charged by the Borough. These are the rates listed
in their rate schedule.
? There is some pump station power operating cost savings in Alternatives 1a, 1b, and 2a
that include diverting wastewaters from the French Creek pump station; however, this is
not enough to offset other increased operating costs.
? The satellite treatment plant alternatives’ higher operating costs are related to increased
O&M labor (2 additional O&M employees were estimated); laboratory costs (in order to
accommodate 2 separate permits and associated monitoring); and solids transport and
disposal (routine trucking from the satellite plant to the existing STP would be needed).
? For alternatives requiring additional capacity 10-years into the future, it was assumed that
operating costs would escalate similarly (differences between alternatives are likely to be
negligible), and therefore incremental operating cost differences between alternatives in
the distant future are not considered in this comparison.
Present Worth Comparison
Table 6-4 presents a summary of the capital, operating and present worth of each alternative
using a 20-year project life and 4 percent annual discount rate. The summary is shown in
graphic form in Figure 1. Alternatives 3b, and 3e appear to be the most cost effective from a
present worth perspective. Note that although alternatives 1a and 1b are comparable in present
worth to Alternative 3e, but they would only provide the capacity that is needed for a limited
time frame. After that time, additional capacity may be needed.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-8
Table 6-4. 2006 PresentWorth Analysis (Costs are in million dollars)
Alternative No. Null 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3e
Construction Cost
($million) 0 4.57 5.2 1.98 2.01 4.65 10.1 8.28
Tapping Fee –
Phoenixville 0 0 0 5.9 5.9 0 0 0
Engineering &
Admin @ 25% ($
million)
0 1.14 1.3 0.55 0.5 1.16 2.52 2.07
Capital Cost
(MM$) 0 5.75 6.5 8.38 8.41 5.81 12.63 10.35
Additional
Operating Cost
($million/year)
0 0.56 0.56 0.83 0.95 0.32 0.33 0.32
Present Worth
Factor (P/A,
4.0%, 20 years)
13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6
Present Worth of
Annual Costs 0 7.69 7.69 11.3 13 4.38 4.46 4.4
Annualized Cost
Factor (A/P, 4%,
20 years)
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Annualized
Capital Cost 0 0.37 0.42 0.59 0.59 0.38 0.82 0.67
Future
Construction Cost
in 10-years
0 6.45 6.45 6.45 5.27 0 0 0
Future Capital
Cost (includes
25% Eng and
Admin)
0 8.07 8.07 8.07 6.59 0 0 0
Present Worth
Factor (P/F, 4%
20 years)
0.676 0.676 0.676 0.676 0.676 0.676 0.676 0.676
Present Worth of
Future Costs 5.45 5.45 5.45 4.45
PresentWorth
Cost of
Alternative
($million)
0 18.84 19.63 25.16 25.83 10.19 17.08 14.75
Although alternative 3e is more costly in present worth than 3a and 3b, it would provide
additional operating flexibility while meeting all long-term capacity needs. Alternative 1d
provides the most operating flexibility, but at the highest capital cost of the plant expansion
alternative. IFAS costs are expected to be at the higher range of the plant alternatives and this
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-9
strategy would warrant further study if additional tanks at the plant was not considered to be a
viable option.
While IFAS is promising, an additional study would be required to establish whether such a
design (including all pretreatment components that would be required) is the optimal design in
terms of reliability and cost.
While Alternatives 1 and 2 have some favorable aspects, they would only provide some of the
long-term future capacity needed. Accordingly the need to expand the existing plant in the future
results in these alternatives being higher in present worth costs compared to alternatives
consisting of expansion of the existing plant.
Biosolids Handling Capacity Improvements
Table 6-5 below outlines the estimated capital costs for additional gravity thickening and
dewatering. The construction estimates are conceptual and include a 25 percent contingency.
When additional engineering is performed, the capital costs can be estimated to a higher degree
of accuracy. The associated project costs for engineering, legal, finance and other administration
fees are estimated at 25 percent of construction. Documentation of construction cost estimates is
included in the Appendix D.
Table 6-5. Estimated 2006 Capital Costs – Solids Thickening and Dewatering
Thickening and
Dewatering Addition
Estimated 2006
Construction Cost ($
million)
Associated
Project Cost
@ 25% of
Construction
Estimated
Total Project
Cost
(2006) ($M)
One Additional Gravity
Thickener including ancillary
equipment $0.9 $0.22 $1.12
Two New Dewatering
Devices including ancillary
equipment $2.0 $0.50 $2.50
Subtotal $2.9 $0.72 $3.62
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-10
Plant Upgrades
Table 6-6 outlines the estimated capital costs for the improvements described in Section 5. The
construction estimates are conceptual and include a 25 percent contingency. When additional
engineering is performed, the capital costs can be estimated to a higher degree of accuracy. The
associated project costs for engineering, legal, finance, and other administration fees are
estimates at 25 percent of construction. Documentation of capital cost estimating is included the
in Appendix D.
Table 6-6 Estimated Capital Costs – Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
ProposedWWTP
Improvement
Estimated 2006
Construction Cost ($
million)
Associated
Project Cost
@ 25% of
Construction
Estimated
Total Project
Cost (2006)
($M)
Influent Chamber Modifications $0.80 $.200 $1.000
Centralized Plant Automation. $0.66 $0.165 $0.825
Renovation of Chorine Building $0.08 $0.020 $0.100
UtilityWater System Replacement
and Upgrade $0.31 $0.076 $0.386
Control Building Odor Control
System $0.47 $0.118 $0.588
Influent Odor Control System
(chemical addition, assumed) $0.10 $0.025 $0.125
Upgrade Operations Building $0.90 $0.226 $1.126
Improve Recycle Stream Handling $0.22 $0.056 $0.276
Day Bin for Biosolids Staging and
Truck Loading $1.00 $0.250 $1.250
Addition of a Blend Tank for
Dewatering Feed $0.366 $0.0925 0.458
Replicate Biosolids Conveyor
System $0.62 $0.155 $0.775
Subtotal – Plant Improvements $5.53 $1.384 $6.909
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-11
Conclusions
This section presented a conceptual analysis of the capacity expansion alternatives that were
retained for evaluation as well as other non-capacity-related plant improvements. Conclusions of
this analysis:
? The alternatives that include expansion of capacity at the existing VFSA treatment plant
appear to be the most viable, because they are the lowest in present worth cost and allow
for meeting both the short and long-term future capacity needs.
? The specific plant expansion strategy needs to be determined. In general, those
alternatives that include the additional aeration tank provide more operating flexibility at
a higher capital cost.
? Any expansion strategy should include the impact that trucked wastewaters have on the
treatment process. At a minimum, additional gravity thickening and dewatering capacity
should be provided if VFSA is to expand its service capacity while maintaining (or
growing) its current level of trucked wastewaters at the plant.
The cost analysis presented in Section 6 is conceptual only and should not be used as stand alone
budget for the anticipated expansion project. It does, however, provide the necessary
comparative analysis to identify focus in on the most cost effective solution for the expansion.
Project Funding Sources
The selected alternative will be financed by tax-exempt municipal bonds. The individual
municipalities will be given the option to make capital contributions to offset the borrowing.
The cost sharing for each partner municipality and the VFSA can be seen in Table 6-7.
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-12
Table 6-7. Project Cost Sharing
Plant expansion
Estimated total $13,970,000
MGD * Percent of expansion Est. $ share expansion cost
Easttown 0.000 0.00 $0
East Whiteland 1.969 80.30 $11,217,768
Malvern 0.000
Tredyffrin 0.199 8.12 $1,133,942
Valley Forge 0.000
Willistown 0.284 11.58 $1,618,290
2.460 100.00 $13,970,000
Plant upgrade
Estimated total $5,909,000
Percent of upgrade Est. $ share upgrade cost
Easttown 1.523 0.1655 $1,143,740
East Whiteland 1.940 0.2109 $1,456,898
Malvern 0.544 0.0591 $408,532
Tredyffrin 2.001 0.2175 $1,502,708
Valley Forge 2.128 0.2313 $1,598,082
Willistown 1.064 0.1157 $799,041
9.200 $6,909,000
Grand total Upgrade Expansion Total Contribution Overall Percent of the Project
Easttown $1,143,740 $0 $ 1,143,740 0.055
East Whiteland $1,456,898 $11,217,768 $ 12,674,666 0.607
Malvern $408,532 $ 408,532 0.020
Tredyffrin $1,502,708 $1,133,942 $ 2,636,650 0.126
Valley Forge $1,598,082 $ 1,598,082 0.077
Willistown $799,041 $1,618,290 $ 2,417,331 0.116
$6,909,000 $13,970,000 $ 20,879,000 1
1. MGD* = Projected ultimate capacity less current owned
Example: East Whiteland projected need 3.909 less current reserved capacity 1.940 equals 1.969 mgd
2. Overall percent of the project is to be utilized in calculating planning and engineering expenses
3. The cost estimates presume that the existing treatment plant is expanded and upgraded utilizing existing technology
Section 6 Evaluation of Alternatives
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 6-13
F. Prepare an analysis of the need for immediate or phased implementation of
each identified viable alternative including descriptions for any activities to
abate critical public health hazards, or for any advantages to phasing
implementation of the sewage management program.
No immediate actions are necessary to abate critical public health hazards. There is no need for
phased implementation according to connection projections.
G. Evaluate administrative organizations and legal authority necessary for plan
implementation. Provide a narrative description.
Refer to Section 7A for evaluation of administrative organizations and legal authority necessary
for plan implementation.
Section 7
Institutional Evaluation
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Financial Status and Resources 7-1
B. Institutional Alternatives 7-2
C. Administrative and Legal Activities 7-3
D. Chosen Institutional Alternative 7-3
Appendices:
None
Figures:
None
Exhibits:
None
Section 7 Institutional Evaluation
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 7-1
A. Provide a narrative description of the Authority’s financial status, operating,
and administrative resources and legal authority to implement the selected
alternative based upon information provided by the Authority.
Overview of the VFSA
The Townships of Schuylkill, East Pikeland, and Charlestown in Chester County, Pennsylvania
organized the Valley Forge Sewer Authority (VFSA) in the late 1960s for the purposes of
acquiring, constructing, maintaining, owning or leasing sewer systems and sewage treatment
works. On November 1, 1970 VFSA entered into an agreement to provide wastewater treatment
services to the following municipalities in Eastern Chester County: Easttown Township, East
Whiteland Township, Malvern Borough, Tredyffrin Township and Willistown Township (VCTS
Municipalities). These five municipalities, along with the three VFSA organizing municipalities
are collectively referred to as the VFSA Partner municipalities. The VFSA and each VCTS
Municipality has a specific reserved capacity at the 9.2 million gallons per day (MGD) Valley
Forge Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), located in Schuylkill Township.
Table 7-1 Current Capital Cost Sharing Summary for 2005
Reserve Capacity 2005 2005
Available Capacity Capacity
Utilized Rented
Partner Municipality
Percentage MGD (MGD) (MGD)
Easttown 16.55% 1.523 1.357 0
East Whiteland 20.87% 1.94 1.963 0.023
Malvern 6.13% 0.564 0.329 0
Tredyffrin 21.75% 2.001 1.128 0
V.F.S.A. 23.13% 2.128 1.480 0
Willistown 11.57% 1.064 1.221 0.157
Total 100.00% 9.2 7.478 0.180
The 1970 Agreement authorizes the VFSA to provide capacity for the Partners. The cost sharing
of capital improvement expenditures to date have been based on allocated percentages identified
in Table 7-1. Capital expenditures for expansion and improvements identified in this Plan will
be shared by the Partners by a revised cost allocation. Refer to Section 6 for the cost sharing of
the selected alternative and improvements.
Section 7 Institutional Evaluation
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 7-2
The VFSA finances, owns and operates its collection and transmission facilities in East Pikeland,
Charlestown and Schuylkill Townships’ independent of the 1970 Agreement. The other VFSA
Service Area Municipalities are responsible for the financing, ownership and operation of their
collection and conveyance system independent of any agreements, and are also parties to
agreements where they use facilities in downstream municipalities.
Two major agreements have been signed with respect to sewer system components within the
VFSA Service Area: the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer (VCTS) Agreement and the East Whiteland
Trunk Line (EWTL) Agreement. In accordance with the VCTS Agreement, Tredyffrin is
responsible for financing, ownership and operation of the VCTS within Tredyffrin Township,
which means the main pumping station and the force main to the Valley Forge STP. East
Whiteland, in accordance with the EWTL Agreement, is responsible for the financing, ownership
and operation of the EWTL within East Whiteland Township.
Financial Statement
In 2004, the Authority called its bond issue which financed the original construction of the
Authority’s facilities as well as several upgrade projects. The bond issue was refinanced with a
bank note saving the Authority $487,000 in interest over the life of the note. The remaining fee
in this note is $ 1,800,000 and will be completely satisfied by 2010. The Authority will finance
its share of the pending project from its Capital Improvement Fund which currently has a balance
of $ 16,610,107.
The Partners will provide funds for the pending project from funds on hand or thorough loans or
bond issues.
B. Provide a narrative description of the various institutional alternatives
necessary to implement the selected alternative.
The selected alternative can be fully implemented by the current organization of the VFSA. The
VFSA has a total of 27 employees combining full-time and part-time employees. Operation,
Section 7 Institutional Evaluation
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 7-3
maintenance, collection system, and laboratory consist of 15 employees, and the other 12
employees are involved in administration and engineering. Therefore, no changes are proposed
to the existing arrangement to implement the recommendations of this plan.
C. Provide a narrative description of the necessary administrative and legal
activities required to ensure implementation of the selected alternative.
The VFSA, via agreements with the VFSA member municipalities has the Authority to
implement the plan and has successfully undertaken projects in the past.
The following legal activities are necessary for plan implementation:
1. Obtain necessary permits including, but not limited to:
a. Part I – NPDES permit for discharge criteria
b. Part II – NPDES permit for construction
c. Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (approval)
2. Obligate funds for the overall project and collect accordingly from the Partner
Municipalities.
D. Identify the chosen institutional alternative for implementing the selected
alternative and provide justification considering administrative issues,
organizational needs and legal authority.
As stated previously, there are no proposed changes to the current institutional arrangement since
Agreements already exist that allow the planning and implementation of this pending project.
The following institutional activities must be accomplished for plan implementation:
1. Obtain municipal adoptions for this plan.
2. Initiate design and permitting processes for proposed project.
Section 8
Justification for Selected Alternatives
Table of Contents Page No.
A. Recommended Technical Wastewater Disposal Alternative 8-1
B. Recommended Capital Financing Plan 8-2
Appendices:
None
Figures:
None
Exhibits:
None
Section 8 Justification for Selected Alternative
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 8-1
A. Prepare a narrative to identify the recommended technical wastewater disposal
alternative with justification for the recommendations based upon needs, cost
effectiveness, and environmental considerations.
Based on this evaluation the following summarizes recommendations for VFSA to proceed with
meeting the wastewater disposal needs established by the Service area Municipalities.
? Alternative 3e, expansion of the existing wastewater treatment plant from 9.2 MGD to a
permitted capacity of 11.52 MGD is the recommended alternative. This alternative is
comprised of the upgrade and expansion of the exiting wastewater treatment plant
including UV disinfection and the addition of a 4th clarifier and a 3rd aeration basin.
Alternative 3e provides an adequate amount of operational flexibility, with a minimal
amount of risk, and the capital cost is appropriate to the level of capacity that will be
added. It meets VFSA’s capacity needs into the distant future. It will also enable VFSA
to upgrade to a denitrification plant if needed due to future regulatory requirements
without major structural additions.
? Capacity additions that are required for dewatering should be added. The analysis
presented in this report suggests that two new dewatering devices, each at a capacity of
150% of the existing centrifuges are appropriate. This will provide VFSA with sufficient
dewatering capacity to dewater its connected customers’ solids during a one-shift
working day. This was the same basis as was used for sizing the existing wastewater
treatment plant and will provide adequate capacity into the long-term future.
? Additional gravity thickening capacity is marginal at the present time and therefore more
capacity is needed and should be added in a timely manner.
Potential plant improvements are presented with a discussion of the benefits in terms of
operating flexibility and the potential of upgrading the existing plant from mid-1970s to
state-of-the-art technology. Implement plant improvements based on an analysis of the
benefits and costs.
Section 8 Justification for Selected Alternative
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 8-2
Alternative 3e (increase Capacity at Existing Plant) was selected because it is the most cost
efficient, satisfies ultimate-treatment demand for the affected area in and of itself, is consistent
with objectives and policies of municipal planning documents and regulations, and is easily
implemented.
The selected alternative satisfies the guidelines established in Section 6. Discharge to high
quality or exceptional streams and disturbance of recreational and historical areas are avoided,
and construction is minimized. All flow stays within the Schuylkill River Basin, maintaining the
water balance there.
B. Prepare a narrative to identify the recommended capital financing plan
selected to implement the recommended alternative.
This alternative will be financed by tax-exempt municipal bonds. The individual municipalities
will be given the option to make capital contributions to offset the borrowing. A breakdown of
the cost estimate is included in Appendix D. The proposed implementation schedule for this
project is presented in Table 8-1.
Section 8 Justification for Selected Alternative
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 8-3
Table 8-1. Implementation Schedule
Date Task
November 2006 VFSA Approval (August Board Meeting)
December 2006 Submit 537 Plan to Municipalities and County
Planning Agencies and Health Department
February 2006 Public Advertisement of Plan
March 2007 Approval obtained from all Agencies
April 2007 VFSA Adopts
July 2007 Submit to PADEP
October 2007 PADEP approval
January 2008 Design Contract
December 2008 Complete Design
April 2008 Obtain Permits
August 2009 Award Contract
September 2009 Begin Construction
December 2010 Begin Operations
































































































K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVLIST.WPD
Revisions made to the VFSA Member Municipality Act 537 Plan
as approved by the Authority April 14, 1997
1. Revised text on pages 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15.
2. Table No. 6, page 16, to VFSA BH/Projections
- added Reeves-Mainwaring 5 EDUs to 10 yr. projection
- deleted Patrick Henry - 47 EDUs
- adjusted Rhinehart to 130 EDUs
3. The revisions to Table No. 6 on page 16 result in changes to:
page 17, Table No. 7 - 10 yr. & ultimate EDUs for Pickering Creek P.S. and
tot totals
page 21, Table No. 10 - 10 yr. & ultimate EDUs and Flow Projections.
page 25, Table No. 12D - Deleted reference to Patrick Henry Drive.
page 31, Table No. 16 - revised 10 yr., ultimate and drawdown flow
projections. Revised 10 yr. and ultimate EDUs.
Appendix A, page 3, Pickering Creek Drainage Basin
- deleted Charlestown Crossing
- adjusted Rhinehart EDUs to 130
Appendix B, page 1, Pickering Creek - Adjusted Rhinehart to 130 EDUs.
Added Reeves-Mainwaring - 5 EDUs, adjusted undeveloped land to 73 EDUs.
Appendix B, page 2 - deleted Reeves property and Patrick Henry Drive from
Pickering (1003)
4. Added Schuylkill Township’s Act 537 planning map as Exhibit No. 5. It is
referenced on page 15 of the Plan.
8 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
The number of EDUs is also reported by member municipality. The number of EDUs connected
by municipality for 1993 through 1995 is listed in Table No. 3.
TABLE NO. 3
YEAR END EDUs BY MEMBER MUNICIPALITY
1993 1994 1995
EDUs EDUs EDUs
Charlestown Township 302.5 345.5 377.0
East Pikeland Township 1,886.0 1,927.5 1,975.0
Schuylkill Township 1,664.0 1,789.0 1,717.0
West Vincent Township 0.0 22.0 27.0
Total 3,852.5 4,084.0 4,096.0
FUTURE CONNECTIONS
Each of the member municipalities and the Valley Forge Sewer Authority have carefully
monitored development within the sewer service area. To ensure an orderly growth, sewage
facilities proposed to serve new developments are sized to consider the ultimate needs of the area
which the members have designated to be served. The proposed sewer routing must be situated
to serve the overall sewerage objective of the Township within which the project is located.
New development is typically evaluated by drainage basin. An analysis of the proposed routing
is performed to determine whether adjacent properties within the Township’s designated sewer
service area may ultimately obtain public sewerage service through the proposed sewer. This
determination may require the construction of a deeper sewer or provisions for future sewer
connections, however, the intent is to eliminate the need for pump station construction in the
future. Whenever possible, gravity alternatives are pursued. The Valley Forge Sewer Authority
has had considerable success in evaluating proposed sewer extensions by drainage basin rather
than just individual developments. Only one additional pump station has been required within
the member municipality collection system since the original collection system construction.
Each of the Member Municipalities evaluated the future wastewater disposal needs of its
community. As a result of this evaluation, Act 537 planning boundaries were developed. These
boundaries are depicted in Exhibit 1. Additionally, each municipality identified proposed and
active subdivisions within their political boundary including a development schedule. These
subdivisions are depicted in Exhibit 3. This Member Municipality Act 537 Plan uses the 1995
data for the base year. The five year projection is 2000 and the ten year projection is 2005.
Because of the varying time tables in which the three member plans were prepared, some
adjustments to the growth projections were necessary for consistency.
9 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
Charlestown Township
Charlestown Township designated all property within its entire Act 537 sewer service boundary
for public sewage service within a 10 year horizon. Figure 2 herein is a copy of Figure 15 of the
April 1989 Official Plan Under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act prepared for
Charlestown Township. The ten (10) year horizon depicted thereon is 1989-1999, basically the
five year horizon of this document. Therefore, to be consistent with the time frame of the
Member Municipality Act 537 Plan, the Township’s projections are designated as a 5 year
projection on Table No. 4. The developments which are indicated with an asterisk on Table No.
4 are already in some stage of planning or construction and the EDUs are based on approved
planning module documentation. The remaining development EDUs were calculated by
applying the Township’s maximum zoning criteria to the developable acreage within the 537
sewerage boundary defined by the Township. Although there was considerable development
planning activity in 1989, the momentum of some of the identified developments has slowed
down. Therefore, this plan modifies growth projection to reflect the current development
activity.
11 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
TABLE NO. 4
COMPARISON OF GROWTH PROJECTIONS
FOR CHARLESTOWN TOWNSHIP
VFSA/BH Projections Charlestown Projections¹
5 Year 10 Year Ultimate 5 Year
Charlestown Hunt² 105 244 349
Charlestown Hunt Growth 0 0 80 80
Across from Forestas 0 0 5 5
Charlestown Meade² 3 3
Commons at Great Valley² 66 66
Spring Oak Business Center² 73 73
DeVault Meats² 73 73
Laura Brooke² 20 20
Charlestown Oaks² 95 193 288
Charlestown Meadows² 0 0 241 241
Along Buckwalter 0 0 5 5
Behind Spring Oak 0 0 21 21
Across from Spring Oak 0 0 9 9
Yellow Springs Road 0 0 10 10
Rte. 29 & Charles Road 0 0 50 50
N. Side of the school 0 0 7 7
Farm Residence 0 0 1 1
Adj. To Laura Brooke 0 0 35 35
Adj. To Charlestown Oaks 0 0 46 46
435 437 510 1,382
Existing EDUs (1/1/95) 345.5 345.5
Five Year EDUs 435 1,382
Ten Year EDUs 437
Ultimate EDUs 510
Total 1,727.5 1,727.5
¹ Charlestown Township projected all growth within its Act 537 boundary to occur by
1999 (5 year horizon for this plan). The number of EDUs is based on the Township’s
zoning criteria.
² Developments in some stage of planning or construction.
12 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
East Pikeland Township
The growth projections provided in the East Pikeland Township Act 537 Wastewater Facilities
Plan, Phase III, dated August 26, 1991 are based on the 1989 Wasteload Management Report -
Chapter 94. The Member Municipality portion of the Chapter 94 for 1989 is furnished in whole
as Appendix A to East Pikeland Township’s plan. Per page 43 of East Pikeland Township’s Act
537 Plan, 800 EDUs were projected to develop within the Township from 1989-1994. Due to a
slow down in growth, only 321 of these EDUs were developed by 1994. Although most of the
projects identified in 1989 have not developed as planned, they are still active viable projects.
This plan updates the East Pikeland Township growth projections based on the Act 537 sewer
service boundary defined by the Township and current zoning criteria to create 5 year, 10 year
and ultimate growth projections. See Table No. 5.
The East Pikeland Township Act 537 Plan also refers to an 850,000 gpd ultimate growth
projection from the 201 Study, prepared in the early 1970's. The ultimate projection used in this
Plan considers all potential growth in the remaining developable areas within the 537 boundary
set forth by East Pikeland Township.
15 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
Schuylkill Township
Schuylkill Township’s Act 537 Plan Update includes a Table of Anticipated Development on
page 1 of the Plan Summary. It includes projections for both a five year (1995-1999) and ten
year (2000-2004) planning horizon. The Township’s Plan and this Plan differ by one year in
their time table. Therefore, the Township’s information has been updated to coincide with the
planning period of this Plan. See Table No. 6. Additionally, the time frame for the MacAvoy,
Rhinehart and Maisfield projects were extended to a 10 year duration due to the slow down in
growth experienced in recent years.
Schuylkill Township’s Act 537 boundary map titled “Act 537 Comprehensive Wastewater Plan
Showing Development - 1993 - 2002, Exhibit No. 1" is included herein as Exhibit No. 5.
16 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
TABLE NO. 6
COMPARISON OF GROWTH PROJECTIONS
FOR SCHUYLKILL TOWNSHIP
VFSA/BH Projections Schuylkill Projections
5 Year 10 Year Ultimate 5 Year 10 Year Ultimate
Chapel View Estates 12 24
Rte 23 Comm. (Alpha Rlty) 6 15
Buono Tract 12 0
MacAvoy 0 274 137 137
Valley Forge Woods 240 85 240 85
Rhinehart 0 130 80 95
Maisfield 0 48 48
French Creek - misc. (Ind.) 0 0 10 10
Along Charlestown Hunt Inter 5 5
Health Care Jordon 0 0 44
Valley Creek 2 0 0 10
Miscellaneous 0 0 25 25
Showalter Farm 0 80
Meadowbrook Golf Course 0 58
Mainwaring 5 5
Thompson Tract 10
Thompson/Gold 10
Univ. Of PA 5
Misc. Resubdiv-Jug Hollow 25
Rte 23 North Corridor 29
N. Side of Pawling Rd. 80
North of Conrail 196
Intersection @ Maisfield 6 126
Bull Tavern 3
RR Tracks 36
East Phillip 28
By Valley Forge Woods 6
_____ _____ ____ ____ _____ ____
Total EDUs 277 542 384 628 495 186
Existing EDUs 1,789 (1/1/95) 1,666 (1/1/94)
Five Year EDUs 277 628
Ten Year EDUs 542 495
Ultimate EDUs 384 186
TOTAL 2,992 2,973
Basis of EDU Growth Projections
17 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
Table No. 7 presents the basis for the EDU growth projections developed in this report.
TABLE NO. 7
EDU GROWTH PROJECTIONS
1994
Existing
EDUs 5 Year 10 Year Ultimate
French Creek P. S.
Drainage Basin
Stony Run 0 0 0 20
Kimbel Dr. P.S. 99 99 142 142
French Creek P.S. 1,922.5 2,275.5 2,439.5 2,703.5
Subtotal 2,021.5 2,374.5 2,581.5 2,865.5
Pothouse Rd. P.S.
Drainage Basin
Sandra Lane P.S. 23 23 23 23
Charlestown Rd. P.S. 119.5 122.5 122.5 127.5
Pothouse Rd. P.S. 391 391 391 396
Subtotal 533.5 536.5 536.5 546.5
Whitehorse Rd. P.S.
Drainage Basin
Whitehorse Rd. P.S. 435.5 545.5 789.5 869.5
Subtotal 435.5 545.5 789.5 869.5
Pickering Creek P.S.
Drainage Basin
Country Club Rd. P.S. 27 267 352 358
Pickering Creek P.S. 652 684 947 1,020
Subtotal 679 951 1,299 1,378
Perkiomen
Drainage Basin
Perkiomen P.S. 207.5 207.5 401.5 706.5
Subtotal 207.5 207.5 401.5 706.5
Valley Creek
Drainage Basin
Valley Creek P.S. 53 55 55 55
Subtotal 53 55 55 55
Valley Creek Trunk
Sewer Drainage Basin
Lee Tire Blvd.
metering station 154 386 386 519
Route 401 0 0 0 241
Sidley Rd. 0 95 288 334
Subtotal 154 481 674 1,094
TOTAL 4,084 5,151 6,337 7,515
Future Flows
Table No. 7 lists the projected number of EDUs for the Member Municipalities by various
21 K:\PROJ\75297-61\PDF Document\From File\REVISED.WPD
growth horizons. Table No. 10 provides average daily wastewater flow projections for the
member municipalities.
TABLE NO. 10
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FOR THE MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES
Growth Total Flow *
Horizon EDUs Projection
(MGD)
Existing 4,084 1.123
5 Yr. 5,151 1.417
10 Yr. 6,337 1.743
Ultimate 7,515 2.067
* flows based on 275 GPD/EDU
Since the creation of the Valley Forge Sewer Authority, the Member and Partner Municipalities
have used 275 gallons per day as the base flow for an EDU. The historic GPD/EDU factor for
VFSA has been well below 275 GPD/EDU since 1985. The ten year average, 1985-1994, is 218
GPD/EDU. Therefore, the 275 GPD/EDU flow rate is considered conservative when computing
flow projections for the Member Municipality collection system and is used throughout this
planning document.
The flow allocation of 2.124 MGD assigned to the Member Municipalities is adequate for all
growth horizons.
Sewers
In 1986, Buchart-Horn developed nine models which analyze the member municipality
collection system by pump station drainage basin. The data from upstream pump stations is
incorporated into the downstream pump station’s model. The model is used to simulate a “worst
case” wet weather scenario. The model then identifies which sewer segments would become
surcharged and by how much under this scenario.
The model was developed by entering defining data for each sewer segment. Data entry
included upstream and downstream manhole number and invert, pipe diameter and slope, and the
number of equivalent dwelling units connected to each pipe section.

VALLEY FORGE SEWER AUTHORITY
VALIDATION OF THE
MEMBER MUNICIPALITY COLLECTION SYSTEM
PORTION OF THE
REGIONAL ACT 537 PLAN
NOVEMBER 2005
Prepared by:
BUCHART-HORN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
445 WEST PHILADELPHIA STREET
YORK, PA 17405-7040
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537 Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction and Summary of Findings 1
Section 1
Summary of Flow Projections & Review of the 1997 Report 3
Section 2
Improvements & Changes to the VFSA Collection System Since 1997 4
Section 3
EDU Growth & Resulting Flow Projections 4
Section 4
Wet Weather Analysis of the Member Municipality Collection System 8
EXHIBITS:
4.1 Capacity Issues – Small Rain Event
4.2 Capacity Issues – Average Rain Event
4.3 Capacity Issues – Large Rain Event
4.4 Capacity Issues – Small Rain Event / French Creek Pump Station At Capacity
Page i
K:\PROJ\75297-61\Final Report\Final Report Sections\Appendix XX - Validation Report.doc
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 1 of 16
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The purpose of this report is to develop current 5 and 10 year flow projections based on updated
member municipality growth projections and validate / update the ultimate flow projections
established in the previous 1997 Report.
On April 14, 1997, the Valley Forge Sewer Authority (VFSA) approved the “Member
Municipality Collection System Supplement to the VFSA Regional Act 537 Plan.” The purpose of
the plan was to evaluate the portion of the VFSA collection system that supports the three member
municipalities, Charlestown Township, East Pikeland Township and Schuylkill Township.
Additionally, the plan presented the future growth projections of the member municipalities as
documented within the individual municipal Act 537 Plans and the calculated wastewater flow
projections based on the 5 year, 10 year and ultimate growth horizons. The 5 and 10 year planning
horizons developed in the 1997 plan were for the years 2000 and 2005 and based on year-end
1994 data.
The following summarizes the recommendations resulting from this study:
1. Sewer expansions or upgrades are not recommended as a result of this analysis.
2. Ongoing monitoring of key system locations is recommended.
3. Address project pump station capacity issues as the pump stations are modernized.
4. Identify and elevate all manholes located in or beside creeks.
This Plan Validation is divided into five sections:
• Section 1 summarizes the flow projections and recommendations presented in the 1997
Report.
• Section 2 describes improvements and changes to the VFSA collection system since the
1997 Report.
• Section 3 presents updated EDU and resulting flow projections for the 5 year, 10 year, 15
year and ultimate growth scenarios.
• Section 4 presents the computer results of wet weather flow analysis for the VFSA
collection system based on the 10-year and ultimate growth scenarios.
Based on the evaluation performed the following summarizes the overall findings:
Future average daily flow projections for the member municipalities are: (correct per new table).
• 5 year flow: 1.651 MGD
• 10 year flow 1.780 MGD
• 20 year flow 1.916 MGD Flow Projections do
not exceed Flow
Allocation
• Ultimate flow (30-yr) 1.916 MGD
The flow projections do not exceed the Member
Municipalities’ flow allocation of 2.124 MGD.
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 2 of 16
Wet weather flow analysis identified sewer segments that will be at or approaching capacity based
on a desk top static model for three different rain event scenarios: small, average, and large.
However, the VFSA staff has visited and evaluated the portions of the system where the static
model indicates the potential for flows that are greater than 100% of design capacity and has found
no evidence of surcharging. The field installation of surcharge indicators is recommended to
monitor the extent of any potential sewer surcharging in these areas over a long term period of
time.
As growth occurs and if / when surcharging or sewer capacity issues are identified, then it is
recommended that the affected areas be evaluated in more detail. Where necessary, appropriate
sewer capacity upgrades should be provided before service is adversely affected.
According to the model, all four major pump stations, French Creek, Pothouse Road, Whitehorse
Road and Pickering Creek, already experience some minor capacity issues under average and very
heavy rain/wet weather conditions. Conditions where a second (lag) pump kicked on have been
confirmed in VFSA’s flow records. However, for the most part, flow rates just exceed the pump
station capacity with one pump operating. Yet strict adherence to PADEP regulations indicates
that pump stations must be adequately sized to transfer the expected flows without requiring a
standby (in this case, the lag) pump.
Both Pothouse Road and Pickering pump stations are predicted to exceed the overall pump station
capacity with two pumps running under the ultimate growth scenario during heavy rain events
and/or snow melts. Although this condition is well beyond the growth horizons that apply to this
537 Plan, these projections should be considered when the applicable pump stations are upgraded.
Buchart-Horn understands that VFSA is considering modernizing their pump stations from
existing Flow Matcher controls to variable frequency drives (VFD) and VFD-rated motors
Buchart-Horn, Inc. (B-H) concurs with this long-term strategy and recommends that the PADEP
capacity requirements be incorporated into the pump station modernization projects as they occur.
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 3 of 16
SECTION 1
SUMMARY OF FLOW PROJECTIONS & REVIEW OF THE 1997 REPORT
VFSA has been
actively executing the
recommendations
from the 1997 Plan.
The April 1997 report projected an ultimate average daily flow (ADF) of 2.120 MGD compared to
the Member Municipalities Allocated Capacity of 2.124 MGD. Therefore, no change in the
Allocated Capacity was proposed.
The 1997 plan also reported that the majority of the pump
stations had adequate capacity to handle the projected
flows. The following recommendations were made:
• Perkiomen P.S. to be upgraded in conjunction with
the Meadows Subdivision construction
• Valley Creek P.S. to be evaluated in light of a
potential upgrade to the Wilson Road Pump Station
• Pothouse Road P.S. to be field-tested to determine capacity prior to implementing any
upgrading activities.
The pump stations were evaluated based on the maximum daily GPD/EDU measured in each
pump station drainage basin with future flows based on a long term average GPD/EDU peaked 2.5
times. Table 1.1 summarizes the maximum day and average daily flow rates utilized in the 1997
pump station and collection system analysis.
Table 1.1
PUMP STATION FLOWS
for analysis per the1997 Member Report
Pump Station Max Day Flowrate Average Daily
Flowrate
French Creek 919 239
Pothouse 1650 254
Whitehorse 1458 250
Pickering 536 224
Perkiomen 1346 236
Valley Creek 2635 260
Kimble 919 (based on FC)
Charlestown 1650 (based on PH)
* Maximum average daily flow – applied to existing system EDUs
** Average daily flow – multiplied by 2.5 and applied to future system EDUs
The collection system was evaluated using the Authority’s original computer model. The wet
weather analysis was based on the same flowrates calculated for the various pump station drainage
basins listed in Table 1.1. The model identified specific sewer segments for monitoring.
An implementation plan was developed by B-H and executed as appropriate by VFSA.
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 4 of 16
Upgrades to the VFSA collection system have been documented by B-H in the respective yearly
Engineer’s Reports for the VFSA system. The improvements that have been accomplished since
1997 are summarized in Section 2. The remainder of this report addresses updated 5 year, 10 year,
and ultimate flow projections and provides recommendations for system monitoring activities in
the future.
SECTION 2
IMPROVEMENTS & CHANGES TO THE VFSA COLLECTION SYSTEM
SINCE 1997
Improvements to the VFSA collection system, primarily associated with capacity issues, that have
occurred since the original Member Municipality Act 537 Plan was approved include:
• Prior to 2000 - Expanded and realigned sewer feeding Pothouse Road Pump Station
• 2000 – Performed Drawdown Testing of Pickering Creek Pump Station
• 2001 – Decommissioned Sandra Lane Pump Station. This area is now served by gravity
sewers
• 2001 – Replaced pump #1 impeller – Pothouse Road Pump Station
• 2001 –2003 Performed aggressive I/I reduction in the Sandra Lane / Pothouse Road Pump
Station drainage basins.
• 2002 - Upgraded Perkiomen Pump Station, which was required to accommodate additional
EDU connections from the Meadows Subdivision. (Primarily Developer Funded)
• 2002 – Replaced French Creek P.S. – Pump No. 1
• 2003 – Upgraded Valley Creek Pump Station. Replaced both pumps with higher head
pumps which was required to allow flow to enter the Wilson Road force main
• 2004 - Replaced Pump No.2 - Pothouse Road Pump Station
SECTION 3
EDU GROWTH & RESULTING FLOW PROJECTIONS
Table 3.1 provides an historic summary of EDU growth and corresponding flows. The table also
presents the 5 year and 10 year connection and flowrate averages. These averages were utilized to
develop the growth and flow projections presented herein.
Table 3.1
Historic summary of EDU Growth and Corresponding Flows
Year-end No. of Average Flow Flowrate
Year EDUs Connections (MGD) GPD/EDU
1993 3852 0.855 223
1994 4084 232 0.879 226
1995 4096 12 0.815 201
1996 4231 135 1.210 286
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 5 of 16
Year
Year-end
EDUs
No. of
Connections
Average Flow
(MGD)
Flowrate
GPD/EDU
1997 4383 152 1.030 235
1998 4624 241 1.290 279
1999 4959 336 1.220 246
2000 5546 587 1.346 249
2001 5672 126 1.226 216
2002 5893 221 1.186 201
2003 5985 92 1.707 285
2004 6160 175 1.480 240
5 yr avg. 240 238
10 yr. avg. 207 253
Table 3.2 is an update to the 1997 Member Municipality Report, Appendix B, Basis of EDU
Growth Projections. This table is presented by pump station drainage basin to facilitate further
evaluation of the Member Municipality Collection System and Pump Stations which is discussed
in Section 4. The Table provides the following information:
• 2004 year-end EDUs as reported by the VFSA billing department.
• 2009 (5-year) EDU growth projection as reported in the Member Municipality Act 537
Plan. This projection is at a growth rate of 142 EDUs per year.
• 2014 (10 year) EDU growth projection based on an annual average growth rate of 101
EDUs per year.
• 2024 (20 year & Ultimate) EDU growth projection based on an annual average growth rate of
91 EDUs per year. The ultimate growth projection is based on the current Act 537 Sewer
Service Boundary, developable land and expanding industry, and vacant land reviewed per
Member Municipality zoning.
Table 3.2
Basis of EDU Growth Projections
Drainage Basin
2004
Yr. End
EDUs
Platted EDUs
as of 12/2004
5 Yr
Proj. Proposed EDUs
10 Yr.
Proj. Undeveloped Land
20 Yr.
Proj.
Total
EDUs
Rte 724 North of Rte 23 -
New Act 537 Service
Area – added by
Kimberton
Meadows 23
Phoenixville
Crossing
Schuylkill Rd.
112
Rte 724 @ Rte 23 20
East Pikeland Twsp Corp. 2
Kimble Drive (2008) 77 Barn at Miatolia 7 Croft 3
Kimble Drive (3008) 22 Kimberton 2 Campbell Tract 14.0 Davis / PASD 22
French Creek (2009) 2,384 Brimful Farm 2 Cornerstone Bank 1.0 Emery Oil Co. 3
French Creek (3009)
West Vincent (4009)
88
27
Coldstream
Crossing 141
Fitzsimmons
French Creek Inn
1.0
6
Fish & Game
Frog Hollow Miller Rd N.
0
20
CVS Pharmacy 3 Hares Hill @ Camp
Deer Run Lane 3 Council 8
FC Bus. Park 25 Intersection of 7 Stars &
Henry Co. 3 Rte 113 2
Heritage Corcia 25 Rte 113 - Shelly's 6
Kimberbrae 3 Stimer 5
Kimberton Square 10 Weinstein 45
Kimberton Valley
Homes 6
St. Basil 1
Yentis 6
FRENCH CREEK PS 2,578 307 143 139 3,167
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 6 of 16
Drainage Basin
2004
Yr. End
EDUs
Platted EDUs
as of 12/2004
5 Yr
Proj. Proposed EDUs
10 Yr.
Proj. Undeveloped Land
20 Yr.
Proj.
Total
EDUs
Charlestown Rd. (3007) 132 Along Buckwalter Rd. 5
Pothouse Road (1006) 430 Potters Pond 35 Across from Forestas 5
POTHOUSE ROAD PS
-excludes FC 562 35 0 10 607
Sandra Lane (1005) 23 Pickering Glen 1
Whitehorse Rd. (1004) 363 Schuylkill Elem. 5
Whitehorse Rd. (3004) 336 PRD 1 by Chas. Hunt 80
WHITEHORSE RD. PS
-excludes FC & PH 722 6 0 80 808
Country Club (1007) 325 By VF Woods 6
Pickering Creek (1003) 944 Buono Tract 4 Inters. @ Maisfield 6
Chapel View 5 Bull Tavern (adjacent) 3
G.S. Council 4 End of E. Phillip 28
Mill Lane 3 End of E. Phillip (Reeves) 30
Moorehall @ VF 1 RR.Tracks ( @ 2nd Ave.) 36
Reeves Property 3
Rte 23 Comm. 2
Second Ave. 4
Sunwood 0
WaWa - to
Phoenixville 0
PICKERING CREEK
PS – excl. FC, PH & WH 1,269 26 0 109 1,404
Perkiomen (1002) 426
Rte. 23 Corridor (Jordan
Tract) 10
N. Side of Pawling Rd. 80
PERKIOMEN 426 0 0 90 516
Valley Creek (1001) 54
Lee Tire Blvd. (3010) 301 Commons @ GV 28 Volpi 60 Behind Spring Oak 15
DeVault Meats 34 Griffin 33 Across from Spring Oak 6
Late Spring Dev. 10 Cellucci 11 Yellow Spring's Road 7
Laurabrooke 20 Warner Lane 12 Rte 29 & Chrlstwn. Rd 35
Spring Oak Bus.
Center 53
Charlestown
Saloon 10
North Side of School
Farm Residence 1
Charlestown
Elementary 13
Adj. To Laurabrooke-
Phoenix Pike 25
20 Single Family 20 DeVault Meats (add’l) 65
Remaining Acreage
throughout basin 198
Route 401
Charlestown
Meadows 191
Sidley Road 248 Adj. To Chas. Oaks 32
VALLEY CREEK DB 603 336 159 389 1,487
Drainage Basin
2004
Yr. End
5 Yr
10 Yr.
20 Yr. Total
EDUs Proj. Proj. Proj. EDUs
FRENCH CREEK PS 2,578 307 143 139 3,167
POTHOUSE RD PS 562 35 0 10 607
WHITEHORSE RD PS 722 6 0 80 808
PICKERING CR. PS 1,269 26 0 109 1,404
PERKIOMEN P.S. 426 0 0 90 516
VALLEY CREEK 603 336 159 389 1,487
TOTALS 6,160 710 302 817 7,989
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 7 of 16
Table 3.2 presents a slower growth than has been experienced in previous years but is considered
reasonable based on the current development activity and the reduced creation of new
developments. However, should an acceleration of growth be experienced, it is expected that it
will be contained within the total number of EDUs identified in Table 3.2. Therefore the flow
projections and wet weather analysis consider not only the 10-year EDU growth projection, but
also the 20-year / ultimate growth projection, so that the necessary collection / conveyance
facilities may be constructed where required as the development occurs.
The ultimate growth projection of 7,989 EDUS is approximately 470 EDUs greater than that
projected in the 1997 Member Municipality Plan and in general is attributed to the following:
• The inclusion of the Route 724 area north of Route 23 in the 537
Boundary covering Phoenixville Crossing and Kimberton Meadows + 200 EDUS
• Greater industrial growth within the Lee Tire Drainage Basin + 110 EDUs
• Christopher Crossing & Heritage Coricia + 160 EDUs
The ultimate growth projection presented herein is not expected be exceeded unless one of the
Member Municipalities would elect to revise their established sewer service boundary. Should this
occur, a Revision to the Act 537 Plan would be required to accommodate such changes.
As presented in Table No. 3.1, the 5-year and 10- year average flow rates are 238 gpd/edu and 253
gpd/edu respectively. Since 1993, the highest average daily flowrate has been 286 gpd/edu
experienced in 1996 and 2003. The lowest flowrate, 201 gpd/edu, was experienced in 1995 and
2002. Table 3.3 presents future ultimate average daily flow projections within the Member
Municipality Act 537 Plan Drainage basin based on the 10-year average 253 gpd/edu flowrate and
the more conservative highest annual average flowrate of 286gpd/edu. These flowrates have been
applied to the projected EDUs and then added to the current 2004 average flow.
Table 3.3
Ultimate Flow Projections in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Year
Total EDUs
ADF based on
253 gpd/edu
ADF based on
286 gpd/edu
Current - 2004 6,160 1.480 1.480
2009 – 5 year 6,870 1.651 1.683
2014 – 10 year 7,172 1.780 1.769
2024 – 20 year
& Ultimate
7,989
1.916
2.003
In either instance, the ultimate flow projection remains within the VFSA member municipality
flow allocation of 2.124 MGD, concluding that additional capacity is not required.
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 8 of 16
SECTION 4
WET WEATHER ANALYSIS OF THE MEMBER MUNICIPALITY
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Section 3 of this report projects future average daily flows within the VFSA collection system for
the established growth horizons. The evaluation is appropriate to establish the overall capacity
required by the Member Municipalities for Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The flow projections
however are based on system averages and the overall collection system will experience flow rates
much greater and much less that these averages based on a number of factors, primarily diurnal
flows and wet weather / high ground water conditions. The collection system (pipe network and
pump stations) must be capable of transmitting these higher flows at any time to avoid possible
overflows within the system. Therefore, this section evaluates the wet weather capacity of the
collection system based on the 10-year and ultimate growth data developed within Section 3.
In 1999, VFSA performed a detailed analysis of the collection system utilizing a computer model
of the system. Although the Authority has been evaluating the collection system using a computer
model for over 10 years, the installation of telogers has allowed the VFSA to capture detailed flow
data of the system at the various pump stations throughout the collection system. Based on the
data that was available at that time, a rain event that occurred in 1999 provided good meteromg
data to allow a wet weather analysis of the collection system. Based on an analysis of wet weather
in the region, the March 1999 rain event appeared to represent a 10-year storm event. This
analyzed rain event indicated that the collection system needed to be able to transmit
approximately 900 gpd/edu during the storm event.
To support this Plan Validation, the Authority’s 2003 and 2004 flow data was analyzed. Based on
the rain gage data as well as the peak hourly and peak daily flows that have been experienced in
2003 and 2004, it is apparent that the March 1999 rain event previously studied is more
representative of a typical rain event which will be experienced by the VFSA system on a regular
basis. Over the past 2 years, 12 rain events were analyzed. The Large Pump Stations chart on the
following page depicts the recorded flows at the 4 major pump stations during these 12 rain
events. As depicted, Pickering Creek Pump Station experienced 4 rain events during which its
discharge rate was approximately 7 MGD for several hours. There are 4 more rain events where
Pickering Creek Pump Station discharged at a rate over 5 MGD. The three largest wet weather
events where Pickering Creek Pump Station exceeded a pumping rate of 7 MGD were not utilized
in the system analysis because:
• Extenuating circumstances impacted one of these excessive rain events. This occurred
when French Creek exceeded the rim elevation of an interceptor manhole allowing Creek
water to enter the system. The rim elevation of manholes located in and beside Creeks
should be reviewed and elevated to avoid this type of occurrence.
• Two of the rain events occurred in hurricane weather conditions which the system could
not be expected to handle.
Four flow scenarios were developed for wet weather system analysis utilizing both 10-year and
ultimate EDU growth projections. For each event described, the flowrate experienced by Pickering
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 9 of 16
prior to reviewing and discussing the results in these tables.
Creek Pump Station was applied to all four major pump stations (Pickering Creek, Whitehorse
Road, Pothouse Road and French Creek) and the two minor pump stations feeding that
system(Charlestown Road and Kimble Drive). The flowrates for each scenario are:
• Small rain event experienced in March 1999 – 900 gpd/edu.
• Average rain event based on Pickering Creek Pump Station operating at 5.6 MGD
(occurring 7 times in past 2 years) – 1090 gpd/edu
• Large Rain event based on Pickering Creek Pump Station operating at 6.8 MGD (occurring
4 times in past 2 years) – 1314 gpd/edu
• Small rain event with French Creek Pump Station operating at capacity (4.65 MGD).
Perkiomen and Valley Creek pump station were evaluated separately as they do not contribute
flows to the Pickering Creek drainage basin and due to location appear to be influenced by other
rain events than those affecting the eastern portion of the system. Again, based on a review of the
flow data, flowrates were assigned to these pump stations for three types of rain events. The
flowrates used are as follows:
Perkiomen Pump Station
• Small rain event (average of data from 2/22/03, 10/29/03, 11/28/04 rain events)– 943
gpd/edu
• Average rain event (average data from 6/20/2003 rain event) – 1200 gpd/edu
• Large rain event (average data from, 9/28/2004 rain event) – 1507 gpd/edu
Valley Creek Pump Station
• Small rain event (average of data from 12/14/03 & 12/17/03 rain events)– 343 gpd/edu
• Average rain event (average of data from 12/11/03 & 11/28/04 rain events) – 537 gpd/edu
• Large rain event – (average data from 9/28/04 rain event - 722 gpd/edu
Note: Valley Creek pump station flowrates are less than other system flows. As noted in Section 2,
the Valley Creek pump station pumps were replaced in 2003 with higher head pumps allowing the
flow to overcome high head from the Wilson Road pump station. Since the pumps have been
replaced, a drastic reduction in flows has been noted. Therefore, all data prior to the pump
replacement was excluded from this evaluation.
In all instances, the future EDUs are assumed to not contribute further system inflow, and
therefore only a diurnal flow has been projected for these EDUs. Since 1993, the maximum annual
system wide average daily flowrate of about 285 gpd/edu occurred twice. This flowrate, peaked
2.5 times, (712.5 gpd/edu) was therefore applied to all future EDUS in these wet weather analyses.
The Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 summarize the results of this analysis for a small rain event, an
average rain event and a large rain event respectively. Exhibits 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 depict the
information presented in these tables. The tables provide a summary of those pipe segments that,
according to the sewer model are at capacity now under the described wet weather condition or
that will exceed the theoretical capacity under the 10 year and ultimate EDU growth scenarios.
Hydraulically a pipeline is flowing full when it reaches 80% of its design capacity and therefore,
all segments at greater than 80% capacity are included in the tables. Several points must be made
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 10 of 16
Insert Pickering 12 rain event flow chart here – see PDF file forwarded with e-mail
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 11 of 16
• According to the static model, a sewer segment that is over its capacity may experience
some surcharging within the manhole; however this does not mean that the manhole is
overflowing its rim. A “capacity” condition is established as a pipe flowing full according
to the static model.
• The desk top analysis was performed using a static sewer model which cannot evaluate
flows as they move through a dynamic network of gravity sewers.
• VFSA staff has inspected the manholes identified to be greater than 100% of their design
capacity as indicated by the static model and has observed no signs of surcharging. This
confirms the results obtained by the VFSA staff using surcharge indicators over the last
few years.
• The model, however, does identify the segments within the system that, as a result of
anticipated growth, warrant attention in the context of long-term facilities planning.
Table 4.1
Sewer Segments at or Approaching Capacity During a
SMALL RAIN EVENT - Per Static Model
General Area
Manhole Run
Dia.
(inches)
Percent of
Capacity
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY NOW
None
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY WITH 10 YEAR EDU GROWTH
None
SEGMENTS @ GREATER THAN 80% CAPCITY WITH 10 YR GROWTH
Note: Segments in bold text will be at capacity with ultimate EDU Growth
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.317-358 24 91%
3.03.353-352 24 83%
3.03.353A-353 24 82%
Pickering Creek East (Dogwood) 3.15.104-103 8 82%
Pothouse Road 2.09.105-104 18 84%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.109-108 12 95%
2.04.106-105 12 90%
2.04.110-122 12 81%
2.04.122-109 12 80%
FC Interceptor 2.06.102-101 8 89%
2.06.105-104 8 81%
2.06.108-107 8 80%
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 12 of 16
Table 4.2
Sewer Segments at or Approaching Capacity During an
AVERAGE RAIN EVENT - Per Static Model
General Area
Manhole Run
Dia.
(inches)
Percent of
Capacity
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY NOW
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.317-358 24 102%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.109-108 12 110%
2.04.106-105 12 105%
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY WITH 10 YEAR EDU GROWTH
Pothouse Road 2.09.105-104 18 101%
FC Interceptor 2.06.102-101 8 103%
SEGMENTS @ GREATER THAN 80% CAPCITY WITH 10 YR GROWTH
Note: Segments in bold text will be at capacity with ultimate EDU Growth
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.353-352 24 98%
3.03.353A-353 24 96%
3.03.325-324 24 84%
Pickering Creek East (Dogwood) 3.15.104-103 8 99%
3.15.107-106 8 90%
3.15.109-108 8 85%
3.15.108-107 8 82%
Pickering Creek East (Sunwood) 3.15.112-111 8 93%
3.15.111-110 8 93%
3.15.110-109 8 81%
Whitehorse Road West 3.04.446A-446 21 87%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.110-122 12 97%
2.04.122-109 12 95%
FC Interceptor 2.06.105-104 8 94%
2.06.108-107 8 93%
2.06.106-105 8 89%
2.06.109-108 8 83%
Table 4.3
Sewer Segments at or Approaching Capacity During a
LARGE RAIN EVENT – Per Static Model
General Area
Manhole Run
Dia.
(inches)
Percent of
Capacity
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY NOW
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.317-358 24 122%
3.03.353-352 24 112%
3.03.353A-353 24 110%
Pickering Creek East (Dogwood) 3.15.104-103 8 120%
3.15.107-106 8 109%
3.15.109-108 8 103%
Pickering Creek East (Sunwood) 3.15.112-111 8 112%
3.15.111-110 8 112%
Pothouse Road 2.09.105-104 18 114%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.109-108 12 133%
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 13 of 16
General Area
Manhole Run
Dia.
(inches)
Percent of
Capacity
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY NOW - Continued
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.106-105 12 126%
2.04.110-122 12 114%
2.04.122-109 12 112%
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY WITH 10 YEAR EDU GROWTH
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.325-324 24 100%
Whitehorse Road West 3.04.446A-446 21 103%
FC Interceptor 2.06.102-101 8 120%
2.06.105-104 8 109%
2.06.108-107 8 108%
2.06.106-105 8 103%
SEGMENTS @ GREATER THAN 80% CAPCITY WITH 10 YR GROWTH
Note: Segments in bold text will be at capacity with ultimate EDU Growth
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.352-346 24 96%
3.03.323-322 24 95%
3.03.322-321 24 95%
3.03.327-326 24 94%
3.03.328-327 24 94%
3.03.324-323 24 93%
3.03.326-325 24 92%
3.03.360-360A 24 92%
3.03.359-360 24 89%
3.03.339-338 24 85%
3.03.338-337 24 84%
Pickering Creek West 3.03.304-305 10 90%
Pickering Creek East (Dogwood) 3.15.108-107 8 99%
3.15.110-109 8 98%
3.15.102-101 8 91%
3.15.106-105 8 90%
Country Club 3.15.302-301 8 85%
3.15.303-302 8 85%
Whitehorse Road West 3.04.453-452 21 93%
3.04.458-457 21 92%
3.04.459-458 21 92%
3.04.460-459 21 90%
3.04.447-446B 21 86%
3.04.444-443 21 84%
3.04.446-445 21 83%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.107-106 12 96%
2.05.101-2.04.110 12 91%
2.05.123-122 8 81%
2.05.102-101 12 81%
FC Interceptor 2.06.109-108 8 96%
2.03.143A-143 15 91%
2.06.104-103 8 83%
FC East Basin 2.01.101-100 8 88%
FC Cold Stream Road 2.08.118-102 8 81%
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 14 of 16
Table 4.4 and accompanying Exhibit 4.4 summarize a fourth flow scenario that was evaluated. In
this instance, the system was analyzed based on French Creek pump station operating at capacity
during a small rain event. This scenario has occurred on several occasions and identifies some
additional interceptor segments where the static model indicates flows may exceed their
theoretical design capacity. Again, system inspections of actual field conditions suggest that
manhole surcharging does not occur.
Table 4.4
Sewer Segments at or Approaching Capacity During a SMALL RAIN EVENT
With French Creek Pump Station Operating @ Capacity
10 Year Growth Scenario – Per Static Model
General Area
Manhole Run
Dia.
(inches)
Percent
of
Capacity
SEGMENTS @ CAPACITY WITH 10 YEAR EDU GROWTH
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.317-358 24 135%
3.03.353-352 24 127%
3.03.353A-353 24 125%
3.03.325-324 24 109%
3.03.352-346 24 105%
3.03.323-322 24 103%
3.03.322-321 24 103%
3.03.327-326 24 102%
3.03.328-327 24 102%
3.03.324-323 24 101%
Whitehorse Road West 3.04.446A-446 21 120%
3.04.453-452 21 110%
3.04.458-457 21 109%
3.04.459-458 21 109%
3.04.460-459 21 107%
Pothouse Road 2.09.105-104 18 149%
SEGMENTS @ GREATER THAN 80% CAPCITY WITH 10 YR GROWTH
Pickering Creek West Interceptor 3.03.326-325 24 99%
3.03.360-360A 24 97%
3.03.359-360 24 94%
3.03.339-338 24 92%
3.03.338-337 24 92%
Pickering Creek East (Dogwood) 3.15.104-103 8 82%
Whitehorse Road West 3.04.447-446B 21 100%
3.04.444-443 21 96%
3.04.446-445 21 96%
FC Tributary Trunk Sewer 2.04.109-108 12 95%
2.04.106-105 12 90%
2.04.110-122 12 81%
2.04.122-109 12 80%
FC Interceptor 2.06.102-101 8 89%
2.06.105-104 8 81%
2.06.108-107 8 80%
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 15 of 16
No sewer upgrades or expansions are recommended as a result of this analysis. As previously
noted, VFSA staff has inspected most of the segments that have been identified as having flows of
greater than 100% of their design capacity according to the static model and has found no signs of
surcharging. It is therefore recommended that those segments identified as “at capacity now”
under all types of wet weather events should either have surcharge indicators placed in the
upstream manhole or be inspected during a significant rain event. In addition, monitoring of these
segments is recommended as the anticipated growth occurs. Upgrade of the larger diameter
interceptor pipes is a costly endeavor and could have significant impact on the surrounding
community. Therefore these activities should be planned well in advance. Proper monitoring of
the sewer segments of concern as well as reevaluating the sewer system when new developments
are constructed will facilitate the planning and implementation process.
Dynamic modeling of the system interceptors could also be accomplished as a part of the
monitoring process. The model would calculate the hydraulic grade line depicting the liquid level
in the manholes under various rain events. The modeling effort would also require extensive
system flow monitoring to validate flows entering the various portions of the interceptor. Because
of the significant time, effort and costs required to validate these models, it is recommended that
system surcharge indicators and inspections be implemented as the first step in monitoring any
areas of concern. If surcharges are noted, dynamic sewer modeling would be performed as the
next step to determine the extent of surcharging and the effect of anticipated future growth. The
data collected from the surcharge indicators would be used to help calibrate the dynamic sewer
model. The modeling would also assist in determining the necessary pipe diameter for any sewer
line expansions if any are required.
The affect of system flows (from the various rain events under the 10 year and ultimate growth
scenarios) on the major pump station was also evaluated. Table 4.5 summarizes this information.
Under average and heavy rain and snow melt events, existing EDUs, all four of the major pump
stations have some capacity concerns with 1 pump operating. VFSA data indicates that the lag
pump has been required during significant rain events. Per PADEP requirements, a pump station
must be adequately sized to be able to pump the expected flows without the operation of the
standby (in this case, the lag) pump. As a practical matter, VFSA’s current routine practice of
assuring that both lead and lag pumps are serviceable 100% of the time should be continued.
During major maintenance events, VFSA’s practice of renting a back up pump assures that
adequate and uninterrupted service is provided to its customers at all times.
Both Pothouse Road and Pickering pump stations are predicted to exceed the overall pump station
capacity with two pumps running under the ultimate growth scenario during large rain events.
Although this is well beyond the growth horizons that apply to this 537 Plan, these projections
should be considered when the applicable pump stations are upgraded and/or modernized. It is
recommended that VFSA begin to plan / budget for the upgrade of each of the four major pump
stations within the next 10 years. These upgrade recommendations are focused on the system
pumps only. Other upgrades / improvements, such as those to improve energy usage, monitoring,
and controls could be accomplished simultaneously.
Valley Forge Sewer Authority
Plan Validation of the Member Municipality
Portion of the Regional Act 537
Page 16 of 16
Table 4.5
Pump Stations with Capacity Concerns
Station Capacity * Observed Peak
Hourly
Flows From Model Runs (MGD)
(2003-2004) Small Rain Event Average Rain Event Large Rain Event
FC @ 2-
pump on
1-pump
(MGD)
2-pump
(MGD)
Flow
MGD
Date Ex.
EDU
10-yr Ultimate Ex.
EDU
10-yr Ultimate Ex.
EDU
10-yr Ultimate Small
Rain 10-
yr.EDU
French Creek 2.86 4.65 4.43 6/03 2.356 2.580 2.804 2.877 3.082 3.306 3.468 3.673 3.897 4.644
Pothouse Road 3.20 4.39 4.71 9/04 2.845 3.090 3.321 3.470 3.694 3.926 4.183 4.408 4.639 5.154
Whitehorse Rd. 4.08 6.78 6.57 6/03 3.545 3.792 4.081 4.317 4.545 4.834 5.204 5.432 5.721 5.856
Pickering Creek 4.75 7.41 7.41 9/04 4.691 4.953 5.320 5.706 5.947 6.315 6.878 7.120 7.487 7.017
Perkiomen 0.86 ** 1.02 9/04 0.389 0.389 0.607 0.496 0.496 0.713 0.622 0.622 0.840 n/a
Valley Creek 0.27 ** 0.15 6/03 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.048 0.048 0.048 n/a
Kimble Drive 0.15 .017 0.18 2/03 0.089 0.094 0.094 0.108 0.113 0.113 0.130 0.135 0.135 n/a
Charlestown 0.37 0.46 0.44 9/04 n/a
Country Club 0.45 0.292 0.292 0.296 0.353 0.353 0.357 0.426 0.426 0.430 n/a
All station capacity values are from drawdown tests except:
• Pickering Pump Station – Two pump capacity is from measured peak pumping rates during several rain events.
• Country Club, Perkiomen and Valley Creek Pump Stations - capacity based on design curves. Drawdown testing has not been performed
Note: Shaded values indicate those flows in excess of pump station capacity (1 pump operating). Shaded values with bold text indicate those flows
that are in excess of the pump station 2-pump operating flow rates.









APPENDIX E
Detailed Cost Breakdown of Alternatives
Estimated
Estimated Associated Project Cost Estimated
Item Construction Cost 25% Total Project Cost
Site Work Allowance $ 5 59,000 $ 139,750 $ 698,750
Yard Piping Allowance $ 9 55,200 $ 238,800 $ 1,194,000
Improved Recycle Stream Handling $ 1 83,100 $ 45,775 $ 228,875
Upgrade Operations Building
Lunch Room $ 2 9,238 $ 7,309 $ 36,547
Restroom/Showers $ 2 6,145 $ 6,536 $ 32,682
Control Room $ 2 1,077 $ 5,269 $ 26,347
Upgrade Maintenance Shop $ 7 4,052 $ 18,513 $ 92,565
Upgrade Lighting $ 9 2,565 $ 23,141 $ 115,706
Upgrade HVAC $ 4 62,825 $ 115,706 $ 578,531
Painting $ 1 5,428 $ 3,857 $ 19,284
Door Replacement $ 20,828 $ 5,207 $ 26,034
Subtotal: $ 7 42,158 $ 185,539 $ 927,697
Chlorine Building Renovations $ 6 6,000 $ 16,500 $ 82,500
Plant Automation $536,200 $ 134,050 $ 670,250
Utility Water System $ 2 59,500 $ 64,875 $ 324,375
Total: $ 3,301,158 $ 825,289 $ 4,126,447
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: SITE WORK ALLOWANCE - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost = $559,000
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
Site Work Allowance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
stormwater system 1 ls $0 $0 $0 35,000.00 $35,000 $53,996
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
erosion and control 1 ls $0 $0 $0 8,000.00 $8,000 $12,342
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
earthwork $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
excavation 25000 cy $0 2.62 $65,500 4.60 $115,000 $0 $334,044
backfill 12000 cy $0 1.00 $12,000 1.00 $12,000 $0 $47,208
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
finish grading and seeding 10000 sy 0.36 $3,600 1.39 $13,900 0.23 $2,300 $0 $42,674
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
pavement 700 sy $0 $0 $0 30.00 $21,000 $32,398
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
fencing 600 lf 31.00 $18,600 3.66 $2,196 0.75 $450 $0 $36,362
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$22,200 $93,596 $129,750 $64,000 $559,024
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$22,200 $93,596 $129,750 $64,000
Taxes & Insurance $1,332 $51,478 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$23,532 $145,074 $129,750 $64,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $23,532
LABOR: $145,074
EQUIPMENT: $129,750
SUBCONTRACTS: $64,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $362,356
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $36,236
==========
$398,591
PROFIT: 10% $39,859
==========
$438,451
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $8,769
==========
$447,220
CONTINGENCY: 25% $111,805
==========
$559,024
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$559,024
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $559,000
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: YARD PIPING ALLOWANCE - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost = $955,200
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Yard Piping Allowance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
36'' PCCP 2000 lf 85.00 $170,000 18.00 $36,000 10.00 $20,000 $0 $394,944
excavation/backfill 2000 lf $0 $0 $0 40.00 $80,000 $123,420
fittings 1 ls $0 $0 $0 100,000.00 $100,000 $154,275
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
14'' DIP 500 lf 37.00 $18,500 14.00 $7,000 5.50 $2,750 $0 $51,235
excavation/backfill 500 lf $0 $0 $0 35.00 $17,500 $26,998
fittings 1 ls $0 $0 $0 2,500.00 $2,500 $3,857
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12'' DIP 500 lf 29.00 $14,500 13.00 $6,500 5.00 $2,500 $0 $43,112
excavation/backfill 500 lf $0 $0 $0 35.00 $17,500 $26,998
fittings 1 ls $0 $0 $0 2,500.00 $2,500 $3,857
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
10'' DIP 500 lf 24.00 $12,000 12.00 $6,000 5.00 $2,500 $0 $37,828
excavation/backfill 500 lf $0 $0 $0 35.00 $17,500 $26,998
fittings 1 ls $0 $0 $0 2,500.00 $2,500 $3,857
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6'' DIP 500 lf 16.00 $8,000 9.00 $4,500 4.00 $2,000 $0 $26,929
excavation/backfill 500 lf $0 $0 $0 35.00 $17,500 $26,998
fittings 1 ls $0 $0 $0 2,500.00 $2,500 $3,857
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$223,000 $60,000 $29,750 $260,000 $955,163
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$223,000 $60,000 $29,750 $260,000
Taxes & Insurance $13,380 $33,000 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$236,380 $93,000 $29,750 $260,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $236,380
LABOR: $93,000
EQUIPMENT: $29,750
SUBCONTRACTS: $260,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $619,130
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $61,913
==========
$681,043
PROFIT: 10% $68,104
==========
$749,147
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $14,983
==========
$764,130
CONTINGENCY: 25% $191,033
==========
$955,163
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$955,163
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $955,200
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: IMPROVE RECYCLE STREAM HANDLING - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost = $183,100
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
Mixing System $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
pumps 1 ls $0 $0 $0 40,000.00 $40,000 $61,710
nozzles and piping 1 ls $0 $0 $0 23,000.00 $23,000 $35,483
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 9,000.00 $9,000 $13,885
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rehab Tank $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
clean tank 1 ls $0 $0 $0 4,000.00 $4,000 $6,171
hatches 4' x 4' 2 ea 1,025.00 $2,050 213.00 $426 $0 $0 $4,371
ladders 24 vlf 92.00 $2,208 26.00 $624 1.79 $43 $0 $5,169
coating inside of tank no 1 3900 sf $0 $0 $0 3.00 $11,700 $18,050
remove concrete slab 1100 sf $0 1.82 $2,002 0.20 $220 $0 $5,127
disposal 1 ls $0 $0 $0 500.00 $500 $771
new concrete slab 30 cy $0 $0 $0 700.00 $21,000 $32,398
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$4,258 $3,052 $263 $109,200 $183,135
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$4,258 $3,052 $263 $109,200
Taxes & Insurance $255 $1,679 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$4,513 $4,731 $263 $109,200
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $4,513
LABOR: $4,731
EQUIPMENT: $263
SUBCONTRACTS: $109,200
==========
ADD-ONS: $118,707
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $11,871
==========
$130,578
PROFIT: 10% $13,058
==========
$143,636
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $2,873
==========
$146,508
CONTINGENCY: 25% $36,627
==========
$183,135
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$183,135
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $183,100
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: UPGRADE OPERATIONS BUILDING - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost =$742,200
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
Lunch Room $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,238
demolition 2 days $0 1,112.00 $2,224 $0 $0 $5,318
disposal 1 ls $0 $0 $0 250.00 $250 $386
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
new ceiling 490 sf 2.20 $1,078 1.03 $505 $0 $0 $2,970
new floor - tile 490 sf 1.50 $735 0.55 $270 $0 $0 $1,846
paint walls 850 sf 0.09 $77 0.29 $247 $0 $0 $715
cabinets 20 lf 250.00 $5,000 23.00 $460 $0 $0 $9,277
sink 1 ea 480.00 $480 128.00 $128 $0 $0 $1,091
plumbing 1 ls $0 $0 $0 1,000.00 $1,000 $1,543
tables 4 ea 250.00 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,635
chairs 16 ea 45.00 $720 $0 $0 $0 $1,177
oven 1 ea 450.00 $450 75.00 $75 $0 $0 $915
refrigerator 1 ea 1,000.00 $1,000 25.00 $25 $0 $0 $1,695
microwave 1 ea 300.00 $300 75.00 $75 $0 $0 $670
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Restroom/Showers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,145
demolition 2 days $0 1,112.00 $2,224 $0 $0 $5,318
disposal $0 $0 $0 250.00 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
redo restroom 450 sf $0 $0 $0 30.00 $13,500 $20,827
2 toilets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2 urnials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2 sinks $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
shower $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
18 lockers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
bench $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Control Room $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,077
demolition 1 day $0 1,112.00 $1,112 $0 $0 $2,659
disposal $0 $0 $0 250.00 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
lab bench 15 lf 300.00 $4,500 30.00 $450 $0 $0 $8,435
chairs 3 ea 200.00 $600 $0 $0 $0 $981
desks 3 ea 850.00 $2,550 $0 $0 $0 $4,170
new floor - tile 970 sf 1.50 $1,455 0.55 $534 $0 $0 $3,655
paint walls 1400 sf 0.09 $126 0.29 $406 $0 $0 $1,177
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade Maintenance Shop 3200 sf $0 $0 $0 15.00 $48,000 $74,052 $74,052
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade Lighting 30000 sf $0 $0 $0 2.00 $60,000 $92,565 $92,565
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Upgrade HVAC 30000 sf $0 $0 $0 10.00 $300,000 $462,825 $462,825
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Painting 1 ls $0 $0 $0 10,000.00 $10,000 $15,428 $15,428
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Door Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,828
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
mandoors 3 ea 1,000.00 $3,000 185.00 $555 $0 $0 $6,233
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
garage doors - 12' wide 2 ea 3,000.00 $6,000 1,000.00 $2,000 $0 $0 $14,594
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$29,071 $11,288 $0 $432,750 $742,158 $742,158
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$29,071 $11,288 $0 $432,750
Taxes & Insurance $1,744 $6,209 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$30,815 $17,497 $0 $432,750
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $30,815
LABOR: $17,497
EQUIPMENT: $0
SUBCONTRACTS: $432,750
==========
ADD-ONS: $481,061
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $48,106
==========
$529,168
PROFIT: 10% $52,917
==========
$582,084
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $11,642
==========
$593,726
CONTINGENCY: 25% $148,432
==========
$742,158
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$742,158
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $742,200
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: DAY BIN FOR BIOSOLIDS STAGING AND TRUCK LOADING Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 04/05/06 Approx. cost =$820,000
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Day bin 1 ls 300,000.00 $300,000 70,000.00 $70,000 30,000.00 $30,000 $0 $704,265
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 75,000.00 $75,000 $115,706
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$300,000 $70,000 $30,000 $75,000 $819,972
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$300,000 $70,000 $30,000 $75,000
Taxes & Insurance $18,000 $38,500 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$318,000 $108,500 $30,000 $75,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $318,000
LABOR: $108,500
EQUIPMENT: $30,000
SUBCONTRACTS: $75,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $531,500
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $53,150
==========
$584,650
PROFIT: 10% $58,465
==========
$643,115
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $12,862
==========
$655,977
CONTINGENCY: 25% $163,994
==========
$819,972
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$819,972
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $820,000
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: CONTROL BUILDING ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM REPLACEMENChecker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost =$1,723,400
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
blowers and accessories 1 ls 500,000.00 $500,000 50,000.00 $50,000 $0 $0 $937,221
diffusers 1 ls 80,000.00 $80,000 16,000.00 $16,000 $0 $0 $169,085
air mains 1 ls $0 $0 $0 125,000.00 $125,000 $192,844
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
building - 30' x 40' 1200 sf $0 $0 $0 125.00 $150,000 $231,413
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 125,000.00 $125,000 $192,844
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$580,000 $66,000 $0 $400,000 $1,723,406
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$580,000 $66,000 $0 $400,000
Taxes & Insurance $34,800 $36,300 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$614,800 $102,300 $0 $400,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $614,800
LABOR: $102,300
EQUIPMENT: $0
SUBCONTRACTS: $400,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $1,117,100
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $111,710
==========
$1,228,810
PROFIT: 10% $122,881
==========
$1,351,691
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $27,034
==========
$1,378,725
CONTINGENCY: 25% $344,681
==========
$1,723,406
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$1,723,406
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $1,723,400
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: RENOVATIONS - CHLORINE BUILDING - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost = $66,000
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
demolition 5 days $0 800.00 $4,000 456.00 $2,280 $0 $13,083
disposal 1 ls $0 $0 $0 500.00 $500 $771
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
install liquid chlorine $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
tank - 1200 gallon 1 ls 800.00 $800 250.00 $250 200.00 $200 $0 $2,215
pumps 2 ea 2,000.00 $4,000 200.00 $400 75.00 $150 $0 $7,729
piping and valves 1 ls 750.00 $750 500.00 $500 $0 $0 $2,422
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 10,000.00 $10,000 $15,428
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
yard piping - replace existing pipe $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PVC - pipe 400 lf 2.00 $800 1.50 $600 $0 $0 $2,743
trenching/backfill 400 lf $0 $0 $0 35.00 $14,000 $21,599
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$6,350 $5,750 $2,630 $24,500 $65,989
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$6,350 $5,750 $2,630 $24,500
Taxes & Insurance $381 $3,163 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$6,731 $8,913 $2,630 $24,500
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $6,731
LABOR: $8,913
EQUIPMENT: $2,630
SUBCONTRACTS: $24,500
==========
ADD-ONS: $42,774
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $4,277
==========
$47,051
PROFIT: 10% $4,705
==========
$51,756
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $1,035
==========
$52,791
CONTINGENCY: 25% $13,198
==========
$65,989
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$65,989
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $66,000
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: PLANT AUTOMATION - 537 Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 05/01/06 Approx. cost = $536,200
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
PLC Hardware
Controllogix Processor 4 M Memory 1 ea 4,300.00 $4,300 $0 $0 $0 $7,594
Ethernet Module 1 ea 1,050.00 $1,050 $0 $0 $0 $1,854
Controlnet Bridge Module 2 ea 800.00 $1,600 $0 $0 $0 $2,826
24 VDC Digital Input Modules 13 ea 200.00 $2,600 $0 $0 $0 $4,592
I/O Terminal Block 13 ea 30.00 $390 $0 $0 $0 $689
120 VAC Digital Output Modules 7 ea 350.00 $2,450 $0 $0 $0 $4,327
I/O Terminal Block 7 ea 30.00 $210 $0 $0 $0 $371
Analog Input - 16 Channel Single Ended 5 ea 900.00 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $7,948
I/O Terminal Block 5 ea 40.00 $200 $0 $0 $0 $353
Analog Output - 8 Channel 5 ea 1,100.00 $5,500 $0 $0 $0 $9,714
I/O Terminal Block 5 ea 30.00 $150 $0 $0 $0 $265
17 Slot CLX Chassis 2 ea 500.00 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,766
Power Supply 2 ea 600.00 $1,200 $0 $0 $0 $2,119
Controlnet Taps 2 ea 70.00 $140 $0 $0 $0 $247
Tools, Software, Misc
RS Logix 5000 - Professional Edition
Include: RS Linx - Professional, RS
Emulate 5000, RS Test Stand Lite,
PIDE Autotune, RS Networx, Function
Block, Sequencial Function Charts,
Structured Text, and Ladder Logic 1 ea 5,400.00 $5,400 $0 $0 $0 $9,537
RS-LOGIX 5000 Function Block Editor 1 ea 700.00 $700 $0 $0 $0 $1,236
RS View SE Server 100 Display 1 ea 4,200.00 $4,200 $0 $0 $0 $7,418
RS View SE Client 2 ea 2,000.00 $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,065
RS Studio 1 ea 1,800.00 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $3,179
Controlnet Modules for SLCs 2 ea 600.00 $1,200 $0 $0 $0 $2,119
Controlnet Taps 2 ea 70.00 $140 $0 $0 $0 $247
Spare Parts
Controlnet Bridge Module 1 ea 800.00 $800 $0 $0 $0 $1,413
Controlnet Taps 2 ea 70.00 $140 $0 $0 $0 $247
24 VDC Digital Input Modules 2 ea 200.00 $400 $0 $0 $0 $706
I/O Terminal Block 2 ea 30.00 $60 $0 $0 $0 $106
120 VAC Digital Output Modules 2 ea 350.00 $700 $0 $0 $0 $1,236
17 Slot CLX Chassis 1 ea 500.00 $500 $0 $0 $0 $883
Power Supply 1 ea 600.00 $600 $0 $0 $0 $1,060
Analog Input - 16 Channel Single Ended 2 ea 900.00 $1,800 $0 $0 $0 $3,179
Spring Terminal Block 2 ea 40.00 $80 $0 $0 $0 $141
Analog Output - 8 Channel 2 ea 1,100.00 $2,200 $0 $0 $0 $3,886
Controllogix Processor 4 M Memory 1 ea 4,300.00 $4,300 $0 $0 $0 $7,594
Industrial Compact Flash Card 1 ea 70.00 $70 $0 $0 $0 $124
Space Fillers 6 ea 12.00 $72 $0 $0 $0 $127
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction Costs (wire, conduit, modifications to existing equipment and duct banks as required)
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Costs per I/O point 350 per unit 200.00 $70,000 250.00 $87,500 $0 $0 $349,604
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Programming and Graphics Development
Costs per I/O point 350 per unit $0 100.00 $35,000 $0 $0 $90,390
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
k:\proj\7529761\cost estimates\Additional 537 Cost Est. May 2006
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: HEADWORKS WITH SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 04/05/06 Approx. cost = $1,905,300
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
headworks building 2000 sf $0 $0 $0 200.00 $400,000 $617,100
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
bar screen 1 ls $0 $0 $0 300,000.00 $300,000 $462,825
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
grit removal 1 ls $0 $0 $0 130,000.00 $130,000 $200,558
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
odor control system 1 ls $0 $0 $0 100,000.00 $100,000 $154,275
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 150,000.00 $150,000 $231,413
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
site work 1 ls $0 $0 $0 80,000.00 $80,000 $123,420
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
miscellaneous 1 ls $0 $0 $0 75,000.00 $75,000 $115,706
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,235,000 $1,905,296
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,235,000
Taxes & Insurance $0 $0 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,235,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $0
LABOR: $0
EQUIPMENT: $0
SUBCONTRACTS: $1,235,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $1,235,000
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $123,500
==========
$1,358,500
PROFIT: 10% $135,850
==========
$1,494,350
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $29,887
==========
$1,524,237
CONTINGENCY: 25% $381,059
==========
$1,905,296
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$1,905,296
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $1,905,300
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
K:\PROJ\7529761\537 COST ESTIMATES
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: UTILITY WATER SYSTEM Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 04/05/06 Approx. cost =$259,500
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
utility water system 1 ls $0 $0 $0 90,000.00 $90,000 $138,848
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8'' DIP 400 lf 17.00 $6,800 10.00 $4,000 4.00 $1,600 $0 $23,154
excavation/backfill 400 lf $0 $0 $0 32.00 $12,800 $19,747
paving restoration 150 lf $0 $0 $0 36.00 $5,400 $8,331
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 25,000.00 $25,000 $38,569
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
miscellaneous 1 ls $0 $0 $0 20,000.00 $20,000 $30,855
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$6,800 $4,000 $1,600 $153,200 $259,503
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$6,800 $4,000 $1,600 $153,200
Taxes & Insurance $408 $2,200 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$7,208 $6,200 $1,600 $153,200
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $7,208
LABOR: $6,200
EQUIPMENT: $1,600
SUBCONTRACTS: $153,200
==========
ADD-ONS: $168,208
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $16,821
==========
$185,029
PROFIT: 10% $18,503
==========
$203,532
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $4,071
==========
$207,602
CONTINGENCY: 25% $51,901
==========
$259,503
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$259,503
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $259,500
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
K:\PROJ\7529761\537 COST ESTIMATES
Client: VFSA Estimate No.: 75297 61 27-Oct-06
Location: VALLEY FORGE, PENNA. Estimator: EGW
Subject: HEADWORKS WITH SCREENING ONLY Checker: LAL
Burdens:
State Sales Tax: 6.0% 04/05/06 Approx. cost =$1,550,500
Labor Burden (Payroll Taxes & Insur.): 55%
UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOT. EST. UNIT PRICE TOTAL W/
DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY UNIT MATERIAL MATERIAL LABOR LABOR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT SUBCONT. SUBCONT. BURDENS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
headworks building 1500 sf $0 $0 $0 200.00 $300,000 $462,825
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
bar screen 1 ls $0 $0 $0 300,000.00 $300,000 $462,825
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
odor control system 1 ls $0 $0 $0 100,000.00 $100,000 $154,275
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
electrical 1 ls $0 $0 $0 150,000.00 $150,000 $231,413
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
site work 1 ls $0 $0 $0 80,000.00 $80,000 $123,420
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
miscellaneous 1 ls $0 $0 $0 75,000.00 $75,000 $115,706
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
========== ========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,005,000 $1,550,464
Mean's Local Cost Adjustment 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 0.00% $0 n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,005,000
Taxes & Insurance $0 $0 n/a n/a
========== ========== ========== ==========
$0 $0 $0 $1,005,000
ESTIMATE SUMMARY:
MATERIAL: $0
LABOR: $0
EQUIPMENT: $0
SUBCONTRACTS: $1,005,000
==========
ADD-ONS: $1,005,000
GEN. CONDITIONS & OVERHEAD: 10% $100,500
==========
$1,105,500
PROFIT: 10% $110,550
==========
$1,216,050
BONDING & INSURANCE: 2% $24,321
==========
$1,240,371
CONTINGENCY: 25% $310,093
==========
$1,550,464
INFLATION - ONE YEAR: 0% $0
==========
$1,550,464
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST $1,550,500
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
K:\PROJ\7529761\537 COST ESTIMATES
































October 3, 2006
Mr. Martin Goldberg, P.E. Mr. Thomas S. Brown
VALLEY FORGE SEWER AUTHORITY GANNETT FLEMING, INC.
333 Pawling Road P. O. Box 80794
Phoenixville, PA 19460 Valley Forge, PA 19484-0794
Re: Valley Creek Trunk Sewer Act 537 Planning
Waste Water Flow Projections
Easttown Township
Revised – 10/23/06
Dear Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Brown:
In accordance with your letter request dated September 7, 2006, herein please find the flow
projections which shall be used in both the VSFA Act 537 Plan and the Tredyffrin Township
Wilson Road Pump Station.
Year 2005 - 1.357 MGD 3510.83 EDUs
Year 2010 - 1.423 MGD 3750.83 EDUs
Year 2015 - 1.443 MGD 3823.56 EDUs
Year 2025 - 1.484 MGD 3972.65 EDUs
Year 2035 - 1.523 MGD 4114.50 EDUs
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Surender S. Kohli, P.E.
Township Engineer
Easttown Township
SSK:cpw
cc: Gene R. Williams
Paul A. Dorais

October 3, 2006
Mr. Martin Goldberg, P.E. Mr. Thomas S. Brown
VALLEY FORGE SEWER AUTHORITY GANNETT FLEMING, INC.
333 Pawling Road P. O. Box 80794
Phoenixville, PA 19460 Valley Forge, PA 19484-0794
Re: Valley Creek Trunk Sewer Act 537 Planning
Waste Water Flow Projections
East Whiteland Township
Revised – 10/23/06
Dear Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Brown:
In accordance with your letter request dated September 7, 2006, herein please find the flow
projections which shall be used in both the VSFA Act 537 Plan and the Tredyffrin Township
Wilson Road Pump Station.
Year 2005 - 1.963 MGD 5393.10 EDUs
Year 2010 - 2.409 MGD 7014.91 EDUs
Year 2015 - 2.809 MGD 8469.45 EDUs
Year 2025 - 3.309 MGD 10,287.63 EDUs
Year 2035 - 3.909 MGD 12,469.45 EDUs
If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
Surender S. Kohli, P.E.
Township Engineer
East Whiteland Township
SSK:cpw
cc: Terry H. Woodman
William H. Steele

EDWARD B. WALSH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Complete Civil Engineering Design / Consultation Services
Lionville Professional Center
125 Dowlin Forge Road
Exton, PA 19341
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland & North Carolina
610-903-0060 FAX 610-903-0080
www.ebwalshinc.com
Established 1985
October 10, 2006
Mr. Thomas S. Brown
Gannett Fleming, Inc.
PO Box 80794
Valley Forge, PA 19484-0794
Re: Malvern Borough
Wastewater Flow Projections - Act 537 Planning
Dear Mr. Brown,
As per your September 7, 2006 letter to Malvern Borough, I have reviewed the Malvern Borough
Wastewater Flow Projections indicated on Table 6 of the letter. The flows projections provided to
Gannett Fleming on June 21, 2006 for the Wilson Road Pump Station Act 537 Planning are the flows
that should be utilized for Malvern Borough in the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer Act 537 Planning.
If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD B. WALSH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Malvern Borough Engineers
Daniel H. Daley, P.E.
cc: Sandra L. Kelley, Malvern Borough
Martin Goldberg, Valley Forge Sewer Authority







APPENDIX I
Planning Agencies and Municipalities
Correspondence








Responses to Chester County Planning Commission General Comments
Comment 1. The existing plant capacity is 9.2 MGD, and the proposed capacity is
11.52 MGD.
Comment 2. The Philadelphia Water Department’s intake for the Queen Lane Plant is
on the Schuylkill River approximately 0.5 miles below the confluence
with the Wissahickon Creek and on the bank of the same side of the
Schuylkill River as the Wissahickon Creek. The Belmont Plant is located
in Wynnefield and its water also comes from the Schuylkill River. Its
intake is located along Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive (formerly West River
Drive).
The WWTP’s discharge to the Schuylkill River is at:
Latitude - 40o 07’ 05” Longitude - 75 o 27’ 56”
Comment 3. See Table 2-1, page 2-9 for information on withdrawl points.
Comment 4. The Valley Forge Sewer Authority’s (VFSA) Act 537 Plan Update is a
compilation of the Service Area Municipalities (SAM) individual Act 537
Plans. For information from the SAM 537 plans, see the approved plans.
Comment 5. The member municipalities are: Charlestown, East Pikeland, and
Schuylkill Township. The partner municipalities are: Easttown, East
Whiteland, Malvern, Tredyffrin, and Willistown. The SAM’s are the
combination of the member and partner municipalities.
Comment 6. The flow projections for this Act 537 Plan were validated by the
individual municipalities as included in Appendix H.
Comment 7. This Act 537 Plan is based solely on information from the individual SAM
Act 537 Plans, so the information in this plan is updated based on
information provided by the individual municipalities.
Comment 8. See information related to the Valley Creek Trunk Sewer (VCTS) and
Wilson Road Pump Station on page E-2.
Comment 9. The VFSA is in a position to wait for the planning efforts to come to a
close before needing additional capacity in these systems. The VFSA’s
537 Plan Update addresses treatment of the wastewater once it reaches the
WWTP. The individual municipalities are responsible for the planning for
the system.
Comment 10. Both the partner municipalities and the member municipalities will share
the cost of the expansion and improvements. The Partners requiring
additional capacity will share in the cost of the expansion.
Comment 11. This recommendation is accepted.
Comment 12. No response is required.
Comment 13. The table is current as of November 2006.
Comment 14. No response is required.
Comment 15. The table was updated to show the approval dates, but the text of the
section was not updated.
Comment 16. See Table 1-1 for the dates that the municipal plans were approved by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
Comment 17. Section one was not updated per PADEP, and at the time of the initial
writing, the Malvern Borough plan was submitted and under review. The
Borough’s plan was then later approved after the VFSA’s plan was
written.
Comment 18. Schuylkill Township expects a growth of 357 EDU’s between 2005 and
2035.
Comment 19. The comment that the Livable Landscapes map was last updated in 2003 is
noted.
Comment 20. The Act 537 Plan Update is consistent with the County planning
document, Watersheds.
Comment 21. The sentence is referring to the number of billing records for EDU count
as opposed to actually flows.
Comment 22. The comment that Darby Creek has a PADEP approved Act 167 Plan for
the watershed is so noted.
Comment 23. The water balance will stay consistent with the amount of water
withdrawn and the amount discharged.
Comment 24. For clarification, the VFSA WWTP is located on Pawling Road.
Comment 25. The water that is being used for the system is drawn from locations
throughout the VFSA service area as identified in Table 2-1.
Comment 26. See Section 6 of the Act 537 Plan Update for information on how the
funding for the proposed expansion will be divided amongst the Service
Area Municipalities.
Comment 27. See Table 1-1 for the individual Act 537 Plan approval dates by PADEP.
Comment 28. See Table 4-8 for the total EDU’s that each municipality is currently
using.
Comment 29. Tyrone Farms is not serviced by a community service system. The
Charlestown Road and Coldstream area have their sewer linked to the
Charlestown Road Pump Station in Schuylkill Township. The sewer
servicing the dwellings in the Maryhill Road and Pine Drive
neighborhoods are linked to the Kimble Drive Pump Station in East
Pikeland Township.
Comment 30. East Whiteland Township does not know the number of failing onlot
systems. However, due to the age of systems and soils, the area adjacent
to Bacton Hill Road, Planebrook area, and areas around the intersection of
Rt. 352 and King Road are susceptible to failure. There were five (5)
onsite replacements and 13 onsite repairs between June 2002, and July
2006, within the above noted areas.
Comment 31. The developer will be required to connect the sewer system of the
development to the existing conveyance system.
Comment 32. Schuylkill Township does not have a holding tank ordinance. With regard
to on-lot sewage disposal, the Township has always deferred to the
Chester Co. Health Department concerning permitting and enforcement of
on-lot systems. The Township does get involved with making sure that
the pump & haul systems that are used in the winter by developers meets
all the necessary requirements.
Comment 33. Failing connections in Willistown Township is estimated at between 10
and 20 according to Ross Fisher, of the Chester Co. Health Dept.
Comment 34. As of last year, the VFSA was approved for disposal at the following
landfills, but please note the VFSA has not disposed of biosolids in any
landfill since the May-June reporting period of 1998:
A) Chester County Solid Waste Authority (Lanchester Landfill), PO Box
476, Honey Brook, PA, 19344.
B) BFI-Conestoga Landfill, 420 Quarry Road, PO Box 128, Morgantown,
PA, 19543.
C) Waste Management (G.R.O.W.S. Landfill, Pottstown Landfill), 1000
New Ford Mill Road, Morrisville, PA, 19067.
Comment 35. Each municipality uses billing records for their EDU counts, as the actual
flow the WWTP is approximately 300 gpd/EDU. Each municipality is
responsible for their own flow projections.
Comment 36. The VFSA defines “build out” in terms of build out of the Act 537 service
area in each municipality, not in regard to the total capacity allocated to
the municipalities at the WWTP.
Comment 37. The comment is noted about formatting, see Table 4-8 for the overall
projections.
Comment 38. At the time of this Act 537 Plan Update, the most recent information from
Malvern Borough’s Chapter 94 Report is included.
Comment 39. 2025 projections were prepared for the study, but design of the WWTP
upgrade and expansion, and cost breakdown is based on 2035 projections.
Comment 40. The committee consisted of representatives of Schuylkill Twp, the VFSA,
and their engineer of record, Buchart-Horn Inc.
Comment 41. Comment and suggestions noted.
Comment 42. Comment noted, as no response is required.
Comment 43. The assessment of the capacity and recommended upgrades of each
individual component of the existing plant was completed by Buchart-
Horn, Inc. of York, PA.
Comment 44. The Act 537 Plan Update is consistent with the concepts of the County
document, Watersheds.
Comment 45. The individual Act 537 Plan’s for the Service Area Municipalities are
consistent with their comprehensive plans, therefore the VFSA Act 537
Plan Update is consistent with the comprehensive plans as it is a
compilation of all the individual plans.
Comment 46. The water systems that feed the VFSA system is provided in Table 2-1.
Comment 47. The comment is noted.
Comment 48. No operation costs were developed for alternative 3d, because it would be
difficult to assess the costs for innovative alternatives that are still in
developmental stages. Insufficient information is available on their
systems to make a reasonable cost estimation.
Comment 49. The present worth of alternative 3a is the same as 3b without adding the
cost of the 4th secondary clarifier.
Comment 50. Municipalities have agreed to pay their portion of the upgrade and
expansion, and no comments were received from the municipalities in
regard to this question during their review of the Plan.








Comment from Municipalities Review
East Whiteland Township – Kohli and Associates, Inc.
1. Table 1-1, Page 1-3, under Municipal Adoption for East Whiteland Township, shall be
revised to note the adopted date of June 12, 1995.
2. Page 4-2, 4th line under “East Whiteland,” shall be revised to read, East Whiteland’s
latest Chapter 94, in lieu of Easttown.
3. Under Eliminated Alternatives, Alternative 1 on Page 5-3 shall be revised to note
Alternative 1 was eliminated in lieu of Alternative 4. Project cost sharing, institutional
evaluation, and capital financing have all be reviewed for acceptability.
Charlestown Township – Kohli and Associates, Inc.
Comment noted that Charlestown Township accepts the EDU numbers presented in
Table 4-5.
Schuylkill Township – Mary Bird
Email received On February 15th stating that no comments are made by the
Supervisors of Schuylkill Township.
Tredyffrin Township - Gannett Fleming, Inc.
1. On page 1-3, Table 1-1, on the Tredyffrin Township line, add Willistown Township as
one of the municipalities with which Tredyffrin maintains an agreement.
2. On page 3-9, add the design capacity of the Wilson Road force main is as follows:
a. Instantaneous peak flow rate = 20.2 mgd
b. Equivalent average daily flow = 8.78 mgd
3. The revised flow projection for Tredyffrin affects the cost sharing for the plant
expansion. See revised Table 6-7 attached for the updated cost sharing.
Wilson Road Pumping Station and Valley Creek Trunk Sewer - Gannett Fleming, Inc.
The projected wastewater flow from Charlestown Township that is to be conveyed
through the VCTS in gpd is listed below. It is clarified that 578 existing EDUs allocated
to East Pikeland and Schuylkill Townships are actually Charlestown Township EDUs.
The correction to Table 4-8 as presented below does not impact the flow projections or
cost allocation to the Member Municipalities.
Table 4-8 EDU and flow projection (Present – 2035) as revised
Municipality
Current
Reserved
Capacity Present (2005) 5-Year (2010) 10-year (2015)
20 & 30 Year
(2025 / 2035)
gpd EDU gpd EDU gpd EDU gpd EDU
Member Municipalities
Charlestown n/a 1,127 351,120 1,463 449,280 1,872 542,640 2,261
East Pikeland n/a 2,488 659,520 2,748 697,200 2,905 721,680 3,007
Schuylkill n/a 2,590 657,360 2,739 689,040 2,871 707,280 2,947
VFSA Subtotal 2,128,000 1,479,635 6,205 1,668,000 6,950 1,835,520 7,648 1,971,600 8,215
Member flow to VCTS 549 212,400 885 310,560 1,294 403,920 1,683
Table 6-7. Project Cost Sharing Based on 2006 Dollars
Plant expansion
Estimated total $13,970,000
MGD * Percent of expansion Est. $ share expansion cost
Easttown 0.000 0.00 $0
East Whiteland 1.969 73.99 $10,336,403
Malvern 0.000
Tredyffrin 0.299 11.24 $1,570,228
Valley Forge 0.000
Willistown 0.393 14.77 $2,063,369
2.661 100.00 $13,970,000
Plant upgrade
Estimated total $5,909,000
Percent of upgrade Est. $ share upgrade cost
Easttown 1.523 0.1655 $978,196
East Whiteland 1.940 0.2109 $1,246,028
Malvern 0.544 0.0591 $349,402
Tredyffrin 2.001 0.2175 $1,285,208
Valley Forge 2.128 0.2313 $1,366,777
Willistown 1.064 0.1157 $683,389
9.200 $5,909,000
Grand total Upgrade Expansion Total Contribution Overall Percent of the Project
Easttown $978,196 $0 $ 978,196 0.049
East Whiteland $1,246,028 $10,336,403 $ 11,582,431 0.583
Malvern $349,402 $ 349,402 0.018
Tredyffrin $1,285,208 $1,570,228 $ 2,855,436 0.144
Valley Forge $1,366,777 $ 1,366,777 0.069
Willistown $683,389 $2,063,369 $ 2,746,758 0.138
$5,909,000 $13,970,000 $ 19,879,000 1
1. MGD* = Projected ultimate capacity less current owned
Example: East Whiteland projected need 3.909 less current reserved capacity 1.940 equals 1.969 mgd
2. Overall percent of the project is to be utilized in calculating planning and engineering expenses
3. The cost estimates presume that the existing treatment plant is expanded and upgraded utilizing existing technology

EDWARD B. WALSH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Complete Civil Engineering Design / Consultation Services
Lionville Professional Center
125 Dowlin Forge Road
Exton, PA 19341
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland & North Carolina
610-903-0060 FAX 610-903-0080
www.ebwalshinc.com
Established 1985
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 14, 2007 (revised)
TO: Martin Goldberg, VFSA
CC: Sandra Kelley, Malvern Borough Manager
Lawrence Lutter, P.E., Buchart-Horn
FROM: Daniel H. Daley, P.E.
E. B. Walsh & Associates, Inc.
Malvern Borough Engineers
SUBJECT: VFSA Regional Act 537 Plan
As requested, the Borough and my office has reviewed the Regional Act 537 Plan for the Valley Forge
Sewer Authority, dated November 2006, prepared by Buchart Horn, Inc. and Gannett Fleming. As
requested by Malvern Borough, the following minor comments are offered for your consideration:
o Page 1-3: Malvern Township should be Malvern Borough.
o Page 1-9: 5th paragraph indicates the PADEP is currently reviewing the Borough’s 537 plan. In
accordance with Page 1-3, the Borough’s 537 plan was approved in May of 1995.
o Page 2-9: Reference to Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. should be changed to Aqua
Pennsylvania, Inc.
o Page 3-12: Paragraph #1 indicates the Malvern Prep and Malvern Retreat do not have public
sewer. Both sites have connected to public sewers within the last ten years or so. Malvern Prep
has 15 EDU's that flow into Willistown Township and Malvern Retreat has 19 EDU's that
connect into the Borough’s sewer system. Page 1-9 also references these two parcels as being
served by on-lot facilities.
o As an FYI, a developer is currently considering a significant amount of condominium units on a
four lot parcel that originally had 5 EDU's. We will know by mid-week next week how many
units they will be proposing. These additional units were not included in our original flow
estimates.
If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Responses to Municipalities Comments
Malvern Borough - Edward B. Walsh & Associates, Inc.
1. On page 301, Malvern Township shall be revised to be Malvern Borough.
2. In relation to page 1-9, 5th paragraph, the Borough’s plan was approved in May of
1995 as seen in Table 1-1, but the text of Section 1 was not updated per PADEP.
3. The reference to Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. on page 2-9 shall be revised to
Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.
4. It is recognized that Malvern Prep and Malvern Retreat are connected to public
sewers, and that their flows have been accounted for in the projections approved
by Malvern Borough.
5. It is noted that a developer is currently considering a significant amount of
condominium units on a four lot parcel that originally consisted of 5 EDU’s, and
that these additional EDU’s were not included in the original flow estimates.
Even with these additional units, Malvern Borough will remain within their
reserved capacity.
APPENDIX J
Proof of Public Notice and Comments
APPENDIX K
Member and Partner Municipalities Plan
Adoptions