ross township feasibility study report

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT For

ROSS TOWNSHIP 1 of 2

Prepared By: Prepared For:

The Gateway Engineers, Inc. Ross Township 400 Holiday Drive 1000 Ross Municipal Drive

Pittsburgh, PA 15220 Pittsburgh, PA 15237

Project Number: C-17749-1320 Prepared By: James Thomas, E.I.T.

Reviewed By: Kurt Todd, P.E. Project Manager: Richard Minsterman, P.E.

July 2013 Version 1.0

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Table of Contents

TOC-1

Copyright © 2013 The Gateway Engineers, Inc. July 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Number

Description Page

Number Common Abbreviation List CA-1

Executive Summary ES-1

1.0 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Feasibility Study Objectives 1-2

1.2 Report Contents 1-4

2.0 Background 2-1

2.1 Regulatory Requirements 2-1

2.1.1 ACO/COA Requirements for Municipalities 2-1

2.1.2 Consent Decree Requirements Relating to Design Flow for Municipalities 2-2

2.2 Role of the FSWG 2-6

2.2.1 Objectives of the FSWG 2-7

2.2.2 Task List Developed by the FSWG 2-8

2.3 Municipal Coordination Overview 2-22

3.0 Existing System Description 3-1

3.1 Municipal Systems 3-1

3.1.1 Existing Sewershed Description for Ross Township 3-1

3.1.2 Multi-Municipal System(s) and Complex Sewersheds 3-3

3.1.3 Current Flow Management Agreements 3-4

3.2 Existing Overflows 3-9

3.3 Direct Stream Inflows 3-9

4.0 Sewer System Characterization 4-1

4.1 2008 Flow Monitoring Data Evaluation 4-1

4.1.1 Flow Monitoring Program Background 4-1

4.1.2 Additional Flow Monitoring 4-2

4.1.3 Flow Monitoring Results 4-2

4.2 Description of Flow Isolation Studies and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys 4-3

4.2.1 Flow Isolation Study/SSES Procedures 4-3

4.3 Recommendations Resulting from Ross Township Flow Isolation Studies/SSES 4-3

4.4 Best Management Practices – Green Technology Screening 4-4

4.5 Summary of Defect Repairs 4-6

5.0 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 5-1

5.1 Development and Calibration/Verification of H&H Tools 5-1

5.2 Baseline Conditions 5-5

5.2.1 Dry Weather Flows (Existing and Future) 5-7

5.2.2 Groundwater Infiltration (Existing and Future) 5-10

5.2.3 Estimation Process for Unmonitored Areas 5-11

5.3 Preliminary Flow Estimates 5-12

5.4 Capacity Deficient Sewers 5-13

5.4.1 Existing Basement Flooding Areas – History and Locations 5-20

5.4.2 Capacity Requirements for Various Design Storms and Levels of Protection 5-20

5.5 Overflow Frequency and Volume 5-22


TOC-2


TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

Section Number

Description Page

Number 6.0 CSO/SSO Control Levels 6-1

6.1 Background for Selection of Control Level 6-1

6.1.1 CSO Control Level 6-1

6.1.2 SSO Control Level 6-1

6.2 Recommendations for Control Levels 6-3

7.0 Alternative Evaluation (Internal Municipal) 7-1

7.1 Evaluation Criteria Development 7-7

7.2 Cost Estimates 7-7

7.3 Alternative Selection Process 7-10

7.4 Alternative Evaluation Results 7-10

7.5 Recommended Alternative Description 7-11

7.6 Recommended Alternative Operation and Maintenance Per POC 7-14

7.7 Stream Removals 7-14

8.0 Multi-Municipal Sewershed Recommended Alternatives 8-1

9.0 Financial and Institutional Considerations 9-1

9.1 MOU and Inter-Municipal Agreements 9-1

9.2 Funding Alternatives 9-1

9.3 User Cost Analysis 9-5

9.4 Affordability 9-6

10.0 Integration of Selected Alternatives 10-1

11.0 Implementation 11-1

11.1 Implementation Schedule 11-1

11.2 Joint Municipal Planning and Implementation 11-1

11.3 Regulatory Compliance Reporting 11-1

Appendices

Tab Number

A 3RWW FSWG Document 002A

B POC Report: A-67 (on attached CD)

C POC Report: A-68 (on attached CD)

D POC Report: O-15 (on attached CD)

E Agreement Information (on attached CD)

F Hydrographs

G PFE Results

H SPC Population Data

I Interconnections Table

J Capacity Tables (A-58 & A-60)

K Alternative Mapping

L Detailed Cost Estimates

M Schedule 6 CSO Affordability


TOC-3


TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

Section Number

Description Tab

Number Figures

1 Existing Sewershed Map

2 POC O-15 Map

3 POC O-18 Map

4 POC O-25 Map

5 POC O-27 Map

6 POC A-58 Map

7 POC A-60 Map

8 POC A-67 Map

9 POC A-68 Map

10 Flow Monitoring Program

11 Additional Design Meters

12 2 Year Capacity Map – POC A-68

13 10 Year Capacity Map – POC A-68

14 2 Year Capacity Map – POC O-15








Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Common Abbreviation List

CA-1


Acronym Meaning 3RWW Three Rivers Wet Weather

ACO Administrative Consent Order

ACHD Allegheny County Health Department

ALCOSAN Allegheny County Sanitary Authority

BWWF Base Waste Water Flow

C Runoff Coefficient

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

CD Consent Decree

CFS Cubic Feet/Second

COA Consent Order Agreement

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

CSS Combined Sewer System

CWA Clean Water Act

DOJ Department of Justice

DSS Design Storm Selection

EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit

FMIT Flow Monitoring Implementation Team

FMWG Flow Monitoring Working Group

GIS Geographic Information Systems

FSWG Feasibility Study Working Group

GPAD Gallons/Average/Day

GPCD Gallons/Capita/Day

GPD Gallons/Day

GPIMD Gallons/Inch/Mile/Day

GWI Ground Water Infiltration

H&H Hydrologic and Hydraulic

I/I Infiltration/Inflow

LBS Land Based System

LGUDA Local Government Unit Debt Act

MGD Million Gallons/Day

MHI Median Household Income

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MDS Municipal Data Support

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PENNVEST Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority

PFE Preliminary Flow Estimate

POC Point of Connection

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RCSFMP Regional Collection System Flow Monitoring Plan

RDII Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration

REMI Regional Econometric Models Incorporated

RFMP Regional Flow Monitoring Plan

RFP Request for Proposal

RI Residential Indicator

SSS Separate Sanitary Sewers

SPC Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission

SSES Sewer System Evaluation Survey

SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow

SSOAP Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning

SUH Synthetic Unit Hydrograph

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Common Abbreviation List

CA-2


Acronym Meaning SWMM5 Storm Water Management Model

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VRS Virtual Reference Station

WWP Wet Weather Plan

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Executive Summary

ES-1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On May 4, 2004, Ross Township (Township) entered into an Administrative Consent Order

(ACO) with the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) in order to eliminate sanitary

sewer overflows and comply with the Clean Streams Law. As part of this Consent Order, the

Township was required to inventory it’s system, complete necessary repairs, perform flow

monitoring, dye testing, adopt a point-of-sale dye testing ordinance, adopt an ordinance to

eliminate storm water connections, perform a hydraulic analysis of the collection system,

develop an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, and prepare a Feasibility Study to address

any collection system deficiencies to eliminate SSO’s. This report was to be submitted to the

ACHD within six (6) months after the submittal of an Allegheny County Sanitary Authority

(ALCOSAN) wet weather plan or July 31, 2013, based on the submittal date of the ALCOSAN

plan.

The Ross Township sanitary sewer system consists of all gravity sewers. The system is

interconnected with other sanitary collection systems and all treatment is provided by

ALCOSAN at the Woods Run Treatment Facility. Approximately half of the sanitary sewers in

the Township are owned by the Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority and flow to ALCOSAN

through the Point of Connection (POC) A-67, while the other half are owned by the Township.

The Ross Township portion of the system serves a population of approximately 16,000 residents,

utilizing approximately 94 miles of gravity sewer and 2,300 structures.

The Ross Township owned sewers are part of the following seven (7) multi-municipal

sewersheds:

• A-58, which is a sub-shed of A-51, Ross flows through the City of Pittsburgh before

connecting into the ALCOSAN system.

• A-60, Ross flows through the City of Pittsburgh before connecting into the ALCOSAN

system.


ES-2


• A-68, Ross receives flow from the Town of McCandless and Shaler Township then the

combined flows travel through Shaler Township and Etna Borough before connecting

into the ALCOSAN system.

• O-15, Ross flows to the ALCOSAN system through the LROC interceptor that is shared

with Kilbuck Township, Ohio Township, Franklin Park Borough, the Town of

McCandless, West View Borough and Emsworth Borough.

• O-18, Ross flows through Borough of Bellevue, Avalon Borough and Ben Avon Borough

before connecting into ALCOSAN.

• O-25 is mainly made up of an area which receives flow from Borough of Bellevue before

connecting into ALCOSAN and a small section that flows into the City of Pittsburgh

before connecting into ALOCSAN.

• O-27, Ross flows through the City of Pittsburgh before connecting into the ALCOSAN

system.

Through the Feasibility Study analysis it was determined that no internal projects (projects

related to Ross Township sewers) are required in POC’s A-58, A-60, O-15 and O-27, as the

Township owned lines are already capable of conveying a 10-year design storm. The presented

alternatives for POC’s A-68, O-18 and O-25 were designed to 2- and 10- year design storm

control levels. For the A-68 sewershed, the winter storm was used in the analysis, as it had the

greatest impact on the system. For all of the remaining sewersheds the summer design storms

created the highest peak flow rates and therefore were used for analysis. During the alternative

design and cost estimation process it was found that the differences between the 2- and 10- year

level of control did not yield significant differences in projects or estimated construction costs,

therefore the Township chose the following 10-year design options as the preferred alternatives:

• A-68: The preferred alternative in POC A-68 (Alternative 1B: Parallel and Sewerline

Upsizing) includes the construction of approximately 3,300 linear feet (LF) of 10”

parallel sewer along the main municipal interceptor, from manhole (MH) #4826 to MH

#4065, the upsizing of approximately 1,600 LF of pipe ranging in size from 12” to 18”,


ES-3


from MH #4305 to MH #4826, MH #873 to MH #339 and MH #4065 to MH #4086 and

the installation, and operation and maintenance of, a 1.557 Million-Gallons/Day (MGD)

storage tank after MH #4086. (This tank was sized to address overflows within Ross

Township as well as downstream overflows in Shaler Township). Prior to the

construction and permitting of this alternative, flow isolation and potential removal of

Infiltration/Inflow (I&I) will be completed in order to refine the sizing of the storage

tank.

• O-18: The preferred alternative in POC O-18 (Alternative 2B: Parallel and Sewerline

Upsizing) includes the upsizing of approximately 4,500 LF of pipe ranging from 8” to

24” in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #3780 to MH #9101. Also

included is approximately 1,100 LF of parallel sewers ranging from 12” to 21” from MH

#2139 to MH #2135B.

• O-25: The preferred alternative in POC O-25 (Alternative 3A: Sewerline Upsizing)

includes the upsizing of approximately 3,400 LF of pipe ranging from 12” to 15” in size

along the main municipal interceptor from MH #1388 to MH #1218. Also included are

the removal of the diversion MH #2092 and the upsizing of approximately 300 LF of

sanitary sewer to 10” from MH#707 to MH #2092.

As per the requirements of the ACO, significant structure deficiencies within the system are

continuously repaired throughout the Township as they are identified through the Consent Order

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Program. Since 2004, the Township has completed

approximately 24,000 LF of sewer line repairs, encompassing new construction, pipe bursting,

excavation and cured in place pipe (CIPP) work. In addition, the Township has also completed

approximately 100 structure repairs including new and raised manholes.

In addition to the proposed internal municipal projects and the previously completed repair work,

the Township is also required to contribute to the multi-municipal projects in POC’s O-15 and

A-68. The Township is aware of twelve municipal agreements specific to individual points of

connection sewersheds within the Township and another two agreements that relate to the entire


ES-4


Township sewer system. These agreements will assist the municipalities in determining the

shared costs of the multi-municipal projects. The following table shows the summary of Ross

Township required funding for both internal and shared multi-municipal projects.

SUMMARY OF ROSS TOWNSHIP REQUIRED FUNDING

POC Ross Township Internal

Alternative Costs Ross Township Project Multi-Municipal Alternative Costs

Total Capital Cost

A-581 $0.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00

A-60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

A-67 $0.00 $17,630,000.002 $17,630,000.00

A-68 $15,247,000.00 $6,130,000.00 $21,377,000.003

O-15 $0.00 $5,780,000.00 $5,780,000.00

O-18 $3,674,000.00 $0.00 $3,674,000.00

O-25 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 $1,527,000.00

O-27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $50,008,000.00 1) A-58 contributes in part to the A-51 sewershed. Project Cost is based off of the total population of the sewershed.

2) Projected cost to Ross Township Users located within POC A-67 based on the Draft A-67 POC report located in

Appendix B.

3) Shaler Township is projected to contribute approximately $4,000,000.00 towards this portion of a shared

equalization tank; however, no formal negotiations have occurred.

The projected Ross Township required funding for 2026 capital construction costs is

$50,008,000.00. This equates to a present worth cost of $30,351,000.00, which includes

$18,601,000.00 of direct costs to Ross Township and $11,750,000.00 of costs attributed to the

GRJSA portion of Ross Township.

Based on an Average User Cost Analysis, the Township has a current annual cost per household

of $463.00. After the completion of all wet weather improvements (2027) the cost per

household will be $1,380.56 or 1.52% of the 2027 Median Household Income (MHI). United

States Environmental Protection (USEPA) standards for combined sewer flows, indicate that

anything above 2% MHI could be considered High Burden. Although the Township does not

have a combined sewer system, The Gateway Engineers, Inc. (Gateway) used this EPA standard

for comparison of affordability to the Township residents related to their MHI. The addition of


ES-5


the proposed Feasibility Study wet weather improvements will put the Township in the Low

Burden range for overall Financial Capability.

If approved, Ross Township projects may take place concurrently with neighboring municipal

construction projects in order to minimize disturbance and ensure that the all interconnected

systems can handle any additional flow from the Township. Prior to the design and construction,

the following tasks shall be completed:

• 2014 through 2026 – Perform flow monitoring and flow isolation and source reduction of

project areas.

• March 2015 – Termination of current ACO.

• December 2015 – Regional negotiation of multi-municipal trunk sewer agreements.

• June 2016 – Negotiation with agencies.

• December 2017 Negotiation/Agreements between municipalities.

• December 2026 – Design/permits/approvals/financing; construction.

*Dates are for completion of the task

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 1 - Introduction

1-1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law of 1937 and the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)

establishes criterion governing communities’ sewage conveyance and treatment systems.

Specifically, the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law prohibits overflows from separate sanitary

sewers, and the CWA through the Combined Sewer Policy, requires certain controls be applied

to reduce pollutants from Combined Sewer Systems (CSS). For the eighty-three communities

tributary to the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) Conveyance and Treatment

System, ongoing non-compliance with these two laws resulted in the issuance of Administrative

Consent Orders (ACOs) and Consent Order and Agreements (COAs) in early 2004 by the

Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection (PADEP), respectively. Subsequent to that, in January 2008, ALCOSAN, ACHD,

and the PADEP entered into a Consent Decree (CD) with the Federal Department of Justice

(DOJ) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to prepare and submit

an approvable Wet Weather Plan (WWP) by January 2013.

These ACOs, COAs (collectively known as the Orders) and the ALCOSAN CD require the

respective entities to gather data and information, characterize their respective systems, analyze

and perform alternative analyses, and submit Feasibility Studies. These Feasibility Studies will

address work required to bring the systems into compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean Streams

Law and the CWA and eliminate Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). Lastly, the Feasibility

Studies will fulfill the Pennsylvania and USEPA Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy

obligations. ALCOSAN’s CD required them to submit a plan to the regulators by January 2013

that outlined a program to comply with these laws and requires the facilities, including the

municipal facilities, to be constructed by 2026. The tributary municipalities are required to

submit their Feasibility Studies to the regulators on or before July 31, 2013 (within six months of

ALCOSAN submitting its plan). These plans were developed in coordination with ALCOSAN

and all the municipalities that contribute flow to the ALCOSAN Point of Connection (POC).

The intent is to explain how the municipality will retain, store, convey and/or treat sewage

overflows within their respective sewage collection and conveyance systems. It is understood


1-2


that the Feasibility Studies will serve as the basis for the next round of Orders that will mandate

implementation of selected/approved alternatives. This report addresses the internal municipal

alternatives that were evaluated as part of the Feasibility Study. Any alternatives developed as

part of an ALCOSAN POC (also known as “multi-municipal”) sewershed Feasibility Study are

included in the appendices of this report.

1.1 Feasibility Study Objectives

The Feasibility Study objectives for the Township’s system were generated from objectives

outlined in the Feasibility Study Working Group (FSWG) Document 027 and the PADEP’s Draft

Feasibility Study Outline. The objectives of this Feasibility Study include:

• Participate and cooperate with ALCOSAN in the development of a WWP.

• In July 2013, submit a municipal flow management compliance plan (Feasibility

Study Report), which evaluates a range of practicable alternatives to:

o Meet CWA and Clean Stream Law requirements.

o Eliminate SSOs.

o Fulfill Pennsylvania and USEPA CSO Policy obligations.

o Develop a cost effective Feasibility Study with other municipalities within the

same ALCOSAN POC sewershed.

o Develop short-term and long-term flow management proposals that will meet

the municipality’s flow management objectives through September 30, 2046.

In response to SSOs within a given system, ACOs were negotiated between the municipalities

tributary to the ALCOSAN service area and the ACHD. The ACO required certain tasks

including an Assessment (Phase I) and Flow Monitoring Plan (Phase II) on each of the municipal

systems. Semi-Annual Progress Reporting was a mandated requirement of the ACO.


1-3


As part of a collaborative, multi-municipal effort, 3 Rivers Wet Weather (3RWW) developed a

Flow Monitoring Working Group (FMWG) consisting of approximately thirty to forty

representatives made up of municipal managers, representatives from municipal engineering

firms, regulatory agencies, 3RWW, and ALCOSAN. The FMWG ultimately developed the

municipal Flow Monitoring Plan that was submitted to the regulatory agencies and implemented

in 2008 and 2009.

After submittal of the Flow Monitoring Plan, the 3RWW FMWG evolved into the FSWG. The

FSWG developed an engineering approach to the Feasibility Study that included a ten-task

synopsis of the ACO requirements:

• System Inventory/System Investigation.

• Flow Monitoring Program.

• System Characterization.

• System Capacity Analysis.

• System Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Investigation (separate sanitary sewer systems).

o Initial I/I Screening.

o Detailed I/I Investigation.

• Alternative Evaluation (1) – Internal Municipal Alternatives.

• Alternative Evaluation (2) – Multi-Municipal Alternatives (integrate regional

alternatives).

• Compare/Review Internal/Multi-Municipal Alternatives with

Regional/ALCOSAN System Alternatives.

• Financial and Institutional Analysis.

• Feasibility Study Report(s).

These tasks are defined in greater detail in the FSWG Document 002 dated June 9, 2009. As

noted above, the final task is a Feasibility Study Report.


1-4


1.2 Report Contents

This report presents a description of the work tasks performed and the results of the tasks that

culminate in recommended wet weather control alternatives. This report includes Ross

Township information regarding the development, evaluation, and selection of recommended

alternatives for wet weather control. The report was prepared according to guidelines provided

in the 3RWW FSWG documents in cooperation with the participating municipalities.

This report is divided into eleven sections. Details on the information contained in each section

are described below:

• Section 1.0 presents the objectives of this Feasibility Study.

• Section 2.0 provides a discussion of the regulatory background and requirements

under which this Feasibility Study was prepared, the role that the 3RWW FSWG

played in the development of this study, and an overview of municipal coordination.

• Section 3.0 provides a description of the ALCOSAN planning basins, the existing

municipal systems that are the subject of this study, and the existing overflows that

occur in those systems.

• Section 4.0 describes the 2008 Flow Monitoring Data that was collected for the

system, provides a summary of sewer system investigations and discusses any defects

that were identified and how they were addressed.

• Section 5.0 explains the development of the hydraulic analysis tools that were used

and the model conditions that were developed and evaluated as a basis for alternative

development.

• Section 6.0 presents the water quality issues that are the reason behind the need for

controlling sewer overflows. Design storm development and the levels of control that

will be evaluated are discussed.

• Section 7.0 presents the development process for alternatives to be implemented

entirely within the municipality. These include the technology screening and site

screening processes, alternative formation, alternative evaluation criteria, cost

estimating, green infrastructure, and alternative selection.


1-5


• Section 8.0 is similar to Section 7.0 except that it describes alternatives that would

have to be implemented by more than one municipality to be effective for the control

of overflows at the downstream ALCOSAN connection point.

• Section 9.0 provides a discussion of how costs will be allocated for the

implementation of the recommended alternative including details on financial

responsibility agreements, affordability analyses, and funding alternatives.

• Section 10.0 explains how the recommended alternative works with the internal

municipal projects implemented separately from the recommended alternative, and

how it will integrate with the overall regional ALCOSAN recommended alternative.

• Section 11.0 includes details about how the recommended alternative will be

implemented including schedule, cost sharing agreements, and Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) agreements.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 2 - Background

2-1


2.0 BACKGROUND

As discussed in Section 1, this Feasibility Study is the culmination of numerous studies and

activities and will fulfill the requirements of the Township’s ACO. Details of the regulatory

requirements and activities performed leading to this Feasibility Study are subsequently

presented.

2.1 Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory requirements to be met are outlined in the municipal ACO/COA as well as in

ALCOSAN’s CD. The applicable sections of these documents are presented below.

2.1.1 ACO/COA Requirements for Municipalities

The ACO and COA include a section entitled “Feasibility Study in Conjunction with an

ALCOSAN Enforcement Order”, which has the following requirement:

COA /ACO Definition (Section 15 of ACO)

i. Establishing with ALCOSAN the quantity and rate of sewage flow from the

municipality that ALCOSAN will be able to retain, store, convey and treat upon

implementation of a Wet Weather Plan and/or LTCP [Long-Term Control Plan]; and

ii. Developing a feasibility study with an alternatives analysis evaluating the

Municipality’s options to construct sewage facilities necessary to retain, store,

convey and treat sewage flows from the Municipality including, but not limited to,

any sewage flows that: (A) ALCOSAN cannot accommodate or (B) ALCOSAN could

accommodate, but which the Municipality decides to address in a separate manner

(“Feasibility Study”).

iii. The Municipality shall submit to ACHD the Feasibility Study within six (6) months

after ALCOSAN submits a Wet Weather Plan and/or LTCP to EPA and/or DEP as

required by the Enforcement Order. The Feasibility Study shall evaluate a range of

alternatives, including but not limited to, alternatives to eliminate SSOs, and shall

estimate the cost and time necessary to implement or construct each alternative.


2-2


The section in the ACO on operations and maintenance also includes language that requires

separate sewer systems to plan for adequate system capacities in order to eliminate SSOs. This

requirement is reiterated below.

Operation and Maintenance Program (Section 17 of ACO)

(iii) Take all feasible steps to provide required capacity(ies) to eliminate SSOs in its Sanitary

Sewer System and to plan for additional capacity, or other means to eliminate such SSOs.

2.1.2 Consent Decree Requirements Relating to Design Flows for Municipalities

ALCOSAN’s CD requires the following:

A. Compliance Requirements:

1. Within the time frames established as part of the Wet Weather Plan process

described in this Consent Decree, ALCOSAN shall:…

a. construct and operate conveyance, storage, and treatment facilities for flows

from the Regional Collection System in accordance with Section VI,

Subsections B (Planning, Design, and Construction Requirements) and C

(Operational Requirements).

B. Planning, Design, and Construction Requirements

1. Sanitary Sewer System Flow Within the time frames established as part of the Wet

Weather Plan process described below, but in no event later than September 30,

2026, ALCOSAN shall design and construct facilities for the Conveyance and

Treatment System sufficient to:…….

a. eliminate all Sanitary Sewer Overflows from the Conveyance and Treatment

System; and


2-3


b. capture and provide Treatment, for at least twenty years after completion of

construction of the remedial controls, and implementation of the remedial

activities, required under the Wet Weather Plan approved by the Plaintiffs, for

a flow volume equivalent to all of the Sanitary Sewer System flow that is

generated in the Regional Collection System. Notwithstanding the foregoing,

ALCOSAN need not design and construct facilities to capture and provide

Treatment for a given amount of Sanitary Sewer System flow from a Customer

Municipality within the Regional Collection System if:

i. the Customer Municipality has constructed or is legally committed under

an Enforceable Document to construct facilities to capture and provide

Treatment for that amount of Sanitary Sewer System flow; or

ii. insufficient capacity exists to convey a given amount of flow from the

Customer Municipality to the Conveyance and Treatment System, the

Customer Municipality certifies that it does not intend to create and/or

cannot create capacity sufficient to convey that given amount of flow to

the Conveyance and Treatment System, and PADEP and EPA have

determined that the Customer Municipality can comply with the Clean

Water Act through means other than conveying this amount of flow to the

Conveyance and Treatment System; and

iii. ALCOSAN submits a proposal to the Plaintiffs to exclude such municipal

flow on the grounds set forth above in Subparagraphs 17(b)(i) or 17(b)(ii),

with sufficient detail for review and approval by EPA and PADEP, and for

review and comment by ACHD, in accordance with Section VIII (Review

and Approval of Submittals); and

iv. EPA and PADEP approve of ALCOSAN’s proposal to exclude the

municipal flow from its planning, design, and construction of such

facilities.


2-4


2. Combined Sewer System Flow Within the time frames established as part of the

Wet Weather Plan process described below, but in no event later than September

30, 2026, ALCOSAN shall design and construct facilities for the Conveyance and

Treatment System sufficient to capture and treat flows from the Combined Sewer

System for at least twenty years after completion of construction of the remedial

controls, and implementation of the remedial activities, required under the Wet

Weather Plan approved by the Plaintiffs, as follows:

a. Demonstration Approach – If ALCOSAN submits the Wet Weather Plan

utilizing the Demonstration Approach pursuant to Section VI, Subsections H

(Wet Weather Plan – General Requirements) and J (Wet Weather Plan –

Demonstration Approach), and EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow Policy, then:

ALCOSAN shall design and construct facilities for the Conveyance and

Treatment System sufficient to capture and provide Treatment to the volumetric

equivalent of all Peak Dry Weather Flow generated in the Regional Collection

System; and, for the volumetric equivalent of all Wet Weather Flow generated

in the Combined Sewer System portion of the Regional Collection System,

ALCOSAN shall design and construct facilities that will meet the requirements

of the Clean Water Act, consistent with EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow

Policy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ALCOSAN need not design and

construct facilities to capture and provide such treatment to a given amount of

Combined Sewer System flow from a Customer Municipality within the

Regional Collection System if:

i. the Customer Municipality has constructed or is legally committed

under an Enforceable Document to construct facilities to achieve such

capture and treatment; or


2-5


ii. insufficient capacity exists to convey a given amount of flow from the

Customer Municipality to the Conveyance and Treatment System, the

Customer Municipality certifies that it does not intend to create and/or

cannot create capacity sufficient to convey that given amount of flow

to the Conveyance and Treatment System, and PADEP and EPA have

determined that the Customer Municipality can comply with the Clean

Water Act through means other than conveying this amount of flow to

the Conveyance and Treatment System; and

iii. ALCOSAN submits a proposal to the Plaintiffs to exclude such

municipal flow on the grounds set forth above in Subparagraphs

18(a)(i) or 18(a)(ii), with sufficient detail for review and approval by

EPA and PADEP, and for review and comment by ACHD, in

accordance with Section VIII (Review and Approval of Submittals);

and

iv. EPA and PADEP approve of ALCOSAN’s proposal to exclude the

municipal flow from its planning, design, and construction of such

facilities.

C. Planning, Design, and Construction Requirements

1. Customer Municipality Input on Managing Sewer System Flow. As part of the

evaluation of remedial controls and remedial activities that ALCOSAN shall

undertake in developing the Wet Weather Plan in accordance with Appendix S

(Wet Weather Plan Requirements for Demonstration Approach) or Appendix V

(Wet Weather Plan Requirements for Demonstration Approach), ALCOSAN shall

solicit input from each Customer Municipality on the following:


2-6


a. the forecasts of total flow (in gallons per day and, if available, in

gallons-per-day-per-inch-mile of sewer line), that each Point of

Connection will contribute to the Conveyance and Treatment System

upon implementation of the Wet Weather Plan, and the total service

population or each Point of Connection;

b. a characterization of the flows from both the contributing Combined

Sewer System and/or the Sanitary Sewer System at each Point of

Connection, a description of how each such characterization was

prepared, and a description of how such flows will be managed and/or

maintained at each Point of Connection; and

c. a program for managing contributions from the customer Municipality

so that such contributions to the Conveyance and Treatment System do

not result in exceedances of system capacity or do not preclude

compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, consistent

with EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow Policy.

2.2 Role of the FSWG

The role of the FSWG was to facilitate coordination between the municipalities and the

regulatory agencies and to provide guidance to the municipalities to comply with regulatory

requirements. The Township was represented in the FSWG meetings by The Gateway

Engineers, Inc. (Gateway). The FSWG coordinated meetings with PADEP in order to provide

input on what they wanted to be addressed by each municipality in the Feasibility Studies. The

following are some of the outcomes of the coordinated meetings:

• Describe the CSS hydraulic characterization efforts and parameters, tools and other

evaluation and estimation tools used by the Township to develop its Feasibility Study.

• Identify and summarize all additional flow monitoring efforts (and other related flow

information utilized by the Township), which is in addition to the ALCOSAN

sponsored flow monitoring program.


2-7


• For each ALCOSAN POC-shed, describe and comment on the inter-municipal and

ALCOSAN cooperation and coordination efforts for which the Township has actively

participated in to develop its Feasibility Study.

• For each POC-shed, briefly outline the flow management proposals developed with

all municipalities and ALCOSAN. Should another municipality fail to propose

improvements the municipality deems necessary to fulfill the Feasibility Study

objectives, then the municipality should outline those for ACHD and/or Department

consideration.

The following sections describe the FSWG activities in more detail.

2.2.1 Objectives of the FSWG

The 3RWW FSWG evolved from the 3RWW FMWG to continue facilitation and coordination

efforts with the eighty-three municipalities to develop this Feasibility Study. The group’s

objectives were:

• To facilitate the municipal obligations to achieve compliance with the ACO/COA

request for municipal Feasibility Studies.

• To establish a coordinated schedule.

• To facilitate identification of cost-effective and sustainable solutions.

• To facilitate technical, financial and institutional solutions.

• To develop standardized processes and reporting.

• To develop objectives and identify deliverables and due dates for Feasibility Study

elements.

• To establish a reasonable schedule for the municipal Feasibility Studies in

conjunction with ALCOSAN and the Basin Planners.

• To serve as a venue/forum for municipal engineers, ALCOSAN, Basin Planners,

Agencies, 3RWW, and the 3RWW/Program Management (3RWW/PM) Team, for

discussion of items related to Feasibility Studies.

• To foster intra- and inter-basin collaboration.


2-8


• To address issues from the Basin Planners.

• To facilitate utilization of the ALCOSAN provided tools such as the hydraulic models

and costing tool by the municipal engineer.

• To develop information to engage municipal/authority boards regarding the

Feasibility Study process.

• To develop ways to look at Feasibility Studies on a sewershed basis.

• To involve municipal managers in the Feasibility Study process.

• To provide a forum for sharing tools and techniques necessary to complete the

Feasibility Studies.

• To achieve compliance with the ACO/COA.

2.2.2 Task List Developed by the FSWG

The 3RWW FSWG developed a detailed outline of tasks listed below that needed to be

completed by the municipalities in order to meet regulatory requirements.

Task 1 – System Inventory/System Investigation

This work has already been completed by the municipality. The ACO/COA required completion

dates were:

• Physical Survey – May 31, 2007.

• Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) – May 31, 2010.

• Defect Repairs – November, 30, 2010.

Outcomes/Deliverables:

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Map of Sewer System.

• Identify defects related to pipe structure, capacity restriction, and inflow.


2-9


Task 2 – Flow Monitoring Program

Subtasks:

• Regional Collection System Flow Monitoring Program (RCSFMP) administered by

ALCOSAN and coordinated with municipalities and authorities by the Flow

Monitoring Implementation Team (FMIT) and FMWG.

• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) review by ALCOSAN and 3RWW

program teams.

• Initial review for data quality and consistency by the municipal engineers; begin

investigation/resolution of any observed discrepancies or unexpected results.

• Acceptance of flow monitoring data by municipalities.


• QA/QC’d flow monitoring data (glass box data set).

• Flow monitoring data summary and report submittal to ACHD and PADEP.

Task 3 – System Characterization

Required Inputs:

• Deconstructed hydrographs from 3RWW and ALCOSAN.

• ALCOSAN Basin Planner model of portion of sewershed (if desired).

Subtasks:

• Confirm delineation of POC and flow-monitor sewersheds.

• Deconstruct or obtain deconstructed storm hydrographs.

• Evaluate flow data consistency to identify abnormalities. Identify any additional field

work needed to ensure understanding of system connectivity.

• Identify any stream inflows.

• Develop Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Tools or H&H model – municipality to

choose best methodology from the following four basic approaches:

o Develop a regression analysis tool.

o Develop a unit hydrograph from flow data.


2-10


o Develop a Synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) (RTK or other) using available

SHAPE Program from ALCOSAN/Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) and/or

o Develop full hydraulic model or extend the ALCOSAN model to include

upstream areas not covered by the Basin Planner’s model.

• Calibrate/Verify H&H tools or models using information from the flow monitoring

program for dry and wet weather flows.

• Dry weather evaluation.

• Wet weather evaluation.

• For areas with insufficient flow monitoring data, either collect additional data or use

data from similar monitored areas to estimate flows.

• Identify and develop methodology for estimating dry and wet weather flows for

unmonitored areas.

• Coordinate the chosen approach with ALCOSAN’s Basin Planner.


• Calibrated Analysis Tool or H&H model.

• Capture values for each flow monitor.

• Wet weather/runoff derived I&I Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration (RDII)

volumes and peak rates for monitored storms.

• Volume, frequency and duration for each overflow during monitored events.

• Dry weather flows (24-hour volume and peak flow).

• Estimate dry and wet weather flows for unmonitored areas using similitude.

Task 4 – System Capacity Analysis

Required Inputs:

• Regulatory design criteria and compliance requirements for both Separate Sanitary

Sewers (SSS) and CSS from PADEP and ACHD.

• Identify existing inter-municipal and ALCOSAN sewer agreements for upstream and

downstream sewage conveyance and sewer ownership.


2-11


• Preliminary flows (FSWG definition) from upstream and downstream municipalities

(iterative process as Task 4 is refined by all municipalities).

Subtasks:

• Establish baseline conditions that include near-term improvements and application of

Nine Minimum Controls (NMC) and an O&M plan for SSS.

• Identify population growth, commercial development, and corresponding future flows

for the chosen design year (2046) and coordinate with Basin Planner.

• Wet weather evaluation for selected rainfall events using regulatory criteria. Perform

evaluation of the sewer system to determine existing capacity and compare with

future conditions. For CSS, show levels of surcharge for each design storm. Also, for

CSS, develop a typical year’s overflow statistics for each outfall.

• Share preliminary flows (FSWG definition) with upstream and downstream

municipalities.

• Identify capacity deficiencies.

• Consider capacity deficiencies in regard to existing inter-municipal sewer

agreements.

• Identify the need for inter-municipal sewer agreements with upstream and

downstream municipalities and refer to the Municipal Manager and Board for the

commencement of discussions.

• Identify required capacities. For CSS, municipalities can determine “level of service”

to provide to its customers.

• Estimate overflow volumes and peak rates for various flow conditions (typical

year/design storms as discussed in FSWG Document 003).

• Plot wet weather control alternatives for each design storm or level of service versus

present worth costs to develop a cost benefit analysis in order to identify the cost

effective “knee of the curve” for the minimum design storm.

• Coordinate Design Storm Selection (DSS) (“knee-of-the-curve”) results with other

municipalities and ALCOSAN.


2-12


• Coordinate with ALCOSAN and submit consolidated design storm for review,

comment and approval.


• Map of sewer surcharge levels (for CSS).

• Map of areas of deficient sewer capacity (for SSS).

• Annual overflow statistics for CSO outfalls.

• Quantification of peak rates and volumes lost from the system (for SSS).

• Identification and understanding of current inter-municipal ownership of sewers and

service agreements.

• Information for completing alternative development and evaluation.

• Preliminary flows (current and future) if all flow is conveyed to ALCOSAN without

intra or inter-municipal pipe conveyance capacity deficiencies for the 1-, 2-, 5- and

10- year design storm (for SSS) and the typical year 2003 for CSS (provide to

ALCOSAN and upstream/downstream municipalities).

• Submission of Design Storm recommendations to agencies (PADEP and ACHD) for

review and acceptance of Design Storm control level.

Task 5 – System I/I Investigation (SSS)

This task is to proceed parallel with Tasks 3 and 4.

Task 5A – Initial I/I Screening

Required Inputs:

• Flow monitoring data.

• System characteristics (area, footage by diameter, and population).

Subtasks:

• Define criteria for screening process.

o Peaking factor, GPIMD (Gallons/Inch/Mile/Day), GPAD (Gallons/Average/Day),

GPCD (Gallons/Capita/Day), “C” (Runoff Coefficient).

o SSOs and/or basement flooding issues.


2-13


o Capacity deficiencies.

o Capacity allocation issues.

• Apply screening criteria to metershed flow data.

• Determine need for flow isolation studies.

• Prepare approach and methodology.

• Outline schedule to perform the study.


• Quantification and distribution of I/I on a metershed basis.

• Decision on whether to perform a Flow Isolation Study.

• Plan for I/I Flow Isolation Study (if needed).

Task 5B – Detailed I/I Investigation

Required Inputs:

• Results from Task 5A screening.

Subtasks:

• Perform nighttime Flow Isolation Field Study.

• Analysis of Flow Isolation Field Study results.


• Quantification and distribution of I/I on a sub-unit basis.

Task 6 – Alternative Evaluation (1) – Internal Municipal Alternatives

The identification and development of control alternatives for municipal SSS and CSS, including

internal municipal CSOs and SSOs, was coordinated with ALCOSAN, other municipalities in

the sewershed, and the FSWG. At this point, each municipality looked at what was required to

resolve the deficiencies internal to each municipality first (Task 6) and then looked regionally

(Task 7).

Required Inputs:

• Alternative technology list with preliminary design and performance criteria.

• ALCOSAN’s cost tool (Part of ALCOSAN Technical Memo 6 [TM-6]).


2-14


• Task 4 Outcomes and Deliverables.



regard to actual intra or inter-municipal pipe conveyance capacity or deficiencies

(FSWG Definition).

• ALCOSAN Transport and Treatment cost.

• ALCOSAN’s proposed billing basis (surcharge vs. water consumption).

• Water quality objectives (internal municipal CSOs).

• Agency (PADEP and ACHD) comments/approval of Design Storm control levels.

Subtasks:

• FSWG review of all technologies.

o Listing of pros and cons.

o Develop short list of technologies for the municipalities to consider.

• Municipal screening of technologies.

o Use surviving technologies for further alternative formation.

• Develop evaluation criteria – Cost and Non-cost Factors.

o Define all the non-cost factors (including siting/zoning, expandability of sites,

operability, work force training, community acceptability, etc.).

o Include municipality assigned weight for each factor.

o Obtain buy-in from stakeholders and municipality.

• Use surviving technologies (including green solutions) to formulate feasible

alternatives for municipal systems for each of the design storms and CSS surcharge

levels or SSS deficient sewers.

o Transport (parallel relief or other).

o Storage (basin or tunnel).

o Flow reduction (I/I) removal.

o Satellite treatment (CSS).

• Develop Present Worth Costs.

o Capital costs and O&M costs.


2-15


o Compute present worth value (use common interest rates and term).

o The FSWG will review ALCOSAN’s cost tool (Part of TM-6) to ensure the tool is

applicable to municipalities. Supplement with additional cost tools required to

develop internal municipal alternatives.

• Apply evaluation criteria to alternatives and rank all alternatives.

• Select “highest ranked” wet weather control alternative(s) for the internal municipal

alternative.

• Present selected alternatives to local governing body at a public meeting for review,

comment and consensus.


• Internal municipal sewershed based evaluation (size, layout and cost) and ranking of

alternative solutions including:

o Convey all flow to ALCOSAN.

o Store and convey all flow to ALCOSAN.

o Flow reduction.

o Satellite treatment (CSS only).

• Identification of highest ranked alternative(s) for the municipality’s internal option.

• If the municipality is the only contributor to a POC, this analysis results in interim

design flows from the municipality to ALCOSAN with control alternatives for the

ALCOSAN Basin Planner’s use.

Task 7 – Alternative Evaluation (2) – Multi-Municipal Alternatives (Integrate Regional

Alternatives)

After completing, or concurrent with Task 6, the municipality was in a position to work with

other neighboring municipalities to identify and analyze cooperative ways to combine their

respective wet weather solutions. This resulted in a series of multi-municipal alternatives. The

identification and development of these alternatives was facilitated by the FSWG and the Basin

Planner in order to ensure that the procedure for alternative development was consistent with

both local and regional approaches.


2-16


Required Inputs:

• Tasks 4 and 5 outcomes and deliverables.

• Alternative technology list with preliminary design and performance criteria.

• ALCOSAN’s cost tool (Part of Technical Memorandum TM-6).



regard to actual intra or inter-municipal pipe conveyance capacity or deficiencies

(FSWG Definition).

• ALCOSAN transport and treatment cost.

• ALCOSAN’s proposed billing basis (surcharge vs. water consumption).

• Water quality objectives (internal municipal CSOs).

• Highest ranked alternative(s) for municipality’s internal option, when available.

Subtasks:

• Develop process and schedule for multi-municipal evaluations.

• FSWG review of all technologies.

o Listing of pros and cons.

o Develop short list of technologies for each group of municipalities to consider.

• Screen technologies.

o Use surviving technologies for further alternative formation.

• Continue discussions on and development of multi-municipal sewer agreements with

Municipal Manager and Board.

• Develop evaluation criteria – cost and non-cost factors.

o Define all the non-cost factors (including siting/zoning, operability, work force

training, community acceptability, etc.).

o Include municipality assigned weight for each factor.

o Obtain buy-in from stakeholders and municipalities.

• Use surviving technologies (including green solutions) to formulate feasible

alternatives for multi-municipal systems.

o Transport (parallel relief or other).


2-17


o Storage (basin or tunnel).

o Flow reduction (I/I) removal.

o Satellite treatment (CSS).

• Develop present worth costs.

• Capital costs and O&M costs.

o Compute present worth value (use common interest rates and term).

o The FSWG will review ALCOSAN’s cost tool (Part of ALCOSAN TM-6) to

ensure the tool is applicable to multi-municipal alternatives. Supplement with

additional cost tools required to develop multi-municipal alternatives.

• Apply evaluation criteria to alternatives and rank all alternatives.

• Select “highest ranked” wet weather control alternative(s) for the multi-municipal

alternative.

• Work with municipal managers to refine selected alternative scope and required

multi-municipal sewer agreement outlining cost sharing, ownership, O&M, future

capacity requirements for proposed solutions.

• Present selected alternatives to local governing body at a public meeting for review,

comment and consensus.


• Identification and understanding of required multi-municipal sewer agreements and

ownership of sewers.

• Multi-municipal sewershed based evaluation (size, layout and cost) and ranking of

alternative solutions including:

o Convey all flow to ALCOSAN.

o Store and convey all flow to ALCOSAN.

o Flow reduction.

o Satellite treatment (CSS only).

• Identify highest ranked alternative for the multi-municipal approach. Will likely

include the internal municipal alternatives as a subset.


2-18


• Size, layout and cost of highest ranked alternative for municipality’s multi-municipal

(regional) option. It is possible to have two best alternatives.

• Interim design flows (for municipalities choosing a multi-municipal approach) to

ALCOSAN Basin Planners.

• Draft multi-municipal sewer agreement outlining cost sharing, ownership, O&M, and

future capacity requirements for proposed solutions.

Task 8 – Compare/Review Internal/Multi-municipal Alternatives with Regional

/ALCOSAN System Alternatives

Following the identification of the highest ranked internal municipal alternatives as well as the

highest ranked multi-municipal alternatives (Tasks 6 and 7), ALCOSAN’s Basin Planner

identified a highest ranked “Planning Basin-wide or ALCOSAN System-wide” alternative to

implement at/near the POC. Under Task 8, the respective engineering teams further refined and

developed alternative approaches. These included achieving consensus of the effectiveness of

each alternative in wet weather flow reduction, identifying and quantifying cost elements that

affect selection, and preparing a life cycle based present worth cost analysis of surviving

alternatives. Alternatives were then ranked.

Required Inputs:

• ALCOSAN’s viable regional alternatives identified by the Basin Planners including

preliminary site plans and design basis/limitations.

• Outcomes/deliverables from Tasks 6 and 7.

• ALCOSAN’s updated transport and treatment costs and billing basis for each

remaining viable alternative under consideration.

• Local governing body acceptance of internal and multi-municipal approaches.

Subtasks:

• Review updates to ALCOSAN’s transport and treatment costs and billing basis for

impact on highest ranked alternatives. Update internal and multi-municipal

alternatives as needed.


2-19


• Meet with Basin Planner and understand Planning Basin and System alternatives for

the municipal sewershed.

• Discuss with the Basin Planner how the internal and multi-municipal alternatives

affect the Planning Basin and System alternatives.

• Identify economies that can be achieved through modification of the internal and

multi-municipal alternatives or the Planning Basin and System alternatives.

• Identify economies that can be achieved through combining of the internal and multi-

municipal alternatives and the Planning Basin and System alternatives into joint

facilities.

• Present alternatives to local governing body at a public meeting for review, comment

and consensus.


• Coordinated evaluation of alternatives with ALCOSAN.

• Improved cost effectiveness of internal and multi-municipal alternatives and Planning

Basin and System alternatives.

• Identify final highest ranked alternative for the municipality (internal/multi-

municipal/regional).

• Size, layout and cost of the highest ranked alternative for the municipality.

• Final design flows to ALCOSAN based on the final highest ranked alternative from

the municipal Feasibility Study.

Task 9 – Financial and Institutional Analysis

Task 9A – Financial Analysis

The Engineer communicated with the Township Manager during the ongoing analyses and

present worth costs that were developed for the highest ranked alternatives in Tasks 6, 7 and 8.

On an ongoing basis, each municipality evaluated their ability to pay for or finance their portion

of the required system improvements, if any. If the costs were beyond the municipality’s


2-20


financial abilities, then alternative approaches, such as an institutional change, could be

considered.

Required Inputs:

• Project/financing life-cycle term.

• Capital cost.

• O&M cost.

• Wet weather flow surcharge rate structure.

• Consecutive service costs (conveyance, transport and treatment).

Subtasks:

• Determine ability of municipality to incur additional debt (Local Government Unit

Debt Act) (LGUDA).

• Complete financial capacity and affordability analysis.

• Identify revenue sources and borrowing base.

• Identify funding alternatives.

• Calculate user fees under identified funding alternatives.


• Clear understanding of implementation costs and how costs will be addressed.

• Understanding of financial requirements.

• User fee schedule.

Task 9B – Institutional Analysis

Each municipality considered the benefits and reasonableness of their current institutional

framework to implement the required obligations of the ACO/COA and the municipal Feasibility

Study. Municipalities could then decide if they can operate, maintain, and provide service for the

best interests of their residents and the region.

Required Inputs:

• Existing administration and management structure.

• Existing ordinances and regulations.

• O&M Plan.


2-21


• Existing inter-municipal/agency agreements.

• Institutional alternatives.

Subtasks:

• Perform asset inventory and valuation.

• Identify new or alternative institutional framework necessary to implement the Plan.

Alternatives may include:

o No change.

o Contracted O&M.

o Form an authority – There are financial and political advantages to formation

of an authority where the sewer system is presently owned and operated by the

municipality.

o Form a joint authority – There may be additional efficiencies to be gained by

formation of a joint authority where the sewer system is presently owned and

operated by a municipality or a small authority.

o Convey ownership of the system to an authority – Not every municipality

needs to be in the sewer business. The professional operation of the sewer

system can provide efficiency and improved operations.

• Identify and prepare, as necessary, new or updated administrative and O&M Plans.

• Prepare new or updated inter-municipal sewer agreements, as necessary.

• Prepare new or updated municipal ordinances, as necessary.

• Select preferred institutional framework.


• Municipal selection of the final alternatives, schedules, and costs.

• Municipal consideration of sewer consolidation.

• Understanding of institutional options, advantages and disadvantages.

• Defined best institutional framework for the future.

• Draft ordinances and agreements.


2-22


Task 10 – Feasibility Study Report

Required Inputs:

• Outcomes and deliverables from all prior tasks.

Subtasks:

• This Feasibility Study Report is the final product of Task 10. Each municipality with

an ACO or COA must submit this study to the governing agency. In addition, if the

municipality is part of an ALCOSAN-defined “complex” sewershed, ALCOSAN has

requested that the municipality also contribute information to the POC Feasibility

Study Report(s) to which it is tributary. The FSWG has developed a uniform format

for both types of Feasibility Studies that the municipality may use as a template.


• Draft Feasibility Study Report

• Final Feasibility Study Report

2.3 Municipal Coordination Overview

An overall plan for municipal coordination is presented in 3RWW FSWG Document 002A,

Document 002A is attached in Appendix A. Extensive meetings were conducted throughout the

Feasibility Study process between the communities located in multi-municipal POCs. Please

refer to the POC reports for POC’s A-67, A-68 and O-15, in Appendices B, C and D

respectively, for detailed information regarding meetings between the municipalities. Through

communication with the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA), the Township was

informed that there were no downstream projects proposed for POC’s O-25, O-27 and A-60.

There is a project downstream of the Township’s connection to PWSA, which is a sub-shed of

POC A-51; however, the Township portion of the sewershed flow is considered negligible and

PWSA has indicated that they may not propose any cost sharing agreements. A meeting between

the Ross Township Engineer and the Borough of Bellevue Engineer was held on April 2, 2013 to

review the O-18 and O-25 POCs. At that time, no downstream projects were proposed by the

Borough of Bellevue Engineer, to be completed in either POC. See the Borough of Bellevue

report for any additional information.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 3 – Existing System Description

3-1


3.0 EXISTING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Municipal Systems

A description of the existing municipal system is provided below.

3.1.1 Existing Sewershed Description for Ross Township

The Ross Township sanitary sewer system consists of all gravity sewers. The system is

interconnected with other sanitary collection systems and all treatment is provided by

ALCOSAN at the Woods Run Treatment Facility. Approximately half of the sanitary sewers in

the Township are owned by the Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority and flow to ALCOSAN

through POC A-67, while the other half are owned by the Township. The Ross Township

portion of the system serves a population of approximately 16,000 residents, utilizing

approximately 94 miles of gravity sewer and 2,300 structures.

A map is included as Figure 1 that shows the sanitary sewer system and the corresponding

ALCOSAN POC’s. Table 3-1 summarizes the sewers located within the Township.


3-2


TABLE 3-1: SEWERSHED CHARACTERISTICS FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC

POC Tributary

Area (Acres) 1

Population2 Equivalent Dwelling

Units3

Separate

Inch-Miles

Linear Feet

Inch-Miles per Acre

A-58 4.30 22 10 3.0 1,555 0.36

A-60 3.54 28 11 1.1 711 0.28

A-674 4,738.63 15,172 5,518 798.0 460,077 0.17

A-68 900.78 3,957 3,790 201.5 127,435 0.22

O-15 2,038.45 5,538 3,670 383.7 202,895 0.19

O-18 601.21 2,346 2,330 103.2 62,246 0.17

O-25 886.14 3,833 3,350 168.5 95,139 0.19

O-27 53.76 262 240 12.7 8,430 0.24 1From current GIS data.

2Calculated based on house count and average household size of 2.15 from the Southwestern Pennsylvania

Commission 2010 Census Data.

3EDU defined calculated using total flow at POC divided by 400GPD.

4All sewers that are attributed to POC A-67 are owned and maintained by the Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority.

Please refer to the attached report in Appendix B for specific information regarding POC A-67.


3-3


3.1.2 Multi-Municipal System(s) and Complex Sewersheds

There are some ALCOSAN POCs that receive flow from more than one municipality. These are

considered to be “multi-municipal” systems because more than one municipality contributes

flow, and a solution for managing flow would have to consider each of the contributing

municipalities. There are over one-hundred such multi-municipal sewersheds contributing to the

ALCOSAN System. Some of these multi-municipal systems are more complex than others and,

as such, are defined by ALCOSAN as “complex sewersheds”. Complex sewersheds are those

that the flows and changes in flows would have a significant impact to the ALCOSAN

alternatives. There are forty-eight complex sewersheds in the ALCOSAN system.

ALCOSAN sent letters, dated November 7, 2011, to each municipality in a complex sewershed,

requesting that one comprehensive Feasibility Study, designated by POC, be submitted for each

complex sewershed. ALCOSAN also requested that each complex sewershed Feasibility Study

be submitted with a “Resolution” from the governing bodies of the participating municipalities.

The “Resolution” should acknowledge the joint effort of the participating municipalities and

authorize the release of the Feasibility Study to ALCOSAN for planning and review purposes.

Ross Township is part of eight (8) complex and multi-municipal sewer systems, seven (7) of

which convey the flow from the Township sewers and one (POC A-67), that conveys flow from

the Girty’s Run section of the Township. Maps of the complex and multi-municipal sewersheds

that the Township is part of are presented in:

• Figure 2 (O-15)

• Figure 3 (O-18)

• Figure 4 (O-25)

• Figure 5 (O-27

• Figure 6 (A-58)

• Figure 7 (A-60)

• Figure 8 (A-67)

• Figure 9 (A-68).


3-4


Information regarding the development and evaluation of the recommended alternatives for the

municipal area that is tributary to the complex/multi-municipal sewersheds can be found in the

following areas:

• The A-67 POC report prepared by the Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority, which owns

and maintains all sewers located in Ross Township that flow to POC A-67, is attached as

Appendix B. As of July 23, 2013, a final A-67 POC report had not been submitted. The

attached report is a draft, dated July 31, 2012.

• The A-68 POC Report prepared by Buchart Horn, on behalf of Etna, is attached as

Appendix C. As of July 23, 2013, a final A-68 POC report had not been submitted. The

attached report is a draft, dated July 31, 2012.

• The O-15 POC Report, prepared by the Lowries Run Operating Committee (LROC),

which manages sewer issues for the Lowries Run Interceptor, is attached as Appendix D.

As of July 23, 2013, a final O-15 POC report had not been submitted. The attached

report is a draft, dated July 31, 2012.

• For information regarding the small sections of the Township that flow into POCs: A-58,

A-60 and O-27, please refer to the PWSA Feasibility Study Report.

3.1.3 Current Flow Management Agreements

The following are summaries of Ross Township’s current Flow Management Agreements broken

down by POC. Detailed information for each agreement is attached in Appendix E.

A-58:

There are no known recorded agreements specific to POC A-58.

A-60:

There are no known recorded agreements specific to POC A-60.


3-5


A-67:

• 1985_09-24 – Ross Township and Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority

Summary: This agreement is for the Corrective Action Plan.


Summary: This agreement is for routine maintenance.


Summary: This agreement references permit transfer documentation and

contains information relating to the transfer of Township sewer lines to the

Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority. This cleans up an oversight which

occurred when the various sewer systems were transferred to the Girty’s Run

Joint Sewer Authority in 1984 – 1985. At that time, the associated PADEP

permits were not transferred with the agreements.

A-68:

• 1957_06-09 – Ross Township, Shaler Township and Etna Borough

Summary: This agreement permits Ross Township to connect to the sewers in

Shaler Township and for Shaler Township to construct sewers in the Little

Pine Creek Sewer Shed to the Ross Township Line. It then discusses a

simultaneous agreement with Etna Borough for the use of sewers. The

agreement also permits Ross Township to extend the sewers to serve the Little

Pine Creek Sewer Shed.

• 1995_09-27 – The Town of McCandless, ALCOSAN and the City of

Pittsburgh

Summary: This agreement is between the Town of McCandless, ALCOSAN

and the City of Pittsburgh for sewage flow from the Bennington Woods Plan

at the upper portion of the Little Pine Creek Sewershed that runs through Ross

Township. The agreement extends the “Project Z” area to include this

development. The agreement also indicates that a meter is to be installed at the

Ross Township line and the flow to be estimated at 0.024 MGD. Ross

Township is not directly part of the agreement.


3-6


O-15:

• 1963_11-13 – Ross Township, the Town of McCandless and Franklin

Township

Summary: The agreement permits Franklin Township to use the Lowries Run

Interceptor sewers. The agreement establishes payments, fees, rules and

regulations regarding the addition of Franklin Townships’ flows.

• 1974_12-30 – The Town of McCandless, Ross Township and West View

Borough

Summary: This agreement permits West View Borough to use the Lowries

Run Interceptor and Ross Township Sewers to serve a development in the

northwest corner of West View Borough. The area is designated as F-1-R

developed by Frank J. Heintz & Sons, Inc.

• 2000_06-19 – Ross Township, McCandless Township Sanitary Authority

(MTSA), Town of McCandless and Ohio Township

Summary: This agreement permits Ohio Township to use the Lowries Run

Interceptor sewers. This is an amendment to the original agreement between

the parties dated March 6, 1969. The Agreement discusses user and

transportation fees, tapping Fees, use of interceptor, future capacity costs,

projects utilizing capacity and regulatory directives.

• 1969 – Ross Township, the Town of McCandless, Franklin Township, Ohio

Township, West View Borough, Kilbuck Township, Ben Avon Heights

Borough, Ben Avon Borough and Emsworth Borough

Summary: This agreement establishes specifications and regulations for the

design and construction of sanitary sewers connecting to the Lowries Run

intercepting trunk line sewer; providing conditions of service to such sanitary

sewers; providing the procedure for connecting said sanitary sewers to said


3-7


Lowries Run intercepting trunk line sewer; providing charges and rates for the

use of the said Lowries Run intercepting trunk line sewer; and providing

penalties for violations thereof.

Note: A new agreement has recently been accepted by Emsworth Borough

which establishes that future work on the Lowries Run trunkline will have

costs distributed based on dry weather flow.

O-18:

• 2005_03-24 – ALCOSAN, the City of Pittsburgh, Borough of Bellevue and

Ross Township

Summary: This agreement is for the Jack’s Run Relief Sewer. It refers to the

February 1, 1960 agreement and states that those improvements are now

inadequate. The agreement refers to a project which is extensive and includes

overflow and diversion structures, a stream culvert, creek restoration and

relief sewers. Ownership is shared between the City of Pittsburgh and

ALCOSAN.

O-25:

• 1960_02-01 – ALCOSAN, Borough of Bellevue, the City of Pittsburgh and

Ross Township

Summary: This agreement is in reference to the use of the Jack’s Run

Interceptor. It establishes shared costs to construct a relief sewer to correct

problems. The agreement information also contains ordinances enacted for

each entity and supporting documentation.

• 2004_09-08 – the City of Pittsburgh and Ross Township

Summary: This agreement is for a development on Cliffview Road just inside

Ross Township. The sewage flow runs through PWSA along a separate

interceptor sewer to the O-25 point of connection. The sewer line is called the

“Kirby Sewer Facility”.


3-8


O-27:

• 1965_11-13 – the City of Pittsburgh and Ross Township

Summary: This agreement establishes mutual interests for serving sewage

areas in both Ross Township and the City of Pittsburgh. The agreement

permits Ross Township to use the Woods Run Trunk Sewer along Oakdale

Street in the City of Pittsburgh and permits the City of Pittsburgh to use

sewers in Ross Township near Rodenbaugh Avenue.

The following Flow Management Agreements relate to all of Ross Township sewers and not a

specific POC. Detailed information for each agreement is attached in Appendix E:

• 1949_07-01 – ALCOSAN, the City of Pittsburgh, Ross Township and

Various Municipalities

This agreement provides for sewage treatment and disposal service to the

forty-one boroughs and townships and ALCOSAN. It also establishes the

basis for sewage service charges.

• 1955_05-01 – ALCOSAN, the City of Pittsburgh, Ross Township and

Various Municipalities

This agreement commonly referred to as the “Z” Agreement, refers to the

extent of the service area; commercial, manufacturing and industrial users;

sewer rates and charges, bonds, rules and regulations. It also contains the

Ordinance enacting the long-term agreement.


3-9


3.2 Existing Overflows

There are no known constructed overflow structures located in the Township. During extreme

storm events there have been signs of manholes surcharging and overflows along the A-68

interceptor, off of Byron Road and Amity Drive, which the Township has proposed to remedy as

part of the alternative analysis. There are also reports of manholes surcharging and overflows at

the intersection of Denny Park Road and Jacks Run Road during extreme storm events that will

be repaired as part of the alternative analysis plan for POC O-25. Please see the attached POC

report for O-15, in Appendix D, for information regarding known surcharging along the LROC

interceptor.

3.3 Direct Stream Inflows

There are no known areas of direct stream inflow in the Township.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 4 – Sewer System Characterization

4-1


4.0 SEWER SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION

This portion of the report presents the approach utilized to determine existing flows in the sewer

system through regional flow monitoring and outlines the location of the flow monitors. Also

discussed is identification of system defects and repairs.

4.1 2008 Flow Monitoring Data Evaluation

The 3RWW/PM Team, along with the municipalities, developed guidelines for implementing a

system-wide flow monitoring program. The program that was implemented is described below.

4.1.1 Flow Monitoring Program Background

On June 1, 2006, a Regional Flow Monitoring Plan (RFMP) was submitted to the PADEP and

the ACHD for review and approval. The purpose of the plan was to comply with the Orders, and

to document the efforts expended in developing the Plan. The RFMP was assembled by 3RWW

and the 3RWW/PM Team with direct input from ALCOSAN and the FMWG. The FMWG was

composed of municipal engineers, some municipal managers and other interested parties.

Concurrently, ALCOSAN was developing a flow monitoring plan to meet the requirements of

the draft CD issued to ALCOSAN. In response to agencies’ comments and provisions of the CD,

ALCOSAN developed and delivered a RCSFMP that incorporated most of the provisions of the

RFMP and provided comprehensive flow monitoring of both the ALCOSAN system and the

municipal collection systems. Implementation of the RCSFMP by ALCOSAN fulfilled the flow

monitoring required by the Orders. See Figure 10 for the locations of regional flow monitoring

conducted.

More details on the Flow Monitoring Program are included in Summary Report of the Flow

Monitoring Conducted Pursuant to the Municipal Administrative Consent Orders and Consent

Order Agreements (3RWW/PM Team, June 30, 2009).


4-2


4.1.2 Additional Flow Monitoring

No Additional Flow Monitoring was conducted by Ross Township.

4.1.3 Flow Monitoring Results

The information for monitors that were located in the Township and collection of data is

summarized in Table 4-1 below. The extent of the model and the flow monitors that were

monitored in the Township are shown on Figure 10. The results of the system-wide flow

monitoring program are presented in detail in the Summary Report of the Flow Monitoring

Conducted Pursuant to the Municipal Administrative Consent Orders and Consent Order

Agreements (3RWW/PM Team, June 30, 2009). Hydrographs based on RTK analysis of each

flow monitor is presented are presented in Appendix F.

TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF FLOW METER(S) IN ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC*

POC Meter Name Monitor Type Monitor Duration

A-68 A6800__-IM_-S-31_ Inter Municipal 2/1/2008 – 7/2/2008

A-68 A6800__-IMO-L-32_ Inter Municipal Overflow 1/4/2008 – 2/18/2009



A-68 A6800__-MB_-S-35_ Municipal Boundary 2/9/2008 – 7/2/2008

A-68 A6800__-OSS-L-21_ Sanitary Sewer Overflow 2/1/2008 – 1/31/2009

A-68 A6800__-OSS-L-22_ Sanitary Sewer Overflow 2/1/2008 – 1/31/2009

O-15 O15A00_-MB_-L-04_ Municipal Boundary 1/2/2008 – 2/2/2009

O-18 O1800__-IM_-S-11_ Inter Municipal 2/19/2008 – 7/8/2008

O-18 O1800__-MB_-L-08_ Municipal Boundary 1/1/2008 – 2/2/2009

O-18 O1800__-MB_-S-10_ Municipal Boundary 2/1/2008 – 7/8/2008

O-25 O2500__-IMO-L-06_ Inter Municipal Overflow 1/13/2008 – 2/24/2009



O-25 O2500__-MM_-L-03_ Municipal Monitor 1/11/2008 – 2/2/2009

O-25 O2500__-POC-L-01_ Point Of Connection 2/1/2008 – 1/31/2009

* Note: This does not include monitors that were part of POC A-67 (Girty’s Run Sewershed).


4-3


4.2 Description of Flow Isolation Studies and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys

The 3RWW FSWG Document 009 (entitled Infiltration/Inflow Screening Guideline/Flow Isolation

Study Decision Criteria Guidelines) provided the decision making guidance as to whether a

municipality/authority should consider a Sanitary Sewer System Flow Isolation Study to locate

areas of excessive infiltration. If the municipality conducted a Flow Isolation Study, general

concepts and techniques typically employed in performing such studies along with guidance in

securing professional services towards implementation of a Flow Isolation Study were

considered by the municipality. In addition, the USEPA Construction Grants Program originated

and developed the concept of “excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I)”. This program mandated I/I

studies and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys (SSES) to evaluate removal of extraneous flow

quite literally at the source (i.e. the joint, roof leader, etc.). Over the years, based partially on lack

of effectiveness of this approach, (i.e. search/fix to remove I/I), the objective has evolved to

“flow reduction” in the form of store/contain. However, the long term cost of simple

contain/store/treat can be prohibitive. Additionally, diversion of stream recharge flow to

downstream remote sewage treatment facilities is not consistent with the intent of maintaining

local stream quality.

4.2.1 Flow Isolation Study/SSES Procedures

No flow isolation was completed in the Township; however the Township intends to perform

flow isolation in the upcoming years to potentially reduce storage tank sizing and project scopes

before actual design and construction of the proposed capital projects begin.

4.3 Recommendations Resulting from Ross Township Flow Isolation Studies/Sewer System Evaluation Surveys

N/A


4-4


4.4 Best Management Practices – Green Technology Screening

Innovative (green) stormwater management practices were listed as potential source control

technologies for CSO systems in the 3RWW FSWG Document 015 entitled Control

Technologies and Site Screening Process for Municipal Use. That document provided practical

guidance for municipal engineers on the process for identifying locations to incorporate green

infrastructure into their alternatives evaluation for CSO control, and the cost-benefit analysis

with respect to gray CSO controls.

The USEPA defines green infrastructure as an adaptable term used to describe an array of

products, technologies, and practices that use natural systems – or engineered systems that mimic

natural processes to enhance overall environmental quality while providing stormwater

management. As a general principal, green infrastructure techniques use soils and vegetation in

the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or recycling of stormwater runoff. When used as

components of a stormwater management system, green infrastructure practices such as green

roofs, permeable pavement, rain gardens, and vegetated swales can produce a variety of

economic, environmental, and social benefits, which will be discussed in the next section.

Although comprehensive monitoring and performance data for green infrastructure in

Southwestern Pennsylvania is limited, green approaches to stormwater are being embraced by

many major urban areas in the United States as a potential part of a sustainable and cost-effective

solution to CSO abatement. Green infrastructure has other benefits, in addition to overflow

control, including pollutant removal, that help to “tip the scale” in their favor in the alternatives

evaluation.

ALCOSAN supports integrating source reduction as part of the municipalities alternative control

evaluations for their WWP. If municipalities are considering implementing specific green

infrastructure elements, ALCOSAN requested that municipalities provide an estimate of the

percentage reduction in CSOs they expect with implementation of green infrastructure at a

particular location and provide final numbers when they are available. ALCOSAN has requested


4-5


an 18-month extension for the submission of their Final Feasibility Report in order to review

green technologies.

After the submission of this report, Ross Township plans to complete a flow isolation study

within the community and will then have the opportunity to review the possibility of

implementing green solutions. If these are viable solutions, the Township may alter previously

agreed upon alternatives. The Township agrees with the extension ALCOSAN is requesting. If

green solutions can be implemented throughout the ALCOSAN service area the overall project

costs and burden to the region may be reduced, are considered more environmentally friendly,

and represent a more regional approach to the overall problem. Green solutions may increase the

possibility of funding (through grants) for projects that will allow more work to be done with the

same local dollars.

Green infrastructure can be used to reduce stormwater contributions to the sewer, resulting in

reduced flow within the system, which can affect the frequency and volume of CSOs in the

system. The incorporation of green infrastructure into the development of wet weather planning

controls has been explored by a number of cities and found to be a cost effective solution for

CSO control.

Green infrastructure is not intended to eliminate the need for gray infrastructure. However, the

implementation of green infrastructure would provide the ability to extend the existing

infrastructure’s service life in some areas. An additional benefit of green infrastructure practices

is increased sustainability in allowing existing collection systems to meet small increases in

needs of the catchment area over time without necessarily having to upsize the pipes. In addition

to providing the opportunity to reduce the need, cost, and size of gray infrastructure, green

infrastructure provides an opportunity to effectively manage stormwater in a way that results in

additional economic, environmental, and social benefits.


4-6


Green infrastructure is intended to be used as a source reduction for typical high frequency storm

events. Typically, green infrastructure is designed to capture, retain, and infiltrate the first inch of

rainfall, which includes over 90% of the rainfall events that occur within this region. By

capturing and infiltrating that first inch of rainfall, areas that are controlled through the use of

green infrastructure will not produce runoff, thus reducing the overall impact to the collection

system.

Given that green infrastructure relies on natural processes (i.e. infiltration and vegetative cover)

to reduce stormwater contributions to collection systems, there are a number of site constraints

that must be considered when evaluating green infrastructure. These site considerations include:

soils, slope, proximity to utilities, and adjacent structures.

4.5 Summary of Defect Repairs

As per the requirements of the ACO, significant structural deficiencies within the system were

continuously repaired throughout the Township as they were identified through Consent Order

CCTV. Since 2004, the Township has completed approximately 24,000 linear feet (LF) of sewer

line repairs, encompassing new construction, pipe bursting, excavation and cured in place pipe

(CIPP) work. In addition, the Township has also completed approximately 100 structure repairs

including new and raised manholes.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 5 – Sewer System Capacity Analysis

5-1


5.0 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS

This section of the report discusses the use of the data to determine Preliminary Flow Estimates

(PFEs), and the review and acceptance of the calibration of the ALCOSAN H&H model

developed by the Basin Planners.

5.1 Development and Calibration/Verification of H&H Tools

Technical working groups established by 3RWW approached the development and

calibration/verification of H&H tools from a regional standpoint. The FSWG outlined various

evaluation approaches that could be used in the development of H&H Tools for design flow

estimation. The approaches allowed for the use of regression analysis as a means of determining

the peak flow rates from the monitored data set. The municipalities used either a unit hydrograph

approach (synthetic or data-derived) as a standalone tool or in conjunction with an H&H model.

With this in mind, the technical working groups were set up to accommodate the use of these

approaches. Following the flow monitoring, ALCOSAN made available to the municipalities a

SUH development tool known as SHAPE. The USEPA in cooperation with CDM released an

improvement to SHAPE known as the Sanitary Sewer Overflow SSO Analysis Program

(SSOAP). The SHAPE and SSOAP programs deconstructed the flow monitor data to produce

RTK’s.

There were three main uses of the ALCOSAN H&H model. The first was a means to deliver

PFEs to ALCOSAN and the Basin Planners. The second use was as a sewer system capacity

analysis tool. The third use was for the evaluation of future flows as well as internal municipal

and multi-municipal wet weather control alternatives. These uses are presented as distinct uses,

but in application, may be more seamless. Using the tools developed and the provided model,

the following steps were followed to validate the model:


5-2


1. Design Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration (RDII) (Separate Sewer System) and

Stormwater Inflow (Combined Sewer System)

a. Use of Regression Analysis to Estimate Flows

The Township used regression analysis as a starting point to estimate flows to

ALCOSAN. Regression analysis is best used as an initial estimate. The FSWG

strongly recommended the use of a SUH or H&H model if the regression analysis

showed capacity deficiencies at the 1-year or 2-year design storms.

Application to Separate Sewer Systems

For separate sewer systems the total rainfall (inches) was plotted versus the resulting

peak RDII (Cubic Feet per Second or Million Gallons per Day) (CFS or MGD) for

the monitoring period. Storms that included snowmelt, sewer surcharges or unusable

data were identified and removed from the data set. In some cases, the Township,

based on a thorough understanding of the system, chose to use these storms as part of

the regression plot. In order to verify this data, the resulting best fit line was

extrapolated to the design storms (1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year, 24-hour storms.)

b. Use of SUHs

The development, calibration and verification of SUHs were completed concurrently

with the development of the H&H model. The hydrograph deconstructions were

prepared by the 3RWW/PM Team and performed using the SHAPE program. The

Team developed the RTK values for the flow monitors to be used by the Township in

the preparation of their final design flow rates.


5-3


After the development of the first level regression plots, the second level analysis for

the determination of design storms was completed. A spreadsheet tool that used the

RTK values from the 3RWW/PM Team along with the corresponding design rainfall

hyetographs to determine the design storm hydrographs was developed. The RTK

values were entered and the spreadsheet tool calculated the design flows for 1-, 2-, 5-

and 10-year 24-hour design flows. The dry weather flows and the Ground Water

Infiltration (GWI) values were entered in the appropriate columns in order to derive

the total flows for ALCOSAN’s PFE submittal (refer to section 5.3 for PFE

information).

c. ALCOSAN’s H&H Model

An H&H model was developed by the Basin Planners and once the results were

reviewed, the model was used to assist in the development of the PFE required by

ALCOSAN. The model was based on the USEPA’s Storm Water Management Model

(SWMM5) Version 0.013 software that can perform basic hydrograph routing or can

provide fully dynamic models which account for backwater conditions in the

collection system. The ALCOSAN H&H models can be used for a wide variety of

planning level analyses including:

• Quantifying and routing both dry weather (BWWF and GWI) and wet weather

(RDI/I) sewer flow generated within the municipal collection systems to the

ALCOSAN Interceptor system.

• Development of the PFEs to the ALCOSAN POCs.

• A tool to assist in developing and accessing both internal and multi-municipal

alternatives to control wet weather flow and any associated discharges. The

model is capable of simulating the impacts of a wide range of alternative

control measures including source reduction, flow equalization, increased

conveyance, green infrastructure controls, and others.


5-4


d. Use of ALCOSAN’s H&H Model

In lieu of developing its own model in POCs A-68 and O-25, the Township elected to

use the ALCOSAN models developed by the ALCOSAN Basin Planners. Due to the

large size and time required to run the basin models, POC and/or community models

were separated from the Basin model using PCSWMM 2011.

The Township ran the disaggregated model and reviewed it for consistency with local

knowledge of the system. The Township used appropriate methods to review and

accept the H&H model’s representation of their system, including but not limited to

the use of the various tools developed by 3RWW (i.e. hydrograph deconstructions

presenting diurnal curves, GWI, RTK and PFE calculation tools) to compare and

validate the inputs and loadings utilized by ALCOSAN’s Basin Planners to represent

the local municipal conditions. After an acceptance review of the model was

completed, the model was used to develop flows for the Township. Finally the results

of the analysis were compared to the results generated from the ALCOSAN provided

H&H models. The model was verified and accepted as is in POCs A-68 and O-25.

e. Modifications to ALCOSAN’s H&H model

The Lower Ohio models calibration methods were revised by the Lowries Run

Operating Committee (LROC) on behalf of the POC communities, and are

summarized in the O-15 POC Report attached as Appendix D.


5-5


5.2 Baseline Conditions

The municipalities are required by the Orders and the ALCOSAN CD to coordinate with

ALCOSAN in providing municipal planning information for the development of control

alternatives. Information on which the baseline conditions the H&H model could be based on

was developed by municipalities for incorporation into the municipal and ALCOSAN models.

The planning horizon date for the models is September 2046.

This section describes the development of a Baseline Condition H&H model for predicting 2046

wastewater flow without implementing the recommended alternative. There are a number of

factors that need to be accounted for in the development of a Future Conditions model. The

impacts on expected dry weather and wet weather flow from population shifts, future

development, and planned collection system modifications need to be estimated.

To establish baseline conditions in Ross Township, flow rates for the 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year

design storms were found using an RTK analysis for separate sewers. The dry weather flow,

consisting of GWI and BWWF, was added in the RTK analysis spreadsheet to find the total wet

weather flow per meter. Peak flow rates were found for both summer and winter seasons using

3RWW’s summer and winter RTK spreadsheets.

Future dry weather flows were based on the review of information developed by the

Southwestern Pennsylvania Planning Commission (SPC). SPC develops long range planning

information for a ten county area in southwest Pennsylvania, an area that includes Allegheny

County. To find the future flows, the Township used a SPC growth rate from 2035 and projected

to 2046 to predict future flow. A value of 20% was determined to be the maximum population

increase from this analysis. The existing BWWF is multiplied by this growth rate to find the

future dry weather flows predicted through 2046. A chart showing existing and future

populations and sewered areas of each area is attached as Table 5-1.


5-6

July 2013 Copyright © 2013 The Gateway Engineers, Inc.

TABLE 5-1: EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND SEWERED AREAS FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC*

POC

Sewered Area (acres) Population**

Existing Future Percent Difference Existing Future Percent Difference

A-58 4.30 4.30 0% 22 27 21.4%

A-60 3.54 3.54 0% 28 34 21.4%

A-67 4,738.63 4,738.63 0% 15,172 18,419 21.4%

A-68 900.78 900.78 0% 3,957 4,804 21.4%

O-15 2,038.45 2,038.45 0% 5,538 6,724 21.4%

O-18 601.21 601.21 0% 2,346 2,848 21.4%

O-25 886.14 886.14 0% 3,833 4,654 21.4%

O-27 53.76 53.76 0% 262 318 21.4%

*A-67 population projections are provided in the Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority Submittal. **Population Growth Factor per SPC for 2046.


5-7


5.2.1 Dry Weather Flows (Existing and Future)

1. Existing Dry Weather Flows

This information was obtained from flow data collected during the 2008 RCSFMP.

The deconstructed hydrographs from the data set produced a set of weekend and

weekday dry weather flows for each flow monitoring site. The dry weather flows

were developed by examining the flow rates from each day and eliminating those

days with recorded precipitation in the previous two days to derive an average dry

weather flow pattern for each site. In the SSOAP program, dry days not meeting the

typical dry weather patterns were also eliminated.

To calculate the sanitary sewerage in the sewer system, the Township used the DEP

recommended flow per person from the PADEP Domestic Wastewater Facilities

Manual of 100 GPD/person, which equates to approximately 250 GPD/ Equivalent

Dwelling Unit (EDU). In most cases, it was found that the average EDU count per

DEP was larger than what was actually shown in the flow meter data. A connection

was made from the Access database to GIS for each address point. This created the

basis for the BWWF per household.

2. Future Dry Weather Flow (Year 2046)

Future dry weather flows were based on the review of information developed by the

SPC.

On September 3, 2009, representatives of the FSWG met with SPC to discuss the

population modeling process. SPC produces the population models primarily for two

purposes – to attract and retain employment opportunity centers and for

traffic/transportation planning. SPC uses a Regional Econometric Models

Incorporated (REMI) Model Geography tool for the seven county region of

Allegheny, Butler, Armstrong, Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, and Beaver

5-8


counties. SPC uses the Cycle 8 forecast from the model, developed in 2007. Prior to

Cycle 8, the Cycle 7 forecast was developed in 2003. Information on these models is

available if needed; the summary of information from SPC is attached in Appendix H.

The SPC data was used through 2035. Since most of the municipalities in the

Pittsburgh area are built out and populations have decreased, the highest year for

population was used to determine future capacity. If the municipality continued to

grow to 2035, a graph to project the population into 2046 was developed. A table

showing the existing and future dry weather flows is attached as Table 5-2.

Ross Township used a growth rate of 21.4% for future dry weather flows and selected

2046 for comparison.


5-9

July 2013 Copyright © 2013 The Gateway Engineers, Inc.

TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF DRY WEATHER FLOWS (DWF) FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC

POC Tributary Area

(acres)

Total Average Dry Weather Flow

Existing Conditions

Winter (MGD)

Existing Conditions Summer (MGD)

Future 2046 Conditions

Winter (MGD)

Future 2046 Conditions Summer (MGD)

Percent Difference

A-58 4.30 0.256 0.134 0.272 0.149 Winter: 6.1% Summer: 11.5%

A-60 3.54 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.005 Winter: 5.8% Summer: 11.1%

A-68 900.78 1.952 1.272 2.118 1.437 Winter: 8.5%

Summer: 13.0%

O-15 2,038.45 1.287 1.290 1.440 1.448 Winter: 11.9%

Summer: 11.9%

O-18 601.21 1.063 0.724 1.125 0.785 Winter: 5.8%

Summer: 8.5%

O-25 886.14 1.530 0.910 1.583 0.963 Winter: 3.5%

Summer: 5.8%

O-27 53.76 0.142 0.142 0.146 0.146 Winter: 2.7%

Summer: 2.7%

DWF Calculated as [GWI+BWWF] (Existing) and [GWI+(BWWF*Growth Factor)] (Future)


5-10


5.2.2 Groundwater Infiltration (Existing and Future)

GWI was obtained from the 2008 regional flow monitoring data. GWI is usually found to be

higher during the winter than in any other season due to storms of longer duration and lower

intensity. To account for winter storms, the Township used the average GWI flow for the month

of March. To account for summer storms, the Township used the average GWI flow for the

month of June. Existing GWI flows are not adjusted for future flows since the amount of

expected GWI in the future should remain the same or decrease due to increased rehabilitation

and repair of defective pipes. A table summarizing the GWI in each POC is provided below as

Table 5-3.

TABLE 5-3: EXISTING AND FUTURE GWI FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC

POC

Sewered Area GWI

(acres) Existing Conditions Future 2046 Conditions

Percent Difference

(MGD) (MGD)

A-58 4.30 Winter: 0.018 Summer: 0.006

Winter: 0.018 Summer: 0.006

0%

A-60 3.54 Winter: 0.006 Summer: 0.002

Winter: 0.006 Summer: 0.002

0%

A-68 900.78 Winter: 1.125 Winter: 1.125

0% Summer: 0.445 Summer: 0.445

O-15 2,038.45 Winter: 0.523 Winter: 0.523


O-18 601.21 Winter: 0.756 Winter: 0.756


O-25 886.14 Winter: 1.266 Winter: 1.266


O-27 53.76 Winter: 0.123 Winter: 0.123


*No change in GWI with development.

5-11


5.2.3 Estimation Process for Unmonitored Areas

The Township had to determine a way to estimate flows in areas where regional or additional

flow monitors required further refinement for evaluation purposes. This was done by adding an

additional design meter at locations which needed reassessed. Estimated design flows were

prepared for POC O-27 at the two interconnections to PWSA along Oakdale Street, the section

of A-68 at the interconnection with Shaler Township along Hodil Road and the section of O-25

at the interconnection with PWSA along Cliffview Road. These sections of sewer were

estimated in order to more accurately split the flow from downstream meters which were located

in adjacent municipalities. After a review of the available meter data, the Township chose a base

meter to determine flows for a particular design area. The base meter had similar topography,

impervious cover, density of houses, and age of system compared to the design area. The area of

the unmonitored sewershed was found using GIS mapping. This area was divided by the area of

the base meter to find a ratio of unmonitored meter / base meter. Multiplying the base meter

BWWF/house and GWI/inch-mile, the Township was able to estimate the BWWF and GWI of

the design area. Design storms for the area were determined by utilizing the RTK values from

the base meter, and the acreage, BWWF and GWI. The 3RWW RTK spreadsheets for summer

and winter were used to find the 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year design storms for the new estimated flow

area. A table listing all estimated meters is included below as Table 5-4. Figure 11 shows the

location of all flow estimate meters located in the Township.

TABLE 5-4: ESTIMATED METERS FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP

Estimated Meter Name POC Base Meter Used to Simulate

LBs_1162615 A-68 A6800_-IM_-S-31_

LBs_1258938 O-15 ALCOSAN Lower Ohio Model



LBs_1163013 O-25 O2500_-MB_-L-05_

LBs_1162012 O-27 A6800__-IM_-S-31_

LBs_1162013 O-27 A6800__-IM_-S-31_

5-12


5.3 Preliminary Flow Estimates

Preliminary flow estimates were completed by the individual POCs. Please refer to the POC

reports attached for information regarding the steps taken to develop the PFE’s. The submitted

PFE results are available for review and are attached in Appendix G. A table summarizing the

RDII for the Township’s portion of flows per POC is included below, as Table 5-5.

TABLE 5-5: EXISTING AND FUTURE RDII FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC

RDII

Existing Conditions Future 2046 Conditions

(MGD) (MGD)

POC

Sewered Area 1Year 2 Year 5Year 10 Year 1 Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Year

(acres)

A-58 4.30 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05

A-60 3.54 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03

A-68 900.78 3.56 4.23 5.18 5.96 4.04 4.79 5.86 6.74

O-15 2,038.45 2.08 2.53 3.18 4.56 2.34 2.85 3.57 4.12

O-18 601.21 3.76 4.47 5.48 6.29 4.12 4.90 5.99 6.88

O-25 886.14 4.62 5.49 6.73 7.73 8.98 10.60 12.88 14.73

O-27 53.76 2.92 3.48 4.29 4.93 2.99 3.58 4.39 5.06

Calculated as Peak Flows – Dry Weather Flows (were only calculated for the Controlling Season)


5-13


5.4 Capacity Deficient Sewers

Accepted engineering practice for the design of sanitary sewers provides for foreseeable future

flows. This results in sewer capacity where the current and future flows are transported within

the pipe system without surcharging, basement backups, manhole pops, or overflows and

includes a factor of safety. In the current analyses required for the Feasibility Study under the

Orders, the possibility exists for a portion of the sanitary sewer system to be slightly over

capacity. Under these conditions, where the remedy could be extremely costly on a per foot

basis, the engineer may want to consider the extent of surcharging. The engineer could then

evaluate whether limited surcharge is appropriate for submission to the regulatory agencies for

their review. Operating sewers in consistent surcharge (especially where the original design did

not intend such operation) can result in continued deterioration of the sewer system as well as

potential exfiltration. This could cause the eventual undermining of the sewer line potentially

resulting in surface or sewer collapse/breaks, etc. Older systems, particularly those with less

resilient joints or structurally weakened by cracks, can sustain physical damage when operated

under surcharge. Accelerated pipe failure associated with cyclical surcharge/non-surcharge

operation is a risk to be considered.

To satisfy the requirement of System Capacity Analysis, capacity maps of the entire municipal

sewer system were developed per POC for the 2- and 10- year design storms and are attached as

Figures 12-21. Based on the small size of POC’s A-58 and A-60 within Ross Township,

capacity tables replaced the capacity maps and are attached as Appendix J and indicate no

capacity issues are present. The capacity map reports the estimated flow in every pipe segment

for the 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year design storms. It also reports the available capacity of each

corresponding pipe segment based on “Manning’s Equation.” The pipe segment flow is

compared to the pipe segment capacity to determine the level of flow of the pipe or the percent

capacity used during each design storm event. The map specifically highlights the pipe segments

that exceed capacity. In addition, the analysis provides the necessary evidence to show that the

remainder of the sewer segments have sufficient capacity during the 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year design

storm. The capacity map was developed using the following procedures:

5-14


1. Development of Draft Capacity Map

a. Initial Flow Monitoring

The flow data collected during the 2008 RCSFMP conducted by ALCOSAN, was

analyzed by 3RWW. The deconstructed hydrographs were used to produce dry weather

flows for each of the meter areas in the study. These values were reviewed by the

Township Engineer in which the meter was located using comparisons to population

estimates and water use estimates. Once the dry weather flows were verified, they

needed to be adjusted to future (2046) conditions using percentage increase factors

supplied by the SPC. Refer to Section 5.2.1.2. For meters that included multiple

municipalities, the percentage increase factor for each municipality involved was

multiplied by their percentage of the flow to obtain a weighted increase factor. The SPC

population data which was used to determine the adjustment factor is attached as

Appendix H. This factor was used to adjust the BWWF to 2046 estimates.

GWI and RTK values for the 2008 RCSFMP meters were also produced by 3RWW from

the deconstructed hydrographs. GIS mapping was used to determine the contributing

acreage to each meter. This information was then entered into the design storm

spreadsheets (developed by 3RWW) to produce each meter’s 1-, 2-, 5- and 10-year

summer and winter design storm peak flows. The peak flows, GWIs, BWWFs,

inches/miles of sewer, customer counts and acreage for each meter were then compiled

into a single database summarizing all flow data for the Township.

b. Development of water usage

In lieu of water records, the Township estimated 250 gallons of water per EDU. Each

address point and corresponding water estimate was then connected to the nearest pipe in

the system with a lower elevation. A map of each address point and its connection was

reviewed to ensure that all points had reasonable water estimates and connected to the

system in a logical manner.

5-15


c. Interconnection Flows

The Township had to develop a process to determine flows in areas where cross

connections occurred from other communities, called interconnections. Interconnections

with flow coming into Ross Township from the Town of McCandless, Shaler Township,

Franklin Park Borough, and the Borough of Bellevue are shown on the capacity maps

attached as Figures 12-21. Flows at interconnections were calculated by determining

service count and inches/miles of pipe upstream of the interconnection and using the data

from the closest flow meter. The interconnection flow was set up as a design point in the

mapping system. A database was developed to keep track of all interconnections flows.

The database and design point flows were updated each time the upstream community

mapping or meters changed. For a complete list of all interconnections, refer to the

interconnection table attached in Appendix I.

d. Equalization (E.Q.) Tanks

There are no equalization tanks in the Township.

e. Pump Stations

There are no pump stations in the Township.

f. Capacity Calculation Process

The Township’s GIS mapping system was used as the primary collection location for all

layout information including depths of manholes, pipe sizes, materials, flow directions,

and slopes. Pipe segments that were not surveyed were assigned a minimum slope per

the PADEP Domestic Wastewater Facilities Manual requirements as listed below in

Table 5-6:

5-16


TABLE 5-6: ASSIGNED MINIMUM SLOPE PER PIPE DIAMETER

Sewer Size Minimum Slope in Feet per 100 Feet.

6” 0.600

8” 0.400

10” 0.280

12” 0.220

14” 0.170

15” 0.150

16” 0.140

18” 0.120

21” 0.100

24” 0.080

27” 0.067

30” 0.058

36” 0.046

GWI flow for each meter was distributed to each upstream pipe segment based on the

pipe length and size. This was added to the water estimate flow of each service

connection on the pipe to obtain that segments total dry weather flow. This dry weather

flow was then combined with the next downstream segments GWI and water record flow

to get a total dry weather flow for that pipe. This process was repeated with each

downstream segment to prepare a dry weather flow for each pipe segment in the system.

To determine the peak flow rate (for the 1-, 2-, 5- and 10- year design storm) the total dry

weather flow was multiplied by the same dry weather to peak flow ratio for the

downstream meter, for each pipe segment. The process used makes the conservative

assumption that there is no time delay for the flow to be routed downstream through each

pipe segment.

5-17


The allowable capacity in the pipe was calculated using the pipe size, slope and

roughness coefficient in conjunction with “Manning’s Equation”. The design storm flow

and allowable capacity values were compared to produce a map showing the potential

locations of over capacity pipes. The over capacity pipe segments were characterized by

the percentage of the pipe area, which was over capacity. For this calculation, it was

assumed that the CSOs and SSOs were not allowed to discharge any flow. Pump

stations, grinder pumps, backflow preventers, overflows and equalization tanks are also

shown on the map. The percentage of pipe area over capacity was shown on the map.

2. Revision of Draft Capacity Map

After the capacity map was prepared, it was reviewed for potential problems with the

slope assumptions made and data used. The assumptions and solutions are as follows:

a. Revised Slopes (Review of Assumed Slopes)

Potentially over capacity/flooded pipe segments, which were calculated using the

assigned minimum slopes (due to lack of survey data in non-critical sewer areas), were

identified on the map. If possible, the manholes in these areas were surveyed using

Virtual Reference Station (VRS) surveying equipment to obtain actual pipe invert

elevations. Conventional survey was utilized in areas where small slope variances could

greatly affect flow calculations. In areas where manholes could not be surveyed because

they were buried or inaccessible to survey, slopes were conservatively estimated by

assuming continuous slope from the next upstream and downstream manhole or using the

local surface area contours and manhole depths to assume elevations.

b. Review of Pipe Sizes

Pipe sizes were reviewed in capacity limited areas to be sure correct values were used. If

pipe sizes in the map database, available CCTV videos or field inspection forms did not

match, field work was done to verify actual pipe diameter.

5-18


c. Review of Pump Station Peaking

There are no pump stations in the Township.

d. Review of Unmetered Areas

Unmetered areas were then identified and reviewed. These areas were assigned a design

point using a similar area meter flow (refer to Section 5.2.3).

e. Review of Combined/Separate System Interaction

There are no combined sewer areas in the Township.

f. Review of Split Flows

If a manhole or regulator was found which had more than one possible outflow pipe, a

field check was completed. During the field check, the Township representative

reviewed flow directions, outlet elevations and the percentage split of flow per pipe

segment. After the field work was complete, regulators were created in the map database

to split the flow at these points. This was done by either inserting a percentage per pipe

or limiting the flow to the main pipe with the remainder being distributed to the other

outlet pipes.

g. Mapping updates

Through the ACO, CCTV was conducted on the sewers in the system. As a result of this

CCTV, map updates were completed as they were found of additional pipes and layout

changes. These changes were applied to the map database and flows were re-distributed

based on additional revised mapping edits.

5-19


h. Overall Map Data Check

The overall system was then reviewed to confirm the flows. A QA/QC was conducted

checking the capacity map calculated flow against the actual meter readings. Also, a

flow continuity check was conducted by confirming that each downstream meter had an

appropriate (greater) flow then the upstream meter.

3. Re-metering Based on Review and Revision

There was no additional metering conducted by Ross Township.

4. Review and Revision of Updated Capacity Map

The updated capacity mapping was reviewed again using the techniques described in sections

A through H above as required and the capacity recalculated. A check of the meter flow

against the calculated capacity flow from the mapping was conducted. In areas of multiple

meters and water record discrepancies, a correction factor was applied to make areas match

close to metered values. This factor was applied to account for metering discrepancies and

timing issues. The updates (per sections A through H) and capacity recalculating process

was reiterated until it was determined that all assumptions and data were consistent with

sound engineering judgment.

5. Final Confirmation

Once all engineering assumptions were made and the capacity maps finalized, the

information was compared (in POC’s where possible) with the model to confirm our analysis

was properly calculating capacity in the sewer segments. The capacity map was reviewed

with municipal staff to confirm or deny capacity limited areas. Once all segments with

significantly insufficient capacity were confirmed, alternatives were developed to address the

capacity concerns.

5-20


5.4.1 Existing Basement Flooding Areas–History and Locations

There are no known records of basement flooding events in the Township; however, there are

backwater valves installed at the following locations: 120 Charterwood Drive, 121 Oxbridge

Drive and 213 Amity Drive.

5.4.2 Capacity Requirements for Various Design Storms and Levels of Protection

The capacity maps for the 2- and 10- year design storms are attached as Figures 12-21. The

maps show areas of flow restriction within the sewer system. In addition, the areas of limited

capacity for the 2- and 10-year design storms are described below, per POC.

A-58:

No capacity issues have been discovered in this area of the Township. See Appendix J for

information regarding the POC A-58 capacity issues.

A-60:

No capacity issues have been discovered in this area of the Township. See Appendix J for

information regarding the POC A-60 capacity issues.

A-68:

2 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – The municipal interceptor from MH #4305 to the

interconnection with Shaler Township is shown to be 100% over capacity throughout the run.

Three pipe segments on Amity Drive from MH #873 to MH #339 were also discovered to range

from 50% to over 100% over capacity. This was confirmed when compared to the ALCOSAN

model results. See Figure 12 for the 2 year design storm capacity analysis of POC A-68.

10 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – The municipal interceptor from MH #4305 to the

interconnection with Shaler Township is shown to be 100% over capacity throughout the run.

Three pipe segments on Amity Drive from MH #873 to MH #339 were also discovered to be

100% over capacity. This was confirmed when compared to the ALCOSAN model results. See

Figure 13 for the 10 year design storm capacity analysis of POC A-68.

5-21


O-15:

2 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – There are no capacity issues in pipes owned by the

Township in this area. Please refer to the POC report attached in Appendix D for capacity issues

along the shared interceptor. See Figure 14 for the 2 year design storm capacity analysis of POC

O-15.

10 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – There are no capacity issues in pipes owned by the

Township in this area. Please refer to the POC report attached in Appendix D for capacity issues

along the shared interceptor. See Figure 15 for the 10 year design storm capacity analysis of

POC O-15.

O-18:

2 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – Five segments to the East of I-279 from MH #3780 to

MH #2209 range from 8% to greater than 100% over capacity. Areas shown to be 100% over

capacity include pipe segments along the municipal interceptor from MH #2135B to the

interconnection with Avalon Borough and along Forest Avenue from MH #2098 to the

interconnection with the Borough of Bellevue. See Figure 16 for the 2 year design storm

capacity analysis of POC O-18.

10 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – Areas shown to be 100% over capacity include pipe

segments from MH #3785 to MH #3782, along the municipal interceptor from MH #9013 to the

interconnection with Avalon Borough and along Forest Avenue from MH #707 to the

interconnection with the Borough of Bellevue. See Figure 17 for the 10 year design storm

capacity analysis of POC O-18.

O-25:

2 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – The municipal interceptor along Denny Park Road and

Jacks Run Road has pipe segments ranging from 20% over capacity to 100% over capacity from

MH #5227 to MH #1218. It was also discovered that there are numerous pipe segments along

Jacks Run Road near the interconnections with the Borough of Bellevue that range from 5% over

to 30% over capacity. This issue was confirmed by comparison to the ALCOSAN model. See

Figure 18 for 2 year design storm capacity analysis of POC O-25.

5-22


10 Year Design Storm Capacity Issues – The municipal interceptor along Denny Park Road and

Jacks Run Road has pipe segments ranging from 20% over capacity to 100% over capacity from

MH #1012 to MH #1218. It was also discovered that there are numerous pipe segments along

Jacks Run Road near the interconnections with the Borough of Bellevue that range from 10%

over to 30% over capacity. This issue was confirmed by comparison to the ALCOSAN model.

See Figure 19 for 10 year design storm capacity analysis of POC O-25.

O-27:

No capacity issues have been discovered in this area of the Township. See Figures 20 and 21 for

the 2- and 10-year design storm capacity analysis of POC O-27.

5.5 Overflow Frequency and Volume

There are no constructed overflows in the Township; however, there are known manhole

overflows along the A-68 interceptor.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 6 – CSO/SSO Control Goals

6-1


6.0 CSO/SSO CONTROL GOALS

Water quality issues are the driving force behind the ALCOSAN CD and Municipal COA and

ACO requirements. These requirements stem from the existing water quality criteria in the local

streams that are not being met, some as a result of CSOs and SSOs. CSO and SSO control goals

were developed by ALCOSAN and each municipality so that water quality criteria will be met

after implementation of the regional WWP that includes municipal alternatives.

The detailed methodology that was used to develop the CSO and SSO control goals is described

in the FSWG Document 031 “Water Quality Based Approach to Feasibility Study

Development”. The CSO and SSO control goals that were selected are provided in the following

section.

6.1 Background for Selection of Control Level

6.1.1 CSO Control Level

There are no combined sewers in the Township.

6.1.2 SSO Control Level

Separate sanitary sewers are typically designed to accept only sanitary sewage from residential,

commercial and industrial areas of any given municipality. As a result of aging or improperly

constructed and maintained infrastructure, these sewers are subjected to high flows during wet

weather events. These excessive flows result in SSOs, and/or basement flooding. By definition,

SSOs are illegal and need to be controlled.

During the preliminary discussions in the FSWG meeting on March 26, 2009, the PADEP

introduced a concept to be used for establishing separate sanitary transport and SSO control

criteria.


6-2


SSO Control and Separate Sanitary Sewer Transport Capacity Criteria

• Develop a “knee-of-the-curve” analysis utilizing the 1, 2, 5, and 10-year, 24-hour

storms at a minimum to determine the break-even point for SSO control. The design

rainfall depths for the design storms should match rainfall depths used or proposed by

ALCOSAN. This evaluation will be performed under the auspices of the FSWG and the

approach and results will be summarized in a different (later) document.

• The design storm approach acknowledges that a 2-year summer rainfall that occurs when

there is snow on the ground would result in runoff that exceeds the intended 2-year

summer storm design. Given this possibility, the FSWG developed a methodology that

includes the selection of a design month. This design month, in addition to the selected

design storm return frequency, would represent the overall intended design conditions.

• Additional discussion was developed around the idea of matching/using the selected

design storm used by ALCOSAN for its separate sanitary sewer interceptors.

For SSO design, the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10- year design storms were evaluated. This report

summarizes the findings for the 2- and 10- year design storms. For these storms, winter and

summer conditions were evaluated and the highest value for peak and volume were chosen.


6-3


6.2 Recommendations for Control Levels

The presented alternatives for each POC were designed to 2- and 10- year design storm control

levels. During the alternative design and cost estimation process it was found that the

differences between the 2- and 10- year level of control did not yield significant differences in

projects or estimated construction costs, therefore the Township chose the 10- year design storms

for all of the preferred alternatives. For the A-68 sewershed, the winter storm was used in the

analysis, as it had the greatest impact on the system. For all of the remaining sewersheds the

summer design storms created the highest peak flow rates and therefore were used for analysis.

Through the analysis it was determined that no internal projects are required in POCs A-58, A-

60, O-15 and O-27, as the Ross Township owned lines are already capable of conveying a 10-

year design storm.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 7 – Alternative Evaluation

7-1


7.0 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION (INTERNAL MUNICIPAL)

Once suitable technologies and the best possible sites to house them were identified, a list of

alternatives to be evaluated was developed for each problem. This list provides an identification

of all alternatives evaluated and includes the respective technologies involved, sites identified

and any other variations compared to similar alternatives (for example, a parallel pipe could be

routed in several ways).

For Ross Township, alternatives were developed for all sanitary sewers with projected flows in

excess of 50% over capacity. Areas under 50% over capacity were not evaluated due to

metering inaccuracies, modeling inaccuracies and lack of overflow and surcharge evidence.

These areas will continued to be monitored by Township staff, and if evidence shows capacity

issues occurring, corrective measures will be taken at that time. A list of the alternatives that

were developed for evaluation for the Township is provided below, per POC. Maps depicting

each proposed alternative are attached in Appendix K.

A-58:

No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers in A-58 for a 10-year design

storm.

A-60:

No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers in A-60 for a 10-year design

storm.

A-68:

Alternative 1A – Alternative 1A includes the upsizing of approximately 4,600 LF of pipe

ranging from 12” to 18” in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #4305 to MH

#4086, the upsizing of 330 LF of 12” pipe from MH #873 to MH #339 and the installation, and

operation and maintenance of, a 1.557 MGD storage tank after MH #4086, to control flows into

Shaler Township. This alternative will control the 10-year design storm.


7-2


Alternative 1B –Alternative 1B includes the construction of approximately 3,300 LF of 10”

parallel sewer along the main municipal interceptor, from MH #4826 to MH #4065, the upsizing

of approximately 1,600 LF of pipe ranging in size from 12” to 18”, from MH #4305 to MH

#4826, MH #873 to MH #339 and MH #4065 to MH #4086 and the installation, and operation

and maintenance of, a 1.557 MGD storage tank after MH #4086. This alternative will control

the 10-year design storm.

Alternative 1C – Alternative 1C includes the upsizing of approximately 4,600 LF of pipe


#4086, the upsizing of 330 LF of 12” pipe from MH #873 to MH #339 and the installation, and

operation and maintenance of, a 0.912 MGD storage tank after MH #4086, to control flows into

Shaler Township. This alternative will control the 2-year design storm.

Alternative 1D –Alternative 1D includes the construction of approximately 3,300 LF of 10”

parallel sewer along the main municipal interceptor, from MH #4826 to MH #4065, the upsizing

of approximately 1,600 LF of pipe ranging in size from 12” to 18”, from MH #4305 to MH

#4826, MH #873 to MH #339 and MH #4065 to MH #4086 and the installation, and operation

and maintenance of, a 0.912 MGD storage tank after MH #4086. This alternative will control

the 2-year design storm.

O-15:

No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers in O-15 for a 10-year design

storm. Please refer to the attached O-15 POC report attached in Appendix D, for information

regarding projects along the shared interceptor.


7-3


O-18:

Alternative 2A: Alternative 2A includes the upsizing of approximately 5,200 LF of pipe


#9101. Also included is approximately 450 LF of 21” parallel sewers from MH #2136 to MH

#2135B under I-279. This alternative will control the 10-year design storm.

Alternative 2B: Alternative 2B includes the upsizing of approximately 4,500 LF of pipe


#9101. Also included is approximately 1,100 LF of parallel sewers ranging from 12” to 21”

from MH #2139 to MH #2135B. This alternative will control the 10-year design storm.

Alternative 2C: Alternative 2C includes the upsizing of approximately 5,000 LF of pipe


#9101 off of Union Avenue. Also included is approximately 450 LF of 21” parallel sewers from

MH #2136 to MH #2135B under I-279. This alternative will control the 2- year design storm.

Alternative 2D: Alternative 2D includes the upsizing of approximately 5,000 LF of pipe


#9101. This alternative will control the 2-year design storm.

O-25:

Alternative 3A: Alternative 3A includes the upsizing of approximately 3,400 LF of pipe


#1218. Also included are the removal of the diversion MH #2092 and the upsizing of

approximately 300 LF of sanitary sewer to 10” from MH #707 to MH #2092. This alternative

will control the 10-year design storm.


7-4


Alternative 3B: Alternative 3B includes the upsizing of approximately 1,400 LF of pipe


#1218. Also included are the removal of the diversion MH #2092 and the upsizing of

approximately 300 LF of sanitary sewer to 10” from MH #707 to MH #2092. This alternative

will control the 2-year design storm.

O-27:

No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers in O-27 for a 10-year design

storm.

Table 7-1 lists all of the internal alternatives for the Township by POC. Maps for each of the

alternatives are attached in Appendix K.


7-5


TABLE 7-1: LISTING OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP PER POC

POC Alternative Name System Type Control Level Description

A-58 N/A N/A 10 Year Design Storm There are no 10 year design storm issues

within the Township sewers.

A-60 N/A N/A 10 Year Design Storm There are no 10 year design storm issues


A-68 Alternate 1A Upsizing and Storage

Tank

10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of municipal interceptor and

installation of a storage tank.

Alternate 1B Parallel, Upsizing and

Storage Tank

10 Year Design Storm Run a parallel sewer combined with minor

upsizing and the installation of a storage tank.

Alternate 1C Upsizing and Storage

Tank

2 Year Design Storm Upsizing of municipal interceptor and

installation of a storage tank.

Alternate 1D Parallel, Upsizing and

Storage Tank

2 Year Design Storm Run a parallel sewer combined with minor

upsizing and the installation of a storage tank.

O-15 N/A N/A 10 Year Design Storm There are no 10 year design storm issues


O-18 Alternate 2A Upsizing 10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

Alternate 2B Upsizing and Parallel

Sewer System.

10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with

parallel sewers near the I-279 underpass to

Center Avenue.


7-6


POC Alternative Name System Type Control Level Description

O-18 Alternate 2C Upsizing 2 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

Alternate 2D Upsizing and Parallel

Sewer System.

2 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with

parallel sewers near the I-279 underpass to

Center Avenue.

O-25 Alternate 3A Upsizing 10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

Alternate 3B Upsizing 2 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

O-27 N/A N/A 10 Year Design Storm There are no 10 year design storm issues



7-7


7.1 Evaluation Criteria Development

The alternatives were evaluated based on the following criteria. The first and most important

criteria were the impact of how any potential overflows would affect the community and nearby

watersheds. Next the total cost of the project and the O&M cost to the community was reviewed

and finally the constructability was considered as well as minimizing the total disturbance to the

community from construction.

7.2 Cost Estimates

Once alternatives were developed, a cost estimate was prepared for each potential project using

the ACT spreadsheet supplied by 3RWW. The detailed cost estimates are attached in Appendix

L. For all work that was proposed to be completed across or along roadways, it was assumed

that full roadway replacement would be required. Table 7-2, lists all of the alternatives evaluated

along with their total present worth cost.


7-8


TABLE 7-2: LISTING OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP PER POC WITH PRESENT WORTH COSTS

POC Alternative

Name System Type Control Level Description

Total Present Worth Cost

A-58 N/A N/A 10 Year Design

Storm

There are no 10 year design storm issues within

the Township sewers. $0.00

A-60 N/A N/A 10 Year Design

Storm



A-68 Alternate 1A Upsizing and Storage

Tank

10 Year Design

Storm

Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation

of a storage tank. $8,945,000.00

Alternate 1B Parallel, Upsizing and

Storage Tank

10 Year Design

Storm

Run a parallel sewer combined with minor

upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. $8,833,000.00

Alternate 1C Upsizing and Storage

Tank 2 Year Design Storm

Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation

of a storage tank. $6,162,000.00

Alternate 1D Parallel, Upsizing and

Storage Tank 2 Year Design Storm

Run a parallel sewer combined with minor

upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. $6,050,000.00

O-15 N/A N/A 10 Year Design

Storm



O-18 Alternate 2A Upsizing 10 Year Design

Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. $2,132,000.00


7-9


POC Alternative

Name System Type Control Level Description

Total Present Worth Cost

O-18 Alternate 2B Upsizing and Parallel

Sewer System.

10 Year Design

Storm

Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with

parallel sewers near the 279 underpass to Center

Avenue.

$2,083,000.00

Alternate 2C Upsizing 2 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. $1,983,000.00

Alternate 2D Upsizing and Parallel

Sewer System. 2 Year Design Storm

Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with

parallel sewers near the 279 underpass to Center

Avenue.

$1,297,000.00

O-25 Alternate 3A Upsizing 10 Year Design

Storm

Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

Removal of diversion manhole and upsizing of

sanitary sewers.

$865,000.00

Alternate 3B Upsizing 2 Year Design Storm

Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor.

Removal of diversion manhole and upsizing of

sanitary sewers.

$437,000.00

O-27 N/A N/A 10 Year Design

Storm



*ACT costs calculated using estimate year of 2010, ENRCCI of 7636, R.S. mean of 100 and present worth methodology of 1.

**Reported price is the ACT total present worth cost of the current year, based on the above data.


7-10


7.3 Alternative Selection Process

The alternatives were evaluated based on the following criteria. The first and most important

criteria were the impact of how any potential overflows would affect the community and nearby

watersheds. Next the total cost of the project and the O&M cost to the community was reviewed

and finally the constructability was considered as well as minimizing the total disturbance to the

community from construction

7.4 Alternative Evaluation Results

The following projects were selected as the preferred alternatives per POC:

A-58: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers.


A-68: Alternative 1B (parallel and upsizing).

O-15: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers.

O-18: Alternative 2B (parallel and upsizing).

O-25: Alternative 3A (upsizing).



7-11


7.5 Recommended Alternative Description Per POC



A-68: Alternative 1B (parallel and sewerline upsizing) was chosen as the preferred alternative.

This alternative includes the construction of approximately 3,300 linear feet (LF) of 10” parallel

sewer along the main municipal interceptor, from manhole (MH) #4826 to MH #4065, the

upsizing of approximately 1,600 LF of pipe ranging in size from 12” to 18”, from MH #4305 to

MH #4826, MH #873 to MH #339 and MH #4065 to MH #4086 and the installation, and

operation and maintenance of, a 1.557 Million-Gallons/Day (MGD) storage tank after MH

#4086. (This tank was sized to address overflows within Ross Township as well as downstream

overflows in Shaler Township). Prior to the construction and permitting of this alternative, flow

isolation and potential removal of Infiltration/Inflow (I&I) will be completed in order to refine

the sizing of the storage tank.

O-15: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers. .

O-18: Alternative 2B (parallel and sewerline upsizing) was chosen as the preferred alternative.

This alternative includes the upsizing of approximately 4,500 LF of pipe ranging from 8” to 24”

in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #3780 to MH #9101. Also included is

approximately 1,100 LF of parallel sewers ranging from 12” to 21” from MH #2139 to MH

#2135B.

O-25: Alternative 3A (sewerline upsizing) was chosen as the preferred alternative. This

alternative includes the upsizing of approximately 3,400 LF of pipe ranging from 12” to 15” in

size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #1388 to MH #1218. Also included are the

removal of the diversion MH #2092 and the upsizing of approximately 300 LF of sanitary sewer

to 10” from MH#707 to MH #2092.


7-12



Completion of the preferred alternatives will remove the identified capacity deficiencies in the

Township for the 10-year design storm. All flows will be conveyed to the interconnections

leaving the Township without overflow, except in A-68 where the addition of a storage tank will

limit the flows entering Shaler Township. Detailed cost estimates of the alternatives for each

POC are included in Appendix L.

Tables 7-3 and 7-4, show the preferred alternatives with construction and O&M costs.


7-13


TABLE 7-3: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES PER POC FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP POC

Capital Improvements Size/Capacity Estimated

Capital Cost1 A-68 Parallel, Upsizing and Storage Tank 10 Year Design Storm $15,247,000.00

O-15 N/A 10 Year Design Storm $0.00

O-18 Upsizing and Parallel Sewers 10 Year Design Storm $3,674,000.00

O-25 Upsizing Sewers 10 Year Design Storm $1,527,000.00

O-27 N/A 10 Year Design Storm $0.00

A-58 N/A 10 Year Design Storm $0.00

A-60 N/A 10 Year Design Storm $0.00

A-67 See Girty’s Run Report 10 Year Design Storm $0.00

TOTAL $20,448,000.00

TABLE 7-4: COST BREAKDOWN OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES PER POC FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP

POC Cost Component SSO Control

Capital Cost1 Annual

O&M Cost2 Total Present Worth Cost3

A-68 Alternative 1B $15,247,000.00 $63,000.00 $8,833,000.00

O-15 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

O-18 Alternative 2B $3,674,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,083,000.00

O-25 Alternative 3A $1,527,000.00 $2,000.00 $865,000.00

O-27 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

A-58 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

A-68 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

A-67 N/A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $20,448,000.00 $70,000.00 $11,781,000.00 1ACT – Capital Cost Inflated to 2026

2ACT – Annual O&M Costs (Current Year)

3ACT – 2010 Present Worth Cost


7-14


7.6 Recommended Alternative Operation and Maintenance

The Township’s O&M Procedures are proposed to follow in compliance with the current O&M

Plan; however, additional O&M will be required for the storage tank located in POC A-68 and

for additional parallel sewers proposed. As such, future budgets will be adjusted to include these

additional costs. The current O&M Plan includes the proactive monitoring, examination,

repairing and maintaining of the collection and conveyance system to prevent backups and

overflows before they occur. This is done by completing CCTV inspection of 10 percent of the

sanitary sewers and inspection of 10 percent of the sanitary manholes each year, in order to

develop a repair list of defective sewers and manholes. The plan also includes the preventative

maintenance (annual cleaning) of problematic sewers which have issues such as sags, excessive

debris, roots, critical segments, etc. Close inspection of sewer segments along streams after

significant storm events as well as annual training for municipal staff members is also conducted

as part of the O&M Plan. The Township may also consider implementing a sewer lateral

maintenance ordinance, to limit the I&I from defective, privately owned sewers.

7.7 Stream Removals

There are no areas of direct stream inflow located within the Township.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 8 – Multi-Municipal Sewershed Recommended Alternatives

8-1


8.0 Multi-Municipal Sewershed Recommended Alternatives

Table 8-1 below is a summary of recommended alternatives and costs for multi-municipal

sewershed projects. POC A-67 alternatives are included in order to represent an accurate User

Cost analysis for all Ross Township residents. A-67 alternative projects will be paid for by the

Girty’s Run Joint Sewer Authority. For the proposed multi-municipal project descriptions and

cost estimates please refer to the A-68 and O-15 POC reports that are attached in Appendix C

and D.

TABLE 8-1: SUMMARY OF POC RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES

POC Description of Alternative Total Project

Cost1

Ross Township

Projected Cost1

A-58 2 year storm, 4 OF/year, option per POC report $5,590,000.00 $20,000.002

A-60 No projects are proposed. $0.00 $0.00

A-67 Storage Option 1 – 2yr – 10 overflows $23,521,000.003 $11,750,000.004

A-68

Conveyance upgrades on the Ross-Shaler

Interceptor, Equalization/Conveyance upgrades

on the Shaler-Rt. 8 Interceptor and Parallel

Conveyance upgrades in Etna.

$31,600,000.00 $3,500,000.005

O-15 Conveyance upgrades of the entire LROC

interceptor. $15,800,000.00 $3,300,000.006

O-18 No projects are proposed. $0.00 $0.00



1ACT – Total Present Worth Cost 2Projected Cost based on total population of the sewershed. 3Cost taken from the A-67 Draft POC report dated July 31, 2012, located in Appendix B. 4A-67-Ross Township Costs calculated per percent usage of GRJSA costumers. 5A-68-Ross Township Costs calculated per the segmental approach with dry weather flows. 6O-15-Ross Township Costs derived from LROC agreement information.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 9 – Financial and Institutional Considerations

9-1


9.0 Financial and Institutional Considerations 9.1 MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) and Inter-Municipal Agreements

No MOU will be signed by the Township Board of commissioners. The Board acknowledged

the Feasibility Study Report and approved the submittal, at their meeting on July 15, 2013. Any

existing agreements between the multi-municipalities tributary to a common system have been

made available to all municipalities. Any new agreements will be negotiated once an approval of

projects has been received from the regulators.

9.2 Funding Alternatives

Table 9-1 shows the projected amount of total costs to be funded by Ross Township Residents.

TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF ROSS TOWNSHIP REQUIRED FUNDING

POC Ross Township Internal

Alternative Costs Ross Township Project Multi-Municipal Alternative Costs

Total Capital Cost

A-581 $0.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00

A-60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

A-67 $0.00 $17,630,000.002 $17,630,000.00

A-68 $15,247,000.00 $6,130,000.00 $21,377,000.003

O-15 $0.00 $5,780,000.00 $5,780,000.00

O-18 $3,674,000.00 $0.00 $3,674,000.00

O-25 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 $1,527,000.00

O-27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

TOTAL $50,008,000.00 1) A-58 contributes in part to the A-51 sewershed. Project Cost is based off of the total population of the sewershed.

2) Projected cost to Ross Township Users located within POC A-67 based on the Draft A-67 POC report located in

Appendix B.

3) Shaler Township is projected to contribute approximately $4,000,000.00 towards this portion of a shared

equalization tank; however, no formal negotiations have occurred.


9-2


The following are available funding methods for sewage improvement projects.

Multi-municipal sharing of resources is often a cost-effective method for managing the continued

O&M of wet weather control facilities. Material, equipment, and labor can be shared between

communities. For example, a sewer vacuum truck owned by one community can be borrowed or

rented by another community for cleaning of an SSO storage facility or pipeline. Municipal

Councils of Governments (COGs) often function in this manner through cooperative action (e.g.

South Hills COG, Turtle Creek COG).

Bonded Indebtedness

Municipalities may issue bonds as a method of funding capital improvement projects. There are

three types of bonds issued for this purpose. General obligation bonds are issued through a

municipality and repaid through local taxes. These bonds typically have a lower interest rate due

to the secured backing of the municipality. Special assessment bonds are issued when certain

properties are recipients of special benefits not available to all the properties in the municipality.

This bond will only benefit the portion of the project that is located within those certain

properties. Special assessment bonds usually carry a higher interest rate and are considered a

greater risk. Revenue bonds are payable from fees and charges assessed for the sewer services

provided by the municipality that sold the bonds. No further backing is required for revenue

bonds. Revenue bonds do not affect a municipality’s ability to borrow money for other projects.

Long-Term Bank Financing

The Township could borrow funds from banks in the form of long-term bank notes for periods of

up to 20 years. Municipal rates are typically less than the prime rates. Long- term bank

financing is subject to a municipal borrowing limit and will decrease the amount available for

other capital projects.


9-3


Pennvest Financing

The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) serves the communities

and citizens of Pennsylvania by funding sewer, storm water and drinking water projects

throughout the Commonwealth by providing low cost financial assistance. Grants and loans are

available.

Criteria for receiving assistance are listed below.

1. The proposed project will improve the health, safety, welfare or economic well-being of

the people served.

2. The proposed project must lead to an effective, long-term solution to the problems

experienced.

3. The proposed project is cost effective.

4. The proposed project is consistent with State and other regional plans.

5. The applicant must be capable of operating and maintaining the project upon completion.

6. The proposed project must consolidate systems where such consolidation will effectively

and efficiently serve the customers.

7. The proposed project must not have a detrimental effect on the air, land or water of the

Commonwealth.

PENNVEST may require a certain level of applicant participation in financing the proposed

project. The extent of applicant participation and the reasonableness of the interest rates for

alternative funding sources will be determined by the effect they will have on user rates and the

customer’s ability to pay. The minimum interest rate on any loan is 1%.

Application may be made for advance funding to cover the costs associated with the engineering

design of the proposed project. A separate application is required for construction costs relative

to the project upon completion of the engineering design phase.


9-4


Community Development Block Grants

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to many different types

of grantees through several programs. Monies are funneled through the state to counties that

administer the funds.

CDBG money can be used to pay for projects for those with incomes within published HUD

guidelines. The HUD guidelines stipulate household incomes for varying family sizes.

Community Infrastructure and Tourism Fund (CITF)

The Allegheny County Economic Development, Community Infrastructure and Tourism Fund

(“Community Infrastructure and Tourism Fund” or “CITF”), overseen by the Redevelopment

Authority of Allegheny County (“RAAC”), is intended to provide financial assistance to entities

to facilitate economic development through infrastructure assistance, stabilize or correct existing

infrastructure problems, or plan and prepare sites and buildings for future use.

The CITF is an annual allocation of $6,600,000 for use in Allegheny County funded by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under the Act of July 5, 2004 (P.L. 572, No. 71), known as the

Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act and authorized pursuant to the Act of

July 25, 2007 (P.L.342, No. 53), known as the Pennsylvania Gaming Economic Development

and Tourism Fund Capital Budget Itemization Act of 2007. The funds are made available to

CITF under these Acts “to fund construction, development, improvement and maintenance of

infrastructure projects.”

CITF provides grants and loans to allow municipalities, authorities, councils of government

(COGs), for-profit businesses (loans only), and others, to carry out important infrastructure-

related projects, or, for the acquisition and development of key sites for future use.


9-5


9.3 User Cost Analysis

A user cost analysis was performed for the current costs per household within the Township.

Information was obtained from the Township regarding the current annual operations and

maintenance expenses for the sanitary sewer system and current annual debt service to determine

the current Township costs per household. The Township’s O&M costs (less ALCOSAN

charges) were then projected from the year 2012 to 2027 using a Consumer Price Index of 2.48.

The ALCOSAN Wet Weather Report projected a user cost for proposed wet weather projects of

$390 per household and $201 per household for normal O&M costs, for 2027, after the

implementation of wet weather projects. These ALCOSAN costs were added to the Township

O&M and debt service costs to determine a projected sewage rate per household in 2027. Table

9-2 illustrates the current and estimated annual user cost per household.

TABLE 9-2: ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES

Current Annual Cost

Per Household (2012)

Cost Per Household After Alternatives

(2027)

Existing User Costs ALCOSAN Costs1 $262.00 $410.00

Municipal Costs $201.00 $291.11

Future Costs

ALCOSAN Projects1 $390.00

Municipal Projects2 $312.26

TOTAL $463.00 $1,403.37

1) Obtained from the ALCOSAN Wet Weather Plan (2012)

2) Average User Cost for Ross Township Costumers based on both Ross Township and Girty’s Run

sewer projects.


9-6


9.4 Affordability

To determine the affordability of the proposed improvements throughout the region, the EPA’s

Long Term Control Plan EZ Template Schedule 6 - Affordability was used. The template is a

planning tool for small municipalities to determine the “Financial Capability” to undertake wet

weather improvement projects. The template was designed for wet weather flows for CSS. The

ALCOSAN sewershed is located in the City of Pittsburgh, which is a CSS. Separate sanitary

sewer flows from upstream communities are transmitted through trunklines that carry combined

flow. In order to address the wet weather issues for the entire region in the ALCOSAN service

area, the LTCP-EZ Template was used for the affordability analysis to standardize the financial

burden so that it can be compared across municipalities. The “Financial Capability” of Low,

Medium, or High Burden is then identified for the municipality, and can be utilized in addressing

the wet weather issues as a region. The Financial Capability measures the impact that a Long

Term Control Plan will have on both the current and future financial capability of the

municipality.

The Financial Capability of a municipality is based on two phases. Phase one of the analysis is

the Residential Indicator (RI). The RI assesses the residential customer’s affordability as

measured by the cost as a percentage of Median Household Income (MHI). The second phase

evaluates the financial capability of the municipality to fund the proposed improvement projects

and future O&M of the projects.

Calculation of the Residential Indicator

To determine the RI, Ross Township staff collected the data required to calculate the annual cost

per household for wastewater collection and treatment to determine the percentage of sanitary

sewer costs with respect to MHI. The data collected included O&M costs of the existing

collection system, current annual debt service related to sanitary sewers, ALCOSAN’s charges

for treatment and conveyance, projected costs for the proposed capital improvements and O&M

with respect to wet weather alternatives to determine the total current and projected wet weather

costs for the Township.


9-7


Factors utilized in the form were completed by the Township including MHI and the number of

households in the service area. The RI is then calculated by comparing the cost per household to

the MHI. Once the cost per household is determined, the RI is calculated by dividing the cost

per household by the MHI of the municipality, and is then compared to the USEPA criteria for

classifying the financial impact as “Low, Mid-Range, or High.” See Table 9-3 for classifying the

financial impact based on the calculated RI.

TABLE 9-3: RESIDENTIAL INDICATOR TABLE

Calculation of Financial Capability

The second part of the form takes into account the Township’s financial ability to fund the

proposed projects. Financial indicators include debt indicators, socioeconomic indicators, and

financial management indicators.

The Township provided information on current bonds, type of bond, and bond rating to

determine the Bond Rating Benchmark. The Net Debt Benchmark was determined by

calculating direct debt, debt of overlapping entities, which includes school district debt or other

shared debt for joint projects, and the overall net debt as a percent of full market property values.

All of this information is utilized to determine the “Net Debt Benchmark”.

The unemployment rate for the Township was then compared to the national average to

determine the “Unemployment Rate Benchmark”. The MHI is compared to the national average

to determine the “Median Household Income Benchmark”. The “Property Tax Benchmark” is

determined by calculating the property taxes levied and the property tax revenue collection rate

to determine the Collection Rate Benchmark. These factors are averaged to determine the

average financial capability score.

Financial Impact Residential Indicator (Cost as % of MHI)

Low Less than 1% of MHI

Mid-Range 1% - 2 % of MHI

High Greater than 2% of MHI


9-8


The benchmark scores are entered into a matrix to calculate the Financial Capability Indicator

Benchmark. Table 9-4 below show the classifications for the financial indicators.

TABLE 9-4: FINANCIAL INDICTOR TABLE

The results of the RI and the Permittee Financial Capability Indicators analysis are combined in

the Financial Capability Matrix to evaluate the level of financial burden that the wet weather

controls impose on the permittee. See Table 9-5 for the Financial Capability Matrix. The goal

of obtaining this Financial Capability is to determine if the Township is able to borrow the funds

required for the Wet Weather Improvements and if the residents can afford the burden to repay

the debt through user costs. Once the Financial Capability has been determined, the Township

can develop a schedule for the proposed wet weather projects.

TABLE 9-5: FINANCIAL CAPABILITY MATRIX

Permittee Financial

Capability Indicators Score

(Socioeconomic, Debt, and Financial

Indicators)

Residential Indicator

(Cost Per Household as a % of MHI)

Low (Below 1.0%)

Mid-Range (Between 1.0 and

2.0%)

High (Above 2.0%)

Weak (Below 1.5)

Medium Burden High Burden High Burden

Mid-Range (Between 1.5 and 2.5)

Low Burden Medium Burden High Burden

Strong (Above 2.5)

Low Burden Low Burden Medium Burden

Financial Capability Financial Indicator

Weak Less than 1.5

Mid-Range Between 1.5 and 2.5

Strong Greater than 2.5


9-9


FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS See Appendix M for the completed Schedule 6, CSO Affordability Form completed for the

Township. The Affordability worksheet includes $30,351,000 for preferred alternatives to be

completed prior to 2026, which includes costs for POC A-67 in order to represent an accurate

user cost analysis for all residents located within Ross Township. An annual debt service was

calculated using 6% interest for 20 years. In addition to the Township’s project costs and

increased O&M costs, an increase in user rates from ALCOSAN was projected in the

ALCOSAN Draft Wet Weather Report to be $390 in 2026. All proposed project numbers were

adjusted to 2012 numbers for the basis of comparison.

The Township has a MHI of $61,205 which is higher than the national average of $50,831 for

2012. Currently, the Township’s Financial Capability Indicator is Low without the consideration

of future wet weather issues.

However, adding the projected wet weather costs in 2026 from ALCOSANs Draft Wet Weather

Report dated July 2012, indicates a user cost increase of $390 per household in 2026.

Incorporating this increase to the Township’s residents puts their RI at 1.52% which is in the

Mid Range. EPA standards indicate that anything above 2% MHI in considered High Burden.

The proposed wet weather improvements will put the Township in the Low Burden range for

overall Financial Capability.

The Local Government Unit Debt Act (LGUDA) guidelines limit the Township’s borrowing

ability to approximately $52 million. The Township’s current debt totaling $3.8 million leaves

an available borrowing balance of $48 million for the proposed wet weather projects.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 10 – Integration of Selected Alternatives

10-1


10.0 Integration of Selected Alternatives

There are currently no planned ALCOSAN projects that would be affected by the completion of

the proposed Township internal alternative projects. The Township plans to conduct flow

isolation and flow monitoring prior to the design and construction of the proposed projects, to

verify the limits and details of work required. The Township will also continue to review green

infrastructure solutions. The Township may also look toward early action projects in POC’s A-

68 and O-25. The ACHD will be notified if implementation of these projects is pursued by Ross

Township. At this time, the Borough of Bellevue does not have any projects proposed along

their interceptor and will need to verify that it can handle additional Township flow before the

proposed projects can be completed in POC O-18. The Borough of Bellevue has also stated that

it has no plans to complete upgrades downstream of Ross Township in POC O-25 however the

projects proposed to be completed by Ross Township within the POC will not increase the

amount of flow exiting the Township into the Borough of Bellevue.

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report Section 11 – Implementation

11-1


11.0 Implementation 11.1 Implementation Schedule

On July 15, 2013 the Township Board of Commissioners acknowledged the Feasibility Study

Report and approved submittal. The Township projects will take place concurrently with

neighboring municipal construction projects in order to minimize disturbance and ensure that the

all interconnected systems can handle any additional flow from the Township.

• 2014 through 2026 – Perform flow monitoring and flow isolation and source reduction of

project areas.

• March 2015 – Termination of current ACO.

• December 2015 – Regional negotiation of multi-municipal trunk sewer agreements.

• June 2016 – Negotiation with agencies.

• December 2017 Negotiation/Agreements between municipalities.

• December 2026 – Design/permits/approvals/financing; construction.

*Dates are for completion of the task

11.2 Joint Municipal Planning and Implementation

Cost sharing and timing of projects will need to be discussed amongst the municipalities for

work along shared interceptors.

11.3 Regulatory Compliance Reporting

The Township will comply with all post regulatory compliance reports as mandated by the

regulators.

ross township feasibility study report

Documents

design flow

existing system description

flow monitoring results

additional flow monitoring

existing sewershed description

report contents

preliminary flow estimates

alternative evaluation