Ross Township Feasibility Study Report

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT For ROSS TOWNSHIP
1 of 2
Prepared By: The Gateway Engineers, Inc. 400 Holiday Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Prepared For: Ross Township 1000 Ross Municipal Drive 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Description Number Common Abbreviation List Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Feasibility Study Objectives 1.2 Report Contents 2.0 Background 2.1 Regulatory Requirements 2.1.1 ACO/COA Requirements for Municipalities 2.1.2 Consent Decree Requirements Relating to Design Flow for Municipalities 2.2 Role of the FSWG 2.2.1 Objectives of the FSWG 2.2.2 Task List Developed by the FSWG 2.3 Municipal Coordination Overview 3.0 Existing System Description 3.1 Municipal Systems 3.1.1 Existing Sewershed Description for Ross Township 3.1.2 Multi-Municipal System(s) and Complex Sewersheds 3.1.3 Current Flow Management Agreements 3.2 Existing Overflows 3.3 Direct Stream Inflows 4.0 Sewer System Characterization 4.1 2008 Flow Monitoring Data Evaluation 4.1.1 Flow Monitoring Program Background 4.1.2 Additional Flow Monitoring 4.1.3 Flow Monitoring Results 4.2 Description of Flow Isolation Studies and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys 4.2.1 Flow Isolation Study/SSES Procedures 4.3 Recommendations Resulting from Ross Township Flow Isolation Studies/SSES 4.4 Best Management Practices Green Technology Screening 4.5 Summary of Defect Repairs 5.0 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 5.1 Development and Calibration/Verification of H&H Tools 5.2 Baseline Conditions 5.2.1 Dry Weather Flows (Existing and Future) 5.2.2 Groundwater Infiltration (Existing and Future) 5.2.3 Estimation Process for Unmonitored Areas 5.3 Preliminary Flow Estimates 5.4 Capacity Deficient Sewers 5.4.1 Existing Basement Flooding Areas History and Locations 5.4.2 Capacity Requirements for Various Design Storms and Levels of Protection 5.5 Overflow Frequency and Volume Page Number CA-1 ES-1 1-1 1-2 1-4 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-22 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-3 3-4 3-9 3-9 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-3 4-3 4-4 4-6 5-1 5-1 5-5 5-7 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-20 5-20 5-22
Copyright 2013 The Gateway Engineers, Inc.
TOC-1 July 2013

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
Section Number 6.0 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 8.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.0 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Description CSO/SSO Control Levels Background for Selection of Control Level CSO Control Level SSO Control Level Recommendations for Control Levels Alternative Evaluation (Internal Municipal) Evaluation Criteria Development Cost Estimates Alternative Selection Process Alternative Evaluation Results Recommended Alternative Description Recommended Alternative Operation and Maintenance Per POC Stream Removals Multi-Municipal Sewershed Recommended Alternatives Financial and Institutional Considerations MOU and Inter-Municipal Agreements Funding Alternatives User Cost Analysis Affordability Integration of Selected Alternatives Implementation Implementation Schedule Joint Municipal Planning and Implementation Regulatory Compliance Reporting Appendices A B C D E F G H I J K L M 3RWW FSWG Document 002A POC Report: A-67 (on attached CD) POC Report: A-68 (on attached CD) POC Report: O-15 (on attached CD) Agreement Information (on attached CD) Hydrographs PFE Results SPC Population Data Interconnections Table Capacity Tables (A-58 & A-60) Alternative Mapping Detailed Cost Estimates Schedule 6 CSO Affordability Page Number 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 6-3 7-1 7-7 7-7 7-10 7-10 7-11 7-14 7-14 8-1 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-5 9-6 10-1 11-1 11-1 11-1 11-1 Tab Number
TOC-2 July 2013

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED
Section Description 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 15 10 Year Capacity Map POC O-15 16 2 Year Capacity Map POC O-18 17 10 Year Capacity Map POC O-18 18 2 Year Capacity Map POC O-25 19 10 Year Capacity Map POC O-25 20 2 Year Capacity Map POC O-27 21 10 Year Capacity Map POC O-27 Tab Number
TOC-3 July 2013

Common Abbreviation List
Acronym 3RWW ACO ACHD ALCOSAN BWWF C CCTV CD CFS COA CSO CSS CWA DOJ DSS EDU FMIT FMWG GIS FSWG GPAD GPCD GPD GPIMD GWI H&H I/I LBS LGUDA MGD MHI MOU MDS O&M PADEP PENNVEST PFE POC QA/QC RCSFMP RDII REMI RFMP RFP RI SSS SPC SSES SSO SSOAP SUH Meaning Three Rivers Wet Weather Administrative Consent Order Allegheny County Health Department Allegheny County Sanitary Authority Base Waste Water Flow Runoff Coefficient Closed Circuit Television Consent Decree Cubic Feet/Second Consent Order Agreement Combined Sewer Overflow Combined Sewer System Clean Water Act Department of Justice Design Storm Selection Equivalent Dwelling Unit Flow Monitoring Implementation Team Flow Monitoring Working Group Geographic Information Systems Feasibility Study Working Group Gallons/Average/Day Gallons/Capita/Day Gallons/Day Gallons/Inch/Mile/Day Ground Water Infiltration Hydrologic and Hydraulic Infiltration/Inflow Land Based System Local Government Unit Debt Act Million Gallons/Day Median Household Income Memorandum of Understanding Municipal Data Support Operation and Maintenance Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Preliminary Flow Estimate Point of Connection Quality Assurance/Quality Control Regional Collection System Flow Monitoring Plan Rainfall Dependent Inflow and Infiltration Regional Econometric Models Incorporated Regional Flow Monitoring Plan Request for Proposal Residential Indicator Separate Sanitary Sewers Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission Sewer System Evaluation Survey Sanitary Sewer Overflow Sanitary Sewer Overflow Analysis and Planning Synthetic Unit Hydrograph
CA-1 July 2013

Common Abbreviation List
Acronym SWMM5 TMDL USEPA VRS WWP Meaning Storm Water Management Model Total Maximum Daily Load United States Environmental Protection Agency Virtual Reference Station Wet Weather Plan
CA-2 July 2013

Executive Summary 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 its 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 SSOs. 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 Girtys 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-1 July 2013

Executive Summary
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 POCs 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 POCs 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-2 July 2013

Executive Summary
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 POCs 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-3 July 2013

Executive Summary
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 A-581 A-60 A-67 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27 Ross Township Internal Alternative Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,247,000.00 $0.00 $3,674,000.00 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 Ross Township Project MultiMunicipal Alternative Costs $20,000.00 $0.00 $17,630,000.002 $6,130,000.00 $5,780,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL Total Capital Cost $20,000.00 $0.00 $17,630,000.00 $21,377,000.003 $5,780,000.00 $3,674,000.00 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 $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-4 July 2013

Executive Summary
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
ES-5 July 2013

Section 1 - Introduction 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. ALCOSANs 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
1-1 July 2013

Section 1 - Introduction
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 Townships system were generated from objectives outlined in the Feasibility Study Working Group (FSWG) Document 027 and the PADEPs 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 municipalitys 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.
1-2 July 2013

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.
1-3 July 2013

Section 1 - Introduction 1.2 Report Contents
This report includes Ross
This report presents a description of the work tasks performed and the results of the tasks that culminate in recommended wet weather control alternatives.
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. 1-4 July 2013

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.
1-5 July 2013

Section 2 - Background 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 Townships 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 ALCOSANs 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 Municipalitys 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.
2-1
July 2013

Section 2 - Background
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

ALCOSANs 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
2-2
July 2013

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 ALCOSANs proposal to exclude the municipal flow from its planning, design, and construction of such facilities.
2-3
July 2013

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 EPAs 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 EPAs 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
2-4
July 2013

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 ALCOSANs 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:
2-5
July 2013

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 EPAs 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.
2-6
July 2013

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. 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. 2-7
The groups
July 2013

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.
2-8
July 2013

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.
Outcomes/Deliverables: QA/QCd flow monitoring data (glass box data set). Flow monitoring data summary and report submittal to ACHD and PADEP.
Task 3 System Characterization Required Inputs: 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. Deconstructed hydrographs from 3RWW and ALCOSAN. ALCOSAN Basin Planner model of portion of sewershed (if desired).
2-9
July 2013

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 Planners 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 ALCOSANs Basin Planner.
Outcomes/Deliverables: 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.
2-10
July 2013

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 years 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.
2-11
July 2013

Coordinate with ALCOSAN and submit consolidated design storm for review, comment and approval. Outcomes/Deliverables: 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: 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. 2-12
Flow monitoring data. System characteristics (area, footage by diameter, and population).
July 2013

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.
Outcomes/Deliverables: 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: Subtasks: Perform nighttime Flow Isolation Field Study. Analysis of Flow Isolation Field Study results. Results from Task 5A screening.
Outcomes/Deliverables: 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. ALCOSANs cost tool (Part of ALCOSAN Technical Memo 6 [TM-6]). 2-13
July 2013

Task 4 Outcomes and Deliverables. Quantification and distribution of I/I on a sub-unit basis. Preliminary flows (current and future) if all flow is conveyed to ALCOSAN without regard to actual intra or inter-municipal pipe conveyance capacity or deficiencies (FSWG Definition). 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. 2-14
ALCOSAN Transport and Treatment cost. ALCOSANs proposed billing basis (surcharge vs. water consumption). Water quality objectives (internal municipal CSOs). Agency (PADEP and ACHD) comments/approval of Design Storm control levels.
July 2013

o Compute present worth value (use common interest rates and term). o The FSWG will review ALCOSANs 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. Outcomes/Deliverables: 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 municipalitys 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 Planners 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.
2-15
July 2013

Required Inputs: Tasks 4 and 5 outcomes and deliverables. Alternative technology list with preliminary design and performance criteria. ALCOSANs cost tool (Part of Technical Memorandum TM-6). Quantification and distribution of I/I on a sub-unit basis. Preliminary flows (current and future) if all flow is conveyed to ALCOSAN without regard to actual intra or inter-municipal pipe conveyance capacity or deficiencies (FSWG Definition). 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). 2-16
ALCOSAN transport and treatment cost. ALCOSANs proposed billing basis (surcharge vs. water consumption). Water quality objectives (internal municipal CSOs). Highest ranked alternative(s) for municipalitys internal option, when available.
July 2013

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 ALCOSANs 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. Outcomes/Deliverables: 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.
2-17
July 2013

Size, layout and cost of highest ranked alternative for municipalitys 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), ALCOSANs 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: ALCOSANs viable regional alternatives identified by the Basin Planners including preliminary site plans and design basis/limitations. Outcomes/deliverables from Tasks 6 and 7. ALCOSANs updated transport and treatment costs and billing basis for each remaining viable alternative under consideration. Subtasks: Review updates to ALCOSANs transport and treatment costs and billing basis for impact on highest ranked alternatives. Update internal and multi-municipal alternatives as needed. Local governing body acceptance of internal and multi-municipal approaches.
2-18
July 2013

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 multimunicipal 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. Outcomes/Deliverables: 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/multimunicipal/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 municipalitys
2-19
July 2013

financial abilities, then alternative approaches, such as an institutional change, could be considered. Required Inputs: 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. Project/financing life-cycle term. Capital cost. O&M cost. Wet weather flow surcharge rate structure. Consecutive service costs (conveyance, transport and treatment).
Outcomes/Deliverables: 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. 2-20
July 2013

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.
Outcomes/Deliverables: 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.
2-21
July 2013

Task 10 Feasibility Study Report Required Inputs: 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. Outcomes/Deliverables: Draft Feasibility Study Report Final Feasibility Study Report Outcomes and deliverables from all prior tasks.
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 POCs 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 POCs O-25, O-27 and A-60. There is a project downstream of the Townships 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. 2-22
July 2013

Section 3 Existing System Description
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 Girtys 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 POCs. Table 3-1 summarizes the sewers located within the Township.
3-1
July 2013

TABLE 3-1: SEWERSHED CHARACTERISTICS FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC Separate POC Tributary Area (Acres) 1 Population2 Equivalent Dwelling Units3
InchMiles 3.0 1.1 798.0 201.5 383.7 103.2 168.5 12.7
Linear Feet 1,555 711 460,077 127,435 202,895 62,246 95,139 8,430
Inch-Miles per Acre 0.36 0.28 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.24
A-58 A-60 A-674 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27

1 2
4.30 3.54 4,738.63 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 53.76
22 28 15,172 3,957 5,538 2,346 3,833 262
10 11 5,518 3,790 3,670 2,330 3,350 240
From current GIS data. Calculated based on house count and average household size of 2.15 from the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission 2010 Census Data.

3 4
EDU defined calculated using total flow at POC divided by 400GPD. All sewers that are attributed to POC A-67 are owned and maintained by the Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority.
Please refer to the attached report in Appendix B for specific information regarding POC A-67.
3-2
July 2013

Section 3 Existing System Description 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 Girtys 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). 3-3
July 2013

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 Girtys 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 Townships 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.
3-4
July 2013

A-67: 1985_09-24 Ross Township and Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority Summary: This agreement is for the Corrective Action Plan. 1985_09-24 Ross Township and Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority Summary: This agreement is for routine maintenance. 2011_04-07 Ross Township and Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority Summary: This agreement references permit transfer documentation and contains information relating to the transfer of Township sewer lines to the Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority. This cleans up an oversight which
occurred when the various sewer systems were transferred to the Girtys 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. Township is not directly part of the agreement. Ross
3-5
July 2013

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
3-6
July 2013

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 Jacks 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. 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 Jacks 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. Ownership is shared between the City of Pittsburgh and
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.
3-7
July 2013

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.
3-8
July 2013

Section 3 Existing System Description 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.
3-9
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization 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).
4-1
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization 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 A-68 A-68 A-68 A-68 A-68 A-68 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-18 O-18 O-25 O-25 O-25 O-25 O-25 Meter Name A6800__-IM_-S-31_ A6800__-IMO-L-32_ A6800__-IMO-L-33_ A6800__-IMO-L-34_ A6800__-MB_-S-35_ A6800__-OSS-L-21_ A6800__-OSS-L-22_ O15A00_-MB_-L-04_ O1800__-IM_-S-11_ O1800__-MB_-L-08_ O1800__-MB_-S-10_ O2500__-IMO-L-06_ O2500__-MB_-L-04_ O2500__-MB_-L-05_ O2500__-MM_-L-03_ O2500__-POC-L-01_ Monitor Type Inter Municipal Inter Municipal Overflow Inter Municipal Overflow Inter Municipal Overflow Municipal Boundary Sanitary Sewer Overflow Sanitary Sewer Overflow Municipal Boundary Inter Municipal Municipal Boundary Municipal Boundary Inter Municipal Overflow Municipal Boundary Municipal Boundary Municipal Monitor Point Of Connection Monitor Duration 2/1/2008 7/2/2008 1/4/2008 2/18/2009 1/18/2008 2/18/2009 1/2/2008 2/18/2009 2/9/2008 7/2/2008 2/1/2008 1/31/2009 2/1/2008 1/31/2009 1/2/2008 2/2/2009 2/19/2008 7/8/2008 1/1/2008 2/2/2009 2/1/2008 7/8/2008 1/13/2008 2/24/2009 1/9/2008 2/2/2009 1/9/2008 2/24/2009 1/11/2008 2/2/2009 2/1/2008 1/31/2009
* Note: This does not include monitors that were part of POC A-67 (Girtys Run Sewershed). 4-2
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization 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
4-3
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization 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
4-4
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization
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 infrastructures 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.
4-5
July 2013

Section 4 Sewer System Characterization
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.
4-6
July 2013

Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 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 RTKs.
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:
5-1
July 2013

Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis
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.
5-2
July 2013

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-, 5and 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 ALCOSANs PFE submittal (refer to section 5.3 for PFE information). c. ALCOSANs 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 USEPAs 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.
5-3
July 2013

d. Use of ALCOSANs 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 models 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 ALCOSANs 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 ALCOSANs 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.
5-4
July 2013

Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 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 3RWWs 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.
5-5
July 2013

TABLE 5-1: EXISTING AND FUTURE POPULATION AND SEWERED AREAS FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC*
Sewered Area (acres) POC Existing 4.30 3.54 4,738.63 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 Future 4.30 3.54 4,738.63 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Existing
Population** Future 27 34 18,419 4,804 6,724 2,848 4,654 Percent Difference 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4% 21.4%
A-58 A-60 A-67 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25
O-27 53.76 53.76 0% 318 *A-67 population projections are provided in the Girtys Run Joint Sewer Authority Submittal. **Population Growth Factor per SPC for 2046.
22 28 15,172 3,957 5,538 2,346 3,833 262
5-6 July 2013


Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 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 5-7
July 2013
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.
5-8
July 2013

TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF DRY WEATHER FLOWS (DWF) FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP BY POC
Total Average Dry Weather Flow POC Tributary Area (acres) Existing Conditions Winter (MGD) 0.256 0.009 1.952 1.287 1.063 1.530 0.142 Existing Conditions Summer (MGD) 0.134 0.005 1.272 1.290 0.724 0.910 0.142 Future 2046 Conditions Winter (MGD) 0.272 0.009 2.118 1.440 1.125 1.583 0.146 Future 2046 Conditions Summer (MGD) 0.149 0.005 1.437 1.448 0.785 0.963 0.146
Percent Difference
A-58 A-60 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27
4.30 3.54 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 53.76
Winter: 6.1% Summer: 11.5% Winter: 5.8% Summer: 11.1% Winter: 8.5% Summer: 13.0% Winter: 11.9% Summer: 11.9% Winter: 5.8% Summer: 8.5% Winter: 3.5% Summer: 5.8% Winter: 2.7% Summer: 2.7%
DWF Calculated as [GWI+BWWF] (Existing) and [GWI+(BWWF*Growth Factor)] (Future)
5-9 July 2013


Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 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
Sewered Area POC (acres) Existing Conditions (MGD) Winter: 0.018 Summer: 0.006 Winter: 0.006 Summer: 0.002 Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: 1.125 0.445 0.523 0.523 0.756 0.417 1.266 0.646 0.123 0.123 GWI Future 2046 Conditions (MGD) Winter: 0.018 Summer: 0.006 Winter: 0.006 Summer: 0.002 Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: Winter: Summer: 1.125 0.445 0.523 0.523 0.756 0.417 1.266 0.646 0.123 0.123 Percent Difference 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
A-58 A-60 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27
4.30 3.54 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 53.76
*No change in GWI with development.
5-10
July 2013
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 LBs_1162615 LBs_1258938 LBs_1161446 LBs_1161096 LBs_1163013 LBs_1162012 LBs_1162013 POC A-68 O-15 O-15 O-15 O-25 O-27 O-27 Base Meter Used to Simulate A6800_-IM_-S-31_ ALCOSAN Lower Ohio Model ALCOSAN Lower Ohio Model ALCOSAN Lower Ohio Model O2500_-MB_-L-05_ A6800__-IM_-S-31_ A6800__-IM_-S-31_
5-11
July 2013
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 PFEs. The submitted PFE results are available for review and are attached in Appendix G. A table summarizing the RDII for the Townships 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 (MGD) POC A-58 A-60 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27 Sewered Area (acres) 4.30 3.54 900.78 2,038.45 601.21 886.14 53.76 1Year 0.04 0.02 3.56 2.08 3.76 4.62 2.92 2 Year 0.04 0.02 4.23 2.53 4.47 5.49 3.48 5Year 0.05 0.02 5.18 3.18 5.48 6.73 4.29 10 Year 0.05 0.03 5.96 4.56 6.29 7.73 4.93 1 Year 0.04 0.02 4.04 2.34 4.12 8.98 2.99 Future 2046 Conditions (MGD) 2 Year 0.04 0.02 4.79 2.85 4.90 10.60 3.58 5 Year 0.05 0.02 5.86 3.57 5.99 12.88 4.39 10 Year 0.05 0.03 6.74 4.12 6.88 14.73 5.06
Calculated as Peak Flows Dry Weather Flows (were only calculated for the Controlling Season)
5-12
July 2013

Section 5 Sewer System Capacity Analysis 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 POCs 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 Mannings 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: 5-13
July 2013
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 meters 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.
5-14
July 2013
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 Townships 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:
5-15
July 2013
TABLE 5-6: ASSIGNED MINIMUM SLOPE PER PIPE DIAMETER Sewer Size 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 18 21 24 27 30 36 Minimum Slope in Feet per 100 Feet. 0.600 0.400 0.280 0.220 0.170 0.150 0.140 0.120 0.100 0.080 0.067 0.058 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.
5-16
July 2013
The allowable capacity in the pipe was calculated using the pipe size, slope and roughness coefficient in conjunction with Mannings 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.
5-17
July 2013
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.
5-18
July 2013
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 POCs 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.
5-19
July 2013
5.4.1 Existing Basement Flooding AreasHistory 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.
5-20
July 2013
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.
5-21
July 2013
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.
5-22
July 2013

Section 6 CSO/SSO Control Goals 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.
6-1
July 2013

Section 6 CSO/SSO Control Goals
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.
6-2
July 2013

Section 6 CSO/SSO Control Goals 6.2
levels.
Recommendations for Control Levels

During the alternative design and cost estimation process it was found that the
The presented alternatives for each POC were designed to 2- and 10- year design storm control
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, A60, O-15 and O-27, as the Ross Township owned lines are already capable of conveying a 10year design storm.
6-3
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation 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.
7-1
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation
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 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 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.
7-2
July 2013

O-18: Alternative 2A: Alternative 2A includes the upsizing of approximately 5,200 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 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 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. This alternative will control the 10-year design storm. Alternative 2C: Alternative 2C includes the upsizing of approximately 5,000 LF of pipe ranging from 15 to 21 in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #2138 to MH #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 ranging from 12 to 21 in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #3780 to MH #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 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. This alternative will control the 10-year design storm.
7-3
July 2013

Alternative 3B: Alternative 3B includes the upsizing of approximately 1,400 LF of pipe ranging from 12 to 15 in size along the main municipal interceptor from MH #1222 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. 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.
7-4
July 2013

TABLE 7-1: LISTING OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP PER POC POC A-58 Alternative Name N/A System Type N/A Control Level 10 Year Design Storm Description 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 within the Township sewers. A-68 Alternate 1A Upsizing and Storage Tank Alternate 1B Parallel, Upsizing and Storage Tank Alternate 1C Upsizing and Storage Tank Alternate 1D Parallel, Upsizing and Storage Tank O-15 N/A N/A 10 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation of a storage tank. Run a parallel sewer combined with minor upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation of a storage tank. Run a parallel sewer combined with minor upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers. O-18 Alternate 2A Alternate 2B Upsizing Upsizing and Parallel Sewer System. 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with parallel sewers near the I-279 underpass to Center Avenue. 7-5
July 2013

POC O-18
Alternative Name Alternate 2C Alternate 2D
System Type Upsizing Upsizing and Parallel Sewer System.
Control Level 2 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm
Description Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with parallel sewers near the I-279 underpass to Center Avenue.
O-25
Alternate 3A Alternate 3B
Upsizing Upsizing N/A
10 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm
Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers.
O-27
N/A
7-6
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation 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.
7-7
July 2013

TABLE 7-2: LISTING OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP PER POC WITH PRESENT WORTH COSTS POC A-58 Alternative Name N/A System Type N/A Control Level 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm Description There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers. There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers. Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation of a storage tank. Run a parallel sewer combined with minor upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. Upsizing of municipal interceptor and installation of a storage tank. Run a parallel sewer combined with minor upsizing and the installation of a storage tank. There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. Total Present Worth Cost $0.00
A-60
N/A
N/A Upsizing and Storage Tank Parallel, Upsizing and Storage Tank Upsizing and Storage Tank Parallel, Upsizing and Storage Tank N/A
$0.00
A-68
Alternate 1A
$8,945,000.00
Alternate 1B
$8,833,000.00
Alternate 1C
$6,162,000.00
Alternate 1D
2 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm 10 Year Design Storm
$6,050,000.00
O-15
N/A
$0.00
O-18
Alternate 2A
Upsizing
$2,132,000.00
7-8
July 2013

POC
Alternative Name
System Type Upsizing and Parallel Sewer System. Upsizing Upsizing and Parallel Sewer System.
Control Level 10 Year Design Storm 2 Year Design Storm
Description Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with parallel sewers near the 279 underpass to Center Avenue. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor with
Total Present Worth Cost
O-18
Alternate 2B
$2,083,000.00
Alternate 2C
$1,983,000.00
Alternate 2D
2 Year Design Storm
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. Upsizing of existing municipal interceptor. $865,000.00
Alternate 3B
Upsizing
2 Year Design Storm
Removal of diversion manhole and upsizing of sanitary sewers.
$437,000.00
O-27
N/A
N/A
10 Year Design Storm
There are no 10 year design storm issues within the Township sewers.
$0.00
*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.
7-9
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation 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-60: 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). O-27: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers.
7-10
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation 7.5 Recommended Alternative Description Per POC
A-58: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers. A-60: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers. 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. 7-11
July 2013

O-27: No alternatives are required within the Township owned sewers. 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.
7-12
July 2013

TABLE 7-3: SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES PER POC FOR ROSS TOWNSHIP POC Estimated Capital Improvements Size/Capacity 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 Girtys 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 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27 A-58 A-68 A-67 Cost Component Alternative 1B N/A Alternative 2B Alternative 3A Capital Cost1 $15,247,000.00 $0.00 $3,674,000.00 $1,527,000.00 SSO Control Annual O&M Cost2 $63,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $70,000.00 Total Present Worth Cost3 $8,833,000.00 $0.00 $2,083,000.00 $865,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,781,000.00
N/A $0.00 N/A $0.00 N/A $0.00 N/A $0.00 $20,448,000.00 TOTAL 1 ACT Capital Cost Inflated to 2026
2 3
ACT Annual O&M Costs (Current Year) ACT 2010 Present Worth Cost
7-13
July 2013

Section 7 Alternative Evaluation 7.6 Recommended Alternative Operation and Maintenance
The Townships 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.
7-14
July 2013

Section 8 Multi-Municipal Sewershed Recommended Alternatives 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 Girtys 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 A-58 A-60 A-67 Description of Alternative 2 year storm, 4 OF/year, option per POC report No projects are proposed. Storage Option 1 2yr 10 overflows Conveyance upgrades on the Ross-Shaler A-68 Interceptor, Equalization/Conveyance upgrades on the Shaler-Rt. 8 Interceptor and Parallel Conveyance upgrades in Etna. O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27
1 2
Total Project Cost1 $5,590,000.00 $0.00 $23,521,000.003
Ross Township Projected Cost1 $20,000.002 $0.00 $11,750,000.004
$31,600,000.00
$3,500,000.005
Conveyance upgrades of the entire LROC interceptor. No projects are proposed. No projects are proposed. No projects are proposed.
$15,800,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$3,300,000.006 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ACT Total Present Worth Cost Projected Cost based on total population of the sewershed. 3 Cost taken from the A-67 Draft POC report dated July 31, 2012, located in Appendix B. 4 A-67-Ross Township Costs calculated per percent usage of GRJSA costumers. 5 A-68-Ross Township Costs calculated per the segmental approach with dry weather flows. 6 O-15-Ross Township Costs derived from LROC agreement information. 8-1
July 2013

Section 9 Financial and Institutional Considerations 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 A-581 A-60 A-67 A-68 O-15 O-18 O-25 O-27 Ross Township Internal Alternative Costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,247,000.00 $0.00 $3,674,000.00 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 Ross Township Project MultiMunicipal Alternative Costs $20,000.00 $0.00 $17,630,000.002 $6,130,000.00 $5,780,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL Total Capital Cost $20,000.00 $0.00 $17,630,000.00 $21,377,000.003 $5,780,000.00 $3,674,000.00 $1,527,000.00 $0.00 $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.
9-1
July 2013

Section 9 Financial and Institutional Considerations
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 municipalitys 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.
9-2
July 2013

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 customers 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.
9-3
July 2013

Community Development Block Grants U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUDs) 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 infrastructurerelated projects, or, for the acquisition and development of key sites for future use.
9-4
July 2013

Section 9 Financial and Institutional Considerations 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 Townships 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) Existing User Costs ALCOSAN Costs1 Municipal Costs Future Costs ALCOSAN Projects1 Municipal Projects2 TOTAL $262.00 $201.00 Cost Per Household After Alternatives (2027) $410.00 $291.11 $390.00 $312.26 $1,403.37
$463.00
1) Obtained from the ALCOSAN Wet Weather Plan (2012) 2) Average User Cost for Ross Township Costumers based on both Ross Township and Girtys Run sewer projects.
9-5
July 2013

Section 9 Financial and Institutional Considerations 9.4 Affordability
To determine the affordability of the proposed improvements throughout the region, the EPAs 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 customers 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, ALCOSANs 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.
9-6
July 2013

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 Financial Impact Low Mid-Range High Calculation of Financial Capability The second part of the form takes into account the Townships financial ability to fund the proposed projects. Financial indicators include debt indicators, socioeconomic indicators, and financial management indicators. Residential Indicator (Cost as % of MHI) Less than 1% of MHI 1% - 2 % of MHI Greater than 2% of MHI
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. 9-7
July 2013

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 Financial Capability Weak Mid-Range Strong Financial Indicator Less than 1.5 Between 1.5 and 2.5 Greater than 2.5
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) Weak (Below 1.5) Mid-Range (Between 1.5 and 2.5) Strong (Above 2.5)
Residential Indicator (Cost Per Household as a % of MHI)
Low (Below 1.0%) Medium Burden Low Burden Low Burden
Mid-Range (Between 1.0 and 2.0%) High Burden Medium Burden Low Burden
High (Above 2.0%) High Burden High Burden Medium Burden
9-8
July 2013

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 Townships 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 Townships 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 Townships 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 Townships borrowing ability to approximately $52 million. The Townships current debt totaling $3.8 million leaves an available borrowing balance of $48 million for the proposed wet weather projects.
9-9
July 2013

Section 10 Integration of Selected Alternatives 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 POCs A68 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.
10-1
July 2013

Section 11 Implementation 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.
11-1
July 2013

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ross Township Feasibility Study Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT For ROSS TOWNSHIP