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

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


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

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


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

Section 5
Alternatives for Proposed Wastewater Disposal Facilities
Table of Contents PageNo.
A1 and A2. Potential for Extending Conveyance Facilities 5-1
And Providing Treatment to Future Development Areas
And Unsewered Areas Within the Planning Area
A3, A4, and
A5. Alternatives for Collection and Treatment Facilities 5-1
? Eliminated Alternatives 5-3
? Retained Alternatives 5-4
? Evaluation of Retained Alternatives 5-10
? Selected Alternative 5-30
? Solids Thickening and Dewatering Capacity 5-30
? STP Improvements 5-37
Appendices:
Appendix D. Preliminary Effluent Criteria
Appendix E. Detailed Cost Breakdown of Alternatives
Figures:
5-1. Centrifuge Production Based on Feed Concentration
5-2. Aerial View of Proposed Modifications to STP
Exhibits:
None
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-1
A.1. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for providing sewage
treatment service to future development areas and existing development areas, not
currently served by public sewer, within the planning areas for the wastewater
treatment and disposal facilities.
and
A.2. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for extension of existing
Borough conveyance facilities to provide sewer service to future development
areas and existing developed areas, not currently served by public sewer, within
the planning area.
See section 4 of the Regional Act 537 Plan for the summary of each individual municipality’s
Act 537 Plan, and refer to each report for more in-depth information.
A.3. Perform an evaluation of the potential for continued use of existing sewage
treatment facilities through repair, upgrading, reduction of hydraulic or organic
loadings, or improved operation and maintenance practices.
and
A.4. Perform an evaluation to address the potential need for the construction of
new sewage treatment or conveyance facilities.
and
A.5. Perform an evaluation to address the potential for repair or replacement of
existing collection and conveyance system components.
Background
Section 5 of the Regional Act 537 Plan describes and evaluates a number of alternatives, which
would satisfy the future wastewater management needs of the Valley Forge Sewer Authority
(VFSA). This section was originally completed in April 2003. Due to age of the flow projections
when the Regional Plan was completed, the flow projections of the Member and Partner
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-2
municipalities needed to be reviewed and updated. In conjunction with the flow analysis, the
Authority elected to review, update and supplement the various wastewater management
alternatives previously presented in Section 5 of the 2003 Plan. Due to the comprehensive nature
of the new evaluation, Section 5 was completely rewritten.
In 2005, an Ad Hoc committee was formed for the purpose of reviewing and assisting the VFSA
in establishing future capacity needs in accordance with the Act 537 planning process, and in the
selection of the optimal strategy for subsequent engineering and implementation. The committee
consisted of representatives from Schuylkill Township as well as VFSA staff, Authority
members, and the engineer of record, Buchart-Horn, Inc.
Flow projections have been updated in Section 4 of this Regional Act 537 Plan and describe the
projected capacity needs over the next 30-years. The original design of the VFSA wastewater
treatment plant was based on a capacity of 8 MGD. In 2000, the plant was rerated to 9.2 MGD.
Future average flow rates are projected by this Act 537 Plan to be as follows:
Table 5-3. Projected Average Flowrates.
Years
Projected Flow
Capacity Needed
(MGD)
Current 7.6
10 9.7
20 10.6
30 11.52
Section 5 describes the process by which the concept strategy for the optimal alternative was
determined. A series of committee meetings were held in 2005 for the purpose of identifying
potential alternatives for the required capacity. This list, known as the “long list", was finalized
at a committee meeting on June 29, 2005.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-3
Screening of Alternatives
Following the establishment of the “long list”, the committee met Thursday, August 11, 2005 at
VFSA with the objective of reviewing the draft flow projections and screening out those
alternatives which were not worthy of further study because they were either not feasible, too
costly, or in some other way, not practical. The result of this work was a manageable “short list”
of alternatives requiring a more detailed technical evaluation.
Technical reasons for screening from the long list were identified and discussed to assure that
there were no alternatives eliminated unless the committee could say with reasonable certainty,
that further evaluation was not warranted. The long list is summarized below along with the
results of the screening evaluation performed on August 11, 2005. The alternatives are presented
in two categories: Eliminated Alternatives, and Retained Alternatives (those considered viable
for further evaluation).
Eliminated Alternatives
Alternative 1 - Enter into an agreement for a privately owned and operated wastewater
treatment plant (partial capacity need alternative)
This alternative consists of utilizing a privately owned treatment plant to provide service to
VFSA customers. While developers have constructed such facilities elsewhere, there are no such
treatment plants that can provide the needed capacity to the VFSA at the present time. Plans for
any such future facilities are too undefined to evaluate in detail. Accordingly, Alternative 4 was
eliminated from further evaluation.
Alternative 2 - Construct a satellite facility at Church Farm School and spray irrigate the
property
This alternative consists of a new satellite wastewater treatment plant to be located at the
location of the Church Farm School near Route 30 in East Whiteland Township. The treated
wastewater effluent would be used to spray irrigate the property.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-4
This alternative was eliminated from further evaluation for the following reasons:
1. Conveyance distances would require significant construction costs.
2. The amount of property needed to meet spray irrigation requirements and store
wastewater during the winter is significant and would not be cost effective or practical.
3. Public acceptance of such a facility will be difficult to obtain due to concerns for airborne
aerosols from wind action.
Alternative 3 - Encourage the sale of capacity among partner municipalities
This alternative consists of selling or exchanging existing treatment capacity from those partners
with excess capacity to those who require capacity. Such exchanges would make more efficient
use of the existing STP’s capacity. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration,
because even if the most efficient use of capacity were accomplished through agreements
between partners, this alternative would not provide a sufficient amount of needed capacity to
meet the VFSA’s future needs.
Alternative 4 - Encourage the partner municipalities to divert their flows to other
Townships
This alternative consists of partner municipalities (East Whiteland, Easttown, Malvern,
Tredyffrin, and Willistown Townships) diverting wastewater flows that would have otherwise
been conveyed to the VFSA for treatment, to other townships that are not part of the VFSA.
Based on conversations with Partner representatives it does not appear that the partners of the
VFSA would support such an alternative. Accordingly, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Retained Alternatives
The following alternatives identified by the Ad-Hoc committee were considered feasible for
further evaluation.
Alternative 1 – Purchase Capacity at another Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative 1 consists of diverting wastewater from the VFSA to another treatment plant owned
and operated by a nearby authority. This alternative would be accomplished by diverting existing
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-5
wastewater pumping station flow through a new conveyance line toward the treatment facilities
of the nearby authority. An inter-municipal agreement for the required conveyance and treatment
service would be established with the nearby authority.
Authorities considered as candidates for a municipal agreement consisted of Phoenixville, Oaks,
Spring City, Upper Merion, and East Vincent.
Advantages
? The existing VFSA wastewater treatment plant stays essentially the same. Rented
capacity means that the VFSA will be paying for another authority to treat some or all of
our additional wastewater treatment capacity needs.
? Odor potential can be kept to existing locations where it can be most cost effectively
controlled. Odors resulting from the additional flows are off loaded to a “landlord.”
? Bureaucratic and siting difficulties may be minimized, since the treatment plant for which
the VFSA would be purchasing capacity already exists.
Disadvantages
? Costs will be established by the “landlord,” and will escalate based on their management
capability. VFSA would lose this degree of cost control. Costs will potentially escalate at
a higher rate than those alternatives where VFSA operates all of their own wastewater
treatment facilities for the needed capacity.
? Depending on the specific alternative, significant capital costs will be incurred for new
wastewater conveyance lines and pumping station modifications.
? Right-of-Ways and condemnation costs for new wastewater conveyance could be
significant and time consuming.
? This alternative may not provide sufficient capacity to meet the VFSA’s long term needs.
Alternative 1 – Results of Screening
Capacity from Phoenixville was retained for further evaluation. Phoenixville’s management staff
indicated that they would supply the required information for the VFSA to do a feasibility study.
Flows may be diverted from either VFSA’s French Creek Pump Station or the Pickering Creek
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-6
Pump Station to Phoenixville, resulting in capacity of about 0.6 MGD or 1.0 MGD, respectively.
Eliminated from further evaluation were the following variations of Alternative 1:
? Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (Oaks)
Although discharging some or part of the wastewater flow to the Lower Perkiomen Valley
Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) would be feasible, the LPVRSA Board of Directors
decided that they were not interested in pursuing this option in detail. Their position is
documented in a Letter from Barbara Cepko to the VFSA dated August 15, 2005.
? Upper Merion
The pumping distance was (approximately 6.8 miles) considered too great to make this
option economically feasible.
? East Vincent
The pumping distance (approximately 5.8 miles) was considered too great to make this
option economically feasible.
? Spring City
This treatment facility does not have the capacity to accommodate the quantities of
wastewater that would be needed if the French Creek Pump Station (FCPS) were diverted to
Spring City. The FCPS is the closest VFSA pumping facility to the Spring City plant.
? Wilson Road Pumping Station Location
Treated wastewater would have to be discharged into a high quality stream (Valley Creek),
or a new conveyance line leading to a Schuylkill River outfall would have to be constructed
at a considerable expense. This option would not be economically feasible compared to the
other available alternatives.
Alternative 2 – Construct a Satellite Treatment Facility – Discharge near Cromby
This alternative consists of constructing a satellite wastewater treatment plant at a location that is
separate from the existing plant and in one of the incorporating municipalities. Potential sites
consist of the area around the FCPS and at or near the Cromby electrical power generating plant.
If the satellite treatment plant were constructed near the FCPS, then the treated effluent would be
pumped to the Cromby site where it would be discharged to the Schuylkill River after being
combined with the treated discharge from the electrical power plant. If the treatment plant were
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-7
constructed at the Cromby site, untreated wastewater would be pumped from the FCPS to the
Cromby site where it would be combined with the power plant’s untreated wastewater and
treated by a new satellite wastewater treatment plant.
Constructing a new treatment plant near the FCPS with discharge to the French Creek was
considered as a separate alternative, but it was not considered to be feasible because of the higher
quality requirements for the treated wastewater that would be imposed for new treated
wastewater discharges to the French Creek. Accordingly, this alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
Advantages
? The VFSA would maintain control of all its capacity and does not relinquish this to a
“landlord.” This assures stability of management and control.
? The existing wastewater treatment plant would stay essentially the same for a period of
time until the capacity of the existing plant and the Cromby plant is exceeded. The
expected time period is approximately 10 years. All initial improvements would be at the
new location.
? Some electrical and other operating costs would be saved because pumping distances and
“cascade” pumping would be reduced. Currently, the FCPS discharge is pumped through
three additional pumping stations before it reaches the existing VFSA treatment plant.
Disadvantages
? There would be administrative considerations to locating a new wastewater treatment
plant such as permitting and siting.
? The new treatment plant location would only address a portion of the ultimate needs of
the VFSA. Approximately 0.6 MGD could be delivered from the FCPS compared to the
capacity needs of about 3 MGD as outlined in Replacement Section 5.
? There would be significant capital costs for construction of a new wastewater treatment
plant, which would probably be greater on a cost per gallon basis than most of the plant
expansion strategies outlined in the description of Alternative 3.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-8
? Odors could be a potential problem from two locations and not just one. This is especially
true if the satellite wastewater treatment plant were constructed near the FCPS, which is
in close proximity to an outdoor shopping mall and a fished stream.
? The scale economy of one large treatment plant would not be enjoyed; instead, the
Authority would be constrained to two separate facilities, including a smaller plant that
would be generally less efficient on the cost to treat per gallon.
? Laboratory services would have to practically double in number of analysis performed. In
addition, samples would have to be transported to the existing laboratory.
? Transport of sludge to the existing treatment plant would result in additional truck traffic,
labor costs, and additional operating costs for the VFSA versus alternatives that do not
include two wastewater treatment plants.
? In general, operating costs would be higher with two treatment plants versus one
treatment plant.
Alternative 2 - Results of Screening
Alternative 2 was retained for further evaluation.
Alternative 3 - Increase capacity at the existing treatment plant maintaining a single
discharge point
This alternative consists of providing additional capacity to the existing treatment plant through
some combination of newly installed and constructed process equipment, or technological
improvements to existing equipment. Several variations on this approach could be used to meet
either long term or short-term capacity needs depending on the time frame of implementation.
Variations on this alternative could be implemented to provide either partial or the total
additional capacity needed. The options within this approach may range from converting the
existing process to a more efficient process thereby gaining more capacity without adding in kind
additional tanks and process equipment thereby gaining capacity while using the same
technology.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-9
Advantages
? The operating costs are likely to be less than those alternatives that are being evaluated
which include a satellite plant. Maintenance costs will be reduced since all preventative
and repair functions will be carried out in one location with a smaller staff.
? Management control would be kept in the hands of the VFSA. This is an advantage
versus those alternatives that include an inter-municipal agreement where future pricing
would be in the control of those providing the service.
? Sludge processing would be operated and maintained at the one existing location where
there is existing capacity versus other alternatives where sludge may have to be processed
at a separate location.
? Odor potential resulting from VFSA wastewater can be kept to one location where it can
be most cost effectively controlled. This is an advantage over alternatives that include a
satellite treatment plant where expenses and problems resulting from odors may result
from two separate treatment plant locations.
? Potential for permit violations is minimized with one discharge point and one permit.
Similarly environmental liability is limited to one location and controlled entirely by
VFSA.
? Laboratory analysis and monitoring/permitting administration efforts are minimized.
Assuming that the discharge permits conditions for monitoring would be similar to
VFSA’s existing permit, the monitoring requirements and associated expense for a
satellite plant may nominally double.
? Discharge to the Schuylkill River is the least restrictive alternative from a regulatory
perspective.
Disadvantages
? The existing wastewater treatment plant would get marginally larger depending on the
specific alternative that is selected.
o There could be as many as one more primary clarifier, aeration tank and
secondary clarifier.
o A third primary clarifier, assuming no additional process changes, may result in
the potential of creating more odors.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-10
o Additional sludge processing would result in the potential of generating additional
odors, although these sources can be readily controlled.
Alternative 3 - Results of Screening
Alternative 3 was retained for further evaluation. It was decided to evaluate a broad range of
Alternative 3 capacity upgrade strategies - from those that upgrade the technology to provide
additional capacity while minimizing additional tankage and mechanical equipment, to those that
use the same technology and expand upon the existing plant "in kind".
Evaluation of Retained Alternatives
The results of the evaluation identified alternatives that would be evaluated in further detail. This
section presents the analysis of the retained alternatives, which are as follows:
Alternative 1 – Pump wastewater from the member municipalities (Schuylkill, East Pikeland,
and Charlestown Townships) to the existing Phoenixville wastewater treatment facility for
treatment. Such a strategy would require that appropriate conveyance facilities be constructed by
VFSA at their expense. A contract for service would be negotiated and executed between the
VFSA and Phoenixville. The two (2) options considered within this study include:
Alternative 1a - Diversion of flows from the French Creek Pump Station to Phoenixville’s
French Creek Interceptor, and
Alternative 1b - Diversion of VFSA’s Pickering Creek Pump Station flow directly to the
Phoenixville Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Alternative 2 – Construction of a new “satellite” wastewater treatment plant. Two options were
considered within the Alternative 2 strategy.
Alternative 2a - Locating the plant near the French Creek Pump Station and conveying the
treated wastewater to the Exelon’s Cromby Facility for commingling and discharge with
Exelon’s existing wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Regional Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan – November 2006 Page 5-11
Alternative 2b - Conveying the untreated wastewater from the French Creek Pump Station to the
Cromby site. The new satellite treatment plant would be located at the Cromby site.
Alternative 3 – Expand the capacity of the existing VFSA wastewater treatment plant by
providing the improvements and capacity upgrades that would be required to meet additional
capacity requirements. Within Alternative 3, this study considers a range of capacity upgrade
strategies ranging from conversion of the existing complete mix process to step feed, to
expansion of the existing treatment process in kind by way of adding more primary, aeration, and
secondary settling tanks. The sub-alternatives are described as alternatives 3a, through 3e.
Alternative 3a - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process.
Alternative 3b - Conversion of the existing complete mix activated sludge process to a step feed
process and add a 4th secondary clarifier.
Alternative 3c -Add a 2nd aeration tank, a 4th secondary clarifier, and a 3rd primary settling tank.
Alternative 3d - Innovative alternatives such as the use of media processes
Alternative 3e - Add a 2nd aeration tank and a 4th secondary clarifier.
The alternatives described above are general strategies intended to provide a technically sound
basis for a conceptual evaluation. Once a general strategy is selected, the specific concept needs
to be developed to an appropriate level of detail prior to beginning implementation and the
detailed design.
For this evaluation, the preliminary effluent criteria provided by PADEP, included in Appendix
D, is used for evaluation of the alternatives. The present treatment plant’s discharge permit has
requirements for the removal of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), and ammonia. These limits require nitrification to take place in the
Section 5 Alternatives for ProposedWastewater Disposal Facilities
Valley Forge Sewer Authority Region