Officials Speak Out on Stalled Multi-Million Dollar Sewer Project

Written by Brittany Tressler

In recent years a debate has raged – often on Patch blogs - about the third and final installment of sewer lines for the Lower Perkiomen Valley Regional Sewer Authority (LPVRSA) down the Perkiomen Creek, between Lower Providence and Upper Providence near the Arcola Road Bridge; the conflict has caused an increase in sewer rates,potential loss in grant funds for other aspects of the project, and could lead to a moratorium on building in the area, in the case of a major storm event.

The LPVRSA, along with five member municipalities – Skippack, Collegeville, Trappe, Perkiomen and Upper Providence, have voted to install the pipes, known as the middle interceptor, on the Lower Providence side of the creek, as opposed to building new pipes in the existing trenches along the Upper Perkiomen side of the creek.

Lower Providence Township, which once voted in favor of the plan, is now opposing it, after several homeowners whose properties objected to the construction.

In the first of a two-part series, Patch sat down with leadership, staff and consultants of the LPVRSA to learn more about how the 10-year process that has brought the authority to this point, why they’ve chosen to place the pipes in Lower Providence, and what it means for the 60,000 ratepayers in the area.

(For a detailed look at the public relations battle between the LPVRSA and residents objecting to the project, click here to read the second of our two-part series.)

Middle Interceptor Timeline

“You don’t lightly engineer a multi-million dollar sewer line without some direction on where it’s supposed to be” – LPVRSA Solicitor

According to the LPVRSA, events leading to the current situation began in February of 2004, when then-engineer R.F. Preston Engineering worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on the placement of the planned middle interceptor, which would connect the lower portion of the sewer lines, which extends into Skippack Township, and the upper portion, which leads to the Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant in Upper Providence.

“You don’t lightly engineer a multi-million dollar sewer line without some direction on where it’s supposed to be,” said LPVRSA Solicitor Robert Brant.

According to Brant, the authority requested that the PA DEP “establish a PA DEP approvable alignment” in November of 2004, and the DEP walked the entire interceptor route to look at the land.

“DEP walked the line, and they determined that the best location was on the flat Lower Providence side of the creek,” said Brant.

Between 2005 and 2008, according to Brant, the authority was moving toward receiving DEP permits for the middle interceptor, as the upper and lower middle interceptors, as well as the Oaks Waste Water Treatment Plant, was being expanded.

In October of 2008, the authority met with the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss permitting for the project in 2008, a pre-application meeting was held and an application was being prepared.

An issue that was not acknowledged until 2010, after residential concern arose in Lower Providence, is a sentence in the authority’s regional Act 537 plan, a planning document that helps to guide planning of the sewer facilities, that was in conflict with the plan to place the sewer lines in Lower Providence.

The sewer plan approved in 2004 shows the interceptor along the Perkiomen Creek, in Upper Providence side where it has been since construction in the 1970s.

When replacing a line, according to the document, “any other line shall be parallel to and in the existing easement.”

The line could be considered parallel – though across a creek – but in the existing easement would mean that the new line must be near the one it is replacing.

According to LPVRSA Engineer Bill Dingman, of Bursich Associates, there are portions of both the upper and lower interceptors that were approved by the DEP as not being in the existing easement.

“There is precedent for allowing it to happen, but DEP is going to be conservative when there are people or a municipality objecting,” Brant said.

Brant said that the document can be changed, and that it does not have to be approved unanimously by all municipalities.

“That document is a planning document,” Brant said.  “Opposition makes it out to be the Holy Grail that can’t be changed; but you can change it.”

On May 6, member municipalities of the LPVRSA, with the exception of Lower Providence and Trappe, voted to amend the plan to place the sewer lines on the Lower Providence side of the creek roughly 200 linear feet further down than initially planned, avoiding the Hoy Park area.

Why Lower Providence?

“In 2004-2005, DEP determined the best location was on the flat Lower Providence side of the Creek” – LPRVSA Engineer

Ratepayers have heard from Lower Providence residents about why the pipes should not be placed on their side of the creek, but there has been little spoken about the positives on placing the pipes in Upper Providence.

According to Dingman, the decision to place the line on the Lower Providence side of the creek was made based on the environmental, engineering and cost factors.

“The ramifications for putting it on the Upper Providence side will be more adverse from environmental and engineering standpoint, in addition to the cost,” said Dingman.

According to a report, it would cost nearly $2 million more to construct the interceptor on the Upper Providence side of the creek, due to the topography.

The negative environmental factors, Dingman said, are based upon the steep slope on which the current pipes sit, which does not provide the DEP-mandated riparian buffer for the stream – meaning, as it stands currently, rebuilding the pipes would put them too close to the stream.

While the Lower Providence side of the interceptor requires two stream crossings, the actual pipes would be installed in a wooded and grassy areas with plenty of even ground to stage the material and to place the pipes.

The current pipes in Upper Providence, however, sit on a steep slope with no potential staging area for construction, according to Dingman.

In order to install the new pipe line, a portion of the creek would have to be dewatered for 2000 linear feet – meaning the excavated soil and rock would be placed into the dewatered creek bed to facilitate construction of the pipe line.

“It is a significant undertaking to dewater a creek,” said Brant.

If the pipes are installed on the Lower Perkiomen side of the creek, only the portions of crossing would need to be dewatered, and it could be done in two parts to mitigate the environmental impact.

Additionally, according to Dingman, the construction on the Upper Providence side of the creek is much more risky than if it were on the Lower Providence side, due to the use of sewage bypass pumping.

If constructing on the Lower Providence side of the creek, the only need for pumps would be when the pipes are connected on the Upper Providence side; sewage would flow normally for all but a few days of construction.

On the Upper Providence side of the creek, continuous pumping would likely be necessary since the current pipes are being replaced. That could create a problem in the case of heavy rain events over the six-month construction period.

“Each day, you would have to remove the old pipe – so there has to be no wastewater in it – you would de-water the system each day,” said Dingman. “There is an increased risk when there is continual pumping – if the bypass pumping fails, you would have raw sewage in the stream.

Dingman said that many measures would be in place to protect from that occurring, but the risk is still there.

“It’s that adverse environmental impact to the stream, the slope, the vegetation, is what promoted DEP to initially say that it belonged on the Lower Providence side,” Dingman said.

Building Moratorium Risk

“The 600 pound gorilla in the room is a major storm event” – LPVRSA Solicitor

As the authority prepares to send a revised plan to PA DEP to make a decision—a process that should take roughly four months—there seems to be no end in sight for the debate anytime soon.

“We are getting ready to send this to DEP, saying ‘here is what five of six municipalities want’ – here are the studies, make a decision,” said Brant.

Once the PA DEP makes the decision, it will be up to the losing side – Lower Providence residents, Upper Providence residents, and municipalities – to appeal the decision with the Environmental Hearing Board.  The process could take years.

Brant and the authority officials are prepared for a continued battle with Lower Providence regarding the placement of the sewer lines, but there is one thing that can’t be argued with—the weather. 

“The 600 pound gorilla in the room is a storm event,” said Brant.  “An unanticipated storm event that renders this pipe unable to handle the appropriate flow.”

In the case of a major storm event, municipalities upstream stream from the Arcola Road Bridge – Skippack, Perkiomen, Collegeville, Trappe – would have a moratorium on building, which would prevent any equivalent dwelling units (EDU) from being constructed.

“You want to move your mother into your house and you want to buy an EDU for a toilet?  No,” said Brant.  “DEP can issue a moratorium to stop building – if you can’t flush your toilet, nobody builds anything.”

According to Dingman, the 2011 flows were about 95 percent to capacity, during a wet year.

“Lower Providence has nothing to lose in terms of an adverse storm event,” said Brant. “They wouldn’t be stopped from building because they’re downstream of the pipe.”

The debate continues on the LPVRSA Middle Interceptor Issue; check back tomorrow for the second part of our series exploring the resident objection and the public relations battle that the LPVRSA is facing.