HARRISBURG — Five witnesses testified Tuesday before presiding Judge Richard P. Mather Sr. during an appeal hearing before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.
Much of the six hours of testimony centered around whether the joint Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan for Hegins and Hubley townships that was approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection is able to be implemented and about conflicting costs.
The hearing was scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. today in courtroom number one, second floor, at the Rachel Carson Building, 400 Market St.
Joseph S. Cigan, III, assistant chief counsel, DEP Northeast Regional Office, Wilkes-Barre, said he may call one additional witness, while Attorney Timothy J. Nieman, of Rhoads & Sinon, LLP, Harrisburg, representing Hubley Township, said the township would be calling one, or possibly two witnesses today.
“Something stinks about the Act 537 plan,” Attorney Matthew G. Boyd of Elliot Greenleaf & Dean, Scranton, said in his opening remarks Tuesday. Joining Boyd in representing Hegins Township was Attorney John G. Dean.
Boyd said the plan underestimated the true cost of the plan’s treatment facility at $26 million, when in reality it’s $30 million. He said DEP didn’t consider if the plan could be implemented, and said the monthly cost for EDUs estimated at $58 in Hubley and $73 in Hegins, or an average of about $70 monthly is much lower than the costs based on an engineering review conducted by Entech Engineering, Pottsville, which put the monthly EDU rate at $122.
A group of Hegins Township citizens — Roger Wetzel, William Wolfgang, Randy Shadle, Kenneth W. Richter, Kenneth Graham and Harry Mausser — filed the appeal May 14, 2015, and are listed as the appellants in the case.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the DEP, and Hegins and Hubley townships are listed as the permittees.
Richter, 1723 W. Maple St., Valley View, was the first of three witnesses called by attorney Kevin M. Walsh Jr., who represented the citizens.
Richter serves on the Hegins-Hubley Water Authority and is retired, he said. Richter said he had questions for James J. Rhoades Jr., a project manager with Alfred Benesch & Co., Pottsville, the firm who prepared the plan. Richter’s concerns included the affordability of the plan, why landlords were not interviewed, delinquency rates of users, why two childcare centers in the sewage coverage area were not interviewed about the impact, and why such a large sum was being spent in the Fearnot area for only eight dwellings.
Richter said he had thought site 10, located at the Schuylkill/Dauphin County line would have given the opportunity for a linear sewer system, and would give more time to incorporate outlying areas for sewer hook-up at a later date.
Instead, site 6 along Fearnot Road was selected. According to the sewage facilities plan update revision approved by DEP on April 17, 2015, the plan includes the construction of a 600,000 gallon/per day wastewater treatment plant located along Fearnot Road in Hubley Township. Sewer service is proposed for the Sacramento, Spring Glen and Fearnot areas of Hubley Township and the Hegins, Valley View and Lamberson areas of Hegins Township. The collection system consists of approximately 45,000 feet of 8-inch gravity pipe; 7,425 feet of low pressure sewerline; 30 grinder pumps; 11,270 feet of force main; four pump stations in Hubley Township; and 121,610 feet of 8-inch gravity pipe; 2,870 feet of force main and three pump stations in Hegins Township. The plan also provides for an onlot sewage disposal system management program for areas of the municipalities not within the proposed sewer service area.
Richter said he had objected to the revised resolution which Hegins Township approved April 13, 2015, and expressed his concern two days later on April 15, when a letter was sent on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Hegins Township to Rob Stermer, DEP Sewage Planning Supervisor, Pottsville. The letter prepared by Walsh, with Donald G. Karpowich Attorney-At-Law, Drums, requested DEP deny the plan update.
Walsh asked if there had been any public comment on the updated revisions to the plan and Richter said there had not. Walsh asked about the delinquency rates for water customers, which Richter said were at 11.22 percent in Hubley and at 4.54 percent in Hegins. Walsh also questioned if there were commercial properties in Hegins Township and what they were.
Nieman objected, saying he wasn’t sure what the relevance was. Walsh said there was no accounting for commercial properties in the Act 537 plan.
Judge Mather overruled Nieman and Richter was permitted to answer.
Walsh asked if Richter had received a response to his comments objecting the plan. Cigan said the April 6, 2015 response is considered part of the Act 537 plan. Richter said he had only received that information over the “last two weeks”.
Cigan asked Richter if he agreed that excess capacity had build built into the plan. Of the 600,000 gallons per day, about 150,000 gallons was for excess capacity, Cigan said. Walsh objected; the judge sustained the objection; and Richter replied that he was not an expert.
Walsh called his second witness, Frederick E. Ebert of Ebert Engineering. Ebert testified he had been a professional engineer for 13 years and worked 22 years in the engineering field. He had designed Act 537 plans, pump stations and had worked with several municipalities.
Ebert had been hired by the concerned citizens group, and acknowledged he was a property owner in Hegins Township. Ebert said the plan summary did not accurately include the user fee or construction costs, mandatory connection within 150 feet of the main, or take into account the act and costs of acquiring easements. The summary should have also identified the Hegins-Hubley Authority as the entity that would be handling the sewage plan.
Ebert testified in order to determine if the treatment facility is the proper size, you need to know the correct number of users to determine flow. He also said the plan did not accurately identify the EDUs that would be used at schools or businesses, accurately consider future growth, and did not take into account the redevelopment of existing lots, or undeveloped potential at the industrial park, or the depth of the sanitary sewer. Ebert said he believed there was an underestimation of the delinquency rate, and several treatment alternatives were not considered. He said the cost of pump stations usually runs between $200,000 to $300,000 each; but those listed in the plan range from $75,000 to $200,000.
The components of the system are going to wear out in five to seven years, Ebert said, and there’s no capital reserve built in to replace those items that break.
After a one hour lunch break, the hearing continued with Cigan cross-examining Ebert. He asked who was paying for Ebert’s services and what he reviewed. Ebert said the citizens had hired him and he reviewed the Act 537 plan, as well as three or four earlier versions, since September 2015. He said he went to the township office to make sure he had the right plan and he reviewed the plan DEP approved.
Cigan showed Ebert an aerial map called “Alternate 6 Overall System Layout” and asked if that was something he had reviewed, which Ebert confirmed he had. Cigan asked if that plan identifies the 150-foot mandatory distance for connection. Ebert said it does identify that, but not in the plan summary.
Walsh’s third witness was Robert J. Weir, of Entech Engineering, Pottsville. Weir said his firm was hired by Hegins Township in January 2016, strictly looking at the cost estimates of alternative site 6 (Fearnot Road).
Two others testifying Tuesday, called by Cigan were Stermer, and James Ridgik, DEP, Wilkes-Barre, engineer in the Planning section.