HARRISBURG — No public comment period was needed after a revised resolution of the Hegins and Hubley Joint Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan Update was adopted, a state Department of Environmental Protection sewage planning supervisor testified Tuesday before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.
Rob Stermer, Pottsville, was called as a witness by Joseph S. Cigan III, assistant chief counsel of DEP Northeast Regional Office, Wilkes-Barre, on the first day of testimony before EHB presiding Judge Richard P. Mather Sr. The appeal hearing on the Act 537 plan continued Wednesday in Courtroom 1 of the Rachel Carson Office Building, 400 Market St.
Stermer, who received his bachelor’s degree in environmental science from East Stroudsburg University in 1983 and has more than 31 years experience with the department, said he was assigned as a department reviewer of the plan in October 2014.
Cigan asked Stermer if he had received a response to his technical review comments from Alfred Benesch & Co., Pottsville, the firm who prepared the plan. Stermer said he had.
In a DEP letter dated March 20, 2015, Stermer sent both townships a letter notifying them that the DEP had completed its technical review of the “Official Plan Update” prepared by Benesch. There were 13 technical review comments to which DEP sought a response.
Some of the comments in the letter stated: treatment process cost estimates must include the cost of purchasing nutrient credits required to comply with the department’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy; the need to identify the actual funding source for the project cost not covered by PennVEST funding; cost estimates provided for alternative (site) 6 do not contain any costs associated with parcel acquisition for the treatment facilities or pump stations; the plan does not specifically identify a defined sewage service area; they were asked to provide the floodplain mapping for the proposed wastewater treatment plant and pump station locations.
Stermer identified a letter dated April 6, 2015, that was the response from Benesch addressing DEP’s technical review. Cigan asked if the April 6 letter supplement was part of the Act 537 plan, and Stermer confirmed that it was.
Cigan asked why the evaluation was made by the department. According to Stermer, the evaluation examined the costs of on-lot systems versus a public sewer system in the Fearnot area, Hubley Township, which is the chosen location for the treatment facility, or site 6. Stermer said the evaluation demonstrated that the cost of on-lot systems in the Fearnot area was greater than the cost of providing public sewer there.
The supplementing resolution was dated April 13, 2015, and was approved and signed by Hegins Supervisor Chairman Michael Begis and Supervisor Brad Carl. Supervisor LeRoy Shuey opposed it.
Attorney Kevin M. Walsh Jr. represented the Concerned Citizens of Hegins Township who brought the appeal — Roger Wetzel, William Wolfgang, Randy Shadle, Kenneth W. Richter, Kenneth Graham and Harry Mausser. They 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.
Under Walsh’s cross-examination, he asked Stermer if he confirmed any of the figures used in the plan, checking on EDUs and verifying construction costs. Stermer said DEP “went by the information provided in the plan.”
Walsh, with Donald G. Karpowich’s law firm, Drums, also asked if the cost estimates and service area maps were revised in the April 6 letter. Stermer confirmed they were. He also asked if there was public comment.
“We did not require the plan to be re-advertised for public comment again,” Stermer said. “From our perspective, we did not require that.”
Walsh questioned whether commercial properties (in Hegins Township) appear in the plan. Stermer said he could not recall.
Upon cross-examination, attorney Matthew G. Boyd of Elliot Greenleaf & Dean, Scranton, asked Stermer if the townships submitted the plan “on their own” and if there was an obligation they submit a joint plan. Stermer confirmed it was submitted on their own and they did not have to develop a joint plan.
Boyd, who represented Hegins Township, asked if DEP did its own cost analysis to see if the costs were accurate. Stermer deferred the question to James Ridgik, who handled the financial review for DEP. Boyd asked Stermer if he found it “odd” that the figures were so close, for the cost of a public sewer system for Fearnot was estimated at $1,635,600 and the cost for on-lot systems for Fearnot was $1,644,725. Stermer said, “No.”
Cigan’s second witness called was Ridgik, a professional engineer for DEP, Engineer in Planning Section, Wilkes-Barre. He was a 1972 graduate of Rutgers University, majoring in chemical engineering, and also studied at the University of Kentucky in 1974.
Ridgik said he had been working with DEP for 27 years. He said he reviewed the Act 537 plan from beginning to end. His job was to review the cost estimates and funding analysis, including various scenarios of PennVEST funding. Ridgik said he made sure the plan was reasonable and complete. He based construction costs, he testified, upon his experience. He said he looked at the contingency and soft costs of the project and found them to be “acceptable.”
Attorney Timothy J. Nieman, of Rhoads & Sinon LLP, Harrisburg, represented Hubley Township, and was expected to call either one or two witnesses Wednesday.