Abandoning pump station near Crofton on O'Hara engineer's wish list
O'Hara engineer Chuck Steinert is compiling his 2014 wish list, and at the top is a $300,000 sewer project near the Crofton neighborhood.
Work would abandon a pump station that serves about 40 homes and replace it with a gravity line.
“This is one of our dream projects,” Steinert said. “We hope we can get it to go through.”
Council has set aside $100,000 to be used toward the project in its tentative budget for next year.
The pump station, although still in working order, is obsolete, Steinert said.
“Right now, it's not costing that much money in maintenance, but when it fails, it'll be problematic,” he said. “We need to get rid of it and use a gravity line so there will be no maintenance.”
If approved, the pipe would connect into the Squaw Run line.
Work would affect only one property owner. Steinert is in talks with the resident about plans that call for installing the sewer line through the edge of the yard.
“They're open to it, but we have to work out some numbers. Basically, the work would affect nobody; it's not even close to his house,” he said.
The property owner stipulated the removal of five trees, Steinert said.
Unlike some other pump stations in the township that are even older, Steinert still can order parts for the one at Crofton, which keeps costs down, he said.
There are three pump stations in the Dorseyville Road neighborhood set to be replaced in 2014 that are a constant problem, and repair costs are steep, Steinert said.
Tawnya Panizzi is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-782-2121, ext. 2, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.