Agencies act to remediate Glassport mine seepage
Old mines are being blamed for seepage problems at some properties in Glassport.
The federal Bureau of Mines and state Department of Environmental Protection are working to address the problem, which is affecting homes in the vicinity of Fern Way and Euclid Avenue.
Neighbors reported foul-smelling water draining into yards and basements.
Construction crews have been working in the area and on the hillside above for about a month. They are using heavy equipment to lay approximately 1,600 feet of pipe to direct the mine drainage into the borough's sewer system.
John Decolati, who lives in the 100 block of Fern Way, said he began having problems with water backing up in his yard and basement during the summer that possibly were caused by heavy rains.
Decolati said he reported the problem to the Department of Mines after a borough worker told him to do so.
His daughter, Joann Decolati, said she urged her father to report the problem because she feared the hillside would blow out and demolish his house.
Glassport manager John DeSue said he's glad the two agencies are addressing the problem. He said the reported cost of the project is around $200,000, none of which will come from local sources.
“They're spending considerable money up there. There's no expense to the borough,” DeSue said. “I'm pretty happy they're doing it.”
DeSue said progress continues on another drainage problem in Glassport.
The borough had to use eminent domain to demolish a home at 532 Cypress Way last month after it was severely damaged when blockage of a sewer main caused earth around the home's foundation to be washed away during a series of heavy storms.
DeSue said repairs have been made to the sewer line.
Eric Slagle is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
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.