Connellsville sewer overflow plan falls short of state standards
The Connellsville Municipal Authority received a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection several weeks ago, indicating that the authority's combined sewer overflow plan is not in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Paul Eiswerth, environmental engineer III with DEP, said the authority's combined sewer overflow (CSO) long-term control plan is not acceptable even though the authority revised the plan.
As a result, DEP officials will meet with authority members within the next few weeks to make additional revisions to the plan.
In its revised long-term control plan, Eiswerth said, the Connellsville Municipal Authority is proposing that it is in compliance with the second of the third approach options. The authority indicated there is an adequate level of control to meet with water quality based on requirements of the Clean Water Act.
However, DEP officials do not agree with the authority's claim.
Eiswerth said the authority has the right to appeal the DEP decision within the next 30 days.
“The DEP inspected the plant on July 19 to review the problem,” said authority vice chairman Pat Duncan. “DEP sent us a letter about the combined sewer overflow problem. DEP visited us a few years back, asking us to revise our combined sewer overflow control plan.”
In other business, the authority:
• Received a favorable report of its 2012 audit findings from Means, Vance and Perry, a certified public accounting firm.
• Adopted the 2013 profit and loss budget versus the actual budget as of July 31, indicating that the authority's finances are similar to what they were at the same time last year.
Cindy Ekas 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.