ShareThis Page

Mediator appointed to handle pump-station dispute

| Sunday, May 13, 2012, 3:52 a.m.

James Brucker is on a mission.

The manager of the Franklin Township Municipal Sanitary Authority will contact Delmont Council in an attempt to get the borough's governing body together with Salem Township's municipal authority to resolve a long-standing dispute over the Cramer pump station.

The authority's board voted 6-0 Wednesday to have Brucker act as a sort of mediator in the dispute.

The facility, which is located in Salem Township but services portions of Delmont, has long been a sore spot between the two municipalities over its capacity to handle sewage flows.

The Salem authority has maintained that the station is properly sized to handle the service area, but complained of excess inflow and infiltration during wet-weather periods.

Inflow occurs as water runoff enters the sewer system through manhole covers and storm drain tap-ins. Broken pipes or loose joints increase water infiltration.

"Delmont has to recognize there is a problem," Robert Sekora, chairman of the Salem authority, said last night by phone. "I can't understand how they can turn a blind eye to inflow and infiltration going into their sewage system. Accept the fact there is a problem and let's sit down and solve it without attorneys."

Delmont has maintained that the pump station is undersized and lacks adequate capacity for the sewage flows. Council has said a study done by the EADS Group, of North Huntingdon Township, supports its claim.

During yesterday's meeting of the Salem authority, Brucker said downtown Delmont was the problem area. He also indicated the EADS study was done in the spring of 2000 when there was not a lot of wet weather.

"The problem with the flow study is that it was done during a drought," Brucker said. "The EADS report was done at the wrong time of the year."

Salvos have been fired from both sides.

Last month, the Salem authority voted to send a letter to Delmont asking the borough for a plan to rectify excessive infiltration and inflow. The letter also gave Delmont 30 days to schedule smoke and dye testing or face being billed for the work.

There was an item on the agenda yesterday to approve an inspection of the Delmont sewer system. However, no action was taken and the authority voted instead to have Brucker communicate with Delmont.

Delmont has warned that any Salem authority representative in the borough's sewer system would be arrested. A letter containing such a warning was signed by Delmont Council at its meeting Tuesday.

Sekora said a 1983 agreement between the two municipalities permits such an inspection.

"We have an agreement," Sekora said at yesterday's meeting. "What value is an agreement when they say they don't want to abide by it?"

Brucker said there have been problems with the pump station since its creation. "The station was designed improperly from day one," he said.

Brucker, who appeared Tuesday before Delmont Council, said the problem must be solved. Solutions bandied about include the construction of a new pump station at a different location or a retention facility at the current location.

"We're here to help both parties," Brucker said. "I do not have a problem calling Delmont, discussing issues and seeing what can be put on the table. We need to find the most cost-effective solution for the ratepayers."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me