SACRAMENTO — Hubley Township stands by its Act 537 plan that was prepared by Alfred Benesch & Co., Pottsville, and approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection, Keith Masser, chairman of the Hubley Township board of supervisors, said Friday.
Hubley Township held a special meeting Friday to discuss litigation involving the Hegins-Hubley Joint Act 537 Sewage Facilities Plan. Masser also cautioned residents about the reliability of engineering reports recently released by others.
He said he hopes “folks don’t accept as facts those other reports.”
The supervisors held a brief public comment period before entering into a nearly one-hour executive session. Those in the executive session to discuss litigation were Masser, Supervisor Robert Barr, Secretary Kathy Krammes, solicitor James P. Diehl, attorney Paul J. Datte, and James J. Rhoades Jr. and David J. Miller, with Alfred Benesch. Supervisor Frank Krammes was absent.
Masser explained that Datte was initially hired by Hegins and Hubley townships to represent both townships in an appeal of the Act 537 plan filed by the Concerned Citizens group.
Since then, Hegins Township hired a different attorney, John G. Dean, Wilkes-Barre, to represent Hegins in the appeal. Hubley is still using Datte’s services for the appeal, and Diehl’s services for other matters. Datte also serves as solicitor for the Hegins-Hubley Authority.
Roger Wetzel, William Wolfgang, Randy Shadle, Kenneth W. Richter, Kenneth Graham and Harry Mausser are listed as appellants in the appeal, and are represented by attorney Donald G. Karpowich, Drums.
The appeal hearing is slated to begin 10 a.m. April 19, before presiding Judge Richard P. Mather Sr., in Room 1, at the Environmental Hearing Board offices, second floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400 Market St., Harrisburg.
On Friday, Sacramento resident Herb Rose spoke of his concerns about the costs of the sewerage plan, and the delays.
“It’s getting astronomical,” Rose said.
Masser reiterated the township stands by the engineering firm that proposed the Act 537 plan.
Another Sacramento resident, Jeannette Greenhaus, asked about the management of nitrogen and phosphorus, and if there were provisions for compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, which addresses pollution.
“There’s a lot of distrust,” Greenhaus told Masser. She asked if Masser’s potato firm, Sterman Masser Inc., had a volume of water discharge that needs to be treated, and if the new sewage treatment plant proposed will assist his company.
Masser said the company “is in compliance and doesn’t need a sewer plant to remain in compliance with any EPA regulation.” He noted that the Sterman Masser Inc. plant will be required to hook up to the public sewer system for its restrooms at the facility, but did not have industrial waste needing treatment at a new sewer plant. There is an existing settling pond at the Sacramento facility, he said. He also said his other firm, Keystone Potato Products, has its own treatment system.
Charles Greenhaus asked why Hubley Township took two years later to come on board with the Act 537 plan than when Hegins Township initially began the process. He said he spoke to Barr, who at the time said Hubley wasn’t interested. Masser said he hadn’t heard that, and said if that was the case, Barr was not speaking on behalf of the entire board. Barr did not directly respond to Greenhaus.
Charles Greenhaus also said specifics are vague about what customers will eventually be paying for the new sewer system.
After the executive session, the board reconvened at 6:13 p.m., but took no further action.
Details from two other engineering firms reviewing the approved Act 537 plan — Frederick E. Ebert, of Ebert Engineering Inc., Skippack, and Entech Engineering, Pottsville — were recently published in The Republican-Herald. The Concerned Citizens group had hired Ebert and provided a copy of the report to the Tri-Valley Library in Hegins for public view. Hegins Township hired Entech. Both engineering reports indicated the project could cost more than anticipated and other alternatives may not have been considered.
The next Hubley Township supervisor meeting will be at 5 p.m. March 7.