PORT ALLEGANY – Everyone seems to agree that Port Allegany’s
sewer system needs improvement, but just how that should be done is
a matter of some disagreement.

Representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection met Monday with borough council and other officials to
try to hash out some differences and strengthen communications.

The borough had recently applied for up to $3.2 million from a
Pennvest grant and loan program to replace about one third of the
town’s aging sewer lines, hoping the resulting reduction in
groundwater infiltration would eliminate the periodic overflows at
the treatment plantðand satisfy DEP requirements.

But DEP did not give the application its recommendation, and the
application was never considered by Pennvest.

Ricardo Gilson, regional manager of DEP’s Water Management
Program, told the group that his purpose at the meeting was “to
find out where you are, and where you are going.”

Gilson said that DEP was concerned the borough was not doing
enough to solve its problems, which sometimes allow untreated
sewage water to flow into the Allegheny River, and that the borough
had no approved Corrective Action Plan.

“You guys had a year to get your act together, and you haven’t
done it,” he told Borough Manager Dick Kallenborn and the
others.

Kallenborn reminded Gilson of a December meeting in which he had
met with DEP and Pennvest andðthought he had assurances that DEP
would support the borough as it looked for sewer replacement
funding.

He displayed a letter from DEP’s Steve Smith, who represented
the department at the December meeting, in which Smith wrote “I
look forward to working with you on this project.”

Smith, who was present Monday, broke in with, “I told you there
were no guarantees.”

Gilson and his party replied that the borough had never supplied
sufficient data for DEP to judge whether replacing the old pipes
would have a significant effect upon the inflow, and that they
could not recommend to application because they lacked
evidence.

Engineer Brian Strykulaðtalked at length upon the difficulty of
providing specific data on sewage flow, pointing to the
unreliability of various meters used for flow measurement.ðHe also
noted that proving that improvements had been made was difficult
because there was no base data to compare to and each rain event
was different.

The engineer also referred to a consent order in which the
borough agreed to eliminate all overflows by December of 2008.ðHe
noted that it would be almost impossible for the borough to meet
the timetable if it also has to do an Act 537 revised plan.

Strykula told the DEP people that “much depends upon the 537
study” and that the borough was trying hard to meet all
requirements and prevent all inflows.

Kallenborn argued the borough has been making a good faith
effort to meet standards, and that part of the problem came from
industry, saying that there are jobs at stake, and “We can’t kill
the goose that laid the golden egg.”

He also spoke of his and the community’s concern for the
environment, something that was expressed by Councilwoman Lynn
Farber. “We love our community and love the river – we want to do
what is right.”

Mayor Joe DeMott asked what had happened to cause DEP to come
down on the borough – “When did we become the Polluter of the
East?”

Gilson replied that the Pennvest application seemed to indicate
the borough was going in the wrong direction.

Styrkula and others answered that they had no preconceived
notions, but thought that reducing inflow while continuing to look
for other solutions was prudent. He noted that he had seen sewer
replacement be effective in a number of other communities.

When DeMott asked “What do you want us to do?” Gilson seemed
reluctant to offer any specifics, but did say the borough may have
to build a large storage tank to hold sewage in periods of heavy
rain.

Strykula pointed out that such tanks cost about $1 for each
gallon capacity and Kallenborn reminded that the City of DuBois had
been required to build such a tank, and that it had overflowed
during a period of significant rain.

Gilson agreed that no matter how large a tank was built, an
overflow could occur, and did not deny the borough could then be
penalized.

Strykula and others argued that the millions that would go into
building a tank could better be spent on trying to eliminate the
source of the problem by installing new sewer lines as quickly as
the borough can come up with the money.ðð

Money from the Pennvest grant, if the application had been
approved, could have replaced about one-third of the existing
sewers,ðthe engineerðsaid.

While borough officials continued to argue that a storage tank
is too expensive and impractical, Gilson said after meeting that
whatever solutions the Act 537 study reaches, he believes that
there is a storage tank in Port Allegany’s future.