8/9/2006

Showell wastewater discharge study debated
By Bob Lassahn

At first blush what appeared to be a simple approval of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to go out for bids turned into a somewhat heated discussion during the August 1 meeting of the Worcester County Commissioners. The matter focused on selecting a consultant to advise the commissioners on conversion of the existing Perdue waste treatment plant to processing human waste and an application from ADC Builders, INC. (ADC) to amend the County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.

ADC is in the process of creating a residential planned community (RPC) on approximately 362 acres in the Showell area that will utilize about 1,000 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) of capacity from the retrofitted Perdue chicken waste treatment facility. The plant could result in a total capacity of about 4,000 EDUs and the remaining capacity would be turned over to the county.

The sticking point is the existing discharge permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment, which allows discharge of the treated effluent into a tributary that eventually feeds the Saint Martin River and would wind up in the coastal bays. The commissioners are concerned that the discharge from the 4,000 EDU total could degrade water quality in what are often considered stressed areas. The commissioners wish to better understand the implications and explore the alternative of spray irrigation.

The projected time frame to solicit bids, approve a consultant and receive the recommendations of the study could extend the process well past December. The delay drew criticism from Commissioner Tom Cetola and, with suspension of the rules, from attorney Mark Cropper representing ADC. Commissioner Cetola took the position that county staff should be able to provide the required expertise and the RFP was not only an unnecessary delay, but also an unnecessary expense. He was not successful in convincing his fellow commissioners on that argument.

According to Mr. Cropper's understanding resolution of the treatment plant questions precluded filing other requisite processes such as an amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The delay was in his view excessive and placed an unnecessary financial burden on his client while the issue is studied.

A suggestion from Ed Tudor, director of Development Review and Permitting that other application processes could move forward on a parallel track and agreement to that offering by the commissioners provided some assurance to Mr. Cropper. He specifically requested that some hearings might be combined since testimony would be consistent to many of the issues being considered.

In the end the commissioners directed staff to compress the time frame for response to the RFP and the final report from the vendor to the greatest extent possible. They also assured Mr. Cropper that other issues involved in considering the new development could move forward without delay. Mr. Cetola was the only dissenting vote in approval of the RFP.

Send an Email Letter to Courier Editor - be sure to include your telephone number.