Note: The following is not a verbatim transcript of the Zoning Hearing Board meeting; it is simply one person’s summary of the major points made by those involved in the hearing process.  For that reason, quotation marks are not used unless a direct quote was recorded.  For information about obtaining an official ZHB transcript, contact the New Hanover Township office.

This meeting was a bit shorter than the previous meetings. In this meeting cross-examination of Douglas Rudenko, VP and NE Regional Manager and manager of technical services for Vibra Tech Engineering was opened up to the public. As a result two members of the community took the opportunity to question Mr. Rudenko.    

The first resident to question Mr Rudenko began by asking how many homeowners he had represented in cases against quarries. While claiming that there were cases, Mr. Rudenko admitted that he never helped a member of the public win a case against a quarry.

Mr. Rudenko was then challenged by the resident on potential problems in a number of the publications used to support the case for the quarry. The resident challenged Mr. Rudenko on the thrust of one of his previous publications in which he claimed that quarry blasting and vibration issues were more a matter of public relations and less a real geological matter. Mr. Rudenko concurred that this was, in fact, his opinion.

The resident then pointed out to Mr. Rudenko that his book, used as a reference for the quarry's case, had many citations that seemed to be very dated. Mr Rudenko was asked if he thought that the use of citations, where a large percentage were “decades” old, had in some way detracted from the veracity of the final product. Referring again to this same publication the resident asked why the “Bureau of Mines” was so heavily referenced since they had been de-funded by the government previously. The resident wanted to know if Mr. Rudenko thought that this might detract from the citation's support of his publication. The witness responded by claiming that Issac Newton is still referenced while he is centuries old. He also said he “does not believe” that the de-funding of The Bureau of Mines was an indication that is was found wanting.

Then the resident, assuming the Mr Rudenko to be an expert on the effects of blasting, questioned him about these effects on certain segments of the population, specifically the elderly and children with neurological disorders. The resident wanted to know if these segments of the populations would be more detrimentally effected than what the studies might show among the general population. Mr. Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock, objected to this line of questioning and the Zoning Hearing Board chair sustained the objection on the grounds that Mr Rudenko, the witness, was not an expert on human psychology. The resident, in a later set of questions, asked the witness what he thought the effects of the blasting would be on attendees of the PVA school, located adjacent to the quarry and catering to children with ADHD. Again an objection was sustained for the same reason.

After this resident stepped down the second resident to question Mr. Rudenko took the podium. This resident wanted to know more about how the quarry will monitor the effects of blasting on neighboring structures. Mr. Rudenko pointed out that a seismograph was used to measure the ground vibrations of the structure nearest each blast site as the blasting takes place and that this means that as blasting is done in different areas of the quarry, different structures will be monitored.

The resident pointed out that the study submitted into evidence doesn't cover extended blasting on structures other than wooden frame structures. He wanted to know about the effects, not of short periods of blasting, but of years of continuous ground vibrations on all types of structures.

Not really receiving an answer to this the resident went on to ask who determines what new cracks that appear in a neighboring structure are caused by the quarry. Mr. Rudenko pointed out that the Bureau of Mines study answers how measured seismograph results are used to determine culpability. If the quarry conducted seismograph test shows vibrations in excess of “Bureau of Mines” acceptable limits then the quarry would be liable for the damage. If a homeowner thinks that problems he's experiencing are a result of quarry activity then his only recourse (given that the quarry insists they are not at fault) is the through the PA DEP.

The resident continued along this line of questioning by asking Mr. Rudenko if he was ever involved with remediation due to blasting damage. Mr. Rudenko said that he had been in the sense that the control of ground vibrations could be considered remediation when used to prevent future occurrences of a problem.

The resident then asked if it was possible to increase the intensity of a blast by making mistakes presumably on placement and delay timing. The witness concurred that this is a possibility. The witness explained that certain vibration frequency ranges are responsible for the damage in neighboring structures and that these frequencies and intensities are controlled by the delay timing of a series of charges. Mr. Rudenko explained that in effect, charges timed correctly can have a cancellation effect, and this `effect is achieved by proper blast design. Blast design is executed by characterizing the geologic conditions and using computer simulations for determining placement and timing.

The focus of the line of questioning was then shifted and the resident asked Mr. Rudenko if his company would obtain future contracts with Gibraltar Rock if the quarry is granted. The witness admitted that their firm was enlisted by Gibraltar Rock to help characterize the the geology of the area. The resident asked the witness if he thought this constituted a conflict of interest. Mr. Rudenko claimed that he did not think that this was a conflict of interest. Stunned and somewhat speechless, the resident began to question the witness on what a “conflict of interest” could possibly be when an objection by Mr. Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock, was sustained by the board chair.

The witness then asked if “flyrock” from a blast could travel 20 feet outside of the quarry and hit his daughter while she was playing in their front yard. Mr. Rudenko admitted that this was possible but that flyrock is a rare occurrence. This line of questioning soon lead to the fact that the witness had personally investigated an incident of flyrock that went 1000 feet.

Next it was the Zoning Hearing Board's turn for questioning. The ZHB first asked at what point during the development of the quarry will the test blasts be done. Mr. Rudenko didn't know the answer. They also asked if blasting could accelerate the settling of newly constructed homes. Mr. Rudenko firmly committed that he didn't believe so. The board then asked how the area of radius from the blasting site within which homes would be cataloged was to be determined. Mr. Rudenko responded that this is stipulated by the DEP. Finally the ZHB asked about the Berger study which found that excavation activity of the quarry can cause the failure of surrounding water supplies. Mr. Rudenko said that he was an expert on blasting and not an expert on excavation and that they would have to ask an excavation expert.

Mr. Harris, attorney for Gibraltar Rock, was then allowed time to redirect. He asked if vibration limits apply to all types of structures and not simply residential houses. Mr. Rudenko answered that many types of structures are covered: commercial, residential, agricultural, etc. Mr Harris then asked how the standards are set for residential would apply to the other types. Mr. Rudenko responded that, since residential plaster interior is the most fragile, the residential standards are a more conservative criteria. Mr Harris asked the witness about his personal experience with flyrock and it seems that the witness had only investigated a single occurrence, but as a supervisor he could not name the number of incidents he dealt with. The witness was then asked about the test blasting. The witness explained that the test blasting was done prior to any actual blasting; a “signature blast” was done first. He also explained that the area involved in pre-blast survey was set by DEP and that the DEP standards were very conservative and that no structural damage could occur if vibration levels were held to those standards.

Francis Recchuiti, an attorney for a local resident was then allowed a redirect. He asked Mr. Rudenko if he was saying that it is “not possible” to have damage done at these levels; to which the witness concurred.

Finally the Board had one additional question about damage to personal property within residences as opposed to the residences themselves. The witness said that there was a possibility that precariously placed dishes, vases and other “nick-nacks” could be damaged and that it would be the responsibility of the residents to place these objects where they would be safe. The board asked about damage to windows but was reassured that the DEP “air over pressure” standards insured that none would occur.

At this point the questioning of Douglas Rudenko ended and since there were no other witness ready the meeting was adjourned to July 30^th when Mr. Saterswaith will return.

The next meetings will be July 30, 2002.

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (May 2002)