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.

David Makara, one of the attorneys representing the Paradise Watch Dogs continued his questioning of Walter B. Satterthwaite, principal of W. B. Satterthwaite Assocs., Inc.

Makara - What was the diameter of the wells you dug? Satterthwaite - 6” in diameter

Makara - Did you conduct flow tests on the residential wells.  Satterthwaite - No, they were in use.

Makara - Did you conduct any water table tests? Satterthwaite - Yes, a number of tests.

Makara - When were these tests conducted? Satterthwaite - At the time of the detailed onsite testing.

Makara - Can you give me the dates. Satterthwaite - Some yes, where we received permission.

Makara - Any other measurements to measure water table? Satterthwaite - No

Makara - You are not a municipal planner and have no formal training in municipal planning do you?  Satterthwaite - No

Makara - Any way to project the long range pumping on the water table? Satterthwaite - Yes, the tests we did do that.

Makara - Can the test tell what is going to happen to the aquifer over 5 years? Satterthwaite - It’s possible.

Makara - Do you agree that the 72 hour pump test has limitations over a 5 year period? Satterthwaite - No, I wouldn’t agree.

Makara - Can the 72 hour test give indications after 10 years? Satterthwaite - Not as exact a number, but it is sufficient.

Makara - Is it possible that the cone of effect could extend over a greater geographic area? Satterthwaite - It depends on the depth of the quarry. The test went to 400 feet, is is the proposed depth of the quarry.

Makara - No further questions. 

Andy Levine, attorney representing the Archdiocese of Philadelphia next cross-examined Satterthwaite.

Andy Levine - Please refer to Exhibit 25. Do you recall that it recounts ground water contamination from the period 1988-89?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - There is a reference to volatile organic chemicals. Are you familiar with any sampling being done between 1989 and your sampling in 2001? Satterthwaite - No.

Levine - Do you believe your sampling constituted a sufficient amount of data for volatile organic chemicals. Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - You found traces of methylethylketone. Why did you believe that the 1988-89 samples were laboratory contaminated?  Satterthwaite - There were four sampling events. Volatile chemicals were found during two events.

Levine - It is plausible that there might have been further investigation instead of saying it is laboratory contamination? Satterthwaite - It seemed to be the most plausible explanation.

Levine - You did one sample after 12 years? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Does ground water flow vary according to season in an area like this. Satterthwaite - No

Levine - Isn’t it possible that contamination might have moved over a period of 12 years? Satterthwaite - We only it in one out of four samples---so that’s not a reliable finding.

Levine - Is it possible that there was a contaminant plume moving around the site and you just missed it? Satterthwaite - The chances that it would move does not make sense.

Levine - Are you familiar with Pennsylvania Act 2 Land Recycling?. Isn’t it typical that DEP asks eight quarters of data because of flow speed of the ground water?   Satterthwaite - That’s not the only reason.

Levine - In 1989 there was a hint of contamination. After 12 years you do not decide to retest. You concluded (to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty) that this was adequate?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - But the last ground water analysis was in 1989. The point is, there was no follow-up and that there was contamination. Wouldn’t it be prudent to follow-up? Satterthwaite - Yes, but the other well that was ten feet away didn’t show anything.

Levine - In your report on page 13 you found toluene in excess of Act 2 “Drinking Water Standards”---did you not?---and in a well in the south west of the site. Satterthwaite - No

Levine - I meant TCE.  Wasn't TCE above Act 2 standards---isn’t this worth more study? Satterthwaite - No, we didn’t do the original analysis. We went by the Triegal report. We believed the Triegal report.

Levine - Do you believe (to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty) that you have enough information to give to the PA Department of Environmental Protection? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Is there a uniform ground flow direction? Satterthwaite - To the South.

Levine - Since it flows from the South you might argue that contamination might be found in the North? Satterthwaite - Yes, it’s possible.

Levine - If I understand the Triegal Report, they had three sampling events and you’ve had the fourth. Wouldn’t you normally conduct a sampling event in the same year? Satterthwaite - It depends on who provided that data. I would have done two rounds.

Levine - You believe (beyond a reasonable degree of scientific certainty) Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Is there fractured bedrock? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Does fractured bedrock influence the direction of the flow? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Will fractured bedrock influence the flow of any contaminants? Satterthwaite - Yes, but it flows downhill.

Levine - Are you aware of current ground water tests being done now? Satterthwaite - No

Levine - Is it feasible that the DEP might ask for further studies?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Will the DEP grant a permit before further studies are complete?  Satterthwaite - No

Levine - Hypothetically, if there is contamination, can it break off?  Satterthwaite - Not likely

Levine - Flow off site? Satterthwaite - No

Levine - Is it possible for chemicals to flow differently than water? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Are TCEs lighter or heavier than water?  Satterthwaite - Lighter---but I expect TCE to mix with water.

Levine - Are you aware familiar with the idea of presumptive evidence of contamination of the water in the Commonwealth? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - What constitutes “preseumptive evidence”? Satterthwaite - Salt in water, for instance.

Levine - Could pre-existing contamination be considered in this? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Do you believe that the zoning hearing board can approve your appeal without fully understanding the ground water contamination issues and supply? Satterthwaite - That’s why I’m here.

Levine - In your opinion then, your study proves that the ground water is not contaminated? Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Can the zoning hearing board adequately approve (for the safety of the community) without fully knowing ground water contamination? Satterthwaite - I’d want a lot of information.

Levine - Is what you provided “a lot” of information?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Levine - Isn’t Exhibit A25 Phase 1 and 2...isn’t this the universe of information that you are presenting to the board?  Satterthwaite - There’s other studies.

Levine - This Phase 1 and 2 is the only information about volatile organic chemicals? Satterthwaite - I believe that this is the case.

Levine - Is there any other information about sampling organic compounds?  Satterthwaite - That’s all.

Levine - In your opinion (to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty) this is all the New Hanover Zoning Hearing Board needs to rule? Satterthwaite - Yes, in terms of water quality.

Roger Buchannan

Local resident Roger Buchannan next cross-examined Satterthwaite.  Roger’s entire examination can be summarized by the simple concept “if you dig a big hole that fills with water, where does the water come from?”  Buchannan’s examination was based on common sense mixed with facts and conjecture.  Satterthwaite never really gave Buchannan a common sense answer, but repeatedly replied re-stating the results of his studies---using science and statistics to back his claims while obviously doing so to keep Buchannan (and others) in the dark.

Some of Buchannan’s interesting points:

Buchannan - So, water comes from off the property, from the north to fill up the well---quarry?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Buchannan - So it comes from neighboring residents wells?  Satterthwaite - No

Buchannan - You don’t know where the water comes from?  Satterthwaite - We do know where it comes from---it comes from the surrounding area.

Buchannan - What degree of confidence do you have that the quarry won’t take water from the surrounding wells.  Satterthwaite - Very confident.

Buchannan - So you’re going to dig 400 feet down?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Buchannan - Regardless of the size of the well it will take 40 gallons per minute?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Buchannan - This water is going to have to come from somewhere. Won’t it drain the water of the surrounding area?  Satterthwaite - In my opinion that will never be a problem.

Buchannan - As you move the cone isn’t it possible to affect wells 2, 3, 4, or even 5 miles away?  Satterthwaite - No, the fractures are small.

Buchannan - So where does the water come from that fills the hole?  Satterthwaite - From the surrounding area.

Note: Are you beginning to sense an Abbott and Costello routine---so did we...who's on first?

Mr. Shaw, a local resident, was next to question Satterthwaite.

Shaw - As you go to 100 feet diameter, won’t the flow rate increase?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Shaw - Would it be correct when the quarry reaches 100 feet diameter that it will dry out the surrounding area?  Satterthwaite - No, limited fracture zones that allow water to come in.

Shaw - How much water will the quarry need to operate?  Satterthwaite - A small amount for dust suppression. 20-30,000 gallons a day.

Shaw - Are you familiar with the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Ground Water Protected Area Regulations?  Satterthwaite - GWPA regulations restrict the amount of water that is drawn on a monthly basis, but quarries are not in this because they return water to the area.

Shaw - As I understand it, ANY withdrawal of water (more than 10,000 gallons a day) requires a DRBC approval.   Satterthwaite - Quarries are not in the same rules.

Shaw - Are you familiar with underground radioactive areas?  Satterthwaite - Yes

Shaw - Are any near the quarry?  Satterthwaite - The most famous is the Reading Prong. The source of data is not properly formulated---the data on this is not scientifically founded?

Shaw - Was the water to the quarry tested for Radon? Satterthwaite - No

The next meetings will be February 27, 2002. 

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (12/19/01)

Additional Observations
The following are some additional points recorded by a local resident.

Three ground water tests took place from October 1988 to May 1989, with no ground water testing from May 1989 to Feb 2001.  (Satterthwaite admitted doing 1 test.)

MEK was found in 1989 and Satterthwaite dismissed because he believed the laboratory caused the contamination so the results were not reliable.

On his Feb 27, 2001 report, page 13, Satterthwaite mentioned a 'hint' of TCE.  He reported 23 parts per billion which is ABOVE acceptable standards. 

Satterthwaite admitted the "Triegal Report" made 3 tests and his one test made a total of 4 tests.  And he accepted data that came from tests 10-years old.

In Roger Buchanan's questioning, Satterthwaite admitted; 'as the quarrying gets closer to the homes on Church Road the 'cone' could change and affect the residential wells to the extend the wells may need to replaced.'

Satterthwaite also admitted doing work for other quarries which caused 'some wells to have been drawn down but haven't gone dry'.