-
B:
Document A-146 was introduced by Gibraltar Rock and presented to this
zoning Board on November 3, 2005. Mr. Turner, Are you, on behalf
of Trinity Consultants, the author of A-146? T: I
am a joint author with two other people from Kansas City office.
With input from another person outside his firm.
-
B:
Do you regard yourself as a competent scientist in your profession?
T: Yes
-
B:
Would you classify A-146 as a scientific report consistent with the
scientific method? T: Yes
-
B:
As a published scientist, Mr. Turner, is it your understanding that a
scientific report can only be regarded as valid when it can be
replicated? T: Yes
-
B:
As a scientist are you willing to have your document, A-146, scrutinized
in the way that scientific documents are normally reviewed? T: Yes
-
B:
If your document A-146 is ambiguous, unclear, lacks precision or is
confusing so as to make it impossible to replicate, would that be reason
for your document to be rejected? T: It
would however, all of the data used in making calculation have been
furnished on a CD. Can’t
figure why there might be any ambiguity. Yes reject.
-
B:
If your document A-146 is inconsistent or contradicts itself, or if it
has data that is at odds with itself, would that be reason for your
document to be rejected? T: Yes,
I believe it would.
-
B:
If your document A-146 has input data in one part of the report
that is at odds with input data in another part of the report would that
be reason for your document to be rejected? T: Yes
-
If
your document A-146 has production data in one part of the report that
is at odds with production data in another part of the report, that
would be reason for your document to be rejected? T: No
– without clarification. The production data was much higher
production rates than what is shown elsewhere.
-
B:
If your document A-146 contains a statement of fact that can not be
verified, would that be reason for your document to be rejected?
T: Perhaps
so.
-
B:
If your document A-146 lacks essential information so that it can
not be replicated, would that be reason for your document to be
rejected? T: No,
impossible to give all of the input data for the modeling in the
document. All data is on
the CD.
-
B:
If your document A-146 has arbitrary data as a replacement for normal
calculations, would that be reason for your document to be rejected?
T: Mr. Harris objected.
-
B:
Did Gibraltar Rock review A-146 prior to the presentation on November 3rd?
T: Yes,
a representative of GRI. B: On page A-3, are you telling us
that it took your fairly powerful computer 870 hours of computing time
to complete this study and prepare this document?
T: If
that’s what it says. 870 hours.
-
B:
Did you program your computer to ignore arithmetic mistakes? T: No.
-
B:
Did you program your computer to ignore data that is at odds with
itself? T: No, I don’t think there would be data at odds with itself.
-
B:
How many hours of programming was required? T: None,
in the modeling. Preparation of the run stream or input took time. That would
be on the order of 6-8 hours (run 1).
-
B:
Did you do all the programming or was it assigned to an
associate? T: No,
co-authors did the computer runs.
-
B:
With all of that computation taking place is it still true that garbage
in is garbage out? T: Yes
-
B:
What did it cost Gibraltar Rock for the programming time and the 870
hours of computer time? T: Unable
to answer that, as both KC and himself submit time and does billing. B: Are
you confident that A-146 is accurate, internally consistent and free of
errors? T: Yes.
-
B:
Is Gibraltar Rock confident that A-146 is accurate, internally
consistent, is free of errors and correctly represents their business
plan and operation? Harris: Objection
– He can’t speak for that. I regard them as accurate, based on what
he got from GRI.
-
B:
Have you compared A-146 for consistency with the application made by
Gibraltar Rock to DEP for a noncoal mining permit? T: No.
-
B:
Have you compared A-146 with the revisions, the correspondence and the
conditions attached to the Gibraltar Rock application, and the DEP
approval, and did you find A-146 consistent with these other documents?
T: No.
-
B:
Are there any statements in A-146 that are at odds with a corresponding
statement in any of the documents pertaining to the Gibraltar Rock
application? Harris: Objection
– I don’t have the knowledge of any documents.
-
B:
Do any of the statements in A-146 suggest that Gibraltar Rock needs to
modify its agreements and understandings with DEP? T: We
did propose some changes – I don’t know if these have been
incorporated.
-
B:
Since A-146 is the most recent document submitted to this board, does it
supersedes all previous documents submitted to this zoning hearing
board? T: Well,
let me attempt to answer. We submitted a previous report that the
conclusion were correct, I would view A146 as an appendix. It doesn’t
supercede it.
-
B:
Is the equipment used for the quarry operations and processing
described in A-146 the same as the equipment inventory previously
submitted to this zoning hearing board? T: No,
I don’t believe so. The equipment may be the same but the calculations
of emissions might have changed.
-
B:
Do the crushing and screening operations referred to in A-46 represent
the same size and quantity as the crushers and screens previously
described and submitted to this zoning hearing board? T: I
don’t know.
-
B:
Are the stockpile numbers and sizes and the loadout areas in A-146 the
same as previously submitted to this zoning hearing board? T: I
don’t know.
-
B:
Is the truck traffic essential for the operations described in
A-146 consistent with the truck traffic data previously submitted to
this zoning hearing board? T: Probably
not. B: Does
this document supercede the exhibits and information we’ve already
received? T: Yes, in my opinion it probably would.
-
B:
Are the hours of operation as set forth in A-146 the same hours of
operation previously submitted to this zoning hearing board? T: I
don’t know. What is in
report are estimations of hours of operation that GRI has looked at and
said that’s the way they intended to operate.
-
B:
Will the noise level associated with activities described in
A-146 be within the noise limits established by the ordinances of New
Hanover Township? T: I’m
not a noise expert.
-
B:
Is the mining plan in A-146 consistent with previously submitted
mining plans? T: I
don’t know.
-
Are
we to assume that if any discrepancies are found in the future, A-146
will supersede all previous documents? T: I
don’t know.
-
B:
On page 1, lines 4, do you see the phrase: “annual throughput
rates”? T: Yes
-
B:
On page 1, line 8 do you see the words: “operating at the modeled
capacity”? T: Yes.
-
B:
Does the phrase “annual throughput rate” mean the same as
“operating at the modeled capacity”? T: No
– It would mean the same for annual estimate of concentrations, but
operating at modeled capacity would be different, because we are
assuming maximum operation. Modeling
was done for 2 periods and attempts were made for five years of PM10,
also modeling was done to make an estimate of second high 24 hour
concentration for modeling each day of the year. Emissions were much
higher rates for year as a whole. Emissions for 24 hr. were highest
rates, not related to annual operation.
-
B:
What do you mean when you use the words: “annual throughput rates.”?
T: The
rates on an annual basis for different equipment. It is same for
addressing the annual concentration.
-
B:
On page 25, second paragraph, do you see the words: “maximum
hourly or annual production”? T: Yes.
-
B:
When you write on page 25: “maximum hourly or annual production” are
you referencing two different measures or are they the same thing?
T: Two
different measures. Hourly will give higher number because you’re
using highest rate for 24 hour period.
Two different computations.
-
B:
If we took the maximum hourly production times the number of
working hours in a year, would the result be annual production? T:
No.
-
B:
On page 25 do you see the words: “maximum potential throughput” in
three places, paragraph 3, 4 & 5?. T: Yes.
-
B:
Is “maximum potential throughput” for a year computed by taking the
design hourly capacity of a process in question, times the number of
working hours in a year? T: No.
Buchanan: What is it then? Turner:
Max Potential Throughput, would result in highest emission rates for
that piece of equipment. So, yes your statement would be true. To
compute it we have to look at the time period. The MPT for 24 hr. period
would be what you are saying, but on annual basis, you could get a MPT
by doing what you say…Yes, you could obtain a figure that would
represent that.
-
B:
Is the “maximum potential throughput” as used on page 25 the same as
“operating at the modeled capacity” as used on page 1? T: No.
-
B:
Help me understand “maximum potential throughput.” On page 41,
Table 2-27, column 4, line 9, the daily throughput rate for concrete is
listed as 4,320 yds. Is the maximum potential throughput computed
by taking the daily throughput rate of 4,320 times 6 to give us a weekly
throughput rate and that number time 52 to give us an annual throughput
rate? T: No.
Buchanan: why not? Turner: Annual considers those periods when asphalt
production is done at a lower level.
Yes, you are right again.
-
B:
Is the maximum potential throughput for concrete 1,347,840 cu.
yds.? T: True.
-
B:
What is the modeled capacity for concrete? T: Two
levels – one 24 hours and other is much lower emission number for
annual modeled throughput based on operating at lower levels.
-
B:
Lets go back to page 25. Why are the emission rates
calculated on the maximum potential throughput and not on modeled
capacity? T: Because the emission rates on MPT is for the very
highest possible emission rate. Now that value is used for peak hours
not for all hours. I think
they are based on both---we’re talking about two different things.
-
B:
Are the emission rates higher or lower when emissions are calculated on
the maximum potential throughput rather than the modeled capacity?
T: It's higher for MPT.
-
B:
If the emission rates as discussed on page 25 were calculated on the
modeled capacity would they be higher or lower? T: I’m
not sure the exact meaning of “modeled capacity” I think it means
the restricted hours of operation.”
I think the answer is lower.
-
B:
What is the total projected annual tonnage of rock produced, sold
as rock, and used internally for asphalt and concrete? T: I
believe it’s given on Table B-1.
300,000 tons of stone shipped to customers and I believe in terms
of maximizing our estimates we did not subtract from that the stone used
in production of asphalt and concrete.
But we included the stone in calculating.
Buchanan asks the question again:
Turner I believe it is 300,000 tons. I’m not positive.
Buchanan: Look again, isn’t it 500,000?
I believe you are correct, 500,000 tons.
-
B:
What is the total projected annual tonnage of rock to be sold as rock?
T: 300,000
tons I believe.
-
B:
What is the total projected annual tonnage of rock to be sold as
asphalt? T: 105,000
tons. Buchanan tells him
that 5,000 is rock and 100,000 is asphalt.
-
B:
What is the total projected annual tonnage of rock to be sold as
concrete? T: I
don’t know. Buchanan
says, “By deduction it should be 100,000. You have to realize my
expertise is in dispersion not the operation of quarries.
Buchanan: I’m not concerned about your profession; I’m
concerned about your document.
-
B:
Will you explain from page 1 the phrase: “operating at the
modeled capacity.”? T: On
annual basis they would be.
-
B:
Are you telling us that the quarry will not operate in excess of
the modeled capacity? T: Don’t
know.
-
B:
Are there any assurances that production will not exceed modeled
capacity? T: I
would assume that state of Pa will take that in to consideration.
-
B:
How does modeled capacity compare to annual production and annual
throughput? T: Modeled
capacity for annual basis when you sum various production rates over
whatever scheduling, would come up to the same numbers: Annual
Throughput results in annual production.
-
B:
Will there be any community notification or alerts that
production is exceeding modeled capacity? T: I
don’t know.
-
B:
Is the phrase “operating at the modeled capacity” a statement
about hourly, daily, weekly or annual operations? T: Refers
to whatever it included where it is used.
-
B:
What is the calculation by which the hourly tonnage can be computed if
the annual tonnage is given? T: I
don’t believe it can. Hourly values for the annual concentration
estimates could be obtained to the values you specified. The hourly
values for 24 hour periods looking at maximum possible could not be
obtained from annual values. Buchanan
re-asks the question. Turner:
It can’t be done for purposes of the report.
Also, it depends on what you mean by hourly. Buchanan: Table 2-27. If we knew hours per day and annual
throughput could we get hourly throughput.
Turner: I don’t think so…I’m not sure if the numbers on the
table can be calculated.
-
B:
What is the calculation by which the annual tonnage can be
computed if the hourly tonnage is given? T: The
annual is based on a starting point.
I don’t think it can be.
-
B:
Is this calculation consistently applied throughout A-146?
Harris: Objection.
-
B:
What is the relationship between production and emissions? T: Emission
factor times production rate will give you emissions for the short time
period (mostly on an hourly basis).
-
B:
Is there a point at which actual production would result in air
quality that does not meet NAAQS or deposition that does not meet
PASAAQS? T: I’m
sure that there is.
-
B:
Can you give us the production threshold that will lead to air
that exceeds either Standard? T: No
I cannot, that figure would be based on all of the different sources,
which could be different rates.
-
B:
On page 9, line 3, do you see the sentence, “The annual
emissions are calculated based on the annual production of the proposed
plant, accounting for plant hours of operation.”? T: Yes.
-
B:
Where do we find the annual production of the proposed plant? T: In
the table we were looking at.
-
B:
How do the final six words of that sentence, the words after the comma,
change the meaning of the sentence? T: For
stone hauled and the overburden, those are 12 hours a day, the others
are 24 hour a day operation.
-
B:
Are you telling us on page 24 that product loadout onto customer
trucks occur 24 hours per day? T: Yes,
I believe so.
-
B:
Are you telling us on page 24 that product loadout onto customer trucks
is the only activity that operates 24 hours per day? T: No.
There are other things. Activities in both pits, south pit is 24 hours
per day. The two operations in south pit are wind erosion and truck
traffic. That paragraph is
only talking about the pits.
-
B:
On page 24, last paragraph, do you see the sentence, “The
remaining operations in the south pit operate 12 hours per day, 6 days
per week.”? T: Yes.
-
B:
Do the words, “The remaining” on page 24 refer to all quarry
activities, all ready-mix concrete activities and all asphalt plant
activities except product loadout on to customer trucks? T: Oh
no. These are the activities in the pit not the rest of the quarry.
Buchanan: “The remaining”. The other things. I’m
trying to see if it’s broken down.
It’s B-6. There a
number of activities, wet drilling, blasting of over burden. I can’t
readily tell you what they all are.
-
B:
Are you telling us on page 24 that with the exception of customer
truck loading all other activities in both the South and North pit will
be conducted during the 12 hour period from 6:00 to 6:00, 6 days a week?
T: Yes.
-
B:
On page 36, sec 2.2.9, item 3, do you state that all of the activities
downwind of the surge pile including the secondary and tertiary crushers
will operate 16 hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.? T: Yes.
-
B:
Do the 12 hours of operation as described on page 24 contradict the 16
hours of operation as stated on page 36? T: That
would depend on aggregate plant is in the pit or outside the pit. I
don’t know that.
-
B:
On page 41, Table 2-27, you state in footnotes 2 & 3
that asphalt and concrete are produced 24 hours per day. Does your
statement here citing 24 hours per day contradict both the 12 hours you
describe on page 24 and the 16 hours of production that you describe on
page 36? T: Correct.
Absolutely not. If you examine each table in the report it’s clear.
-
B:
As used on page 1, when you write “operating at the modeled
capacity” do you means 12 hours, 16 hours or 24 hours per day?
T: Yes,
depending on which activity. 12
hrs./day: loading, hauling, stone hauling, stone processing.
16 hr./day: wet drilling, blasting.
-
B:
On page 41, Table 2-27, column 1 is labeled “Hourly Throughput
Rate.” Do these numbers also represent the modeled hourly
throughput rate? T: For
the 24-hour basis.
-
B:
Does column 1 also represent the capacity of each of the listed
activities? T: Yes
it does represent capacity
-
B:
What does column three tell us? T: It
is telling us the assumptions for the high second high how many hours
per day.
-
B:
Column four is labeled: “Daily Throughput Rate.” Do the
numbers in column four – the Daily Throughput Rate - represent the
Hourly Throughput Rate times the hours per day for each activity?
T: It
probably is, but I’m not positive about that.
-
B:
Column six is Annual Throughput Rate. How
did you arrive at the numbers in this column? T: Based
upon annual production rate of the entire quarry.
This is what is being produced for the year---some equipment will
be used less.
-
B:
In Table 2-27, on line 2 you give us the Daily Throughput Rate
for stone hauled as 12,000 tons. What multiplier did you use to
arrive at 1,000,000 tons for the annual throughput? T: Didn’t.
I started with a million tons
-
B:
Can we use for calculation purposes the number of working days in
a year as 6 X 52 or 312? T: Yes.
-
B:
If the daily throughput is the hourly throughput rate times the hours
per day, is the annual throughput the days worked in a year times the
daily throughput? T: No
it is not
-
B:
A daily throughput of 12,000 tons per day times the number of
working days is a year computes to an annual throughput of 3,744,000
tons per year. Isn’t this the accurate number and not 1,000,000
tons as you have reported on Table 2-27, line 2, column 6?
T: Not
operating at full capacity.
-
B:
Isn’t 1,000,000 tons an arbitrary number unrelated to normal
calculations? T: 1
million is not arbitrary. It came from expected production of the
quarry. Buchanan: I thought it was 500,000 tons. Turner: Oh I may be
wrong.
-
B:
On page 41, Table 2-27, line 3 you tell us that the Daily
Throughput Rate for asphalt is 7,200 tons. What multiplier did you
use to yield 105,000 tons for the annual throughput? T: Yes.
-
B:
Where did you get that multiplier? T: No
relationship there.
-
B:
With reference to Table 2-27 are you telling us that stone hauled
in both pits = stone processed in both pits? T: Yes.
-
B:
So, are you telling us that if the stone is processed, it is hauled?
T: Yes.
-
B:
Don’t you tell us in Table 2-27, line 5, column 4 that 12,000 tons is
processed in both pits and don’t you tell us on line 7, column 4 that
8,000 tons of stone are shipped? T: That’s
an assumption of the maximum. Not
a contradiction because we know where the shipment is taking place.
12,000 tons are not actually processed, but what are processed.
Buchanan: You put qualifiers in your comment. Where are they in
the document? Turner: Qualifiers are not there or they are not clear.
-
B:
Are you making two statements that contradict each other; one
being that stone processed is stone hauled and the other statement being
that 12,000 tons is processed and 8,000 tons are shipped? T: It
appears to be a conflict.
-
B:
You write in Table 2-27 that the stone processed in the
processing area is 8,880 tons. What multiplier did you use to take
the daily rate of 8,880 tons and then arrive at 500,000 tons annually?
T: Yes.
-
B:
Where did you get that multiplier? T: No
multiplier.
-
B:
On line 7 you show 8,000 tons as the daily throughput and 300,000
tons as the annual throughput. What multiplier did you use?
T: True.
-
B:
On line 7 you show 333 ton of stone shipped per hour. But you also
state in the line just above 333 tons that you processed 370 tons in the
same period of time. What happened to the other 37 ton that were
not shipped? T: Assuming
it is used in asphalt and concrete.
-
B:
In addition to the 370 tons per hour produced in the processing
area as you state on line 6 of Table 2-27, do you also show on page 4
two profiles totaling 130 tons per hour that do not go through the
processing area? T: Yes.
-
B:
Do you also show on page 5 an additional 130 tons per hour that do not
go through the processing area? T: That
looks like it’s going through secondary screening.
I believe you are correct.
-
B:
Are you telling us on page 4 and page 5 that both the South pit
and the North pit accumulate in stockpiles 130 tons per hour or 260 tons
per hour for both pits for 12 hours? T: Each
pit when operable produces 130 tons. For both pits operating
simultaneously over twelve hours. Yes it appears to be incorrect.
-
B:
With reference to page 41, footnote 1 of Table 2-27, why do you
show 16 hours in parenthesis when on column 3 line 7 the number is 24
hours? T: Because
it’s the exception.
-
B:
Does your arithmetic in footnote 1 tell us that 500 tons are
produced each hour for 16 hours and yields 8,000 tons per day? T:
Yes.
-
B:
How do you arrive at 500 tons per hour when the processing area yields
370 tons per hour and, as we have just reviewed, another 260 tons per
hour are stockpiled ahead of the processing area? T: I
believe the 370 results from splitting the 500 ton stream into two
pieces. 130 tons pass to
pile 3 and loader.
-
B:
If the processing area produces 370 tons per hour for 24 hours as
in line 6 of Table 2-27, and the preprocessing area stockpiles 260 tons
per hour for 12 hours, what is the total tons of stone shipped in 24
hours? T: I
don’t know.
-
B:
How did you compute your answer? T: 500,000
divided by 12,000
-
B:
If this quarry has the capacity to produce asphalt at 7,200 tons
per day as per Table 2-27, line three column four, how many days will it
take to produce 105,000 tons? T: 14,
16 days
-
B:
When operated at the stated capacity of 4,320 yds. of concrete
per day, as per Table 2-27, line nine, column four, how many days will
it take to produce the desired capacity of 50,000 yds.? T: 12,
13.
-
B:
Table 2-27 indicates that the stone processed in the processing area is
at the rate of 370 TPH, is that the same 370 TPH as shown as input in
the processing area on page 6? T: I
do not know. You’re probably right.
-
B:
Is there only one processing area so that the total processing capacity
of the proposed Gibraltar Rock quarry is 370 TPH? T: Yes.
-
B:
Is the processing area in the South pit and not the North pit? T: Not
in pits
-
B:
Do you tell us in Table 2-27 that the daily throughput for the
processing area is 8,880 tons? T: Yes
-
B:
Is 8,880 tons per day the product of 370 TPH times 24 hours? T:
Yes.
-
B:
But, don’t you tell us on page 24 that the South pit operate 12 hours
per day, 6 days per week? T: Yes,
I don’t have a ready explanation for that.
-
B:
In Table 2-27 the following activities are 24 hours per day,
asphalt produced and asphalt shipped, concrete produced and concrete
shipped, stone processed in the processing area and stone shipped.
24 hours per day is the multiplier in 6 calculations. Is this a
direct contradiction of the statement on page 24 that “The remaining
operations in the south pit operate 12 hours per day.”? T: On
table 2-27
