The East Rockhill supervisors voted this week to continue legal action against the controversial quarry north of the Pennridge Airport.
East Rockhill is continuing its opposition to the controversial Rockhill Quarry, after the township Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Monday at a special meeting to authorize new legal action to try and win zoning control over the site.
The 140-acre quarry, located north of the Pennridge Airport, became a major issue in East Rockhill when it sprang to life in late 2017 after several decades of near-complete dormancy. In the ensuing 18 months, the township, local residents, quarry owner Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania, and quarry operator Richard E. Pierson Materials have engaged in bitter zoning and court battles over its operation.
The issue appeared to largely be decided in the quarry’s favor in March, when a federal judge ruled that Pennsylvania law gives the quarry wide latitude to operate the site, beyond the control of the township. East Rockhill had been trying to enforce requirements regarding the slope of the quarry wall, land grading, and building construction, as well as require the quarry to obtain a special exception from its Zoning Hearing Board to increase extraction activities.
But the federal court kicked one important issue to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas: whether the township could prevent an asphalt plant from being constructed at the site.
Pierson plans to mine the quarry’s stone and turn it into asphalt, before shipping the materials to the Northeast Extension as part of a $224 million road-widening contract awarded by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission in 2017. The township has previously suggested during Zoning Hearing Board meetings that asphalt plants are only allowed in districts zoned for manufacturing, which the quarry is not.
Residents have raised concerns about potential air and noise pollution from an asphalt plant, and some have also predicted that without an on-site asphalt plant, the economics of Pierson’s use of the Rockhill Quarry could fall apart.
But the township hit an additional legal setback June 28, when Bucks County Judge Robert Mellon issued an order that he would decide the outcome of the asphalt plant, as opposed to it being decided with East Rockhill’s Zoning Hearing Board. That led to Monday’s vote, when the East Rockhill Supervisors voted to allow township solicitor Patrick Armstrong to appeal Mellon’s decision to Commonwealth Court.
“The (supervisors) authorized our office to file an appeal of Judge Mellon’s order taking jurisdiction away from the ZHB,” Armstrong confirmed in an email Tuesday.
Mellon’s decision had also rankled residents living near the quarry, several of whom have organized their opposition into the Rockhill Environmental Preservation Alliance (REPA). Over 40 residents had previously sought and obtained party status to the township’s Zoning Hearing Board process, and others also intervened in federal court. Mellon ruled in July against allowing a residents to similarly intervene in county court.
“REPA is disappointed that the asphalt plant matter seems to have been taken from the Zoning Hearing Board, where we are a party and believe it belongs,” the group said in a statement Tuesday. “We feel we have been deprived of due process.”
Resident Ryan Gottshall, whose family lives immediately adjacent to the quarry, expressed similar sentiments during an interview Monday.
“They basically took all the rights of the people,” Gottshall said. “All of the people that had party status have lost their right to speak.”
According to REPA, Mellon will first hear the case in the late September.
Work still halted over asbestos concerns
As the legal issues play out, work at the quarry remains halted as asbestos is investigated at the site. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ordered a work cessation Dec. 5 after the toxic mineral was found at the quarry. The DEP subsequently required a series of investigations into the extent of asbestos at the site, which spokeswoman Liz Rementer said continue.
“The investigation is still ongoing, and the cease order is still in place,” Rementer wrote in an email.
The asbestos matter has also become contentious, with residents and some local lawmakers raising concerns that the investigation, conducted by quarry contractor Earthres Group, of Pipersville, was not thorough enough. REPA said Monday it had hired its own engineering consultant, Erksine Environmental Consulting, of Benicia, California, to review the work, resulting in a report submitted to the DEP on June 6.
The report concluded that there is “little evidence that an appropriate geologic investigation has been conducted” at the quarry, and also provided a bevy of recommendations.
REPA said Monday it hired Erksine due to a lack of trust with the quarry’s own consultants.
“It is beyond concerning that DEP is permitting a conflict of interest by allowing quarry operators to self monitor and report,” REPA offered via email.
Rementer said Tuesday the DEP had taken its own rock samples from the site and would post the results publicly once analyzed.
Residents have found allies in state Sen. Steve Santarsiero, D-10, of Lower Makefield and U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-1, of Middletown, who have held public meetings and pressed the DEP to take additional actions at the quarry.
Santarsiero in particular has continued to question whether the quarry properly maintained its permit during the nearly 40 years it was dormant, starting in the early 1980s. By law, the quarry was required to remove 500 tons of stone each year, in order to keep its permit active and remain grandfathered around regulations put in place since.
In January, this news organization issued an investigative report on the matter, after reviewing hundreds of pages of DEP records and identifying unusual patterns and spotty recordkeeping for rock removal over the decades.
Santarsiero said Monday he and Fitzpatrick met as recently as June 15 with the DEP to continue expressing their concerns. He also submitted a letter to DEP June 21 asking the department to explain the issues with its records and how it had verified that the quarry abided by the law.
Santarsiero’s office said Tuesday it had received a response from the DEP and provided a copy. In the letter, Gary Latsha, acting district mining manager for the DEP, reiterated past statements that the DEP was confident stone was properly removed from the quarry.
The letter also stated that the DEP had accidentally filed a record regarding stone removal from the quarry as having occurred in Berks County, not Bucks, in 1987.
But this news organization’s investigation found no records showing the mandatory amounts of rock were removed in 1984, 1993, 1995, and 1996. Santasiero’s letter also keyed in on those years, but the DEP offered no evidence of stone removal beyond inspector’s general observations of equipment and stone removal during other years.
Santarsiero expressed misgivings about the DEP’s handling of the issue.
“Their internal investigation, if that’s what you want to call it, doesn’t seem to have been particularly in-depth,” Santarsiero said Monday. “They haven’t spoken to any witnesses. They have nonetheless concluded there was continuous operation of the quarry. The evidence that exists refutes that.”
Santarsiero added Monday that he was “losing patience” with the DEP and was considering raising the issue with the office of Gov. Tom Wolf.
Rementer said Tuesday the DEP stands by its review.
“DEP has conducted an investigation of the quarry’s mining activity since the permit was originally issued. DEP has concluded that the site has maintained its active status,” Rementer said.