SEPT. 19, 1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

water safe. He then pointed out that since the well records showed that the area was not completely static ms shown in the exhibit, some of the water might not flow through the flood plan as assumed on the exhibit. Respondents then admited their Exhibit "A", the well records of Donald Endsley into the record. Dr. Satoskar then advised that it was impossible to cure ground water contamination once it has spread to an area and that it is never desirable to risk such cont- tamination that close to a residential area. In particular, he pointed out the potential discharge from the sanitation facility and the effluent which it could easily discharge into the gravel pit. He added that once such contamination is injected into the pit from there to the adjacent grounds is a very realistic possibility of contamination. He then pointed out that the model used by the petitioners does not answer this possibility. He explained that this would be another potentially adverse environmental impact on the community. Then referring to petitioners' Exhibit "A", which shows 14 feet of clay on top of the grave, he explained how that retarded the runoff water polution from contaminating the subterranean water. His final con- clusion was that he would not recommend putting any type of operation like this close~ to any population area. Chairman Oschman asked what a safe distance would be and the response was that a better model would have to be provided to properly illustrate such a distance. Wendell Thaler asked Dr. Satoskar if he had any test borings performed and the response to this was no he was relying upon the two well reports on the Gaddis property which had been run by Donald Endsley. Attorney Korn then addressed the Dr. as to the significance of the well report. He stated that it showed the area was not consistent ~s shown in the model and that the effect could be different than the model illustrated. In particular, he advised that the water will travel -9-