-----Original Message-----
From: Dan_R_Wilkus@wr.com [mailto:Dan_R_Wilkus@wr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:34 PM
To: BARR RICH
Cc: 'alannlinda@earthlink.net'; Jay Zimmerschied; MCSWAIN JAMES; EASTERWOOD PETE; Tom Bracciano (tbraccio@usd497.org); Tracy Green (tgreen@bagreen.com); Toni Wheeler; Tom Waechter (Tom Waechter); mike@mikerundle.org; dschauner@sunflower.com; david.schauner@knea.org; bpechal@sunflower.com; pas@sunflower.com; pshaheed@kcp.com
Subject: Re: Appeals Board Meeting
Rich, given the short notice, I will not be able to attend this meeting. I have reviewed the attached "Blasting amendments" document and assuming these are the changes you are proposing to send to the City Commission, I am quite disappointed with the proposed changes. The regulations as proposed do not adequately address many of the major issues which occurred during this Spring's blasting, in fact, several of the changes proposed earlier by you have been removed. Following is a brief summary of our
concerns:
The regulations as proposed lack precise definitions of key terms,
specifically what is a "structure" and what is meant by a "qualified
engineer". Having spent the last fifteen years working with one of the
most complex environmental regulations ever enacted, the Clean Air Act,
I know first hand the importance of defining key terms contained within
a regulation. Considering we spent several weeks during the Spring
going back and forth trying to determine the definition of a "structure"
and what utilities are considered structures, I would strongly suggest
providing examples of what the City of Lawrence defines as a structure.
The proposed regulations do not require sufficient evidence of
notification. In the previous version of the proposed regulations, you
were going to require the blasting company to send all blasting notices
by certified mail. Now, the regulations as proposed only require the
blasting company to drop the notices in the mail. Given the volume of
junk mail each resident receives as a result of the "no call list"
regulations, it is likely these notices will end up in the trash before
they are even read. Blasting is serious business and potential danger
to children in the neighborhoods where the blasting is occurring. The
notices should be sent by certified mail or the blasting company should
be required to go to each address and require a signature from the
resident and hand them the blasting notice. The issue of notification
was the number one issue during the raised during the blasting in Fox
Chase South. Now the city is proposing to require nothing more than
placing a flyer in the mail? Why even change the regulation?
The regulations provide no relief to City residents to suspend blasting
in the event the blasting company has been found violating city
regulations. While the proposed regulations provide for a hearing to
revoke a permit, the way the proposed regulation is worded, blasting can
continue around the clock until a decision from a hearing is obtained.
Conceivably the blasting company could be finished with their operations
before a hearing is even convened.
The proposed regulations do not require the blasting company to offer a
preblast survey for a resident who has added on to their home or where a
home has yet to be built and is completed prior to the initiation of any
blasting. The permits will expire every 30 days and simply can be
"rubber stamped" for another 30 days indefinitely. This was the plan
for the blasting in Fox Chase South. The residents of this City need to
have their interest protected. If I were to have my basement finished
prior to blasting commencing, the blasting company should be required to
survey this modification to my home. Other surrounding communities
require this in their regulations.
The proposed regulations remove the requirement to have a qualified
engineer onsite and overseeing the blasting operations when the
applicant is within 500 feet of nearby structures. The regulations as
proposed only require the qualified engineer to "review and approve the
blast plan". The precedent set by the City during the blasting in Fox
Chase South was to require the blasting firm to hire an outside
contractor to oversee their operations. I am not aware of many
construction projects where an outside engineer is not there to oversee
construction of the project. I spent several months myself overseeing
the installation of sanitary sewers in Olathe as an employee for George
Butler and Associates, an engineering firm located in Lenexa, Kansas.
As I have stated before the City Commission and the Fire Board Code of
Appeals, blasting occurred within 500 feet of four homes along
Stonecreek Drive on or about April 8, 2004 WITHOUT a permit and WITHOUT
offering/conducting a preblast survey of these homes. What better
example of a need for contractor oversight than this actual situation?
It was discussed at the last Fire Board Code of Appeals meeting about
requiring additional pre-blasting work instead of field oversight.
Unless the proposed regulations are changed to require "real"
engineering information and require this information to be signed and
sealed by a professional engineer the need for strict oversight should
continue.
As stated previously, the proposed regulations do not define a
"qualified engineer". We have requested the qualified engineer possess
a professional engineer license in the State of Kansas. The blasting
company and their consultant rejected this idea during the blasting
operations in Fox Chase South. This was done for a good reason. The
consultant hired by the blasting company lacked the necessary
credentials to meet this requirement. Not only did the consultant not
possess an engineering license (other than a corporate license), the
consultant did not even have an engineering degree. This is quite
disturbing. I am sure if someone was going to set off explosives 100
feet off of a resident's foundation, the resident would expect the City
to require that a qualified individual who understand the effect of
ground motion on concrete and wood structures had reviewed the blasting
operations, determined the quantity of explosives being use will not
cause damage to their home and is present to oversee the blasting
operations.
The proposed regulations do not require the qualified engineer to obtain
insurance.
The proposed regulations do not require the blasting company to provide
public access to their blasting records. Why? If these records are
required to be kept, they should be public information. During the
blasting in Fox Chase South, we were denied access to these records,
thus, there was not way for us to know if the blasting company was
complying with this portion of the City regulations.
The proposed regulations provide no standards for air blasts. Damage
from air blasting can easily occur if proper mitigation measures are not
in place. Other surrounding cities have air blasting requirements in
their regulations. We would like the City to consider including such
regulations.
The proposed regulations do not require a completed blasting plan prior
to issue a permit. I have never been involved in a situation where a
completed application document that is the basis for a project is not
required prior to issuing a permit.
The proposed regulations do not contain any provisions requiring the
blasting company to specifically invite the owners of major utilities to
oversee the blasting operations. This was a major issue during the
previous blasting in Fox Chase South. Contrary to how the situation has
been portrayed, the neighbors made repeated and persist calls to the
natural gas pipeline company and the Department of Transportation to
insure a proper review of the blasting operation were performed.
Contrary to the impression given by the various blasting companies, blasting is a serious and potentially dangerous operation. We ask the City of Lawrence to please considering incorporating more stringent requirements into the proposed regulations to protect the citizens of this city and address the problems encountered during the blasting operations in Fox Chase South. Contrary to what has been stated, blasting is completely unnecessary. If more stringent regulations were in place, maybe the various developers would be forced to hire excavating firms that have the proper equipment to excavate the soft limestone formations found within the city of Lawrence without blasting. It is amazing HAMM can install thousands of feet of water and sewer lines along Highway 40 west of Wakarusa by use of mechanical means.
Thanks for your consideration of our comments. Please advise me as to when the proposed regulations will be presented for approval to the City Commission,
The Stonecreek Neighbors.