August 31, 2004

City of Lawrence Fire Code Board of Appeals

Douglas County Fire & Medical Department

746 Kentucky Street

Lawrence, Kansas  66044

Attention:          Rich Barr, Fire Marshall

Re: Comment on Proposed Blasting Ordinance.

Dear Fire Code Board of Appeal Members:

I appreciate the opportunity to be able comment on the proposed revisions to the City of Lawrence blasting regulations.  Attached please find a copy of the “Draft Ordinance of the City of Lawrence, Kansas concerning blasting amending Chapter 8, Article 2 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas 2003”containing my comments in redline.  Following is a summary of my comments and suggested changes to this proposed ordinance:

Section 1

• Suggest adding a condition indicating the permit can be revoked if the permittee violates any regulation contained in the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, not just conditions and limitations contained in the permit.
• Suggest adding a condition stating the Fire Marshall needs to the discretion to be able to order the permittee to cease and desist blasting operations if he or she has evidence violations of the permit conditions or the Code of City of Lawrence have occurred.  This would insure blasting is not continuing to occur between the time of a potential violation and the time it takes to hold a hearing with the Chief.

Section 2

• The definition of “structure” needs to include specific examples of the type of structures covered (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas pipelines, petroleum pipelines, sanitary and storm sewers, water lines, etc.)
• The definition of “qualified engineer” needs to be added.  This person needs to have the appropriate credentials to oversee in close blasting operations.

Section 3

• Suggest changing the listing of items from an “application” to an “application checklist”.  The application checklist would be used to insure all items are included in the permit application document.

• Suggest increasing the liability limits required and require the qualified engineer overseeing the blasting within 500 feet to also provide evidence of liability insurance.  The current liability limits were adequate fifteen years ago.  I have more liability coverage under my own personal umbrella policy.  During the blasting performed in May and June 2004 in the Fox Chase Subdivision, as many as forty homes were within 500 feet.  Clearly, if forty homes were damaged or destroyed, $2,000,000 is not going to cover it.

• Suggest adding a condition requiring all portions of the blasting plan to be completed and submitted prior to issuance of a permit.  Also, a permit application fee of $500 shall accompany the application document and a fee of $300 for a renewal permit.

Section 4

• Suggest adding a statement requiring the contractor to invite the owners of utility transmission and pipeline to be present during the blasting operations.  During the Fox Chase Subdivision blasting earlier this spring, there was little or no communication between the contractor and the utility owners.  The neighbors were the ones who contacted and invited the utility representatives to various meetings and provided them with information to perform stress calculations.
• Suggest adding a condition allowing the Fire Marshall to expand the pre-blast survey as he or she deems necessary.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring a pre-blast survey of additions or modifications made to structures after the initial survey.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring the surveyor to prepare a survey plan and submit it to the Fire Marshall for approval prior to conducting the surveys. 
• Suggest adding a condition requiring proof of annual calibration of all seismographic and airblast monitoring equipment.
• Suggest adding a section containing airblast level restrictions.  A literature review should be conducted to determine appropriate airblast restrictions. 
• Suggest adding a condition requiring a professional engineer to certify the need to use blasting for excavating material within 500 feet of structures.  Blasting should be the last alternative for areas within 500 feet of structures, not the first.
• Suggest adding a condition requiring the contractor to make available to the public all blasting records.  Also, require more detailed seismic and blasting records be recorded.

Section 5

• Suggest adding Section 8-207.57 to the list of sections to be revoked and replaced by this ordinance.

I ask you to please consider incorporating these changes into the final ordinance.  I feel these changes will insure the citizens of the City of Lawrence and our property are adequately protected when future construction projects involving blasting are undertaken in our neighborhoods.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                                                                        Daniel R. Wilkus, P.E.