Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005 | 9:56 a.m.
Two consultants have backed the conclusions of a Henderson-sponsored study that blamed weather rather than construction blasting for damage to homes and concluded the city could allow even greater intensity in explosions without causing any problems.
The two consultants, Larry Schneider, the former director of the Kentucky Division of Explosives and Blasting, and C.H. Dowding, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, agreed with the findings of Catherine T. Aimone-Martin, a professor of mining and civil engineering at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
Aimone-Martin contends construction blasting didn't crack walls in homes at MacDonald Highlands, Crystal Ridge and Sun City MacDonald Ranch. She blamed wind, temperature and humidity fluctuations for any damage.
But her report drew criticism from residents who accused her of having a bias toward blasting and contractors.
In July, the City Council authorized the hiring of the consultants when it delayed a vote on adopting stricter regulations on demolition contractors.
Developers said Aimone-Martin's report told them what they have been saying all along, and the same is true with the latest studies.
"Surprise, surprise, surprise," said Mark Fierro, a spokesman for Foothill Partners, which is blasting in MacDonald Highlands to prepare the site for home construction. "We are on safe ground. It is clear as the sky above that there is no danger, period, end of story."
That conclusion, however, isn't shared by everyone.
Roma Hills resident Joseph Kirk, an aeronautical engineer and graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, blames continued blasting in his neighborhood for cracked tiles in his floor and in his swimming pool.
He called the reports flawed because they deal with structural damage rather than cosmetic damage that can require several thousands of dollars in repair bills.
"I am still very skeptical," Kirk said. "They say it is science, but it is not science. It is engineering. Engineering is not two plus two equals four. It is make your best guess based on tests. It doesn't mean that holds up in any particular or exact situation."
Lake Las Vegas resident James Sabalos said he's not surprised by the findings, which he contends were flawed to begin with because topography of the neighborhoods with their fill and hillsides were not factored in.
Assistant City Attorney Mark Zalaoras disagreed, saying Aimone-Martin did take into account local conditions.
The attention will now turn to the City Council, which will conduct a public hearing on Sept. 20 on the city's proposed blasting ordinance.
Staff is reworking the proposal, but Zalaoras said it should essentially remain the same with some slight modifications based on comments from the public, developers and blasters. He said he doesn't know the final form that will go to the council for consideration.
Some developers and blasters have criticized the ordinance proposed as too restrictive. The ordinance, which was developed with Aimone-Martin's input, would keep in place the city's limit on blasting to 120 decibels and 0.5 inches if vibration per second.
The ordinance proposed outlawing blasting within 100 feet of homes and utility lines and requiring blasters submit highly detailed plans and analyze the results of the blast. It also places greater requirements on contractors to notify the public before blasting occurs.
The city's existing ordinance and proposed changes to it was part of the analysis done by the consultants.
Dowding called the proposed limits on blasts as "overly conservative and without scientific foundation even if they are meant to prevent cosmetic cracking of even the weakest of wall coverings such as gypsum drywall."
Schneider was more pointed in his criticism of the existing and proposed ordinances, calling some of the regulations as excessive. He said the city can allow ground vibrations above 0.5 inches per second and decibel levels above 120 and not see any damage.
Councilwoman Amanda Cyphers said she doesn't support rolling back what Henderson has in place now and doesn't expect her colleagues will as well.
"We knew we had pretty stringent regulations to begin with, and we did that on purpose," Cyphers said. "We were taking extra measures to protect the public."
Schneider also said there doesn't need to be a prohibition on blasting within 100 feet of homes or utility lines because it is done safely all of the time across the country. Without it, rock hammers and other heavy equipment would be brought in, causing more vibrations and be a greater nuisance, he said.
Blasting contractors, even those who expressed concerns with the proposed ordinance, are now taking a wait-and-see attitude even though the regulations will add to the cost and lengthen the time on projects. Some companies have even agreed to some stricter regulations before any new ordinance is in place.
"I think they are going to evaluate the information and make a decision on the good hard facts, and do what is right," said Dan Sanders, the owner of Sanders Construction.
The city paid nearly $5,900 for the two studies.
archive
