Close in Blasting in Urban Areas, Changing Regulations and a Case Study

Washington State has a well developed set of blasting regulations which have been promulgated by the Department of Labor using extensive stakeholder input, not only from citizens but also from manufacturers and representatives of IME, blasters in charge, blasting engineers, blasting companies, local and federal law enforcement agencies, fire officials, and local and state government representatives. WAC 296-52 therefore provides a foundation or platform for developing city ordinances for Washington State cities should a City wish to do so. On the other hand, Oregon’s code is based on OSHA 1926, Subdivision U, Blasting and the Use of Explosives which provides scant direction regarding the modern use of explosives. Reference is also made to ODOT Section 00335 - Blasting Methods and Protection of Excavation Backslopes. This paper examines two separate programs that have been developed by two Cities, one in Washington State and one in Oregon to further regulate blasting inside City limits and discusses why the lack of a regulatory foundation made one approach more difficult than the other. One of the authors was retained by the City of Kennewick, WA to develop their ordinance and has more recently followed and reacted to a pending ordinance for the City of Redmond, Oregon. The paper will compare and contrast the different approaches and comment on the reaction from both Blasters and the public. We also present a case study that involved blasting in an urban area of Oregon to prepare a foundation for a water tank. Controlled Blasting was carried out within 70-ft of residencies and within a community that had expressed reservations regarding blasting even though the work would make a significant contribution to the betterment of the community. Pre-construction surveys of residencies located in a large area surrounding the site were performed and a well-planned blasting program was carried out. Residencies were subject to vibration levels that were monitored using six seismographs that surrounded the site and these units measured vibration levels that were significantly lower than allowed by statute. There were complaints triggered by individuals reactions to blast vibrations which validated commonly held models of human perception but no damage was caused by the Blasting.