Blasting Regulations
Proposed Changes to
The Existing Ordinance
Revocation of Permit


Existing code does not have provisions for
revocation for use of controlled substances
or alcohol during operations
Proposal authorizes the Chief to revoke if
evidence of use of alcohol or controlled
substances exists while engaged in blasting
operations.
Notification of Reissued Permit


Existing ordinance does not require renotification when permit is reissued.
Proposal requires re-notification IF the
original notification time period has expired.
Opportunity for 2nd Pre-blast Survey


Existing code does not address this concern
Proposal permits property owners that were
eligible for a pre-blast survey to request
another if remodeling or home additions
requiring permits have been undertaken
since the first pre-blast survey.
Definitions




Existing code uses the 1997 UFC/UBC
definition of structure.
Proposal utilizes NFPA 495 “Explosives
Materials Code” definition of structure.
Existing code does not define “blasting
expert.”
Proposal provides a definition for “blasting
expert.”
Application Checklist


Existing code did not include a checklist
Proposed ordinance creates an “Application
Checklist” to provide applicants with a
summary of required documents in the form
of a checklist.
Insurance Requirements


Existing code has minimum coverage of $1
million per occurance, $2 million general
aggregate.
Proposed ordinance increases to $2 million
per occurance, $5 million general aggregate.
Scaled Drawing


Existing code did not specify what was
acceptable and submittals ranged from
sketches to blueprints.
Proposed ordinance requires that the
drawing must be generated by the City’s GIS
system and will provide both a map and an
address list for the area and include the 1500
ft. notification distance and 500 ft. preblast
survey distance.
Seismographic Monitoring


Existing code allows all monitoring to be
conducted by the contractor.
Proposed ordinance allows contractor to
monitor outside the 500 ft. boundary but
requires an independent firm to monitor
seismographs within 500 ft. of structures.
General Notification


Existing code allows notice to be posted on
front door or mailed.
Proposed ordinance requires notice by mail
and proof of notification.
Notification of Utilities


Existing code did not specify method to notify
utility companies. Dig Safe was acceptable.
Proposed ordinance requires utility
companies to be notified via Certified Mail
and proof of notification required when
utilities are within 500 feet.
Notification Information


Existing code provided information
concerning contractor information, general
project time and insurance company
information.
Proposed ordinance includes the duration of
the blasting permit, general blasting location
and site map, and contact information for
contractor and insurance.
Utilities within 500 feet


Existing ordinance did not address this issue.
Proposed ordinance requires that utility
companies with facilities within 500 feet be
notified via certified mail and given 10 days
to object to the blast plan or request
additional time to evaluate.
Posting of Notice


Existing code did not require any information
to be posted at the site entrance.
Proposed code requires a site map, copy of
the permit and certificates of on-site blasters
to be posted conspicuously.
Pre-blast Notification


Existing code requires notification in writing
but does not specify delivery method
Proposed ordinance requires notice to be
sent to structures, pipelines and other
buildings within 500 feet via certified mail 20
days in advance of blasting operations.
Pre-blast Surveys


Existing code requires 15 days to elapse
after notification of pre-blast survey before
blasting may commence. Utilities were not
specifically addressed.
Proposed ordinance permits blasting to
commence when pre-blasts are completed or
specifically declined and utility companies
have responded or the 10 day waiting period
for response has elapsed. Blasting may also
commence after 20 days has elapsed.
Air Blast


Existing code did not address this.
Proposed ordinance requires the maximum
limits as outlined in NFPA 495 “Explosive
Materials Code.”
Seismographic Monitoring


Existing code permits the contractor to
conduct seismographic monitoring
Proposed ordinance requires an independent
firm provide monitoring within 500 feet of
structures, other buildings or pipelines. It
permits the contractor to conduct monitoring
for structures greater than 500 feet from the
blast site.
Maximum Peak Particle Velocity


Existing code limits PPV to 1 inch/second
maximum.
Proposed ordinance permits PPV to exceed
1 inch/second upon written consent of the
property owner(s).
Monitoring Equipment Calibration


Existing code does not provide for this.
Proposed ordinance requires seismographic
monitors to be calibrated and certified
annually.
Blasting Within 100 Feet


Existing code does not permit blasting within
100 feet of structures.
Proposed ordinance permits blasting within
100 feet of structures, other buildings and
pipelines if the owner(s) consent and the
blasting conforms to the US Bureau of Mines
Table of Scaled Distances.
Blasting Expert


Existing code does not specifically provide
for outside technical review.
Proposed ordinance requires a blasting
expert, hired by the contractor, review and
approve the blast plan whenever blasting
occurs within 500 feet of structures, other
buildings and pipelines. The expert reports to
the fire marshal and must have proof of
liability insurance.