HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponses to Spectra's comments & Analysis of Blast Induced Ground & Air Vibration
Martin Marietta Aggregates
>~
~
Indiana District Office
1980 East 116th Street
Suite 200
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone (317) 573-4460
Fax (317) 573-5975
December 6, 2005
Mr. Michael Hollibaugh
Director, Department of Community Services
City of Carmel, City Hall
One Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
RE: Additional Information for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Mueller Property South
Surface Limestone Operation
Dear Mr. Hollibaugh:
Attached please find the following additional information for the Mueller Property South Surface
Limestone Operation:
. Martin Marietta's response to Spectra's October 26, 2005 Comment #6
. Martin Marietta's response to Spectra's October 26, 2005 Comment #9
. Measurement and Analysis of Blast Induced Ground and Air Vibration
. Draft Statement of Commitments
If you require additional information feel free to contact me at 317-573-4460.
Dan Hoskins
Enclosures
(Including eight additional copies)
cc: J. Tiberi (w/o enc.)
Y. Bailey (w/o enc.)
W. Phears (w/o enc.)
Z. Weiss (w/o enc.)
Spectra Environmental (w/enc.)
.;
(-
j
~
..
Phone: 717-232-0593
800-892-6532
Fax: 717-232-1799
2601 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1185
E-mail: skellyloy@skellyloy.com
Internet: www.skellyloy.com
November 30, 2005
, .
Mr. Dan Hoskins
Martin Marietta Materials-
1980 East 116th Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
',',.;,
Dear Dan:
As discussed, Skelly and Loy, Inc. is enclosing revised pages 5, 6, and 7 of the Mueller
Property South Surface Limestone Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The pages have been
amended in accordance with Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.'s request in order to incorporate
the language provided by Martin Marietta in the response T AC comments into the beginning of
Section 6.1. Note that these pages simply replace existing pages 5, 6, and 7 and have been
identified (via footnotes) as having been revised on November 29,2005.
As always, Skelly and Loy appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you and Martin
Marietta Materials. We look forward to continuing to assist you in this and other endeavors.
Sincerely yours,
SKELLY and LOY, Inc.
~OJJ..laf)fJUA.C{
Laura D. Berra, P.E.
Senior Mining Engineer
LDB/veb
Enclosure
cc: 1605456
File: HOSKINS_LDB.wpd
Office Locations: Pittsburgh, PA
Morgantown, WV
State College, PA
Hagerstown, MD
Raleigh, NC
~
:- -
appropriate erosion and sediment controls is a condition of the stream relocation permits and is
included in the approved permit applications.
6.1 Perimeter Sediment Control Measures
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Mueller Property South Surface Limestone
Operation is intended to be very similar to that approved for Mueller Property South Sand and
Gravel Operation. Since the activities are occurring on the same parcel and the sand and gravel
deposit overlays the limestone, the sand and gravel must be removed prior to limestone mining
occurring; therefore, the erosion and sediment control measures are applicable to both operations.
Furthermore, the limestone extraction is commencing south of Blue Woods Creek and at the
transition zone between the existing North Indianapolis Operation and Mueller Property South. Any
stormwater runoff and groundwater discharge will drain into the existing limestone operation.
Mining activities on Mueller Property South and the erosion and sediment controls needed
for those activities are dependent on the sequencing of the Blue Woods Creek relocation. The
stream may be relocated prior to mining activities or mining may start before the stream relocation.
Erosion and sediment controls for each of these two scenarios are provided in the following
paragraphs.
If Blue Woods Creek is relocated prior to mining, the stream and the associated berms will
intercept all off-site runoff (see Figure 1) and a pipe culvert with flap gate will be installed in the
former creek channel to allow for drainage of the creek channel in wet conditions prior to any other
earth disturbance activity on the subject property. When earth disturbance starts, the flap gate will
prevent on-site runoff from draining through the culvert into the new channel. Martin Marietta will
strip the overburden from south to north creating a positive slope to south and the on-site runoff
during the stripping will flow south into the old Blue Woods Creek channel and then the existing pit
located at the Martin Marietta North Indianapolis Plant mining operation. Currently, Martin Marietta
is pumping water out of the existing North Indianapolis Plant pit to a retention pond. After mining
starts, on-site runoff will tend to flow into the low mining sumps from the surrounding areas. If at
any time other erosion and sediment control measures such as silt fences become necessary to
prevent sediment from leaving the site, they will be installed.
If Blue Woods Creek is not relocated prior to mining, two sediment basins and interceptor
channels north of the creek (constructed as a result of Mueller Property South Sand and Gravel
Operation) will be built to prevent the sediment laden runoff from flowing into the creek (see
~ 5 -
Revised 11/29/05
~
Figure 2). The sediment controls are located outside of the designated floodway boundaries. No
mining activities are expected within the floodway boundaries on either side of the creek before the
relocation of the creek. Martin Marietta also cannot disturb earth beyond the control of the
interceptor channels before some sumps are created. After the low sumps are formed in the mining
area, Martin Marietta can mine across the interceptor channels but away from the floodway
boundaries. This will create a slope to the sumps so that the runoff will not flow toward the creek.
The sediment basins will discharge to the Blue Woods Creek. Prior to this type of discharge, Martin
Marietta would need to obtain an NPDES approval for the site. On the south side of the creek,
Martin Marietta will disturb this area in such a way that all surface and groundwater will be directed'
south to the North Indianapolis Operation. Additionally, the floodway buffer areas on either side
of the creek can serve as vegetative filter strips, removing sediment from the water in the
unanticipated event that any runoff flows towards the channel. Sediment Basin 3 on Figure 2 is
being shown as an option if unforeseen erosion control issues dictate the need for its installation.
Detailed design information for the channels and basins is provided in Appendix B.
Seeding is a major erosion control measure during the operation that will be implemented,
regardless of the Blue Woods Creek relocation sequencing. Measures will be taken to control
erosion and off-site drainage while overburden is being stripped and sand and gravel is extracted.
Any disturbed areas that will not be active mining areas will be seeded as soon as work is
completed or final grade is attained. There may be a minor amount of runoff from the lateral
support areas or berm outslopes, but they will normally be vegetated.
6.2 Permanent Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
, The permanent erosion and sediment control measures will consist of permanent seeding,
as described in the preceding section of this narrative, and direction of all runoff or encountered
groundwater to the south to the existing Martin Marietta operation.
6.3 Specific Seeding Information
Prior to mining activities, a vegetative cover will be established on dormant cropland. The
vegetative cover will not consist of weeds. All dormant cropland areas andlor former sand and
gravel areas within the limit of extraction and within the setback or buffer that do not have a
-6-
Revised 11/29/05
-.
, .
"'
~- ,
vegetative cover consisting of vegetation other than weeds will be seeded with the permanent or
the temporary seeding mixture. The decision as to which mixture to use is described previously.
As mining activities commence, several areas of the site, including the 300-foot buffer and
portion of the berm along 106th Street, are to have trees planted or prairie or domestic grass seed
applied. The areas of seeding are indicated on Figure 3, Erosion and Sedimentation Control and
Planting Plan - Post Mining. Seed will be applied as soon as final grade during mining operations
is attained in these areas. In all other disturbed areas to be vegetated, including berms, permanent
seeding will be applied as soon as final grade during mining operations is attained.
6.4 Construction Sequence
1. Prior to earth disturbance activities, appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be
in place to prevent sediment from leaving the subject property.
2. Seed any former cropland areas that do not have a permanent, dense vegetative cover.
3. If Blue Woods Creek has been relocated, the flap gate will prevent sediment that drains into
the former stream from exiting the site. If Blue Woods Creek has not been relocated, install
channels and sediment basins to capture runoff from disturbed areas prior to entering Blue
Woods Creek.
4. Commence overburden and sand and gravel removal (if not already completed) and mining
of limestone rock.
5. Seed all affected areas to be vegetated that are not active mining areas as soon as final
grade is attained.
6. Temporary erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fences will remain in place until the
contributing drainage areas are stabilized. These controls may be removed after the
upslope areas are vegetated.
-7-
Revised 11/29/05
Dee 06 2005 7:15AM
I
I
a9uaFUSION, Inc.
703 S38 2747
p.l
I
..... -"'-'- '1.
. . .,
Mr. Dan oskin
Martin M rietta aterial I In .
Indiana istrict Office
1980 E ~ 16th ~treet, S ite 00
Carmel; IN 460;:,2
, i
I
I
RE: R. pons~to Spe ra Environmenta Comment No.9 on Proposed
Mueller rope~y Sout S rface lImesto e Operation
!
I
I
Dear Mr. Hoski~s;
i
I
aquaFU ION lric. (AFI) a ent 9 of Spectra Environmental
Group a detail~ in a I tte to Michael Hol baugh dated November 22, 20d5~ In
Comme t 9 Sp,ctra sla ad: "Specificalfy, t issue is whether or not the
develop ent 'o~ the sum ce limestone ope tion south of 10fih street wUl
adverse impact the an;ci ated recJamati fake proposed for the Mueller North
Sand an GnlV~1 Opera;o " The followin summarizes the hydrogeologid
analysis of the propose Meller Property outh Surface Limestone Opera~ion as
it relate to the referenc d pectra statem nt '
.' I :
An anal sis was prepa d sing a combin 'on of published literature and data,
on-sIte: onito~ng data n the results of groundwater flow modeling analysis.
AFI utili ed MqOFLOW a industry stand rd, modular finite-difference, th~e
dimensi nal gnj)undwat r fI w simulator a MODPA TH, its particle tracking
module, to con~truct a ro ndwater flow m del and to evaluate the sand a~d
gravel a uifer dt the pr po ed combined ueUer Property North and South
Opera~i ns. Trie MOD LO model was I n in steady-state mode and was
. calibrat to a ~et of ob e ed water level (target heads) provided by WHrA
(2004). The mpdel cali ra on met the pre etermined calibration goals and the
modelp edicted water Ie lions that had xcellent agreement with on-sitt:S
meas,", ments!. The fin I c Iibration repro uced observed flow directions, :
gradieh s, and jquarry g u dwater inflow, sing representative hydraulic
param rs forlrecharg ,a uifer conducti ty, and pumping rates. It should be
noted t at the recharg va e, the pumpin rates assumed by the MODFLOW
model, nd thd, hydraul c c nductivity and echarge parameter zonations ate
similar thos~ utilized in t e WHPA (200 ) model, which was performed for the
City of armet This M 0 LOW model used to evaluate the groundw~ter
flow sy tern frqm the p sed combined fperations of the Mueller Property
North a d the Mueller ro erty South. :1
; .. II
, J
The Mu IIer Property ou Surface Lime$tone Operation south of 10ath street
will not dversely impa t t e anticipated ~clamation lake proposed for the
"
II
Page 1lof 3
aquaFUSlpN, Inc.
Ii
.\ II
/I
't
I
,.
I
Dee OS 2005 7:15AM
a9uaFUSION, Inc.
I
703 S38 2747
p.2
; .~
/<j'
i
I
!
Mueller roperJ North an and Gravel 0 ration. The following summarizes
h~drologi c.har~cteristic a d results of the model simulations which supports
this cone uSlon: ) I '
!
. T e City bf Carm I w II field is loca d up-gradient from the proPQsed
Meller F[roperty au h Surface Urn stone Operation.
I '
I
. In the area ofMu lie Property No a water level build up of 2 to 4 feet
is xhibit~d when co pared to the b se case. The sand and gravel :
m ning c~eates a u ce water stara e reservoir of over 2,025,OOO,OpO
9 lions oJ water ithi the capture z ne of the City of Carmel Utilities'
PI nt 4 Well field n directly up gra ient from the proposed Blue Wqods
C ek Well field. Thi suggests that he Mueller Property North Sand and
Gavel gperation will have a benefic al effect on well field operation :
m king i1 more e ci nt because the ell field has less drawdown (w~ter
Ie el deqline) for he verage 1.63 lIion gallons per day (mgd) produced
~ Plant~.
i '
. In the M~eller No rea, the aquife is supplemented by the dredge lake,
w ich provides a cia e-by leakage urce, dampening any drawdown
c ated ~y the mb ned MuellerS th Sand and Gravel and the S~rface
Li esto~e Oper tio activities. Th total inflow to the North Indianapolis
o eratio;" from th ueller Property orth reclamation lake is not
si nifjca~t - an in re se of only 278, .00 gallons per day (gpd).
!
i
. T e nat~ral tran mi
Ii estone bedro k i
t nsmi~sion cap ci
I
. . ith thel full dev lop ent at the Mu I liar Property South Su rface
L mestohe Oper tio ,the Mueller p'operty North Sand and Gravel
r clamation lake e ibits only 1.25 water level decline due to the
c mbin~ opera Ion . (Less than h torical seasonal fluctuation
a erage~.)
I
Therefo ,the bontinue d velopment of e Mueller Property South Sand and
Gravel peraticn and e roposed Muell r Property Surface Limestone
Qperati n will ~ot impa t e viability of th Mueller Property North reclamation
lake. F rtherrrlore Me in arietta has su mitted and incorporated within the
Mueller Properity South an North Sand a d Gravel Operation Commitments the
followin : II
Ii
~I
. !I
: j' .
Grou:ndwater a d Surface Wc(ter Monitoring Plan for the Mueller
roperty South a d and Gravel ~peration dated June 2004. This Plan
as been appro ed by the Utilities 'epartment Director and implemented.
iI
ion capacity ( lied hydraulic conductivity) for the
very low, gene lIy less than 1 ftlday. This low:
limits the ext t of any water level decline.
.
I'
I'
Page 2lof 3
aquaFUS'fN. Inc.
Dee OS 2005 7:15AM
-'.
a9uaFUS I ON, I ne ~
703 S38 2747
f'.~
, x .~
. A Groun6water
P perty INorth S
h bee~ in itiate
ini icil teSj,ng und
These m nitori~9 plans
continue monitbring an
If you he e any ~uestio
(703) 93 -1987 J
. I
Sincerel yours}
n Surface Wat r Monitoring Plan for the Mueller
nd and Gravel 0 eration dated May 2005. This Plan
wi the completi n of monitoring Well installation and
y.
f the necessary infrastructure for the
the aquifer.
arding this an lysis, please feel free to call me at
r I
I
David R. Buss, ph.D.
Principal Hydrogeologis
I
II
II
II
II
;1
I
I
I
II
I
II
i!
I
II
Ii
II
I'
II
II
II
II
Ii
"
II
.'
,!
II
"
Ii
l!
j~
I:
ii
Page 310f 3
aquaFUSI,N, Inc.
Ii
II
o
D
o
o
D
o
0'
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
D
D
D
Measurement and Analysis
of
Blast Induced Ground and Air Vibration
in the Vicinity of the
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Aggregates
1980 E. 116tb Street, Suite 200
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Prepared by:
Vibra- Tech Engineers, Inc.
109 East First Street
Hazleton, Pennsylvania 18201-0577
1-800-233-6181
November 30,2005
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMA R Y ....................................-......... ............ ................................................ )
IN TRO D U CTI 0 N ............................. ......................................................................... ....................2
-
STlTn y TOPIC ....................._ ......................................_...............................................................3
ESTABLISHED GROUND VIBRATION CRITERIA AND RELEVANT RESEARCH......5
RECOMMENDED GROUND VIBRJ\TlON CRITERIA FROM USBM RI-8507...........................................5
RESEARCH ON REPEATED VIHRATIONS FROM RI-8896 .....................................................................7
STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO VIBRATIONS... ......... ................... ............................... .......................... ..8
TIlE RSVP TECHNIQUE........... ........ ........ .............. .... ............ .............. .............. ........ ......... ..... ........11
RI:COMMENDED AIR VIBRATION CRITERIA FROM USBM RI-8485.................................................13
ISOSEISMIC SURVEY ........._.........................._.._.._.._......_.........._.._..........._......_..............14
ISOSEISMIC TECI INIQIJE........ ........ .......... ...... ..... ....... ............................. .... ............... ...................... 14
DATA ACQUISITION PROCEDURE.. ........ ............. ................................................................... ..........15
How TO READ TI m lSOSEISMIC MAPS ........ .............. ............ ...... .............. ........ ........ .................. ....16
DISCUSSION OF ISOSEISMIC MAPS......... ... .................................. .............. .................... ........ .......... 17
VI BRA TION ANAL YS ES ..........................................................................................................1. 8
COMPARISON OF GROUND VIBRATION TO USBM CRITERIA...........................................................18
COMPARISON OF AIR OVERPRESSURE TO USBM CRITERIA...... ............ .................................. ...... ..18
SUMl\tfARY OF VTBRA TION ANALYSIS ..............................................................................19
REFE RE N CES............... ___.................. ......................... ............................ .................................20
A Pp.END IX A _.............._......_......_........................ .............................._ ......._...........................21
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. ROCK BREAKAGE BY EXPLOSIVES ..............................................................................................3
FIGURE 2. US BUREAU OF MINE'i RECOMMENnEn VmRATION CRITERIA (FROM RI-8507)............___..___... 7
FIGURE 3. RESPONSE FOR A TYPICAL 2-STORY STRUCTURE ....................................................................... 9
FIGURE 4. DETERMINATION 01' STRUC'J1JRE'S NA rURAL FREQUENCY BASEl> ON STRUCTURE HElmrr... 11
FIGURE 5. FUNDAMENTAl. FREQUENCIES OF RESIDENTIAl. STRUCTURES................................................. 12
2
,..'
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
LIST OF TABLES
TADLE 1. SAFE MAXIMUM AIRBLAST LEVELS (USBM RJ-8485). .................................................14
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Executive Summary
A vibration study that measured and analyzed ground vibrations and air overpressures from
blasting at the Martin Marietta Aggregates' North Indianapolis Quarry was conducted on May
20, 2005. The purpose of this study was to determine if the blast induced ground vibrations and
air overpressure levels were in compliance with the established U.S. Bureau of Mines criteria.
On May 20, 2005, 151 digital seismographs were deployed to record the ground vibrations and
air overpressure levels produced by the detonation of four separate blasts. The blasts consisted
of one single hole blast, Signature Blast 1 (Northeast Wall, Bench Level A); one multiple-hole
production blast on the surface, Production Blast 1 (Northeast Wall, Bench Level A); and two
heading blasts underground, Production Blast 2 (N2 north of GG) and Production Blast 3 (Z west
ofN24). The seismographs were located in areas surrounding the quarry.
The results of the study show that all of the ground vibrations recorded on May 20, 2005 in the
vicinity of residential and commercial structures surrounding the North Indianapolis quarry were
in compliance with the USBM recommended limit. The recorded air overpressures outside the
permitted quarry area were also in compliance with the USBM recommended limit. The
calculated structural response for residential structures was compared to the research of Dr.
Meadearis regarding blast vibration damage potential of the blast induced vibrations. This
comparison showed that the non-damage probability at all structures, for each of the blasts, was
100 percent.
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Measurement and Analysis of Blast Induced Ground Vibration and Air Overpressure
in tbe Vicinity of the
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
Introduction
This is a report of the Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. vibration study which measured and analyzed
ground vibrations and air overpressures from blasting at the Martin Marietta Aggregates North
Indianapolis Quarry. The study was authorized by Mr. Dan Hoskins of Martin Marietta
Aggregates. The fieldwork was completed on May 20, 2005.
The purpose of this study was to detennine if the ground vibration and air overpressure levels
were in compliance with the U.S. Bureau of Mines vibration criteria. The vibrations produced by
the detonation of four separate blasts were monitored by 151 digital seismographs on May 20,
2005. The blasts consisted of one single hole blast, Signature Blast 1 (Northeast Wall, Bench
Level A); one multiple-hole production blast on the surface, Production Blast 1 (Northeast Wall,
Bench Level A); and two heading blasts underground. Production Blast 2 (N2 north of 00) and
Production Blast 3 (Z west of N24). The seismographs were concentrated in the residential and
commercial areas surrounding the quarry.
This large array of seismographs permitted IsoSeismic contour maps to be made showing the
distribution of blasting vibrations around the quarry. The IsoSeismic maps indicate the intensity
of the vibrations from each blast, measured in peak particle velocity.
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Study Topic
Human perception and response to ground vibrations from blasting have been a continual issue
for the mining industry, the public living near mining operations, and regulatory agencies
responsible tor setting environmental standards since the 1930s. In order to understand the
nature of this issue the following pages are dedicated to educating the reader about mineral
recovery via blasting, the effects of blasting operations on the earth, the causes of blast
vibrations, why people feel vibrations, and how vibrations are measured.
~
Free Face
Explosive detonates.
Detonation pressure
crushes surrounding
rock, creates fractures.
Explosion pre ure
expands cracks.
Movement beg s
toward free face.
Pressure is released,
cracking stops.
Figure J. Rock Breakage by Explosives
A common misconception among the general public is that mine and quarry operations blast so
that they can crush stone. Crushed stone is actually produced in machines called crushers. In
order to obtain rock for the crushers, a small amount of bedrock must be broken off and fractured
into pieces which will fit into the crusher. The most cost-effective way to achieve this is through
blasting. A typical response from homeowners located near blasting operations is that since they
feel the vibrations at a great distance, the fracturing of rock must also occur at this distance. This
assumption is far from the truth.
When a blast hole is detonated, the explosion produces a high temperature. high-pressure gas.
This gas pressure, known as the detonation pressure, crushes the rock adjacent to the borehole.
The detonation pressure rapidly dissipates, consuming approximately ten to fifteen percent of the
energy available in the explosive. The remaining energy produces a second, lower pressure gas,
known as the explosion pressure. Most of the work done by the explosive is done by the
explosion pressure. The explosion pressure expands the cracks made by the detonation pressure,
and pushes the fractured rock toward the free face. Once the blasted material is separated from
the bedrock, the gas pressure escapes, and no further fracturing of the bedrock can occur. The
momentum of the fractured rock continues its movement toward the open pit. This entire
process occurs within a few hundredths of a second after the detonation, and takes place within
about twenty feet of a typical quarry' blast hole,
3
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The vibrations that homeowners feel are not caused by the fracturing of rock. Blast induced
ground vibrations are primarily the result of the detonaLion pressure acting on the rock around
the borehole and the explosion gas pressure pushing the fractured rock away from the bedrock
toward the open pit. The application of this large force against the bedrock followed by its
subsequent release causes the bedrock to vibrate, much like pushing and releasing a swing will
cause it to vibrate. When a part of the bedrock is vibrated within the quarry, the vibration is
transmitted into the ground surrounding it. This transmission of vibration is called propagation.
The propagation of the ground vibration continues away from the blast location in all directions,
similar to ripples in a pond which move away from the initial disturbance. The ripples in the
pond, like ground vibration, are examples of elastic vibration. Elastic vibration means that the
material never moves very far from its original position while it is vibrating, and once the
vibration event is over, the material will be in its original position and condition. Unlike the
ripples in the pond. the motion of the ground is so small it cannot be detected visually.
Therefore, sensitive scientific equipment is required for its measurement. Outside of a quarry,
the ground rarely moves farther than the thickness of a sheet of paper before returning to its
original position, and it may do so faster than the eye can sense. Seismographs can measure how
the ground moves from its original position, much like a fisherman's bobber can detect how the
water surface moves from rest when a ripple passes by.
As the ground vibrations propagate further away from the source. the energy is dissipated. When
the energy dissipates, ground vibration amplitude decreases, until eventually the ground
vibration falls below perceptible levels. The rate at which ground vibration amplitude decreases
as it propagates away from the blast location is called seismic attenuation. Seismic attenuation
has been studied extensively and found to occur geometrically. A geometric reduction in ground
vibration means that ground vibration amplitude decreases very quickly near the source, but very
slowly far from the source. As a result, almost all of the ground vibration energy is dissipated
within the quarry, but the small amount of enerh'Y remaining may produce perceptible vibrations
at great distances.
Since blasting produces perceptible ground vibrations beyond the quarry property, attempts to
control vibrations have been accomplished via laws, regulations, and industry standards.
Maximum permissible levels have been established based on academic and government studies
of the effects of vibration on nearby property and people. Seismographs are used to measure the
vibrations, and ensure that the permissible levels are not exceeded. The seismograph may
measure how far the ground moves from rest (displacement), how fast it moves (velocity), or
how fast the velocity changes (acceleration). These three parameters are related by the
frequency of the vibrations.
Frequency is a measure of how many times the ground will vibrate through its original position
in one second. The seismograph also measures frequency, which is commonly reported in cycles
per second or hertz (Hz). Standards limit the maximum amount of vibration that can occur at
any point, or particle, on the ground surface. The limit is therefore commonly referred to as a
peak particle displacement, peak particle velocity, or peak particle acceleration. Nearly all
residential vibration standards limit the peak particle velocity.
4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Operators must have a method of estimating ground vibrations from a blast during its planning to
confidently adhere to vibration limits. Since the amplitude of ground vibration is detennined by
how much energy is preselll to create vibration and how far the vibrations have propagated,
researchers devised a single number to relate these parameters. This number, called the Square
Root Scaled Distance, or simply Scaled Distance, relates ground vibration amplitude to
explosive charge weight and distance from the blast. The scaled distance requires the explosive
charge weight to decrease as the distance from the blast decreases in order to adhere to ground
vibration peak particle velocity limits. The scaled distance provides a convenient method of
comparing the ground vibration potential of different blast designs. Some regulations do not
require the use of seismographs if the scaled distance from the blast is large enough.
In response to quany operator desires to minimize ground vibrations and still operate efficiently,
explosive manufacturers developed millisecond delayed blasting caps. Research has shown that
several charges detonated only a few thousandths of a second apart would not only produce less
ground vibration, but are also more effective at fracturing and moving rock than a simultaneous
detonation of all charges. All quany blasts today consist of many small charges detonated
several hundredths or thousandths of a second apart, and the scaled distance has been defined as
the total weight of explosives detonated within a certain period of time, rather than the total
weight of explosives in the blast.
Air-borne vibration may also be produced by blasting. These vibrations may occur within the
audible range of the human ear (sound), or at frequencies below those humans can hear
(infrasonic). Many sources for air vibration exist in a typical blast, but all can be traced back to
either the venting of the detonation and explosion pressures or the fractured rock pushing air out
of the quany. Seismographs are equipped with microphones and measure these changes in air
pressure occurring as the air vibration passes to detennine if pennissible limits are exceeded.
Established Ground Vibration Criteria and Relevant Research
Recommended Ground Vibration Criteria from USBM RI-8507
The USBM has studied various aspects of ground vibration and air blast since 1930. In 1971,
the culmination of over forty years of research was compiled into Bulletin 656 entitled '"Blasting
Vibrations and Their Effects on Structures". In this publication the author reviewed effects of
blast design on the generation of ground vibrations and air blast propagation. Bulletin 656
developed three fundamental parameters that are used today in the field of blasting and vibration
seismology. First, peak particle velocity should be used as a measure of ground vibration.
Second, a minimum time delay interval of eight milliseconds (ms) between explosive charges
should be used to calculate scaled distance. Third, a safe scaled distance of 50 ft/lb1: for quarry
blasting should be implemented in the absence of vibration monitoring.
Bulletin 656 also collected additional data that further substantiated the limit of 2.0 in/sec peak
particle velocity as the overall safe level for residential structures. These recommendations were
widely adopted by the mining and quarrying industry and incorporated into numerous state and
local ordinances that regulate blasting activity.
Subsequent research conducted by the USBM from 1974 through 1980 reanalyzed the blast
damage problem and expan~ed on previous studies. USBM Report of investigation Rl-8507,
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
entitled "Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibrations From Surface Mine
Blasting" examined the more serious shortcomings of previous efforts. In this study, direct
measurements of structural response and damage from actual surface-mine production. blasting
were observed in 76 residences for 219 production blasts. This data along with damage data
from six additional studies were combined with the historical data from Bulletin 656. Particular
emphasis was placed on the importance of frequency to structure response and its relationship to
damage.
The following significant facts were concluded in RT-8507:
· Particle velocity is still the best single descriptor of ground motion.
· All homes eventually crack because of a variety of environmental stresses. These include
changes in humidity and temperature, settlement from consolidation and variations in ground
moisture, wind load, and even water absorption from tree roots.
· Damage potentials for low frequency blasts, below 40 Hz, are considerably higher than those
for high frequency blasts, above 40 Hz. In other words, the probability of damage for a blast
with an amplitude of 2.0 in/see at 10 Hz is greater than for a blast with an amplitude of 2.0
in/sec at 50 Hz.
· Home construction is a factor in the minimum expected damage levels. Gypsum-board
(Drywall) interior walls are more damage resistant than older, plaster on wood lath
construction.
· The practical and safe criteria for blasts within the range of the natural frequency of
residential structures are 0.75 in/see for modem gypsum-board interiors and 0.50 in/see for
plaster on lath interiors. For frequencies above 40 Hz. a safe particle velocity maximum of
2.0 in/see is recommended for all houses.
· Threshold damage is classified as minor cosmetic damage such as loosening of paint, small
plaster cracks at joints between construction elements, and lengthening of old cracks. Such
damage is similar to that caused by a variety of environmental stresses including humidity
and temperature changes. The chance of threshold damage from a blast with peak particle
velocities of 0.50 in/sec is extremely small and decreases almost asymptotically below 0.50
in/sec. Therefore, if the levels of ground vibration are below the recommended limits
established by the USBM the potential for damage is essentially zero.
6
o
o
D
The culmination of this study was
the Appendix B curve which was
enlilled "Ahernalive Blasling Level
Criteria". The Appendix B curve to
the left used both measured structure
amplification and damage
evaluations to develop a criteria that
involved both displacement and
velocity. The curve in Figure 2
shows that above 40 Hz, a constant
peak particle velocity of 2.0 in/see is
the maximum safe value. Below 40
Hz however, the maximum velocity
decreases at a rate equivalent to a
constant peak displacement of eight
mil (0.008 inch). At frequencies
corresponding to 0.75 in/see for
Drywall, and 0.50 in/see for plaster,
constant particle velocities are again
appropriate. An ultimate maximum
displacement of 30 mil is
recommended when frequencies below 4 Hz are encountered. Using this scheme, the Bureau
was able to recognize the displacement-bound requirement for house responses to blast
vibrations, and provide a smooth transition for intermediate frequency cases.
u.s. BUREAU OF MINES CRITERIA
From Report RI-8507 (Nonmber, 1980)
10
D
u
I
:s
2.0 Infseo
D
D
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
D
o
D
D
~
B
~ .
~
w
~
u
i=
a:
c
Cl.
0..
1
1.
100
FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure 2. US Bureau of Mines Recommended
Vibration Criteria (From RI-8507)
Research on Repeated Vibrations from RI-8896
Homeowner reaction to the research used to develop the Appendix B curve in RI-8507 is
typically met with skepticism. Residents often counter with the fact that their homes are
repeatedly being subjected to vibration loads and that there must be a cumulative effect on the
structure. In 1984, the USBM published RI-8896 entitled, "Effects of Repeated Blasting on a
Wood Frame House". This study was the first to document long term strain response of a house.
Strain is an engineering measure of deformation used to predict failure. A strain of 1 mil/in
indicates that on average, every inch of a material was stretched or compressed one thousandth
of an inch. For example, the length of an eight-foot long section of wallboard would change by
approximately % 0.1 in. Long-term strain measurements allowed blast-induced strains to be
compared with those produced by changes in environmental factors such as temperature,
humidity, and human activity.
During this study the Bureau arranged to have a wood-frame test house built in the path of an
advancing surface coal mine so that the effects of repeated blasting on a residential house could
be studied. In a two-year test period, 587 production blasts were fired with peak particle
velocities ranging from 0.10 in/see to 6.94 in/sec. Later the entire house was shaken
mechanically to produce fatigue cracking in walls. The first crack appeared in a drywall tape
joint after the equivalent of 56,000 cycles. This is the equivalent of 28 years of shaking by blast-
generated ground motions of 0.50 in/see twice a day.
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
o
The following significant facts were concluded from this study.
Conclusions in RI-8896 indicate that threshold type cracks appeared in the test house with and
without blasting. Because of this, the researchers felt that observations of individual cracks were
not the best indicator of the effects of blasting. The better indicator would be observations of the
rate of threshold crack occurrences. In this study, the rate of threshold cracking when ground
motions were less than 0.50 in/see was not significantly different than when motions were
between 0.50 and 1.0 in/sec. However, when ground motions exceeded 1.0 in/see, the rate of
crack formation was more than three times the rate observed when vibrations were less than 1.0
in/sec.
Construction materials can fail by fatigue. However, for most materials the stresses must be a
significant fraction of the ultimate strength of the material in order for this to occur. Siskind
states that in general it must be at least 50%. He further states that load levels well below
failure strength will not produce failure no matter how long they are applied. In terms of the
ground vibration criteria developed in RI-8507, if ground vibrations are kept below the safe-level
no fatigue could be expected for construction materials.
Structural Response to Vibrations
The potential for damage to a structure from blast vibrations is also obviously dependent upon
how that structure vibrates. Given the importance of how ground vibrations induce house
vibrations, or structural response, the following section of this report shall provide a foundation
to understand how ground vibrations can affect residential structures, and how engineers can
predict these effects.
Residential structures are complex structures. The many components of a residential structure
mean that at almost any vibration frequency, some element of a structure will respond. This is
why the vibrations produced by walking in a room may cause the dishes in a cupboard to rattle
but not the pictures on the opposite wall. Vibrations generated by walking through a room are
normally not considered damaging to the structure by the occupants. The vibration is familiar to
them, and only a small component of the entire structure is vibrdting. Homeowners are confident
that the structure was designed to safely withstand the vibrations produced by everyday human
activity. Similarly, structures. are designed to safely withstand events that cause the whole
structure to vibrate such as wind force and elastic ground vibration.
When ground vibrations emanating from a blast encounter a structure, that structure will begin to
vibrate as well. The characteristics of the structure and its interaction with the ground vibrations
determine how the structure will respond to these vibrations. The frequency, amplitude, and
duration of the structure's vibration are dependent upon not only the ground vibration but also
the structure's properties. The most important properties of a structure in determining how it
will vibrate are its mass, stiffness, and damping. Damping is a measure of a building's tendency
to return to rest once set into motion. The mass and stiffness of the structure determine the
fundamental frequency at which it will vibrate freely, The relationship between the fundamental
frequency of a structure and the frequency of ground vibrations is most important in determining
a structure's response.
8
o
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
o
D
When an entire structure vibrates as a unit, it shake!\ at !\ome fundamental oscillation frequency.
When the structure is excited by a blast induced ground vibration, it must move at the same
frequency as the ground. If the frequency of the ground vibrations match the fundamental
frequency of the structure, the structure may magnify these vibrations. Engineers can determine
how much the whole structure will vibrate from the ground vibrations by calculating the
response of the house as a damped single-degree-of-freedom system. A single-degree-of-
freedom system means that the house will vibrate in the direction of the ground vibration, such
as vertically from vertical ground vibrations or laterally from lateral ground vibrations. A
damped system will return to rest on its own at some time after it is excited; it will not vibrate
indefinitely once the ground vibration stops. The solid line in Figure 3 below shows the solution
to an underdamped single-degree-of-freedom response for a typical 2-story structure vibrated
from its base. The relative vibration amplitude is determined by the structure's damping ratio.
The fundamental frequency of this structure was assumed to be 6.9 Hz, typical for a 2 story
residential structure as per the research of Dr. Kenneth Medearis. Further explanation of Dr.
Medearis' research will be discussed later in the report's section regarding the RSVP technique.
Clearly ground vibrations with frequencies above 9 Hz will have less effect on this type of
structure than those with frequencies below 9 Hz.
Undel.damped Single-Degree-of-Freedom NOlmalized Response
Spectrum fOl. a Typical 2 Story Residential Stlllcture
41
"
::J
~
a.
E
~
c
o
;;
as
...
,g
:>
"
.~
iii
E
...
o
z
~
i
I
I
!
!
i
i
I
~
i
!
I ,
~ ~ ! ; ! ~
I I I GroLlnd Vibrbtion I
~----~----~----~----~----~----
. i i i i i
i ! ! i i
i I I I i
j j ! i i
i i i . .
cture ~spons I
S
10
1S 20 2S
Frequency
30
3S
40
Figure 3. Response for a Typical 2-Story Structure
The structure response illustrated in Figure 3 was calculated for steady state vibrations.
Transient vibrations mayor may not evoke a response equal in amplitude to the solid line. The
duration of the transient vibrations, as well as the frequency, will determine the amplitude of the
structure's vibration. If the duration is long enough, the maximum structural response will
occur. Shorter duration ground vibrations will produce a smaller response, occurring somewhere
within the area under the curve of the graph.
The amplitude of the structure's vibration alone is not enough to determine the potential for
damage to the structure. Because the structure begins at rest, its motion always lags behind the
motion of the ground. This lag is referred to as a phase shift in the vibration episode. The phase
shift from ground vibration to structure response is determined by how closely the frequency of
the ground vibrations matches the fundamental frequency of the structure. The difference in the
9
D
o
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
D
D
o
D
10
D
o
[J
phase of the ground vibrations with respect to the structure means that each may be moving in
opposite directions at some point in time. When this occurs. the stresses in the structure and the
pote11lial for damage are at their greatest The strain induced in the structure by the phase shift
detennines the potential for damage. Equivalent amplitudes of structural response can result in
different levels of strain. depending on the frequency of the vibration. For this reason, human
perception and vibration recordings limited to structure interiors are not valid indicators of the
potential for damage by a ground vibration episode.
10
D
D
o
~
~
~
o
~
~
D
D
D
o
~
a
c
D
~
D
The RSVP Technique
The Response Spectrum Velocity Prolile (RSVP) technique used in this study was developed by
Dr. Kenneth Medearis. It is a powerful vibration analysis tool \vhich not only confon11S to
USBM and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
recommendations, but also provides insight into the responses of valious types of structures to a
given vibration episode.
Research by the USBrvf and OSMRE has determined that the natural frequency of typical
residential structures ranges between 3 and 16 Hz. Within this range, blast vibration limits
recommended by the USBM and OSMRE are most stringent. Field measurements by Medearis
showed the natural frequency of residential structures as being primarily determined by the
structure's height. Figure 4
graphically depicts this
relationship between structure
height and natural frequency.
Medearis related the
probability of blast vibration
damage with the structure's
response. Rather than using
only ground vibration levels,
he developed a rational
damage criteria based upon structural response. He published a damage criteria based upon the
relative velocity of the ground motion to a residential structure's response motion. This
calculated level of relative velocity, termed Pseudo Spectral Relative Velocity (PSRV), became
the basis for Medearis' damage threshold limits.
Approximate Natural Frequency
of Low-Rise Residential Structures
15 f
".
'.
.
'-
.
............ .,~
..~, ......
"., ."...
'-....
" '",
.......... "'..
". .
....... "\,
".
""<It,
'.
'.
-.
-
N
1::
OJ
:t:
-
"""...
'.
"'''''
"
'.
-'.
'.
'.
\'.
.
'......
....
\"
"'''"....
.
"'''''..
10
,........""
'"
"'-'"
~
.'-..",
'.
....
~
o
s::
0,)
j
0-
0,)
'-
u..
5 ~-
Dashed lines represent
one standard deviation
from the mean.
I
10 15 20 25 30 35
Residence Height. Ground to Peak (feet)
Figure 4. Determination of Structure's Natural
Frequency Based on Structure Height
] I
In his research Medearis
measured the damping ratios
of sixty-three residential
stmctures. He concluded that
a residential structure's
damping is not related to its
age, dimensions, natural
frequency, or geographical
location. The damping for all
residential structures was
found to fall within a very
narrow range. In later work
Medearis showed that his
methods for determining
stmctural dam pi ng, natural
frequency, and response
compared quite favorably with
the measured structural
response.
D
Q
~
o
D
Q
Q
D
~
D
a
~
D
U
o
~
~
D
D
.
N
J:
-
or-
~
~
.-
f/)
c
Q)
C
~
...
.-
-
.-
..0
co
..0
o
L-
a.
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0_05
(a)
One Story Structure
(b)
One & One Half
Story Structure
/:
i,1
71 ·
I "
f,'" ,:'\,
., - ,.
;., -\'\
.,.l ".
------------- (q)------------
Two StOl")' Stnlcture
J
'I"
f, "',
/' .\\
\
. "'\1".
"
,,' \:
----------- .(cj)--------
All Structlll-es
-~_..
~-- -
5
10
15
20
o
Figure 5. Fundamental Frequencies of Residential
Structures
12
Peak relative velocity for a
stmcture is determined by the
ground vibrations, the structures
damping ratio, and the
fundamental frequency of the
structure. The probability that a
given structure type will have a
given natural frequency was
empirically determined by
Medearis as shown in Figure 5 to
the left. Medearis' method is a
more rational approach to
evaluating the risk to residential
stmctures as a result of blast
induced ground vibration.
These techniques developed by
Dr. Medearis are used by Vibra-
Tech to analyze blast vibrations_
Vi bra-Tech calls the method by
the more familiar acronym
RSVP. When blast vibrations at
a residential stmcture conform
with the USBM
recommendations, the probability
of damage is essentially zero.
When blast vibrations exceed
USBM recommendations Vibra-
Tech uses the RSVP analysis to
calculate the probability of
damage based on Medearis'
work.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D
D
o
o
D
o
o
o
o
D
o
o
Recommended Air Vibration Criteria from lJSBM RI-8485
The USBM has also sel forlh recommended airblasllimils in its Report ofInvesligalioIl RI-8485,
"Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast From Surface Mining". Although the air
vibrations produced by production blasting are typically referred to as noise levels, the USBM
report recognize that aitblasts with frequencies below the threshold of human hearing
(infrasonic) are capable of producing structural response. The most common example of
infrasonic air vibrations that may produce structural response is wind rattling a window.
Accordingly, the USBM has recommended limits based upon the frequency range of the
recording system. The maximum allowable air-blast limits increase as the range of the recording
system expands further below the audible frequency range of the human ,ear.
The weight of the air in Earth's atmosphere produces pressure upon everything on Earth. This
pressure, known as atmospheric pressure, is commonly reported in daily weather reports in
millibars (mbar, metric) or inches of mercury (in.Hg, USCS). The air vibrations produced by
blasting cause the normal air pressure to fluctuate. Changes in normal air pressure due to the
airblast are referred to as overpressure, as in pressure over atmospheric pressure. Air
overpressure resulting from blasting is measured by microphones attached to seismographs.
When air pressure changes rapidly however, different pressures can result on both the inside and
outside of a structure. A change in pressure that occurs between locations is often called a
pressure gradient A pressure gradient from the inside of a structure to the outside produces
forces which are exerted over the structure's exterior surfaces. These forces, iflarge enough, can
cause structural damage. Examples of causes of air pressure gradients which damage residential
structures are the winds from hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms. Changes in air pressure
due to blasting, like wind, occur very rapidly, resulting in different pressures on the inside and
outside ofa structure. These changes in pressure are not stationary, they travel away from their
source. When either a blast induced air pressure wave or a gust of wind propagates, they can
produce a pressure gradient not only from the inside of a structure to the outside, but also from
one side to the other. The difference between air pressure waves from blasting and those
produced by wind lies in the magnitude and frequency.
Changes in air pressure due to wind are many times greater than the changes in pressure
produced by blasting. This is why a gust of wind may push a garbage can down the street. but
the airblast from a quarry cannot. The frequency of the changes in air pressure produced by
wind is much lower than the frequency of the air pressure wave produced by blasting. Two
important efleets can be traced to this difference in frequency. First, wind remains inaudible,
while air overpressure from blasting may rumble or boom. Second, higher frequency changes in
air pressure due to blasting mean that forces on the structure's exterior change quickly. A
window pane may be alternately pushed and pulled fast enough to make it rattle as a result of a
quarry or mine blast. Wind force, on the other hand, does not change direction quickly. Wind
can therefore push or pull on a window pane with a much greater force without producing
audible sounds.
Most air overpressures from blasting are measured in thousandths or ten thousandths of psi.
Rather than reporting air overpressures in psi, most regulations specify decibels (dB). Since a
decibel is a measure of change, it must be with respect to some value. The reference pressure for
air overpressure monitoring is 2.9 x lO-9 psi. A small change in decibels can represent a very
13
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
large change in pressure. Doubling of the overpressure in psi yields a 6 dB increase; a tenfold
increase in overpressure equates to a 20 dB increase. Mines and quarries generally limit
1hemselves 10 less 1han 130 dB, or about one one-hundred1h or one pound per square inch (0.01
psi).
Structural damage as a result of air overpressure is generally conceded to not be possible without
extensive window breakage, as the glass is the weakest portion of a structure's exterior where
this pressure acts. Window panes are designed to safely withstand changes of 1.0 psi (180 dB)
when _properly installed, and even in the worst situation a pane should be able to withstand O. I
lbs/in- (150 dB). Air overpressures from mine and quarry blasting rarely exceed 0.01 psi. (130
dB), about one one-hundredth of the overpressure that a window can safely withstand.
The safe air-blast limits recommended by the USBM were determined by analyzing structural
response and damage from many applicable studies. Based on a minimal probability of the most
superficial type of damage in residential-type structures, any of the following represent safe
maximum airblast levels.
Table 1. Safe Maximum Airblast Levels (USBM RI-8485).
I.ower Frequency Limits of Measuring System Maximum Level ill dB
0.1 Hz high-pass system 134 dB
2 Hz high-pass system 133 dB
5 or 6 Hz high-pass system 129 dB
c- slow (events not exceeding 2 sec duration) 105 dB
The recommended limits listed in Table I were compared to a composite of five impulsive noise
studies for human tolerance in the USBM report. Based upon these studies, the USBM
concluded that these recommended airblast limits would provide an annoyance acceptability to
95 percent of the population for one to two events per day.
The USBM also concluded that the single best airblast descriptor is the 2 Hz system. These
recommendations have been accepted by many states. The GeoSonics MicroSeis, and the SSU-
2000DK Seismobrraphs used in this study all operate \\lith a low frequency limit of 2 Hz in the air
vibration measuring system. The maximum safe airblast level set forth by USBM RI-8485 for
this type of system is 133 dB (re. 2.9 x 10"9 psi).
IsoSeismic Su rvey
IsoSeismic Technique
The IsoSeismic technique is a powerful tool which empirically demonstrates the effect of
geology on blast induced ground vibration. Just as residential structures may magnify certain
types of ground vibrations, local surface geology can also respond to certain types of vibration.
While the response characteristics of residential structures have been carefully measured and
studied, the response of the geologic subsurface is not so easily quantified. The single-degree-
of-freedom model of a residential structure has been shown to very closely approximate the
motion of that structure, but such a model may be inadequate to predict the motion of the ground
at all locations around a quarry or mine.
14
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The IsoSeismic technique makes possible the simultaneous measurements of vibrations at many
locations. The complex interaction of the vibrations as they propagate through the geology
around a quarry or mine determines the resulting ground vibration at each location.
Simultaneous measurements of individual blast events at many locations reveal the result of this
interaction. This interaction, or geologic response, is dependent on the geology at many
locations around a quarry or mine, but is usually dominated by surface geology at the location of
concern. Since the geology and its interactions will remain unchanged, the vibration
characteristics for the area around the operation may be mapped.
The geologic vibration response may increase the magnitude of the ground motion, change the
frequency of the vibration, and increase the duration of the ground vibration. This type of
response usually occurs in the shallow surface, where resonant frequencies are similar to those of
residential structures. Since structural response is directly proportional to the magnitude of the
ground vibration, to the duration of the vibration, and to how closely the frequency of the
vibration matches the natural frequency of the structure, IsoSeismic contour maps immediately
identify areas where structural response may be greater and the likelihood for complaints will be
enhanced. By comparing the IsoSeismic contours produced by production blasting with those
produced by a single charge blast. the IsoSeismic Technique clearly identifies areas of potential
complaints and provides insight on site specific vibration response.
The IsoSeismic survey is much more than just a map of relative ground vibration amplitudes
around a quarry or mine. Each vibration event is collected as digital data by the IsoSeismic
system which then computes the frequency, duration, and predicted structural response. The
IsoSeismic system is capable of recording more than 1500 blast induced ground and air vibration
events in less than one hour. For a typical mine or quarry blasting two to three times per week,
this amounts to more than 10 years of blast vibration recordings. More importantly, an
immediate correlation between the vibration events can be made, since they are the result of the
same blasts. Computer modeling of the data can reveal causes of complaints and potential
solutions.
Data Acquisition Procedure
On May 19, 2005 representatives from Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. met with representatives of
Marrin Marietta Aggregates and Orica to discuss and organize the collection of data at the North
Indianapolis Quarry. On May 20, 2005 a total of 151 tri-axial seismometers were deployed for
the registration of one single hole signature blast. one multiple-hole production blast on the
surface. and two heading blasts underground. The seismometers were deployed by personnel
from Vi bra-Tech to assure proper placement and ground coupling. The location of each
seismometer and each blast is shown on the map in Figure A-I in Appendix A of this report.
The density of the seismograph positions and the type of seismograph were determined by the
density of residences and shot location.
On the morning of May 20, 2005, all the seismometers to be used for the data collection were
programmed to begin monitoring at 12:54 PM on that day. This precaution was necessary to
ensure that the memory in the seismometer would not be filled with false events prior to the
detonation of the blasts. The tirst blast was scheduled to be detonated at approximately I :00 PM
followed by the three subsequ~nt blasts over a period of approximately 15 minutes. Once all of
15
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
the blasts were detonated the seismometers were collected and their data downloaded to
computers for future analysis. During the detonation of Production Blast 3, none of the
seismometers triggered indicating Lhatthe ground vibrations produced by that blast were below
the trigger level of the seismometers.
How to Read the IsoSeismic Maps
An IsoSeismic map is a contour map of the measured ground vibrations produced by a blast.
The contour lines on an IsoSeismic map connect locations of equal vibration, similar to contour
. lines on a topographic map which connect areas of equal elevation. The peak particle velocity
level represented by each contour line is posted on that line. A separate map is created from the
seismic data collected from each blast.
It is not possible to collect seismic data at all locations around a quarry or mine, just as it is not
possible for cartographers (map makers) to collect elevation data at all locations on a map.
Some of the data must be interpolated from trends observed in the field. However, two
important facts about vibration can be used to aid in the interpolation. First, vibrations propagate
away from the source like waves, therefore the amplitude cannot change abruptly. Second,
ground vibration amplitudes attenuate geometrically when the geology is uniform. Vi bra-Tech
has developed a unique method of incorporating both of these properties of ground vibration into
a gridding technique that allows isoseismic contour lines to be drawn much more accurately.
From these maps it will become apparent that the peak particle velocity at any particular location
around the quarry will vary from blast to blast. There are numerous reasons why the peak
particle velocity varies. A few of these reasons include the degree of confinement,
fragmentation, and casting of the blasted material, the maximum charge weight per delay, the
bulk strength of the explosive charge, the presence of water in the boreholes, and the direction of
initiation of the blast. However, while the amplitude of the ground vibration at a particular site
\\till vary from blast to blast, the rate at which the vibration amplitude changes will not. This
means that if the geology at a particular location tends to attenuate vibrations rapidly, it will do
so consistently for either large or small vibrations. Similarly, if the geology tends to resonate,
amplify, or perpetuate the ground vibrations, it will do so for both large and small vibration
levels. Because the rate at which vibrations are attenuated is constant for each individual
location, the shape of the IsoSeismic contours can be used to identify trends in ground vibration.
The vibration attenuation rates cause the peak particle velocity at a particular location to increase
or decrease relative to its neighbors predictably. The location of these anomalous (deviating
from what would be intuitively expected) vibration levels define the vibration "jil1geI1Jril11" of a
site. This means that regardless of the amplitude of the vibration source, certain locations will
have greater peak particle velocities than their neighbors. These locations will identify
themselves by concentric circles of increased peak particle velocity on the IsoSeismic contour
maps. These areas will reappear on many maps, often regardless of the blast location, number of
holes, or peak particle velocity. These areas must be the focus of vibration control techniques.
In order to identifY the vibration fingerprint of a site, the following items should be kept in mind
as one reads the IsoSeismic contour maps.
16
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0,
. Contour lines denote locations of equal peak particle velocity, hence the name
"isoseismic" lines or contours. Areas between contour lines will have a peak particle
velocity between the values represented by the lines. The shape of the contour lines
represents the site "fingerprint".
. The source of the vibration, the blast, will be located inside the circular contour line
with the highest value. The peak particle velocity will generally decrease as one
moves away from the source.
. The IsoSeismic contour lines, unlike elevation contours, do not necessarily represent a
unifomI change in amplitude. Ground vibrations attenuate geometrically, with the
greatest change in amplitude occurring within the quarry or mine. In order to keep the
IsoSeismic maps from becoming cluttered, higher amplitude isoseismic lines,
especially those near the quarry, may represent a change of several tenths of an inch
per second, while the lower amplitude lines farther away usually represent a change of
one one-hundredth of an inch per second. Whenever possible, the IsoSeismic line
spacing is consistent on each map included.
. The distance between contour lines indicates how rapidly the vibration amplitude
changes. Many contour lines spaced very closely together is an indication of a rapid
change in peak particle velocity, usually downward. Contour lines spaced very far
apart indicate that the peak particle velocity is changing very slowly. This is usually
an indication of either a very small peak particle velocity or a possible low frequency
geological response.
. Contour lines that rOmI small circles away from the vibration source are an indication
of a geological response. The area inside the circle may be referred to as a vibration
"hol spol' if the vibration amplitude is increasing, or as a vibration "dead zone" if the
amplitude is decreasing. Contours around "dead zones" have small cross-hatches to
identify them.
. When isoseismic contour lines deviate from a uniform shape and spacing, some
change in geology and/or topography exists. In this way, the isoseismic contour maps
can often become an intuitive map of geology. Keep in mind that changes in geology
usually introduce a change in frequency, as well as amplitude. lsoseismic contour
anomalies necessitate a detailed analysis of the ground vibration signatures to
detemIine the effect on structural response and human perceptibility. Abrupt changes
in peak particle velocity, whether increasing or decreasing, can result in increased
structural response and human perceptibility, resulting in increased complaints.
Discussion of IsoSeismic Maps
IsoSeismic maps for three blasts (Signature Blast I and Productions Blast 1 and 2) detonated in
this study can be found in Appendix A of this report in Figures A-2 through A-4. The vibration
fingerprint for the area surrounding the North Indianapolis Quarry can be determined by
examining all three IsoSeismic maps and noting the consistencies. A summary of the
fingerprint, beginning to the north and proceeding clockwise about the map, is given below.
17
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
. The result of the detonation of the one single hole and two production blasts on May
20,2005 show that ground vibrations above 0.50 in/sec were not measured out side of
the permitted quarry area.
. A peak particle velocity 0.50 in/sec as observed on the maps for Signature Blast 1 and
Production Blast 1 (surface shots) did not extend beyond J06th Street to the north,
Hazel Dell Parkway to the east, 96th Street to the south, or Gray Road to the west.
. The contour map for Production Blast 2 (underground shot) shows that the 0.50 in/sec
peak particle velocity did not exceed the quarry property.
. Figure A-5 in Appendix A shows the 0.50 in/sec projection for blasting at the northern
most limits of Martin Marietta's Mueller Property South. This projection is based on
IsoSeismic contours from Production Blast 1 migrated to this position. Based on the
blast design currently utilized by Martin Marietta Aggregates, ground vibrations from
blasting in the Mueller Property South are not expected to exceed USBM
recommended criteria.
Vibration Analyses
Comparison of Ground Vibration to USBM Criteria
The ground vibrations produced by Signature Blast 1 and Production Blasts 1 and 2, as recorded
at 151 locations around the quarry on May 20, 2005, were in compliance with the criteria
outlined in USBM RI-8507. Figure A-6 and A-7 of Appendix A graphically compares the
ground vibration produced by the production and signature blasts to the Variable Particle
Velocity versus Frequency Limits ofUSBM RI-8507 Appendix B curve.
Figure A-6 shows a distribution of the frequencies-at-the-peak for the signature blast. Figure A-7
shows the data recorded for the production blasts. Production Blast 1 exhibits a strong cluster of
data centered abound 20 Hz. For Production Blast 2 the majority of the data fell above 30 Hz.
When compared to Figure A-6 this clustering of data shows .the effects that the millisecond
delays have in controlling the frequency character of the seismic signal.
Comparison of Air Overpressure to USBM Criteria
Air overpressure levels from the Production Blast 1 was not really similar to those of signature
blast. This can be seen on Figure A~8 and A-9 in Appendix A. These figures show a
comparison of the measured air overpressures to the criteria established by the USBM in RI-
8485. As evidenced by the graphs, resulting air overpressures are well below the established
criteria for the production blast.
18
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Summary of Vibration Analysis
. All ground vibrations recorded on May 20, 2005 were in compliance with the USBM
recommended limits. The recorded air overpressures outside the permitted quarry area
were also incompliance with the USBM recommended limits.
. All .of the vibrations recorded in the vicinity of residential and commercial structures
surrounding the North Indianapolis Quarry were in conformance to the most stringent
USBM recommendations for residential structures. The calculated structural response
for residential structures was compared to the research of Dr. Medearis regarding blast
vibration damage potentia); the non-damage probability at all structures, for each of
the blasts, was 100 percent.
. Ground vibrations did not exceed 0.29 in/see outside of property owned or leased by
Martin Marietta Aggregates as a result of the production blasting on May 20, 2005.
Ground. vibrations of this magnitude and frequency do not constitute a hazard to
residential structures. Air overpressure levels did not exceed 131 dB outside of
property owned or leased by Martin Marietta Aggregates as a result of the production
blasting on May 20, 2005.
Respectfully Submitted,
VIBRA- TECH ENGINEERS, INC.
Kristin E. Ferdinand
Area Manager
~~
Douglas Rudenko, PG
Vice President
19
D
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
'0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
References
Medearis, K., The Development of Rational Damage Criteria for Low-Rise Structures Subjected
to Blasting Vibrations, in Proceedings of the 18th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, 1-16,
and (1977).
Nicholls, H.R., C.F. Johnson, and W.l. Duvall, Blasting Vibrations and their Effects on
Structures. U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656, (1971).
DuPont, Blasters Handbook, Technical Services Division, E.l. DuPont, Wilmington, DE, (1977).
Dowding, C.R., Blast Vibration Monitorin~ and Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
( 1985).
International Society of Explosives Engineers, Blasters' Handbook (1 th ed.), ISEE, Cleveland,
OH, (1998).
National Highway Institute, Rock Blastinu: and Overbreak Control, US Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHW A-HI-92-001, (1991).
Reil, lW., D.A. Anderson, A.P. Ritter, D.A. Clark, S.R. Winzer, and AJ. Petro, Geologic
Factors Affecting Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mining
Research Contract Report H0222009, (1985).
Siskind, D.E., Vibrations From Blastin~. International Society of Explosives Engineers,
Cleveland, OH, (2000).
Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding., Structure Response and Dama~e
Produced bv Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. U.S. Bureau of Mines Rl-8507,
(1980).
Siskind, D.E., V.I. Stachura, M.S. Stagg, and J.W. Kopp, Structure Response and Dam~e
Produced bv Airblast from Surface Minin~, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI-8485, (1980).
Stagg, M.S., D.E. Siskind, M.G. Stevens, and c.H. Dowding, Effects of Repeated Blasting on a
Wood-Frame House, U.S. Bureau of Mines RI-8896, (1984).
20
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Appendix A
IsoSeismic Study Maps and Results
21
~
~
a
D
Q
D
~
D
D
~
D
~
~
o
~
~
D
D
~
l\'lartin l\'larietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/VibralVlap Study
l\1ay 20, 2005
Seismograph Distribution ~lap
-MillO
o
1500 3U1Hl 45110
1 inch = 15Utl feel
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS. INC.
",,"OOQ'IS s . itnymf#t'S . g~p }fS'C1SIS
Figure A-I
D
D
D
~
~
~
~
~
~
D
~
~
~
o
~
D
~
~
D
l\:lartin l\-Iarictta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/Vibral\'1ap Study
IsoSeismic Contour l\-tap of Peak Particle Velocity
for Signature Blast 1
1\'lay 20, 2005
1I
15UO JUOU ~50U
I inch - ISHII ffd
600U
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC.
g~ og..s..s . I;lIgmi:#f:>(s" g.JOfJ )"S#CISlS
Figure A.2
o
D
o
~
D
~
~
D
~
.~
Q
Q
D
~
a
~
~
D
D
l\tfartin i\larietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
lsoScis/VibralVlap Study
IsoSeismic Contour IVIap of Peak Particle Velocity
for Production Blast 1
lVlay 20, 2005
n
I suo ,woo ~suu
I inch - \5lJO fel't
6UUU
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS. INC,
gO<) ...s s . em;", er . g~~op I)'$",,,r$
Figure 1\-3
o
D
~
D
~
~
'a
Q
D
~
~
~
~
o
~
D
~
D
a
l\1artin i\'larietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/VibralVlap Study
IsoSeismic Contour iVlap of Peak Particle V clocity
for Production Blast 2
1\'lav 20, 2005
o 15011 311110 -l511(J- -------601111
1 Inch = 15110 feet
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS INC.
glJ (lQI51$' 4Jngrnoors ~ goo1' YSIC/StS
Figure A-4
D
~
~
D
D
D
o
D
o
~
o
~
D
~
D
~
~
D
D
iVlartin lVlarietta Aggregates
North Indianapolis Quarry
Indianapolis, Indiana
IsoSeis/Vibral\:lap Study
Predicted Peak Particle Velocity for Production Blasting
illl\'luellcr Property South (Utilizing Current Blast Design)
,I
1
6000
o
HOl} 31100 ~~oo
1 ill"" ~ 15110 recl
~ VI BRA- TECH ENGINEER;;ol~~~;' OO(;"''''S. g""PhYS'';'SIS
Figure :\-5
-
~
D
D
~
~
D
~
~
D ~
C)
rI)
---
c
.-
D .c~
.-
e.J
0
-
~
D >
~
-
~
.-
~
~ ..
~
~
~
~
D
D
~
D
~
0.01
Comparison of Blast Vibrations
Measured at Residential & Commercial Structures to
Current u.s. Bureau of Mines Recommendations
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarl-Y
Si~nature Blast
May 20, 2005
10
-I
Signature 1 i
, . ,
, . ,
~ I _ j
.
,
I I I I
_ 1. _ _, _ _'_ _1_ J _ _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _!_ _ _ _ "" _ .~ _ _ _ .. L _ "" _, _ _ _I.. _ .. _
I I I I
.. _ .i. _
, ,
,
. _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ 1. _ _ _ _ _ _'_ _ u _ J _ _ _ ;
, ,
--1--1"-(-
--------1-.'----...-- ~I-
,
, I , I
~,--i--,-l--
. ,
,
, , ,
.-----_._..
,
, ,
, , ,
- - - -'-
,
:2.0: in/see
1
I I ~ l ,
O. 7,5 ~nJ~e~
: ~ry;w~l~
- "" - .- - - .. - "" - - - - - - -
. , I ' ,
i - 1
.,'" .
.. _I _ .. _, _ _ :.. "" ..i. _ l
, ,
. ~ - - 0:50 'ii17scc- .. - - ; '- - -
, . j . , t I I ;'"
.'.._.~. _~.. ~_f.ta_sgl:~:'
1 , 1
,. - _1- _ _ _ _ _ .... _ _ _ _ ...
I..
,
1
. - -, - '.
1 , ,
t - - - ,- - ,- -, - - - - - -
1
1
- - 1- - - ., - .
; I I
~ .- - I - 1 -
1
- -,-
,
0.1
:e
.~
.
q-~
- .. - 1 . r -
I _ ~ 1 _ 1
1 "
J _ L_
, "
I I I I
-, - - I -j - I ""
'. _ _ ,_ _ . _ .J..
,
,
. .
,
-. -;.; e. -- q . - 0:- -- ,
- -; - -'- -:- ~ - - - - - - - e, -~ - ,
.. ". . ' , e-- .' - H ~ - -.. : -- :
'IIIip' l I I I. I , I I
:'--i~; : I -:--~e--- .:-~--eeee: :
:.' .:- -'- ~ He ... .:. .- ea. -.' - #lIl:-- -:- - : ,; - : -
I . I I I I ~ W' I I I I
.'.: I: _:_~~~H-..__~---;: ' , :-;
, . ' .,.., 1'-:' I
) I ! _ I I !
, , ".. . \ ' ,
<<) -:-.1-....--. l '. :
u ' '. . 1 .'
.. . ' , ',..fl_ ;_...
. ... ' ... ..
I I I .
~ - - j. -
.', 1
f _ _ _ 1
,
, -
,
1
1
, -
,
_, _ M _ :
,
,
,
,
,
, ,
. T - - - - - - 1- - -
I
10
100
VIBRA-TECH
Frequency, Hz
Figure A-6
geologists - engineers - geophysicists
D
~
D
D
D
D
Q
~
D
D
D
D
~
D
[1
II
D
i
Q
D
(,J 1
Q,l
iii
-...
C
'"
o
.~
o
~
>
~
~
.-
...
:...
~
~
0.01
Comparison of Blast Vibrations
Measured at Residential & Commercial Structures to
Curl4ent U.S. Bureau of Mines Recommendations
Martin Marietta Aggregates, North Indianapolis Quarry
Production Blasts
May 20, 2005
10
. Production 1
e Production 2
, ,
- - - j- - - ~ -'f - -
, ,
,
,
- .,
-1- - - - -I
I
0.1
~____I____J_
, ,
, ,
,
_ t_ _ _ _ -l.. '.
I
- - T-
,
,
-,- -
"
1
VIBRA-TECH
, , ,
, _., I .
, ,
. - - .. - - .- - .. ..
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
.,'_ .1_ _1_ J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _,_ _ _ .. _ _..l _ .. ~ 1
I 1 [ ! I I
~ _j, _ J.
, ,
, ,
I I I I I
,
_ ._ _1._ _I I !
, "
I "
;2.0; in~sc~
_ -'. -
,
.j
, , ,
,0. 7,5 in/sc~
: ~ry~v'~ll~
- '. - - - .. - ". . ~ - -
. . , 1 1
,
.,
.
,
- "1-
I
.,
~
, ,
, I ,
I . I 1~'
.
. .
- t ~ ~: - ~ ~~ ~:.. - - - - --~ -
: : ... e..
T - -:- -:- tit -; - - - - _-
.. _ ~ l.. _ _I _ _ 1_ t. ,j
, , I
I I I I
-: -:- -;- I~"
: .: I:
-p .~.-
. .
.. .
I
, ,
r - -,-
, , I
,
10
100
Frequency, Hz
Figure A-7
geologists - engineers - geophysicists
0
D Air Overpressure, psi ;c
I
-<
V. .". ..... N - ~ ! !:: \C ~ .,. ..., '" - ~
- - e <::> 0 0
--, ; ; ~ ~ ::> 0 ;; ~ ...
e - - e e e 6'.c
D ~m ;Z
t.fl9
';09
~H~
.t19
~ Of I')
'-Ie)
9h9
~i'~
~d9
I Sll"
I fll<I
I 3119
D 019
~a;
d)l9
1019
I hi>1l'l
HbtJ9
~~)
~ ~. %C~
I t"rill?
.. f61{il
I .. j~).
~ L~'W
== ~19
) 09
a 0 6iJli)
,"-1,)9 ~M
LlO'J ::c:::
'" 9!.11'l) .., ~
.- ~I tL11'I ~. ,7
- W~ 2:::
0
c. 'T, WI'I or. ~
CC U.!.U1) '" :
'1" 111
0 ~ , ~ . 6'}WI ~'.:..
= ~ l)'CN9
C 0:: L~)() ;s
- ~ ,911? -..,
0 ~ l'lil'! ,.. :::
~ .- U'....' ~~
"'Q :::: 6S'" 2~
c ~ _1';11'1
'" I _1:~fJ
~ - - -' :.o"o...J ~
CJ .c ..... . ~::l ]..! ~
;;.- 1:Il .- ,to" ~E
i'"' IT) - ~t,,?
~ :: _i .1i1'l '"
....:l ... S - ~r 1}t,1'I :l ::;
- - ~I OJ,
'"" - II 6i\19
Z - !h:09 ~J
~ CJ C) N ~f:~ ~ 'I.;
:.. ' ,
- ... .. .... .iorJ .:s.::
... '" - 0 n:,~ ~ 10.
~ ~ ... N c ~ ~
fI1 - ..... <J IlII'J ~ ~
C.l ~ :e >:. <:.> O,f19 ~~
==: ~'I'l
.. eJ) C ~ SiH9 Z~
D ,.., ~ e.r: :;; ~ LdJ9
~ :- .- 9'11'1 ~v
tI,)<l ~ c
CJ OJ) (J:j '" 4,,1~ ~.-<
'"
;;.- OJ) I~ A!:~
0 -< ~l$l z
~ .. ~ l~ LIU9 OIl
,!I)<} '"
.... ... ..... 1'1119
< ""'" .... H:~ ~
C) OJ
.- 1111'/ ;:.
. < OItJ'/
... 601)9 ~
~ ilji)9 iii
~ :; "lit\!
,1M)'} ::,
~)I}'l
J:: dW~ ."
ll~t a;
.- Ol~t" ~
i'"' wst
... t..lt.t ~
~ ~ t&Qt
rnt q;
..- }L9~
~ ,
tL'It 0:
>~t III
t~~t 6.
bt~~ c
~ Hl9t 0
'!<It .,
~~t' ::,
t6t1'
i6M'
W.
I tt
t~t't-
D ~'l\t
.tt
(,').tt'
.Sit :I:
ltit
6Slt U
I';lt
6rlt W
'!l.!t
~ ~t ....
0
"T ..... -;;, :lO V. <= - <
.-. .-. .-., N .... .... - e:::
- -
co
D HP "')Jnss.).ld.l.J.\O .l!V >
~
B:I E!J EJ ~ II::::J _;;-1 II::J K::J I:::J I:::J I::::J EJ C:::J I::J CJ E:J I::::J I::J CJ
-
131
CQ 130
-::::
~
-
'"
'" 12l-!
~
-
i:"
e.J
...
0
125
<
120
111
Air Overfll'essure Levels from
Martin Marietta Aggreg~ltes, North Indianapolis Quan-y
Production Blast I
lVlay 20, 2005
134
133
Air OYcrprcsslIrc Rccon1Jllcl1(kd in USBM RJ-8.i85
'ntr: .\ it. (ht'rJlI.'......ur'. I.c.,d HN..,.JUmro,INl in \"SH'I I~I-~")l" tlJ3 dll)
.\k O\l.'rprr"urt' L~\t1 H~"tauift'd 1u ('me,," \\"illcJu,", 1'.,""", (1St} <JllJ
. Pruduction 1
VIBRA- TECH
gea ogls S - engmeers - geop YSICIS S
U.1I15
II.l1l4
11.1/13
U.1I12
11.1111
U.III
U.II09
U.II0~
U.II01
U.1I0S
11.1103
FigUl'e A-9
IUIU(.
~.
..,
,...
'-'
..
ri
..,
;::
..,
r:
'.I;
'"
::
'"l
t-
;::
:!:.
U.1I114
U.002
U.lllll
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
\1, '
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS. INC.
MUELLER PROPERTY SOUTH
SURFACE LIMESTONE MINING SPECIAL USE APPLICATION
Docket No. 05090003 SU
STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS
COMMITMENTS CONCERNING THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF REAL
EST ATE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH PETITION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Martin Marietta") makes the following COMMITMENTS
concerning the use and development of that parcel of real estate located near the southwest
comer of the intersection of 106th Street and Hazel Dell Parkway, .in the City of Carmel,
Hamilton County, Indiana, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Real Estate"). These commitments apply only to
the described Real Estate and to no other property owned or controlled by Martin Marietta.
Statement of COMMITMENTS:
1. General Operational Commitments.
A. Martin Marietta will develop an open pit, surface mining operation on the Real
Estate in accordance with the plans and submittals identified herein and the
commitments made herein.
B. The maps, submittals, and undertakings in the T AC responses shall be deemed the
application documents and shall bind Martin Marietta. Attached hereto as Exhibit
B is a master list of the maps and submittals governing the application and this
approval. In the event of a conflict between maps or submittals, the most recent
submittal shall be deemed to supersede all prior maps or submittals and to be
binding on Martin Marietta.
C. Prior to commencement of any work on the Real Estate, Martin Marietta shall
provide copies of approvals and permits from every governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Real Estate and/or activities of Martin Marietta on the Real
Estate, including all submittals to such governmental agencies, and shall include
all specifications and restrictions contained in such submittals and approvals.
D.
Overburden removal shall be completed during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. between the months of November through March (except as necessary to
INDY 1622966v5
w
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
construct visual and noise barriers) and only on days other than Saturday, Sunday,
or State of Indiana holidays. Martin Marietta shall conduct all operations,
including overburden removal, in a manner so as to reasonably minimize noise,
dust, and light impact on surrounding properties.
E.
Martin Marietta's acceptance of the hours of operation set forth above is based on
the specific nature of the particular activities and site regulated by such hours and
shall not be deemed to establish a precedent or suggest that such hours are
reasonable for any other operations or any other site.
Martin Marietta shall use the existing entrance on 96th Street for haul trucks and
other heavy equipment accessing the Real Estate (except as it may be necessary to
access the Real Estate from 106th Street for berm construction).
F.
G.
The berm specified along the perimeter of the property as identified on the Mine
Plan map shall be substantially complete within one hundred eighty (180) days of
the commencement of the removal of overburden from the Real Estate.
Completion shall include, but not be limited to, landscaping installation and
seeding. The Director is authorized to allow landscaping and seeding to be
deferred up to six (6) months to allow planting to be done at an appropriate time
seasonally.
H.
Chain link type fences at least six (6) feet in height shall be required on the
perimeter of the Real Estate at a point not closer than the right-of-way line of any
street bordering the Real Estate where it is not contiguous to existing mine
property. Martin Marietta shall submit the proposed location and type of fence to
the Director for approval. The fence shall be maintained in a constant state of
good repair.
I. Petroleum products shall be stored in accordance with applicable regulations of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.
J. Any lights used for exterior illumination shall be directed away from adjoining
public and private property.
II. Blasting Practices.
u
INDY 1622966v.5
A. General Requirements.
1. Martin Marietta shall comply with all applicable state and federal
regulations as they relate to blasting on the Real Estate. Martin Marietta
has submitted a blasting (isoseismic) study as part of its application.
2.
All surface blasting on the Real Estate shall be limited to the period from
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays (except on holidays recognized by
the State of Indiana where no surface blasting shall be allowed).
2
DRAFT - 12/6/05
w
3.
Martin Marietta shall endeavor in good faith to schedule surface blasts on
the Real Estate at the same approximate time of day.
4. Explosives used on the Real Estate shall not be detonated at other times,
except when necessary to detonate a loaded shot that could not be
detonated because of adverse weather or other conditions that could not be
reasonably foreseen by Martin Marietta, to maintain blasting safety, or as
required to comply with applicable governmental requirements.
5. Martin Marietta shall notify the Director of the Department of Community
Services ("DOCS") of any surface blast that occurs outside the prescribed
times of day on the Real Estate within 24 hours of such event.
6. Individuals trained and experienced in the design and safe use of surface
blasting systems and licensed by the State of Indiana shall conduct all
surface blasting on the Real Estate.
7.
Surface blasting on the Real Estate shall occur no closer than one thousand
seven hundred and fifty (1750) feet (measured horizontally) to any
currently existing occupied, single-family residential structure (excluding
those situated on the so-called "Mueller Property North" and "Mueller
Property South"), or within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
of any underground pipeline, unless the pipeline company authorizes, or
confirms in writing to the Director, a lesser distance, provided that such
distance shall in no event be less than twenty-five (25) feet.
u
8. Explosives shall not be stored on the Real Estate. Martin Marietta shall
use best practices when loading explosives on the Real Estate, and the
amount of explosives loaded into each hole shall be monitored to avoid
overloading a blast.
9. Fly rock from the Real Estate shall not leave the property owned or
controlled by Martin Marietta.
B. Vibration and Airblast Limits.
1. The maximum peak particle velocities for any blast on the Real Estate
shall comply with the requirements of the rules and regulations of the
Indiana Department of Homeland Security, generally consistent with
Indiana Code 22-11-14, and the regulations promulgated thereunder
pursuant to 675 lAC 26, which are generally patterned upon the criteria
referenced in the former U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations
(RI) 8507, Structural Response and Damage Produced by Ground
Vibration from Surface Mine blasting (Siskind 1980).
2.
Martin Marietta shall use its best efforts to control air blast resulting from
blasting on the Real Estate so that the maximum decibel limits are not
exceeded at the nearest currently occupied, existing residential structure
u
3
INDY 1622966v.5
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
(excluding those situated on the so-called "Mueller Property North" and
"Mueller Property South").
3.
The maximum air blast limits from blasting on the Real Estate shall
comply with the requirements of the rules and regulations of the Indiana
Department of Homeland Security, generally consistent with Indiana Code
22-11-14, and the regulations promulgated thereunder pursuant to 675
IAC 26, which are generally patterned upon the criteria referenced in the
former U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8485, Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Airblast from Surface Mining (Siskind 1980), as shown in
the table below:
0.1 Hz high-pass system 134 dB
2 Hz high pass system 133 dB
5 or 6 Hz high pass system 129 dB
C-slow (events not exceeding 2 sec. duration) 105 dB
C. Monitoring Guidelines.
u
o
INDY 1622966v.5
1.
All blasts on the Real Estate shall be monitored by Vibra-Tech
Engineering, Inc. ("Vibra- Tech"), who shall be responsible for reviewing
and analyzing the data. Provided, however, that if Martin Marietta
demonstrates compliance for a period of three years, it shall be entitled to
submit a plan for self-monitoring and the Director is authorized to approve
such plan if it contains substantially the same monitoring specified herein.
2. All blasts on the Real Estate shall be monitored by properly calibrated
seismographs recording horizontal and vertical ground vibrations and
airblast. The location of the monitoring stations will be determined by
Martin Marietta and approved by the Director, but shall be no less than
three and no more than six locations All equipment for the monitoring of
blasts will be maintained and calibrated by the monitoring company
. exclusively.
3. The Director may require that additional monitoring stations be located or
relocated to or from certain sites; provided, however, that Martin Marietta
shall not be required to provide more than two additional monitoring
locations situated upon property owned and/or controlled by Martin
Marietta at any given point in time.
4. Records shall be kept by Martin Marietta for each surface blast on the
Real Estate and shall include the following:
a. the date, time and specific location of each blast;
4
l)
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
b.
the weather conditions including:
1. air temperature;
11. wind speed and direction; and
lll. cloud cover.
c. identification of the closest residential structure, and approximate
distance from the blast;
d. the name and license number of the person conducting the blast;
and
e. the number of holes, diameter and depth of holes, the delay pattern
and design, and number of detonators used.
5. Martin Marietta shall maintain all records of blasting on the Real Estate
for a period not less than three (3) years.
6.
Annually, within thirty (30) days of the anniversary of the issuance of this
permit, Martin Marietta shall provide a report of blasting on the Real
Estate to the Director for the preceding year. The blasting report shall
contain the date, time, total explosives, pounds per delay, and systems
used for each blast, together with a statement that the blasting complied
with all applicable laws and regulations.
D. Re?ortable Events.
u
INDY 1622966v.5
1. Martin Marietta shall report to the DOCS any blast that exceeds .5 inches
per second, or otherwise does not comply with the Bureau of Mines
Siskind curve with respect to a combination of frequency and peak particle
velocity at any monitor adjacent to the Kingswood Neighborhood (such
blasts are hereafter referred to as "Reportable Events"). Such report shall
contain complete information with respect to such Reportable Events of
any such blast layout and design, together with all seismic, decibel,
weather and other data gathered as part of Martin Marietta's monitoring.
2.
If three (3) or more Reportable Events occur in any calendar year within
ten (10) days of the third event, Martin Marietta shall submit all
information on such Reportable Events to Vibra- Tech Inc. for its review
and analysis. Within twenty (20) days after such data is submitted to
Vibra- Tech, or at such time as is agreed to by DOCS, Martin Marietta and
Vibra- Tech shall meet with DOCS to discuss the Reportable Events and
any recommendations by Vibra- Tech with respect to blasting patterns or
practices to minimize Reportable Events. It shall not be presumed that a
change in blasting patterns or practices is necessary merely because of
such Reportable Events, but if Vibra-Tech reasonably believes that a
5
w
w
DRAFT - 12/6/05
change is necessary to prevent frequent Reportable Events, it shall
recommend such changes in blasting practices as it deems necessary.
These recommendations shall be discussed at the meeting with DOCS and
Martin Marietta shall be entitled to suggest changes or modifications to
the recommendations that would make them less onerous or more
acceptable and Vibra- Tech shall consider Martin Marietta's comments in
that regard. Within ten (10) days after the meeting, however, Vibra-Tech
shall finalize its recommendation and Martin Marietta agrees to implement
such commercially reasonable recommendations as expeditiously as is
commercially practicable, given the nature ofthe recommendations.
3.
Martin Marietta further agrees to grant Vibra-Tech access to its records
upon request by the DOCS for the purpose of Vi bra-Tech auditing them to
determine that Martin Marietta is complying with the reporting obligations
with respect to Reportable Events contained herein. Any audit report by
Vibra- Tech shall report only whether Martin Marietta has complied with
its reporting obligations herein and, if it has not, the instances and manner
in which it has not complied, including the information and data required
to be submitted by Martin Marietta for any Reportable Event.
4.
In January of each year, Vibra-Tech shall review Martin Marietta's
blasting records and blasting programs for the prior year for the purpose of
making such recommendations as Vibra- Tech believes may reasonably be
necessary to reflect changes in the state of blasting technology that have
become commercially practicable. Martin Marietta agrees to consider the
recommended changes in good faith, and to implement those that do not
unreasonably interfere with its operations and are commercially
practicable, but otherwise shall be under no obligation to implement them
so long as it has less than three Reportable Events during the previous
calendar year.
5. An airblast measurement in excess of 127dB shall also be deemed a
Reportable Event and the occurrence of three such airblast Reportable
Events shall trigger the requirements set forth above in subparagraph (2)
above. Airblast and vibration Reportable Events shall not be combined to
trigger the requirements of subparagraph (2) above.
6. In the event Vibra- Tech is unable to serve in the capacity described
hereinabove, Martin Marietta shall propose to DOCS another nationally
recognized engineer with experience in mining activities such as those
undertaken by Martin Marietta on the Real Estate. Such replacement shall
be reasonably acceptable to DOCS.
Ill. Studies and Monitoring.
u
If the Director determines that additional study or monitoring of off-site impacts 'from
operations on the Real Estate is necessary, he or she shall notify Martin Marietta of the particular
INDY 1622966v.5
6
DRAFT - 12/6/05
w
matter needing study. Martin Marietta shall then present the Director with a proposal to address
the matter raised by the Director, at Martin Marietta's expense, within forty-five (45) days. If the
Director agrees with the proposal, Martin Marietta shall cause the study or monitoring to be
performed at its expense in the time frame set forth in the proposal and shall provide a report of
the results to the Director. If the Director does not agree with Martin Marietta's proposal, he or
she shall modify it or present Martin Marietta with his or her own proposal and Martin Marietta
shall pay the cost of such studies.
IV. Water Monitoring.
Martin Marietta will cooperate with the City Utilities Department (the "Department") in
the development of a water quality monitoring program acceptable to the Department to monitor
potential impacts from open pit mining on the Real Estate. Martin Marietta recognizes that this
may require different or additional wells or monitoring protocols than those currently called for
and agrees to pay. for those that are made necessary by the mining approved herein, as
determined in the Department's reasonable judgment. Martin Marietta recognizes that the
Department may wish to conduct additional monitoring at its own expense and agrees to
cooperate with the Department to permit such additional monitoring. Further, Martin Marietta
shall grant the Department access to the monitoring points, flow meters, and related areas at all
reasonable times, subject to compliance with MSHA regulations. The Department shall also
have access to monitoring locations on an as needed basis for emergency purposes.
Additionally, Martin Marietta will notify the Department as to the date of the annual training as
prescribed by the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan dated April 2003 such that
U a Department representative can attend and/or participate in the training.
V. Buffers and Screening.
A. A buffer area of approximately 330 feet in width will be maintained from the
property line of the Real Estate on the south side of 106th Street as shown on the
Mine Plan. Berms or other activities allowed under previous permits in this area
continue to be allowed.
B. All landscaping specified in any plans will be completed and maintained
consistent with the Landscaping Plan Map, a copy of which is on file in the Office
of DOCS, except as modified herein.
VI. Environmental.
A. All operations shall be conducted in conformance with the Federal Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, and applicable statutes and regulations implemented by the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
B. Martin Marietta shall maintain an approved Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for this facility, a copy of which is on file with the
Carmel Fire Department, Carmel Utilities and in the Office of DOCS.
u
7
INDY 1622966v.5
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
c.
Martin Marietta will maintain an approved Stormwater Management and Erosion
and Sediment Control Report for this facility, a copy of which is on file in the
Office of DOCS.
VII. Periodic Reports.
Martin Marietta shall submit a report (the "Report") within thirty (30) days of the five (5)
year anniversary date of this permit. The Report shall contain the following information with
respect to the Real Estate:
A. A Mine Plan consisting of:
1. an Operations Plan;
2. a Mine Plan map; and
3. a Reclamation Plan.
B. The Operations Plan for the Real Estate shall include the following:
1. the general geographic location of the current mining activity;
2.
a description of the existing condition of the surface at the Mine, including
areas already mined or disturbed by mining, the existence of structures,
vegetation, and water cover;
3. a description ofth'e method of mining showing the method of extraction,
the sequence of mining, the disposition of materials on the Real Estate,
the use of haul routes, ingress and egress from public streets, and an
updated Blasting Plan including the following information:
a. monitoring locations;
b. anticipated frequency of surface mine blasting;
c. anticipated range of blast sizes (in tons);
d. pre-blast notification (as requested by any interested parties within
a 1 mile radius of the operation); and
e. other general blast related information.
4. a description of the expected general direction of mining during the next
five (5) year period, along with the overall development ofthe mine.
C.
The Operations Plan shall also include a description of the methods used or to be
used for preventing pollution from mining on the Real Estate, including but not
limited to air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution. If such methods are
contained in applications and/or permits issued to Martin Marietta, the submission
8
INDY 1622966v.5
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
of such applications and permits to the Director shall satisfy this requirement. If
not, Martin Marietta shall provide the following:
1. current and future drainage and water controls, including discharge
volumes, water quantity and quality monitoring locations, monitoring
wells, and similar water quality and quantity matters;
2. air quality and dust control plans;
3. a complete Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan,
updated as necessary, to insure adequate response to potential fuel spills
and releases from mining equipment;
4. emergency response measures in the event of a release that could impact
water quality;
5. a description of the employee training for response to spill and release
emergencies; and
6. a listing of all chemicals, quantities and storage locations for the facility.
D. The Mine Plan map shall be presented on a base map stamped by a professional
licensed in Indiana and shall include the following:
u
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
U 11.
INDY 1622966v.5
1.
a map of the location of the mine on the Real Estate including boundaries
of the Real Estate controlled by Martin Marietta;
2. a schematic outline and legal description of the Real Estate proposed for
mining for the life of the mine;
topographic contours, at two-foot intervals;
all areas of excavation, and, if applicable, all blasting areas;
all processing plant areas;
all drainage features, water courses, water discharge points, water
impoundments, and ground water monitoring locations;
the name and address of the mining operation;
the mine manager's name and contact information;
the scale, a north arrow and a reference datum;
the name of the individual responsible for the preparation of the maps
and/or photographs; and
the date of preparation, and the record of work and/or revisions.
9
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
E.
The Report shall also include:
1. a written description detailing any reclamation accomplished during the
prior period;
2. results of studies or monitoring required by the Director or any other city,
county, state or federal agency to insure that the requirements of this
permit have been, are being, and will be satisfied; and
3. a certification by Martin Marietta that all mining, processing or
reclamation conducted during the reporting period was in conformance
with the permit and the approved plans, and that Martin Marietta is in
compliance with these commitments.
VID. Reclamation.
Unless an alternative reclamation plan is approved, Martin Marietta shall reclaim the
Real Estate as a lake. The Reclamation Plan shall consist of a graphic and written description of
the proposed Reclamation and shall:
A. include maps and cross sections that illustrate the final physical state of the
reclaimed land;
B.
include a description of the manner in which the land is to be reclaimed, including
the disposition of topsoil, and a schedule for performing any reclamation and
planting and seeding plans that will commence during the next five year period;
C. comply generally with the version of the Guiding Principles of the Environmental
Stewardship Council for reclamation, grading and re-vegetation in effect at the
time the reclamation plan is submitted; and
D. provide a reclamation bond payable to the City in an appropriate and reasonable
amount that, in the Director's discretion, is sufficient. to assure reclamation as
described in the application for Special Use. This bond will be kept in full force
until Martin Marietta completes the reclamation of the Real Estate, and shall be
subject to amendment from time to time as deemed necessary by the Director to
assure completion of the reclamation.
IX. Binding Effect.
These Commitments are binding on Martin Marietta as the current lessee and E. & H.
Mueller Development, LLC ("Mueller") as the current owner of the Real Estate, each subsequent
lessee and owner thereof, and each person acquiring an interest therein, unless modified or
terminated by the BZA or its successor pursuant to this paragraph. These Commitments may be
modified or terminated only upon (a) petition by Martin Marietta or its successor, and (b)
approval by the BZA after notice and hearing pursuant to the BZA's Rules of Procedure. Until
they expire or are modified or terminated pursuant to this paragraph, these Commitments shall be
enforceable by the City of Carmel or the BZA by injunctive relief, denial of building permits or
10
INDY 1622966v.5
DRAFT - 12/6/05
u
approvals in respect of the Real Estate, or other appropriate administrative or judicial remedy,
provided that any such relief, denial or other remedy is related to the Real Estate and to some
effects or harm from a breach or violation of these Commitments by Martin Marietta or Mueller.
These COMMITMENTS may be enforced jointly or severally by the Carmel/Clay Advisory
Board of Zoning Appeals and/or the City of Carmel Department of Community Services, but
shall create no private right of action. In any proceedings to modify or terminate these
Commitments, notice of hearing shall be given to the owners of property as required by the
Carmel Zoning Ordinance and the BZA's Rules of Procedure.
X. General.
In all matters where a representative of the City is given discretion to order studies or
take action, such representative shall do so reasonably and shall not require the doing of any act
or the expenditure of money for arbitrary or capricious reasons.
A. The approval under Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU is specific to the Martin
Marietta proposal for the surface mining of limestone on the Real Estate, and in
no way implies that the BZA has reviewed, condoned, or approved any aspect of
any other pending application for mining.
B.
The denial of a future or other pending application to mine on the Real Estate
shall not be deemed a taking based on any theory that the Real Estate has become
unusable for any purpose other than mining by virtue of the grant of this Special
Use permit. Martin Marietta retains its right to challenge the denial of any future
application on any other ground or theory, including a taking theory not based on
the grant of the permit herein, whether based on state or federal laws or
constitutions, board rules, local ordinances, or otherwise.
o
C. Martin Marietta shall provide access to DOCS and the Department's employees
and its consultants, at all reasonable times, for purposes of monitoring compliance
with these commitments and any other responsibilities derived there from.
D. Unless expressly specified herein, nothing in these commitments shall supersede,
suspend, or otherwise modify any commitment or obligation undertaken by
Martin Marietta in any other proceeding or docket.
COMMITMENTS contained in this instrument shall be effective upon the adoption of
Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU by the Carmel/Clay Advisory Board of Zoning Appeals and
shall continue in effect for as long as the above-described parcel of Real Estate remains the
subject of the Special Use Permit issued in said Approval Docket No. 05090003 SU or until such
other time as may be specified herein.
The undersigned hereby authorizes the City of Carmel Department of Community
Services to record this Statement of Commitments in the Office of the Recorder of Hamilton
County, Indiana, upon final approval of Docket No. 05090003 SUo
u
11
INDY 1622966v.5
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Martin Marietta has caused the execution of this instrument
this day of December, 2005.
MARTIN MARlETT A MATERIALS, INC.
By:
John J. Tiberi
Regional Vice President/General Manager
MidAmerica Region
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF MARION )
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared John J.
Tiberi, the Regional Vice President/General Manager, MidAmerica Region, of Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc., who acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument and who, having
been duly sworn, stated that any representations therein contained are true.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of December, 2005.
Signature
Printed
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
County of Residence:
12
INDY 1622966v.5
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
E. & H. MUELLER DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, an Indiana limited liability company
By:
Signature
Its:
Printed Name and Title
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF )
Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared
, the Managing Member, authorized agent of E. & H. Mueller
Development, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, who acknowledged the execution of
the foregoing instrument and who, having been duly sworn, stated that any representations
therein contained are true.
WITNESS my hand and Notarial Seal this
day of December, 2005.
Signature
.
Printed
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
County of Residence:
This instrument was prepared by and after recordation should be returned to Zeff A. Weiss,
Ice Miller, One American Square, Box 82001, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46282-0200, Telephone
(317) 236-2319.
13
INDY 1622966v.5
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
EXHIBIT A
REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION
Part of the North Half of Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 4 East of the Second Principal
Meridian in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 4 East of the
Second Principal Meridian in Clay Township, Hamilton County, Indiana; thence South 89
degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East (assumed bearing) on the North line of said Section 9, a
distance of 1,336.18 feet to the Northwest comer of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 9, said comer being the PLACE OF BEGINNING of the within described real
estate; thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 12 seconds West on the West line of said East Half
1,716.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East parallel with the North line of
said Section 9, a distance of 1,336.01 feet to the West line of the East Half of said Section 9;
thence South 00 degrees 11 minutes 33 seconds West on the West line of said East Half 156.75
feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East parallel with the North line of said
Section 9, a distance of 919.68 feet to the Westerly line of real estate conveyed to the City of
Carmel, Indiana, by a documented titled "Certification of Clerk" recorded in the Office of the
Recorder at Hamilton County, Indiana, as Instrument Number 9709754848 (the following eight
courses being on the Westerly line of said real estate); 1.) thence North 08 degrees 36 minutes 31
seconds East 885.22 feet; 2.) thence North 02 degrees 53 minutes 53 seconds East 201.00 feet;
3.) thence North 08 degrees 36 minutes 31 seconds East 660.61 feet; 4.) thence North 29 degrees
48 minutes 29 seconds West 55.59 feet; 5.) thence North 80 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds West
303.34 feet; 6.) thence North 89 degrees 03 minutes 10 seconds West 148.00 feet; 7.) thence
North 60 degrees 14 minutes 56 seconds West 57.55 feet; 8.) thence North 00 degrees 04
minutes 04 seconds East 16.50 feet to the North line of said Section 9, said point being 3,302.24
feet South 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds East of the Southwest comer of said Section 9;
thence North 89 degrees 55 minutes 56 seconds West on said North line 1,966.06 feet to the
place of beginning, containing 96.921 acres, more or less.
INDY I622966v.5
u
u
u
DRAFT - 12/6/05
EXHIBIT B
MASTER LIST OF MAPS AND SUBMITTALS
. Area Map
. Zoning Map
. Mine Plan Map
. Reclamation Plan Map
. Landscaping Plan Map
. Cross Section Map
. Erosion and Sediment Control Report
. Sound Level Assessment
. Spill, Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
. Measurement and Analysis of Blast
Induced Ground and AirVibrations
INDY 1622966v.5
(Dated September 6,2005)
(Dated September 6,2005)
(Dated November 28, 2005)
(Dated November 28, 2005)
(Dated November 28, 2005)
(Dated November 28, 2005)
(Dated September 2005)
(Dated September 2005)
(Dated April 2003)
(Dated November 30,2005)