Thank you for all your comments and complaints. We have lots of survey results, but could use more. If you haven’t turned in the survey, please take the time to send one in: Survey Here. The more information we have, and the more people that voice their opinion, the better our chances of getting our point across, and making a change.

For Context: On Nov 30, Rep. Caleb Hemmer sent a request to the Deputy Fire Marshal for the State of Tennessee, asking for the results of his investigation. He responded, as he usually does, that the blasts were within regulations. In response to Rep Hemmer’s forward of the Fire Marshal’s report, I sent this email.

From: Paul Garland
Date: Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 5:31 PM
To: Caleb Hemmer <rep.caleb.hemmer@capitol.tn.gov>
Cc: Druffel, Thom (Council Member) <Thom.Druffel@nashville.gov>, Heidi Campbell <sen.heidi.campbell@capitol.tn.gov>, Bo Mitchell<rep.bo.mitchell@capitol.tn.gov>
Subject: Re: Follow-up from Rep. Hemmer

Mr. Hemmer,

We received the State Fire Marshal’s report, prior to the November 16 blast, and have seen that the readings from the seismograph in our back yard varied from .065 to .60 for the prior 6-7 months. To date over 80 neighbors have complained in one form or another about the blasts on April 10, October 6 and November 16. I am going to initiate a survey this week to get a more complete list. I do know that at least 3 residents have filed complaints with the State Fire Marshal.

It is likely you misunderstood me in our communication. The reason I am the voice that has been heard the most is that I am the Vice President and acting President of the West Meade Neighborhood Association and feel that it is my responsibility to speak for the residents. My wife, Sheryl, has done much of the communication with Vulcan and Deep Earth Logic, the monitoring company. As a result, the West Meade location for a portable seismograph has been in our yard. 

This isn’t a handful of discontented people. At last count over 80 West Meade and Hillwood residents have voiced their displeasure with the blasting, and many of those have blamed foundational or plaster problems on the vibrations. The West Meade area is comprised of around 1700 homes, and the Hillwood Neighborhood is similarly sized. Most of the homes in these neighborhoods are worth $1 million – 6 million, and for many retired residents, may be their largest investment. I seriously doubt this problem will just go away without some acceptable resolution, and telling the residents everything is ok because Vulcan’s blasting was “within State Allowable Values” will just turn up the heat (so to speak). Any acceptable resolution will likely also need to address how residents will get help for needed repairs.

I have read the 84-page document, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting. Despite what the gentleman from Vulcan implied, I am perfectly capable of understanding the research (BS Math, University of Memphis, MS Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University). 

Some problems/questions I have with the paper are these:

1. The research was done in 1983 – 40 years ago! There have been plenty of technological changes since then, as well as geological research and discoveries that would impact such a report. I discussed this issue with a geologist at Johns Hopkins who indicated that periodic vibrations for over 40 years, like our homes have experienced, even at .5 in/sec would cause stress damage on any concrete or brick structure.
2. The paper was produced by the Bureau of Mines, a Dept. of Interior office that was disbanded in 1996, so there is no longer a reporting agency with which to file requests for review/update.
3. The paper points out that the 2.0 in/sec safe level criterion set prior to the research was too high to be practical, so why is this the max criteria for blasting in Tennessee? It also points out that Pennsylvania adopted the 2.0 criterion in 1957, and in 1974 was forced to adopt stricter regulation because of citizen pressure and lawsuits. 
4. The report focuses on 4 main areas – Response to residential structures, Failure characteristics of building materials, safe vibration levels for residential structures and Human response. There is no research on the cumulative effect of repeated periodic vibrations on the soil and rock. Since all foundations are dependent on the stability of the earth under them, this would seem like an important piece of missing research. Our neighborhoods are riddled with areas that have had landslides in the past, so the stability of the soil and fractured limestone underneath the soil is paramount to the stability of the foundation.
5. Although there is a section on repeated periodic vibrations and their effect on building structures, it is only a description and reference to a previous study, Shock Environment Test of Model Drywall Room (Bureau of Mines Test Package No. 1) that was from 1975 – almost 50 years ago.
6. The paper references existing vibration standards in Europe which are much lower than the suggested 2.0 in/sec but says they are “so strict as to be unworkable.” Also mentioned is the Australian standard of 0.75 in/sec resultant peak particle velocity and the Czechoslovakian maximum code of 0.4 in/sec. In the U.K. there are different regulations for sparsely populated areas than for densely populated areas.
7. Appendix B lists an alternative blasting level criteria developed for residential structures that uses a combination of particle velocity and displacement, but states that “the measurement complexity will make this impractical for many situations.”

Regulations and old papers aside, the real issue is that residents of West Meade and Hillwood neighborhoods are experiencing more intense blasting than ever before and are concerned that the cracks in their plaster lathe or wallboard, bricks and driveways are somehow related. 

Every Geologist consulted so far agrees that 40 years of roughly monthly blasting, at any level, will impact concrete foundations through either material stress or through shifting the soil under the foundation. The chair of the UofM Center for Earthquake Research and Information suggested that we might want to get a simulation of cumulative effects of the blasting.

The West Meade Neighborhood Association is still considering its next steps in response to the neighborhood uproar. It would make sense for us to

1. Take a survey and find out how many residents have had their foundations or walls fixed, or need to have them fixed, due to what they consider blasting damage.
2. Work with Vulcan to reduce the blasting impacts
3. Push for a re-evaluation of the standard
4. Push the state to update the regulatory requirement to take population, age of homes and geological strata/structure into account.

Thanks,

Paul Garland