Laserfiche WebLink
P3~ 5 <br />3. Concern cau also result from the airborne waves. <br />The noise can be startling in quiet surroundings, <br />particularly when unexpected. Co~.7sussioa, while not <br />audible, can ra=tle windo~:aa and doors and produce <br />perceptible motio~l within buildings. Unless ex- <br />tensive window brea!cage has occured, however, other <br />damage from co:-tcussian is mot poasible (since caindow <br />glans is the material most easily damaged by ex- <br />cessive consussion,) <br />4. Moat persa~ls are not aware of the defects existing <br />in their homes or of the fact that such defects <br />becotne either more or less apparent with seasonal <br />changes in temperature or moisture co»tent. Con- <br />sequently, any cha:lges in a building are usually <br />blamed o~~ the noticeable effects of blasting, vib- <br />ration a,1d co>>cussion, rather than on the actual <br />natural causes. <br />SUNII~iARY <br />1. There is no indication that ground motion from blasts <br />o,.i 6-19-79 or 6-20-79 could constitute a hazard to <br />either the Sdells o~ ':;ourlis properties. Blasts <br />considerably larger than these could be initia_ed <br />without causing vibration damage. <br />2, The air-blast from tote two shots monitored was very <br />loca and therefore completely sa.Ee. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />j/c''~iff~a~/ /rL /l f~~:rte <br />Donald G. Harris <br />Doa Harris & Associates <br />DGH/pb <br />n <br />