The judge did not create an unattainable standard. When a quarry is properly designed on a tract of land located where it can contain excessive flyrock there will be no problem. Furthermore, it is against mining and safety laws to launch flyrock beyond a quarry boundary. The judgment made is about what might happen at this particular quarry. There is no difference between a poorly sited quarry and a firing range that might endanger the neighbors.
The information in this paragraph is from Page 2 of a paper "Flyrock
Prediction and Control in Surface Mine Blasting" that was presented as
an exhibit during Rivers' appeal hearing in Environmental Court. The
paper explains what excessive flyrock is: "To avoid confusion, the term
flyrock requires definition. There are two zones of flyrock, which may
be termed 'normal' or 'excessive.' Normal flyrock zone refers to the
area where flyrock is expected to occur. It is the zone from which
personnel are evacuated prior to blasting and is cordoned off during the
blast. The excessive flyrock zone is the area beyond the protected zone
where flyrock does not normally occur. Flyrock in this area is a result
of poor blasting practice or undetected geological conditions favoring
the projection of rock fragments to large distances. Excessive flyrock
is one of the main causes of accidents associated with blasting."
The neighbors near Rivers' proposed quarry would reside in the excessive
flyrock zone. Environmental Court Judge Durkin made his decision on
Rivers' proposed quarry based in part on Rivers' blasting expert's
testimony. The judge wrote in his decision Fact 171, Page 45, "However,
Rivers' expert could not assure that no blasts at the Rivers' quarry
would result in rock being thrown beyond the Rivers' boundary limits. He
speculated that rock could be thrown, unintentionally, as far as 1,500
feet from the quarry floor. Because some homes are located within this
distance he recommended that area residents be notified prior to a blast
and that they stay in their homes during a blast." In part of the
conclusion on Page 62 the judge wrote, "To this area, the Rivers' quarry
will bring activities and noises not yet experienced; they will be new
intrusions into this neighborhood and district. While the prospect of
fly rock trespassing upon neighboring properties will be rare, if
occurring at all, Rivers could not provide assurances that fly rock will
not descend upon neighboring properties and perhaps onto Route 100B.
While Rivers' expert credibly asserts that this is unlikely to happen,
he also recommended that those within 1,500 feet of the quarry site
remain indoors during blast events. Thus, at least as frequently as a
dozen times each operational season, the lives of neighboring property
owners will be interrupted and they will be directed to remain indoors,
lest they wish to risk limb, life, or property damage. Both the
frequency of these intrusions into neighbors' lives and the disparity
between such interruptions and the character of this area, leads us to
conclude that the project will cause the unduly harmful impacts from
which criterion 9(E)(i) seeks to protect."
The blasts at Rivers' proposed quarry would be very large. Judge Durkin
wrote in his decision "a combined blast could expend as much as 7,848.4
pounds of explosives." (Almost four tons of explosives.)
The judge made the right decision by evaluating this particular project
at this particular location. He concluded, based on the facts before
him, that blasting dangers posed an unacceptable risk to the neighbors
and traveling public on 100B. He also concluded that the noise coming
from the quarry would exceed both Moretown zoning and Act 250 noise
standards.
To read the entire Rivers' appeal decision, Rivers' request for the
judge to alter his decision, the neighbors and the town's responses to
Rivers' request to alter, please go to the Mad River Neighborhood
Association website www.mrnavt.org.
Hendrickson lives in Moretown.
