Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 7 <br />H-G Preliminary Adequacy Review <br />Specific deficiencies of the blasting plan include: <br />1. A statement of whether or not any residence exists within <br />one half mile of the planned blasting and whether or not any <br />pre-blasting survey will be conducted. <br />2. If a pre-blast survey were required, the applicant should <br />explain how they intend to perform this survey as required by <br />Section 4.08.2. <br />3. The application should include a statement of intended <br />conformance with blasting schedule publication as required by <br />Rule 4.08.3. <br />4. The applicant should include the statement that the <br />applicant intends to conform with the surface blasting confor- <br />mance standards of nearby resident notification (4.08.4(4)), <br />access control (4.08.4(5)), airblast limitation (4.08.4(6)), <br />safety buffer zones (4.08.4(7)), flyrock control (4.08.4(8)), <br />hazard prevention (4.08.4(9)), and maximum peak particle <br />velocity limitation (4.08.4(10)). <br />2.05.3(6)(b) lJaste Disposal: <br />1. The excess spoil pile design must be certified by a registered <br />professional engineer. No engineer's name or registration number <br />nor certification are contained within the application: In <br />addition, those map and cross-section exhibits referred to by <br />this section also fail to contain appropriate engineer's <br />signature. <br />2. Overburden swell factors have not been determined. <br />3. No 9eotechnical analysis is included within the application. <br />The statement contained in the application: "all fill design <br />parameters based on current industry practice.", is not <br />adequate to satisfy the requirements of Rule 2.05.3(6)(c). <br />4. The application states that spoil will be placed in lifts <br />not to exceed 50 feet in thickness. Lift thicknesses of <br />this magnitude ar•e not acceptable. Lift thickness should be <br />determined by the results of the design stability analysis. <br />Lift thickness included within the design should reflect that <br />lift thickness which will obtain the required densities necessary <br />to achieve a static safety facto r• of 1.5. <br />5. The application states that a slope safety factor of 1.5 <br />will be met or exceeded. This statement is not adequate to <br />satisfy the design requirements or Rule 4.09. Such a statement <br />must be supported by an appropriately performed thorough geo- <br />technical analysis. <br />2.05.3(6)(c) Geotechnical Analysis: <br />1. As presented in the application, Section 2.05.3(6)(c) is <br />incorrect. The presented subsection (ii) is actually subsection <br />(iii). Subsection (ii), which is omitted in the regulation <br />rendition contained in the permit, should read: "(ii) a <br />survey identifying all springs, seepage and groundwater flow <br />observed or anticipated during wet periods in the area of the <br />disposal site:." <br />