Laserfiche WebLink
4. Because there was no evidence of any flyrock offsite, the Division decided not to <br />issue an NOV for that issue. However, the Division did request additional <br />information from the operator concerning the regulatory requirements for blasting. <br />Upon review of the additional information supplied by the operator, it was <br />determined that the operator had violated four requirements of the Regulations. <br />The first cited regulation was 4.08.3(1)(a). This rule requires that the blasting <br />schedule public notice be published at least 10 days, but no more than 20 days, <br />before the commencement of any blasting program that uses at least 5 pounds of <br />explosives. However, the blasting schedule public notice had been published on <br />May 7, 1997, while the first blast, which used 900 pounds of explosives, occurred <br />on May 13, 1997, which is less than the 10 day minimum time period. Because <br />there was no possibility of reinitiating the blasting notification publication, this <br />part of the Notice of Violation had no abatement step. <br />The second cited regulation was 4.08.3(1)(b), which requires that copies of the <br />blasting schedule must be delivered to all residences that are located within one- <br />halfmile of the blasting site. The operator had mailed out the blasting schedule to <br />most of the owners of residences, but none of the renters of residences. Ten renters <br />and three owners had not been sent copies of the blasting schedule. The abatement <br />for this part of the violation involved sending copies of the blasting schedule to <br />those residences that initially did not receive such a notification. <br />Rule 4.08.4(3) was the third regulation that had been violated. This rule requires <br />that each person within the permit area and each person who lives or regularly <br />works within one-half mile of the blasting site must receive notification of the <br />meaning of the blasting signals. Nine renters had not been notified of the meaning <br />of the blasting signals. In order to abate this part of the Notice of Violation, <br />appropriate blasting signal notifications needed to be sent to any person who had <br />not been notified accordingly. <br />The fourth rule cited was 4.08.5(3), (5) and (16). The Division's review of the <br />blasting records showed that none of the records contained the blaster's <br />certification license number, the wind direction and approximate velocity and the <br />number of persons in the blasting crew. It was too late to alter the present blasting <br />records, so no abatement was possible. However, all future blasting records must <br />contain this information. <br />