Laserfiche WebLink
2. The Division has reviewed the explanation as to why data from seismograph <br />"BE6516", following Shot Number 3, were not provided in the original MR <br />application. The Division has also reviewed the revised Appendix IV data <br />reflecting this explanation. The Division finds the explanation and revised table <br />acceptable. No further response is necessary. <br />3. Response to Adequacy Question #3 <br />The blast sketch for Shot Number 1 submitted with the original MR-16 application did not <br />clearly identify the locations of the 42-millisecond delays used in that blast. The permittee <br />provided an acceptable revised sketch correcting this. The revised sketch indicates that none <br />of the blast holes in Shot Number 1 were detonated simultaneously. I therefore recommend <br />the following comment to the permi[tee: <br />3. The Division has reviewed the revised blast sketch for Shot Number 1, which <br />highlighted the locations of the 42-millisecond delays used in that test blast. The <br />sketch indicates that none of the blast holes in Shot Number 3 were detonated <br />simultaneously. The Division finds the explanation and revised sketch blast <br />acceptable. No further response is necessary. <br />4. Response to Adequacy Question #4 <br />The blast sketch for Shot Number 3 submitted with the original MR application indicated <br />that all but one of the 44-foot blast holes was filled with 1020 pounds of explosive. One 44- <br />foot hole was shown on the blast sketch as having been filled with 1220 pounds of <br />explosive. <br />As the value of 1220 pounds was the highest value of explosive weight per hole recorded on <br />the Shot Number 3 blast sketch, this 1220 pound value was the value consequently used in <br />the original attenuation study to derive the values for Scaled Distance and Peak Particle <br />Velocity resulting from Shot Number 3 (original Appendix IV data table). Ensuring that the <br />1220 value was correct was therefore important for the purpose of determining the validity <br />of the both the data in the attenuation study and the study's conclusions regarding the <br />permittee's proposed Scaled Distance Fac[or value of 28.44. <br />The permittee's response indicates that the 1220 pound value is correct, but that it in fact <br />was an unintended value, as a malfunction of the explosive loading equipment resulted in <br />that one hole receiving more explosive than planned. As the 1220 pound value is the value <br />of the actual weight of explosive for the Shot Number 3 blast hole in question, I recommend <br />the following comment to the permittee: <br />4. The Division finds the permittee's response to this adequacy question <br />acceptable. No further response is necessary. <br />