Laserfiche WebLink
Because differences in age and construction of residential structures and foundations can <br />vary widely, and because the soil or rock that residential structural foundations are placed in <br />can also be extremely variable, it is in the interest of the Division, the permittee, and the <br />owner of the Yoast structure that the permittee also monitor ground motion at the Yoast <br />residence. I therefore recommend the following comment to the permittee: <br />8. The Division understands the permittee's comments that it believes that seismic <br />monitoring will not be necessary at the Yoast residence, as that structure lies <br />just beyond the Brian Valora residence. However, as differences can exist <br />between the ages and types of structures and foundations, and because <br />structures can be constructed in different soil and rock types, it is in the best <br />interest of the Division, the permittee, and the owner of the Brain Valora <br />residence that the permittee commit to seismic monitoring of all three nearby <br />residential buildings. Please revise the proposed permit text to reflect this. <br />9. Response to Adequacy Question #9 <br />The Division stated in its l2/28/O1 adequacy letter that as the permittee was requesting to <br />use new Scaled Distance Factors [ha[ will result in using higher amounts of explosives per <br />hole, it can be expected that airblast levels from blasts that use the new Factors will also be <br />higher. The Division requested a commitment from the permittee that airblast monitoring <br />also occur at the Valora and Yoast residences. <br />The permittee's response is not clear that airblast monitoring will occur at all three <br />residences (the Brian Valora residence, the Gary Valora residence, and the Yoast residence). <br />Therefore, I recommend [he following comment [o the permittee: <br />9. It is not clear that airblast monitoring is being proposed for all three nearby <br />residential structures. Please provide a revised permit text page that clearly <br />states that the permittee will monitor airblast levels at the Brian Valora, Gary <br />Valora, and Yoast residences. <br />10. Response to Adequacy Question #10 <br />The blast records for the three test blasts provided in the MMC study did not indicate that <br />there were two people present for each of the blasts, as required by CMLRB Rule 4.08.1(3). <br />The Division requested that the permittee commit to this, and to revising its blast record <br />form to include a signature for a second person. The permittee has committed to this. I <br />therefore recommend the following comment to the permittee: <br />10. The permittee's commitment to having two people present at each blast, and to <br />utilize a form with a signature line for each of these two people, is acceptable. <br />No further response is necessary. <br />Cc: Dave Berry <br />