GENERAL35603 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. .: , . •; , -s- 3. If required by the County Authorities, a simple blast monitoring program using a single blasting seismograph could be instituted, at least at first, when operations are continued. In [his way actual vibration levels will be documented, the advice contained in this report will be confirmed, and opposing views will perhaps be reconciled. SPECIAL NOTE: Vibrs~-Tech Engineers have studied the Special Review Findings and Resolutions, concerning the petitions of the Spragues to operate the various rock quarries involved. The following comments are offered on the Germs of these Special Review Findings and Resolutions: 1. Findings, Paragraph 5: "Unlimited blasting" Because of the very small charges, it is felt that under no circumstances will there occur anything that might be termed "Unlimited blasting". The Recommendations of this report would effectively limit any blasting. 2. Resolution, Paragraph l.a.: If this requirement is intended to limit blasting to only 2 weeks per year, then it would effectively prohibit the operation, since blasting would probably have to occur about once a week throughout the year. Some exemption would also have to made on safety grounds, in order that a shot that for any reason, such as an impending thunder- storm, could not be detonated, say, before 3:00 p.m. would not have to be left loaded and unfired overnight. 3. Resolution, Paragraph l.d.: Again, because of the low level of impact expected on local property owners, and the difficulty for safety reasons, of fixing the date and time of a shot a week in advance, it is felt that this presents an unreasonable and unsafe restriction. Notification by telephone immediately prior Co each shot should provide proper and reasonable notice. Respectfully submitted: r John L.H. Simmance Area Manager JLHS:mm April 17, 1986