Laserfiche WebLink
analysis contemplated by C.M.R. 6.4 and 6.5 and other law. This is incorrect. <br />3. An analysis of the impact of blasting on nearby structures is included in the <br />Second Amended Application dated August 19, 2005 by Lyman Henn, respected engineering <br />.~ ... _._-.. .... ...._._ _..~ ..,-. -..~-__._.,-___v~---., - - __-_., ..,.. <br />and geology consultants who specialize in these and related issues. The report and plan conclude <br />that ground vibration from blasting will not exceed .75 ips at any nearby structure. This standard <br />is recognized in the industry as very conservative and protective. <br />4. Alan Sorenson of the Division, another expert in the relevant field, has analyzed <br />1 <br />this plan and concurs with its conclusions. Blasting is expected to have no effect on nearby <br />structures. No objector has put forward any persuasive specific, technical evidence showing that <br />generally accepted protective standards like the proposed "less than .75 ips" standard will not <br />sufficiently protect the very recently designed and constructed Sanitation District plant. <br />5. The Sanitation District also suggests that all of its "facilities at its wastewater <br />treatment plant" qualify as "structures within 200 feet of the affected land" for purposes of <br />C.M.R. 6.4.19 because "its facilities are linked together by extensive piping, conduits and <br />operations." <br />6. This novel interpretation of C.M.R. 6.4.19 would expand the rule beyond its <br />obvious intent. The Board selected 200 feet for a reason, and structures more than 200 feet away <br />from permit boundaries do not fall within the scope of the rule, even if they are connected by <br />wires or pipes to other structures within the 200 foot limit. <br />7. Nonetheless, as noted above, even if all buildings connected to the sewage <br />treatment plant by sewage pipes (presumably many of the structures in the area) should be <br />considered to be within 200 feet, the Lyman Henn report, Mr. Sorenson's analysis and evidence <br />2 <br />