Laserfiche WebLink
The Division would propose two permitting options suitable for assuring that the post minin~~ <br />-~ land use of developed water resources will be established at the site through the installation of <br />slurry walls. These options are described below. <br />Regulated Construction Option <br />The applicant may provide design drawings and specifications for the installation of the slurry <br />wall along with a quality assurance/quality control plan. These documents would be binding <br />under the terms of the permit, and the Division would require a statement that the plans and <br />specifications, once approved, could not be altered without consent by the Division. The <br />bperator would be required to advise the Division of the schedule for construction of the slurry <br />wall so that inspections could be scheduled aC appropriate times during installation. The operator <br />would be further required to provide a construction report detailing the installation of the slurry <br />wall, describing any problems that occurred, and listing the results of testing that was conducted <br />under the approved quality assurance/quality control plan. A certification would be required to <br />accompany the construction report with a statement from the quality assurance engineer that the <br />slurry wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. <br />With the-level of regulatory control over the installation of the slurry wall described above, the <br />State would gain a high degree of assurance that the SEO required design standazd leakage <br />criterion is attainable. With this level of assurance, contingency bonding for repair or <br />replacement of 20 percent of the total linear feet of slurry wall is acceptable. The number of <br />lineaz feet of slurry wall and the slurry wall installation costs for the site aze discussed below. A <br />table summarizing a typical specification and quality control plan is attached. <br />Performance Botidin¢ Option - <br />In this option, the operators aze left to their own devices in the design, installation, and testing of <br />the slurry wall, but would be required to demonstrate that.the slurry wall limits leakage into the <br />pit in accordance with the State Engineer's criteria. In this case, the Division would not have <br />regulatory control over construction of the slurry wall, and would bond for the cost to install a <br />complete replacement slurry wall. The performance bonding option considers the worst case <br />scenario where the slurry wall has been installed and the pit has been mined out, but it is <br />determined that the slurry wall leaks in excess of SEO requirement. Another consideration that <br />enters into bonding for this worst case scenario is the potential for leakage into the pit through <br />the bedrock pit floor. Unless the applicant can provide a geological evaluation of the proposed <br />pit floor bedrock that demonstrates that leakage will not occur, the Division should bond for <br />sealing fractured or sandy bedrock that maybe uncovered during mining and that may leak in <br />excess of SEO established criteria at this time. <br />Reservoir Filling <br />Past practices by the Division in permitting lined reservoirs included a requirement to provide <br />bond sufficient to purchase enough water from a reliable source to fill the reservoir one time. <br />Numerous gravel pits have been reclaimed or are proposed to be reclaimed as lined storage <br />reservoirs since the passage of Senate Bill 120 in 1989. It has become clear [hat there is a great <br />demand for lined storage in over appropriated basins. It is no longer a substantial concern to the <br />Division that lined reservoirs will not be filled and put to their intended beneficial use aloe; the <br />Front Range. In the worst case, virtually any reservoir along the Front Range could be filled <br />1 <br />