My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-02-12_REVISION - M1998013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1998013
>
2003-02-12_REVISION - M1998013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:49:36 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 4:10:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/12/2003
Doc Name
Slurry wall slope stability and bond review
From
DMG
To
Hall-Irwin Corporation
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to Gregg Squire 2 February 5, 2003 <br />Activity Quantity Units Unit Cost <br /> Costs <br />F Slurry Wall @ 100% Installation Cost <br />assuming a total of 19,9321.f. of wall, <br />avg depth of 26.5'+3'into bedrock <br />1 Excavation, Materials & Labor & dewatering 587,994 Face Ft $3.00 $1,763,982 <br />Subtotal of other direct reclamation costs: $ 235,457 <br />Total Disturbance Costs $1,999,439 <br />Contractor Mobilization (8% of direct costs) $ 159,995 <br />Overhead (18.5% of direct costs.) ~ <br />~ $ 369,896 <br />Administration (5.% of contract amount) ~ $ 126,467 <br />Total $2,655,797 <br />No[e: "1'he 5 percent administration cost element required under §34-32,5-117(4)(b)(1) must be applied to <br />_thesum of the duect costs,(totaldisturbance costs) and the indgect costs (mobilization plus overhead); in <br />' 'th'e Applicant's Table for Reclamation Cost Estimate provided with [he 2-3-03 submittal, the 5 percent <br />.. ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ administration cost-had only been~applied~[o the direct costa ~~. ~~ .. <br />~ .. <br />Qncetlxe slurry. wall is completed, therDM.G.cait consider:redticing theline ikem "for direct cost of <br />slurry' wall installation to 20 percent of the estimated installation cost; this would also result in <br />commensurate reduction of the indirect and administration costs included in the bond amount. The <br />- ~ rationale for the 20 peicent bonding optiori available tti Operators installing slurry walls for a post <br />mining land use of developed waterresohrees, is as-follows: <br />• • An' Operator provides design plans, specifications, grid a quality assurance plan for DMG <br />review and acceptance. <br />• The DMG makes a determination that a slurry wall constructed in accordance with the plans <br />and specifications, and under the approved quality assurance program, has a high probability <br />of effectively meeting leakage criteria for sealed reservoirs established by the State <br />Engineer: <br />" Once the slurry wall is installed and the final construction report, including test results, is <br />review and accepted by DMG, an Operator becomes eligible for a bond equal to 20 percent <br />of the estimated cost to install the slurry wall. The 20 percent bond is a contingency against <br />excessive leakage that may be detected during final testing of the sealed reservoir that would <br />require repair or replacement of potions of the slurry wall, or other actions to seal the <br />leakirig areas. Once the reservoir has been found satisfactory by the State Engineer, the <br />Operator may request release of the remaining 20 percent bond. <br />• The opportunity is available for Operator's at new gravel pits to provide the 20 percent bond <br />at the time of permit issuance, and never be burdened by the cost of posting a 100 percent <br />slurry wall installation cost bond. Such Operator's must commit to DMG that mining will <br />not intersect ground water until the DMG has reviewed and accepted the final slurry wall <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.