My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-09-03_PERMIT FILE - M2008006
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2008006
>
2008-09-03_PERMIT FILE - M2008006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:03 PM
Creation date
9/4/2008 11:43:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2008006
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/3/2008
Doc Name
Clarification and Response to CDOT
From
Applegate Group, Inc.
To
DRMS
Email Name
PSH
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.
/
37
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
The Division would propose two permitting options suitable for assuring that the post mining <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 />. <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 />operator would be required to advise the Division of the schedule for construction of the slurry <br />wall so that inspections could be scheduled at 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. standard'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 />linear feet of slurry wall and the slurry wall installation costs for the site are discussed below. A <br />table summarizing a typical specification and quality control plan is attached. <br />Performance Bonding Option. <br />In this option, the operators are 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 may be 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 that 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 along the <br />Front Range. In the worst case, virtually any reservoir along the Front Range could be filled
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.