_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (250)

Home Browse Search

Thursday,July 20,1995 09:21:48 PM Greg Lewicid and Asociates Page 3 of 5 Mine Portal Areas 93 and 94 Many of the concerns for the portal area RFP's are similar to those at the Sutey Pile but there are some additional concerns. 1) The problem of the contractor's anxiety over meeting deadlines and potentially paying penalties for bad weather conditions is even more magnified at the portal areas due to the higher elevation. The site visit occurred in considerable snow and large snow patches continue to exist in July. This concern has definitely contributed to higher costs. In fact, the DMG estimated costs in the bond for backfilling and grading work in the permit are between $0.30 and $0.34 per cubic yard for the two portal areas. The bids received show costs ranging from $60k to $116k at Mine 93 and $82k to 598k at Mine 44. At my calculated quantities of approximately 40,000 cubic yards at each portal area, this results in a cost of$1.20 to nearly $3.00 per cubic yard; quite a bit higher than both our internal estimates and the DMG bond estimates. Again, if the deadline'penalty items could be re- worked to lessen the anxiety of the contractors, the bid prices would be substantially lower. 2) Another direct result of the fixed deadline for completion of the work is the backfilling and grading in wet material. Since pockets of snow were still present in mid-July, this is a real concern. By signing the agreement, the contractor is committing to not only backfilling potentially wet material to a 2.OH:1.OV slope, but to do it in a manner to achieve long term slope stability. The wet material has little cohesion and cannot be compacted properly. The contractors know this is a serious concern and their bids obviously reflect it. This work should only be done under dry conditions. 3) Silt fence is not practical at the portal areas. Why should the Division worry about erosion from less than 10 acres of mostly rocky material for at most a 60 day period until final furrows are installed when there are literally miles of roads on the site that have had no sediment control for decades. The contractors are also probably worried that they will be responsible to maintain the silt fence. The work can be performed while keeping berms in place over large portions of the work area to minimize erosion. Over this short time, the environmental impact is minimal. Also, looking at the high costs of the bids received, the money could probably be better used for later reclamation work. 4) The furrows on the remnant portion of the bench area are a good idea, as I proposed in the plans submitted in April, 1994, however, the dimensions of the furrows are impractical and are forcing the contractors to bring special equipment to the sites. Instead of a trapezoidal furrow of a depth of 1.5 feet and a bottom width of 2 feet, the furrows should be cut by tilting the blade of a D-8 type dozer (which basically must be brought to the sites anyway) so that a ditch is cut to the approximate dimensions shown below: