DRC-2009-006267 - 0901a0688014bd58

Stateof Utah
fiAK> K. HBRliLRT
G'lVfriK"-
GREG BELL
Litiilfnanl GifVi rnnr
Department of
Environmental Qualily
."^mandii .Smith
E.u-tutivi- Dii-(-nni-
DIVISION OF R.ADI.ATION CONTROL
l)jnc I.. Fincprrix'k
l)i'-ri-!i»
TO: L. Morlon/Filc
FROM: DaveRupp^;;^^,, ^
D.'^TE: November 17, 2009
M E M O R A N D U M
yp/r\ 'I Moi
SUBJECT: 2009 DUSA Surety Estimate Approval
On October 21. 2009 we received an email lVoni DUSA which conveyed a leuer from them dated October
5. 2000. As a result of tny review of thi.s submittal, I recommend we approve the proposed .'Surety amount
of S15.807.429. The informalion provided updates the buokJet litled Revi.scJ Cost Estimates for
Reclamation of lhe White Mesa Mill and Tailings Monagntwni System, dated July 2009. An earlier edition
ofthis estimate ofthe same title was dated February 2009.
We provided two .t,els of comments lo DUSA on the surety estimate. These were dated May 21. 2009, and
Aug. 17. 2{K)*.>. The major comments ofthe first comment letter requested addilions to the estimate for
reclamation ofthe new tank facilities, costs for rock material, detailed power equipment coniments, and
mob/demob for general equipment and mainienance equipment. These con"iments were generally
incorporated into a revised estimate submitted July 27. 2009. Our concerns regarding general mob/demob
were assuaged.
In the DRC Aug. 17, 2000 comment letter, some valid oversights for new tanks, equipment mainienance,
and new costs for contractor insurance for rental equipment, workers compensation, employer and general
liability were identified. These costs were accepted by DUSA and included in rhe final estirnale amount of
$15,807,429 per their October 5, 2009 letter. This updated estimate constitutes a $790,300 increase from
lhe previous approved surety amount of S15,017.129.
The major changes for this final estimate were increased direct cosls for conventional ore inventory
disposal, rock rip-rap maierials. contractor's insurances, maintenance equipment fees, labor and equipmeni
costs. Alt these were added in this final DUSA eslimaie. Indirect cosls also increased, as a result of being
fi\ed percentages of direct costs. So. theses values increased, due lo these fixed percentages being
multiplied hy increa.sed direct costs.
The remainder ofthe approval letter is self explanatory.
- END -
[(iV Nurlh 1951) Wevf Suit LiikcCiiv UT
M:»ilin£..A(kirfss P O Bov l44SSn • Siili Liku t."iiv, l.T S41i^-4J50
lelephone (Sl)l i Stf>.425l)» FJX (Sll!).".-4U07 •T.DD (SOU 530 4414
n iv^-.i/iv/ .i!itl\.-.-ft
Pruned tin Mjn'; rrcv-kd p.ip"