Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <br />( <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />r <br />I <br />1 <br />I <br />( <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />J <br />I <br />t <br />r <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />available from the very luse site and it is possible that the average conditions may be <br />better or worse than the assumed model profile. Oo1y additional ~Ioration and testing <br />can reduce this uncertainty. <br /> <br />. Overall} the subsur5lce Q)nditions across Spilinans {sland appear to be in line with or <br />slightly better than conditions we have encoUIllered al other major wntainCI tl:rmilllll <br />sites of similar history (i.e., old dredge disposal areas) in the Charleston. South CaroJins. <br />aod Savannah. Georgia areas. For the. same post-construetion performance crileria. our <br />IDalyses indicate that site preparation costs for a Spitmans Island container tenninBl <br />should be I~ than those we have calculated for these other major new terminal sites, <br />particularly if a lower fill rate can be reasonably justified. <br /> <br />. The Bayport. SitelSpihnans Island cost comparison performed by LAN used a value of <br />$258,750 per acre for surcharging OD Spilmans Island. Our analyses indicate that <br />depending on the desired level of performance (i.e., loading and post-construction <br />settlemcnt tolerance) and permissible constmctfon lime (Le.. surcharge period), site <br />stabUi%ation casls may be much lower. This is panicularly true as the CO~ of flU is <br />lowered. It should be aoted that the $258,7S0/acre filute from the LAN tepOn includes <br />a 15% increase over \he geotechnical engine:et's (HVJ's) estimate ofS22S,OOO/acre. We <br />underst&od that the increase was intended to represent the additional eneineering.related <br />costs associated witb designing and impJemeating Ihc surtbarge program. Our costs <br />already inc1udo aUowances !or the necessary tub and no additioaal multiplier is <br />necessary. (We have not im:Juded any costs for a 8~~cal exploration since such <br />work wo\lld be required on any potential teraUnal site): .-; <br /> <br />5.1 OTHER COST ISSUES <br /> <br />As noted before. our evaluation bas been lirnncd 10 the stabilization of the site, which is the <br />primary scorcchnica1 related cost associated with site developxnenL However. other issues will <br />also have to be addressed. 111 particular. depending on the configuration of the terminal and <br />consuuction schedulcs, .-ability ooocems along the perimeter of the island may lead to extra. <br />costs (e.g.. ground reinforcement. suged construction. containment bu. ~.). Similarly. we <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />S&ME Spillman Report.max <br />