My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12875
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12875
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:33:14 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:35:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992081
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
RESPONSE TO PAR HAYDEN GULCH LOADOUT C-92-081
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.
/
17
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
2. i Peabody did not state that the culverts were not applicable. Peabody used the <br />V/ designation of N/A to mean the culvert diameters were Not Available, at this time. <br />3. Peabody received the letter from Southern Pacific Lines after the application was <br />` ~ submitted. The letter does not obligate anyone to track removal or give specific <br />details. The Division's salvage policy requirements es stated in the deficiency <br />letter ere so onerous that no operator would suggest salvaging anything under those <br />conditions. With this in mind, Peabody tried to duplicate the cost estimate provided <br />by the Division. Peabody's estimated removal costs for 77,424 ft. of track and ties <br />came out to S 775,957. The difference is due mainly to the Division using a location <br />adjustment factor of 102.50X. It is assumed that this is the same es what MEANS <br />refers to as City Cost Indexes. The only two cities given are Colorado Springs and <br />Denver. The weighted average costs were: <br />Colorado Springs 90.0 <br />Denver 92.5 <br />The Site York costs were: <br />Colorado Springs 95.8 <br />Denver 702.7 <br />Given the fact that neither cost is representative of Hayden, an average cost of <br />700X was used. <br />4. Prior to Peebody purchasing the property, an environmental audit was performed. This <br />audit did not discover any hazardous waste on site. Peebody does not intend to store <br />hazardous materiels (or wastes) on site. <br />~5. A cost for concrete disposal on site has now been included. <br />6. The environmental audit performed by Peabody's representative during negotiation of <br />the purchase agreement, did not find any PCB transformers on site. <br />7. See response to question no. 3 above. <br />8. Peabody does not have a designated sto re ge site for materiels and supplies. Debris <br />on site, if any, will be loaded and hauled off with building scrap. See facility <br />demo sheets in Attachment 23-3. <br />74 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.