Laserfiche WebLink
999 <br />Mathews, Dan <br />From: Berry, David <br />Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:35 PM <br />To: Mathews, Dan <br />Cc: Cheryl Linden (E-mail) <br />Subject: RE: roadside train loadout <br />Dan - Stark's bond work just came back, and the result is $453,406 for the loadout and related fixtures. Obviously they <br />are not going to writ to post that amount. I have now briefed Mike Long on the bond issue, and he will get back to me. <br />Maybe tlraft your letter, but leave out the bond piece until we get direction from Mike. (Cheryl - I briefed Mike about the <br />legal issue). <br />David <br />-Original Message- <br />From: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 1:33 PM <br />To: Berry, David <br />Subject: RE: roadside train loadout <br />ok. Let me know when you get a cost estimate. I will hold off on completeness until then. I would probably be able <br />to do an adequacy letter at the same time as completeness. The adequacy letter would include the requirement that <br />additional bond in a specified amount be submitted prior to proposed decision (or final approval?), the need for <br />specific language regarding contract term and initiation of reclamation per Figure 4-1 schedule within (60 days?) of <br />contract expiration, and need to correct reference to 2000 as "year 1". The bonding requirement should cause quite <br />a stir. <br />-Original Message-- <br />From: Berty, David <br />Sent: Wednestlay, July 11, 2001 11:42 AM <br />To: Mathews, Dan <br />Cc: Cheryl Linden (E-mail) <br />Subject: RE: roadside train loadout <br />I think that it would be best to get a specific coal contract duration for the Lodestar need, and have Powderhorn <br />commit to initiating reclamation upon expiration of the coal contract, rather than connecting it to the permit <br />recalamtion schedule as is.Cheryl has also suggested that because we assert that the site is unbonded, maybe <br />we get a bond far the loadout area. I have Stark working to get me an estimate of bond for the loadout only. I <br />need to work through this issue with Cheryl. Her point is quite valid. <br />Good on the refuse MRs. <br />I suspect that you are correct on the outdated table info. Stark may have been confused <br />-Original Message--- <br />Fram: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 11:19 AM <br />To: Berry, David <br />Subject: RE: roadside train loadout <br />I did not know that you had already told Stover that Lodestar could use the loadout, with Roadside continuing <br />as the sole listed operator. I(you told me I forgot. Stover didn't mention that as an issue, that was my <br />assumption. I guess the main thing Stover wanted to know was whether his language regarding the <br />reclamation schedule triggers was adequate. You indicate that it is not adequate. Maybe we should have <br />him add something like "Upon permanent cessation of operations at the Loadout, DMG will be notified in <br />accordance with Rule 4.30, and the reclamation of the loadout will be initiated and completed in accordance <br />with the reclamation schedule in Figure 14-1 ." <br />Be aware however, that under the permit, the reclamation schedule does not "kick in" until 1 year after <br />cessation of operations, with another 1.5 years allowed for facilities removal and regrading. Do we want to <br />allow for this much time to pass between Lodestar terminating operations and reclamation occurring at the <br />loadout? <br />