My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE28921
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE28921
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:36:04 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:06:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
9/29/1993
From
RCG HAGLER BAILLY INC
To
DMG
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.
/
4
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
~~ <br />., <br />~II ~I~~I~~I~~~~~ ~I~ <br />RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. <br />PO Drawer0 <br />Boulder, Colorado 80306-1906 <br />303/449-5515 • Fax 303/443-5684 <br />September 27, 1993 <br />Dr. Harry Posey <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources $ P 2 <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 ~ x`993 <br />Denver, CO 80203-2273 <br />Dear Dr. Posey: <br />This letter is in response to your letter of September 1, 1993 regardin the clerical <br />support, my time spent on the project and other matters related to th third-party <br />monitoring at Battle Mountain's San Luis gold mine. <br />The first matter concerns the 8.0 hours of clerical support charged for the period from <br />6/1/93 to 6/15/93. I spoke to the support person who performed that wo k, who does <br />keep a close accounting of al] her hours. She rechecked her records and c nfirmed that <br />she did indeed spend 8 hours formatting the text and producing lotus t bles for the <br />second report, which was submitted on June 14, 1993. Most of the time was spent setting <br />up the lotus tables for Table 2 and Table 3, the tables that present the fiel parameters <br />and analytical results for the sampling trips. I have been able to save time by using the <br />lotus files she set up at that time in subsequent reports, so I feel it was cler cal time well <br />spent. However, if BMRI feels that this is excessive, we are open to "ea 'ng" some of <br />these 8 hours of clerical time. The charge for 8 hours of clerical time (at $42.00/hr) is <br />$336.00. <br />Regarding my time spent on the project, it is true that I have not charged fo all my time, <br />especially time spent on the reports. I have undercharged because of my s nse that the <br />reports were to be limited in scope and brief summaries. Most of the a tra time has <br />been spent examining the QA/QC report and investigating discrepancies be een filtered <br />and unfiltered process point analyses. Neither of these was included in the riginal scope <br />of work, but I thought they were both important in terms of understandin the cyanide <br />analytical problems at the site. There was also a fair amount of back and fo th with Core <br />Labs about problems they overlooked in the QA/QC reports, which is dis ussed in the <br />second and third monitoring reports. All of this has increased the amoun of time that <br />I have spent on the reports relative to that budgeted for the reports, and I have tried to <br />keep costs down by spending some of my own time on the completion of t e reports. I <br />will not be submitting an invoice for the extra hours. <br />Management, Economic. antl Technical Counsel • Principal Offices Thtoughout the Worltl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.