REV92465 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

999 Lodestar 10/2/01 responses to Munger TR-13 adequacy letters of 7/31, and 8/20/01. 1(a) and (b). amend text on page 2.1-1 and 2.2-14 to commit to completion of Loma Loadout final reclamation and mine site interim reclamation by oo later than November 1, 2001... ok. Amended pages 2.1-1 and 2.2-14 contain this commitment. I(d). amend text in Section 3.9.3 to acknowledge placement ofcoaly material from McClane on Munger bench, and specify placement against highwall in compacted lifts not to exceed 2 feet thick. Also specify maximum volume of coal material. The fact that some of the coaly material placed on the Munger bench came from the McClane yard area in addition to the coal from Loma was not specifically addressed. But amended section 3.9.3 does specify placement and compaction in compliance with appropriate requirements, and commits to inspection and certification by P.E. as requested in letter of 8/20/01. A replacement page 2.2-12 was submitted, but it is not clear why. The page was not requested and there are no apparent changes from the current permit page 2.2-12. Requested maximum volume of coal material to be placed against theMunger highwall was not specified. Lodestaz 10/03/01 response to our cost estimate and letter of August 11.2001. Our cost estimate total was $175,596.00, which exceeded the current bond held by $2,673.00. In Lodestar's response, they cite Task 10 (seal and plug portals) as having been completed, "which will decrease the bond estimate by $3,807.00." They further cite Task 12 "conveyor gantry superstructure" of 405.25 which was not constructed, and "remove fan and portal arch" which "has been completed for an additional $303.94.000. They conclude "These two items alone should save $4,516.19, which is more than the $2,673.00 difference..." 1 don't think we can give "credit" for portal sealing andplugging or fan removal unless we do a phase I bond release, since this would involve bond reduction based on satisfactory completion of reclamation. Also, although 1 believe it is correct that the portals were sealed with foam seals some distance in from the openings, 1 don't think the portals were permanently pluggedoutby the seals, but were rather temporarily blocked with dirt pushed into the openings to block access into the portals during temporary cessation. Permanent plugging would need to be confirmed before we could approve bond release. The bond should be adjusted to reflect the conveyor structure that was never built ($405.25), but this adjustment would still leave a deficit of over $2,000.00 1 have a larger concem based on my review of our August 11, 2001 cost estimate and the previous midterm estimate of August 1 I, 2000. The concem 1 have is that Reclamation Task IS (haul coal material from loadout to mine), which was included in the prior cost estimate of January 8, 1997, does not appear to have been included in the 2000 or 2001 estimates, although there is a Task 16, (Place material hauled fromLoma Loadout at base of mine). Maybe this task I S was incorporated into one of the otherbackfilling and grading tasks. 1'll check with Jim Stark to see if this was the case. Otherwise, it would appeaz that we will need to amend our estimate to include the haulage, which will increase the apparent bond deficit by another $5,476.00, at a minimum. (Although by now, the coal haulage may have been completed). 1 should have caught this previously. In the 1997 estimate, there was a dvect cost of $ 11,500.00 for this task, which was based on an estimated volume of 1,369 cubic yards ofcoaly material at the loadout. Our letter of February 3, 1997, contains the following explanation. Based on measurements made by the Division at the Loma loadout, we estimate a total of /369 cubic yards of cooly material, including 236 yards ojstockpiled coal, 314 cubic yards ofcoaly material on three ramps in the loadout area, and 8/9 cubic yards ofcoaly material on the sarjace ojthe pad area. The estimate