Laserfiche WebLink
_5 =- <br />C-B2d56: informal Confaenm. Mr. R Mille <br />2 <br /> <br />(office, lab, tipple 1, tipple 2, shop, truck dump, erection area, pazking areas)-NOT <br />ESTIMATED". A rnst for removal of the office building needs to be included in <br />either the Eckman Pazk or the Foidel Creek Permit. Please revise the appropriate <br />permit to include a reclamation cost for the CYVCC office. if TCC chooses to <br />include this cost in the Eckman Park reclamation estimate, the Division will remove <br />the cost for demolition of this structure from the Foidel Creek Mine estimate. <br />S) TCC had questions regarding some of the name identification or dimensions listed <br />for some of the structures. In order to clarify some of these items I consulted with <br />the Division staff member who had prepared the 1996 estimate, with the following <br />results: <br />a) Reclaim Tunnels- this task and assumptions were determined by a previous <br />estimator. This estimate provided 1996 costs using the dimensions and assumptions <br />from the preceding estimate. <br />b) Operations building and building East of the operations building. This was <br />from preceding estimate. I will verify with Map 24. <br />c) Pumphouse building- dimensions taken from previous estimate. This building <br />was determined to be the Electrical Shop during the informal conference. <br />d) Building South of pond F- Dimensions were taken from previous estimate. <br />Definition of this building need to be confirmed with Map 24. <br />e) Pond B Treatment Buildings #1 and #2: These dimensions were taken from <br />the previous estimate. During the informal hearing these buildings were determined <br />to be trailers located at the belt-out-back (BOB) azea. <br />I will look specifically at these demolition items and revise according to current <br />information, text and map 24. Kent Gorham has conducted an on-the-ground <br />inspection (9/96) that should verify the dimensions or existence of the <br />aforementioned structures. <br />6) TCC questioned what process should be followed to allow for liability credit for <br />structures that have been removed or replaced prior to final reclamation. Rule <br />3.02.2(5) provides a method for requesting a reduction in "the cost estimate of. <br />reclamation". The removal or replacement of structures would be considered a <br />"circumstance [that] will reduce the maximum estimated cost to the Division to <br />complete the reclamation responsibilities". A reduction request, with specifics as to <br />what amounts and which structures have been removed or replaced, may be <br />submitted as a technical revision. - - <br />