My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-04-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981033
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981033
>
2009-04-21_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981033
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:45:45 PM
Creation date
4/21/2009 3:39:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981033
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/21/2009
Doc Name
Preliminary Submittal Adequacy Review & Cost Estimate
From
Susan Burgmaier
To
Joe Dudash
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
SLB
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.
/
28
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
Rule 3.03.1(2)(d) prohibits the Division from releasing any bond in excess of that required to complete <br />remaining reclamation work required by the approved reclamation plan. Accordingly, I have <br />recalculated the estimate for remaining reclamation tasks using current costs. I estimate that <br />completing the remaining reclamation at the site by a third party would cost $120,283.00. Again, this is <br />assuming that all of the reclamation work reported to have been completed by the operator is in <br />accordance with the approved reclamation plan and deemed eligible by the Division for Phase I release. <br />Attached is a table which includes each of the original reclamation tasks from the currently approved <br />reclamation cost estimate, the amount requested for release by Bear Coal Company, and my estimate of <br />the amount that could be released were the Phase I application approved. The figures shown as <br />negative dollar release amounts are tasks that have increased in cost since the last estimate. Increases <br />are primarily due to rising labor, equipment, and materials costs. <br />Tasks with proposed release amounts less than those proposed by the operator: <br />Tasks 2, 4, 14, and 14b: All of these tasks were recalculated to reflect the Phase I release on <br />applicable portions, but costs for the remaining work within each task were higher due to rising <br />costs for labor, equipment, and materials. <br />Task 9: The operator's request was based on all three portal seals meeting Phase I release <br />standards. Your March 31, 2009 e-mail indicated that release would only be possible on the <br />ventilation shaft. Costs to seal the main entry and beltline entry have been retained, and those <br />costs have increased due to rising costs for labor, equipment, and materials. <br />Tasks with estimated release amounts in excess of the operator's request: <br />Task 5: The cost to remove the flood control dike has been removed. Your March 31, 2009 e- <br />mail stated that the dike has been approved for permanent retention. <br />Task 7b: Culvert demolition costs were researched and reevaluated in the two years since the <br />reclamation liability cost at the Bear Mine was last estimated, resulting in a reduction in our <br />estimated removal costs. <br />Task 12: Materials costs for mulch netting have dropped since the reclamation cost estimate <br />was last done. <br />Task 18: Well sealing costs were also reevaluated, so our estimated costs for well sealing are <br />lower. <br />As noted above, this is only an estimate of how much the reclamation liability costs might be <br />reduced if all of the work for which the release is requested is deemed satisfactory by the <br />Division. Once you have completed an inspection of the site and determined what reclamation <br />work merits bond release, I will get you an accurate cost estimate for the remaining reclamation <br />liability. We'll also need supporting maps and volume calculations from the operator for the <br />Page 2 of 4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.