My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-11-30_REVISION - C1981012
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981012
>
2010-11-30_REVISION - C1981012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:22 PM
Creation date
11/30/2010 12:03:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981012
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
11/30/2010
Doc Name
Reclamation Cost Estimate
From
Jim Stark
To
Kent Gorham
Type & Sequence
TR54
Email Name
KAG
JRS
SB1
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.
/
11
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
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />COLORADO <br />D I V1 S I ON OF <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINING <br />SAFETY <br /> <br />INTEROFFICE Bill Ritter, Jr. <br /> <br />Governor <br />MEMORANDUM ike King <br /> E <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />TO: Kent Gorham Loretta <br />DiretorE. Pineda <br />FROM: Jim Stark -e7!5=1 <br />SUBJECT: New Elk Mine's TR-54 Cost Estimate <br />DATE: 30 November 2010 <br />Attached is the reclamation cost estimate for the New Elk Coal Company's (NECC) <br />Technical Revision 54 - new surface facilities, for the New Elk Mine. The estimate is <br />five tasks (m and tasks 121-125) and represents an increase in liability of $352,385.00. <br />The Division's estimate is slightly less than the estimate of $367,482.00 submitted by <br />NECC. The reason for the difference is a minor difference in unit costs for the <br />demolition tasks. <br />While going through the materials provided for TR-54 I did find several additional <br />adequacy issues. These adequacy issues were generally typographical errors or <br />omissions and did not prevent me from calculating the cost estimate. The following are <br />my additional adequacy questions. <br />1. NECC provided a series of three maps which show the surface facilities (Map 11, <br />sheets 1-3). These maps have not been certified by a registered, professional <br />engineer. Pursuant to Rule 2.10.3(2), please provide three copies of Map 11, <br />sheets 1-3, which have been signed and certified by a registered, professional <br />engineer or professional geologist. <br />2. There is a text error on revised permit page 2.05-5a. The last sentence in the third <br />full paragraph (paragraph beginning "A ditch is proposed to route...") reads "The <br />detailed design in included as an addendum..." The word "in" should be "is", so <br />the sentence will read "The detailed design is included as an addendum..." <br />Please correct the text in the final sentence of the third full paragraph on <br />revised permit page 2.05-5a, changing the word "in" to "is", as noted above. <br />Please submit three copies of revised page 2.05-5a for review. <br />Office of Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Denver - Grand Junction - Durango Active and Inactive Mines
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.