My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-04-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2021 12:23:46 PM
Creation date
4/30/2012 9:22:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
4/25/1999
Doc Name
Direct Testimony of Greg Lewicki
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
Direct Costs - Direct Costs - Case <br /> Task Case 1 - use 2 - no use of MCR <br /> # Description MCR Equipment Equipment <br /> 11 Remove transformers including PCB oil $6,722 $6,911 <br /> 12 Prepare outside properties for sale $12,096 $14,877 <br /> Subtotal - Direct Costs $167,006 $215,855 <br /> Contractor Profit - 10% $16,700 $21,585 <br /> Public Liability Insurance - 1.55% $2,589 $3,346 <br /> Contractor Performance Bond - 0.975% $1,628 $2,105 <br /> Job Superintendent - 2.7% $4,509 $5,828 <br /> Subtotal Add-On Costs $25,426 $32,866 <br /> Pickup Truck Lease & 1 Mob/Demob $12,200 $12,200 <br /> Total Costs $2041,632 $2609921 <br /> III. Comparison of MCR/Pitkin Iron Costs to Reclaim Mine #5 and <br /> DMG's Costs to Reclaim Mines #3 and #4 <br /> 17. In order to demonstrate the validity of the Pitkin Iron charges, it is helpful to make <br /> a comparison between the MCR/Pitkin Iron costs of reclaiming Mine #5 to the costs incurred by <br /> the Division for Mines #3 and #4. All of these mines portal areas are less than 10 acres in size; are <br /> located at elevations of approximately 10,000 feet and all areas were constructed in a similar <br /> manner: a large dozer was used to create a vertical face from the coal seam outcrop and a flat area <br /> for necessary portal facilities. All excavated material was downspoiled on adjacent steep slopes. The <br /> reclamation of all three areas involved a partial backfilling of the highwall, using all reasonably <br /> available fill on the site. Most of the downspoiled material was not deemed reasonably available <br /> by both MCR or the DMG, although at one time, OSM actually thought that complete backfilling <br /> was feasible and should be accomplished. <br /> 18. Although each area was similar in many respects, there were also distinct differences. <br /> The table below describes these differences: <br /> Item Mine #3 Mine #4 Mine #5 Comments <br /> Removal of Minor Minor Major At Mine #5, work involved power poles, <br /> Debris wood materials, junk, scrap <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.