GENERAL40854 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12-End-1997 S=59att a FROr r ENG. WEST ELK tt I NE 9 ~ B 9295C~5G~ ~Y4,Y\IV Lnw+VIY Page Seven Mr. Norm Every Mountain Coal Company Oe~l .ibS :/:Iib Y, bb P. S Haieinp t_aWlOII ASSOtiat25 Reliability is also relatively high as these systems are commonly tested during construction so that their capacities are physically vcriiied and confirmed at the lima of installation. The biggest risk to these systems is the element of corrosion over the long term, weakening and reducing capacities of the suet eomponenes. Initial capital costs are very• high, however opetatittg costs are virtually non-existent. These systems would have a relatively high life and could easily attain a design life of 25 to 30 years in an environment which is trot highly cnerosive. Maintenance oa such systems would also be minimal. 4.0 COMPARISON OF VIABLE A).,TEANpTIVES The trtitigation alurnatives discussed in Section i above will be eompan:d using abenefit- cost cation "index". The benefit side of the equation is detemriacd using the value of the facilities protected multiplied by a "risk" factor which is the product of an effectiveness number expressed as a percentage (i.e., a number between 0 and 1) and a reliability number, also expressed as a percrntage. Tire cost side of the equation is determined using the estimated capital cost for construction plus the estimated annual maintenance cost over the expected life of the facilities being protected (implicit in this equation is the assumption that any altemative which is expected not to have a life or duration sufficient to proutt the facility over its rueful life will already have been rejected as not feasible). A ratio greater than 1.0 implies that a high probability exisu that the cost of mitigation will be less than the rrplaccment cost of the facility. A ratio less that one implies that a high probability exisu that the mitigation cost will exceed the replacement cost of the facility. Implicit in this inurpretation is the assumption that if a mitigation alternative is li&ely to fail or at least fall shoR of expecta[ions (due to low effectiveness or low reliability), that additional mottles would have to be spent nn additional mitigation. facility repair, or both. The following cstimaus of facility value were used in this evaluation: • Ctusltittg/ycrcening plant, silos, and conveyor 56.000,000 • Jvline buildings 3 at $1,500,000 ea. $4,SOU,000 • Ponds 2 at S 250,000 ea. $ 500,000 • Loadout facility $5,000,000 • Lower ponds 2 at 5 250,000 ea. $ 500.000 • Misc, stsuctun's and facilities 52,000,000 • Reconstruction of pone! access if required $1,000,000 • Value of production loss $ 500,000 per day