1996-07-11_REVISION - M1977378

• Permit No: M1977378
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 7/11/1996
• Doc Name: Review of Cost Est.
• From: DMG
• To: File
• Type & Sequence: TR14
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

07/11/1996 10:37 303-247 14 MINERALS & GE01 PAGE 02
STATE OF COLOFvADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St.,Room 21 S
Denver,Colorado 80203
Phone:[phone]
FAX:[phone]
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
DATE: July 11, 1996 Roy Romer
Governor
TO: Bruce Humphries, Jim Stevens, Allen Sorenson, Larry)aA0XdJWad
Executive Director
FROM: Tom Gillis O r� Michael B.Long
v Division Director
RE: Subside K4- , permit No. M-77-378, Review of Operator's
Cost Estimate for Bulkhead Beal Replaceseent (TR-14) .
I have completed a review of the operator's cost estimate for replacing
the bulkhead seals at the American & Terry Tunnels. In general, the
estimate appears very detailed and thorough in the calculation of
direct costs. The list of specific tasks and associated costs are
probably an accurate reflection of the operator's direct experience
with installation of the bulkheads presently in place at the mine.
However, I do have some concerns regarding possible additional costs
that might be incurred by the Division under a future bulkhead
replacement scenario as outlined below.
1. Cost savings iteats. The operator indicated that certain costs
contained in the operator's estimate would not be incurred by the
Division if bulkhead replacement was required. However, it would
seem probable that most, if not all, of the "cost savings' items
subtracted from the operator' s estimate might very well be
incurred by the Division if replacement were to occur after mine
facilities have been dec—issioned as part of final reclamation,
mining equipment has been removed, utilities disconnected, and
mine entry areas reclaimed. Additionally, other significant costs
may be incurred depending on the nature and extent of bulkhead
failure, and how far in the future failure occurs. Here are some
examples:
a. Ventilation installation at each site. If failure occurs
after completion of final reclamation, it is logical to
assume that ventilation facilities at the surface have been
removed, and ventilation facilities underground have
deteriorated due to flooding, roof falls, etc. Even if
surface ventilation facilities were left on site, they may be
in too poor of a condition to function due to exposure to the
elements, lack of maintenance, theft or vandalism. It would
seem prudent to include costs for a Division hired contractor
to either refurbish existing ventilation systems or install
a now, temporary ventilation system.