Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmenl nl Natural Resources I~~~~ <br />1 317 Sherman $~., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80?03 <br />Phone. U03) 866 3567 <br />FA%: (303) 832-8106 <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />March 20, 1996 NATLJRAI. <br />RESOURCES <br />To: Dan Hernandez RnY Rnme, <br />Governor <br />From: Janet Binns ~ lames S Luchhead <br />Exeanive Diretlar <br />Michael 8. Luny <br />Division Diretlor <br />Re: Seneca II Mine, C-80-005, Minor Revision No. 48 <br />Spill Containment Pond #2- As-Built <br />Dan, I have reviewed this minor revision from Seneca C~O,aI~COmpang regarding the "sump" <br />No map was included with the application. I consulted with Kent Gorham regarding the <br />lack of a map. He felt if the design was available and the survey confirmed the designs, it <br />would be acceptable. I interpreted that to mean, the designs Seneca Coal Company <br />provided would suffice, but we ought to obtain a copy of the SPCC for the files as well. I <br />was unable to locate a copy of the SPCC plan in the current files. <br />My main question, do you want me to approve this revision based on the information <br />supplied is sufficient, or should I simply call it complete and request the SPCC as an <br />adequary? Please let me know if you'd rather just call it complete. If it is OK to approve, <br />please sign the proposed decision form and return to me. Thanks. <br />by the oil tank storage area at the northern end of the 1 poundment. Seneca Coal <br />Company provided information on the location of the "sump'~mount of runoff that might <br />enter the "sump" during aone-hundred year, twenty-four hour precipitation event, and the <br />size of the largest tank that would drain to this "sump". They also provided survey data <br />confirming the constructed size of the "sump", and an engineer's certification that the pond <br />was constructed in accordance with the design. <br />