Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />999 <br />December 6, 1999 <br />Via fax, hard copy [o follow by mail <br />Mr. Richard Mills <br />Environmental Manager <br />Cyprus Empire Corporation <br />P.O. Box 68 <br />Craig, Colorado 81626 <br />~~` r <~` <br />",,~~ <br />Re: Cyprus Empire Corporation, Permit No. C-81-U44, <br />Permit Renewal RN-03, <br />CEC's responses to the Division's letters of 6/9/98, <br />6/23/98, 6/24/98, 6/30/98, and 10/5198 <br />Dear Mr. Mills: <br />The Division has completed its review of the above-referenced responses. All responses <br />are adequate, with the exception of those discussed below, <br />The Division tvithdra~vs two of its comments in the 6/9/98 letter, Items 40 and 44. <br />Item 40 (a request for a demonstration that each pond embankment complies with <br />a minimum 1.3 safety factor) is withdrawn because the Regulations explicitly <br />require such a demonstration only if the Division requires it in the pond design <br />submittal [(Section 2.05.3(4)]. Item 44 (a regt~rest~r an as-built design for pond <br />9-PI) is withdrawn because the permit contains-bWG IV-36 which the Division <br />previously found to satisfy the as-built requirement (see the Division's letter of <br />6/29/96 in the TR-29 file). <br />The Division has the following comments on what it considers to be the only <br />remaining outstanding issues for this renewal. <br />Division's letter of 6/9/98 <br />Items 31 and 34. Your submittal did not contain a revised Map 25 <br />as your responses in your 10/29/99 letter stated. Please submit a <br />revised Map 25 showing the 3 residences and any other updated <br />information. <br />