2002-05-20_PERMIT FILE - M2002004

• Permit No: M2002004
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 5/20/2002
• Doc Name: PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY REVIEW
• From: GCC RIO GRANDE
• To: DRMS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

RI «
GRAND
PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION
Via Facsimile and U S. Mail
Bruce Humphries
Jim Stevens
Al Amundson /
Anthony Waldron ✓
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Gentlemen:
Tijeras Plant
P.O. Box 100
Tijeras, NM 87059 -0100
[phone]/3312
Fax [phone]
May 17, 2002
R ECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2002
Division of Min-j, and Geology
Re: GCC Rio Grande, Inc.; Red Rock Plant and Mine; File No. M- 2002 -004;
Preliminary Adequacy Review for 112 Construction Materials Application
I am writing to express our appreciation for the time and effort the Division of Minerals
and Geology ( "DMG ") has spent in reviewing our application for a 112 Construction Materials
mining permit since we submitted the permit application on January 18, 2002. We appreciate the
Division's March 14 determination that our permit application is complete and for also joining
GCC Rio Grande and it's technical team members for the good part of a day walking around the
facility site on April 10, 2002.
As the Division is aware, the majority of our facility lies on property which is the subject
of a long -term lease from the Colorado State Land Board. In order to fulfill a condition in our
lease, we met with the State Land Board staff on December 17, 2001 to present a draft of the
application. In response to comments received, we then revised the application before filing it
with the Division.
We have reviewed both the Division's Site Inspection Report, dated April 16, 2002, and
the recent adequacy determination letter dated, May 6, 2002. As we discussed with Mr. Waldron
and Mr. Amundson at the April 10 site visit and again during my telephone conversation with
Mr. Waldron on May 7, GCC Rio Grande's first priority is to continue to work closely with the
Division to address the technical issues contained in the Division's May 6 letter.
While we have all been working hard, we believe that the two -week period referenced in
the Division's May 6 letter presents an unnecessarily limited amount of time in which to work
through the remaining technical issues, especially since it was established before the Division
A company of:
•