2011-05-23_REVISION - M2002004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(700 Brownstein I Hyatt Farber I Schreck May 23, 2011 Tony Waldron 1313 Sherman St, Rm 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: GCC Pueblo Mine and Manufacturing Facility Permitting Dear Mr. Waldron: &CL ?amsoE Adam T. DeVoe Attorney at Law 303.223.1180 lei 303223.0980 fax adevoe@bhfs.com The purpose of this letter is to outline our intent to revise the approach to the pending Technical Revision for GCC Rio Grande, Inc. ("GCC") mining and cement manufacturing facility in Pueblo, Colorado. As you know, GCC submitted a request for a Technical Revision ('TR") on June 30, 2010. The purpose of the requested TR was to provide as built drawings of the manufacturing facility to DRMS, and with that information to update the calculation of the reclamation bond amount In subsequent correspondence, discussions, and research, GCC has come to the conclusion that its approach to the bond calculation was inappropriate. This error was an oversight in the original permitting action that was never corrected, but must now be revised before proceeding to revise the permit and the reclamation bond calculation. We set forth below the history of GCC's permitting error and our plan moving forward. We respectfully request that DRMS treat this letter as a withdrawal of the pending TR. This letter is not intended to act as an application to revise GCC's 112 permit, the formal permit amendment will be submitted in the coming weeks; this letter is merely intended to document the plan moving forward for the permit amendment. Permitting History GCC initiated permitting with DRMS (then the Division of Minerals and Geology) In 2002. It appears from reviewing the records of the permitting action that GCC improperly determined that the manufacturing facility should be included within the permit boundary. The focus of the permitting action was the mining plan, mining facilities, and required reclamation of the mine site. Without a great deal of support, engineering feasibility, or discussion of the likelihood or appropriateness of the manufacturing facility reclamation plan, the mining permit application materials included an exhibit stating that when required for reclamation purposes GCC would tear down the manufacturing site and bury all inert materials. The permit application was approved as submitted, with the manufacturing facility in the permit boundary and Exhibit L stating that GCC would tear down the manufacturing facility and bury the inert materials. The consequence was that GCC posted a substantial reclamation bond, a portion of which was set aside for the tear down of a state-of-th"rt cement manufacturing facility. 410 Scventeenth Strcct, Suite 2200 i Demer, CO 80202-4432 303.223.1100 [e! Brownstein Hyatt rarber Sehred , LLP Ws.eom 303.223.1111 Jae