Laserfiche WebLink
in the other metal tanks or if the tanks are used in RFES' operations. <br /> 33. The report notes that the ore pile was created from a mining operation at the Cross <br /> Gold Mine in Boulder County and that the operator of Cross Gold Mine delivered the ore to RFES' <br /> Facility. <br /> 34. The inspectors observed two large plastic tanks, placed inside a concrete berm, <br /> immediately adjacent to the metal tanks with labels indicating that they contained cyanide solution. <br /> 35. DRMS' inspection report states that the area in which the tanks and ore were <br /> located lacked any secondary containment. More specifically, the report concludes that the <br /> concrete berm along the south side of the concrete pad on which the plastic tanks were placed <br /> would not function as secondary containment because the berm did not fully enclose those tanks. <br /> 36. The metal tanks that the inspectors observed remain from the property's previous <br /> use as a chemical factory and are not used in RFES' operations. The area in which the two 5,000- <br /> gallon plastic tanks containing cyanide and the mining tailings that the inspectors observed <br /> constitutes a containment zone that is rated for approximately 750,000 gallons of fluid under EPA <br /> and Colorado Department of Public Health standards. The adequacy of the containment area has <br /> been successfully tested with water. Downhill from the main storage containment area are two <br /> additional secondary containment areas capable of restraining movement of fluids and material far <br /> exceeding the amounts stored from this storage area. <br /> 37. DRMS' inspection report does not contain any reference to standards by which <br /> DRMS measured the containment capacity of any part of RFES' facility. The report omits any <br /> reference to the secondary containment structures located downhill of the storage tanks and mining <br /> tailings, notwithstanding the fact that secondary containment provisions appear in photographs <br /> that the inspectors took of the Facility. <br /> 38. DRMS' report indicates that DRMS observed milling equipment within the main <br /> building. DRMS noted that the Facility was not operating at the time of the inspection, but opined <br /> that the condition of equipment in the mill suggested that the mill had been running.DRMS' report <br /> observes that a"drain" in the milling area"reports to an unknown discharge." <br /> 39. The "drain" referenced in the DRMS report is not a drain. It is a sump pit that is <br /> covered with a safety grate consistent with applicable safety regulations. Water and slurry can be <br /> collected into this contained area and then pumped out. <br /> 40. DRMS' report observes that certain equipment lacked safety guards and that <br /> electric connections on the equipment was not up to code. At the time of the inspection, the <br /> equipment in question was subject to a lockout/tagout and was disassembled. DRMS made no <br /> inquiries concerning the condition of the observed equipment and made no reference to the <br /> lockout/tagout in the inspection report. <br /> 41. DRMS' inspection report does not offer any opinion as to how the equipment or <br /> chemicals that DRMS observed within the Facility were being used in any milling process of <br /> - 6 - <br /> 4884-8560-1078.2 <br />