INSPEC07198

• Permit No: M1994117
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/15/1996
• From: COLO LINING CO
• To: COMM INC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• (Page 2) •
MINE ID ~ OR PROSPECTING ID f M-94-117
INSPECTION DATE 8-5-96 INSPECTORS INITIALS ACS
OBSERVATIONS
This inspection was conducted primarily as a follow-up of the Division of Hinerals and
Geology (DMG) Bite inspection on 6/17/96 during which 9 compliance problems were identified.
Colina Oro Molino, Inc. (COM, Inc.), through their consultant Paul Jones, provided a report
on July 15, 1996 detailing actions taken to correct the problems.
Problem no. 9 listed in the 6/17/96 report was related to the diepoeal of oil contaminated
soil that had been removed from the compressor shed at the uphill end of the mill building.
In accordance with a letter dated September 15, 1995 issued by Stephen Laudeman of the
Colorado Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, COM, Inc. was required to dispose
of the oil contaminated soil at a permitted landfill, and provide receipts from the diepoeal
Bite demonstrating that the waste was accepted for disposal. A DMG inspection report dated
11/13/95 verifies that the oil contaminated soil had been excavated from the spill area in
the compressor shed. The 11/13/95 DMG report states:
Oil soaked dirt had been excavated by hand from around the compressor and
the vacuum pump at the back (uphill-aide) of the mill building.
Approximately 29 cubic feet of dirt had been shovelled into four 55-gallon
drums and stored inside the mill building pending shipment to a landfill.
The contaminated soil will be shipped once laboratory analysis has been
completed in accordance with the requirements of the Hazardous Materials
and Waste Management Division.
During ~DMG•e 6/17/96 inspection, it was noted that the drums of soil were no longer located
in the loading bay at the mill. DMG listed this as a compliance problem in the inspection
report, and required COM, Inc. to provide the landfill receipts. In attempting to follow-up
the DMG inspection report, the relatively new mill management for COM, Inc. was unable to
locate the drums of soil, and was unable to provide the landfill receipts. A copy of this
inspection report is being provided to the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
as notification that COM, Inc. has not complied with the requirements detailed in the letter
from Stephen Laudeman dated 9/15/95.
Problem no. 1 listed in the 6/17/96 DMG inspection report was for the failure of COM, Inc.
to install replacement pumps for the spray evaporation system as directed by DMG. COM, Inc.
subsequently reported that a replacement pump was installed and was operational by 6/22/96.
At the time of this inspection, the replacement pump that was installed on 6/22/96 had been
removed for repairs. Apparently the pump was run dry, and the bearings burned-out (this is
according to an 8/6/96 telephone message from John Miner, representing COM, Inc.). DMG will
require that the spray evaporation system be operational by 8/16/96. The spray evaporation
eyetem should be operated daily until the level of the pond is below the level of the pump
intake.
Problem no. 2 listed in the 6/17/96 DMG inspection report was for a tear in the tailing pond
Liner. The tear had been repaired by extrusion welding, and by visual inspection appears to
be adequate. The 7/15/96 report from Paul Jones for COM, Inc. states that Colorado Lining
Company will send DMG certification documentation for the repair. The certification has not
yet been provided. DMG will require that the repair be certified by 9/1/96. John Miner,
representing COM, Inc. reported by telephone on 8/6/96 that a surveying crew working at the
tailing pond had damaged the liner in additional locations. This new liner damage must be
repaired and certified no later than 10/1/96.
Problem no. 3 listed in the 6/17/96 DMG inspection report was related to required weekly
sampling of Hazel-A water during operation of the land application eyetem. The land
application eyetem was operated on a number of occasions during the month of May, 1996. The
land application eyetem was observed to be operating during the DMG site inspections on
6/3/96 and 6/17/96. The new mill management was apparently unaware of the permit requirement
to collect weekly samples during operation of the land application system, and as a result
only 2 samples were collected, on 6/8/96 and 6/16/96. At the time that this report ie being
written, DMG has received the analytical results for these samples. Unfortunately, the
results are questionable because of late delivery to the lab, and subsequent expiration of
the holding time for samples prior to analyses. Also, the high detection limits used for
analysis of copper, lead, selenium, and silver make analytical results for these metals of