E.O.12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 012411 +13 att.txt

 

 

 From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US 

 To: cortney_higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 Date: 01/24/2011 09:49 AM 

 Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: EPA Staff Response: Doe Run Consent 

Decree pertaining to Primary Lead RTR, RIN 2060-AQ42 

 

Attachments: Final Consent Decree (3).PDF; Final Appendix A to Consent Decree 

(2).PDF; 

Final Appendix B to Consent Decree (2).PDF; Final Appendix C to Consent 

Decree (2).PDF; Final Appendix D to Consent Decree (2).PDF; Final Appendix 

E to Consent Decree (3).PDF; Final Appendix F to Consent Decree (2).PDF; 

Final Appendix G to Consent Decree (2).PDF; Final Appendix H to Consent 

Decree (3).PDF; Final Appendix I to Consent Decree (2).PDF; Final Appendix 

J to Consent Decree (3).PDF; Final Appendix K to Consent Decree (2).PDF; 

Final Appendix L to Consent Decree (2).PDF

Hello CortneyPlease find attached the consent decree for Doe Run. We should have the next 

rule package revisions to you at about 10:00 a.m.

Sharon V. Nizich

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825

----- Forwarded by Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/24/2011 09:47 AM

-----

 

 

 From: Stephanie Doolan/R7/USEPA/US 

 To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 09/22/2010 04:12 PM 

 Subject: Fw: fyi FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant 

Page 1
E.O.12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 012411 +13 att.txt

signatures - FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix 

 A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix B to Consent 

Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent 

 

 

Stephanie Doolan

U. S. EPA Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

(913) 551-7719

doolan.stephanie@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Stephanie Doolan/R7/USEPA/US on 09/22/2010 03:11 PM

-----

 

 

 From: "Winkelmann, Joe" <joe.winkelmann@dnr.mo.gov> 

 To: Stephanie Doolan/R7/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 09/17/2010 02:20 PM 

 Subject: fyi FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant 

signatures - FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to 

 Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix C to Consent 

 

 

fyi

Joe Winkelmann

Environmental Engineer

Air Quality Planning Section, Rules & SIP Unit Air Pollution Control Program 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources PO Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-

0176

Phone: (573) 751-4817 Fax: (573) 751-2706

From: Vit, Wendy

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:58 PM

To: Winkelmann, Joe; Holmer, Katy; Graf, Wayne; Ku, Calvin; Moore, Kyra; 

Jeffery, Paul

Subject: FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant signatures - 

FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent

Page 2
E.O.12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 012411 +13 att.txt

fyi

From: Kavanaugh, Jim

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:07 PM

To: Vit, Wendy

Subject: FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant signatures - 

FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent

___________________________

James L. Kavanaugh, Director

Air Pollution Control Program

Department of Natural Resources

Phone 573-751-7840

Fax 573-751-2706

Email Jim.Kavanaugh@dnr.mo.gov

From: Crawford, Betsy

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:46 AM

To: Kavanaugh, Jim

Cc: Feeler, Steve

Subject: FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant signatures - 

FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent

Is this what you're looking for?

bc

From: Brenner, Lauren

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 11:43 AM

To: Crawford, Betsy

Subject: FW: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant signatures - 

FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent

Consent decree

Lauren Brenner

Legal Counsel

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(573) 522-9911

(573) 751-9277 (fax)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may 

contain confidential and privileged information intended for the use of the 

designated recipients named above. Do not disclose this information to any 

other party without my authorization. If you have received this communication 

in error, please contact me immediately and destroy all copies of this 

communication and any attachments.

PLEASE NOTE: Please be aware that (1) e-mail is not a secure method of 

communication; (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by you may be copied and 

held by various computers as it passes from me to you or vice versa; and (3) 

persons not participating in our communication may intercept our 

communications by improperly accessing your computer or my computer or even 

some computer unconnected to either of us which the e-mail passed through. I 

am communicating to you via e-mail because you have consented to receive 

communications via this medium. If you change your mind and want future 

communications to be sent in a different fashion, please let me know AT ONCE.

Page 3
E.O.12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 012411 +13 att.txt

From: Ferguson, Cynthia (ENRD) [mailto:Cynthia.Ferguson@usdoj.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:00 PM

To: skelley.dana@epa.gov; Sanders.Steven@epamail.epa.gov; 

fidler.danielle@epa.gov; Toensing.Donald@epamail.epa.gov; 

miller.patriciag@epa.gov; Valentine, Kara; Brenner, Lauren

Cc: Stewart.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov; hermann.caroline@epa.gov

Subject: DRRC Doe Run multi media Consent Decree Defendant signatures -

FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent Decree.PDF;Final 

Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent

We have signatures!!!

Thank you all (and everyone else who labored to get us to this point) so much 

for your excellent and very hard work on this!!!

Cynthia M. Ferguson

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division Environmental Enforcement Section 

Regular Mail: P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC

20044-7611

Overnight Mail: ENRD / EES, Room 6546, 601 D Street, N.W. Washington, DC 

20004

Phone: (202) 616-6560

Fax: (202) 514-4180

Email: Cynthia.Ferguson@usdoj.gov

This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential 

and it may be protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. This email, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be 

conveyed only to the designated recipient(s).

If you are not an intended recipient, please delete this e-mail, including 

attachments, and notify me by return mail, e-mail or at (202) 616-6560. The 

unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, 

including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Stotts, Stacy [mailto:SStotts@stinson.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 6:54 PM

To: Ferguson, Cynthia (ENRD) Cc: lmarucheau@DoeRun.com; Miller, Aaron

Subject: FW: Final Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix A to Consent 

Decree.PDF;Final Appendix B to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix C to Consent 

Decree.PDF;Final Appendix D to Consent Decree.PDF;Final Appendix E to Consent 

Decree.PDF;Final Appendix F to Consent Dec

Cynthia – Please find the attached final Consent Decree that is signed by 

Defendants and all appendices. I understand that the Government may add some 

header or footer materials when the CD is lodged.

Stacy Stotts | Partner | Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 | Kansas City, MO 64106-2150

T: 816.691.3363 | F: 816.412.9326 | M: 816.304.3067 SStotts@stinson.com | 

www.stinson.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Page 4
E.O.12866 Review 2060-AQ-42 email 012411 +13 att.txt

This communication is from a law firm and may contain confidential and/or 

privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please contact 

the sender for instructions concerning return or destruction, and do not use 

or disclose the contents to others.(See attached file: Final Consent Decree 

(3).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix A to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See 

attached file: Final Appendix B to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached file: 

Final Appendix C to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix 

D to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix E to Consent 

Decree (3).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix F to Consent Decree (2).PDF) 

(See attached file: Final Appendix G to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached 

file: Final Appendix H to Consent Decree (3).PDF)(See attached

file: Final Appendix I to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached file:

Final Appendix J to Consent Decree (3).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix 

K to Consent Decree (2).PDF)(See attached file: Final Appendix L to Consent 

Decree (2).PDF)

Page 5
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and )

STATE OF MISSOURI )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

) Civil Action No. ____________

 v. )

)

)

CONSENT DECREE

THE DOE RUN RESOURCES )

CORPORATION; THE DOE RUN RESOURCES )

CORPORATION d/b/a THE DOE )

RUN COMPANY; and )

THE BUICK RESOURCE )

RECYCLING FACILITY, LLC )

) 

Defendants. )

 )
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-iiTABLE OF CONTENTS

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................-3-

II. APPLICABILITY ..........................................................................................................-5-

III. DEFINITIONS...............................................................................................................-8-

IV. CIVIL PENALTY........................................................................................................-17-

V. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: CLEAN AIR ACT............................................-19-

A. Sulfur Dioxide and Lead Emissions Compliance Schedule and 

Interim Limits at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter.............................................. -19-

B. Prohibition on Netting Credits or Offsets From Required Controls...................-25-

C. Installation of Pressure Drop Monitor at the Buick Mine/Mill...........................-26-

VI. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: CLEAN WATER ACT ....................................-27-

A. Overview of CWA Requirements ......................................................................-27-

B. Compliance Measures for all CWA Facilities ...................................................-31-

VII. CLEAN WATER ACT PERMITS: RESOLUTION OF MISSOURI STATE 

OPERATING PERMIT APPEALS AND COMPLIANCE DEADLINES ................-52-

A. CWA Permitting Obligations .............................................................................-52-

B. Resolution of Pending MSOP Appeals ..............................................................-53-

C. Identification of Remaining Permit Appeal Issues ............................................-60-

D. Site-Specific and Permit-Specific Limitations ..................................................-62-

E. WET Sampling and Testing Procedures ............................................................-72-

F. Special Master and Consultant to the Special Master Appointment and 

Decision-Making Process ..................................................................................-74-
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-iiiG. Procedures for Permit Appeal Issues Before the Special Master .......................-77-

H. Procedures for Finality of Permit Appeal Resolution ........................................-79-

I. Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits ...................-80-

VIII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: RCRA...............................................................-84-

A. Buick Mine/Mill Facility ...................................................................................-84-

B. Buick Resource Recycling Facility ....................................................................-90-

C. Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility ...................................................................-92-

IX. SITE REMEDIATION - HERCULANEUM...............................................................-94-

X. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .....................................................................................-96-

XI. TRANSPORTATION ORDER .................................................................................-102-

XII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: APPROVAL OF DELIVERABLES ..............-104-

XIII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: PERMITS.......................................................-107-

XIV. ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ....................................................................-109-

XV. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROJECTS ....................................................-115-

XVI. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................-119-

XVII. STIPULATED PENALTIES .....................................................................................-123-

XVIII. FORCE MAJEURE ...................................................................................................-135-

XIX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION .........................................................................................-138-

XX. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION.............................................-141-

XXI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ..................................-143-

XXII. COSTS.......................................................................................................................-154-
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-ivXXIII. NOTICES...................................................................................................................-155-

XXIV. EFFECTIVE DATE...................................................................................................-157-

XXV. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ...........................................................................-157-

XXVI. MODIFICATION.......................................................................................................-158-

XXVII. TERMINATION........................................................................................................-158-

XXVIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.......................................................................................-160-

XXIX. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE........................................................................................-161-

XXX. INTEGRATION.........................................................................................................-161-

XXXI. FINAL JUDGMENT .................................................................................................-162-

XXXII. APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................-162-
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-1-

WHEREAS, Plaintiff United States of America, on behalf of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the State of Missouri, at the relation of Chris 

Koster, Attorney General, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, have filed a joint 

complaint in this action concurrently with this Consent Decree alleging that Defendants The Doe 

Run Resources Corporation, The Doe Run Resources Corporation d/b/a “The Doe Run 

Company,” and The Buick Resource Recycling Facility, LLC violated the following 

environmental statutes and their implementing federal and state regulations at one or more of

each Defendant’s lead smelting, recycling, mining, or milling facilities located throughout 

Missouri: the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q for violations of (a) the 

Federally-enforceable Missouri State Implementation Plan (the “Missouri SIP”), (b) Title V of 

the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7661-7661f, (c) the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) 

provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492, (d) the New Source Performance Standards 

(“NSPS”) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, and (e) the Nonattainment New Source Review 

(“NNSR”) requirements of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7515; the Missouri Air Conservation 

Law, Chapter 643, RSMo; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 6901-6992k; the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, §§ 260.350-260.434, RSMo; 

the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387; the Missouri Clean Water Law, Chapter 

644, RSMo; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675; and the Administrative Order on Consent, 

Docket No. RCRA-07-2007-0008;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-2-

WHEREAS, the Complaint against Defendant alleges that the U.S. EPA has 

provided notice of the CAA violations alleged herein to the Defendants and to the State of 

Missouri pursuant to Section 113(a) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(a), and Defendants stipulate 

that they have received actual notice of the violations alleged in the Complaint and that they do 

not contest the adequacy of the notice provided;

WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that the injunctive relief implemented by 

Defendants pursuant to this Consent Decree will achieve significant reductions in SO2, lead, and 

other pollutant emissions, thereby improving air, water, and soil quality; 

WHEREAS, as part of the overall settlement, and in approximately the same 

timeframe as this Consent Decree is lodged and notice thereof is published in the Federal 

Register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing and providing public notice of 

two administrative orders on consent with The Doe Run Resources Corporation (“DRRC”). 

First, a modification to an existing administrative order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2007-0008, 

pertaining to DRRC’s handling and transportation of concentrate, ore, and other lead-bearing 

materials, will address alleged violations of that order and continue to improve upon DRRC’s 

transportation practices. Second, a new administrative order, Docket No. RCRA-07-2010-0031, 

requires DRRC to implement actions consisting of sampling and cleanup of residential 

properties, churches and high child impact areas in and around DRRC’s smelter in Herculaneum, 

Missouri, with lead soil concentrations exceeding 400 parts per million (“ppm”);
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-3-

WHEREAS, by agreeing to entry of this Consent Decree, Defendants do not 

admit any liability to the United States or the State arising out of the transactions or occurrences 

alleged in the Complaint; 

WHEREAS, the Parties recognize, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree 

finds, that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith and will avoid 

litigation among the Parties and that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public 

interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony, without the 

adjudication or admission of any issue of fact or law except as provided in Section I (Jurisdiction 

and Venue), and with the consent of the Parties, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, 

AND DECREED as follows:

I. 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the 

Parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, 1355, and 1367; Section 113(b) of the CAA, 

42 U.S.C. § 7413(b); Sections 301, 309, and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1319, and 

1342; Section 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928; Sections 304, 313, and 325 of EPCRA, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 11004, 11023, and 11045; and Sections 109(c) and 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 9609(c) and 9613. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 

1395(a), because the violations alleged in the Complaint are alleged to have occurred in, and 

Defendants conduct business in, this judicial District. This venue is also consistent with Section 

113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b); CWA Section 309(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b); RCRA 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-4-

Section 3008(a), 42 U.S.C. § 6928(a); EPCRA Section 325(b), 42 U.S.C. § 11045(b); and 

CERCLA Section 113(b), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b). 

2. Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree and any action to enforce this 

Consent Decree, Defendants waive all objections and defenses that they may have to the Court’s 

jurisdiction over this action, to the Court’s jurisdiction over Defendants, and to venue in this 

judicial District. Defendants shall not challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court’s 

jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree. 

3. For purposes of this Consent Decree, Defendants agree that the Complaint states 

claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the following environmental statutes and 

their implementing federal and state regulations: the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q for 

violations of (a) the Federally-enforceable Missouri SIP, (b) Title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 7661-7661f, (c) the PSD provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492, (d) the NSPS 

provisions of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7411, and (e) the NNSR requirements of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 7501-7515; the Missouri Air Conservation Law, Chapter 643, RSMo; RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 6901-6992k; the Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law, §§ 260.350-260.434, RSMo; 

the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387; the Missouri Clean Water Law, Chapter 644, RSMo; 

EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050; and CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675.

4. Notice of the commencement of this action has been given to the State of 

Missouri as required by Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), and Section 113 of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-5-

II. 

5. The obligations of this Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon the United 

States and the State, and upon Defendants and any successors, assigns, or other entities or 

persons otherwise bound by law. 

APPLICABILITY

6. Defendants shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree to all officers, employees, 

and agents whose duties might reasonably include compliance with any provision of this Decree, 

as well as to any vendor, supplier, or contractor retained to perform work required under this 

Consent Decree. Defendants shall condition any such contract upon performance of the work in 

conformity with the terms of this Consent Decree.

7. In any action to enforce this Consent Decree, Defendants shall not raise as a 

defense the failure by any of their officers, directors, employees, agents, vendors, suppliers, or 

contractors to take any actions necessary to comply with the provisions of this Consent Decree

unless Defendants establish that such failure resulted from a Force Majeure event under Section 

XVIII (Force Majeure) of this Consent Decree.

8. Transfer of Ownership or Operation

a. No transfer of ownership or operation, in whole or in part, of any of the 

Doe Run Facilities, whether in compliance with the procedures of this Paragraph 8 or 

otherwise, shall relieve Defendants of their obligation to ensure that the terms of the 

Decree are implemented, except as provided in Paragraph 8e., below. Any attempt to 

transfer ownership or operation of any of the Doe Run Facilities without complying with 

.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-6-

this Paragraph 8 (Transfer of Ownership or Operation) constitutes a violation of this 

Decree. 

b. If Defendants propose to sell or transfer ownership or operation, in whole 

or in part, of any of the Doe Run Facilities, they shall provide the prospective transferee 

with a copy of this Consent Decree at least sixty (60) Days before such sale or transfer, 

and shall simultaneously provide written notice of the prospective transfer, together with 

a copy of the prospective transfer agreement, to the Plaintiffs pursuant to Section XXIII

(Notices) of this Consent Decree. 

c. No sale or transfer of ownership or operation, in whole or in part, of any of 

the Doe Run Facilities shall take place before the transferee, Defendants, and the 

Plaintiffs have executed, and the Court has approved, a modification pursuant to Section 

XXVI (Modification) of this Consent Decree making the transferee a party defendant to 

this Consent Decree and jointly and severally liable with Defendants for all requirements 

of this Decree, with the exception of the obligations set forth in Section IX (Site 

Remediation – Herculaneum), Section X (Financial Assurances), Paragraphs 155, 156, 

158, 161, and 162 (Stream Mitigation provisions) of Section XIV (Additional Injunctive 

Relief), and Section XV (Environmental Mitigation Projects), which may be applicable to 

the transferred or purchased Doe Run Facilities, except as provided in Paragraph 8e., 

below. 

d. This Consent Decree shall not be construed to impede the transfer of any 

ownership interests as long as the requirements of this Consent Decree are met. This 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-7-

Consent Decree shall not be construed to prohibit a contractual allocation – as between 

Defendants and any transferee – of the burdens of compliance with this Decree, provided 

that both Defendants and the transferee shall remain jointly and severally liable to the 

Plaintiffs for the obligations of the Decree applicable to the transferred or purchased 

Ownership Interests, except as provided in Paragraph 8e., below. 

e. If the Plaintiffs agree that the transferee has the technical and financial 

ability to assume the obligations and liabilities of the Consent Decree and consent, in 

writing, to release Defendants from the obligations and liabilities of this Consent Decree 

applicable to the transferred Doe Run Facilities, then the Parties and the transferee may 

execute a modification that relieves Defendants of their liability under this Consent 

Decree for, and makes the transferee liable for, all obligations and liabilities applicable to 

the purchased or transferred Doe Run Facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

however, Defendants may not assign, and may not be released from, any obligation under 

this Consent Decree that is not specific to the purchased or transferred Doe Run 

Facilities, including the obligations set forth in Sections XV (Environmental Mitigation 

Projects) and IV (Civil Penalty). Defendants may propose and the Plaintiffs may agree to 

restrict the scope of joint and several liability of any transferee for any obligations of this 

Consent Decree that are not specific to the transferred or purchased Doe Run Facilities, to 

the extent such obligation may be adequately separated in an enforceable matter.

f. The Plaintiffs may refuse to approve the substitution of the transferee for 

Defendants if they determine that the proposed transferee does not possess the requisite 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-8-

technical and financial ability to assume the obligations and liabilities of the Consent 

Decree. The Plaintiffs’ decision to refuse to approve the substitution of the transferee for 

the Defendants shall not be subject to judicial review. 

III. 

9. Terms used in this Consent Decree that are defined in the CAA, CWA, RCRA, 

EPCRA, CERCLA, or state law, or in federal and state regulations promulgated thereunder shall 

have the meanings assigned to them in the applicable CAA, CWA, RCRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, 

or state law or such regulations, unless otherwise provided in this Decree. Whenever the terms 

set forth below are used in this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply:

DEFINITIONS

a. “12-Month Rolling Tonnage” means the sum of the tons of either Refined 

Lead Metal Production, Sinter Production, or Blast Furnace Sinter Consumption in the 

most recent complete Month and the previous eleven (11) Months. A 12-Month Rolling 

Tonnage shall be calculated for each new complete Month in accordance with the 

provisions of this Consent Decree. Calculation of the first 12-Month Rolling Tonnage 

shall commence 12 Months after the applicable production limit takes effect;

b. “Air Conservation Law” shall mean the Missouri Air Conservation Law, 

Chapter 643, RSMo;

c. “Blast Furnace” shall mean any reduction furnace to which sinter is 

charged and which forms separate layers of molten slag and lead bullion;

d. “Blast Furnace Sinter Consumption” shall mean the quantity of sinter 

charged to the Blast Furnace; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-9-

e. “CERMS” or “Continuous Emissions Rate Monitoring System” shall 

mean, for obligations involving SO2 under this Consent Decree, the devices defined, 

installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 60.13; 40 

C.F.R. Appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 6, and 40 C.F.R. Part 60, 

Appendix F;

f. “Clean Air Act” or “CAA” shall mean the federal Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 7401-7671q, and its implementing regulations;

g. “Clean Water Act” or “CWA” shall mean the federal Clean Water Act, 

33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387, and its implementing regulations;

h. “Complaint” shall mean the Complaint filed by the United States and the 

State Plaintiff in this action;

i. “Consent Decree” or “Decree” shall mean this Consent Decree and all 

appendices attached hereto, but in the event of any conflict between the text of this 

Consent Decree and any appendix, the text of this Consent Decree shall control;

j. “CWA Facilities” shall mean the Buick Resource Recycling Facility, the 

Glover Facility, the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, the Brushy Creek Mine/Mill 

Facility, the Buick Mine/Mill Facility, the Fletcher Mine/Mill Facility, the Sweetwater 

Mine/Mill Facility, the Viburnum Mine/Mill Facility, the Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) 

Facility, and the West Fork Unit Facility;

k. “Day” shall mean a calendar day unless expressly stated to be a business 

day. In computing any period of time under this Consent Decree for submission of a 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-10-

report, plan, or other deliverable pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: 

Approval of Deliverables), where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or 

federal or state holiday, the period shall run until the close of business of the next 

business day;

l. “Defendants” shall mean The Doe Run Resources Corporation; the Doe 

Run Resources Corporation d/b/a “The Doe Run Company”; and the Buick Resource 

Recycling Facility, LLC;

m. “Demonstration Plant” shall mean the lead technology demonstration plant 

Doe Run operates at the West Fork Unit Facility located in Bunker, Missouri to 

demonstrate a hydro-metallurgical-electrochemical process for producing lead metal from 

concentrates and is governed by the terms of the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources, Missouri Air Conservation Commission Permit to Construct 012007-019. 

Pursuant to the Permit to Construct, the plant shall not process more than eight (8) tons of 

lead concentrate per day nor emit more than 0.6 tons per year of lead. The lead produced 

from this plant is not subject to the Refined Lead Metal Production limit in Paragraph 19 

as long as it is sent to the Buick Resource Recycling Facility located in Boss, Missouri for 

further processing; 

n. “Doe Run” shall mean The Doe Run Resources Corporation and the Doe 

Run Resources Corporation d/b/a “The Doe Run Company”;

o. “Doe Run Facilities” shall mean the following facilities: the Buick 

Resource Recycling Facility located in Boss, Missouri; the Glover Facility located in 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-11-

Annapolis, Missouri; the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility located in Herculaneum, 

Missouri; the Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility located in Bunker, Missouri; the Buick 

Mine/Mill Facility located in Boss, Missouri; the Fletcher Mine/Mill Facility located in 

Bunker, Missouri; the Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility located in Ellington, Missouri; the 

Viburnum Mine Facility located in Viburnum, Missouri; the Viburnum Mine #35 

(Casteel) Facility located in Bixby, Missouri; and, the West Fork Unit Facility located in 

Bunker, Missouri;

p. “EPA” shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

and any of its successor departments or agencies;

q. “Effective Date” shall have the definition provided in Section XXIV;

r. “Financial Assurance” shall mean financial assurance for the benefit of 

EPA and MDNR as set forth in Appendices E, F, G, and L of the Consent Decree;

s. “Flow Rate Sensor” shall mean the portion of the CERMS that senses the 

volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional to that flow rate;

t. “Herculaneum Lead Smelter” shall mean the Primary Lead Smelter owned 

and operated by Defendants located at 881 Main Street, Herculaneum, Missouri, and 

includes the Sintering Machine, Sinter Bed, Sintering Machine Discharge End, Blast 

Furnaces, and Sulfuric Acid Plant; 

u. “Lead-Bearing Materials” shall mean all granular or semi-granular product 

or waste material which contains more than 400 milligrams per kilogram (“mg/kg”) of 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-12-

lead. The Parties do not interpret this definition to include contaminated soils excavated 

from residential yards, road edges, churches, vacant lots, or high child impact areas;

v. “Lodging Date” shall mean the date on which the United States initially 

files the Consent Decree with the Court prior to commencement of the public comment 

period required by Section XXVIII (Public Participation) of this Consent Decree;

w. “Malfunction” shall mean any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably 

preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 

or careless operation are not Malfunctions;

x. “MDNR” shall mean the Missouri Department of Natural Resources;

y. “Missouri State Operating Permit” or “MSOP” shall mean MSOP No. 

MO-0000337 for the Buick Resource Recycling Facility, MSOP No. MO-0001121 for the 

Glover Facility, MSOP No. MO-0000281 for the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, 

MSOP No. MO-0001848 for the Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility, MSOP No. MO0002003 for the Buick Mine/Mill Facility, MSOP No. MO-0001856 for the Fletcher 

Mine/Mill Facility, MSOP No. MO-0001881 for the Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility, 

MSOP No. MO-0000086 for the Viburnum Mine Facility, MSOP No. MO-0100226 for 

the Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) Facility, and MSOP No. MO-0100218 for the West 

Fork Unit Facility; 

z. “Month” shall mean calendar month; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-13-

aa. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards” or “NAAQS” shall mean 

national ambient air quality standards that are promulgated pursuant to Section 109 of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7409;

bb. “Nonattainment NSR” or “NNSR” shall mean the nonattainment New 

Source Review program under Part D of Subchapter I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7501-

7515, and the federal regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 51, and the federally approved 

provisions of the Missouri SIP, 10 CSR 10- 6.060(7); 

cc. “NSPS” shall mean New Source Performance Standards within the 

meaning of Part A of Subchapter I of the CAA. General NSPS requirements are codified 

at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart A. NSPS requirements specifically for Primary Lead 

Smelters are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart R;

dd. “Paragraph” shall mean a portion of this Decree identified by an arabic 

numeral;

ee. “Parties” shall mean Defendants, the State, and the United States of 

America, and “Party” means any one of the named “Parties;”

ff. “Plaintiffs” shall mean the United States of America and the State of 

Missouri;

gg. “Pollutant Analyzer” shall mean that portion of the CERMS that senses 

the pollutant gas and generates an output proportional to the gas concentration;

hh. “Primary Lead” shall mean lead metal produced from the processing of 

lead ore concentrates; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-14-

ii. “Primary Lead Smelter” shall mean any installation or intermediate 

process engaged in the production of lead from lead sulfide ore concentrates through the 

use of pyrometallurgical techniques; 

jj. “Project Dollars” means Defendants’ expenditures and payments incurred 

or made in carrying out the Environmental Mitigation Projects identified in Section XV

(Environmental Mitigation Projects) of this Consent Decree to the extent that such 

expenditures or payments both: (a) comply with the requirements set forth in Section XV

(Environmental Mitigation Projects) and Appendix J of this Consent Decree, and (b) 

constitute Defendants’ direct payments for such projects, or Defendants’ external costs 

for contractors, vendors, and equipment;

kk. “PSD” shall mean Prevention of Significant Deterioration within the 

meaning of Part C of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492, the 

federal regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 51.166, and the federally approved 

provisions of the Missouri State Implementation Plan (“SIP”), 10 CSR 10-6.060;

ll. “RCRA” shall mean the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq., and its implementing regulations;

mm. “Refined Lead Metal Production” shall mean the quantity of pure Primary 

Lead produced and contained in corroding grade and alloy products;

nn. “Section” shall mean a portion of this Decree identified by a roman 

numeral; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-15-

oo. “Shutdown” shall mean the cessation of operation of the Sulfuric Acid 

Plant or the Sintering Machine for any purpose; 

pp. “Sinter bed” shall mean the lead sulfide ore concentrate charge within a 

Sintering Machine; 

qq. “Sinter Production” shall mean the quantity of agglomerated product from 

the up-drafted Sintering Machine that is not fed back into the Sintering Machine; 

rr. “Sintering Machine” shall mean any furnace in which a lead sulfide ore 

concentrate charge or any other lead bearing materials are heated in the presence of air to 

eliminate sulfur contained in the charge and to agglomerate the charge into a hard porous 

mass called sinter; 

ss. “Sintering Machine Discharge End” shall mean any apparatus which 

receives sinter as it is discharged from the conveying grate of a Sintering Machine; 

tt. “SO2” shall mean the pollutant sulfur dioxide;

uu. “SO2 Mass Cap” shall mean the maximum amount of SO2 emissions from 

the Herculaneum Lead Smelter expressed in tons of SO2 emitted during the most recent 

complete Month and the previous eleven (11) Months. Compliance with the SO2 Mass 

Cap shall be calculated for each new complete Month. In determining compliance with 

the SO2 Mass Cap, in accordance with the Emissions Monitoring requirements of 

Paragraph 20.d of this Decree, all SO2 emissions from normal operations, Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction of the Sintering Machine and Sulfuric Acid Plant shall be 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-16-

included. Calculation of the SO2 Mass Cap shall commence 12 Months after the 

emission limit takes effect;

vv. “SO2 Short-term Limit” shall mean a daily SO2 emission limit at the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter expressed as pounds of SO2 emitted per Day. Compliance 

with the SO2 Short-term Limit shall be calculated in accordance with the Emissions 

Monitoring provisions of Paragraph 20.d of this Decree by calculating the sum of mass 

SO2 hourly emissions from 12am to 12am on each Day. In determining compliance with 

the SO2 Short-term Limit, all SO2 emissions from normal operations, Startup, Shutdown, 

and Malfunction of the Sintering Machine and Sulfuric Acid Plant shall be included. 

ww. “State Plaintiff” or “State” shall mean the State of Missouri;

xx. “Startup” shall mean setting in operation of the Sintering Machine or 

Sulfuric Acid Plant for any purpose;

yy. “Sulfuric Acid Plant” shall mean a process unit engaged in the production 

of sulfuric acid and related processes using the contact process at the Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter;

zz. “Title V Permit” shall mean a permit required or issued pursuant to the 

requirements of Subchapter V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7661-7661f; 10 CSR 10-6.065; 

and Section 643.078, RSMo; 

aaa. “Ton” or “Tons” shall mean short ton or short tons; 

bbb. “Unit” shall mean a piece of equipment or an emissions source that is 

subject to a requirement within this Consent Decree; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-17-

ccc. “United States” shall mean the United States of America, acting on behalf 

of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

IV. CIVIL PENALTY

10. Within thirty (30) Days after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, 

Defendants shall pay the sum of $3.5 million to the United States as a civil penalty. One million

dollars of this penalty amount is for violations of the Administrative Order on Consent, In the 

Matter of The Doe Run Transportation and Haul Routes

11. Defendants shall pay the sum of $3.5 million required by Paragraph 10 to the 

United States by FedWire Electronic Funds Transfer (“EFT”) to the U.S. Department of Justice 

in accordance with written instructions to be provided to Defendants, following the Lodging Date

of the Consent Decree, by the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Eastern District of Missouri, Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, Room 

20.333, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, phone: (314) 539-2200. At the time of payment, Defendants

shall send a copy of the EFT authorization form and the EFT transaction record, together with a 

transmittal letter, which shall state that the payment is for the civil penalty owed pursuant to the 

Consent Decree in 

, Southeastern Missouri, Docket No. 

RCRA-07-2007-0008. Failure to timely pay the civil penalty required herein shall subject the

Defendants to interest accruing from the date payment is due until the date payment is made at 

the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and shall render Defendants liable for all charges, costs, 

fees, and penalties established by law for the benefit of a creditor or of the United States in 

securing payment. 

United States, et al. v. The Doe Run Resources Corporation, et al., and shall 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-18-

reference the civil action number and DOJ case number DJ# 90-5-2-1-07390/1, to the United 

States in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Decree; by email to 

acctsreceivable.CINWD@epa.gov;

EPA Cincinnati Finance Office

and by mail to: 

26 Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

12. Defendants shall not deduct any penalties paid under this Decree pursuant to this 

Section or Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) in calculating its federal, State, or local income 

tax.

13. Defendants shall pay to the State as a civil penalty the principal sum of $3.5 

million. Payment to the State shall be made in three installments. The first payment of $1.5 

million shall be due within thirty (30) Days after the Effective Date of this Consent Decree. 

Failure to timely pay the civil penalty required herein shall subject the Defendants to interest 

accruing from the date payment is due until the date payment is made at the rate prescribed by 

28 U.S.C. § 1961, and shall render Defendants liable for all charges, costs, fees, and penalties 

established by law for the benefit of a creditor or of the State in securing payment. Subsequent 

payments of $1 million shall be due one year thereafter until all payments have been made. Each 

installment payment of $1 million shall include the principle amount due plus an additional sum 

for accrued interest on the declining principle balance calculated from the Effective Date at the 

rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Defendants may accelerate these payments, and interest due 

on the accelerated payments shall be reduced accordingly. Each installment payment shall be 

divided among the counties of Iron, Reynolds, Jefferson and Washington as follows: fifty (50) 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-19-

percent to Iron County; thirty (30) percent to Reynolds County; fifteen (15) percent to Jefferson 

County; and five (5) percent to Washington County. The checks for the civil penalty shall be in 

the form of certified checks or cashier’s checks made payable to the: (1) “State of Missouri (Iron 

County School Fund)”; (2) “State of Missouri (Reynolds County School Fund)”; (3) “State of 

Missouri (Jefferson County School Fund)”; and (4) “State of Missouri (Washington County 

School Fund)”. The checks shall be mailed to:

Collections Specialist

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

V. 

A. Sulfur Dioxide and Lead Emissions Compliance Schedule and Interim Limits at the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter 

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: CLEAN AIR ACT

14. Rather than comply with required SO2 best available control technology 

(“BACT”) and lead lowest achievable emissions reduction (“LAER”) emission limits through the

installation of emission control technologies, and because Doe Run is pursuing alternative 

technology for processing lead concentrate, Doe Run has, for independent business reasons,

elected to permanently cease smelting operations of the Herculaneum Lead Smelter in 

accordance with the schedule set forth in this Paragraph. Doe Run shall: 

Election to Cease Smelting Operation

a. retire and permanently cease delivery to and processing of all lead sulfide 

ore concentrates at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter and all associated handling equipment

by no later than December 31, 2013;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-20-

b. retire and permanently cease operation of the Sintering Machine and 

ancillary equipment by no later than December 31, 2013; 

c. retire and permanently cease operation of the Sulfuric Acid Plant by no 

later than December 31, 2013; and

d. retire and permanently cease operation of the Blast Furnaces by no later 

than April 30, 2014. 

15. Upon the cessation of operation of the emissions units at Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter listed in Paragraph 14 of this Consent Decree, Doe Run shall surrender all portions of 

their air pollution permits related to the emissions units listed in Paragraph 14 of this Consent 

Decree through a written request to the MDNR within thirty (30) Days after cessation of 

operation, requesting removal of all such units from Doe Run’s Title V Operating Permit. Doe

Run shall provide written notice of such surrender to the Plaintiffs as set forth in Section XXIII

(Notices).

16. By no later than February 28, 2012, Doe Run shall provide the State with 

documentation necessary to support an amendment to the Missouri State Implementation Plan 

that reflects the cessation of operation described in Paragraph 14 of this Consent Decree.

17. In conjunction with and in a timeframe consistent with the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

rule (73 Fed. Reg. 66,964 (Nov. 12, 2008)), the State of Missouri shall submit to EPA a revision

to the Missouri State Implementation Plan to include the cessation of operation described in 

Paragraph 14 of this Consent Decree.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-21-

18. In any permitting action involving the Herculaneum Lead Smelter, after the 

timeframes prescribed in Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree, all emission units described in 

Paragraph 14 of the Consent Decree shall have baseline actual emissions (as defined in 40 C.F.R.

§ 52.21 (b)(48) and 10 CSR 10-6.060(1)(A)) of zero (0) tons per year.

19. From the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, Doe Run shall achieve, maintain 

and comply with the following production limit across all of its operations in the United States of 

America, with the exception of the Demonstration Plant at the West Fork Unit Facility, until 

cessation of operation of the Herculaneum Lead Smelter occurs in accordance with Paragraph 14: 

From the first Day of the Month following the Lodging Date, Refined Lead Metal Production 

shall not exceed a 12-Month Rolling Tonnage of 130,000. To demonstrate compliance with this 

limit, Doe Run shall provide monthly logs that track refined lead metal produced on a daily basis, 

using the spreadsheet attached hereto as Appendix A, unless and until an alternative spreadsheet 

is approved by Plaintiffs, as well as monthly logs that track refined lead metal produced on a 

daily basis across Doe Run’s operations in the United States of America, with the exception of 

the Demonstration Plant at the West Fork Unit Facility, as a part of the semi-annual status report 

required in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements). 

Interim Compliance Milestones Before Cessation of Smelting Operation

20. From the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, Doe Run shall achieve, maintain 

and comply with the following emission and production limits at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter 

until cessation of operation occurs in accordance with Paragraph 14:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-22-

a. Sinter Production and Blast Furnace Sinter Consumption

i. Sinter Production shall not exceed a 12-Month Rolling Tonnage of 

326,370 tons; and 

: From the first 

Day of the Month following the Lodging Date, the Sinter Production and Blast Furnace 

Sinter Consumption at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter shall not exceed the production 

limits set forth in Subparagraphs 20.a.i through 20.a.ii below. To demonstrate 

compliance with these limits, Doe Run shall provide monthly logs that track sinter 

throughput and blast furnace sinter throughput on a daily basis, using the spreadsheet 

attached hereto as Appendix A, unless and until an alternative spreadsheet is approved by 

Plaintiffs, as part of the semi-annual status report required in Section XVI (Reporting

Requirements).

ii. Blast Furnace Sinter Consumption shall not exceed a 12-Month 

Rolling Tonnage of 326,370 tons. 

b. Lead Emission Limits

i. No later than January 15, 2011, Doe Run shall submit a testing

plan to EPA and MDNR in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this 

Consent Decree for review and approval by Plaintiffs pursuant to Section XII

(Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). The testing plan shall be 

in accordance with the test methods set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 63.1546 and will 

: Emissions of lead from the Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter shall comply with the 1.0 pound per ton of lead limit set forth in 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.1543. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-23-

specify the tests that will be performed, the test methods that will be utilized, and 

the emission points that will be sampled. Doe Run shall make any modifications 

to the test methods or procedures requested by EPA or MDNR, subject to Doe 

Run’s right to invoke Dispute Resolution.

ii. Doe Run shall conduct performance testing in accordance with 

40 C.F.R. § 63.1546 within thirty (30) Days after Plaintiffs’ approval of the 

testing plan. 

iii. Within sixty (60) Days following completion of the performance 

test(s) specified in Paragraph 20.b.i. of this Consent Decree, Doe Run shall submit 

the results of the test in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent 

Decree.

c. SO2 Emission Limits at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter:

i. SO2 Short-term Limit: 223,700 pounds of SO2; and 

 By no later than 

the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, Doe Run shall comply with the following SO2

emissions limits at all times:

ii. SO2 Mass Cap: 18,501 tons of SO2. 

d. Emissions Monitoring

i. CERMS Operation: By no later than the Lodging Date of this 

Consent Decree, Doe Run shall maintain and operate a CERMS on the main stack 

of the Herculaneum Lead Smelter capable of measuring the hourly mass rate of 

SO2 emissions. Except during CERMS breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-24-

and zero span adjustments, the CERMS shall be in continuous operation and shall 

be used at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter to demonstrate compliance with the 

SO2 emission limits established in Paragraph 20.c. of this Consent Decree.

ii. CERMS Specifications:

iii.

 The CERMS shall be installed, calibrated, 

operated, maintained, certified, and audited in accordance with the provisions of 

40 C.F.R Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specifications 2 and 6 and 40 C.F.R 

Part 60, Appendix F.

CERMS Breakdown

iv.

: Doe Run shall take all reasonable steps to 

avoid CERMS breakdowns and minimize CERMS downtime. This shall include, 

but is not limited to, operating and maintaining the CERMS in accordance with 

best practices and maintaining an on-site inventory of spare parts or other supplies 

necessary to make rapid repairs to the equipment. 

Use of Substitute Data in the Event of CERMS Breakdown:

(a) For any failure or out-of-control period of the SO2 pollutant 

analyzer less than 24 hours, Doe Run shall substitute the previous Day’s 

hourly average SO2 emission rate for each one-hour period of missing data 

resulting from the outage.

 For 

the purposes of determining compliance with the SO2 emission limits established 

in Paragraph 20 of this Consent Decree in the event of CERMS Breakdown, Doe 

Run shall use the following substitute data procedures:

(b) For any failure or out-of-control period of the SO2 pollutant 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-25-

analyzer greater than 24 hours, Doe Run shall provide substitute data by: 

(1) developing an emission factor in units of pounds of SO2 per ton of lead 

sinter production by dividing the pounds of SO2 emissions measured 

during the most recent full Day of CERMS operation prior to the outage 

and the lead sinter produced that same Day and (2) tracking hourly lead 

sinter production during the outage.

(c) For any failure or out-of-control period of the flow rate sensor, 

Doe Run shall provide substitute data using engineering calculations of the 

hourly mass SO2 emission rate based on the SO2 concentration measured 

by the SO2 pollutant analyzer and estimated stack flow rates.

21. For the purpose of establishing whether or not Doe Run has violated or is in 

violation of any requirement under this Consent Decree, nothing in this Consent Decree shall 

preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to 

whether the Herculaneum Lead Smelter would have been in compliance with requirements of 

this Consent Decree if the appropriate compliance procedure had been performed. 

22. At all times, including periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, Doe Run

shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate the Herculaneum Lead Smelter in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.

B. Prohibition on Netting Credits or Offsets From Required Controls

23. Emission reductions generated by Defendants to comply with the requirements of 

this Consent Decree shall not be considered as a creditable contemporaneous emission decrease 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-26-

for the purpose of obtaining a netting credit under the CAA’s Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD 

programs. 

24. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to preclude the emission reductions 

generated under this Consent Decree from being considered by MDNR or EPA as creditable 

contemporaneous emissions decreases for the purpose of attainment demonstrations submitted 

pursuant to CAA § 110, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, or in determining impacts on NAAQS, PSD 

increment, or air quality related values, including visibility in a Class I area.

C. Installation of Pressure Drop Monitor at the Buick Mine/Mill

25. Buick Mine/Mill is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located 

at HC 1, Box 1390, Missouri Highway Route KK, Boss, Missouri 65440. Buick Mine/Mill is 

subject to the requirements of Part 70 Operating Permit No. OP2003-011 which was issued on 

March 7, 2003, and was scheduled to expire on March 4, 2008 (“Permit No. OP2003-011”).

26. In addition to other requirements, Permit No. OP2003-011 contains emission unit 

specific emission limitations for the various emission units at the Buick Mine/Mill. Permit No. 

OP2003-011 identifies Underground Concrete Batch Plant #1 as emission unit EU0020 at the 

Buick Mine/Mill. Permit Condition EU0020-001 contains a number of conditions for emission 

unit EU0020, one of which is a requirement to install instruments to monitor the operating 

pressure drop across the baghouse.

27. Within sixty (60) Days of the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree Doe Run shall 

install and operate a pressure drop monitor in accordance with the requirements of Permit 

Condition EU0020-001. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-27-

28. Following installation of the pressure drop monitor, with the next semi-annual 

status report required by Paragraph 176, Doe Run shall submit a report to EPA and MDNR that 

provides documentation that a pressure drop monitor has been installed and is operational in 

accordance with the requirements of Permit Condition EU0020-001. The report shall contain the

certification statement signed by a responsible corporate official pursuant to Paragraph 181 of 

Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree. 

VI. 

A. Overview of CWA Requirements

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: CLEAN WATER ACT

29. This Consent Decree requires injunctive relief and compliance with Missouri 

State Operating Permit effluent limits and permit conditions at ten facilities (“the CWA 

Facilities”) as follows: 

a. Buick Resource Recycling Facility (MSOP No. MO-0000337, re-issued 

August 23, 2002, and modified February 23, 2007) is a secondary lead smelter and battery 

recycling plant located at 18594 HWY KK, Boss, Missouri 65440. The facility 

discharges from three permitted outfalls to an unnamed tributary of Crooked Creek, then 

to Crooked Creek. The sources of permitted discharges at the facility include industrial 

process wastewater, process stormwater, leachate from a slag landfill, purge water from 

groundwater well sampling, and employee-generated domestic wastewater. 

b. Glover Facility (MSOP No. MO-0001121, re-issued March 23, 2007) is 

an inactive Primary Lead Smelter that is currently used as a storage and transportation 

hub for hauling activities. The Glover Lead Smelter Facility is located at 42850 Highway 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-28-

49, Route 1, Box 60, Annapolis, Missouri 63620. The facility is authorized to discharge 

from four permitted outfalls, three of which discharge directly to Scoggins Branch, which 

flows to Big Creek. The sources of discharges at the facility include stormwater from the 

smelter grounds and slag piles, employee generated domestic wastewater, and noncontact cooling water. 

c. Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility (MSOP No. MO-0000281, reissued February 28, 2003) is a Primary Lead Smelter facility located at 881 Main Street, 

Herculaneum, Missouri 63048. The facility is authorized to discharge to the Mississippi 

River from five permitted outfalls. The sources of the permitted discharges include 

industrial process wastewater, process stormwater, acid plant non-contact cooling water, 

no treatment/non-contact cooling water, stormwater runoff from slag storage areas, and 

stormwater runoff from the facility railroad track and staging area. A draft permit placed 

on public notice on November 20, 2009, eliminates the stormwater emergency overflow 

point at Outfall 002 and identifies the receiving stream for Outfall 004 as Joachim Creek. 

d. Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility (MSOP No. MO-0001848, re-issued 

February 26, 2010) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located on 

Missouri Highway Route KK, Bunker, Missouri 63629. The facility discharges from 

three permitted outfalls to Bill’s Creek, which flows to the West Fork of the Black River. 

The sources of permitted discharges include mine dewatering, stormwater runoff from 

mining and milling facilities, seep wastewater from the toe drain at the base of the tailings 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-29-

impoundment, and process wastewater from mining and milling activities. The facility 

includes a 227-acre tailings impoundment.

e. Buick Mine/Mill Facility (MSOP No. MO-0002003, re-issued September 

25, 2009) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located at HC 1, Box 

1390, Missouri Highway Route KK, Boss, Missouri 65440. The facility discharges from 

two permitted outfalls to an unnamed tributary of Strother Creek and to Strother Creek. 

The sources of permitted discharges include process wastewater, including stormwater, 

from mining, milling and mine dewatering, and employee-generated domestic 

wastewater. The facility includes a 627-acre tailings impoundment.

f. Fletcher Mine/Mill Facility (MSOP No. MO-0001856, re-issued 

November 13, 2009) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located on 

Missouri Highway TT, Bunker, Missouri 63629. The facility discharges from three 

permitted outfalls to an unnamed tributary of Bee Fork, which flows to Bee Fork. The 

sources of permitted discharges from the facility include mine dewatering, stormwater 

runoff from mining and milling facilities, and process wastewater from mining and 

milling operations. The facility includes a 390-acre tailings impoundment.

g. Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility (MSOP No. MO-0001881, re-issued July 

10, 2009) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located at Route 1, 

Box 416, Ellington, Missouri 63638. The facility discharges from three permitted 

outfalls to an unnamed tributary to Adair Creek and Adair Creek, which flow to Logan 

Creek, and to an unnamed tributary to Sweetwater Creek, which flows to Sweetwater 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-30-

Creek. The sources of permitted discharges from the facility include employee-generated 

domestic wastewater, process wastewater from mining and milling activities, and 

industrial stormwater from mining and milling activities. The facility includes a 592-acre 

tailings impoundment.

h. Viburnum Mine/Mill Facility (MSOP No. MO-0000086, re-issued 

December 4, 2009) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining and milling operation located at 

P.O. Box 500, Viburnum, Missouri 65566. The facility discharges from five permitted 

outfalls to an unnamed tributary of Indian Creek and to Indian Creek. The sources of 

permitted discharges from the facility include stormwater runoff from the mining and 

milling facility, mine dewatering, and process wastewater from mining operations. The 

facility includes a series of tailings impoundments covering approximately 812 acres.

i. Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) Facility (MSOP No. MO-0100226, reissued March 19, 2010) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining operation located at Missouri 

State Highway 32, Bixby, Missouri 65439. The facility discharges from three permitted 

outfalls to an unnamed tributary of Crooked Creek, which flows to Crooked Creek. The 

sources of permitted discharges from the facility include mine dewatering, stormwater 

runoff from mining facilities, and employee-generated domestic wastewater. The facility 

includes two mine dewatering basins.

j. West Fork Unit Facility (MSOP No. MO-0100218, re-issued March 12, 

2010) is a lead, zinc, and copper mining operation located at 6854 Missouri State 

Highway KK, Bunker, Missouri 63629. The facility discharges from four permitted 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-31-

outfalls to the West Fork of the Black River. The sources of permitted discharges from 

the facility include mine dewatering, employee-generated domestic wastewater, and 

process wastewater and stormwater from mining and milling facilities. The facility 

includes a 515-acre tailings impoundment.

30. Summary of Relief

B. Compliance Measures for all CWA Facilities

. To further the objectives of this Consent Decree, Defendants 

shall perform the measures set forth in Subsection B, below. Defendants, in consultation and 

coordination with the EPA and MDNR, shall implement the plans that are required by 

Subsection B, below, of this Consent Decree, including requirements pertaining to data 

collection, development of Underground Water Management Plans, and development of Surface 

Water Management Plans, the latter of which Defendants shall submit for approval pursuant to 

Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables) of this Consent Decree, with 

the goal of improving water quality in Defendants’ mine water and surface water to aid in 

achieving full compliance with current and future MSOPs. Defendants will also work with 

MDNR, in consultation with EPA, to resolve outstanding issues in appeals of certain terms and 

conditions of MSOPs at the CWA Facilities by implementing the measures set forth in Section 

VII (Clean Water Act Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and 

Compliance Deadlines) below and will comply with the MSOPs for the CWA Facilities pursuant 

to the terms of this Consent Decree, the CWA, and the Missouri Clean Water Law.

31. Defendants shall achieve and maintain full compliance with the terms and 

conditions of its MSOPs for its CWA Facilities, and any amendments or modifications thereto, 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-32-

subject to the provisions of Section VII, Subsection I, establishing the Schedule for Compliance 

With the Missouri State Operating Permits. Defendants shall comply with the provisions of the 

CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the Missouri Clean Water Law, Chapter 644, RSMo, the 

implementing regulations thereof, and the Compliance Measures set forth below in this 

Subsection. 

1. Underground Water Sampling and Analysis Plan

32. In order to provide mine water quality data needed to prepare plans to reduce 

metals loadings associated with Defendants’ CWA Facilities and to improve overall compliance 

with its MSOPs, Defendants shall prepare and implement an Underground Water Sampling and 

Analysis Plan (“UWSAP”) at the Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Buick Mine/Mill, Fletcher Mine/Mill, 

Sweetwater Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel), and West Fork Unit 

Facilities (collectively the “Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities”).

33. Submittal of UWSAP. Within ten (10) Days of the Lodging Date, Defendants 

shall submit to Plaintiffs for review and comment a UWSAP for all of the Mine and Mine/Mill 

Facilities. Plaintiffs may provide comments, if any, within thirty (30) Days of receipt of the 

UWSAP. Defendants may revise the UWSAP in response to any comments provided by 

Plaintiffs. Defendants shall implement the UWSAP within the time frame set forth in Paragraph 

36. The purpose of the UWSAP is to collect water quality and flow data from subsurface 

locations at the Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities to evaluate water quality and assist with water 

management. The data will be used to characterize the quality and quantity of subsurface water 

at the Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities, assist with mine water management and evaluate water 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-33-

chemistry. The analysis of mine water will enable Defendants to determine the efficacy and 

efficiency of underground metals loading reduction activities. The UWSAP shall include, but is 

not limited to, the following activities as appropriate for each Mine and Mine/Mill Facility:

a. Sampling of major groundwater inflows, including, but not limited to

shafts and borings; 

b. Sampling of underground sumps;

c. Sampling of flooded mine workings;

d. Sampling in underground drainage channels flowing to pumping 

equipment;

e. Sampling of mine de-watering flows to surface facilities; and

f. Development of a data set for use in evaluating underground mine and 

surface water management programs to reduce metals loadings in water at the Mine and 

Mine/Mill Facilities prior to discharge.

2. Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Plan

34. In order to provide surface water quality data needed to prepare plans to reduce 

metals loadings associated with Defendants’ CWA Facilities and to improve overall compliance 

with its MSOPs, Defendants shall prepare and implement a Surface Water Sampling and 

Analysis Plan (“SWSAP”) at the CWA Facilities.

35. Submittal of SWSAP. Within ten (10) Days of the Lodging Date, Defendants 

shall submit to Plaintiffs for review and comment a SWSAP for the CWA Facilities. Plaintiffs 

may provide comments, if any, within thirty (30) Days of receipt of the SWSAP. Defendants 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-34-

may revise the SWSAP in response to any comments provided by Plaintiffs. Defendants shall 

implement the SWSAP within the time frame described in Paragraph 36. The purpose of the 

SWSAP is to collect water quality and flow data from surface locations at all CWA Facilities to 

evaluate water quality and assist with water management. The data will be used to characterize 

the quality and quantity of surface water at all CWA Facilities, assist with surface water 

management, and evaluate water chemistry compared to current and new MSOPs. The analysis 

of surface water will enable Defendants to determine potential options (if required) to improve 

water quality and meet applicable MSOPs at the permitted outfalls. The SWSAP shall include, 

but is not limited to, the following activities as appropriate at all CWA Facilities:

a. Sampling of inflows to and outflows from surface facilities, including, but 

not limited to, tailing impoundments, clear water basins, and meander systems;

b. Sampling of receiving streams; 

c. Sampling of stormwater discharges in accordance with EPA Industrial 

Stormwater Monitoring and Sampling Guide (EPA 832-B-09-003, March 2009) set forth 

at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp_monitoring_guide.pdf; 

d. Sampling of inflows to and outflows from man-made surface water 

features, including, but not limited to, surface water conveyance channels, retention 

basins, and detention basins, and which may include storage units, such as tanks, as well 

as inflows to and outflows from treatment plants; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-35-

e. Development of a data set for use in evaluating underground mine and 

surface water management programs to reduce metals loading in water at CWA Facilities 

prior to discharge.

3. Completion of UWSAP and SWSAP

36. Defendants shall complete the first iteration of sampling and analysis under the 

UWSAP and SWSAP within two hundred ten (210) Days after the Lodging Date, unless 

Defendants choose to revise the UWSAP or SWSAP based on comments from the Plaintiffs. 

Defendants shall submit revisions to Plaintiffs, if any, within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of 

Plaintiffs’ comments and shall complete the first iteration of sampling and analysis under the 

UWSAP and/or SWSAP within one hundred eighty (180) Days thereafter.

4. Quality Assurance Program Project

37. Quality Assurance Project Plan (“QAPP”) for data validation and verification. 

Defendant will include in the UWSAP and SWSAP a QAPP that conforms to “EPA 

Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations” (EPA 

QA/R5. EPA/240/B-01/003 (March, 2001)) and “Guidance for Quality Assurance Plans” (EPA 

QA/G5. EPA/240/R-02/009 (December, 2002)). For analysis of samples pursuant to Sections VI 

and VII of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall use laboratories that participate in a QA/QC 

program compliant with these requirements and guidance. Within ten (10) Days of the Lodging 

Date, Defendants shall notify Plaintiffs of the laboratories selected by Defendants. Defendants 

shall retain a third-party independent contractor to audit all laboratories that Defendants will use 

for analysis of samples pursuant to Sections VI (Compliance Requirements: Clean Water Act) 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-36-

and VII (Clean Water Act Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and 

Compliance Deadlines) of this Consent Decree prior to the initiation of any such sampling 

activities under this Consent Decree. Defendants shall provide to EPA and MDNR a copy of 

reports of such laboratory audits within fourteen (14) Days after Defendants’ receipt of each such 

audit report.

38. Laboratory Audits. Upon EPA’s request, Defendants shall notify a selected 

laboratory that EPA or an independent third-party contractor chosen by EPA will conduct a 

performance and/or QA/QC audit of the laboratories chosen by Defendants, whether before, 

during, or after sample analyses. Upon EPA’s request, Defendants shall have each of their 

laboratories perform analyses of up to 30 samples per calendar quarter provided by EPA or the 

third-party contractor to demonstrate laboratory QA/QC and performance. If the audit reveals 

deficiencies in a laboratory’s performance or QA/QC, Plaintiffs may require resampling and/or

additional analysis, and Defendants shall submit a plan to address the deficiencies within ninety 

(90) Days of receipt of the results of the audit. Unless Plaintiffs provide comments within thirty 

(30) Days of receipt thereof, Defendants shall implement the remedial plan in accordance with 

the schedule set forth therein. If Plaintiffs provide comments requiring revision of the remedial 

plan, Defendants shall, subject to Defendants’ right to invoke Dispute Resolution, within thirty 

(30) Days of receipt of Plaintiffs’ comments, revise the remedial plan to address the comments

and implement the revised remedial plan in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-37-

5. UWSAP Report and SWSAP Report

39. Defendants shall submit a UWSAP Report and a SWSAP Report with the results 

of the data from the first iteration of sampling and Defendants’ analysis thereof to EPA and 

MDNR for review and comment within ninety (90) Days of completion of the first iteration of 

sampling and analysis under the UWSAP and the SWSAP. The UWSAP Report and the 

SWSAP Report will each be reviewed by Plaintiffs based on completeness and presentation of 

information demonstrating full implementation of the UWSAP and the SWSAP, respectively. 

Any deficiencies in gathering information or accurate analysis of data collected pursuant to the 

UWSAP and/or SWSAP will be borne by Defendants and shall not be used as a basis for 

modification of any schedule to meet an interim or final compliance deadline for CWA Facilities 

under this Consent Decree. The UWSAP Report and the SWSAP Report shall provide:

a. Summaries of the data collected at each sampling location;

b. Descriptions of all substantive deviations from the UWSAP or SWSAP, 

including any changed, deleted or additional sampling locations;

c. A QAPP data validation report; and

d. A discussion of whether the collected data is sufficient to satisfy all of the 

requirements to achieve the objectives of the UWSAP and the SWSAP.

40. Until the date that Defendants submit the UWSAP Report and the SWSAP 

Report, if, after consultation with Plaintiffs, Defendants conclude that the data collected are not 

sufficient in quantity, quality, or scope to satisfy the requirements of or to achieve the objectives 

of the UWSAP and/or the SWSAP or the QAPP, then Defendants shall include in the UWSAP 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-38-

Report and/or the SWSAP Report and submit for Plaintiffs’ review and comment a plan and 

schedule for additional proposed sampling that will achieve those objectives and/or satisfy the 

requirements as expeditiously as possible. Unless Plaintiffs provide comments they identify as 

significant regarding the plan and schedule for additional sampling within thirty (30) Days of 

submission, Defendants shall implement the plan and schedule for additional sampling as 

submitted. If Plaintiffs provide significant comments regarding the plan and schedule for 

additional sampling, Defendants shall, subject to Defendants’ right to invoke Dispute Resolution,

revise the plan and schedule for additional monitoring to address such comments and resubmit it 

to Plaintiffs, and shall thereafter implement the revised plan and schedule. Extension of the 

UWSAP and/or SWSAP sampling schedule pursuant to this Paragraph shall not be used as a 

basis for modification of any schedule to meet an interim or final compliance deadline for CWA 

Facilities under this Consent Decree. 

6. Underground Water Management Plan

41. Master Underground Water Management Plan. Within thirty (30) Days after the 

Lodging Date, Doe Run shall prepare and submit to EPA and MDNR for review and comment a 

Master Underground Water Management Plan (“UWMP”). The Master UWMP shall provide a 

framework to evaluate the feasibility, practicality, and effectiveness of procedures and 

methodologies to reduce metals loadings in mine water and underground process water at Doe 

Run’s Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities. If EPA and/or MDNR provide comments on the Master 

UWMP within thirty (30) Days of Doe Run’s submittal of the Master UMWP, Doe Run may, 

within forty-five (45) days after receipt of such comments, revise the Master UWMP to address 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-39-

the comments and submit the revised Master UWMP to EPA and MDNR. The Master UWMP 

shall, include, but not be limited to: 

a. Source identification;

b. Identification and evaluation of potential source controls;

c. Development of Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) for source 

control measure implementation;

d. Regularly scheduled personnel training for implementation of SOPs;

e. Performance assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken; 

and 

f. Implementation schedule.

42. Site-Specific UWMPs and Schedule. Doe Run shall develop a Site-Specific 

UWMP for each Mine and Mine/Mill Facility based on the Master UWMP and the results of 

UWSAP implementation for that particular Facility as presented in the UWSAP Report. Doe 

Run shall within ninety (90) Days of finalization of the UWSAP Report pursuant to Paragraph 39

and finalization of the Master UWMP pursuant to Paragraph 41, whichever is later, submit to 

EPA and MDNR for review and comment a Site-Specific UWMP for one Mine or Mine/Mill 

Facility, and shall submit an additional Site-Specific UWMP every thirty (30) Days thereafter 

until a Site-Specific UWMP has been submitted for each of the Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities.

Doe Run shall implement each Site-Specific UWMP according to the schedule set forth therein, 

but implementation as to each Site-Specific UWMP shall in no case be completed later than three 

(3) years from the date it is submitted to EPA and MDNR.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-40-

43. UWMP Reporting

44.

. As part of the semi-annual status report required pursuant to 

Paragraph 176, Doe Run shall provide a semi-annual report summarizing the progress of 

implementation of all the Site-Specific UWMPs pursuant to Section XXIII (Notices) of this 

Consent Decree. Within thirty (30) Days after a request by Plaintiffs, Doe Run shall provide 

additional information and data regarding Site-Specific UWMP implementation, including but 

not limited to, the information and data that formed the basis for the annual report. 

UWMP Modification

45. Completion of measures subject to Implementation Schedules in the Site-Specific 

UWMPs shall be enforceable under this Consent Decree. Any failure to complete measures set 

forth in an Implementation Schedule by the scheduled deadline shall be subject to stipulated 

penalties as provided in Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Consent Decree unless 

Plaintiffs and Doe Run both agree in writing to the amendment of or deletion of measures on an 

Implementation Schedule. Except for completion of measures set forth in the Implementation 

Schedule, the detailed requirements of the UWMPs are not specifically enforceable under this 

Consent Decree; however, a substantial failure to implement control measures or conduct 

. If Doe Run believes that new information or data gained 

through implementation of the UWMP and the SAP supports modification of the Master UWMP 

or any Site-Specific UWMP, Doe Run may modify the Master UWMP or any Site-Specific 

UWMP. Any modifications will be noted in the semi-annual report required pursuant to 

Paragraph 43, and shall be subject to review and comment by Plaintiffs. Any modifications to 

the Master UWMP or a Site-Specific UWMP shall not be considered “material modifications” 

within the meaning of Section XXVI (Modification) of the Decree. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-41-

performance assessments described in the UWMPs shall be subject to enforcement under this 

Consent Decree.

7. Surface Water Management Plan

46. Surface Water Management Plans

a.

. Defendants shall carry out assessments and 

engineering analyses necessary to identify all measures needed to ensure that Defendants’ surface 

water discharges comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the regulations 

promulgated thereunder, the Missouri Clean Water Law, the regulations promulgated thereunder, 

MSOPs for all CWA Facilities, and the terms of this Consent Decree, and then shall implement 

all such measures in a timely manner. 

Master Surface Water Management Plan

i. Water inventory, including but not limited to, an evaluation, with 

sampling, of inflows and outflows from surface water impoundments, 

. Within sixty (60) Days of the 

Lodging Date, Defendants shall submit for review and approval by Plaintiffs pursuant to 

Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables) a Master Surface 

Water Management Plan (“SWMP”) to serve as the framework for Site-Specific SWMPs 

developed pursuant to Paragraph 46.b. The objectives of the SWMPs are to evaluate for 

all CWA Facilities the technical feasibility, practicality, and effectiveness of procedures 

and methodologies for management of process wastewater and stormwater, including, but 

not limited to, mine water pumped to the surface at the Mine and Mine/Mill Facilities. 

The Master SWMP shall include, but may not be limited to:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-42-

including but not limited to discharges, seepage, drainage and 

evaporation;

ii. Source identification;

iii. Fate and transport evaluation;

iv. Sampling of Stormwater in accordance with EPA Industrial Stormwater 

Monitoring and Sampling Guide (EPA 832-B-09-003) set forth at 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp_monitoring_guide.pdf;

v. Preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (“SWPPP”) in 

accordance with Guidance set forth in Appendix C; 

vi. Identification of short and long-term control measures, including Best 

Management Practices (“BMPs”) and capital improvements;

vii. Personnel training for implementation of control measures and SWPPPs;

viii. Performance assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of measures 

taken; and

ix. Implementation Schedule. Notwithstanding the schedule that will be 

presented for any Site-Specific SWMP, the SWPPP for each CWA 

Facility will be completed no later than the deadline set forth in 

Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance 

Deadlines) for each CWA Facility.

b. Site-Specific Surface Water Management Plans. Defendants shall develop 

a Site-Specific SWMP for each CWA Facility to address the criteria in Appendix C
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-43-

(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans Guidance), the Master SWMP, and the results 

of SWSAP implementation as presented in the SWSAP Report. Defendants shall also 

review and revise, as needed, the SWPPP for each CWA Facility as a component of SiteSpecific SWMP development. Within ninety (90) Days after the SWSAP Report is 

finalized pursuant to Paragraph 39 and the Master SWMP is approved or otherwise 

finalized pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables), 

whichever is later, Defendants shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review and approval 

pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables) a SiteSpecific SWMP for one CWA Facility, and shall submit an additional Site-Specific 

SWMP every thirty (30) Days thereafter until a Site-Specific SWMP has been prepared 

for each of the CWA Facilities. As to each Site-Specific SWMP submitted, unless EPA 

or MDNR provide notice of disapproval to Defendants within forty-five (45) Days of 

submittal of each Site-Specific SWMP, such Site-Specific SWMP shall be deemed 

approved. After each Site-Specific SWMP is approved, deemed approved, or otherwise 

finalized pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables) 

of the Decree, whichever is later, Defendants shall implement the approved Site-Specific 

SWMP according to the schedule set forth therein, but implementation of each SiteSpecific SWMP shall in no case be completed later than three (3) years from the date it is 

deemed approved, as provided above, or the date that it is finalized pursuant to Section 

XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables), with the exception that 

Defendants may seek approval from Plaintiffs for a longer compliance schedule, not to 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-44-

exceed five (5) years from the date of approval, for those portions of a Site-Specific 

SWMP that involve capital improvements which require more than three (3) years to 

implement.

47. SWMP Reporting

48.

. As a part of the semi-annual status report required pursuant to 

Paragraph 176, Defendants shall provide a semi-annual report summarizing the progress of 

implementation of all the Site-Specific SWMPs pursuant to Section XXIII (Notices) of this 

Consent Decree. Within thirty (30) Days of a request by Plaintiffs, Defendants shall provide 

additional information and data regarding Site-Specific SWMP implementation, including, but 

not limited to, the information and data that formed the basis for the semi-annual report. 

SWMP Modification. If Defendants believe that new information or data gained 

through implementation of the SWMP and the SAP supports modification of the Master SWMP 

or any site-specific SWMP, Defendants may modify the Master SWMP or any Site-Specific 

SWMP, with the exception of capital improvements or control measures subject to an 

Implementation Schedule, without prior approval by Plaintiffs, provided Defendants specifically 

describe any such modifications in the semi-annual reports required pursuant to Paragraph 47. 

Plaintiffs may, within sixty (60) Days of receipt of a semi-annual report describing an eligible

modification to the Master SWMP or a Site-Specific SWMP, disapprove such modification. 

Such disapproval shall be subject to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables). Any modifications to the Master SWMP or Site-Specific SWMP shall not be 

considered “material modifications” within the meaning of Section XXVI (Modification) of this

Consent Decree. Any proposed modifications to a SWMP Implementation Schedule or required 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-45-

control measures must be submitted to Plaintiffs for review and prior approval pursuant to 

Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). Defendants shall submit all 

proposed modifications to an Implementation Schedule or control measures at least sixty (60) 

Days prior to the due date of the milestone for which the extension is sought and shall be deemed 

approved unless Plaintiffs request additional information from Defendants regarding the 

proposed modification or disapprove the proposed modification within forty-five (45) Days of 

Plaintiffs’ receipt thereof. Modification of the Master SWMP or a Site-Specific SWMP, 

including an Implementation Schedule or control measure, shall not automatically extend any 

schedule to meet an interim or final compliance deadline for CWA Facilities under this Consent 

Decree.

49. The training requirements and the requirements to implement control measures, 

conduct performance assessments, and comply with Implementation Schedules in the SiteSpecific SWMPs shall be enforceable under this Consent Decree. Any failure to implement 

control measures, conduct performance assessments, or to comply with a training requirement or

an Implementation Schedule shall also be subject to stipulated penalties as provided in Section 

XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Consent Decree unless an amendment to a control measure or 

Implementation Schedule has been approved, as provided in Paragraph 48, above. Except as set 

forth above, the detailed requirements of the Site-Specific SWMPs are not specifically 

enforceable under this Consent Decree or subject to stipulated penalties as provided in Section 

XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Consent Decree. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the 

Plaintiffs from enforcement of a SWPPP incorporated into a CWA Facility’s MSOP.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-46-

8. Site-Specific Injunctive Relief

50. In order to enhance pH consistency of water delivered to the Herculaneum 

wastewater treatment plant, by no later than August 1, 2010, Defendants shall install and 

continuously operate a second lime slurry tank at the headworks of the Herculaneum wastewater 

treatment plant pursuant to the April 12, 2010 Construction Permit Waiver issued by MDNR.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility

51. By no later than July 1, 2010, Defendants shall submit a report for Plaintiffs’ 

review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables) of this Consent Decree evaluating the effectiveness of flocculating agents in the 

Herculaneum wastewater clarifier. Upon approval or finalization pursuant to Section XII 

(Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables), the findings of the report shall be 

implemented according to the schedule set forth in the approved report. The report shall include, 

at a minimum:

a. The performance of each flocculent considered for use in the Herculaneum 

wastewater treatment system;

b. The flocculent chosen for the wastewater treatment system and 

justification therefor;

c. An evaluation of projected compliance using the chosen flocculent;

d. An analysis of the sludge generated by the chosen flocculent and any 

potential impacts on sludge disposal; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-47-

e. An implementation schedule, if determined necessary to achieve 

compliance.

52. A Slag Storage Area Water Management Plan (“SSAWMP”) shall be submitted 

for Plaintiffs’ review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval 

of Deliverables) by no later than January 31, 2011. The SSAWMP shall be consistent with any 

applicable requirements set forth in Administrative Order on Consent – Docket No. RCRA-07-

2000-0018; CERCLA-07-2000-0029, and shall include:

a. An assessment of the characteristics of water entering the slag water 

collection system;

b. An evaluation of potential effective end uses and/or treatment of the 

collected water; and

c. A schedule for implementation.

53. Defendants shall implement the SSAWMP according to the schedule set forth 

therein upon approval of the SSAWMP by Plaintiffs pursuant to Section XII (Compliance 

Requirements: Approval of Deliverables).

54. In order to reduce hydraulic loading to the Herculaneum wastewater treatment 

plant, Defendants shall install a truck wash water recycling system. By no later than fifteen (15) 

Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall submit a plan to Plaintiffs 

for review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables) of this Consent Decree for recycling truck wash water. Unless disapproved by 

Plaintiffs within forty-five (45) Days of submission, the plan shall be deemed approved. By no 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-48-

later than ninety (90) Days from receipt of a Missouri Clean Water Law Construction Permit or 

waiver thereof, or two hundred forty (240) Days from the Lodging Date, whichever is earlier, 

Defendants shall install and commence continuous operation of a truck wash water recycling 

system at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility. 

55. By no later than June 1, 2010, Defendants shall submit a report to Plaintiffs for 

review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables) evaluating the effectiveness of reagents used in the Glover Facility wastewater 

treatment plant. The report shall include a description of the evaluation steps, presentation of any 

data generated during the evaluation, conclusions reached, a description of any recommended 

changes in the chemicals used or the usage thereof in the wastewater treatment system, and an 

implementation schedule. Unless Plaintiffs provide notice of disapproval within thirty (30) Days 

of submittal, Defendants will implement the report according to the plan and schedule. If 

Plaintiffs provide notice of disapproval, Defendants shall implement the report according to the 

plan and schedule after finalization of the report pursuant to Section XII (Compliance 

Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). 

Glover Facility

56. Within thirty (30) Days after the Lodging Date, Defendants shall remove and 

place in the Doe Run slag storage area any slag that has washed out of the slag storage area 

containment berm. Defendants shall immediately implement actions to stabilize and re-vegetate 

the containment berm around the Doe Run slag storage area at the Glover Facility, and complete 

re-vegetation by no later than October 31, 2010. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-49-

57. Within thirty (30) Days after the Lodging Date, Defendants shall submit to

Plaintiffs for review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: 

Approval of Deliverables) a report on the use of sodium sulfide to reduce thallium in the Glover 

Facility wastewater treatment system, and if changes are recommended, shall propose a 

schedule for implementation. Unless Plaintiffs provide notice of disapproval within thirty (30) 

Days of submittal, Defendants shall implement the report according to the plan and schedule. If 

Plaintiffs provide notice of disapproval, Defendants shall implement the report, according to the 

plan and schedule after finalization of the report pursuant to Section XII (Compliance 

Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). 

58. Within ninety (90) Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, at the

Glover Facility domestic sewage extended aeration wastewater treatment unit Defendants shall 

place and maintain a lock on the gate and shall secure and install warning signs on each side of 

the fence surrounding that unit that at a minimum have letters that are two inches tall and that 

state, “Wastewater Treatment Facility, Keep Out.” 

59. In order to enhance hydraulic capacity, consistency of hydraulic throughput, and 

ensure continuing compliance with its MSOP at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility 

wastewater treatment plant, Defendants shall install and commence operation of a fourth sand 

vertical gravity filter at the wastewater treatment plant pursuant to the March 24, 2010

Construction Permit Waiver issued by MDNR. During any period of maintenance, Defendants 

shall ensure back-up systems provide full treatment capacity and permit compliance. Defendants 

Buick Resource Recycling Facility
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-50-

shall install and commence operation of the equipment by no later than June 24, 2010. The filter 

will serve as a backup or may be used to assist the existing three sand vertical gravity filters and 

shall have a maximum design capacity of no less than 235 gallons per minute (“GPM”).

60. In order to reduce hydraulic and metals loading to the Buick Resource Recycling 

Facility, Defendants shall:

a. Install equipment for recycling non-contact cooling water in the battery 

desulfurization and crystallization areas and commence its operation by no later than 

October 1, 2010; 

b. Install return pumps for the blast furnace cooling water to allow reuse and 

recycling of non-contact cooling water by no later than November 1, 2010; and

c. Submit to EPA and MDNR by no later than thirty (30) Days after the 

Effective Date of the Consent Decree, an evaluation for review and approval of a filter to 

capture metals from the dross and refinery granulation wastewater, and if a filter is 

determined feasible, a schedule for installation. Unless disapproved by Plaintiffs within 

thirty (30) Days after submission, the evaluation shall be deemed approved. If filter 

installation is feasible, Defendants shall within ninety (90) Days after MDNR’s issuance 

of a Missouri Clean Water Law Construction Permit or waiver thereof, or two hundred 

seventy (270) Days after the Lodging Date, whichever is earlier, complete installation of 

the filter and commence its operation.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-51-

61. Defendants shall remove and replace the substrate in the north biocell of the West 

Fork Unit Facility wastewater treatment plant with the type of material, determined by 

Defendants through previous study, which supports the greatest treatment capabilities of the 

biocell pursuant to the March 24, 2010 Construction Permit Waiver issued by MDNR. 

Defendants shall install the substrate by August 30, 2010, and commence continuous operation 

thereof by no later than February 28, 2011. No later than the Lodging Date of this Consent 

Decree and continuing thereafter with respect to all work performed pursuant to this Paragraph, 

Defendants shall ensure all materials removed from the biocell are properly handled and/or 

disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, State and local requirements, including but 

not limited to stormwater, solid waste and hazardous waste requirements. 

West Fork Unit Facility

62. No later than July 1, 2010, Defendants shall eliminate the discharge from Outfall 

002 at the West Fork Unit Facility, the domestic wastewater treatment unit, until and unless the 

treatment unit is upgraded to ensure consistent compliance with all applicable effluent 

limitations. Any action taken by Defendants to eliminate the discharge from Outfall 002 at the 

West Fork Unit Facility, such as pumping and hauling the wastewater, shall be in compliance 

with all applicable local, State and federal requirements.

63. Within ninety (90) Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, 

Defendants shall secure and install signage at the West Fork Unit Facility domestic wastewater 

treatment unit, including but not limited to constructing a fence and locked gate around the 

facility and erecting warning signs. The warning signs shall at a minimum state, “Wastewater 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-52-

Treatment Facility, Keep Out,” and be written in at least 2 inch tall letters and placed on all sides 

of the fence surrounding the treatment unit.

VII. CLEAN WATER ACT PERMITS: RESOLUTION OF MISSOURI STATE OPERATING 

PERMIT APPEALS AND COMPLIANCE DEADLINES

A. CWA Permitting Obligations 

64. Operating Permits.

65.

 Defendants shall comply with applicable federal and/or State 

permitting requirements for the CWA Facilities including, without limitation, submission of 

timely MSOP applications to MDNR in accordance with this Section. The installation of 

pollution control equipment and measures required by Section VI, Subsection B (Compliance 

Measures for all CWA Facilities) is injunctive relief required to achieve compliance with current 

and future MSOPs, including MSOP modifications made pursuant to this Consent Decree. This 

Consent Decree is not and shall not be construed to be a permit or a ruling on a permit issued 

pursuant to any federal or State statute or regulation, nor does compliance with its terms 

guarantee compliance with any applicable law or regulation. Except as specifically provided in 

Section VII, Subsection I (Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits), 

below, and Section XXI (Effect of Settlement/Reservation of Rights), this Consent Decree does 

not affect or relieve Defendants of their responsibility to comply with any applicable federal, 

State, or local law, regulation or permit. 

Construction. Defendants shall timely apply for and obtain from MDNR all 

permits necessary pursuant to State law to construct or modify any controls, processes, structures, 

or facilities to implement the requirements of this Consent Decree. If Defendants choose to 

request a waiver of a Missouri Clean Water Law Construction Permit, such waiver request shall 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-53-

not delay completion of required injunctive relief under this Consent Decree. Delay in receipt of 

a Missouri Clean Water Law Construction Permit or waiver due to Defendants’ failure to submit 

an adequate, timely and complete application or waiver request to MDNR will not constitute a 

Force Majeure event under Section XVIII (Force Majeure) of this Consent Decree. 

66. Permit Renewals and Modifications.

B. Resolution of Pending MSOP Appeals

 As required by State and federal law, 

Defendants shall apply for renewal of any MSOPs for CWA Facilities at least one hundred eighty 

(180) Days prior to their expiration. Defendants shall apply for any necessary modification of an

MSOP for a CWA Facility at least one hundred twenty (120) Days prior to the expiration date of 

any construction permit obtained to perform work required under this Consent Decree. If 

Defendants seek site-specific water quality based limitations or permit-specific limitations in any

MSOP for a CWA Facility Defendants shall timely submit information in support of such request 

pursuant to Section VII, Subsection D (Site-Specific and Permit-Specific Limitations). 

67. The purpose of this Subsection is to set forth the mechanism for expedited 

resolution of pending and anticipated appeals of conditions of CWA Facilities’ MSOPs (the 

issues under appeal and anticipated to be the subject of future appeals are referred to herein as 

“Permit Appeal Issues”). Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed upon a mechanism for expedited 

resolution of the Permit Appeal Issues.

68. Appealed Missouri State Operating Permits. Certain provisions of the following 

CWA Facility MSOPs are under appeal before the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission 

(“Appealed MSOPs”):
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-54-

a. Buick Mine/Mill – MSOP No. MO-0002003, re-issued September 25, 

2009, appeal filed October 23, 2009, supplement filed May 19, 2010;

b. Glover Facility – MSOP No. MO-0001121, re-issued March 23, 2007, 

appeal filed April 20, 2007, amended notice of appeal filed April 13, 2010;

c. Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility – MSOP No. MO-0001881, re-issued July 

10, 2009, appeal filed August 7, 2009, supplement filed May 19, 2010;

d. Fletcher Mine/Mill Facility – MSOP No. MO-0001856, re-issued 

November 13, 2009, appeal filed December 11, 2009, amended notice of appeal filed 

April 23, 2010, supplement filed May 19, 2010; 

e. Viburnum Mine/Mill Facility – MSOP No. MO-0000086, re-issued 

December 4, 2009, appeal filed January 4, 2010, supplement filed May 19, 2010; 

f. Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility – MSOP No. MO-0001848, re-issued 

February 26, 2010, appeal filed March 26, 2010, supplement filed May 19, 2010;

g. Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) Facility – MSOP No. MO-0100226, reissued March 19, 2010, appeal filed April 16, 2010, supplement filed May 19, 2010; and

h. West Fork Unit Facility – MSOP No. MO-0100218, re-issued March 12, 

2010, appeal filed April 9, 2010.

69. Future Missouri State Operating Permits

a. Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility – MSOP No. MO-0000281, re-issued 

February 28, 2003, comments dated January 6, 2010; and

. The following CWA Facility MSOPs 

are expected to be reissued (“Future MSOPs”): 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-55-

b. Buick Resource Recycling Facility – MSOP No. MO-0000337, re-issued 

August 23, 2002, and modified February 23, 2007, comments dated March 15, 2010.

Defendants anticipate that permit conditions and other issues similar to those raised in the 

appeals listed in Paragraph 68 above will be included in the Future MSOPs. To the extent that 

Defendants can identify these conditions and issues, such conditions and issues will be deemed 

Permit Appeal Issues and will be subject to this Section VII (Clean Water Act Permits: 

Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and Compliance Deadlines).

70. Stipulation for Waiver in Part and Abeyance in Part of Permit Appeals

a. In consideration of the agreements of Plaintiffs and Defendants set forth 

below, Defendants hereby specifically:

.

i. Agree that the provisions set forth in this Section VII (Clean Water 

Act Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and 

Compliance Deadlines) of the Consent Decree are the exclusive provisions for 

resolution of Permit Appeal Issues and all additional challenges to any MSOP

provision contained in any CWA Facility permit issued by MDNR and in effect as 

of the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, or in any Future MSOPs as identified 

in Paragraph 69, or in any permit modification issued by MDNR after the Lodging 

Date of this Consent Decree and prior to the termination of this Consent Decree 

pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination) intended to resolve a Permit Appeal 

Issue, and waive their right under federal, State, or local law to otherwise appeal 

or challenge any provision of such CWA Facility MSOPs; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-56-

ii. Agree that the procedures in Paragraph 82 apply to MSOP 

modifications issued by MDNR after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree 

that are not intended to resolve a Permit Appeal Issue and, except for issuance of 

Future MSOPs identified in Paragraph 69, to reissuance of CWA Facility MSOPs 

by MDNR after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree and prior to the 

termination of this Consent Decree pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination); and 

iii. Reserve their right under federal, State and local law to appeal or 

challenge any provision of any CWA Facility MSOP or MSOP modification 

issued by MDNR during the term of this Consent Decree that differs significantly 

and/or materially from the terms of settlement of such permit conditions as 

resolved pursuant to Subsections D, F, G, or H of this Section (e.g., if, based on 

public comments or pursuant to direction from the Missouri Clean Water 

Commission, the final MSOP issued by MDNR differs significantly and/or 

materially from the terms of the permit agreed upon by the State and Defendants 

or from the recommended decision of the Special Master, as applicable), and to 

appeal or challenge any provision of any CWA Facility MSOP or MSOP 

modification issued after termination of this Consent Decree pursuant to Section 

XXVII (Termination).

b. Permit Appeal Issues and other challenges to provisions of any CWA 

Facility MSOP issued by MDNR and in effect as of the Lodging Date of this Consent 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-57-

Decree, or in any Future MSOPs as identified in Paragraph 69, shall be resolved as 

follows: 

i. The State and Defendants have agreed to settlement of certain 

CWA Facility MSOP terms and conditions appealed by Defendants or anticipated 

to be appealed, including dismissing some Permit Appeal Issues and modifying

some MSOPs to address Permit Appeal Issues, as specifically set forth in

Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility 

MSOPs), Tables 1 and 2;

ii. Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to schedules of compliance 

to meet effluent limitations and conditions as set forth in the Schedule for 

Compliance with Missouri State Operating Permits pursuant to Subsection I

(Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits) hereunder and 

the provisions set forth in Section XXI (Effect of Settlement/Reservation of 

Rights) of this Consent Decree; 

iii. The State and Defendants have agreed to engage in resolution 

processes, as set forth in Subsection D hereunder (Site-Specific and PermitSpecific Limitations), regarding site-specific and permit-specific effluent 

limitations and conditions specifically identified in Appendix D (Resolution of 

Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Tables 3 and 5, and 

as may be identified pursuant to Subsection C (Identification of Remaining Permit 

Appeal Issues), below, and as identified in Appendix D (Resolution of Permit 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-58-

Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 6, including 

monitoring requirements and numeric effluent limitations or the methodology 

used for calculating the numeric limits for metals, including, but not limited to

arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc, and

for other pollutant parameters, including BOD, COD, TSS, ammonia, bacteria and 

WET; and 

iv. Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to processes, as set forth in 

Subsection E hereunder (WET Sampling and Testing Procedures) and the 

provisions set forth in Section XXI (Effect of Settlement/Reservation of Rights)

of this Consent Decree, for Defendants to seek alternative Whole Effluent 

Toxicity (“WET”) testing methodologies as specifically identified in Appendix D

(Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 

4, and as may be identified pursuant to Subsection C (Identification of Remaining 

Permit Appeal Issues), below, for Future MSOPs. 

c. Within thirty (30) Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree or 

within thirty (30) Days after issuance of all CWA Facilities permit modifications to 

reflect resolved appeal provisions pursuant to Subparagraph 70.b.i., whichever is later, 

Defendants and MDNR through the Attorney General of Missouri shall, consistent with 

the provisions of Subparagraph 70.b. above, file with the Missouri Administrative 

Hearing Commission a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss in Part and Hold in Abeyance in Part 

Permit Appeals for all Appealed MSOPs identified in Paragraph 68 and all Future 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-59-

MSOPs identified in Paragraph 69 for which appeals have been filed within thirty (30)

Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree. Those appeal provisions identified 

in Subparagraph 70.b.i. above that are resolved shall be identified as dismissed in the 

Joint Stipulation. The Joint Stipulation to Dismiss in Part and Hold in Abeyance in Part 

Permit Appeals shall stipulate abeyance of the permit appeal proceedings not otherwise 

dismissed under this Paragraph until the final decision of the Missouri Clean Water 

Commission as to each CWA Facility MSOP pursuant to Section VII, Subsection H

(Procedure for Finality of Permit Appeal Resolution). If a Future MSOP is not issued 

within the time necessary for the appeal period for such MSOP to fall within the time 

period identified above, then Defendants shall file an appeal of such Future MSOP, and 

together with that filing, the State and Defendants shall file a Joint Stipulation to Hold in 

Abeyance any such permit appeal in accordance with Paragraph 72.

d. An appeal, a request for a permit modification, or any other challenge by 

Defendants of any condition in any MSOP for any CWA Facility required to comply with 

this Consent Decree shall not relieve Defendants of their obligation to comply with the 

compliance dates set forth in Section VI, Subsection B (Compliance Measures for all 

CWA Facilities), above, or be cause for extension of the deadlines for compliance 

established pursuant to Section VII, Subsection I (Schedule for Compliance With 

Missouri State Operating Permits) of this Consent Decree and Appendix B (MSOP 

Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines), and will not constitute a 

Force Majeure event under Section XVIII (Force Majeure) of the Consent Decree.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-60-

C. Identification of Remaining Permit Appeal Issues

71. Within forty-five (45) Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree,

Defendants shall provide to MDNR a comprehensive list confirming the Permit Appeal Issues for

all of the CWA Facilities that remain to be resolved. The identification of Permit Appeal Issues 

shall only include issues that Defendants have raised in the MSOP appeals, as amended and/or 

supplemented, specifically identified in Paragraph 68 above and issues regarding Future MSOP 

permits identified in Paragraph 69 that are included in appeals filed as of the thirty (30) Day 

period after the Lodging Date. However, Defendants shall not include as a Permit Appeal Issue 

any permit-specific or global issue identified as resolved in Paragraph 70.b.i and Appendix D

(Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 2.

a. Each Permit Appeal Issue identified by Defendants shall include a brief 

statement of the basis for appeal, the desired alternative permit condition or limitation, 

and the anticipated date by which Defendants will submit information in support of the 

same, not to exceed the time frames set forth in Subsections D (Site-Specific and PermitSpecific Limitations) and E (WET Sampling and Testing Procedures), below, as 

applicable.

b. To the extent that Permit Appeal Issues across the various MSOPs are 

similar in, for example, the application of science, regulatory interpretation, or methods 

of calculation, such similar bases may be referenced in articulating the Permit Appeal 

Issues for the purpose of streamlining the identification process.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-61-

72. With the exclusion of any issue that has been determined resolved pursuant to 

Paragraph 70.b.i and Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act 

Facility MSOPs), Table 2, Defendants’ identification of issues that reasonably can be anticipated 

to arise with respect to Future MSOPs based upon the draft permits for public notice for each of 

the Future MSOPs does not preclude Defendants from identifying further issues within thirty 

(30) Days after public notice by the MDNR of another draft permit or a final permit for 

reissuance in accordance with 10 CSR 20-6.020(1)(B) where such draft or final permit is 

materially changed from the earlier draft permit(s). 

a. In such case(s) where MDNR issues a final permit, Defendants shall file a 

permit appeal with the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission within thirty (30) 

Days after the public notice date, and Defendants shall simultaneously submit to MDNR 

a copy of the appeal, a revised version of the comprehensive list of Permit Appeal Issues 

required by Paragraph 71 to incorporate such new Permit Appeal Issues, and a draft Joint 

Stipulation to Hold in Abeyance Permit Appeals addressing such new Permit Appeal 

Issues. Defendants and MDNR shall finalize the Joint Stipulation and file it with the 

Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission within twenty-one (21) Days of the 

Defendants’ submission of the draft Joint Stipulation to MDNR; and

b. In such case(s) where MDNR issues an additional public notice of a draft 

permit that is materially changed from the original draft permit, Defendants shall submit 

comments to MDNR on such changes, if any, within thirty (30) Days of the date of the 

public notice of the draft permit. When MDNR issues the final permit, if Defendants 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-62-

wish to appeal such changed terms or permit appeal issues previously identified in Table 

6 of Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility 

MSOPs), Defendants shall file a permit appeal with the Missouri Administrative Hearing 

Commission within thirty (30) Days after the permit issuance date, and Defendants shall 

simultaneously submit to MDNR a copy of the appeal and a revised version of the 

comprehensive list of Permit Appeal Issues required by Paragraph 71 to incorporate such 

new Permit Appeal Issues, and a draft Joint Stipulation to Hold in Abeyance Permit 

Appeals addressing such new Permit Appeal Issues. Defendants and MDNR shall 

finalize the Joint Stipulation and file it with the Missouri Administrative Hearing 

Commission within twenty-one (21) Days of the Defendants’ submission of the draft 

Joint Stipulation to MDNR. 

D. Site-Specific and Permit-Specific Limitations 

73. Time Limitations for Good Faith Negotiations

a. Defendants and MDNR shall engage in an initial period of good faith 

negotiations until August 1, 2011, for resolution of Permit Appeal Issues, specifically 

including but not limited to provisions identified in Appendix D (Resolution of Permit 

Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 3, and as specified in 

Subparagraph 79.a.i.; 

. Defendants shall engage in good 

faith negotiations to resolve site-specific and permit-specific Permit Appeal Issues identified in 

Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Tables 

3, 5 and 6, as may be amended pursuant to Subsection C, above, as follows:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-63-

b. If Defendants present an application for a permit modification to MDNR 

pursuant to Subparagraph 79.a.ii., regarding a site-specific water quality based 

limitation Permit Appeal Issue for a Future MSOP identified in Appendix D (Resolution 

of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 6, or pursuant to 

Paragraph 71, above, Defendants and MDNR shall engage in an initial period of good 

faith negotiations until February 1, 2012;

c. If Defendants present an application for a permit modification to MDNR 

pursuant to Subparagraph 79.a.ii., regarding Permit Appeal Issues identified in 

Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), 

Tables 5 and 6, other than the site-specific water quality-based permit limit Permit 

Appeal Issues addressed in Subparagraph 73.b, above, Defendants and MDNR shall 

engage in an initial period of good faith negotiations for resolution of the Permit Appeal 

Issues for ninety (90) Days following MDNR’s receipt of such application;

d. If MDNR requires additional time to make an initial determination 

regarding the disposition of one or more Permit Appeal Issues or requests Defendants to 

provide additional information and data regarding one or more Permit Appeal Issues

under review, the period for good faith negotiation set forth in Subparagraphs a, b, or c, 

above may be extended upon a joint request by MDNR and Defendants and ratification 

by ruling of the Special Master appointed pursuant to Subsection F, below. A total 

extension of ninety (90) Days or less of the good faith negotiation period shall not be 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-64-

considered a “material modification” within the meaning of Section XXVI

(Modification) of the Decree.

74. Defendants shall utilize the procedural framework for resolution of Permit Appeal 

Issues set forth in Paragraphs 78 through 81, below. 

75. Throughout the period of good faith negotiations, including any approved period 

of extension, MDNR shall keep EPA informed of the status of negotiations and the issues under 

review. At a minimum, the MDNR shall invite EPA to participate in a joint phone conference 

with Defendants to discuss the specific matters under review, beginning within the first fifteen 

(15) Days of the period of good faith negotiations and recurring at least every sixty (60) Days 

thereafter until every Permit Appeal Issue is either resolved pursuant to Paragraph 76 below or 

referred to the Special Master pursuant to Paragraph 77, below. 

76. Permit Appeal Issues under this Subsection D that are resolved during the period 

of good faith negotiation shall be stipulated as agreed to by the MDNR and Defendants in a Joint 

Stipulation of Agreement to the Missouri Administration Hearing Commission. Any 

modification to a CWA Facility MSOP as agreed to by MDNR and Defendants is subject to 

Section VII, Subsection H (Procedures for Finality of Permit Appeal Resolution).

77. Permit Appeal Issues that are not resolved during the period of good faith 

negotiation shall be referred by the Defendants and MDNR for review by the Special Master

appointed pursuant to Subsection G (Procedures for Permit Appeal Issues Before the Special 

Master), below.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-65-

78. Information Required and Time Limitations Regarding Site-Specific and PermitSpecific Limitations

79. Any information in support of a request for a site-specific or permit-specific 

limitation or conditions in a MSOP must be submitted by Defendants to MDNR by the times set 

forth in Subparagraphs 79.a through b, below. Failure by Defendants to comply with the time 

limits set forth below shall be deemed a waiver by Defendants of their option to seek site-specific 

and/or permit-specific limitations or conditions for that permit. MDNR may, after consultation 

with EPA, extend the time period for Defendants to submit information under this Paragraph for 

up to sixty (60) additional Days. Such extension of sixty (60) Days or less shall not be 

considered a “material modification” within the meaning of Section XXVI (Modification) of the 

Decree. Denial of a request for an extension shall not be subject to Dispute Resolution pursuant 

to Section XIX of this Consent Decree. 

. Defendants shall, consistent with the provisions set forth in this Paragraph 

through Paragraph 81 below, submit information in support of Permit Appeal Issues where 

Defendants seek site-specific water quality based limitations and/or permit-specific limitations or 

conditions. Such information submitted by Defendants shall be in the form of an application to 

MDNR for modification of the MSOP for a CWA Facility to establish site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations and conditions, which may include, but are not limited to, monitoring 

requirements and numeric effluent limitations for metals, including, but not limited to arsenic, 

cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc, and for other pollutant 

parameters, including BOD, COD, TSS, ammonia, bacteria, and WET.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-66-

a. For any CWA Facility MSOP in effect as of the Effective Date of this 

Consent Decree or any Future MSOP for which Defendants seek a modification of a sitespecific or permit-specific limitation, consistent with the identified remaining Permit 

Appeal Issues, such application shall be submitted:

i. For dissolved metals limitations, and permit mixing zone 

allowances identified in Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for 

Clean Water Act Facility MSOPs), Table 3, no later than January 15, 2011; and

ii. For all other remaining Permit Appeal Issues identified in 

Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility 

MSOPs), Tables 5 and 6, as may be amended pursuant to Subsection C, above, at 

such time as the application for a permit modification is complete.

b. For any CWA Facility MSOP for which Defendants believe completion of 

work required pursuant to Section VI, Subsection B of this Consent Decree (Compliance 

Measures for all CWA Facilities) has or will result in a material and/or substantial change 

in the nature of the discharge, the pollutant characteristics, or the pollution control 

processes such that a modification to the terms and conditions of the applicable MSOP

are necessary and appropriate, Defendants shall submit an application for a permit 

modification within ninety (90) Days after completing such Permanent Injunction and 

Compliance Measures or within sixty (60) Days of completing analysis of discharge 

information collected following completing such Permanent Injunction and Compliance 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-67-

Measures, whichever is later, but in no instance later than one hundred eighty (180) Days

after completing such Permanent Injunction and Compliance Measures.

80. Each submission in support of a site-specific or permit-specific limitation or 

condition submitted by Defendants to MDNR pursuant to this Subsection D (Site-Specific and 

Permit-Specific Limitations), shall be submitted as an application for, or an application for a 

modification of, an MSOP, consistent with the requirements of 10 CSR 20-6 and 7.

a. With respect to each request for site-specific metals limits, Defendants’ 

submittal shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

i. Site-Specific Dissolved Metals Translator Studies prepared 

consistent with The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating A Total 

Recoverable Permit Limit From A Dissolved Criterion (EPA 823-B-96-007, June 

1996); 

ii. Site-specific stream hardness data; and

iii. All raw data for samples collected or measurements taken in 

preparation of the application for site-specific permit limitations or permitspecific limitations, including, at a minimum, all data for samples collected or 

measurements taken from January 1, 2008, to thirty days prior to the date of 

submittal of the application.

b. With respect to each request for site-specific or permit-specific limitation 

or conditions other than metals limits, Defendants’ submittal shall include site-specific

information to support the request, including, as appropriate, the following information:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-68-

i. If an alternative WET sampling or testing methodology is approved 

pursuant to the provisions of Subsection E (WET Sampling and Testing 

Procedures), below, information justifying use of such approved alternative 

methodology;

ii. Biological assessments of receiving and reference waters;

iii. If flow-tiered or flow-variable limitations are sought, hydrologic 

investigations to support such flow-tiered or flow-variable effluent limitations; 

and 

iv. All raw data for samples collected or measurements taken in 

preparation of the application for site-specific permit limitations or permitspecific limitations, including, at a minimum, all data for samples collected or 

measurements taken from January 1, 2006, to thirty days prior to the date of 

submittal of the application.

81. The process for review of and action on an application by Defendants to MDNR 

under this Subsection D (Site-Specific and Permit-Specific Limitations) is as follows:

a. Upon receipt of an application for site-specific permit limitations 

submitted by Defendants under this Subsection, MDNR shall evaluate the application and 

information contained therein for completeness. 

b. If MDNR determines the information is not complete, MDNR shall notify 

Defendants in writing of the information missing from the application. Defendants shall 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-69-

have forty-five (45) Days from receipt of MDNR’s written notice of incompleteness to 

submit to MDNR additional information. 

c. Within sixty (60) Days of notifying Defendants that an application for sitespecific permit limits by Defendants is complete or notifying Defendants that their

application was incomplete, MDNR shall, in consultation with EPA, complete its review 

of the application and either: 

i. provide to Defendants a draft MSOP or permit modification, as 

appropriate, and a draft fact sheet (including a water quality analysis and an antidegradation analysis) incorporating all limitations, conditions and requirements 

MDNR determines appropriate to address the issues raised and information 

provided in Defendants’ application; or 

ii. provide to Defendants a written determination, i.e., draft permit 

denial, that no change is warranted and include therein specific information 

regarding the basis for that determination. 

d. Except as provided in Paragraph 82, below, receipt by Defendants of the 

draft MSOP and fact sheet or draft permit denial or expiration of the period for good faith 

negotiations set forth in this Subsection D (Site-Specific and Permit-Specific Limitations) 

triggers an event subject to review by a Special Master pursuant to the provisions of 

Subsection G (Procedures for Permit Appeal Issues Before the Special Master), below. 

Defendants shall within fifteen (15) Days of receipt of the draft MSOP and fact sheet or 

draft permit denial, or within fifteen (15) Days of the expiration of the period for good 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-70-

faith negotiations set forth in Subsection D (Site-Specific and Permit-Specific 

Limitations), submit a written request to the Special Master initiating review by the 

Special Master pursuant to Subsection G (Procedures for Permit Appeal Issues Before the 

Special Master), below, together with all pertinent documentation, including but not 

limited to, Defendants’ application(s) and all supporting information regarding the Permit 

Appeal Issue, any subsequent data provided to MDNR regarding the Permit Appeal Issue, 

and the decision, if any, by MDNR in response to Defendants’ application. Defendants 

expressly agree that, except as provided in Subparagraph f, below, their only means of 

contesting the site-specific or permit-specific limitation or condition in any CWA Facility 

MSOP or denial thereof shall be through invocation of review by a Special Master 

pursuant to Subsection G (Procedures for Permit Appeal Issues Before the Special 

Master) of this Consent Decree. 

e. Upon: (1) MDNR’s receipt of notification from Defendants that MDNR’s 

draft action on the site-specific permit limit application submitted pursuant to this 

Subsection is acceptable, or (2) the lapse of the time period for invoking review by the 

Special Master without action by Defendants, MDNR shall either:

i. place on public notice and proceed with the permit issuance 

process, consistent with the provisions and requirements of the Missouri Clean 

Water Law and implementing regulations; or 

ii. take no action, if the permit application is denied. 

Either course of action by MDNR under this Subparagraph 81.e. shall reflect the outcome 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-71-

of any Dispute Resolution completed pursuant to this Consent Decree.

f. No provision of this Consent Decree precludes informal communications 

between MDNR and Defendants prior to a determination by MDNR regarding any 

application for site-specific permit limits by Defendants under this Subsection. All 

communications with MDNR regarding a permitting matter, however, are subject to 

Chapter 610, RSMo, and are considered part of the administrative record for the permit or 

permit denial.

g. No provision of this Consent Decree shall be construed to prevent 

Defendants from petitioning the Missouri Clean Water Commission for site-specific 

water quality criteria pursuant to 10 C.S.R. 20-7.031(4).

82. MSOP Reissuance or Application for Permit Modifications Not Related to 

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues

a. Defendants’ application for renewal of each MSOP shall include the 

information identified in Paragraph 80 and be submitted as part of the complete permit 

application package at least one hundred and eighty (180) Days prior to expiration of the 

permit;

. The following shall apply until termination of the Consent 

Decree pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination) to any application made after the Lodging Date 

of this Consent Decree for reissuance of a CWA Facility MSOP and for modification of any 

CWA Facility MSOP, except that this Paragraph shall not apply to a Permit Appeal Issue in any 

permit reissuance or modification of a CWA Facility MSOP to implement resolution of a Permit 

Appeal Issue under this Consent Decree:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-72-

b. Defendants’ application for a permit modification that seeks to change a 

site-specific or permit-specific limitation or condition shall include the information 

identified in Paragraph 80;

c. With regard to a request by Defendants for site-specific or permit-specific 

limitations or conditions within an application for renewal of a CWA Facility MSOP, 

MDNR shall provide Defendants the draft MSOP and fact sheet or draft permit denial and

will thereafter process the permit renewal application in accordance with Sections 

621.250, 640.013 and 644.051, RSMo; and

d. Defendants reserve their right under federal, State and local law to appeal 

or challenge any provision of any reissued MSOP or MSOP modification or denial of a 

permit modification request for any CWA Facility covered by this Paragraph, except that 

Defendants agree that for MSOPs reissued during the relevant period of this Consent 

Decree, Defendants shall not raise as an appeal issue any of the issues set forth in Table 2 

of Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility 

MSOPs), unless a change in circumstances at the CWA Facility or a change in the 

applicable law, regulations and/or guidance warrants such an appeal, in which case 

Defendants shall bear the burden to clearly and specifically demonstrate that such a 

change has occurred.

E. WET Sampling and Testing Procedures

83. Defendants may, at their option, and consistent with the provisions set forth in this 

Subsection E (WET Sampling and Testing Procedures), submit information in support of Permit 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-73-

Appeal Issues where Defendants seek alternative WET sampling or testing procedures as 

identified in Appendix D (Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility 

MSOPs), Table 4, as confirmed pursuant to Subsection C (Identification of Remaining Permit 

Appeal Issues).

84. If such alternative procedures are testing methodologies required pursuant to 40 

C.F.R. Part 136, Defendants shall submit an application to the Director of MDNR pursuant to the 

requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 136.4, Application for Alternative Test Procedures for approval of 

an alternate test methodologies. An application under this provision will be evaluated and acted 

upon by the State and EPA according to the provisions of 40 C.F.R. §§ 136.4 and 136.5. 

85. Any request for alternative WET sampling or testing procedures must be 

submitted by Defendants to MDNR together with all raw data for samples collected or 

measurements taken in preparation of the request for alternative WET sampling or testing 

procedures, including, at a minimum, all data for samples collected or measurements taken from 

January 1, 2006, to thirty days prior to the date of submittal of the request. The process for 

review of and action on a request by Defendants to MDNR under this Subsection D (SiteSpecific and Permit-Specific Limitations) is as follows:

a. Upon receipt of an application for alternative WET sampling or testing 

procedures submitted by Defendants under this Subsection, MDNR shall, in consultation 

with EPA, evaluate the request and information contained therein for completeness and 

also to determine whether the issue raised in Defendants’ request may be resolved by 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-74-

MDNR or must be forwarded to EPA for action pursuant to the requirements of the CWA 

and its implementing regulations. 

b. If MDNR and/or EPA determine the information is not complete, 

Defendants shall be notified in writing by the appropriate agency of the information 

missing from the application. Defendants shall have forty-five (45) Days from receipt of 

the written notice of incompleteness to submit the additional information. 

c. The appropriate agency shall complete its review of the application and 

provide to Defendants a written determination that such request for alternative WET 

sampling or testing procedures is granted, is granted in part and denied in part, or is 

denied. 

86. Defendants may include in an application for a site-specific or permit-specific

limitation or condition under Subsection D, above, information supporting the use of any 

alternative WET sampling or testing procedures approved pursuant to this Subsection E.

87. Denial of Defendants’ application for alternative WET sampling or testing 

procedures by EPA pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 136 and/or under this Subsection E shall not be 

subject to further review or dispute under this Consent Decree, including but not limited to, 

review by a Special Master pursuant to the provisions of Subsection F, below, or Dispute 

Resolution pursuant to Section XIX.

F. Special Master and Consultant to the Special Master Appointment and DecisionMaking Process

88. Within sixty (60) Days after the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, the MDNR 

and Defendants each shall submit to the other three candidates for appointment as Special 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-75-

Master. Each party shall include with its submittal of the list of candidates a signed statement 

verifying that the party submitting the list of candidates has performed a due diligence 

investigation to assess actual and potential conflicts, biases, and personal affiliations as well as 

past, present, and potential future business affiliations between that party and each candidate or 

against the other party, and that no such actual or potential conflicts are known or such conflicts 

are clearly articulated. The submittal shall include the curriculum vitae of each candidate and a

clear articulation for each such candidate explaining the appropriate training, experience, and 

expertise to conduct the proceedings to resolve the Permit Appeal Issues and that each such 

candidate will be available for the duration of the proceedings. 

a. MDNR and Defendants each shall select from the other party’s list of 

candidates the one candidate that the selecting party will agree should be appointed Special 

Master. The selection must be made within thirty (30) Days after the candidates are 

submitted for consideration. If one party does not make its selection within such thirty (30)

Day period, the other party may select its own candidate and a candidate from the other

party’s list.

b. MDNR and Defendants shall make every effort to come to consensus on a 

single candidate to serve as the Special Master within ninety (90) Days after the Lodging 

Date of this Consent Decree. If MDNR and Defendants are unable to agree upon selection of 

a Special Master within that ninety (90) Day period, MDNR and Defendants shall submit a 

joint list of the remaining candidates (without indication of the nominating party) to the 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-76-

Judge appointed to this case who will be asked to select the Special Master from the joint list

as expeditiously as possible. 

c. The Special Master shall be engaged under the form of engagement letter 

issued jointly by MDNR and Defendants consistent with the applicable terms of this Consent 

Decree.

89. Appointment of a Consultant to the Special Master

a. MDNR and Defendants each shall select from the other party’s list of 

candidates the one candidate that the selecting party will agree should be appointed 

. Within sixty (60) Days after 

the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree, the MDNR and Defendants each shall submit to the 

other three candidates for Consultant to the Special Master. The Consultant shall be qualified in 

the science and regulations regarding the development of wastewater and stormwater discharge 

permits and implementation of water quality standards pursuant to federal and state regulations. 

Each party shall include with its submittal of the list of candidates a signed statement verifying 

that the party submitting the list of candidates has performed a due diligence investigation to 

assess actual and potential conflicts, biases, and personal affiliations as well as past, present, and 

potential future business affiliations between that party and each candidate or against the other 

party, and that no such actual or potential conflicts are known or such conflicts are clearly 

articulated. The submittal shall include the curriculum vitae of each candidate and a clear 

articulation for each such candidate explaining the appropriate training, experience, and expertise 

regarding the matters raised by the Permit Appeal Issues and that each such candidate will be 

available for the duration of the proceedings. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-77-

Consultant to the Special Master. The selection must be made within thirty (30) Days after 

the candidates are submitted for consideration. If one party does not make its selection 

within thirty (30) Days, the other party may select its own candidate and a candidate from the 

other party’s list. The two selected candidates shall be jointly presented to the Special 

Master by the MDNR and the Defendants without identification as to the nominating party.

b. The Special Master shall select the Consultant from the two Consultant 

candidates identified as above.

90. Decisions regarding Permit Appeals Issues shall be made by the Special Master in 

consultation with the Consultant, except that procedural and legal decisions are vested in the 

Special Master alone. 

G. Procedure for Permit Appeal Issues Before the Special Master

91. The Special Master shall apply the procedures in 1 CSR Division 15, Chapter 3, 

Procedures for Contested Cases, to hear the Permit Appeal Issues that are referred by the 

Defendants or MDNR for resolution following the period of good faith negotiation. The burden 

of proof in the hearing before the Special Master shall be shared equally by the MDNR and 

Defendants. 

92. Defendants agree to pay all fees and expenses for the Special Master and the 

Consultant to the Special Master associated with resolution of Permit Appeal Issues under this 

Consent Decree. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-78-

93. Upon receipt of a written request by Defendants to initiate the Special Master 

review process for a Permit Appeal Issue, the Special Master shall issue scheduling orders and 

other orders, as appropriate, directed to expeditiously decide Permit Appeal Issues.

94. The MDNR and Defendants agree that the Special Master may, at any time during 

the period of review by the Special Master, require the parties to engage in good faith negotiation 

of any Permit Appeal Issue for no longer than sixty (60) Days and report to the Special Master 

regarding the outcome of such negotiations.

95. Ex parte contact with the Consultant to the Special Master is strictly forbidden. If 

the MDNR or Defendants wish to have discussion with the Consultant to the Special Master, a 

request for the same may be made of the Special Master. The Special Master in his or her

discretion may allow such discussion provided that both the MDNR and Defendants are present 

for the discussion. The Special Master shall set forth the time and purpose for such discussion at 

times convenient for each party.

96. The MDNR and Defendants agree that nothing in this Consent Decree or in 

1 CSR Division 15, Chapter 3 shall be argued to prevent the Special Master from requesting 

additional information from the MDNR or Defendants or from requesting MDNR and 

Defendants to engage in settlement negotiations at any time.

97. Within one hundred twenty (120) Days of concluding proceedings before the 

Special Master regarding Permit Appeal Issues pertaining to a particular CWA Facility, the 

Special Master shall provide a recommendation to the Administrative Hearing Commission, 

which will forward the recommendation along with its files to the Clean Water Commission on 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-79-

all Permit Appeal Issues for that CWA Facility. The recommendations of the Special Master as 

to each Permit Appeal Issue, may include, but are not limited to interim effluent limitations, final 

effluent limitations, interim permit conditions, final permit conditions, requirements for 

development of additional data and information, and other terms and conditions as determined by 

the Special Master. Excluded from review by the Special Master are matters related to schedules 

and deadlines for compliance with the terms and limitations of CWA Facility MSOPs, which 

shall be exclusively addressed under the provisions set forth in Subsection I (Schedule for 

Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits), below.

98. The State and Defendants agree that each party may make good faith arguments 

supported by evidence before the Special Master regarding matters before the Special Master, 

including injunctive measures necessary to achieve compliance with MSOPs and the time 

necessary to implement them. The MDNR and Defendants agree that the recommended 

decisions of the Special Master shall not be contested by either party in proceedings before the 

Missouri Clean Water Commission and shall have the same force and effect that a recommended 

decision from the Administrative Hearing Commission would have pursuant to RSMo 621.250 

and will form the basis for the decision of the Clean Water Commission pursuant to 10 CSR 20-

1.020.

H. Procedures for Finality of Permit Appeal Resolution

99. The decision of the Missouri Clean Water Commission shall have the force and 

effect as provided by 10 CSR 20- 1.020, however, Defendants agree pursuant to this Consent 

Decree to not appeal a decision of the Missouri Clean Water Commission regarding any Permit 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-80-

Appeal Issue pursuant to RSMo 644.051.7, which does not significantly and materially deviate 

from the recommendations of the Special Master.

100. Defendants further agree pursuant to this Consent Decree to not appeal a final 

MSOP issued by MDNR after notice and public comment, which does not significantly and

materially deviate from the draft permit placed on public notice addressing Permit Appeal Issues 

resolved and stipulated to by MDNR and Defendants or incorporating the recommendation of the 

Special Master.

101. With regard to any final permit decisions, including decisions of the Clean Water 

Commission, the EPA shall have oversight authority as provided by 40 C.F.R. § 123.44. No 

provision of this Consent Decree affects the rights or responsibilities of Defendants in any 

proceedings pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 123.44.

I. Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits

102. Except to the extent that alternative limits are specifically provided in this 

Subsection and as established in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and 

Compliance Deadlines), or are established pursuant to any revision of such limits pursuant to this 

Consent Decree, Defendants shall comply with all terms, conditions and interim and final 

limitations for each CWA Facility as set forth in the MSOP for such facility. Commencing from 

the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree and continuing until deadlines established for 

compliance with final limits in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and 

Compliance Deadlines), or deadlines revised pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree for 

each CWA Facility, Defendants shall comply with the respective alternative limits established for 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-81-

each CWA Facility in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance 

Deadlines), or any revision of such limit pursuant to this Consent Decree. For each pollutant for

which an alternative limit is established in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations 

and Compliance Deadlines), or for which any revisions of such limits are made pursuant to this 

Consent Decree, Defendants shall comply with the measurement frequency and sample type as 

specified for that pollutant at that respective CWA Facility in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative 

Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines). Defendants shall submit the results of each 

sample on the Discharge Monitoring Report (“DMR”) submitted for each CWA Facility in 

accordance with its respective MSOP.

103. Total Recoverable Cadmium

a. This provision is limited to the following outfalls at the specified CWA 

Facilities: Outfall 001 at Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility; Outfall 002 at Buick 

Mine/Mill Facility; Outfall 002 at Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility; Outfall 004 at 

Viburnum Mine/Mill Facility; Outfalls 001 and 003 at Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) 

Facility; and Outfall 001 at West Fork Unit Facility;

. Defendants may, no later than one hundred eighty 

(180) Days prior to the end of the applicable CWA Facility MSOP interim effluent limitation

period, request that Plaintiffs authorize an alternative limit for the discharge of total recoverable 

cadmium for one or more of the CWA Facility MSOP outfalls identified in Subparagraph 103.a, 

below, as follows:

b. Defendants must, for a minimum of twelve (12) Months, sample, analyze,

and report on the appropriate CWA Facility MSOP monthly DMRs total dissolved 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-82-

cadmium using an approved 40 C.F.R. Part 136 method with an analytical detection limit 

sensitive enough to determine compliance with the final effluent limitations in the 

MSOPs for each respective outfall;

c. Any proposed alternative limit shall: (i) be supported by all data and 

calculations used to derive the requested Monthly Average and Daily Maximum 

Limitations, which shall be included with the request; (ii) extend no longer than the 

permit compliance deadlines identified for other pollutant parameters at the same outfall 

in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines); (iii) 

not exceed a Daily Maximum Limitation that is 2.13 times the average sampling data 

collected for that outfall in accordance with Subparagraph 103.b, above; and (iv) not 

exceed a Monthly Average Limitation that is 1.38 times the average sampling data 

collected for that outfall in accordance with Subparagraph 103.b, above; and

d. Plaintiffs will, in their sole unreviewable discretion, determine whether to 

grant Defendants’ request for each outfall and, if granted, will amend the appropriate 

table in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines) 

with the approved alternative limit for total recoverable cadmium. Any revision made to 

Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines) in 

accordance with this Paragraph 103 shall be a non-material modification to the Consent 

Decree agreed to in writing by the Parties.

104. Upon expiration of the deadlines for alternative limits set forth in Appendix B

(MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines), or alternative limits revised 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-83-

pursuant to the terms of this Consent Decree, or at such time that any MSOP is modified or 

reissued with limits different from an interim limit, whichever is later, Defendants must comply 

with all terms, conditions and limitations set forth in the MSOP as issued or modified pursuant to 

the terms of this Consent Decree by negotiation, decision of the Special Master, or the Clean 

Water Commission. However, Defendants may, no later than ninety (90) Days prior to the 

expiration date of an alternative limit, request from EPA and the State an extension of the 

alternative limit or limits for a CWA Facility set forth in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative 

Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines) if Defendants demonstrate that they have:

a. Complied with all relevant requirements in Section VI, Subsection B 

(Compliance Measures for all CWA Facilities) of this Consent Decree;

b. Submitted necessary information required by this Consent Decree and by 

the reporting requirements of all MSOPs for the CWA Facilities;

c. Submitted timely and complete applications to MDNR, pursuant to 

Section VII, Subsection B (Resolution of Pending MSOP Appeals) above, for issuance of 

or modification, as applicable, of each MSOP for which they intend to seek such 

modification;

d. Completed all necessary analysis and planning, including development of 

complete plans and specifications and a schedule for compliance to implement all 

necessary work to achieve compliance with the final MSOP terms, conditions, and 

limitations for each CWA Facility for which Defendants seek an extension; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-84-

e. Included with the request for extension a description of: (i) the steps 

Defendants have taken to comply with each final MSOP, including final MSOP 

conditions established pursuant to this Consent Decree, for which an extension of interim 

limits is requested, (ii) the additional work to be performed to meet the final MSOP

limitations, and (iii) the amount of time needed for the extension of the interim limits. 

105. The determination by EPA and the State regarding whether or not to grant 

Defendants’ request, pursuant to Paragraph 104 above, to extend the interim limits shall not be 

subject to the provisions of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution). 

VIII. 

A. Buick Mine/Mill Facility 

COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: RCRA

106. SPCC Plan

107.

. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree,

Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review an updated and certified Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures (“SPCC”) Plan for the Buick Mine/Mill Facility that complies with

all applicable federal requirements. 

Hazardous Waste Training Materials

108.

. Within fifteen (15) Days of the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR RCRA generator training 

materials for employees at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility that comply with all applicable federal 

and state requirements. 

Hazardous Waste Training. Within fifteen (15) Days of the Effective Date of the 

Consent Decree, Doe Run shall commence implementation of a RCRA generator training

program that complies with all applicable federal and state requirements for all personnel 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-85-

responsible for RCRA regulated waste materials at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility, and is 

consistent with the training materials submitted pursuant to Paragraph 107.

109. Hazardous Waste Determination SOPs

110.

. Pursuant to RCRA and the Missouri 

Hazardous Waste Management Law and their implementing regulations, Doe Run is responsible, 

as the generator, for determining whether the waste streams it generates constitute hazardous 

waste. Within forty-five (45) Days of the Lodging Date of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall 

submit to EPA and MDNR SOPs for making and documenting hazardous waste determinations 

pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 262.11 and managing hazardous waste in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 

§ 262.34, both incorporated by reference in 10 CSR 25-7.262(1) for waste generated at the Buick 

Mine/Mill Facility. 

Hazardous Waste Determinations

111.

. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR a report describing all hazardous 

waste streams generated at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility and the storage, handling, and disposal 

practices for each hazardous waste stream. 

General Housekeeping. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of the 

Consent Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review and comment general 

housekeeping practices for the surface operations at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility to reduce track 

out of Lead-Bearing Materials and hazardous wastes outside of the Doe Run property boundary. 

Unless EPA and/or MDNR provide comments within thirty (30) Days, Doe Run shall commence 

implementation of those procedures within one hundred and twenty (120) Days of the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree. If EPA and/or MDNR provide comments that require revision of 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-86-

the procedures then Doe Run shall, subject to the provisions of Section XIX (Dispute Resolution)

of this Decree, revise the procedures accordingly and commence implementation thereof within 

ninety (90) Days of the receipt of EPA’s and/or MDNR’s comments. For purposes of this 

Paragraph 111, the Buick Mine/Mill Facility shall not include the tailings piles or tailings 

impoundment areas. 

112. Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan

113. The Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan shall include a Field Sampling Plan, 

QAPP, and Health and Safety Plan (“HASP”) to assess on-site contamination. 

. Within thirty (30) Days of the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall provide a work plan (“Buick Used Oil Storage Tank 

Work Plan”) to the EPA and MDNR for approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance 

Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). The Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan shall 

include provisions for the removal and proper disposal of the partially underground containment 

structure, and any material contained therein, that is used for the temporary storage of used oil 

collected and stored adjacent to the surface maintenance shop at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility in 

accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. The Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work 

Plan shall also include provisions to investigate any used oil impacts in soil and gravel around 

the containment structure and around the used oil temporary storage area located adjacent to the 

surface maintenance shop at the Buick Mine/Mill Facility, and provide for the removal and 

proper disposal of all gravel and soil that has been contaminated by used oil releases in 

accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-87-

a. The QAPP must conform to “EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance 

Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations” (EPA QA/R5. EPA/240/B-01/003 

(March, 2001)) and “Guidance for Quality Assurance Plans” (EPA QA/G5. EPA/240/R02/009 (December, 2002)). Doe Run shall use laboratories that participate in a QA/QC 

program compliant with these requirements and guidance. Doe Run shall notify EPA and 

MDNR of the laboratories chosen by Doe Run. Upon Plaintiffs’ request, Doe Run shall 

have the laboratories analyze samples provided by Plaintiffs to demonstrate laboratory 

QA/QC and performance. If the audit reveals deficiencies in a laboratory’s performance 

or QA/QC, Plaintiffs may require re-sampling and additional analysis and Doe Run shall 

submit and begin implementation of a plan to address the deficiencies within ninety (90) 

Days of receipt of the results of the audit. 

b. The Field Sampling Plan and QAPP shall describe the sampling 

procedures that will be used, the proposed sampling locations, and shall ensure that 

samples collected are analyzed using EPA and MDNR-approved protocols. In addition, 

the QAPP shall describe the number of samples and type of samples to be collected, the 

method(s) of collection and analyses, and the criteria for determining sampling locations. 

c. The Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan shall include a schedule for 

completion of activities. Within thirty (30) Days of approval of the Buick Used Oil 

Storage Tank Work Plan, Doe Run shall begin implementation of the activities in the 

Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan in accordance with the approved schedule. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-88-

Upon request by EPA or MDNR, Doe Run shall allow EPA, MDNR or their authorized 

representatives to take split and/or duplicate samples of any samples collected by Doe 

Run while performing work under this Section. Doe Run shall notify EPA and MDNR 

not less than thirty (30) Days in advance of any sample collection activity. In addition, 

EPA or MDNR shall have the right to take any additional samples that they deem 

necessary. 

114. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date, unless a later deadline is specified in 

Paragraphs 106 through 113 herein, Doe Run shall correct the RCRA areas of noncompliance 

Nos. 1 through 6 and 8, and provide information in response to the RCRA areas of concern A 

through H, that were identified in the inspection report compiled by EPA following RCRA 

inspections conducted in February 2006 at the Buick Mine/Mine. The Parties agree that the 

obligations in Paragraphs 112 and 113 (Buick Used Oil Storage Tank Work Plan) will address 

the RCRA area of noncompliance referenced as No. 7 in the inspection report. The Parties also 

agree that the obligations in Paragraphs 107 through 111 will address the RCRA areas of 

noncompliance referenced as Nos. 1 and 2 in the inspection report. After completion of the 

actions required by Paragraphs 106 through 113, as part of the next semi-annual status report 

required pursuant to Paragraph 176, Doe Run shall submit a Compliance Report to EPA and 

MDNR for review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables) that demonstrates compliance with this Paragraph.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-89-

115. The Compliance Report shall include the following: 

a. A description of the actions that have been taken to comply with the 

RCRA areas of noncompliance Nos. 1 through 6 and 8, and information provided in 

response to the RCRA areas of concern A through H as identified in the inspection report 

compiled by EPA following RCRA inspections conducted in February 2006;

b. Copies of all results of any chemical or physical analyses conducted 

pursuant to Paragraph 110 or actions taken to comply with RCRA areas of 

noncompliance Nos. 1 through 6 and 8, and, if applicable, in connection with information 

provided in response to RCRA areas of concern A through H as identified in the 

inspection report compiled by EPA following RCRA inspections conducted in February 

2006, including any waste profiles, the results of any field screening or other analyses, 

and analyses of any samples; and

c. Copies of all hazardous waste manifests, certificates of disposal or other 

appropriate disposal shipping papers (i.e., Land Disposal Restriction Notifications) from 

the previous twelve (12) Months that describe the origin and destination, dates, amount, 

and description of any hazardous or universal waste, Lead-Bearing Materials, or used oil

being transported off-site.

116. The Compliance Report shall be certified by a responsible corporate official as 

provided in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-90-

B. Buick Resource Recycling Facility

117. Defendants shall comply with all applicable requirements of RCRA and the 

Missouri Hazardous Waste Management Law and their implementing regulations and Missouri 

Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number MOD059200089 with respect to the 

Buick Resource Recycling Facility. 

118. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, Defendants 

shall correct all violations identified (1) in the Notice of Violation provided as Attachment 6 to 

the inspection report following a RCRA inspection conducted in March 2009; (2) in the Notice 

of Violation attached to the inspection report following the RCRA inspection conducted in 

September 2009; (3) as Unsatisfactory Features in February 2, 2010 correspondence following a 

RCRA inspection conducted in November 2009; and (4) in the Notice of Violation attached to 

the inspection report following a RCRA inspection conducted in December 2009 and that relate 

to the following hazardous waste laws and regulations and Permit Conditions and Compliance 

Provisions of Permit Number MOD059200089 at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility: 

a. Condition III.C.8.a (40 CFR § 264.1101);

b. Condition III.C.6.a (40 CFR § 264.1101);

c. Condition I.G.1 (40 CFR § 264.175);

d. Condition III.C.1 (40 CFR § 264.1101);

e. Schedule of Compliance Provision I.F and Special Permit Condition III.C.9;

f. Condition III.C.8.c (40 CFR § 264.1101); 

g. Condition VI.C.10 (10 CSR 25-7.264(2)(N)); 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-91-

h. Condition III.C.12 (40 CFR § 264.1101); 

i. Condition VI.A. (40 CFR Part 268, Land Disposal Restrictions);

j. Condition III.B.3 and III.C.5;

k. 260.390.1(1) RSMo – Storage of hazardous waste;

l. 10 CSR 25-5.262(1) incorporating by reference 40 CFR § 262.11 – Hazardous 

waste determinations; and 

m. Requirement to construct and operate the facility in accordance with section 

F.3.5 (Leak Detection Liquid Collection and Removal System) of the final permit 

application.

119. As part of the next semi-annual status report required pursuant to Paragraph 176, 

Doe Run shall submit a Compliance Report to EPA and MDNR for review and approval 

pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables) that demonstrates 

compliance with the preceding Paragraph 118. The Compliance Report shall include the 

following:

a. A description of the actions that have been taken to comply with each of 

the Permit Conditions and Compliance Provisions referenced in Paragraph 118 and that 

were identified as violations or unsatisfactory features as referenced in Paragraph 118;

b. Copies of all results of any chemical or physical analyses conducted 

pursuant to actions to comply with Paragraph 118, including any waste profiles, the 

results of any field screening or other analyses conducted on-site or off-site, and analyses 

of any samples; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-92-

c. Copies of all hazardous waste manifests, certificates of disposal or other 

appropriate disposal shipping papers (i.e., Land Disposal Restriction Notifications) from 

the previous twelve (12) Months that describe the origin and destination, dates, amount, 

and description of any hazardous or universal wastes, Lead-Bearing Materials, or used oil

being transported off-site.

120. The Compliance Report shall be certified by a responsible corporate official as 

provided in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree. 

C. Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility

121. SPCC Plan and Contingency Plan

122.

. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review an updated and 

certified SPCC Plan and Contingency Plan for the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility that 

complies with all applicable requirements.

Training Plan

123.

. Within fifteen (15) Days of the Effective Date of the Consent 

Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review and begin implementation of a 

revised training plan that complies with all applicable requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 265.16 and 

10 CSR 25-5.265(1). 

Housekeeping. Within sixty days (60) Days of the Effective Date of the Consent 

Decree, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR for review and comment revised general 

housekeeping practices for the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility to reduce track out of LeadBearing Materials and hazardous wastes from the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility property 

boundary. Unless EPA and/or MDNR provide comments within thirty (30) Days of submission, 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-93-

Doe Run shall commence implementation of those procedures within one hundred twenty (120) 

Days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. If EPA and/or MDNR provide comments that 

require revision of the procedures then Doe Run shall, subject to the provisions of Section XIX 

(Dispute Resolution) of this Decree, revise the procedures accordingly and commence 

implementation thereof within ninety (90) Days of the receipt of EPA’s and/or MDNR’s 

comments. 

124. Within sixty (60) Days of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, Doe Run 

shall correct all violations identified in the Notice of Violation provided as Attachment 8 to the 

RCRA inspection report compiled by EPA and MDNR following RCRA inspections conducted 

at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility in June 2005. As part of the next semi-annual status 

report required pursuant to Paragraph 176, Doe Run shall submit a Compliance Report to EPA 

and MDNR for review and approval pursuant to Section XII (Compliance Requirements: 

Approval of Deliverables) that demonstrates compliance with this Paragraph. 

125. The Compliance Report shall include: 

a. A description of the actions that have been taken to comply with each of 

the violations that were identified in the Notice of Violation provided as Attachment 8 to 

the RCRA inspection report compiled by EPA and MDNR following RCRA inspections 

conducted at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility in June of 2005;

b. Copies of all results of chemical or physical analyses conducted pursuant 

to Paragraph 124, including any waste profiles, the results of any field screening or other 

analyses, and analyses of any samples;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-94-

c. Copies of all hazardous waste manifests, certificates of disposal or other 

appropriate disposal shipping papers (i.e., Land Disposal Restriction Notifications) from 

the previous twelve (12) Months that describe the origin and destination, dates, amount, 

and description of any hazardous or universal waste, Lead-Bearing Materials, or used oil

being transported off-site; and

d. A description of the actions taken to remediate the sulfuric acid release 

and used oil release observed and documented in the RCRA inspections conducted in 

June 2005.

126. The Compliance Report shall be certified by a responsible corporate official as 

provided in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree.

IX. 

127.

SITE REMEDIATION – HERCULANEUM

Remediating Site Contamination. For purposes of this Section IX (Site 

Remediation – Herculaneum) of the Consent Decree, “Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility” and 

“Remedial Action” shall have the definitions provided in Appendix E (Financial Assurance for 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility). Doe Run has agreed to cease the smelting of lead 

concentrates at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility and allow redevelopment of the property. 

An ongoing re-purposing study may assist Doe Run in determining the future use of the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility. Doe Run may continue to use a portion of the property for 

lead refining, casting, and alloying purposes. The actions to address the contamination at the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, will be affected by the determination of the future use of the 

property. In accordance with this Paragraph and Appendix E (Financial Assurance for
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-95-

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) of this Consent Decree, Doe Run agrees to implement and 

complete a Remedial Action, similar to RCRA corrective action, to address all site contamination 

at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, including any slag located at the north end of the 

Herculaneum facility, prior to the redevelopment or reuse of any of the property at the facility. 

The remediation process will be implemented and completed after cessation of the smelting 

operations pursuant to Paragraph 14 and prior to the redevelopment or reuse of the property at 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility. For purposes of this Consent Decree, the south slag storage 

area is not part of the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, as defined in Appendix E (Financial 

Assurance for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) and is being addressed under Administrative 

Order on Consent, Docket No. RCRA-7-2000-0018/CERCLA-7-2000-0029.

128. Doe Run agrees to remediate all site contamination at the Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter Facility to health-based cleanup levels appropriate for the future use of the property. To 

initiate the Remedial Action Doe Run shall develop a work plan for approval by EPA and the 

State by January 1, 2013, unless this deadline is extended by EPA, to investigate all sources of 

site contamination. This work plan shall address the identification of all sources of site 

contamination; provide recommendations for the appropriate Remedial Action to address site 

contamination, similar to a RCRA Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures Study 

(“RFI/CMS”); and provide a schedule for completion of the investigation work and study, and 

completion of the RFI/CMS-type documents, which completion shall be no later than 

December 31, 2013, unless this deadline is extended pursuant to the terms of this Consent

Decree. After submittal of the RFI/CMS-type documents in accordance with the EPA-approved 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-96-

work plan and schedules therein, EPA, after consultation with the State, will develop a Remedial 

Action proposal to address site contamination. After public comment, EPA, after consultation 

with the State, will complete a decision document describing the selected Remedial Action. Doe 

Run shall develop a work plan to implement the final Remedial Action at the Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter Facility. EPA and the State will coordinate with Doe Run to develop an appropriate 

schedule for completion of these activities. The development of documents for planning, 

scheduling and implementing the Remedial Action at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility 

shall be non-material modifications to the Consent Decree agreed to in writing by the Parties. 

129. Following the cessation of operations required by Paragraph 14 of this Consent 

Decree, Doe Run shall not transport lead concentrate to the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility 

unless and until the Remedial Action required by this Section and Appendix E (Financial 

Assurance for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) of this Consent Decree is deemed complete 

by EPA and the State. This restrictive timeframe does not include post-remedial care and

maintenance that may be required after the Remedial Action is completed at the Herculaneum 

Lead Smelter Facility. 

X. 

130.

FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

Herculaneum. For purposes of this Section X (Financial Assurances) of the 

Consent Decree, “Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility” shall have the definition as provided in 

Appendix E (Financial Assurance for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility). Doe Run shall secure 

and maintain Financial Assurance for the benefit of the Plaintiffs pursuant to the requirements of 

Appendix E (Financial Assurance for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) and Appendix F
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-97-

(Trust Agreement for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) of this Consent Decree, in order to 

ensure coverage for the remediation of the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility, including any 

slag located at the north end of the facility. Doe Run’s inability to secure and/or maintain 

adequate Financial Assurance shall in no way excuse performance of the remediation of the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility as set forth in Section IX (Site Remediation – Herculaneum)

or any other requirement of this Consent Decree. 

131. In addition to the Financial Assurance information included in the reports 

provided in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree, within thirty (30) 

Days of any request by EPA or the State, Doe Run shall provide requested information or reports 

regarding the financial status of Doe Run, the trust provided by Doe Run to meet its obligation 

for Financial Assurance pursuant to Appendix E (Financial Assurance for Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter Facility) and Appendix F (Trust Agreement for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility) of 

this Consent Decree, and the financial institution providing the trust to secure Doe Run’s 

obligation. 

132. Work Takeover Provisions for Herculaneum.

a. In the event that EPA or the State determines that Doe Run (i) has ceased 

implementation of any portion of the Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E), (ii) is 

significantly or repeatedly deficient or late in its performance of the Remedial Action (as 

defined in Appendix E), or (iii) is implementing the Remedial Action (as defined in 

Appendix E) in a manner that may cause an endangerment to human health or the 

environment, EPA, after consultation with the State may issue a written notice 

 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-98-

(“Performance Failure Notice”) to both Doe Run and the Financial Assurance provider of 

Doe Run’s failure to perform. The Performance Failure Notice will specify the grounds 

upon which such a notice was issued and will provide Doe Run with a period of thirty 

(30) Days within which to remedy the circumstances giving rise to the issuance of such 

notice. 

b. Failure by Doe Run to remedy the relevant Performance Failure to EPA’s 

and the State’s satisfaction before the expiration of the thirty (30)-day notice period 

specified in Paragraph 132.a shall trigger EPA’s and the State’s right to have immediate 

access to and benefit of the Financial Assurance provided by the trust fund. EPA may, 

after consultation with the State, at any time thereafter direct the Financial Assurance 

provider to immediately arrange for payment to other parties for performance of the 

Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E). 

c. If EPA or the State has determined that any of the circumstances described 

in clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of Paragraph 132.a have occurred, and if EPA and the State are 

nevertheless unable after reasonable efforts to secure the payment of funds or 

performance of the Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E) from the Financial 

Assurance provider pursuant to this Consent Decree, then, upon receiving written notice 

from EPA, after consultation with the State, Doe Run shall within ten (10) Days 

thereafter, deposit into a newly created trust fund approved by EPA, after consultation 

with the State, immediately available funds and, without setoff, counterclaim, or 

condition of any kind, a cash amount equal to the estimated cost of the remaining 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-99-

Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E) as of such date, as determined by EPA, after 

consultation with the State.

d. Doe Run may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute 

Resolution), to dispute EPA’s and the State’s determination that any of the circumstances 

described in clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of Paragraph 132.a have occurred. Invoking the 

dispute resolution provisions shall not excuse, toll or suspend the obligation of the 

Financial Assurance provider, under Paragraph 132.b of this Section, to fund the trust 

fund or perform the Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E). Furthermore, 

notwithstanding Doe Run’s invocation of such dispute resolution procedures, and during 

the pendency of any such dispute, EPA, after consultation with the State, may in its sole 

discretion direct the trustee of such trust fund to make payments from the trust fund to 

any person that has performed the Remedial Action (as defined in Appendix E) until the 

earlier of (i) the date that Doe Run remedies, to EPA’s and the State’s satisfaction, the 

circumstances giving rise to the issuance of the relevant Performance Failure Notice or 

(ii) the date that a final decision is rendered in accordance with Section XIX (Dispute 

Resolution), that Doe Run has not failed to perform the Remedial Action (as defined in 

Appendix E) in accordance with this Consent Decree. 

133. Mine/Mills. Doe Run shall secure and maintain Financial Assurance for the 

benefit of the EPA and the State pursuant to the requirements of Appendix G (Financial 

Assurance for Mine/Mill Facilities) and Appendix L (Trust Agreement for Mine/Mill Facilities)

of this Consent Decree, in order to ensure coverage for Remedial Actions (as defined in 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-100-

Appendix G) for the Sweetwater Mine/Mill, Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Buick Mine/Mill, Fletcher 

Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine/Mill (Mine #28 and 29), and the West Fork Mine. Doe Run’s 

inability to secure and/or maintain adequate Financial Assurance shall in no way excuse 

performance of Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G) required at the Mine/Mills by 

applicable federal, state, or local law or any other requirement of this Consent Decree. 

134. In addition to the financial assurance information included in the reports provided 

in Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree, within thirty (30) Days of any 

request by EPA or the State, Doe Run shall provide requested information or reports regarding 

the financial status of Doe Run, the trust provided by Doe Run to meet its obligation for 

Financial Assurance pursuant to Appendix G (Financial Assurance – Mine/Mill Facilities) and 

Appendix L (Trust Agreement for Mine/Mill Facilities) of this Consent Decree, and the financial 

institution providing the trust to secure Doe Run’s obligation. 

135. Work Takeover Provisions for Mine/Mills.

a. In the event that EPA or the State determines that Doe Run (i) has ceased 

implementation of any portion of the Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G), (ii) is 

significantly or repeatedly deficient or late in its performance of the Remedial Actions (as 

defined in Appendix G), or (iii) is implementing the Remedial Actions (as defined in 

Appendix G) in a manner that may cause an endangerment to human health or the 

environment, EPA, after consultation with the State may issue a written notice 

(“Performance Failure Notice”) to both Doe Run and the Financial Assurance provider of 

Doe Run’s failure to perform. The Performance Failure Notice will specify the grounds 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-101-

upon which such a notice was issued and will provide Doe Run with a period of thirty

(30) Days within which to remedy the circumstances giving rise to the issuance of such 

notice.

b. Failure by Doe Run to remedy the relevant Performance Failure to EPA’s 

and the State’s satisfaction before the expiration of the thirty (30)-day notice period 

specified in Paragraph 135.a shall trigger EPA’s and the State’s right to have immediate 

access to and benefit of the Financial Assurance provided by the trust fund(s) established 

for the specific Mine/Mill Facilities (as defined in Appendix G) at issue in the 

Performance Failure Notice. EPA may, after consultation with the State, at any time 

thereafter direct the Financial Assurance provider to immediately arrange for payment to 

other parties for performance of the Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G). 

c. If EPA or the State has determined that any of the circumstances described 

in clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of Paragraph 135.a have occurred, and if EPA and the State are 

nevertheless unable after reasonable efforts to secure the payment of funds or 

performance of the Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G) from the Financial 

Assurance provider pursuant to this Consent Decree, then, upon receiving written notice 

from EPA, after consultation with the State, Doe Run shall within ten (10) Days 

thereafter, deposit into a newly created trust fund approved by EPA, after consultation 

with the State, immediately available funds and, without setoff, counterclaim, or 

condition of any kind, a cash amount equal to the estimated cost of the remaining 

Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G) as of such date for the specific Mine/Mill 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-102-

Facilities (as defined in Appendix G) at issue in the Performance Failure Notice, as 

determined by EPA, after consultation with the State.

d. Doe Run may invoke the procedures set forth in Section XIX (Dispute 

Resolution) to dispute EPA’s and the State’s determination that any of the circumstances 

described in clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of Paragraph 135.a have occurred. Invoking the 

dispute resolution provisions shall not excuse, toll or suspend the obligation of the 

Financial Assurance provider, under Paragraph 135.b of this Section, to fund the trust 

funds or perform the Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G). Furthermore, 

notwithstanding Doe Run’s invocation of such dispute resolution procedures, and during 

the pendency of any such dispute, EPA, after consultation with the State, may in its sole 

discretion direct the trustee of such trust fund to make payments from the trust fund to 

any person that has performed the Remedial Actions (as defined in Appendix G) until the 

earlier of (i) the date that Doe Run remedies, to EPA’s and the State’s satisfaction, the 

circumstances giving rise to the issuance of the relevant Performance Failure Notice or 

(ii) the date that a final decision is rendered in accordance with Section XIX (Dispute 

Resolution), that Doe Run has not failed to perform the Remedial Actions (as defined in 

Appendix G) in accordance with this Consent Decree.

XI. 

136. There is currently in effect an Administrative Order on Consent, 

TRANSPORTATION ORDER

In the Matter of 

The Doe Run Transportation and Haul Routes, Southeastern Missouri, Docket No. RCRA-07-

2007-0008, entered into by Doe Run and the EPA pursuant to Section 7003 of RCRA and filed 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-103-

on May 9, 2007 (“Transportation AOC”). Contemporaneous with the execution of this Consent 

Decree, the parties have completed negotiations of modifications to the Transportation AOC and 

will file a First Modification to the Transportation AOC with the EPA Region 7 Regional Docket 

Clerk (“Modified Transportation AOC”), following public notice and comment. The 

Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation AOC, is herein incorporated by 

reference into this Consent Decree. Incorporation of the Transportation AOC into this Consent 

Decree does not modify the terms of the Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified 

Transportation AOC. Except for disputes regarding the assessment of stipulated penalties, the 

dispute resolution procedures of the Transportation AOC shall continue to be the exclusive 

mechanism to resolve disputes arising under or with respect to the Transportation AOC, as 

amended by the Modified Transportation AOC. Disputes regarding the assessment of stipulated 

penalties for violations of the Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation 

AOC, shall be resolved pursuant to Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Consent Decree, 

with the exception that the State shall not be a party to any such disputes. All deliverables 

required by the Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation AOC, shall be 

provided pursuant to the terms therein. 

137. Doe Run shall comply with all terms of the Transportation AOC, as amended by 

the Modified Transportation AOC, as part of their obligations under this Consent Decree. In any 

action by the United States or EPA to enforce the terms of this Paragraph or to otherwise require 

compliance with the Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation AOC, 

Doe Run agrees not to contest the United States’ or EPA’s jurisdiction and/or authority to bring 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-104-

such action. The United States reserves all legal and equitable remedies available to enforce the 

terms of this Paragraph of this Consent Decree. Nothing in the Transportation AOC shall be 

construed to limit the United States’ right to seek judicial enforcement of the terms of the 

Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation AOC, pursuant to this 

Paragraph. Doe Run reserves all other legal and equitable defenses available in response to any 

action by the United States to enforce the terms of this Paragraph or the terms of the 

Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified Transportation AOC. 

138. Violations of the terms of the Transportation AOC, as amended by the Modified 

Transportation AOC, shall be the basis for Stipulated Penalties under this Consent Decree, in 

accordance with the provisions of Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties). 

139. The Parties agree that any future modifications to the Transportation AOC, as 

amended by the Modified Transportation AOC, will be made in accordance with the provisions 

of the Transportation Order and are non-material modifications of this Consent Decree, not 

subject to the provisions of Section XXVI (Modification).

XII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: APPROVAL OF DELIVERABLES

140. Approval of Deliverables. After review of any plan, report, or other item that is 

required to be submitted for approval pursuant to this Consent Decree, EPA, after consultation 

with MDNR, shall in writing: a) approve the submission; b) approve the submission upon 

specified conditions; c) approve part of the submission and disapprove the remainder; or d) 

disapprove the submission. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-105-

141. If the submission is approved pursuant to Paragraph 140.a, Defendants shall take 

all actions required by the plan, report, or other document, in accordance with the schedules and 

requirements of the plan, report, or other document, as approved. If the submission is 

conditionally approved or approved only in part, pursuant to Paragraph 140.b or .c, Defendants 

shall, upon written direction from EPA, after consultation with MDNR, take all actions required 

by the approved plan, report, or other item that EPA, after consultation with MDNR, determines 

are technically severable from any disapproved portions, subject to Defendants’ right to dispute 

only the specified conditions or the disapproved portions or whether the work is technically 

severable, under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Decree. 

142. If the submission is disapproved in whole or in part pursuant to Paragraph 140.c 

or .d, Defendants shall, within thirty (30) Days or such other time as the Parties agree to in 

writing, correct all deficiencies and resubmit the plan, report, or other item, or disapproved 

portion thereof, for approval, in accordance with the preceding Paragraphs. If the resubmission 

is approved in whole or in part, Defendants shall proceed in accordance with the preceding 

Paragraph. 

143. Any stipulated penalties applicable to the original submission, as provided in 

Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Decree, shall accrue during the thirty (30)-Day period 

or other specified period, but shall not be payable unless the resubmission is untimely or is 

disapproved in whole or in part; provided that if the original submission was so deficient as to 

constitute a material breach of Defendants’ obligations under this Decree, the stipulated penalties 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-106-

applicable to the original submission shall be due and payable notwithstanding any subsequent 

resubmission.

144. If a resubmitted plan, report, or other item, or portion thereof, is disapproved in 

whole or in part, EPA, after consultation with the MDNR, may again require Defendants to 

correct any deficiencies, in accordance with the preceding Paragraphs, or may itself/themselves 

correct any deficiencies, subject to Defendants’ right to invoke Dispute Resolution and the right 

of the United States and the State to seek stipulated penalties as provided in the preceding 

Paragraphs.

145. Any portion of a submission that is not specifically disapproved by EPA, in 

consultation with MDNR, in a notice of disapproval shall be considered approved, and 

Defendants shall proceed to implement the approved portion of the submission, provided that 

implementation of the approved portion of the report, plan, or other item is technically severable 

from the disapproved portion. 

146. For purposes of deliverables submitted pursuant to Appendix I (Statement of 

Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation), EPA has delegated approval authority to MDNR. 

Therefore, with respect to Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation), the 

phrase “EPA, after consultation with MDNR” or “EPA, in consultation with MDNR” in 

Paragraphs 140 through 145 above, shall be read as “MDNR, after consultation with EPA.”

147. Upon approval, approval upon conditions, or modification by EPA or MDNR 

under Paragraph 140 or 144 of any plan, report, or other deliverable, or any portion thereof, such 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-107-

plan, report, or other deliverable, or portion thereof, shall be incorporated into and enforceable 

under this Consent Decree. 

XIII. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS: PERMITS

148. Permits

149. When permits are required as described in Paragraph 148, Defendants shall 

complete and submit such permit applications to MDNR and any other appropriate authorities to 

allow sufficient time for all legally required processing and review of the permit request, 

including requests for additional information by the permitting authorities. Any failure by 

Defendants to submit a timely permit application shall bar any use by Defendants of Section 

XVIII (Force Majeure) of this Consent Decree, where a Force Majeure claim is based on 

permitting delays. 

. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Consent Decree, where any 

compliance obligation under this Consent Decree or otherwise applicable law requires 

Defendants to obtain a federal, state, or local permit or approval, including, but not limited to, a 

permit to authorize construction, reconstruction, or operation of any device, Defendants shall 

submit timely and complete applications and take all other actions necessary to obtain all such 

permits or approvals. Defendants may seek relief under the provisions of Section XVIII (Force 

Majeure) of this Consent Decree for any delay in the performance of any such obligation 

resulting from a failure to obtain, or a delay in obtaining, any permit or approval required to 

fulfill such obligation, if Defendants have submitted timely and complete applications and have

taken all other actions necessary to obtain all such permits or approvals. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-108-

150. Using the procedures set forth in Section XXIII (Notices), Defendants shall 

provide the EPA with a copy of each application for a federally enforceable permit necessary to 

implement the requirements of this Consent Decree that is filed after the Effective Date, as well 

as a copy of any permit proposed as a result of such application, to allow for timely participation 

in any public comment opportunity. If, as of the Effective Date, Defendants have received any 

permit necessary to implement the requirements of this Consent Decree, then no later than thirty 

(30) Days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall submit copies of such permits to EPA and 

the State using the procedure set forth in Section XXIII (Notices). EPA, in consultation with the 

State, may excuse in writing all or part of the latter submission if copies of such permits have 

already been submitted to EPA and the State before the Effective Date.

151. If Defendants sell or transfer part or all of their ownership interest in any of the

Doe Run Facilities covered under this Consent Decree, Defendants shall comply with the 

requirements of Paragraph 8 (Transfer of Ownership or Operation) with regard to that Doe Run

Facility before any such sale or transfer unless, following any such sale or transfer, Defendants 

remain the holder of the Title V or other federally-enforceable permit for such Doe Run Facility.

152. Notwithstanding the reference to Title V permits in this Consent Decree, the 

enforcement of such permits shall be in accordance with their own terms and the Clean Air Act 

and its implementing regulations, including the federally approved Missouri Title V permit 

program. The Title V permit shall not be enforceable under this Consent Decree, although any 

term or limit established by or under this Consent Decree shall be enforceable under this Consent 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-109-

Decree regardless of whether such term has or will become part of a Title V permit, subject to the 

terms of Section XXVII (Termination). 

153. Within one hundred and eighty (180) Days after the Effective Date of this Consent 

Decree, Defendants shall amend any applicable Title V permit application, or apply for 

amendments of its Title V permits to include a schedule for all Unit-specific and Facility-specific 

performance, operational, maintenance, and control technology requirements established by this 

Consent Decree including, but not limited to: emission rates, tonnage limitation, emission 

monitoring, and production limits. 

XIV. ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

154. Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling

155.

. Doe Run shall install and 

operate a building enclosure/ventilation system at the lead concentrate handling, storage and 

loading areas at each of the following mill facilities owned and operated by Doe Run: Buick 

Mine/Mill, Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Sweetwater Mine/Mill, and Fletcher Mine/Mill in 

accordance with all provisions of Appendix H (Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and 

Handling) and other terms of this Consent Decree. The enclosure/ventilation systems installed

pursuant to this Paragraph shall be installed and begin operation in accordance with the schedule 

set forth in Appendix H (Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling).

Stream Mitigation. Doe Run shall implement a stream mitigation project for 8.5 

miles of Bee Fork Creek in Reynolds County, Missouri, in accordance with all provisions of 

Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation) and other terms of this Consent 

Decree. The stream mitigation project implemented pursuant to this Paragraph shall be 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-110-

completed in accordance with the schedules set forth in and developed pursuant to Appendix I

(Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation). 

156. Doe Run is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the Additional 

Injunctive Relief under this Section in accordance with the requirements of this Consent Decree 

and Appendices H (Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling) and I (Statement of 

Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation). Doe Run may use contractors or consultants in planning 

and implementing the Additional Injunctive Relief. 

157. For all requirements under this Section, Doe Run certifies the truth and accuracy 

of each of the following: 

a. that, as of the date of executing this Consent Decree, Doe Run is not 

required to perform or develop any portion of this Additional Injunctive Relief by any 

federal, state, or local law or regulation and are not required to perform or develop this 

Additional Injunctive Relief by agreement, grant, or as injunctive relief awarded in any 

other action in any forum;

b. that Doe Run was not planning or intending to perform this Additional 

Injunctive Relief other than in settlement of the claims resolved in this Consent Decree; 

and

c. that Doe Run has not received and shall not receive credit for any portion 

of this Additional Injunctive Relief in any other enforcement action.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-111-

158. Defendants shall comply with the reporting requirements of Appendix H

(Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling), Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee 

Fork Creek Mitigation), and this Consent Decree. 

159. Completion Report: Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling Project

a. a detailed description of the project as implemented;

.

Following completion of the Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling project 

pursuant to Appendix H, Doe Run shall submit an Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and 

Handling Project Completion Report to the Plaintiffs with the next semi-annual status report 

required pursuant to Paragraph 176, in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent 

Decree. The Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling Project Completion Report 

shall contain the following information:

b. a detailed description of any material changes in the project from what was 

proposed in the original plans and specifications; 

c. certification that the project has been fully implemented pursuant to the 

provisions of this Consent Decree and Appendix H (Enclosure of Lead Concentrate 

Storage and Handling); and

d. a description of the environmental and public health benefits resulting 

from implementation of the project (with a quantification of the benefits and pollutant 

reductions, if feasible).

160. EPA may, in its sole discretion, upon written request require Doe Run to submit 

information in addition to that described in Paragraph 159, in order to evaluate Doe Run’s 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-112-

Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling Project Completion Report. After 

receiving the Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling Project Completion Report, 

the EPA shall notify Doe Run whether or not Doe Run has satisfactorily completed the Enclosure 

of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling project. If Doe Run has not completed the Enclosure 

of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling project in accordance with this Consent Decree, 

stipulated penalties may be assessed under Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Consent 

Decree.

161. Completion Report: Stream Mitigation Project

a. a detailed description of the project as implemented;

. In accordance with the 

requirements and schedule set forth in Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek 

Mitigation), Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR a copy of the final progress report for the 

Stream Mitigation Project (“Stream Mitigation Project Completion Report”), in accordance with 

Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent Decree. The report shall contain all information required

pursuant to Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation) and the following 

information: 

b. certification that the project has been fully implemented pursuant to the 

provisions of this Consent Decree and Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork 

Creek Mitigation); and

c. a description of the environmental and public health benefits resulting 

from implementation of the project (with a quantification of the benefits and pollutant 

reductions, if feasible).
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-113-

162. MDNR may, in its sole discretion, upon written request require Doe Run to 

submit information in addition to that described in the Paragraph 161, in order to evaluate Doe 

Run’s Stream Mitigation Completion Report. After receiving the Stream Mitigation Project 

Completion Report, MDNR shall notify Doe Run whether or not Doe Run has satisfactorily 

completed the Stream Mitigation Project. If Doe Run has not completed the Stream Mitigation 

Project in accordance with this Consent Decree, stipulated penalties may be assessed under 

Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this Consent Decree.

163. Each submission required under this Section shall be signed by an official with 

knowledge of the project and shall bear the certification language set forth in Paragraph 181. 

164. Disputes concerning the satisfactory performance of the Enclosure of Lead 

Concentrate Storage and Handling Project and the Stream Mitigation Project may be resolved 

under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Decree. Subject to Doe Run’s right to invoke 

Dispute Resolution regarding the approval of deliverables required pursuant to Appendix H 

(Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling) and Appendix I (Statement of Work for 

Bee Fork Creek Mitigation) as provided in Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables), no other disputes arising under Paragraphs 154 through 163 of this Section shall 

be subject to Dispute Resolution. 

165. New Facilities

a. Upon the Date of Lodging, in the event that Defendants elect to build or 

operate a new lead concentrate unloading facility at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter 

Facility (as defined in Appendix E) following the Remedial Action required pursuant to 

. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-114-

Section IX (Site Remediation – Herculaneum) of this Consent Decree, or any new Doe 

Run owned and/or operated lead concentrate unloading facility in Missouri, Defendants 

shall:

i. Notify EPA and the State of such plans as soon as practicable;

ii. Obtain all required federal, State and local environmental 

construction and operating permits;

iii. Install and operate an enclosure/ventilation system for all lead 

concentrate handling (including conveyance systems), loading, unloading and 

storage area at such facility that is equivalent to the system requirements set forth 

in Appendix H of this Consent Decree or as may be required by federal, State or 

local requirements, whichever is more stringent. Any loading or unloading of lead

concentrate from vehicles shall only occur within buildings meeting the 

requirements herein; and,

iv. If not subject to the Transportation AOC by the terms of that order, 

Defendants shall request a modification to include the facility as a “Doe Run 

facility” as that term is defined in the Transportation AOC.

b. Upon the Date of Lodging, in the event that Defendants elect to build or 

operate a new facility in Missouri using a hydrometallurgical-electrochemical process for 

producing lead metal from concentrates, Defendants shall:

i. Notify EPA and the State of such plans as soon as practicable;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-115-

ii. Obtain all required federal, State and local environmental 

construction and operating permits;

iii. Install and operate an enclosure/ventilation system for all lead 

concentrate handling (including conveyance systems), loading, unloading and 

storage area at such facility that is equivalent to the system requirements set forth 

in Appendix H of this Consent Decree or as may be required by federal, State or 

local requirements, whichever is more stringent. Any loading or unloading of lead

concentrate from vehicles shall only occur within buildings meeting the 

requirements herein; and,

iv. If not subject to the Transportation AOC by the terms of that order, 

Defendants shall request a modification to include the facility as a “Doe Run 

facility” as that term is defined in the Transportation AOC.

XV. ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROJECTS

166. Defendants shall implement the Environmental Mitigation Projects (“Projects”) 

described in Appendix J to this Consent Decree in compliance with the approved plans and 

schedules for such Projects and other terms of this Consent Decree. Defendants shall spend no 

less than $2 million in Project Dollars implementing the Projects identified in Appendix J in 

accordance with the schedules provided in Appendix J. Defendants shall implement such 

Projects over a period of no later than four (4) years from the Effective Date of this Consent 

Decree. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-116-

167. Defendants shall maintain, and present to EPA and MDNR upon request, all 

documents to substantiate the Project Dollars expended to implement the Projects described in 

Appendix J, and shall provide these documents to EPA and MDNR within thirty (30) days of a 

request for the documents.

168. All plans and reports prepared by Defendants pursuant to the requirements of this 

Section of the Consent Decree and required to be submitted to EPA shall be made publicly 

available from Defendants without charge.

169. Defendants are responsible for the satisfactory completion of the Projects in 

accordance with the requirements of this Decree. Defendants may use contractors or consultants 

in planning and implementing the Projects. 

170. Defendants shall certify, as part of each plan submitted to EPA pursuant to 

Appendix J for any of the Projects, the truth and accuracy of each of the following:

a. that all cost information provided to EPA in connection with EPA’s 

approval of the Projects is complete and accurate and that Defendants have estimated the 

costs of the Projects in good faith;

b. that, as of the date of executing this Decree, Defendants are not required to 

perform or develop the Projects by any federal, state, or local law or regulation and are

not required to perform or develop the Projects by agreement, grant, or as injunctive relief 

awarded in any other action in any forum;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-117-

c. that the Projects are not projects that Defendants were planning or 

intending to construct, perform, or implement other than in settlement of the claims 

resolved in this Decree;

d. that Defendants have not received and will not receive credit for the 

Projects in any other enforcement action; and

e. that Defendants will not receive any reimbursement for any portion of the 

Projects from any other person.

171. Environmental Mitigation Projects Completion Report

a. Following the date set for completion of the Projects pursuant to Appendix 

J, with the next semi-annual status report required pursuant to Paragraph 176, Defendants shall 

submit an Environmental Mitigation Projects Completion Report to the Plaintiffs, in accordance 

with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent Decree. The Environmental Mitigation Projects 

Completion Report shall contain the following information:

i. a detailed description of the Projects as implemented;

ii. a description of any material changes in the project from what was 

proposed in the original plans and specifications;

iii. an itemized list of all eligible Project costs expended;

iv. certification that the Project has been fully implemented pursuant 

to the provisions of this Consent Decree and Appendix J; and
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-118-

v. a description of the environmental and public health benefits 

resulting from implementation of the Projects (with a quantification of the 

benefits and pollutant reductions, if feasible).

172. EPA may, in its sole discretion, require information in addition to that described 

in the preceding Paragraph, in order to evaluate Defendants’ Completion Report.

 173. After receiving the Environmental Mitigation Projects Completion Report, the 

United States shall notify Defendants whether or not Defendants have satisfactorily completed 

the Projects. If Defendants have not completed the Projects in accordance with this Consent 

Decree, stipulated penalties may be assessed under Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties) of this 

Consent Decree.

174. Disputes concerning the satisfactory performance of the Projects and the amount 

of eligible Project costs may be resolved under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Decree.

EPA’s decision regarding whether to approve an additional project Defendants choose to submit 

pursuant to paragraph A. in section I. of Appendix J (Environmental Mitigation Projects) is not 

subject to Dispute Resolution. Subject to Doe Run’s right to invoke Dispute Resolution 

regarding the approval of deliverables required pursuant to Appendix J (Environmental 

Mitigation Projects) as provided in Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables), no other disputes arising under Paragraphs 166 through 173 of this Section shall 

be subject to Dispute Resolution.

175. Each submission required under this Section shall be signed by an official with 

knowledge of the Projects and shall bear the certification language set forth in Paragraph 181.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-119-

XVI. 

176. In addition to any other express reporting requirement in this Consent Decree, on 

each April 30 and October 31 following the Effective Date of this Consent Decree until 

termination of this Decree pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination), Defendants shall submit to 

EPA and MDNR a status report that shall describe the Defendants’ actions taken and to be taken 

to comply with this Consent Decree. The status report due April 30 shall provide information for 

the preceding period from October 1 through March 31. The status report due October 31 shall 

provide information for the preceding period from April 1 through September 30. If Defendants 

indicate in a status report that an obligation under this Consent Decree has been completed and 

EPA, after consultation with MDNR, agrees that the obligation has been completed, Defendants 

are not required to include the completed obligation in future status reports. Each status report 

shall include: 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

a. a progress report on the implementation of Sections V through X, XIV, 

and XV above (all injunctive relief sections except Section XI (Transportation Order));

b. the status of and likely target date of cessation of operation required by 

Section V (Compliance Requirements: Clean Air Act); 

c. any significant problems encountered in complying with Sections V 

through X, XIV, and XV (all injunctive relief sections except Section XI (Transportation 

Order)) of this Consent Decree, together with implemented or proposed solutions; 

d. a summary of the SO2 emissions monitoring data collected pursuant to the 

Consent Decree including the mass of SO2 emitted; 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-120-

e. a summary of the Sinter Production data collected pursuant to the Consent 

Decree; 

f. a summary of the Blast Furnace Sinter Consumption data collected 

pursuant to the Consent Decree

g. a summary of all the Refined Lead Metal Production data collected 

pursuant to the Consent Decree; 

h. the date and time identifying each period during which the CERMS was 

inoperative except for zero and span checks and the nature of any system repairs or 

adjustments; and

i. all substitute data used to determine compliance with the SO2 emission 

limits established in Paragraph 20.c. of this Consent Decree along with supporting 

calculations.

177. Except for MSOP violations as addressed in Paragraph 178, in addition to the 

report required by the preceding Paragraph 176, if Defendants violate any requirement of this 

Consent Decree, Defendants shall notify the United States and the State of such violation and its 

duration or anticipated likely duration, in writing, within ten (10) business days of first becoming

aware of the violation, with an explanation of the cause or likely cause of the violation and any 

measures taken, or to be taken, to prevent or minimize such violation. If the cause of a violation 

cannot be fully explained at the time the report is due, Defendants shall so state in the report. 

Defendants shall investigate the cause of the violation and shall then submit an amendment to the 

report, including a full explanation of the cause of the violation, within fifteen (15) Days of 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-121-

becoming aware of the cause of the violation. Nothing in this Paragraph or the following 

Paragraph relieves Defendants of their obligation to provide the notice required by Section XVIII

(Force Majeure). 

178. Defendants shall report exceedances of final and interim CWA Facility permit 

limitations applicable at the time of reporting as a part of the facility monthly DMRs submitted to 

MDNR. In addition to the information required to be submitted to MDNR in the DMRs, 

Defendants shall include a supplemental statement regarding any exceedances of alternative 

CWA permit limitations, as identified in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations 

and Compliance Deadlines) and an explanation of the cause or likely cause of the exceedance 

and any measures taken, or to be taken, to prevent or minimize such exceedance. At the same 

time such information is submitted to MDNR, Defendants shall submit to EPA, in accordance 

with the provisions of Section XXIII (Notices), an electronic copy of the DMRs and 

supplemental statement of exceedances specified in this Paragraph. Upon written request, 

Defendants shall also submit to EPA a hard copy of such information.

179. Whenever any violation of this Consent Decree or any applicable permit or any 

other event related to Defendants’ performance under this Consent Decree poses an immediate 

threat to the public health or welfare of the environment, Defendants shall notify EPA and the 

State, orally or by electronic or facsimile transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 24 

hours after Defendants first knew of, or should have known of, the violation or event. This 

notification procedure is in addition to the requirements set forth in the preceding Paragraph.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-122-

180. All reports shall be submitted to the persons designated in Section XXIII (Notices) 

of this Consent Decree.

181. Each report or notice submitted by Defendants under this Section shall be signed 

by an official of the submitting party and include the following certification:

I certify under penalty of law that I have examined and am familiar 

with the information submitted in this document and all 

attachments and that this document and its attachments were 

prepared either by me personally or under my direction or 

supervision in a manner designed to ensure that qualified and 

knowledgeable personnel properly gather, evaluate, and present the 

information contained therein. I further certify, based on my 

personal knowledge or on my inquiry of the person or persons who 

manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for 

gathering the information, that the information submitted is true, 

accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant 

penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility 

of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

182. The reporting requirements of this Consent Decree do not relieve Defendants of 

any reporting obligations required by the CAA, CWA, RCRA EPCRA, or CERCLA, or their 

implementing regulations, or by any other federal, state or local law, regulation, permit, or other 

requirement. The reporting requirements of this Section are in addition to any other reports, 

plans, or submissions required by other Sections of this Consent Decree.

183. Any information provided pursuant to this Consent Decree may be used by the 

Plaintiffs in any proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree and as otherwise 

permitted by law. All information and documents submitted by Defendants to the United States 

or to the State pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be subject to public inspection, unless 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-123-

identified and supported as CBI by Defendants in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 2 and 

applicable state law. 

XVII. 

184. Defendant shall be liable for stipulated penalties to the Plaintiffs for violations of 

this Consent Decree as specified below, unless excused under Section XVIII (Force Majeure) of 

this Decree, including any work plan or schedule approved under this Consent Decree and 

incorporated by reference into this Consent Decree, according to all applicable requirements of 

this Decree and within the specified time schedules established by or approved under this Decree.

STIPULATED PENALTIES

185. Late Payment of Civil Penalty

If Defendants fail to pay the civil penalty required to be paid under Section IV (Civil 

Penalty) of this Decree when due, Defendants shall pay a stipulated penalty of $10,000 per Day 

for each Day that the payment is late. 

186.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each Day 

Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 14 (Election to Cease Smelting 

Operation):

Cessation of Operations at Herculaneum 

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$15,000 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance

$25,000 15th through 30th Day

$37,500 31st Day and beyond
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-124-

187.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation for each violation of a 

requirement of Paragraph 20.a. through 20.c.:

Interim Production and Emissions Limits at Herculaneum

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$2,250 For each Day the SO2 Short-term Limit is

exceeded

Measure of Noncompliance

$7,000 Per ton for each ton or fraction of a ton over 

the SO2 Mass Cap up to 100 tons above the 

limit

$12,000 Per ton for each ton or fraction of a ton over 

the SO2 Mass Cap exceeding 100 tons above 

the limit

$1,000 Per Day for each violation of the lead limit 

at Paragraph 20.b of this Consent Decree. 

This penalty shall accrue until compliance is 

reestablished via the testing requirements of 

Paragraph 20.b.

$15,000 Per ton for each ton or fraction of a ton over 

a 12-Month Rolling Tonnage up to 100 tons 

above the limit

$20,000 Per ton for each ton or fraction of a ton over 

a 12-Month Rolling Tonnage exceeding 100 

tons above the limit.

188.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue for each Day for any failure to meet the 

testing requirements in Paragraph 20.b of this Consent Decree, except that any deliverable 

associated with these testing requirements is subject to the stipulated penalty provisions at 

Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

Emissions Testing at Herculaneum
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-125-

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$1,500 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance

$2,500 15th through 30th Day

$4,000 31st Day and beyond

189.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each violation of 

any requirement identified in this Consent Decree regarding the installation and operation of a 

CERMS by the dates outlined herein, except that any deliverable associated with these 

requirements is subject to the stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable 

Requirements):

Emissions Monitoring at Herculaneum

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$1,500 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance

$2,500 15th through 30th Day

$4,000 31st Day and beyond

190.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each violation of 

a requirement of Section V, Subsection C (Installation of Pressure Drop Monitor at Buick 

Mine/Mill), except that any deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the 

stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

Buick Mine/Mill CAA Injunctive Relief

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$1,000 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-126-

$2,000 15th through 30th Day

$4,000 31st Day and beyond

191.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each violation of 

a requirement of Section VI (Compliance Requirements: Clean Water Act), except that any 

deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the stipulated penalty provisions at 

Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

CWA Injunctive Relief Provisions

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$950 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance 

$2,000 15th through 30th Day

$4,000 31st Day and beyond

192.

a.

CWA Interim or Alternative Effluent Limits

Monthly Average Violations. The following stipulated penalties shall 

accrue per violation per Month for each violation of an interim Monthly Average effluent 

limitation in effect in a CWA Facility MSOP or any Monthly Average effluent limitation

modified by Alternative Effluent Limitations pursuant to Subsection I (Schedule for 

Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits) of this Consent Decree and specified 

in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines):

Penalty Per Monthly Degree of Exceedance

Average Violation

$2,000 up to, but not including, 20% over the limit
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-127-

$4,000 from 20% over the limit, and up to, but not 

including, 50% over the limit

$7,500 from 50% over the limit, and up to, but not 

including, 100% over the limit

$11,000 100% over limit or greater

b. Violations of a “No Discharge” Requirement in Appendix B. The 

following stipulated penalties shall accrue per outfall per Day of discharge for each 

violation of that outfall’s “no discharge” Alternative Effluent Limitation established 

pursuant to Subsection I (Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating 

Permits) of this Consent Decree, as specified in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent 

Limitations and Compliance Deadlines):

Penalty Per Day of Discharge

$4,000 for the 1st and 2nd Days during a Month

Duration of Discharge

on which a discharge occurs

$7,500 for the 3rd and 4th Days during a Month on 

which a discharge occurs

$10,000 for the 5th Day and for each additional Day 

during a Month on which a discharge occurs

193.

a.

CWA Facility Final Effluent Limits

Monthly Average Violations. The following stipulated penalties shall 

accrue per violation per Month for each violation of a final Monthly Average effluent 

limitation in effect in a CWA Facility MSOP:
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-128-

Penalty Per Monthly Degree of Exceedance

Average Violation

$4,000 up to, but not including, 20% over the limit

$7,000 from 20% over the limit, and up to, but not 

including, 50% over the limit

$10,000 from 50% over the limit, and up to, but not 

including, 100% over the limit

$15,000 100% over limit or greater

b. Daily Maximum and Weekly Average Violations. The following 

stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each violation of a final Daily 

Maximum or Weekly Average effluent limitation in effect in a CWA Facility MSOP:

Penalty Per Daily Maximum Degree of Exceedance

or Weekly Average Violation

$2,000 up to, but not including, 20% over the limit

$5,000 from 20% over the limit, and up to, but not

including, 50% over the limit

$8,000 from 50% over the limit, and up to, but not 

including, 100% over the limit

$12,000 100% over limit or greater

194. Acute and Chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity Limitations

Except as specified in the Alternative Effluent Limitations pursuant to Subsection I

(Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits) of this Consent Decree and 

specified in Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines), 

the following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation for each violation of an acute or 

. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-129-

chronic WET test limitation in a test series (i.e., the original annual, semiannual, quarterly or 

monthly test, as applicable, and follow-up tests required due to test failure) in effect in a CWA 

Facility MSOP:

Penalty Per WET Number of Violations in Test Series

Test Event

$4,000 first violation 

$7,000 second violation

$10,000 third and subsequent violation

195. MSOP Violations other than Effluent Limitation and WET Limitation Violations

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per Day for each violation of a 

requirement of a CWA Facility MSOP other than an effluent discharge limitation, an effluent 

discharge prohibition, or WET limitation:

 

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$750 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance 

$1,500 15th through 30th Day

$3,000 31st Day and beyond

196. Modified Transportation AOC. Stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per 

Day for each violation of any requirement of the Transportation AOC, as amended by all 

modifications thereto, in accordance with the stipulated penalty provisions set forth in paragraph 

114 of the Modified Transportation AOC.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-130-

197.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each Day 

Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Section VIII (Compliance Requirements: 

RCRA), except that any deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the 

stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

RCRA Injunctive Relief

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$1,000 1st through 14th Day

$3,000 15th through 30th Day

$5,000 31st Day and beyond

198.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each Day 

Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Section IX (Site Remediation -

Herculaneum), except that any deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the 

stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

Site Remediation - Herculaneum

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$1,000 1st through 14th Day

$2,500 15th through 30th Day

$5,000 31st Day and beyond

199.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for each Day 

Defendants fail to comply with the requirements of Section X (Financial Assurances), except that 

Financial Assurances
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-131-

any deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the stipulated penalty provisions 

at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements):

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$1,000 1st through 14th Day

$3,000 15th through 30th Day

$5,000 31st Day and beyond

200.

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue for each Day Defendants fail to timely or 

satisfactorily complete the Additional Injunctive Relief Projects by the deadline set forth in 

Section XIV, Appendix I (Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation) and Appendix H

(Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling), or schedules approved pursuant to this 

Consent Decree, except that any deliverable associated with these requirements is subject to the 

stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable Requirements): 

Additional Injunctive Relief Compliance 

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$3,000 1st through 15th day

$6,000 15th day and beyond

201. Environmental Mitigation Projects Compliance

The following stipulated penalties shall accrue for each Day Defendants fail to timely or 

satisfactorily complete the Environmental Mitigation Projects by the deadline set forth in Section 

XV (Environmental Mitigation Projects), Appendix J (Environmental Mitigation Projects), or 

schedules approved pursuant to this Consent Decree, except that any deliverable associated with 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-132-

these requirements is subject to the stipulated penalty provisions at Paragraph 202 (Deliverable 

Requirements): 

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$1,000 1st through 15th day

$5,000 15th day and beyond

202. Deliverable Requirements. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per 

violation per Day for each failure to timely submit, modify, or implement, as approved, the 

reports plans, studies, analyses, protocols, or other deliverables required by this Consent Decree, 

except as otherwise specified in Paragraphs 184 through 201 above:

Penalty Per Violation Per Day

$1,000 1st through 14th Day

Period of Noncompliance

$2,000 15th through 30th Day

$3,000 31st Day and beyond

203. The following stipulated penalties shall accrue per violation per Day for 

Defendants’ failure to comply with any other requirement of this Consent Decree not specifically 

referenced in Paragraphs 184 through 202 within the specified time established by or approved 

under this Consent Decree: 

Penalty Per Violation Per Day Period of Noncompliance

$750 1st through 14th Day

$1,500 15th through 30th Day

$3,000 31st Day and beyond
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-133-

204. Stipulated penalties under this Section shall begin to accrue on the Day after 

performance is due or on the Day a violation occurs, whichever is applicable, and shall continue 

to accrue until performance is satisfactorily completed or until the violation ceases. Stipulated 

penalties shall accrue simultaneously for separate violations of this Consent Decree, but only one 

stipulated penalty may be assessed per violation in accordance with Paragraphs 184 through 201.

Any stipulated penalty shall be assessed only to the Defendant that is obligated to perform the 

work or obligation pursuant to this Consent Decree.

205. Defendants shall pay stipulated penalties to the Plaintiffs within thirty (30) Days 

of a written demand by either Plaintiff. Defendants shall pay fifty (50) percent of the total 

stipulated penalty amount due to the United States and fifty (50) percent to the State, with the 

exception of stipulated penalties paid pursuant to Paragraph 196 (Modified Transportation AOC),

which shall be paid entirely to the United States. Except for penalties involving the Modified 

Transportation AOC, the Plaintiff making a demand for payment of a stipulated penalty shall 

simultaneously send a copy of the demand to the other Plaintiff. 

206. Either Plaintiff may in the unreviewable exercise of its discretion, reduce or waive 

stipulated penalties otherwise due it under this Consent Decree.

207. Stipulated penalties shall continue to accrue as provided in Paragraph 204, during 

any Dispute Resolution, but need not be paid until the following: 

a. If the dispute is resolved by agreement or by a decision of EPA or the State

that is not appealed to the Court, Defendants shall pay accrued penalties determined to be 

owed, together with interest, to the United States or the State within thirty (30) Days of 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-134-

the effective date of the agreement or the receipt of EPA’s or the State’s decision or 

order.

b. If the dispute is appealed to the Court and the United States or the State

prevails in whole or in part, Defendants shall pay all accrued penalties determined by the 

Court to be owed, together with interest, within sixty (60) Days of receiving the Court’s 

decision or order, except as provided in Subparagraph 207.c, below.

c. If any Party appeals the District Court’s decision, Defendants shall pay all 

accrued penalties determined to be owed, together with interest, within fifteen (15) Days 

of receiving the final appellate court decision.

208. Obligations Prior to the Effective Date

209. Defendants shall pay stipulated penalties owing to the United States in the manner 

set forth and with the confirmation notices required by Paragraph 11, except that the transmittal 

letter shall state that the payment is for stipulated penalties and shall state for which violation(s) 

the penalties are being paid. Defendants shall pay stipulated penalties owing to the State in the 

manner set forth in Paragraph 13. The checks and the signed Consent Decree shall be mailed to:

. Upon the Effective Date of this Consent 

Decree, the stipulated penalty provisions of this Decree shall be retroactively enforceable with 

regard to any and all violations of this Consent Decree that have occurred between the Lodging 

Date and the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, provided that stipulated penalties that may 

have accrued prior to the Effective Date may not be collected unless and until this Consent 

Decree is entered by the Court.

Collections Specialist

Office of the Attorney General
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-135-

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899 

210. If Defendants fail to pay stipulated penalties according to the terms of this 

Consent Decree, Defendants shall be liable for interest on such penalties, as provided for in 

28 U.S.C. § 1961, accruing as of the date payment became due. Nothing in this Paragraph shall 

be construed to limit the United States or the State from seeking any remedy otherwise provided 

by law for Defendants’ failure to pay any stipulated penalties.

211. Subject to the provisions of Section XXI (Effect of Settlement/Reservation of 

Rights) of this Consent Decree, the stipulated penalties provided for in this Consent Decree shall 

be in addition to any other rights, remedies, or sanctions available to the United States or the 

State for Defendants’ violation of this Consent Decree or applicable law. Where a violation of 

this Consent Decree is also a violation of relevant statutory or regulatory requirements, 

Defendants shall be allowed a credit for any stipulated penalties paid against any statutory 

penalties imposed for such violation.

XVIII. 

212. “Force majeure,” for purposes of this Consent Decree, is defined as any event 

arising from causes beyond the control of Defendants, of any entity controlled by Defendants, or 

of Defendants’ contractors, that delays or prevents the performance of any obligation under this 

Consent Decree despite Defendants’ best efforts to fulfill the obligation. The requirement that 

Defendants exercise “best efforts to fulfill the obligation” includes using best efforts to anticipate 

any potential force majeure event and best efforts to address the effects of any such event (a) as it 

is occurring and (b) after it has occurred to prevent or minimize any resulting delay to the 

FORCE MAJEURE
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-136-

greatest extent possible. “Force Majeure” does not include Defendants’ financial inability to 

perform any obligation under this Consent Decree. 

213. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any 

obligation under this Consent Decree, whether or not caused by a force majeure event, 

Defendants shall provide notice orally or by electronic or facsimile transmission to EPA and 

MDNR, within seventy-two (72) hours of when Defendants first knew that the event might cause 

a delay. Within seven (7) Days thereafter, Defendants shall provide in writing to EPA and the 

State an explanation and description of the reasons for the delay; the anticipated duration of the 

delay; all actions taken or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay; a schedule for 

implementation of any measures to be taken to prevent or mitigate the delay or the effect of the 

delay; Defendants’ rationale for attributing such delay to a force majeure event if it intends to 

assert such a claim; and a statement as to whether, in the opinion of Defendants, such event may 

cause or contribute to an endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment. Defendants

shall include with any notice all available documentation supporting the claim that the delay was 

attributable to a force majeure. Failure to comply with the above requirements shall preclude 

Defendants from asserting any claim of force majeure for that event for the period of time of such

failure to comply, and for any additional delay caused by such failure. Defendants shall be 

deemed to know of any circumstance of which Defendants, any entity controlled by Defendants, 

or Defendants’ contractors knew or should have known. 

214. If EPA, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State,

agrees that the delay or anticipated delay is attributable to a force majeure event, the time for 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-137-

performance of the obligations under this Consent Decree that are affected by the force majeure

event will be extended by EPA, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the 

State, for such time as is necessary to complete those obligations. An extension of the time for 

performance of the obligations affected by the force majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the 

time for performance of any other obligation. EPA will notify Defendants in writing of the 

length of the extension, if any, for performance of the obligations affected by the force majeure 

event. 

215. If EPA, after a reasonable opportunity for review and comment by the State, does 

not agree that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a force majeure event, 

EPA will notify Defendants in writing of its decision. 

216. If Defendants elect to invoke the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 

XIX (Dispute Resolution), they shall do so no later than fifteen (15) Days after receipt of EPA’s 

notice. In any such proceeding, Defendants shall have the burden of demonstrating by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the delay or anticipated delay has been or will be caused by a 

force majeure event, that the duration of the delay or the extension sought was or will be 

warranted under the circumstances, that best efforts were exercised to avoid and mitigate the 

effects of the delay, and that Defendants complied with the requirements of Paragraphs 212 and 

213, above. If Defendants carry this burden, the delay at issue shall be deemed not to be a 

violation by Defendants of the affected obligation of this Consent Decree identified to EPA and 

the Court.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-138-

XIX. 

217. Unless otherwise expressly provided for in this Consent Decree, the dispute 

resolution procedures of this Section shall be the exclusive mechanism to resolve disputes arising 

under or with respect to this Consent Decree.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

218. Informal Dispute Resolution

219.

. Any dispute subject to Dispute Resolution under 

this Consent Decree shall first be the subject of informal negotiations. The dispute shall be 

considered to have arisen when Defendants send the United States and the State a written Notice 

of Dispute. Such Notice of Dispute shall state clearly the matter in dispute. The period of 

informal negotiations shall not exceed twenty (20) Days from the date the dispute arises, unless 

that period is modified by written agreement. If the Parties cannot resolve a dispute by informal 

negotiations, then the position advanced by the United States and the State shall be considered 

binding unless, within twenty (20) Days after the conclusion of the informal negotiation period, 

Defendants invoke formal dispute resolution procedures as set forth below.

Formal Dispute Resolution

220. The Plaintiffs shall serve their Statement of Position within sixty (60) Days of 

receipt of Defendants’ Statement of Position. The Plaintiffs’ Statement of Position shall include, 

. Defendants shall invoke formal dispute resolution 

procedures, within the time period provided in the preceding Paragraph, by serving on the United 

States and the State a written Statement of Position regarding the matter in dispute. The 

Statement of Position shall include, but need not be limited to, any factual data, analysis, or 

opinion supporting Defendants’ position and any supporting documentation relied upon by 

Defendants. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-139-

but need not be limited to, any factual data, analysis, or opinion supporting that position and any 

supporting documentation relied upon by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ Statement of Position 

shall be binding on Defendants, unless Defendants file a motion for judicial review of the dispute 

in accordance with the following Paragraph.

221. Defendants may seek judicial review of the dispute by filing with the Court and 

serving on the Plaintiffs, in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent Decree, a 

motion requesting judicial resolution of the dispute. The motion must be filed within ten (10)

Days of receipt of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Position pursuant to the preceding Paragraph. The 

motion shall contain a written statement of Defendants’ position on the matter in dispute, 

including any supporting factual data, analysis, opinion, or documentation, and shall set forth the 

relief requested and any schedule within which the dispute must be resolved for orderly 

implementation of the Consent Decree.

222. The United States and the State shall respond to Defendants’ motion within the 

time period allowed by the Local Rules of this Court. Defendants may file a reply memorandum, 

to the extent permitted by the Local Rules.

223.

a.

Standard of Review

Disputes Concerning Matters Accorded Record Review. Except as 

otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, in any dispute brought pursuant to the formal 

dispute resolution procedures of this Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Consent 

Decree, pertaining to the adequacy of the performance of the Stream Mitigation Project

work undertaken pursuant to Section XIV (Additional Injunctive Relief) of this Consent 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-140-

Decree and the Remedial Action work undertaken pursuant to Section IX (Site 

Remediation – Herculaneum) of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall have the burden 

of demonstrating, based on the administrative record, that the position of the United 

States and/or the State is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law.

b. Other Disputes

224. The invocation of dispute resolution procedures under this Section shall not, by 

itself, extend, postpone, or affect in any way any obligation of Defendants under this Consent 

Decree, unless and until final resolution of the dispute so provides. Stipulated penalties with 

respect to the disputed matter shall continue to accrue from the first Day of noncompliance, but 

payment shall be stayed pending resolution of the dispute as provided in Paragraph 207. If 

Defendants do not prevail on the disputed issue, stipulated penalties may be assessed by 

Plaintiffs and, if assessed, shall be paid as provided in Section XVII (Stipulated Penalties). 

. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, in 

any other judicial proceeding brought pursuant to the formal dispute resolution 

procedures of this Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Consent Decree, Defendants

shall bear the burden of demonstrating that their position clearly complies with and 

furthers the objectives of this Consent Decree and the relevant statutes and that 

Defendants are entitled to relief under applicable law. The United States and the State 

reserve their right to argue that their position is reviewable only on the administrative 

record and must be upheld unless arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance 

with law. 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-141-

225. As part of the resolution of any dispute under this Section, in appropriate 

circumstances the disputing Parties may agree, or this Court may order, an extension or 

modification of the schedule for the completion of the work required under this Consent Decree.

XX. 

226. The United States, the State, and their representatives, including attorneys, 

contractors, and consultants, shall have the right of entry into any facility covered by this Consent 

Decree, at all reasonable times, upon presentation of credentials, to:

INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION

a. monitor the progress of activities required under this Consent Decree;

b. verify any data or information submitted to the United States or the State

in accordance with the terms of this Consent Decree;

c. obtain samples and, upon request, splits of any samples taken by 

Defendants or their representatives, contractors, or consultants; 

d. obtain documentary evidence, including photographs and similar data; and

e. assess Defendants’ compliance with this Consent Decree.

227. Upon request, Defendants shall provide EPA and the State or their authorized 

representatives splits of any samples taken by Defendants pursuant to this Consent Decree. Upon 

request, EPA and the State shall provide Defendants splits of any samples taken by EPA or the 

State pursuant to this Consent Decree.

228. Until five years after the termination of this Consent Decree, Defendants shall 

retain, and shall instruct its contractors and agents to preserve, all non-identical copies of all 

documents, records, or other information (including documents, records, or other information in 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-142-

electronic form) in its or its contractors’ or agents’ possession or control, or that come into its or 

its contractors’ or agents’ possession or control, and that relate in any manner to Defendants’

performance of its obligations under this Consent Decree. This information retention 

requirement shall apply regardless of any contrary corporate or institutional policies or 

procedures. At any time during this information retention period, upon request by the United 

States or the State, Defendants shall provide copies of any documents, records, or other 

information required to be maintained under this Paragraph.

229. At the conclusion of the information retention period provided in the preceding 

Paragraph, Defendants shall notify the United States and the State at least ninety (90) Days prior 

to the destruction of any documents, records, or other information subject to the requirements of 

the preceding Paragraph and, upon request by the United States or the State, Defendants shall 

deliver any such documents, records, or other information to EPA or the State. Defendants may 

assert that certain documents, records, or other information is privileged under the attorney-client 

privilege or any other privilege recognized by federal law. If Defendants assert such a privilege, 

it shall provide the following: (1) the title of the document, record, or information; (2) the date 

of the document, record, or information; (3) the name and title of each author of the document, 

record, or information; (4) the name and title of each addressee and recipient; (5) a description of 

the subject of the document, record, or information; and (6) the privilege asserted by Defendants. 

However, no documents, records, or other information created or generated pursuant to the 

requirements of this Consent Decree shall be withheld on grounds of privilege.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-143-

230. Defendants may also assert that information required to be provided under this 

Section is protected as CBI under 40 C.F.R. Part 2. As to any information that Defendants seek

to protect as CBI, Defendants shall follow the procedures set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 2. 

231. This Consent Decree in no way limits or affects any right of entry and inspection, 

or any right to obtain information, held by the United States or the State pursuant to applicable 

federal or state laws, regulations, or permits, nor does it limit or affect any duty or obligation of 

Defendants to maintain documents, records, or other information imposed by applicable federal 

or state laws, regulations, or permits.

XXI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

232. Definitions

a. “Applicable NSR/PSD Requirements” shall mean:

. For purposes of this Section XXI (Effect of Settlement/Reservation of 

Rights), the following definitions apply:

i. PSD requirements at Part C of Subchapter I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7475, and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21 and 

51.166, as amended from time to time;

ii. “Plan Requirements for Non-Attainment Areas” at Part D of 

Subchapter I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502-7503, and the regulations 

promulgated thereunder at 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.165 (a) and (b); 40 C.F.R. Part 51, 

Appendix S; and 40 C.F.R. § 52.24, as amended from time to time;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-144-

iii. Any Title V regulations that implement, adopt, or incorporate the 

specific regulatory requirements identified above, as amended from time to time; 

and

iv. Any applicable state or local laws or regulations that implement, 

adopt, or incorporate the specific federal regulatory requirements identified above 

regardless of whether such state or local laws or regulations have been formally 

approved by EPA as being a part of the applicable state implementation plan. 

b. “Applicable NSPS Subparts A and R Requirements” shall mean the 

standards, monitoring, testing, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, found at 

40 C.F.R. §§ 60.180 through 60.186 (Subpart R), relating to a particular pollutant and a 

particular affected facility, and the corollary general requirements found at 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 60.1 through 60.19 (Subpart A) that are applicable to any affected facility covered by 

Subpart R.

233. This Consent Decree resolves the civil claims of the United States and the State

for the violations alleged in the Complaint filed in this action through the Lodging Date. The 

claims so resolved include claims for:

a. Liability Resolution Regarding the Applicable NSR/PSD Requirements. 

With respect to emissions of SO2 and lead from the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Sinter 

Machine, Sinter Bed, Sintering Machine Discharge End, and Sulfuric Acid Plant units, 

entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs 

for alleged violations of the Applicable NSR/PSD Requirements resulting from 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-145-

construction or modification from the date of the pre-Lodging construction or 

modification up to the Lodging Date; 

b. Liability Resolution Regarding the Applicable NSPS Requirements

c.

. With 

respect to emissions of SO2 from the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Sinter Machine, Sinter 

Bed, and Sintering Machine Discharge End units, entry of this Consent Decree shall 

resolve all civil liability of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs for alleged violations of the 

Applicable NSPS Subparts A and R Requirements from the date that claims of the 

Plaintiffs resulting from pre-Lodging construction or modification (including 

reconstruction) accrued up to the Lodging Date; 

Liability Resolution Regarding Additional CAA Claims Alleged 

Concerning the Herculaneum Lead Smelter. Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve 

all civil liability of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs for the following alleged past violations: (i) 

alleged violations of Title V of the CAA based on an alleged past failure to comply with 

the 2007 Consent Judgment incorporated by reference into Doe Run’s Title V/Part 70 

Operating Permit No. OP2006-011B as Condition PW008; (ii) alleged violations of 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”) for Primary 

Lead Smelters, set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart TTT based on an alleged past 

failure to submit required reports; and (iii) violations of any corresponding state or local 

laws or regulations arising out of any acts or omissions by Doe Run which formed the 

basis for such alleged CAA violations;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-146-

d. Liability Resolution Regarding Additional Claims Alleged Concerning the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter. Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability 

of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs for the following alleged past violations: (i) alleged 

violations of reporting requirements under CERCLA Section 103, 42 U.S.C. § 9603, and 

EPCRA Section 304, 42 U.S.C. § 11004 based on an alleged release on or about March 

22, 2005; (ii) alleged violations of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., as alleged in 

inspection reports compiled by EPA following a RCRA inspection conducted at the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter in June 2005 and MDNR following a RCRA inspection 

conducted at Herculaneum in May 2009, based on alleged past unauthorized treatment 

storage, and/or disposal of certain hazardous waste at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter,

failure to comply with applicable hazardous waste generator requirements at the 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter, and failure to comply with applicable used oil management 

requirements at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter; (iii) alleged violations of RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.

e.

, based on violations alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA 

following a RCRA inspection conducted at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter in June 2005

and MDNR following a RCRA inspection conducted at Herculaneum in May 2009; and 

(iv) violations of any corresponding state or local laws or regulations arising out of any 

acts or omissions by Doe Run which formed the basis for such alleged CERCLA, 

EPCRA, and RCRA violations;

Liability Resolution Regarding Claims Alleged at the Buick Mine/Mill. 

Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-147-

for the following alleged past violations: (i) alleged violations of Title V of the CAA and 

the Missouri SIP based on an alleged past failure to submit accurate emissions inventory 

questionnaires for Buick Mine/Mill and to comply with the Buick Mine/Mill Part 70 

Operating Permit No. OP2003-011 requirements to install pressure drop monitors for 

emission units EU0020 and EU0030 and notify the State when the wet cyclones for 

emission unit EU0010 were removed in 2005; (ii) alleged violations of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

§ 6901 et seq., as alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA following a multi-media 

inspection conducted at Buick Mine/Mill in February 2006, based on alleged past 

unauthorized treatment storage, and/or disposal of certain hazardous waste at Buick 

Mine/Mill, unauthorized transportation of hazardous waste from Buick Mine/Mill to 

Buick Resource Recycling Facility, failure to comply with applicable hazardous waste 

generator requirements at Buick Mine/Mill, failure to complete hazardous waste 

determinations for all solid waste generated at Buick Mine/Mill, and failure to comply 

with applicable used oil management requirements at Buick Mine/Mill; (iii) alleged 

violations of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., the CWA 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the 

CAA 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., and EPCRA Section 313, 42 U.S.C. § 11023 based on 

violations alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA following a multi-media 

inspection conducted at Buick Mine/Mill in February 2006; and (iv) violations of any 

corresponding state or local laws or regulations arising out of any acts or omissions by 

Doe Run which formed the basis for such alleged CAA, CWA, EPCRA, and RCRA

violations;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-148-

f. Liability Resolution Regarding RCRA Claims Alleged at Buick Resource 

Recycling Facility. Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability of 

Defendants to the Plaintiffs for the following alleged past violations: (i) alleged violations 

of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., as alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA 

following a RCRA inspection conducted at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility in 

March 2009 and by MDNR following RCRA inspections conducted at the Buick 

Resource Recycling Facility in September, November, and December of 2009, based on a 

failure to properly label hazardous waste containers at the Buick Resource Recycling 

Facility, a failure to complete hazardous waste determinations for all solid waste 

generated at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility, and a failure to comply with Buick 

Resource Recycling Facility Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Part I Permit 

Number MOD059200089 Special Permit Conditions I.G.1, III.B.3, III.C.1, III.C.5, 

III.C.6.a, III.C.8.a, III.C.8.c, III.C.9, III.C.12, VI.A., VI.C.10, Schedule of Compliance 

Provision I.F, and the requirement to construct and operate the facility in accordance with 

section F.3.5 (Leak Detection Liquid Collection and Removal System) of the final permit 

application; (ii) alleged violations of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., based on 

violations alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA following a RCRA inspection 

conducted at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility in March 2009 and by MDNR 

following RCRA inspections conducted at the Buick Resource Recycling Facility in 

September, November, and December of 2009; and (iii) violations of any corresponding 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-149-

state or local laws or regulations arising out of any acts or omissions by Doe Run which 

formed the basis for such alleged RCRA violations; 

g. Liability Resolution Regarding CWA Claims Alleged at Several Facilities: 

Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability of Defendants to the Plaintiffs 

for the following alleged past violations: (i) alleged past violations of the CWA 33 U.S.C. 

§ 1251 et seq., at Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Buick Mine/Mill, Buick Resource Recycling 

Facility, Fletcher Mine/Mill, Glover Lead Smelter, Herculaneum Lead Smelter, 

Viburnum Mine/Mill, Viburnum #35 Mine/Mill, West Fork Unit Facility based on 

alleged discharges of pollutants in excess of allowable permit limits to navigable waters 

of the United States and alleged failures to conduct required effluent monitoring and/or 

submit complete accurate DMRs, as listed in the table of alleged violations attached as 

Appendix K (Clean Water Act Alleged Effluent Violations and Alleged WET 

Violations); (ii) alleged past violations of the CWA 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., based on 

violations alleged in inspection reports compiled by EPA following CWA inspections 

conducted at Brushy Creek Mine/Mill in August 2006, Buick Mine/Mill in February and

March 2005, Fletcher Mine/Mill in August 2006, Glover Lead Smelter and Doe 

Run/ASARCO Slag Piles in July 2008, Herculaneum Lead Smelter in March 2007, and 

West Fork Unit Facility in February 2005 and by MDNR following CWA inspections 

conducted at Glover Lead Smelter and West Fork Unit Facility in April 2010; and (iii) 

violations of any corresponding state or local laws or regulations arising out of any acts or 

omissions by Doe Run which formed the basis for such alleged CWA violations;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-150-

h. Liability Resolution Regarding Claims Alleged in Certain NOVs/FOVs

234.

. 

Entry of this Consent Decree shall resolve all civil liability of Doe Run to the Plaintiffs 

for the alleged past violations set forth in: (i) the March 9, 2010, Notice of Violation and 

Finding of Violation EPA issued to Doe Run alleging violations of the CAA and the 

Missouri SIP at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter and the Buick Mine/Mill; and (ii) the 

January 11, 2008 Notice of Violation MDNR issue to Doe Run alleged violations of the 

CAA NESHAPs at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter. 

Claims Based on Violations in EPA’s September 2008 Transportation AOC 

Inspection Report

235. The Plaintiffs covenant not to sue Defendants for civil claims that could be 

asserted for each violation of an effluent limit, monitoring or reporting requirement where there 

. Satisfaction of the requirements in Section IV (Civil Penalty) and Section XI 

(Transportation Order) of this Consent Decree shall resolve Doe Run’s civil and administrative 

liability to the United States arising out of the violations alleged in the Complaint as specified in 

EPA’s September 2008 Transportation AOC Inspection Report and attachments thereto. 

Notwithstanding the resolution of liability in Paragraphs 233 and 234, the release of liability by 

the United States to Doe Run for claims arising out of the alleged violations specified in EPA’s 

September 2008 Transportation AOC Inspection Report shall be rendered void if Doe Run 

materially fails to comply with the obligations and requirements of Section IV (Civil Penalty) 

and Section XI (Transportation Order) of this Consent Decree; provided, however, that the 

release in this Paragraph shall not be rendered void if Doe Run remedies such failure and pays 

any stipulated penalties due as a result of such material failure.
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-151-

is an alternative effluent limit, monitoring or reporting requirement established pursuant to 

Section VII, Subsection I (Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits) of 

this Consent Decree and Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance 

Deadlines) for the CWA Facilities, as may be modified pursuant to Paragraph 104 above, that 

occurs from the Lodging Date of this Consent Decree until the deadlines set forth pursuant to 

Section VII, Subsection I (Schedule for Compliance With Missouri State Operating Permits) and 

Appendix B (MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines), when 

Defendants are in compliance with that alternative effluent limit, monitoring, or reporting 

requirement. 

236. The Plaintiffs reserve, and this Consent Decree is without prejudice to, all rights 

against Defendants with respect to all matters not expressly included within Plaintiffs’ covenant 

not to sue. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, the United States and 

State reserve all rights against Defendants with respect to:

a. Claims based on a failure by Defendants to meet any requirement of this 

Consent Decree;

b. Criminal liability; and

c. Liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural 

resources, and for the costs of any natural resource damage assessments.

237. The resolution of the Plaintiffs’ civil claims as set forth in Paragraphs 232 through 

233 is expressly conditioned upon substantial completion and satisfactory performance of the 

requirements set forth in this Consent Decree, including the Appendices hereto. The United 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-152-

States reserves all legal and equitable remedies available to enforce the provisions of this 

Consent Decree independently and jointly with the State, except as expressly stated in Paragraphs 

232 through 235. With the exception of the obligations set forth in Section XI (Transportation 

Order) of this Consent Decree, the State reserves all legal and equitable remedies available to 

enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree independently and jointly with the United States, 

except as expressly stated in Paragraphs 232 through 235. This Consent Decree shall not be 

construed to limit the rights of the United States or the State to obtain penalties or injunctive 

relief under the CAA, CWA, RCRA, EPCRA, CERCLA, or implementing regulations, or under 

other federal or state laws, regulations, or permit conditions, except as expressly specified in 

Paragraphs 232 through 235.

238. The Plaintiffs further reserve all legal and equitable remedies to address any 

imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment 

arising at, or posed by the Doe Run Facilities, whether related to the violations addressed in this 

Consent Decree or otherwise. 

239. In any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding initiated by the United 

States or the State for injunctive relief, civil penalties, or other appropriate relief relating to the 

Doe Run Facilities subject to this Consent Decree, Defendants shall not assert, and may not 

maintain, any defense or claim based upon the principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, issue preclusion, claim preclusion, claim-splitting, or other defenses based upon any 

contention that the claims raised by the United States or the State in the subsequent proceeding 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-153-

were or should have been brought in the instant case, except with respect to claims that have 

been specifically resolved pursuant to Paragraphs 233 through 235 of this Section. 

240. This Consent Decree is not a permit, or a modification of any permit, under any 

federal, State, or local laws or regulations. Defendants are responsible for achieving and 

maintaining complete compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, 

and permits; and Defendants’ compliance with this Consent Decree shall be no defense to any 

action commenced pursuant to any such laws, regulations, or permits, except as set forth herein. 

The United States and the State do not, by their consent to the entry of this Consent Decree, 

warrant or aver in any manner that Defendants’ compliance with any aspect of this Consent 

Decree will result in compliance with provisions of the CAA, CWA, CAA, RCRA, CERCLA, or 

EPCRA, or with any other provisions of federal, State, or local laws, regulations, or permits.

241. Defendants hereby relinquish their rights under State and federal law to appeal 

and/or challenge any provision in a CWA Facility MSOP regarding the matters addressed by, and 

time periods of permit issuance covered in, Section VII (Clean Water Act Permits: Resolution of 

Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and Compliance Deadlines) above, but reserve any and 

all rights to request a modification of the provisions of any CWA Facility MSOP not addressed 

by Section VII (Clean Water Act Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit 

Appeals and Compliance Deadlines) above, and to request a modification of, or appeal and/or 

contest of, the provisions of any Future MSOP not addressed by Section VII (Clean Water Act 

Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and Compliance Deadlines) 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-154-

above, and to appeal and/or contest the provisions of any CWA Facility MSOP issued after the 

date of Termination of this Consent Decree pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination).

242. Defendants shall not object to MDNR’s jurisdiction to issue new MSOPs for the 

CWA Facilities. Defendants nevertheless reserve any and all rights to object to and/or contest 

the substantive requirements of any MSOP to be issued by MDNR following termination of this 

Consent Decree pursuant to Section XXVII (Termination) or to appeal or challenge any provision 

of a MSOP for a MSOP not addressed by the provisions of Section VII (Clean Water Act 

Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and Compliance Deadlines).

243. Except as provided in Paragraphs 239, 241, and 242, Defendants reserve any 

defenses or arguments that may be available to it in resisting or defending against any action or 

proceeding that may be brought by the United States or the State under any of the rights or 

authorities reserved by the Plaintiffs under this Consent Decree or otherwise.

244. This Consent Decree does not limit or affect the rights of Defendants or of the 

United States or the State against any third parties, not party to this Consent Decree, nor does it 

limit the rights of third parties, not party to this Consent Decree, against Defendants, except as 

otherwise provided by law.

245. This Consent Decree shall not be construed to create rights in, or grant any cause 

of action to, any third party not party to this Consent Decree.

XXII. 

246. The Parties shall bear their own costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees, 

except that the United States and the State shall be entitled to collect the costs (including 

COSTS
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-155-

attorneys’ fees) incurred in any action necessary to collect any portion of the civil penalty or any 

stipulated penalties due but not paid by Defendants.

XXIII. 

247. Unless otherwise specified herein, whenever notifications, submissions, or 

communications, hereafter referred to generally as “notices”, are required by this Consent 

Decree, they shall be made in writing and addressed as follows:

NOTICES

To the United States (in addition to the EPA addresses below):

Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section

Environment and Natural Resources Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

Re: DOJ No. 90-5-2-1-0370/1

To EPA

Chief, Waste Enforcement and Materials Management Branch

:

Air and Waste Management Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

Facsimile: 913-551-7201

and

Office of Regional Counsel

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

Facsimile: 913-551-7925

With electronic copy to: Sanders.Steven@epa.gov and Toensing.Donald@epa.gov
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-156-

To the State or MDNR

Director, Division of Environmental Quality

:

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

1101 Riverside Drive

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

Facsimile: (573) 751-9277

With electronic copy to: leanne.tippett.mosby@dnr.mo.gov and betsy.crawford@dnr.mo.gov

To Defendants

Stacy Stotts

:

Partner

Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900

Kansas City, MO 64106-2150

Louis J. Marucheau

The Doe Run Company

Vice President Law and Assistant Secretary

1801 Park 270 Drive, Suite 300

St. Louis, Missouri 63146

Aaron W. Miller

The Doe Run Company

Environmental Management Coordinator

881 Main St.

Herculaneum, MO 63048

With electronic copy to: sstotts@stinson.com, lmarucheau@doerun.com, and 

amiller@doerun.com
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-157-

248. Any Party may, by written notice to the other Parties, change its designated notice 

recipient or notice address provided above.

249. Unless otherwise provided in this Consent Decree or by mutual agreement of the 

Parties in writing, all notices submitted pursuant to this Section shall be sent by certified 

registered mail and deemed submitted upon mailing.

XXIV. 

250. The Effective Date of this Consent Decree shall be the date upon which this 

Consent Decree is entered by the Court or a motion to enter the Consent Decree is granted, 

whichever occurs first, as recorded on the Court’s docket; provided, however, that Defendants

hereby agree that they shall be bound to perform duties scheduled to occur prior to the Effective 

Date. In the event the United States withdraws or withholds consent to this Consent Decree 

before entry, or the Court declines to enter the Consent Decree, then the preceding requirement to 

perform duties scheduled to occur before the Effective Date shall terminate.

EFFECTIVE DATE

XXV. 

251. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this case until termination of this Consent 

Decree, for the purpose of resolving disputes arising under this Decree or entering orders 

modifying this Decree, pursuant to Sections XIX (Dispute Resolution) and XXVI (Modification), 

or effectuating or enforcing compliance with the terms of this Decree.

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-158-

XXVI. 

252. The terms of this Consent Decree, including any attached appendices, may be 

modified only by a subsequent written agreement signed by all of the Parties. Where the 

modification constitutes a material change to this Decree, it shall be effective only upon approval 

by the Court. For purposes of this Consent Decree, non-material modifications shall include, but 

are not limited to the frequency of reporting obligations and modifications to schedules that do 

not extend final dates for compliance with emissions limitations or effluent limitations, provided 

that such changes are agreed upon in writing between EPA and MDNR. A Party’s refusal to 

agree to a modification of this Consent Decree shall not be subject to dispute resolution or 

judicial review.

MODIFICATION

253. Application for construction grants, State Revolving Loan Funds, or any other 

grants or loans, or other delays caused by inadequate facility planning or plans and specifications 

on the part of Defendants shall not be cause for extension of any required compliance date in this 

Consent Decree.

XXVII. 

254.

TERMINATION

Partial Termination

a.

. 

Partial Termination for Shorter Term Obligations. After Defendants have 

completed the requirements of Section V (Compliance Requirements: Clean Air Act), 

Section VI (Compliance Requirements: Clean Water Act), Section VII (Clean Water Act 

Permits: Resolution of Missouri State Operating Permit Appeals and Compliance 

Deadlines), Section VIII (Compliance Requirements: RCRA), the Enclosure of Lead 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-159-

Concentrate Storage and Handling provisions in Section XIV (Additional Injunctive 

Relief), Section XV (Environmental Mitigation Projects), and the applicable provisions 

of Section XIII (Compliance Requirements: Permits); have thereafter maintained 

compliance with each of those requirements for a period of at least one year; and have 

paid the civil penalty and any accrued stipulated penalties as required by this Consent 

Decree, Defendants may serve upon the Plaintiffs a Request for Partial Termination, 

stating that Defendants have satisfied those requirements, together with all necessary 

supporting documentation. If the United States, after consultation with the State, agrees 

that the Decree may be partially terminated, the Parties shall submit, for the Court’s 

approval, a joint stipulation terminating those provisions of the Decree. 

b. Partial Termination for Longer Term Obligations. After Defendants have 

completed the requirements of Section IX (Site Remediation – Herculaneum), the 

Herculaneum Financial Assurances provisions in Section X (Financial Assurance), and

the Stream Mitigation provisions in Section XIV (Additional Injunctive Relief); have 

thereafter maintained compliance with each of those requirements for a period of at least 

one year; have paid any accrued stipulated penalties as required by this Consent Decree; 

and have satisfied all of the requirements for partial termination pursuant to Paragraph 

254.a, Defendants may serve upon the Plaintiffs a Request for Partial Termination, stating 

that Defendants have satisfied those requirements, together with all necessary supporting 

documentation. If the United States, after consultation with the State, agrees that the 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-160-

Decree may be partially terminated, the Parties shall submit, for the Court’s approval, a 

joint stipulation terminating those provisions of the Decree. 

255. Complete Termination

256. If the United States, after consultation with the State, does not agree that the 

Decree may be terminated as a whole or in part, Defendants may invoke Dispute Resolution 

under Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of this Decree. However, Defendants shall not seek 

Dispute Resolution of any dispute regarding termination, under Paragraph 218 of Section XIX 

(Dispute Resolution), until one hundred twenty (120) Days after service of its Request for 

Termination.

. After Defendants have completed the requirements of 

Sections V through XI of this Decree, have complied with all other requirements of this Consent 

Decree, including those relating to the projects required by Sections XIV (Additional Injunctive 

Relief) and XV (Environmental Mitigation Projects) of this Consent Decree, and have paid the 

civil penalty and any accrued stipulated penalties as required by this Consent Decree, Defendants

may serve upon the Plaintiffs a Request for Complete Termination, stating that Defendants have

satisfied those requirements, together with all necessary supporting documentation. If the United 

States, after consultation with the State, agrees that the Decree may be terminated in whole, the 

Parties shall submit, for the Court=s approval, a joint stipulation terminating the Decree.

XXVIII. 

257. This Consent Decree shall be lodged with the Court for a period of not less than 

thirty (30) Days for public notice and comment in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 50.7. The United 

States reserves the right to withdraw or withhold its consent if the comments regarding the 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-161-

Consent Decree disclose facts or considerations indicating that the Consent Decree is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. This Consent Decree is also subject to the opportunity for a 

public meeting in the affected area requirement in accordance with RCRA Section 7003(d), 

42 U.S.C. § 6973(d). Defendants consent to entry of this Consent Decree without further notice 

and agree not to withdraw from or oppose entry of this Consent Decree by the Court or to 

challenge any provision of the Decree, unless the United States has notified Defendants in 

writing that it no longer supports entry of the Decree.

XXIX. 

258. Each undersigned representative of Defendants, the State of Missouri, and the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the 

Department of Justice certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and 

conditions of this Consent Decree and to execute and legally bind the Party he or she represents 

to this document.

SIGNATORIES/SERVICE

259. This Consent Decree may be signed in counterparts, and its validity shall not be 

challenged on that basis. Defendants agree to accept service of process by mail with respect to 

all matters arising under or relating to this Consent Decree and to waive the formal service 

requirements set forth in Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any 

applicable Local Rules of this Court including, but not limited to, service of a summons.

XXX. 

260. This Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and 

understanding among the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in the Decree and 

INTEGRATION
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-162-

supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning the 

settlement embodied herein. Other than deliverables that are subsequently submitted and 

approved pursuant to this Decree, no other document, nor any representation, inducement, 

agreement, understanding, or promise, constitutes any part of this Decree or the settlement it 

represents, nor shall it be used in construing the terms of this Decree.

XXXI. 

261. Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent 

Decree shall constitute a final judgment of the Court as to the United States, the State, and 

Defendants. 

FINAL JUDGMENT

XXXII. APPENDICES

262. The following appendices are attached to and part of this Consent Decree:

“Appendix A” is the spreadsheet for tracking compliance with interim milestones;

“Appendix B” are the MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance 

Deadlines;

“Appendix C” is the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (“SWPPP”) Guidance;

“Appendix D” are the tables listing the Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean 

Water Act Facility MSOPs;

“Appendix E” is the Financial Assurance for Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility;

“Appendix F” is the Trust Agreement for the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility;

“Appendix G” is the Financial Assurance for the Mine/Mill Facilities;

“Appendix H” is the Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling;
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-163-

“Appendix I” is the Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation; and

“Appendix J” is the Environmental Mitigation Projects;

“Appendix K” are the lists of Clean Water Act Alleged Effluent Violations and Alleged 

WET Violations; and

“Appendix L” is the Trust Agreement for Mine/Mill Facilities.

Dated and entered this day of ____________, 2010. 

_______________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Eastern District of Missouri 
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-164-

FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

__________________________

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611 Benjamin Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

 _______________________________

CYNTHIA M. FERGUSON

Trial Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611 Benjamin Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

Telephone: (202) 616-6560

Fax: (202) 514-4180 

Email: cynthia.ferguson@usdoj.gov

LOCAL COUNSEL:

RICHARD G. CALLAHAN

United States Attorney

Eastern District of Missouri

SUZANNE J. MOORE 

Assistant United States Attorney

Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse

111 South 10th Street, 20th Floor

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Telephone: (314) 539-2200
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-165-

FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:

__________________________

CYNTHIA GILES

Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

United States Environmental Protection Agency

__________________________

ADAM M. KUSHNER

Director, Office of Civil Enforcement

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

United States Environmental Protection Agency
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-166-

FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 7:

__________________________

KARL BROOKS

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

__________________________

DAVID COZAD

Regional Counsel 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

STEVEN L. SANDERS

DANA SKELLEY

PATRICIA GILLISPIE MILLER 

SARA HERTZ WU

Office of Regional Counsel

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-167-

FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF MISSOURI:

CHRIS KOSTER

Attorney General 

_________________________________

KARA VALENTINE

Assistant Attorney General

Missouri Bar No. 40926

221 West High Street

P.O. Box 899 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

phone: (573) 751-3640

fax: (573) 751-8796

Email: kara.valentine@ago.mo.gov
DRRC multi-media Consent Decree

-168-

FOR THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES:

_________________________________

KIP STETZLER

Acting Director

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102 



 8/10/2010 Page 1 of 12

Appendix B

MSOP Alternative Effluent Limitations and Compliance Deadlines 

Except as specifically stated below, compliance for purposes of stipulated penalties will be determined 

based on the provisions of the effective CWA Facility Missouri State Operating Permit (MSOP).

±Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing Provisions

For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following “WET testing” provisions shall apply where noted:

1) Defendants shall conduct chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests at each CWA Facility on a semiannual basis in April or 

May and in October or November each year using grab or twenty-four (24) hour composite samples, as set forth in the 

respective tables, below, and the testing methodology set forth in the effective CWA Facility MSOP. 

2) During the period specified: 

a) no stipulated penalties will accrue for failure of a chronic WET test limitation; 

b) accelerated chronic WET testing will not be triggered by chronic WET failures;

c) neither a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) nor a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) will be required, although 

Defendants’ implementation of the Underground Water Management Plan (UWMP) and/or Surface Water 

Management Plan (SWMP) at each CWA Facility will address all appropriate investigative and analytical components 

of a TIE and TRE and the UWMP and/or SWMP reports will include information consistent with a TIE and TRE 

report; and

d) Defendants may suspend any TIE and/or TRE in progress as of the Lodging Date of the Consent Decree until 

completion of the UWMP and/or SWMP, as applicable.

No Discharge Provisions

For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following conditions shall apply to all “no discharge” provisions set forth below:

1) Defendants shall monitor flow from each “no discharge” outfall by using an electronic monitoring and data recording device or 

through daily observations of a staff gage measuring the distance below the overflow. If a staff gage is used, Defendants shall 

keep a daily written log for each outfall, which shall at a minimum include the date, time, gage reading and initials of the 

person performing the observation.

2) Should there be a discharge at a “no discharge” outfall, Defendants shall, for each day during which a discharge occurs, keep a 

record of the approximate time at which discharge began and ended and shall provide an estimate of the flow rate and the total 

flow/volume of the discharge based upon practicable best practices. Such information shall be included in the Discharge 

Monitoring Report (DMR) for the respective CWA Facility.

3) Practicable best practices for estimating the flow rate and total flow/volume of a discharge, pursuant to paragraph 2 above, 

shall include measures no less accurate than utilization of the following infrastructure and procedures for each outfall: 
 8/10/2010 Page 2 of 12

a) Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility 004: Flow shall be measured twice daily at the V-notch weir at Sweetwater 004 when 

flowing. Depth of flow in the weir shall be converted to volume using equations found in the US Bureau of 

Reclamation Water Measurement Manual, (1997).

b) Glover Facility 006: Flow shall be measured twice daily at the low berm area for Glover 006 when flowing. Depth, 

width and velocity of flow in the weir shall be converted to volume using equations found in the US Bureau of 

Reclamation Water Measurement Manual, (1997).

c) West Fork Unit Facility 003: Flow shall be measured twice daily from either a V-notch weir or Parshall flume at the 

West Fork 003 outfall. The flume or weir shall be installed within ninety (90) days from the Date of Lodging.

d) West Fork Unit Facility 004: Flow shall be measured twice daily in the spillway using either the float method 

described in the US Bureau of Reclamation Water Measurement Manual, (1997) if flow exceeds safe wading depths 

(>1.5') or if depth of flow is sufficient (>4.0") a standard field flow meter shall be used to convert depth, width and 

velocity of flow to volume. The float method shall also be used for flow depths less than 4.0".

4) Defendants shall not utilize pumps or any other method or equipment to cause a discharge or to increase the flow rate during a 

period of discharge.
 8/10/2010 Page 3 of 12

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-001848

Issued: 2/26/2010 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 2/25/2015

Appeal Filed: 3/26/2010; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 001, 002,

003

μg/L 417 256 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 001 μg/L 1,500 750 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Cadmium, Total Recoverable 002, 003 μg/L 100 50 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Copper, Total Recoverable 001, 002, 

003

μg/L 88 53 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 001 grab ± Three (3) years from the latter of 

the final submission of the SiteSpecific UWMP or approval of the 

Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the 

Effective Date of the Consent 

Decree.

SWPPP Completed within four (4) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 4 of 12

Buick Mine/Mill Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0002003

Issued: 9/25/2009 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 9/24/2014

Appeal Filed: 10/23/2009; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 002 μg/L 562 263 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 002 μg/L 860 430 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 002 24-hour 

composite

± Three (3) years from the latter of 

the final submission of the SiteSpecific UWMP or approval of the 

Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the 

Effective Date of the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within two (2) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 5 of 12

Buick Resource Recycling Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0000337

Issued: 8/23/2002 Modified: 2/23/2007 Expires: 8/22/2007

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

2.58

190

1.05

190

once/month 24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Antimony, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day 6.900 4.600 once/month

24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Total Suspended Solids 001 lbs/day 283 162 once/month

24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Ammonia as N (summer/winter) 001 mg/L 4.0 4.0 once/quarter

****

grab June 1, 2012

Arsenic, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day 2.28 0.92 once/month 24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Cadmium Total Recoverable 001 μg/L 100 50 once/month 24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Copper, Total Recoverable 001 μg/L 88 44 once/month 24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Zinc, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

1.67

2,120

0.60

1,060

once/month 24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

Silver. Total Recoverable 001 μg/L 20 9.8 once/quarter

 

24-hour 

composite

June 1, 2012

WET testing - chronic 001 24-hour 

composite

± June 1, 2012

SWPPP Completed within six (6) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.

** **Sample once per quarter in the months of February, May, August and November.
 8/10/2010 Page 6 of 12

Fletcher Mine/Mill Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0001856

Issued: 11/13/2009 Modified: 7/28/2010 Expires: 11/12/2014

Appeal Filed: 12/11/2009; First Amended Appeal Filed: 4/23/2010; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 001, 002, 

003

μg/L 398 192 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Cadmium, Total Recoverable 001, 002, 

003

μg/L 54 26 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 001, 002, 

003

μg/L 379 188 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Copper, Total Recoverable 001, 002, 

003

μg/L 45 22 once/year grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 001 grab ± Three (3) years from the latter of 

the final submission of the SiteSpecific UWMP or approval of the 

Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the 

Effective Date of the Consent 

Decree.

SWPPP Completed within four (4) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 7 of 12

Glover Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0001121

Issued: 3/23/2007 Expires: 3/22/2012

Appeal Filed: 4/20/2007; First Amended Appeal Filed: 4/14/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily Maximum Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 003 lbs/day

μg/L

μg/L

0.673

>8 cfs = 80

≤8 cfs = 27

0.264

>8 cfs = 80

≤8 cfs = 27

once/month

once/month*

grab Two (2) years from Lodging Date.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 003 lbs/day

μg/L

μg/L

2.452

>8 cfs = 2,050

≤8 cfs = 340

0.745

>8 cfs = 1,400

≤8 cfs = 340

once/month

once/month*

grab Two (2) years from Lodging Date.

Cadmium, Total Recoverable 003 lbs/day

μg/L

μg/L

0.481

>8 cfs = 46

≤8 cfs = 13

0.192

>8 cfs = 46

≤8 cfs = 13

once/month

once/month*

grab Two (2) years from Lodging Date.

Thallium, Total Recoverable 003 μg/L

μg/L

>8 cfs = 176

≤8 cfs = 11

>8 cfs = 176

≤8 cfs = 11

once/month* grab Two (2) years from Lodging Date.

Total Suspended Solids 003 mg/L monitoring once/month grab Two (2) years from Lodging Date.

All Pollutant Parameters 006 no discharge no discharge once/discharge/

day

grab The facility shall be operated in a 

manner to prevent all discharges for 

the duration of the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within two (2) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.

*For each effluent monitoring event for flow-based limits, Defendants must measure stream flow within sixty (60) minutes of 

collecting the effluent sample. Defendants shall submit with the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) documentation such as 

signed sample collection logs, to demonstrate the time, date and location of sample collection and stream measurement and the person 

or persons collecting the samples/measurement.
 8/10/2010 Page 8 of 12

Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0000281

Issued: 2/28/2003 Expires: 2/27/2008

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Chemical Oxygen Demand 001 mg/L Monitoring 

Only

Monitoring 

Only

one/week grab Until issuance of the Herculaneum 

MSOP.

Lead, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

2.72

1,500

1.09

1,500

once/week grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

9.9

4,900

3.26

4,900

once/week grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Total Suspended Solids 001 lbs/day 334 185 once/week grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Arsenic, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day 12.86 5.216 once/week grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Cadmium, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

1.964

720

0.785

720

once/week grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Copper, Total Recoverable 001 lbs/day

μg/L

11.839

580

4.750

580

once/week grab

grab

Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

Silver, Total Recoverable 001 μg/L 130 130 once/quarter grab Three (3) years from the date of approval 

of the Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the Effective 

Date of the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 001 24-hour 

composite

± Three (3) years from the date of 

approval of the Site-Specific SWMP, but 

not to exceed five (5) years from the 

Effective Date of the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within six (6) Months of the 

Lodging Date and implemented thirty 

(30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 9 of 12

Sweetwater Mine/Mill Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0001881

Issued: 7/10/2009 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 7/9/2014

Appeal Filed: 8/07/2009; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily Maximum Monthly Average Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 002 μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

≥20 cfs = 200

≥10 to <20 cfs = 160

≥5 to <10 cfs = 72

0.0 to <5 cfs = 54

≥20 cfs = 200

≥10 to <20 cfs = 160

≥5 to <10 cfs = 72

0.0 to <5 cfs = 54

once/month* grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 002 μg/L 440 440 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

All Pollutant Parameters 004 no discharge no discharge once/discharg

e/day

grab The facility shall be operated in a 

manner to prevent all discharges until 

such time as a MSOP or MSOP 

modification is issued removing 

Outfall 004.

WET testing - chronic 002 24-hour 

composite

± Three (3) years from the latter of 

the final submission of the SiteSpecific UWMP or approval of the 

Site-Specific SWMP, but not to 

exceed five (5) years from the 

Effective Date of the Consent 

Decree.

SWPPP Completed within two (2) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.

*For each effluent monitoring event for flow-based limits, Defendants must measure stream flow within sixty (60) minutes of 

collecting the effluent sample. Defendants shall submit with the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) documentation such as 

signed sample collection logs, to demonstrate the time, date and location of sample collection and stream measurement and the person 

or persons collecting the samples/measurement.
 8/10/2010 Page 10 of 12

Viburnum Mine/Mill Facility (Mine # 28 & 29) – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0000086

Issued: 12/4/2009 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 12/3/2014

Appeal Filed: 1/4/2010; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Zinc, Total Recoverable 002, 003, 

004, 005, 

006

μg/L 1,500 750 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

Lead, Total Recoverable 004 μg/L 600 300 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 002 & 004 grab ± Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within four (4) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 11 of 12

Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0100226

Issued: 3/19/2010 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 3/18/2015

Appeal Filed: 4/16/2010; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily 

Maximum

Monthly 

Average

Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 001, 003 μg/L 432 246 once/month grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 001 & 003 grab ± Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within six (6) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.
 8/10/2010 Page 12 of 12

West Fork Unit Facility – Missouri State Operating Permit No. MO-0100218

Issued: 3/12/2010 Modified: 7/13/2010 Expires: 3/11/2015

Appeal Filed: 4/9/2010; Supplement to Appeal Filed: 5/19/2010

Effluent Parameter Outfall 

Number(s)

Units Daily Maximum Monthly Average Monitoring 

Frequency

Sample 

Type

Permit Compliance Deadline

Lead, Total Recoverable 001 μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

≥40 cfs = 124

≥30 to <40 cfs = 97

≥20 to <30 cfs = 69

<20 cfs = 53

≥40 cfs = 124

≥30 to <40 cfs = 97

≥20 to <30 cfs = 69

<20 cfs = 53

once/month* grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed five 

(5) years from the Effective Date of 

the Consent Decree.

Zinc, Total Recoverable 001 μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

μg/L

≥40 cfs = 640

≥30 to <40 cfs = 560

≥20 to <30 cfs = 490

<20 cfs = 442

≥40 cfs = 640

≥30 to <40 cfs = 560

≥20 to <30 cfs = 490

<20 cfs = 442

once/month* grab Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

All Pollutant Parameters 003 no discharge no discharge once/discharge/

day

grab The facility shall be operated in a 

manner to prevent all discharges for 

the duration of the Consent Decree.

All Pollutant Parameters 004 no discharge no discharge once/discharge/

day

grab The facility shall be operated in a 

manner to prevent all discharges for 

the duration of the Consent Decree.

WET testing - chronic 001 grab ± Three (3) years from the latter of the 

final submission of the Site-Specific 

UWMP or approval of the SiteSpecific SWMP, but not to exceed 

five (5) years from the Effective Date 

of the Consent Decree.

SWPPP Completed within four (4) Months of 

the Lodging Date and implemented 

thirty (30) Days thereafter.

*For each effluent monitoring event for flow-based limits, Defendants must measure stream flow within sixty (60) minutes of 

collecting the effluent sample. Defendants shall submit with the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) documentation such as 

signed sample collection logs, to demonstrate the time, date and location of sample collection and stream measurement and the person 

or persons collecting the samples/measurement.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR STORM WATER PLAN PREPARATION 

All SWPPPs shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Applicable Permit and Local 

Law and: 

(i) utilize BMPs appropriate for the specific Site conditions at all stages of construction; 

(ii) select BMPs designed to be effective in eliminating or significantly minimizing 

pollutants in storm water discharges from the Site; 

(iii) utilize an adequate combination of erosion and sediment control BMPs; 

(iv) connect the use of BMPs to specific construction activities and to a time schedule 

triggered by those activities; 

(v) provide separate plan sheets for clearing and mass grading, utility and road 

installation, and building activities; 

(vi) provide narrative descriptions of the inspection and repair procedures to ensure BMPs 

are kept in effective operating condition; 

(vii) provide narrative descriptions of BMPs to explain the basis for BMP selection; and 

(viii) include methods for preventing non-storm water discharges. 

The guidelines below are intended to aid personnel in contracting for consulting services for 

the preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). 

Abbreviations 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

SWPPP Storm Water Plan 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOT Notice of Termination 

MS4 A municipal separate storm water collection system 

BMP Best Management Practice 

Performance Guidelines 

There are three performance guidelines to which SWPPPs should conform. They should: 

1. Meet regulatory requirements. In states where the Federal EPA has authorized 

the state to implement the requirements of the federal NPDES program, 

"regulatory requirements" are defined as the latest edition of the state’s general 

permit for discharges from large and small construction sites or an individual 

permit. In states where the Federal EPA has retained authority over the NPDES 

program or otherwise continues to issue NPDES permits (e.g. on tribal lands), 
2

"regulatory requirements" are defined as the latest edition of the "National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharge 

from Large and Small Construction Activities" or an individual permit. 

2. Be easy to follow and implement. It is important that the SWPPP be written in 

such a manner that it is easy for the Defendants’ operational personnel to 

understand and implement. The SWPPP should not be prepared in a vacuum by 

the consultant, but should reflect discussions and agreements that have been made 

between the consultants and the Defendants’ operational personnel. These 

discussions and agreements should include such things as construction sequencing 

and types of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that each Defendant feels are the 

most cost effective and easiest to maintain. 

3. Be efficient. There maybe several ways in which the reduction of pollutants from 

storm water discharges can be achieved in order to comply with Storm Water 

Requirements. It is the goal of the Defendants to achieve compliance in the most 

efficient manner possible. When analyzing efficiency, initial costs should be 

combined with long-term costs (including operation and maintenance costs and 

potential replacement costs) to determine the appropriate solution for each 

situation. 

Contents of the SWPPP (Checklist) 

I. A Copy of the NOI and Other Storm Water Related Permits that are required for 

the Site. 

Copies of any federal, state or local storm water related permits should be included with 

the SWPPP. Questions that need to be addressed and answered in this section include: 

a) What storm water permits do I need? 

b) Do my subcontractors need separate permits or can they be covered under my 

permit? 

II. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Certification. The SWPPP must 

be certified as per the Applicable Permit. Check the Applicable Permit to see which 

of the following signatures are required. 

a) Signed by the owner of the Site. 

b) Signed by the operator of the Site. 

c) Signed by the Registered Professional Engineer who is responsible for the 

preparation of the SWPPP. 

An example of a Title Block for the certification is as shown below: 

ABC XYZ 123 HOMES, 

A Delaware corporation, 
3

By: _____________________ 

Name: ____________________ 

Title: ____________________ 

III. Contact Information 

The SWPPP shall include the names, phone numbers and a description of each person’s 

duties for the following individuals. If there is more than one Site Storm Water 

Compliance Manager for a Site, each Site Storm Water Compliance Manager’s 

responsibilities shall be specified in the SWPPP: 

a) Site Storm Water Compliance Manager 

b) Company Storm Water Compliance Manager 

c) Field Manager for the Site (if different) 

IV. Notice and Recordkeeping 

a) Posting NOI. 

b) Location of SWPPP and Inspection Reports. 

c) Retention of Records. 

V. Responsibilities of Owners and Operators 

If there is more than one permittee at the Site, the SWPPP shall include a list of activities 

that must be completed by each permittee and who has been assigned to implement each 

activity. 

VI. Definition of Permit Area 

Check the Applicable Permit to see which of the following are required: 

a) Site name, address, county or governmental subdivision and latitude and 

longitude of the Site. 

b) Name of the water of the United States or MS4 into which the project discharges. 

c) Name of the agency or agencies that have jurisdictional authority for storm water 

pollution prevention. 

d) The function of the project (i.e., single family detached residential, townhouse, 

condo development). 

e) A description of any other activities such as dedicated crusher plants, asphalt 

plants, equipment staging areas, or material storage areas that may operate on the 

project site. 

f) Estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or 

other construction activities, including off-site borrow pits and fill areas. 

g) A general location map (e.g., USGS quadrangle map, a portion of a city or county 

map or other map with enough detail to show the location of the construction site 

and Jurisdictional Waters within one mile of the site). 
4

VII. Site Plan and BMP Map 

Check the Applicable Permit to see which of the following are required: 

a) Direction of storm water flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major 

grading activities. 

b) Areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. 

c) Locations of major structural and non-structural BMPs. 

d) Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur. 

e) Locations of off-site material, waste, borrow or equipment storage areas. 

f) Locations of all Jurisdictional Waters. 

g) Locations where storm water discharges to Jurisdictional Waters. 

h) Areas where final stabilization has been accomplished and no further 

construction-phase permit requirements apply. 

VIII. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat Protection, as required by 

the Applicable Permit 

IX. Historic Properties Protection, as required by the Applicable Permit 

X. Statement and Description of Storm Water Discharge Management Controls to 

Reduce Pollutants 

a) A description of all pollutant control measures (i.e. BMPs) that will be 

implemented as part of the construction activity to control pollutants in storm 

water discharges. Each major activity in the project construction process should 

be clearly defined and the BMPs related to that activity should be listed. It is 

recommended that in addition to appearing on a comprehensive map, these also 

appear on "tear out" sheets that can be posted in the construction office. 

b) A description of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site, 

including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented. 

c) Dates when major grading activities occur. 

d) Dates when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on a portion 

of the site. 

e) Dates when stabilization measures are initiated. 

f) A description of structural practices to divert flows from exposed soils, 

retain/detain flows or otherwise limit runoff and/or the discharge of pollutants 

from exposed areas of the site. 

g) A description of all post-construction storm water management measures that will 

be installed during the construction process to control pollutants in storm water 

discharges after construction operations have been completed. 

h) A description of the measures to prevent the discharge of solid materials, 

including building materials, to the Jurisdictional Waters. 

i) A description of the measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, off-site 

vehicle tracking of sediments onto paved surfaces and the generation of dust. 

j) A description of controls and measures that will be implemented to control the 

storm water discharges from on-site crusher and asphalt plants. 
5

XI. Description of Non-Storm Water Discharge Management Controls to Reduce 

Pollutants. Refer to the Applicable Permit for which non-storm water discharges 

are allowable and which are prohibited. The list below is for discussion purposes 

only. 

a) Discharges from fire fighting activities. 

b) Fire hydrant flushing. 

c) Waters used to wash vehicles where detergents are not used. 

d) Water used to control dust. 

e) Water used to flush waterlines and wash down buildings. 

f) Air conditioning condensate. 

g) Uncontaminated spring water, groundwater and discharges from foundation 

drains. 

h) Uncontaminated excavation dewatering. 

i) Landscape irrigation. 

XII. Procedures for Dealing with Spills, and Releases in Excess of Mandated Reportable 

Quantities, as required by the Applicable Permit. 

a) A list of emergency contact numbers. 

b) A table listing types of materials and the reportable quantity of each. 

c) Procedures for dealing with and reporting spills and releases. 

XIII. Maintenance of Storm Water Discharge Management Controls 

A description of the maintenance requirements for the BMPs laid out in the SWPPP. 

XIV. Inspections 

a) Frequency of inspection. 

b) Standardized forms for inspection reports. 

XV. Procedures for Updating and Modifying the SWPPP 

a) A statement designating when the SWPPP must be amended. 

b) A statement of the procedure that should be followed to update and modify the 

SWPPP. 

XVI. Notice of Termination 

a) When a NOT is filed. 

b) Procedure for filing a NOT. 
Industrial Stormwater 

Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and 

Dressing) Facilities 

U.S. EPA Office of Water 

EPA-833-F-06-022 

December 2006 

What is the NPDES stormwater permitting program for industrial 

activity? 

Activities, such as material handling and storage, equipment maintenance and cleaning, industrial 

processing or other operations that occur at industrial facilities are often exposed to stormwater. The 

runoff from these areas may discharge pollutants directly into nearby waterbodies or indirectly via 

storm sewer systems, thereby degrading water quality. 

In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed permitting regulations under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control stormwater discharges associated 

with eleven categories of industrial activity. As a result, NPDES permitting authorities, which may be 

either EPA or a state environmental agency, issue stormwater permits to control runoff from these 

industrial facilities. 

What types of industrial facilities are required to obtain permit 

coverage? 

This fact sheet discusses stormwater discharges from metal mining (ore mining and dressing) facilities 

as defined by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Major Group 10. Metal mining is defined 

here as all ore mining and/or dressing and beneficiating operations performed at mills operated 

in conjunction with the mines served or at mills (i.e., custom mills) operated separately. Facilities 

and products in this group fall under the following categories, all of which require coverage under 

an industrial stormwater permit if discharges of stormwater have come into contact with any 

overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, byproduct or waste products 

located on the site of such operations: 

 Iron Ores (SIC 1011) 

 Copper Ores (SIC 1021) 

 Lead and Zinc Ores (SIC 1031) 

 Gold Ores (SIC 1041) 

 Silver Ores (SIC 1044) 

 Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium (SIC 1061) 

 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ores (SIC 1094) 

 Miscellaneous Metal Ores, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 1099) 

Permit coverage is required of all phases of mining operations, whether active or inactive, as long 

as there is exposure to significant materials. This includes land disturbance activities such as the 

expansion of current extraction sites, active and inactive mining stages, and reclamation activities 

at those establishments primarily engaged in mining, developing mines, or exploring for metallic 

minerals (ores). 

	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

A stormwater permit generally is not appropriate for the following types of mines: 

	 Sites or parts of sites which are determined to cause or contribute to water quality standards 

violations 

	 Active facilities and those under reclamation, which have discharges subject to effluent 

limitation guidelines under NPDES, including other non-stormwater discharges such as from 

floor drains in maintenance buildings and preparation plant areas 

	 Pollutant seeps or underground drainage from inactive mines and refuse disposal areas that do 

not result from precipitation events. 

For these types of sites, contact the EPA or state NPDES permitting authority to determine if and what 

type of discharge permit may be necessary. 

What does an industrial stormwater permit require? 

Common requirements for coverage under an industrial stormwater permit include development of a 

written stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), implementation of control measures, and submittal of a request for permit coverage, usually referred to as the Notice of Intent or NOI. The SWPPP 

is a written assessment of potential sources of pollutants in stormwater runoff and control measures 

that will be implemented at your facility to minimize the discharge of these pollutants in runoff from 

the site. These control measures include site-specific best management practices (BMPs), maintenance 

plans, inspections, employee training, and reporting. The procedures detailed in the SWPPP must be 

implemented by the facility and updated as necessary, with a copy of the SWPPP kept on-site. The industrial stormwater permit also requires collection of visual, analytical, and/or compliance monitoring 

data to determine the effectiveness of implemented BMPs. For more information on EPA’s industrial 

stormwater permit and links to State stormwater permits, go to www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater 

and click on “Industrial Activity.” 

What pollutants are associated with my facility’s activities? 

Pollutants conveyed in stormwater discharges from metal mining (ore mining and dressing) facilities 

will vary. There are a number of factors that influence to what extent industrial activities and 

significant materials can affect water quality. 

 Geographic location
 

 Topography
 

 Hydrogeology
 

 Extent of impervious surfaces (e.g.,, concrete or asphalt)
 

 Type of ground cover (e.g., vegetation, crushed stone, or dirt)
 

 Outdoor activities (e.g., material storage, loading/unloading, vehicle maintenance)
 

 Size of the operation
 

 Type, duration, and intensity of precipitation events
 

Because of the land-disturbing nature of the ore mining and dressing industry, contaminants of 

concern generated by industrial activities include total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids 

(TDS), turbidity, acid drainage, and heavy metals. Although there are many activities that occur at a 

facility, this fact sheet only covers those activities that occur outdoors and where activities or materials 

may be exposed to precipitation. 

The activities, pollutant sources, and pollutants detailed in Table 1 are commonly found at metal 


mining (ore mining and dressing) facilities.
 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

Table 1: Common Activities, Pollutant Sources, and Pollutants at Metal Mining (Ore Mining and 

Dressing) Facilities 

Activity Pollutant Source Pollutant 

Site preparation Road construction Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity 

Removal of overburden 

Removal of waste rock to expose the 

metal 

Mineral extraction Blasting activities Dust, TSS, nitrate/nitrite 

Beneficiation activities Milling Dust, TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, fines, heavy metals 

Flotation Dust, TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, fines, chemical 

reagents, acids, heavy metals 

Gravity concentration TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, heavy metals 

Amalgamation Dust, TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, heavy metals, 

mercury 

Waste rock storage Dust, TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, heavy metals 

Raw material loading Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity, heavy metals 

Process materials unloading Diesel fuel, oil, gasoline, chemical reagents 

Raw waste material transportation Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity, heavy metals 

Leaching Heap leach piles Dust, TSS, TDS, pH, turbidity, heavy metals, 

cyanide 

Other activities Sedimentation pond upsets TSS, TDS, turbidity, pH, heavy metals 

Sedimentation pond sludge removal and 

disposal 

Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity, pH, heavy metals 

Air emission control device cleaning Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity, metals 

Equipment/vehicle fueling 

and maintenance 

Fueling activities Gas/diesel fuel, oil 

Parts cleaning Solvents, oil, heavy metals, acid/alkaline wastes 

Waste disposal of oily rags, oil and gas 

filters, batteries, coolants, and degreasers 

Oil, heavy metals, solvents, acids 

Fluid replacement including hydraulic 

fluid, oil, transmission fluid, radiator 

fluids, and grease 

Oil and grease, arsenic, lead, cadmium, 

chromium, chemical oxygen demand (COD), 

and benzene 

Reclamation activities Site preparation for stabilization Dust, TSS, TDS, turbidity, heavy metals 

What BMPs can be used to minimize contact between stormwater 

and potential pollutants at my facility? 

A variety of BMP options may be applicable to eliminate or minimize the presence of pollutants in 

stormwater discharges from metal mining facilities. You will likely need to implement a combination 

or suite of BMPs to address stormwater runoff at your facility. Your first consideration should be for 

pollution prevention BMPs, which are designed to prevent or minimize pollutants from entering 

stormwater runoff and/or reduce the volume of stormwater requiring management. Prevention 

BMPs can include regular cleanup, collection and containment of debris in storage areas, and other 

housekeeping practices, spill control, and employee training. It may also be necessary to implement 

treatment BMPs, which are engineered structures intended to treat stormwater runoff and/or 

mitigate the effects of increased stormwater runoff peak rate, volume, and velocity. Treatment BMPs 

are generally more expensive to install and maintain and include oil-water separators, wet ponds, and 

proprietary filter devices. 

Sediment ponds, discharge diversion techniques, as well as methods of runoff dispersion, are control 

strategies often used to minimize impacts of significant materials on stormwater. For mine sites 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

 

 

 

 

 

requiring additional sources of water for processing operations, rainfall events as well as stormwater 

run-on will be managed for use in dust suppression, processing, and washing activities. Many mine 

sites are already equipped with sedimentation ponds and other established process wastewater 

treatment methods in order to meet effluent limitation guidelines. Additional stormwater 

management practices used at metal mining facilities are described further in this fact sheet. 

BMPs must be selected and implemented to address the following: 

Good Housekeeping Practices 

Good housekeeping is a practical, cost-effective way to maintain a clean and orderly facility to prevent 

potential pollution sources from coming into contact with stormwater. It includes establishing protocols 

to reduce the possibility of mishandling materials or equipment and training employees in good 

housekeeping techniques. Common areas where good housekeeping practices should be followed 

include trash containers and adjacent areas, material storage areas, vehicle and equipment maintenance 

areas, and loading docks. Good housekeeping practices must include a schedule for regular pickup 

and disposal of garbage and waste materials and routine inspections of drums, tanks, and containers 

for leaks and structural conditions. Practices also include containing and covering garbage, waste 

materials, and debris. Involving employees in routine monitoring of housekeeping practices has proven 

to be an effective means of ensuring the continued implementation of these measures. 

Minimizing Exposure 

Where feasible, minimizing exposure of potential pollutant sources to precipitation is an important 

control option. Minimizing exposure prevents pollutants, including debris, from coming into contact 

with precipitation and can reduce the need for BMPs to treat contaminated stormwater runoff. It can 

also prevent debris from being picked up by stormwater and carried into drains and surface waters. 

Examples of BMPs for exposure minimization include covering materials or activities with temporary 

structures (e.g., tarps) when wet weather is expected or moving materials or activities to existing 

or new permanent structures (e.g., buildings, silos, sheds). Even the simple practice of keeping a 

dumpster lid closed can be a very effective pollution prevention measure. 

Erosion and Sediment Control 

BMPs must be selected and implemented to limit erosion on areas of your site that, due to 

topography, activities, soils, cover, materials, or other factors are likely to experience erosion. Erosion 

control BMPs such as seeding, mulching, and sodding prevent soil from becoming dislodged and 

should be considered first. Sediment control BMPs such as silt fences, sediment ponds, and stabilized 

entrances trap sediment after it has eroded. Sediment control BMPs should be used to back-up 

erosion control BMPs. 

Because ore mining and dressing is largely a land disturbance activity, BMPs that minimize erosion 

and sedimentation will be most effective if installed at the inception of operations and maintained 

throughout active operations and reclamation of the site. From the construction of access and haul 

roads, to closure and reclamation activities, implementation of BMPs is often essential to minimizing 

long-term environmental impacts to an area. 

A number of structural collection devices have been developed to remove sediment from runoff 

before it leaves the site. Several methods of removing sediment from site runoff involve diversion 

mechanisms previously discussed, supplemented by a trapping or storage device. Structural practices 

typically involve filtering diffuse stormwater flows through temporary structures such as straw bale 

dikes, silt fences, brush barriers, or vegetated areas. 

Structural practices are typically low in cost yet require periodic removal of sediment to remain 

functional. As such, they may not be appropriate for permanent use at inactive mines. However, these 

practices may be effectively used as temporary measures during active operation and/or prior to the 

final implementation of permanent measures. 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of Runoff 

Your SWPPP must contain a narrative evaluation of the appropriateness of stormwater management 

practices that divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage stormwater runoff so as to reduce the 

discharge of pollutants. Appropriate measures are highly site-specific, but may include, among others, 

vegetative swales, collection and reuse of stormwater, inlet controls, snow management, infiltration 

devices, and wet retention measures. 

A combination of preventive and treatment BMPs will yield the most effective stormwater 

management for minimizing the offsite discharge of pollutants via stormwater runoff. Though not 

specifically outlined in this fact sheet, BMPs must also address preventive maintenance records or 

logbooks, regular facility inspections, spill prevention and response, and employee training. 

All BMPs require regular maintenance to function as intended. Some management measures have 

simple maintenance requirements, others are quite involved. You must regularly inspect all BMPs to 

ensure they are operating properly, including during runoff events. As soon as a problem is found, 

action to resolve it should be initiated immediately. 

BMPs for Metal Mining Facilities 

EPA has identified a wide variety of best management practices (BMPs) that may be used to mitigate 

discharges of contaminants at mines. Many of the practices focus on sediment and erosion control 

and are similar to BMPs used in the construction industry. These controls to prevent erosion and 

control sedimentation are the most effective if they are installed at the inception of operations and 

maintained throughout active operations and reclamation of the site. For more details on the use and 

implementation of these practices you are encouraged to obtain a copy of one or more of the many 

good sediment and erosion control books available on the market. The following categories describe 

best management practice options for reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges at metal mining 

facilities. 

	 Discharge Diversions. Discharge diversions provide the first line of defense in preventing the 

contamination of discharges, and subsequent contamination of receiving waters. Discharge 

diversions are temporary or permanent structures installed to divert flow, store flow, or limit 

stormwater run-on and runoff. 

These diversion practices have several objectives. First, diversion structures can be designed 

to prevent otherwise uncontaminated (or less contaminated) water from crossing disturbed 

areas or areas containing significant amounts of contaminated materials, where contact may 

occur between run-on and site materials. These source reduction measures may be particularly 

effective for metal mining facilities because they prevent run-on of uncontaminated discharges 

from contacting exposed materials and/or reduce the flow across disturbed areas, thereby 

lessening the potential for erosion. Second, diversion structures can be used to collect or divert 

waters for later treatment, if necessary. The usefulness of these control measures are limited 

by such factors as the size of the area to be controlled and the type and nature of materials 

exposed and nature of precipitation events. 

Diversion dikes, curbs, and berms are temporary or permanent diversion structures that prevent 

runoff from passing beyond a certain point, and divert runoff away from its intended path. 

Dikes, curbs or berms may be used to surround and isolate areas of concern, diverting flow 

around piles of overburden, waste rock, and storage areas, to minimize discharge contact with 

contaminated materials and to limit discharges of contaminated water from confined areas. 

	 Drainage/Stormwater Conveyance Systems. Drainage or stormwater conveyance systems can 

provide either a temporary or a permanent management practice which functions to channel 

water away from eroded or unstabilized areas, convey runoff without causing erosion, and/or 

carry discharges to more stabilized areas. The use of drainage systems as a permanent measure 

may be most appropriate in areas with extreme slopes, areas subject to high velocity runoff, 

and other areas where the establishment of substantial vegetation is infeasible or impractical. 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

For instance, several BMPs may be useful stormwater and erosion control methods. Some 

examples of drainage/stormwater conveyance systems include: 

-	 Channels	or	gutters
 

-	 Open	top	box	culverts	and	waterbars
 

-	 Rolling	dips	and	road	sloping
 

-	 Roadway	surface	water	deflector
 

-	 Culverts
 

	 Runoff Dispersion. Drainage systems are most effective when used in conjunction with runoff 

dispersion devises designed to slow the flow of water discharged from a site. These devices 

also aid stormwater infiltration into the soil and flow attenuation. Some examples of velocity 

dissipation devices include: 

-	 Check	dams
 

-	 Rock	outlet	protection
 

-	 Level	spreaders
 

-	 Serrated	slopes	and	benched	slopes
 

-	 Contouring
 

-	 Drop	structures
 

	 Sediment Control and Collection. Erosion and sediment controls limit movement and retains 

sediments, preventing transportation offsite. Several structural collection devices have 

been developed to remove sediment from runoff before it leaves the site. Several methods 

of removing sediment from site runoff involve diversion mechanisms previously discussed, 

supplemented by a trapping or storage device. Structural practices typically involve filtering 

diffuse stormwater flows through temporary structures such as straw bale dikes, silt fences, 

brush barriers or vegetated areas. 

Structural practices are typically low in cost. However, structural practices require periodic 

removal of sediment to remain functional. As such, they may not be appropriate for 

permanent use at inactive mines. However, these practices may be effectively used as 

temporary measures along haul roads and access roads. Several examples of sediment control 

and collection BMPs include: 

-	 Gabions,	riprap,	and	native	rock	retaining	walls
 

-	 Biotechnical	stabilization
 

-	 Straw	bale	barrier
 

-	 Vegetated	buffer	strips
 

-	 Silt	fence/filter	fence
 

-	 Siltation	berms
 

-	 Brush	sediment	barriers
 

-	 Sediment	traps	or	catch	basins
 

-	 Sediment/settling	ponds
 

	 Vegetation Practices. Vegetation practices involve establishing a sustainable ground cover by 

permanent seeding, mulching, sodding, and other such practices. A vegetative cover reduces 

the potential for erosion of a site by: absorbing the kinetic energy of raindrops which would 

otherwise impact soil; intercepting water so it can infiltrate into the ground instead of running 

off and carrying contaminated discharges; and by slowing the velocity of runoff to promote 

on-site deposition of sediment. These practices include: 

-	 Topsoiling
 

-	 Broadcast	seeding	and	drill	seeding
 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

-	 Willow	cutting	establishment
 

-	 Plastic	matting,	plastic	netting	and	erosion	control	blankets
 

-	 Mulch-straw	or	wood	chips
 

-	 Compaction
 

Typically, the costs of vegetative controls are low relative to other discharge mitigation 

practices. Given the limited capacity to accept large volumes of runoff, and potential erosion 

problems associated with large concentrated flows, vegetative controls should typically be used 

in combination with other management practices. 

	 Capping. Capping or sealing of waste materials is designed to prevent infiltration, as well 

as to limit contact between discharges and potential sources of contamination. Ultimately, 

capping should reduce or eliminate the contaminants in discharges. In addition, by reducing 

infiltration, the potential for seepage and leachate generation may also be lessened. 

In some cases, the elimination of a pollution source through capping contaminant sources 

may be the most cost effective control measure for discharges from inactive ore mining 

and dressing facilities. Depending on the type of management practices chosen the cost to 

eliminate the pollutant source may be very high. Once completed, however, maintenance costs 

will range from low to nonexistent. 

	 Treatment. In some cases (e.g., low pH and/or high metals concentrations), BMPs, and sediment 

and erosion controls may not be adequate to produce an acceptable quality of stormwater 

discharge. Under those circumstances additional physical or chemical treatment systems 

may be necessary to protect the receiving waters. Treatment practices are those methods of 

control which normally are thought of as being applied at the “end of the pipe” to reduce the 

concentration of pollutants in stormwater before it is discharged. This is in contrast to many 

BMPs, where the emphasis is on keeping the water from becoming contaminated. Treatment 

practices may be required where flows are currently being affected by exposed materials 

and other BMPs are insufficient to meet discharge goals. These practices are usually the most 

resource intensive as they often require significant construction costs and monitoring and 

maintenance on a frequent and regular basis. 

Treatment options may involve a range of maintenance controls. High maintenance treatment 

techniques require manpower to operate and maintain the BMP. Low maintenance cost 

techniques have initial capital costs but operate with low long-term maintenance after being 

implemented. At a few sites, treatment measures other than high maintenance measures may 

be appropriate to address specific pollutants. Several examples of treatment BMPs include 

chemical or physical treatment, oil/water separators, and artificial wetlands. 

An example of a high maintenance technology that is found at many active metal mining 

facilities is chemical/physical treatment. The most common type of chemical/physical treatment 

involves the addition of lime or other such caustics to remove metals. Metals may be removed 

from stormwater by raising the pH of the stormwater to precipitate them out as hydroxides. 

After metals precipitation, the addition of some form of acid or carbon dioxide may be 

required to reduce the pH to acceptable levels. Polymer addition may be required to enhance 

the settling characteristics of the metal hydroxide precipitate. In general, this practice requires 

significant operator participation to ensure proper neutralization and/or precipitation and thus 

may not be cost effective for most stormwater discharges. 

Another example of a high maintenance treatment technology is an oil/water separator. An 

American Petroleum Institute (API) oil/water separator or similar type of treatment device 

skims oil and settles sludge to remove oil from water. This type of BMP system can be effective 

for improving water quality either alone or in conjunction with other treatment practices. 

The use of artificial wetlands is another method of treating process wastewater from inactive 

mines. There has been extensive research on the use of artificial wetlands as a means of 

mitigating acid mine drainage. They can be an effective system for improving water quality 

either alone or in conjunction with other treatment practices. The complex hydrologic, 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

biological, physical, and chemical interactions that take place within a wetland result in a 

natural reduction and cleansing of influent pollutants. Wetland processes are able to filter 

sediments and absorb and retain chemical and heavy metal pollutant through biological 

degradation, transformation, and plant uptake. 

Artificial wetlands are designed to maintain a permanent pool of water. Properly installed 

and maintained retention structures (also known as wet ponds) and artificial wetlands will be 

most cost-effective when used to control runoff from larger, intensively developed sites. These 

artificial wetlands are created to provide treatment but also provide a wildlife habitat, and 

may enhance recreation and landscape amenities. 

BMPs for Site Activities 

A number of sites and activities found at metal mining facilities require the implementation of 

BMPs to prevent the contamination of stormwater. Implementation of BMPs are required not only 

for mineral extraction sites and material piles, but for discharges from roads accessing these sites. 

Additionally, restabilization must occur with any disturbed areas. An overview of additional BMPs that 

may be applicable at haul or access roads; pits or quarries; overburden, waste rock, and raw material 

piles; and reclamation activities are discussed below. 

	 Haul Roads and/or Access Roads. Placement of haul roads or access roads should occur as far 

as possible from natural drainage areas, lakes, ponds, wetlands, or floodplains where soil will 

naturally be less stable for heavy vehicle traffic. If a haul road must be constructed near water, 

as little vegetation as possible should be removed from between the road and the waterway, 

as vegetation is a useful buffer against erosion and is an efficient sediment collection 

mechanism. The width and grade of haul or access roads should be minimal and designed to 

match natural contours of the area. Construction of haul roads should be supplemented by 

BMPs that divert runoff from road surfaces, minimize erosion, and direct flow to appropriate 

channels for discharge to treatment areas or other well-stabilized areas. 

	 Equipment/Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance. Fueling and maintenance activities should be 

conducted indoors or under cover on an impermeable surface. Berms, curbs, or similar means 

should be used to ensure that stormwater runoff from other parts of the facility does not flow 

over maintenance and fueling areas. Runoff from fueling and maintenance areas should be 

collected and treated or recycled. Proper waste management and spill prevention and response 

procedures should be implemented. Select good housekeeping procedures to minimize the 

amount of contaminated runoff generated (e.g. use dry cleanup methods, use drip pans, and 

drain parts of fluids before disposal). Conduct inspections of fueling areas to prevent problems 

before they occur. 

	 Pits or Quarries. Excavation of a pit or quarry must be accompanied by BMPs to minimize 

impacts to area surface waters. As little vegetation as possible should be removed from these 

areas during excavation activities to minimize exposed soils. In addition, stream channels and 

other sources of water that may discharge into a pit or quarry should be diverted around that 

area to prevent contamination. 

BMPs can be used to control total suspended solids levels in runoff from unvegetated areas. 

These can include sediment/settling ponds, check dams, silt fences, and straw bale barriers. 

	 Overburden, Waste Rock, and Raw Material Piles. Overburden, topsoil, and waste rock, as 

well as raw material and intermediate and final product stockpiles, should be located away 

from surface waters, other sources of water and from geologically unstable areas. In addition 

surface waters and stormwater should be diverted around the piles. As many piles as possible 

should be revegetated, (even if only on a temporary basis). At closure, remaining piles should 

be reclaimed. 

	 Reclamation Activities. When a mineral deposit is depleted and operations cease, a mine 

site must be reclaimed according to appropriate state or federal standards. Closure activities 

typically include restabilization of disturbed areas such as access or haul roads, pits or 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

quarries, sedimentation ponds or work-out pits, and remaining waste piles. Overburden and 

topsoil stockpiles may be used to fill in a pit or quarry (where practical). Recontouring and 

revegetation should be performed to stabilize soils and prevent erosion. 

Major reclamation activities such as recontouring roads and filling in a pit or quarry can 

only be performed after operations have ceased. However, reclamation activities such as 

stabilization of banks, reseeding, and revegetation should be implemented in mined out 

portions, or inactive areas of a site as active mining moves to new areas. 

EPA recognizes that quarries are frequently converted into reservoirs, or recreational areas, after the 

mineral deposit is depleted. However, this does not preclude the reclamation of disturbed areas above 

the quarry rim. 

Typically, the costs of stabilization controls are low relative to other discharge mitigation 

practices. Given the limited capacity to accept large volumes of runoff, and potential erosion 

problems associated with large concentrated flows, stabilization controls should typically be used 

in combination with other management practices. These measures have been documented as 

particularly appropriate for mining sites. 

BMPs for Various Extraction Techniques 

Metals are recovered by three basic extraction techniques: surface mining; underground mining; and 

placer mining. Each type of extraction method may be followed by varying methods of beneficiation 

and processing. Due to similarities in mining operations for many of the minerals within this industry, 

activities, significant materials, and materials management practices are fairly uniform. 

	 Surface mines. Materials management practices at surface mines are typically designed to 

control dust emissions and soil erosion from extraction activities, and offsite transport of 

significant materials. Settling ponds and impoundments are commonly used to reduce TSS 

and other contaminants in process generated wastewaters. These controls may also be used 

to manage stormwater runoff and run-on with potentially few alterations to on-site drainage 

systems. 

Impoundments are used to manage tailings generated at facilities engaged in flotation or 

heavy media separation operations. These impoundments are used to manage beneficiation/ 

processing wastewaters generated at the facility and may also be used to manage stormwater 

runoff. 

	 Underground mines. Materials management practices for significant materials at the surface 

of underground mining facilities are similar to those materials management practices used 

at surface mining operations. However, waste rock or mill tailings are in some cases being 

returned to the mine as fill for the mined-out areas or may be directed to a disposal basin. 

	 Placer mines. Settling ponds are used to manage process wastewaters and are, in some cases, 

being used to manage contaminated stormwater runoff. 

	 Inactive mines. Inactive mine sites also require implementation of BMPs. Inactive ore mining 

and dressing operations are those where industrial activities are no longer occurring. When 

active, mineral extraction could have occurred from surface mines, solution mines, placer 

operations, or underground mines. These sites require permit coverage until reclaimed because 

significant materials may remain on-site, and, if exposed, are potential sources of stormwater 

contamination. Due to the seasonal nature of this industry, mine sites can become temporarily 

inactive for extended periods of time. Temporarily inactive sites are not viewed the same as 

permanently inactive sites. 

Implement BMPs, such as those listed below in Table 2 for the control of pollutants at metal mining 

facilities, to minimize and prevent the discharge of pollutants in stormwater. Identifying weaknesses 

in current facility practices will aid the permittee in determining appropriate BMPs that will achieve 

a reduction in pollutant loadings. BMPs listed in Table 2 are broadly applicable to metal mining 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

 

 

 

 

facilities; however, this is not a complete list and you are recommended to consult with regulatory 

agencies or a stormwater engineer/consultant to identify appropriate BMPs for your facility. 

Table 2. BMPs for Potential Pollutant Sources at Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

Pollutant Source BMPs 

Haul Roads and/or 

Access Roads 

	Construction of haul roads should be supplemented by BMPs that divert runoff from road 

surfaces, minimize erosion, and direct flow to appropriate channels for discharge to treatment 

areas. Examples of BMPs include: 

- Install dikes, curbs, and berms for discharge diversions. 

- Install conveyance systems such as channels, gutters, culverts, rolling dips and road sloping, 

and/or roadway water deflectors. 

- Use check dams, rock outlet protection, level spreaders, stream alternation and drop 

structures for runoff dispersion. 

- Install gabions, riprap, native rock retaining walls, straw bale barriers, sediment traps/catch 

basins, and vegetated buffer strips for sediment control and collection. 

- Keep as much vegetation as possible when building roads and seed as necessary. Stabilize 

soil via willow cutting establishment. 

	Place as far as possible from natural drainage areas, lakes, ponds, wetlands, or floodplains 

	Width and grade of roads should be as small as possible to meet regulatory requirements and 

designed to match the natural contours of the area. 

	Frequently inspect all stabilization and structural erosion control measures and perform all 

necessary maintenance and repairs. 

Pits/Quarries or 

Underground Mines 

	Install dikes, curbs, and berms for discharge diversions. 

	Install conveyance systems such as channels and gutters to control runoff and run-on. 

	Use serrated slopes, benched slopes, contouring, and stream alteration to direct 

uncontaminated discharges away from a pit or quarry. 

	Install sediment settling ponds, straw bale barrier, and siltation berms. 

	Keep as much vegetation as possible when excavating and seed as necessary to minimize the 

amount of exposed soils. 

Overburden, Waste 

Rock, and Raw 

Material Piles 

Reclamation 

	Overburden, topsoil, waste rock, raw material, or intermediate and final product stockpiles 

should be located away from surface waters and other sources of run-on, as well as 

geologically unstable areas. 

	Install dikes, curbs, and berms for discharge diversions to control runoff and run-on. 

	Install conveyance systems such as channels and gutters to control runoff and run-on. 

	Use serrated slopes, benched slopes, contouring, and stream alteration around piles for 

sediment control and runoff dispersion. 

	Install plastic matting, plastic netting, erosion control blankets, mulch straw, sediment/settling 

ponds, silt fences, siltation berms, and/or compaction for sediment control and collection. 

	Stabilize and recontour piles as necessary. 

	Vegetate as many piles as possible (involves topsoiling, seedbed preparation, and/or seeding). 

	Install dikes, curbs, and berms for discharge diversions. 

	Install conveyance systems such as channels and gutters. 

	Use check dams, rock outlet protection, level spreaders, stream alternation, drop structures, 

serrated slopes, drain fields, benched slopes, contouring, and stream alteration for runoff 

dispersion. 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 0
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

Table 2. BMPs for Potential Pollutant Sources at Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

(continued) 

Pollutant Source 

Reclamation 

(continued) 

BMPs 

	Install gabions, riprap, native rock retaining walls, straw bale barriers, sediment traps/catch 

basins, biotechnical stabilization, silt fences, siltation berms, brush sediment barriers, and 

vegetated buffer strips for sediment control and collection. 

	Recontouring and vegetation should be performed to stabilize soils and prevent erosion in 

mined out portions or inactive areas of the site as active mining moves to new areas (includes 

topsoiling, seedbed preparation, seeding, and willow cutting establishment). 

	If a quarry is being converted into a reservoir or recreational area, disturbed areas above the 

quarry rim must still be reclaimed. 

	Use overburden and topsoil stockpiles to fill in a pit or quarry (when practical). 

Equipment/vehicle 

maintenance 

Minimizing Exposure 

	Perform all cleaning operations indoors or under covering when possible. Conduct the cleaning 

operations in an area with a concrete floor with no floor drainage other than to sanitary sewers 

or treatment facilities. 

	If operations are uncovered, perform them on a concrete pad that is impervious and contained. 

	Park vehicles and equipment indoors or under a roof whenever possible and maintain proper 

control of oil leaks/spills. 

	Check vehicles closely for leaks and use pans to collect fluid when leaks occur. 

Management of Runoff 

	Use berms, curbs, or other diversion measures to ensure that stormwater runoff from other 

parts of the facility do not flow over the maintenance area. 

	Collect the stormwater runoff from the cleaning area and provide treatment or recycling. 

Discharge vehicle wash or rinse water to the sanitary sewer (if available and allowed by sewer 

authority), wastewater treatment, a land application site, or recycle on-site. DO NOT discharge 

washwater to a storm drain or to surface water. 

Inspections and Training 

	Inspect the maintenance area regularly for proper implementation of control measures. 

	Train employees on proper waste control and disposal procedures. 

Good Housekeeping 

	Eliminate floor drains that are connected to the storm or sanitary sewer; if necessary, install a 

sump that is pumped regularly. Collected wastes should be properly treated or disposed of by a 

licensed waste hauler. 

	Use drip pans, drain boards, and drying racks to direct drips back into a fluid holding tank for 

reuse. 

	Drain all parts of fluids prior to disposal. Oil filters can be crushed and recycled. 

	Promptly transfer used fluids to the proper container; do not leave full drip pans or other open 

containers around the shop. Empty and clean drip pans and containers. 

	Dispose of greasy rags, oil filters, air filters, batteries, spent coolant, and degreasers properly. 

	Store batteries and other significant materials inside. 

	Label and track the recycling of waste material (e.g., used oil, spent solvents, batteries). 

	Maintain an organized inventory of materials. 

	Eliminate or reduce the number and amount of hazardous materials and waste by substituting 

nonhazardous or less hazardous materials. 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

 

 

 

Table 2. BMPs for Potential Pollutant Sources at Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

(continued) 

Pollutant Source BMPs 

Equipment/vehicle 

maintenance 

(continued) 

Good Houskeeping (continued) 

	Clean up leaks, drips, and other spills without using large amounts of water. Use absorbents 

for dry cleanup whenever possible. 

	Prohibit the practice of hosing down an area where the practice would result in the discharge 

of pollutants to a stormwater system. 

	Clean without using liquid cleaners whenever possible. 

	Do all cleaning at a centralized station so the solvents stay in one area. 

	If parts are dipped in liquid, remove them slowly to avoid spills. 

	Do not pour liquid waste into floor drains, sinks, outdoor storm drain inlets, or other storm 

drains or sewer connections. 

Fueling activities 	Conduct fueling operations (including the transfer of fuel from tank trucks) on an impervious 

or contained pad or under a roof or canopy where possible. Covering should extend beyond 

spill containment pad to prevent rain from entering. 

	When fueling in uncovered area, use a concrete pad (asphalt is not chemically resistant to the 

fuels being handled). 

	Use drip pans where leaks or spills of fuel can occur and where making and breaking hose 

connections. 

	Use fueling hoses with check valves to prevent hose drainage after filling. 

	Use spill and overflow protection devices. 

	Keep spill cleanup material readily available. Clean up spills and leaks immediately. 

	Minimize/eliminate run-on into fueling areas with diversion dikes, berms, curbing, surface 

grading or other equivalent measures. 

	Collect stormwater runoff and provide treatment or recycling. 

	Use dry cleanup methods for fuel area rather than hosing down the fuel area. Follow 

procedures for sweeping up absorbents as soon as spilled substances have been absorbed. 

	Perform inspection and preventive maintenance on fuel storage tanks to detect potential leaks 

before they occur. 

	Inspect the fueling area to detect problems before they occur. 

	Train personnel on fueling procedures in the SWPPP. 

	Provide curbing or posts around fuel pumps to prevent collisions from vehicles. 

	Discourage “topping off” of fuel tanks. 

What if activities and materials at my facility are not exposed to 

precipitation? 

The industrial stormwater program requires permit coverage for a number of specified types of 

industrial activities. However, when a facility is able to prevent the exposure of ALL relevant activities 

and materials to precipitation, it may be eligible to claim no exposure and qualify for a waiver from 

permit coverage. 

If you are regulated under the industrial permitting program, you must either obtain permit coverage 

or submit a no exposure certification form, if available. Check with your permitting authority for 

additional information as not every permitting authority program provides no exposure exemptions. 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 
Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet Series 

Sector G: Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing) Facilities 

Where do I get more information? 

For additional information on the industrial stormwater program see 


www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.
 

A list of names and telephone numbers for each EPA Region or state NPDES permitting authority can 

be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwatercontacts. 

References 

Information contained in this Fact Sheet was compiled from EPA’s past and current Multi-Sector 


General Permits and from the following sources:
 

 Idaho Department of Lands.1992. Best Management Practices for Mining in Idaho. 

	 Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. “Maine Erosion and Sedimentation 

Control BMPs.” 

www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/docstand/escbmps/ 

	 U.S. EPA. September 1992. Stormwater Management for Industrial Activities: Developing 

Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA 832–R–92–006. 

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater 

	 U.S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology. 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban 

Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. 

www.epa.gov/OST/stormwater/ 

	 U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. NPDES Stormwater Multi-Sector General Permit 

for Industrial Activities (MSGP). 

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp 

EPA-833-F-06-022	 

Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators i

Contents

Section 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.A Why Should You Use This Guide? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.B What Is Stormwater Runoff and What Are Its Impacts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section 2: Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.A Am I Required to Develop a SWPPP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.B What Are the Basic Elements Required in a SWPPP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.C Stormwater Pollution Prevention Team (Step 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.D What Do I Need to Do to Complete My SWPPP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Section 3: Site Assessment and Planning (Step 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.A Conduct an Assessment of the Activities Performed at Your Facility . . . . . . . . 7

3.B Evaluate Sampling Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.C Develop General Location and Site Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Section 4: Selecting Control Measures (Step 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.A Minimize Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4.B Good Housekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.C Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.D Spill Prevention and Response Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.E Erosion and Sediment Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.F Management of Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.G Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.H Sector-Specific Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.I Employee Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.J Non-Stormwater Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.K Waste, Garbage, and Floatable Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.L Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking of Industrial Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.M Numeric Effluent Limitations Based on Effluent Limit Guidelines . . . . . . . . . 24

4.N Additional Controls to Address Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Section 5: Procedures for Inspections and Monitoring (Step 4) . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.A Routine Facility Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.B Visual Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.C Annual Comprehensive Site Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.D Documentation of Monitoring Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

10

11
 
ii Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Section 6: Completing Your SWPPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6.A Finish your SWPPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6.B Obtain NPDES Permit Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6.C Updating Your SWPPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Section 7: Keeping Records of Your Implementation Activities . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Section 8: Common Compliance Problems at Industrial Facilities . . . . . . . . 37

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendices

Appendix A: MSGP SWPPP Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix B: Additional MSGP Documentation Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix C: Example Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 1

Section 1: Introduction

This guide includes suggestions on how to develop a stormwater pollution prevention 

plan (SWPPP). This guide does not impose any new legally binding requirements on 

EPA, States, or the regulated community, and does not confer legal rights or impose 

legal obligations upon any member of the public. In the event of a conflict between 

the discussion in this document and any statute, regulation, or permit, this document 

would not be controlling.

Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of 

this guide and the appropriateness of the application of this guide to a particular situation. EPA and other decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a 

case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this guide where appropriate.

1.A Why Should You Use This Guide?

You should use this guide if you are an operator of an industrial facility required 

to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that complies with a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) industrial stormwater 

permit issued by your State or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You 

may also find this guide to be useful if you are a State or EPA inspector who reviews 

SWPPPs, or you operate a commercial facility that is not required to obtain an NPDES 

permit but you are nevertheless interested in ways to minimize stormwater-related 

pollution at your facility.

Because each State permit can be slightly different, this guide is written more generically in an attempt to make it applicable to as many industrial general permits as 

possible. Owners and operators of industrial facilities should carefully read their 

respective industrial stormwater general permit to understand 

where using this guide may conflict with a State SWPPP requirement, and make adjustments to their SWPPPs as needed. EPA 

includes additional text describing how to address SWPPP 

requirements that are specifically included in the Agency’s own 

2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), the “2008 MSGP”.

In addition to helping you develop a SWPPP, this guide also 

includes sections that will assist you in keeping your implementation records and in avoiding common compliance problems, 

after you are authorized under the EPA 2008 MSGP or your 

State’s general permit. See Section 7 for a discussion of how to 

keep implementation records. See Section 8 for a discussion of 

common compliance problems.

1.B What Is Stormwater Runoff and What Are Its Impacts?

Stormwater runoff is water from rain or snowmelt that does not immediately infiltrate 

into the ground and flows over or through natural or man-made storage or conveyance systems. When undeveloped areas are converted to land uses with impervious 

surfaces such as buildings, parking lots, and roads, the natural hydrology of the 

land is altered and can result in increased surface runoff rates, volumes, and pollutant loads. Stormwater runoff picks up industrial pollutants and typically discharges 

them directly into nearby waterbodies or indirectly via storm sewer systems. Runoff 

from areas where industrial activities occur can contain toxic pollutants (e.g., heavy 

Owners and operators of industrial facilities, 

which are subject to a State or EPA industrial 

stormwater general permit typically must 

develop a SWPPP as a basic requirement. If 

your facility is subject to such a requirement, 

failing to develop a SWPPP can result in 

enforcement action against your facility by 

EPA or a State! For example, EPA has targeted 

enforcement actions against some industrial 

sectors for failing to have developed SWPPPs 

for their facilities.
2 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

metals and organic chemicals) and other 

pollutants such as trash, debris, and oil and 

grease, when facility practices allow exposure 

of industrial materials to stormwater. This 

increased flow and pollutant load can impair 

waterbodies, degrade biological habitats, pollute drinking water sources, and cause flooding and hydrologic changes to the receiving 

water, such as channel erosion.

Industrial facilities typically perform a 

portion of their activities in outdoor areas 

exposed to the elements. This may include 

activities such as material storage and handling, vehicle fueling and maintenance, shipping and receiving, and salt storage, all of 

which can result in pollutants being exposed 

to precipitation and capable of being carried 

off in stormwater runoff. Also, facilities may 

have performed industrial activities outdoors 

in the past and materials from those activities 

still remain exposed to precipitation. In addition, accidental spills and leaks, improper 

waste disposal, and illicit connections to 

storm sewers may also lead to exposure of 

pollutants to stormwater.

EPA has identified six types of activities at 

industrial facilities that have the potential to 

be major sources of pollutants in stormwater:

•	 Loading and Unloading Operations

Loading and unloading operations can 

include pumping of liquids or gases from 

tankers to storage facilities, pneumatic 

transfer of dry chemicals, transfer by 

mechanical conveyor systems, or transfer 

of bags, boxes, drums or other containers by forklift or other material handling 

equipment. Material spills or losses in these 

areas can accumulate and be washed away 

during a storm.

•	 Outdoor Storage

Outdoor storage activities include storage of fuels, raw materials, by-products, 

intermediate products, final products, and 

process residuals. Materials may be stored 

in containers, on platforms or pads, in bins, 

boxes or silos, or as piles. Storage areas 

that are exposed to rainfall and/or runoff 

can contribute pollutants to stormwater 

when solid materials wash off or materials 

dissolve into solution.

•	 Outdoor Process Activities

Although many manufacturing activities 

are performed indoors, some activities, 

such as timber processing, rock crushing, and concrete mixing, occur outdoors.

Outdoor processing activities can result in 

liquid spillage and losses of material solids, 

which makes associated pollutants available for discharge in runoff.

•	 Dust or Particulate Generating Processes

Dust or particulate generating processes 

include industrial activities with stack 

emissions or process dusts that settle on 

surfaces. Some industries, such as mines, 

cement manufacturing, and refractories, 

also generate significant levels of dust that 

can be mobilized in stormwater runoff.

•	 Illicit Connections and Non-Stormwater

Discharges

Illicit connections of process wastes or 

other pollutants to stormwater collection 

systems, instead of to sanitary sewers, can 

be a significant source of stormwater pollution. Non-stormwater discharges include 

any discharge from the facility that is not 

generated by rainfall runoff (for example, 

wash water from industrial processes).

With few exceptions, these non-stormwater 

discharges are prohibited. Refer to your 

permit for a list of authorized non-stormwater discharges.

•	 Waste Management

Waste management practices include 

everything from landfills to waste piles to 

trash containment. All industrial facilities 

conduct some type of waste management 

at their site, much of it outdoors, which 

must be controlled to prevent pollutant 

discharges in stormwater.

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff can carry pollutants from impervious surfaces to 

receiving waters.

Tetra Tech
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 3

Section 2: Getting Started

2.A Am I Required to Develop a SWPPP?

The Clean Water Act (Section 402(p)) requires that operators of “discharges associated 

with industrial activity” obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. EPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) define the categories of industrial 

activity required to obtain NPDES permits, and specify the application requirements 

for these permits. To regulate stormwater discharges from these industrial activities, 

EPA and authorized States issue NPDES general permits.

Most industrial stormwater discharges are covered under general permits, as opposed 

to individual permits, although States and EPA can and do issue individual permits 

to some facilities based on site-specific or industry-specific concerns. General permits 

are used primarily because they avoid the need to issue multiple permits, and instead 

only require a single permit to cover a large number of industrial facilities performing 

similar types of activities. To be covered under a general permit, an eligible operator 

of an industry must read the general permit, typically develop a SWPPP, comply with 

any special eligibility provisions, and submit a notice of intent (NOI) or permit application to the permitting authority.

Federal regulations require NPDES permit coverage for stormwater discharges from 

the following categories of industrial activity:

•	 Category One (i): Facilities subject to federal stormwater effluent discharge standards in 40 CFR Parts 405-471

•	 Category Two (ii): Heavy manufacturing (for example, paper mills, chemical

plants, petroleum refineries, and steel mills and foundries)

•	 Category Three (iii): Coal and mineral mining and oil and gas exploration and

processing

•	 Category Four (iv): Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities

•	 Category Five (v): Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps with industrial

wastes

•	 Category Six (vi): Metal scrapyards, salvage yards, automobile

junkyards, and battery reclaimers

•	 Category Seven (vii): Steam electric power generating plants

•	 Category Eight (viii): Transportation facilities that have

vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, or airport deicing 

operations

•	 Category Nine (ix): Treatment works treating domestic sewage

with a design flow of 1 million gallons a day or more

•	 Category Eleven (xi): Light manufacturing (For example, food

processing, printing and publishing, electronic and other electrical equipment manufacturing, and public warehousing and 

storage).

EPA’s 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit (2008 

MSGP) Applies to a Limited Geographic Area –

The 2008 MSGP applies in five States (Alaska, 

Idaho, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and 

New Hampshire), Indian Country lands, most 

territories, and some federal facilities. Alaska 

will be taking over administration of stormwater 

permits beginning in 2009. Information on 

where the 2008 MSGP is available is included 

as Appendix C of the 2008 MSGP, which can be 

found at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.
4 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Where Do I Get a Copy of the Industrial 

Stormwater General Permit in My State?

To determine who issues the industrial 

stormwater permit in your State, you can visit 

EPA’s stormwater website at www.epa.gov/

npdes/stormwater/authorizationstatus or 

the Industrial Stormwater Resource Locator at 

www.envcap.org/iswrl.

Who Is an Operator?

EPA defines the operator of an industrial facility as:

•	 The entity that has operational control over

industrial activities, including the ability to 

modify those activities, or

•	 The entity that has day-to-day operational

control of activities at a facility necessary to ensure compliance with the permit 

(e.g., the entity that is authorized to direct 

workers at a facility to carry out activities 

required by the permit). See definition in 

Appendix A of the 2008 MSGP.

In many cases, the owner and operator are 

one in the same person. In a few instances, 

there may be more than one operator at a site 

(with the owner being an operator based on 

the definition provided above). Where there is 

both an owner (without operational control) 

and an operator, it is the operator’s responsibility to obtain permit coverage and comply 

with the permit provisions.

2.B What Are the Basic Elements 

Required in a SWPPP?

A SWPPP is a written document that identifies the industrial activities conducted at the 

site, including any structural control practices, which the industrial facility operator 

will implement to prevent pollutants from 

making their way into stormwater runoff.

The SWPPP also must include descriptions of 

other relevant information, such as the physical features of the facility, and procedures for 

spill prevention, conducting inspections, and 

training of employees. The SWPPP is intended 

to be a “living” document, updated as necessary, such that when industrial activities or 

stormwater control practices are modified or 

replaced, the SWPPP is similarly revised to 

reflect these changes.

The process of developing a SWPPP involves 

the following four steps:

•	 Step 1: Formation of a pollution prevention team of qualified personnel who will 

be responsible for preparing the plan and 

assisting the plant manager in implementing practices to comply with the permit;

•	 Step 2: Assessment of potential stormwater 

pollution sources;

• Step 3: Selection of appropriate control 

measures that minimize the discharge of 

pollutants during storm events for each of 

these sources; and

•	 Step 4: Development of procedures for 

conducting required inspection/monitoring 

activities, as well as regular maintenance 

of control measures.

This guide will assist you with these four 

steps. The selection of a pollution prevention team is discussed in the next section 

(Section 2.C). Site assessment is addressed in 

Section 3, the selection of control measures is 

discussed in Section 4, and inspection/monitoring procedures are addressed in Section 5.

The remaining sections of the guide address 

implementation of practices to comply with 

the permit and periodic evaluation of your 

SWPPP.

Prepare your SWPPP before submitting an NOI 

or permit application for coverage!

What is a SWPPP?

A SWPPP is a site-specific, written document 

that:

•	 Identifies potential sources of stormwater 

pollution at the industrial facility;

•	 Describes stormwater control measures that 

are used to reduce or eliminate pollutants 

in stormwater discharges from the industrial 

facility; and

•	 Identifies procedures the operator will use 

to comply with the terms and conditions of 

the 2008 MSGP or a State general industrial 

stormwater permit.

You are required to develop your SWPPP to 

address the specific conditions at your site and 

keep it up-to-date to reflect changes at your 

site both for your use and for review by the 

regulatory agencies responsible for overseeing 

your permit compliance.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 5

To assist permittees in their recordkeeping, 

EPA has developed an Additional MSGP 

Documentation template, which is available at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp. This 

template, developed for permit holders subject 

to the 2008 MSGP, is available in Microsoft 

Word and can be modified as necessary to 

address State-specific permit requirements.

2.C Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Team (Step 1)

The first step in developing the SWPPP is to 

identify the stormwater pollution prevention 

team. The stormwater pollution prevention 

team is responsible for assisting the facility 

manager in developing the facility’s SWPPP 

as well as implementing and maintaining 

stormwater control measures, taking corrective action where necessary to address permit 

violations or to improve the performance of 

control measures, and modifying the SWPPP 

to reflect changes made to the control measures. Since industrial facilities differ in size 

and complexity, the number of team members 

will also vary. The stormwater pollution prevention team should consist of those people 

on-site who are most familiar with the facility 

and its operations and responsible for ensuring that necessary controls are in place to 

eliminate or minimize the impacts of stormwater from the facility.

A key member of the stormwater pollution 

prevention team (for some facilities, this 

may be the only member) is the person with 

primary responsibility for developing and 

overseeing facility activities necessary to comply with the permit. This should be someone 

who will be on-site on a daily basis and who 

is familiar with the facility and its operations.

This person will also likely have primary 

responsibility for ensuring that inspections 

and monitoring activities are conducted. If an 

EPA or State inspector visits the facility, this 

person will be the main point of contact for 

the SWPPP.

A typical SWPPP includes the following 

elements:

•	 Stormwater pollution prevention team;

•	 Site description;

•	 Summary of potential pollutant sources;

•	 Description of control measures;

•	 Schedules and procedures;

•	 Documentation to support eligibility considerations under other federal laws; and

•	 Certification of the SWPPP.

EPA has developed a model Industrial SWPPP 

Template, which can be found in Appendix A, 

and on EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/npdes/

stormwater/msgp. This template, developed 

for permit holders subject to the 2008 MSGP, 

is available in Microsoft Word and can be 

customized to address SWPPP requirements 

in different State NPDES permits.

Where your facility has other written procedures in place, such as a Spill Prevention, 

Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan or 

an Environmental Management System (EMS) 

developed for a National Environmental 

Performance Track facility, your SWPPP can 

reference the portions of those documents in 

lieu of duplicating that information in your 

SWPPP. In these instances, you should keep 

copies of the relevant portions of those documents with your SWPPP.

Additional SWPPP Documentation

After you become authorized under the 

permit, you will need to keep records on any 

implementation activities required under your 

permit, including records related to inspections, maintenance, monitoring results, and 

corrective actions. This additional documentation, although separate from the actual 

SWPPP, should be kept with the SWPPP so 

that all of your NPDES stormwater records are 

filed in one central location (see Section 7).

EPA’s 2008 MSGP includes the requirements 

for a SWPPP in Part 5 of the permit.

In your SWPPP, identify the staff members 

(by name or title) that comprise the facility’s 

stormwater pollution prevention team as well as 

their individual responsibilities. Make sure you 

keep this information up-to-date as staff members 

change.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
6 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Each member of the stormwater pollution 

prevention team should have ready access to 

either an electronic or paper copy of applicable portions of the industrial stormwater 

general permit and the SWPPP.

2.D What Do I Need to Do to Complete My 

SWPPP?

After identifying your pollution prevention 

team, you are ready to complete the next three 

steps in the development of your SWPPP:

•	 Step 2: Assessing your site and activities 

(Section 3);

•	 Step 3: Selecting control measures 

(Section 4); and

•	 Step 4: Developing procedures for inspections and monitoring (Section 5).

Section 6 describes final steps necessary to 

complete your SWPPP and to obtain permit 

coverage. Section 7 suggests how records 

relating to permit compliance should be kept.

Qualified Personnel – Members of your 

stormwater pollution prevention team and those 

conducting inspections and monitoring activities 

should be “qualified personnel.” EPA defines 

qualified personnel as “those who posses the 

knowledge and skills to assess conditions and 

activities that could impact stormwater quality 

at your facility, and who can also evaluate the 

effectiveness of control measures.”

Consider adding a stormwater management 

component to employee job descriptions and 

annual reviews, as appropriate to specific 

jobs. Often these requirements compliment 

existing tasks such as maintaining a clean work 

area; promptly cleaning up spills and leaks; 

performing regularly scheduled equipment 

maintenance; and properly storing all chemicals, 

oils, and other liquid pollutants.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 7

This section describes how to collect the information needed for your SWPPP. This 

information includes:

•	 An assessment of the activities performed at your facility – this assessment will help 

identify potential pollutant sources.

•	 An evaluation of existing sampling data – a review of sampling data will show 

where past problems have occurred.

•	 Preparing maps of your facility – site maps will identify the location of industrial 

activities, pollutant sources, control measures, and the direction of stormwater flow.

3.A Conduct an Assessment of the Activities Performed at Your Facility

The first step in developing a SWPPP is to gain a thorough understanding of 

the activities conducted and equipment located at your facility to be able to 

identify potential pollutant discharge concerns. To complete this step, you will 

need to conduct a detailed walk-through of your facility to identify industrial 

materials or material handling activities exposed to stormwater (see text box 

below), any stormwater controls already in place at your facility, the direction of stormwater flow through and from your facility, and the location of all 

stormwater outfalls. If possible, you should conduct your walk-through during a rain event so that you can observe the flow of stormwater on your site.

In addition to your walk-through, you should communicate with fellow site 

employees who may be more familiar with daily operations than you so that you can 

thoroughly identify any activities that may contribute stormwater pollutants, but that 

may not be readily visible during a routine walk-through (e.g., to identify activities 

that are not performed on a routine basis).

Section 3: Site Assessment and 

Planning (Step 2)

How Does EPA Define Industrial Materials and Material Handling 

Activities?

Industrial materials or activities include, but are not limited to: material handling 

equipment or activities; industrial machinery; raw materials; industrial production and 

processes; and intermediate products, by‐products, final products, and waste products. 

Material handling activities include, but are not limited to: the storage, loading and 

unloading, transportation, disposal, or conveyance of any raw material, intermediate 

product, final product or waste product. See 40 CFR 122.26(g).

Develop a list of industrial 

activities at your site exposed 

to stormwater. Identify these 

activities on your site map.

What to Include in 

Your SWPPP
8 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

The facility assessment will reveal locations 

where industrial materials or material handling activities may be contributing stormwater contaminants, and help you identify the 

most important pollutant sources. The following approach is suggested for completing your 

facility assessment:

Identification of Activities Exposed to 

Stormwater. As you conduct your facility 

assessment, make a list of the industrial 

activities exposed to stormwater (e.g., material storage; equipment fueling, maintenance, 

and cleaning; cutting steel beams). Note their 

location so they can be identified on the site 

map.

Inventory of Materials and Pollutants. Make 

a list of the materials and pollutants (e.g., 

crankcase oil, zinc, sulfuric acid, and cleaning solvents) associated with each identified 

activity, including pollutants associated with 

these materials, based on how they are stored, 

handled, disposed, etc. Note whether these 

materials are exposed to stormwater, or have 

the potential to be exposed to stormwater. How 

materials are stored and handled has a bearing 

on the potential for stormwater pollution.

Areas with Spill or Leak Potential. Document 

where potential spills and leaks may occur, 

and specify the outfall(s) that could be 

affected by such spills and leaks. Document 

all significant spills and leaks that actually 

occurred at exposed areas, or that drained to 

a stormwater conveyance, in the three years 

prior to the date you prepare or amend your 

SWPPP. You should consider spillage and 

leakage of all types of materials when preparing for and documenting such releases.

Presence of Non-Stormwater Discharges. A nonstormwater discharge is any discharge from 

your facility this is not composed entirely of 

rainfall or snowmelt runoff. Non-stormwater 

discharges often come from potable water 

sources or process wastewater discharges.

With few exceptions, the discharge of nonstormwater as runoff from your facility is prohibited unless it is specifically allowed under 

an NPDES permit.

You must evaluate for the presence of nonstormwater discharges and be able to demonstrate that all unauthorized non-stormwater 

discharges have been eliminated prior to 

obtaining coverage under a stormwater permit 

(or that any other discharges are otherwise 

covered under a different NPDES permit).

Conduct your evaluation during a period of 

dry weather (no rain for at least the previous 

three days). Walk your site and evaluate each 

outfall to identify any locations with flowing 

or stagnant water or discharging liquid; the 

presence of such water or liquid that would be 

indicative of a non-stormwater discharge. You 

should try to identify the source of the water 

or liquid, and determine if it is one of the 

allowable non-stormwater discharges identified below or otherwise in need of further 

action to eliminate the source. You should 

also identify any indicators of past or intermittent non-stormwater discharges (such as 

evidence of stains at the outfall).

Identify locations of potential spills and leaks 

that could contribute pollutants to stormwater 

discharges, and the corresponding outfalls that 

would be affected. Review past records of all 

significant spills and leaks that occurred in 

areas exposed to stormwater or that drained to a 

stormwater conveyance over the past three years, 

and provide a summary or copy of such records in 

your SWPPP.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

For each of the activities identified above, create 

an inventory of the materials associated with 

each activity (this may be easiest to do in a 

table). Identify whether these materials are or 

have the potential to be exposed to stormwater. 

Also, identify any pollutants associated with these 

materials based on how they are stored, handled, 

disposed, etc.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 9

If any non-stormwater discharges are identified during the evaluation, you should take 

steps to eliminate any that are prohibited 

under your permit. For example, plug a floor 

drain, re-route a sink drain to the sanitary 

sewer, or submit an NPDES permit application 

for an unauthorized cooling water discharge.

Location of Salt Storage. Document the location of any storage piles containing salt used 

for deicing or that are used for other commercial or industrial purposes. Salt and deicing 

materials should be stored inside and not 

exposed to stormwater runoff, if possible.

Documentation of your evaluation for nonstormwater discharges. Typically, this 

documentation should include:

•	 The date of any evaluation;

•	 A description of the evaluation criteria used;

•	 A list of the outfalls or onsite drainage points

that were directly observed during the 

evaluation;

•	 The different types of non-stormwater

discharge(s) and source locations; and

•	 The action(s) taken, such as a list of control

measures used to eliminate unauthorized 

discharge(s), if any were identified.

What to Include in Your SWPPP If your facility has storage piles containing salt, 

document the type of material, amount, and its 

location.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges

Most industrial stormwater general permits include a list of non-stormwater discharges that are 

“allowable” and do not need to be eliminated. As used in EPA’s 2008 MSGP, “allowable non-stormwater 

discharges” are those that while not stormwater discharges, are covered under the terms and conditions 

of the stormwater permit. These are often discharges that if not covered under a stormwater permit would 

require coverage under some other NPDES permit. The list of allowable non-stormwater discharges from 

the 2008 MSGP (Part 1.1.3) includes:

•	 Discharges from fire-fighting activities;

•	 Fire hydrant flushings;

•	 Potable water, including water line flushings;

•	 Uncontaminated condensate from air conditioners, coolers, and other compressors and from the

outside storage of refrigerated gases or liquids;

•	 Irrigation drainage;

•	 Landscape watering provided all pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer have been applied in accordance

with the approved labeling;

•	 Pavement wash waters where no detergents are used and no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous

materials have occurred (unless all spilled material has been removed);

•	 Routine external building washdown that does not use detergents;

•	 Uncontaminated ground water or spring water;

•	 Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials; and

•	 Incidental windblown mist from cooling towers that collects on rooftops or adjacent portions of your

facility, but not intentional discharges from the cooling tower (e.g., “piped” cooling tower blowdown or 

drains).
10 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

3.B Evaluate Sampling Data

You should evaluate any stormwater sampling 

data you, or others, collected, from the previous permit term or any time in the past 5 

years, which are associated with stormwater 

discharges from the facility. This includes any 

analytic sampling data, such as benchmark 

monitoring or effluent limitation guideline 

data. The purpose of evaluating your past sampling data is to identify or pinpoint any pollutants of concern, hotspots, or control measures 

that are not functioning correctly. This information will be useful as you identify and select 

control measures (described in Section 4).

A summary of all stormwater discharge sampling 

data collected at your facility during the previous 

permit term. You should summarize the data 

by pollutant, and indicate whether the pollutant 

parameter exceeded any applicable benchmark or 

effluent limit.

Include in your SWPPP your evaluation of the 

data, particularly where pollutants exceeded the 

2008 MSGP benchmark values (see SWPPP Tip 

below). Attempt to identify why that pollutant 

existed in elevated concentrations, what are the 

potential sources of that pollutant at your facility, 

and what potential measures you could use to 

reduce that pollutant.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Compare your sampling results to EPA’s 2008 

MSGP Benchmark values below.

Pollutant 2008 MSGP 

Benchmark

Ammonia* 2.14 mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand (5 day)

30 mg/L

Chemical Oxygen Demand 120 mg/L

Total Suspended Solids 100 mg/L

Turbidity 50 NTU

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

Total Phosphorus 2.0 mg/L

pH 6.0 – 9.0 s.u.

Aluminum (T) (pH 6.5 - 9) 0.75 mg/L

Antimony (T) 0.64 mg/L

Arsenic (T) 0.15 mg/L

Beryllium (T) 0.13 mg/L

Cadmium (T)† 0.0021 mg/L

Copper (T)*† 0.014 mg/L

Cyanide 0.022 mg/L

Iron (T) 1.0 mg/L

Lead (T)*† 0.082 mg/L

Magnesium (T) 0.064 mg/L

Mercury (T) 0.0014 mg/L

Nickel (T)† 0.47 mg/L

Selenium (T)* 0.005 mg/L

Silver (T)*† 0.0038 mg/L

Zinc (T)† 0.12 mg/L

(T) Total recoverable

* New criteria are currently under development, but 

values are based on existing criteria.

† These pollutants are dependent on water 

hardness. The benchmark value listed is based 

on a hardness of 100 mg/L. The 2008 MSGP

requires industrial facility to analyze receiving

water samples for hardness, and use the hardness 

tables provided in the 2008 MSGP to determine 

the applicable benchmark value for that facility.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 11

One free web-based mapping service is 

EPA’s Water Locator Tool, which is available at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/

msgp. To use the tool, enter your facility 

address in Step 1, then click on “Window to 

My Environment” in Step 2 (make sure your 

pop-up blocker is turned off). You will be 

able to zoom and reposition the map. When 

you get the map to the appropriate scale and 

location, you can copy and paste it into your 

SWPPP. Use a graphics program or a pen to 

mark the location of your facility on the map.

An example general location map is included 

in Figure 3.

3.C Develop General Location and Site 

Maps

The final step in the site assessment process 

is to document the results of your site assessment on a detailed site map. If you have 

already developed a site map for an earlier 

permit, you should modify the map as necessary to reflect changes at your facility, including changes to any of your control measures 

or industrial activities.

Your SWPPP must include both a general location map and a detailed site map. The following is a discussion of what is required for each 

type.

General Location Map

A general location map is helpful to identify 

nearby, but not necessarily adjacent, waterbodies around your facility. Include in your 

SWPPP a general location map (e.g., U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map, 

or other large scale area map) with enough 

detail to identify the location of your facility and all nearby receiving waters that may 

receive your stormwater discharges. Create a 

USGS map for your area by using the USGS 

National Map Viewer (http://nmviewogc.

cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm). Maps can be printed 

or saved as PDF documents and inserted into 

your SWPPP.

Develop a general location map of your facility 

that shows:

•	 the location of your facility

•	 receiving waters to which your facility

discharges

It may also be helpful to include roads or political 

boundaries to better locate your facility.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Figure 2. Example general location map.

Figure 3. Example general location map.
12 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

appropriate control measures (Section 4) and 

monitoring locations (Section 5), you should 

revise your site map to reflect this information 

and any additional changes identified as you 

develop your SWPPP. If you are unable to fit 

all the information on one map, use multiple 

maps to provide a full characterization of the 

information described above. Also, if activities 

and conditions change at your site during the 

term of the NPDES permit, you should update 

the map as described in Section 6.C of this 

guide. An example of a site map is included 

(see Figure 4) and in Appendix C.

Site Map

Develop a map of your site that includes, 

among other things, the footprint of all buildings, structures, paved areas, and parking 

lots. The site map is intended to show the 

direction of stormwater flow throughout your 

facility and the potential pollutant sources 

that may come into contact with your stormwater runoff.

EPA recommends that you develop a first draft 

of the site map based on the information collected during your assessment. After you select 

Figure 4. Example site map.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 13

Include a site map of your facility which includes the items below:

•	 The size of the property in acres;

•	 The location and extent of significant structures and impervious surfaces;

•	 Directions of stormwater flow (use arrows);

•	 Locations of all existing structural control measures;

•	 Locations of all receiving waters in the immediate vicinity of your facility, indicating if any of the waters are

impaired and, if so, whether the waters have TMDLs established for them;

•	 Locations of all stormwater conveyances including ditches, pipes, and swales;

•	 Locations of potential pollutant sources identified (see Section 3.B);

•	 Locations where significant spills or leaks have occurred;

•	 Locations of all stormwater monitoring points;

•	 Locations of stormwater inlets and outfalls, with a unique identification code for each outfall (e.g., Outfall

No. 1, No. 2, etc), indicating if you are treating one or more outfalls as “substantially identical”, and an 

approximate outline of the areas draining to each outfall;

•	 Municipal separate storm sewer systems, where your stormwater discharges to them;

•	 Locations and descriptions of all non-stormwater discharges;

•	 Locations of the following activities where such activities are exposed to precipitation:

–	 Fueling stations;

–	 Vehicle and equipment maintenance and/or cleaning areas;

–	 Loading/unloading areas;

–	 Locations used for the treatment, storage, or disposal of wastes;

–	 Liquid storage tanks;

–	 Processing and storage areas;

– Immediate access roads and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials, manufactured 

products, waste material, or by-products used or created by the facility;

–	 Transfer areas for substances in bulk; and

–	 Machinery; and

•	 Locations and sources of run-on to your site from adjacent property that contains significant quantities of

pollutants.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
14 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Control measures are the best management practices (BMPs) or other structural or 

non-structural practices that are used to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants 

in stormwater. Structural control measures, as the name implies, focus on installation 

of hard structures to control discharges. Structural controls include practices such 

as vegetative swales, collection and reuse of stormwater, 

inlet controls, snow management, infiltration devices, and 

wet retention measures. Non-structural control measures 

are intended to prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants in stormwater and/or the volume of stormwater 

runoff using practices that focus on facility operations and 

procedures. Examples of non-structural control measures 

include procedural practices such as employee trainings 

and the posting of signs that raise staff awareness to 

the BMPs and procedures in place to control stormwater 

pollutants.

A combination of preventive and active treatment control measures usually results 

in the most effective stormwater management for minimizing the offsite discharge of 

pollutants in stormwater runoff. Most control measures require regular maintenance 

to function as intended. Some control measures have simple maintenance requirements, while others may require more extensive 

upkeep in order to maximize their performance. Note that identifying weaknesses in current facility practices will help permittees 

determine appropriate control measures for use at the site.

General Stormwater Management Principles

In most industrial stormwater permits, including the 2008 MSGP, 

the site operator is given the flexibility to select the type of control 

measures, including specific technologies, which he/she believes are 

best suited to the facility and that will meet the permit’s requirements. This flexibility is necessary given the variability of each 

industrial operation, the differences in the topography from site to 

site, and the dissimilarities in the activities and materials exposed to 

stormwater. However, there are certain general principles of stormwater management that are common to all sites, and that can be 

used by operators in their selection and design of control measures.

These general principles, listed below, should be considered as a way 

to maximize the performance of control measures at your site.

•	 Pollution prevention – The best way to prevent stormwater pollution is to minimize the use of water contaminants in your industrial activities. When selecting 

control measures for the facility, you should focus on controls that are geared 

toward reducing pollutants at the source to prevent stormwater pollution. Source 

control practices include maintaining equipment, picking up trash and debris, 

training site staff on appropriate spill procedures, and proper materials management and storage.

Section 4: Selecting Control 

Measures (Step 3)

Effluent limits = stormwater control 

requirements. In the 2008 MSGP, as with 

most state industrial stormwater general 

permits, stormwater control measures are those 

structural or non-structural practices that are 

used to achieve the permit’s effluent limits.

What does “minimize” 

mean?

The technology-based limits 

included in EPA’s 2008 MSGP 

require that you minimize (i.e., 

defined as reduce and/or eliminate) 

stormwater exposure to pollutants 

using control measures that are 

technologically available, economi‐

cally practicable, and achievable in 

light of best industry practice.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 15

•	 Minimizing exposure – Another effective 

way to minimize stormwater pollution is to 

eliminate opportunities for stormwater to 

come into contact with industrial activities and polluting materials. You should 

look for opportunities to relocate industrial 

activities/materials to covered or contained 

areas and to properly store and transport 

any accumulated scrap or waste material.

•	 Combining controls – Combined control 

measures are often more effective than 

control measures in isolation. For example, 

good housekeeping will often go a long way 

to minimize stormwater pollution but is 

more effective when combined with minimizing the exposure of significant materials or activities and a structural control, 

such as inlet protection.

• Examining your site’s pollutant sources – 

Understand the type and quantity of pollutants that could contaminate stormwater 

leaving your facility. Use your knowledge 

of the potential pollutants to drive your 

selection and design of effective control 

measures.

•	 Maximizing infiltration – Onsite infiltration reduces overland runoff, improves 

groundwater recharge, and augments base 

flow in local streams. You should look for 

opportunities to minimize impervious area 

and increase areas where stormwater can 

infiltrate on-site. Keep in mind, however, 

that the use of onsite infiltration typically 

must be combined with other control measures to avoid ground water contamination.

•	 Using existing vegetated areas – Open 

vegetated swales and natural depressions 

can be used to dissipate energy in overland 

flow and reduce erosion. Vegetated swales 

and natural depressions can increase infiltration and, in some cases, promote uptake 

of metals and nutrients by plants.

•	 Buffering on-site or adjacent waterbodies 

or drainage systems – Maintain or restore 

vegetated buffer zones between your facility’s impervious areas and adjacent surface 

waters.

•	 Using structural practices (as applicable) – 

When non-structural control measures 

are not effective in preventing stormwater 

contamination, structural control measures 

(e.g., swirl separators, sand filters, retention 

basins, etc.) may be needed to treat stormwater before it leaves your facility.

EPA’s Technology-Based Discharge 

Requirements

The following sections describe the 12 categories of discharge requirements (or “effluent 

limits”) required by the 2008 MSGP. Although 

the wording of these requirements may be 

unique to the EPA permit, many State permits 

include requirements that are similar to the 

2008 MSGP.

4.A Minimize Exposure

The first step in an effective stormwater control program is minimizing exposure of manufacturing, processing, material storage areas, 

loading and unloading areas, dumpsters and 

other disposal areas, maintenance activities, 

and fueling operations to rain, snow, snowmelt, and runoff by both locating industrial 

materials and activities inside or protecting 

them with storm resistant coverings.

No Exposure Exemption

EPA’s regulations recognize the effectiveness of

minimizing exposure by allowing facilities to opt

out of the permit by submitting a “No Exposure 

Certification” when all industrial activities are 

protected from contact with stormwater. The “No 

Exposure Certification” is included as Appendix K 

of the 2008 MSGP. Note that industrial materials 

do not need to be enclosed or covered if 

stormwater runoff from affected areas will not be 

discharged to receiving waters or if discharges 

are authorized under another NPDES permit.

Check your State permit for specific requirements 

for incorporating minimizing exposure into your

SWPPP.
16 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Figure 5. Minimize exposure by providing cover for potential contaminants.

Tetra Tech

Describe all structural controls or practices used to minimize the exposure of industrial activities to rain, snow, 

snowmelt, and runoff. The SWPPP must describe where the controls or practices are being implemented at 

your site. The location must also be identified on the SWPPP site map. Examples of exposure-minimizing 

control measures that could be used at your facility and described in the SWPPP include:

•	 The location and extent of grading, berms, or curbs used to contain contaminated stormwater or divert

stormwater around areas of industrial activity;

•	 A description of the types of materials and equipment that are stored within secondary containment and

the location of contained storage areas;

•	 The location of spill cleanup kits and a description and schedule for employee spill abatement and cleanup

training;

•	 Proper procedures for leaky vehicles and equipment, such as drip pans; parking in a contained area, or

parking indoors;

•	 The use and location of spill/overflow protection equipment;

•	 Procedures for long-term storage or disposal of equipment and vehicles, such as draining all fluids;

•	 The location of covered and/or contained equipment cleaning areas; and

•	 The disposal method for all wash water, such as an on-site sump (if a sump is used, specify the pumping

frequency) or sanitary sewer.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 17

4.B Good Housekeeping

Good housekeeping practices offer a practical 

and cost-effective way to maintain a clean and 

orderly facility to prevent potential pollution 

sources from coming into contact with stormwater. Good housekeeping practices also help 

to enhance safety and improve the overall 

work environment. To effectively document 

in your SWPPP that you are including good 

housekeeping procedures at your site, you 

should establish protocols to reduce the possibility of mishandling materials or equipment 

and train employees in good housekeeping 

techniques. An effective good housekeeping 

program not only benefits stormwater quality 

but makes the facility a clean, safe place for 

employees and clients.

Common areas where good housekeeping 

practices should be followed include areas 

where trash containers are kept and adjacent 

areas, material storage areas, vehicle and 

equipment maintenance areas, and loading 

docks. Involving employees in routine monitoring of housekeeping practices has proven to 

be an effective means of ensuring the continued implementation of this control measure.

Labeling Storm Drains – A good stormwater 

awareness practice is to label all storm drains 

on your industrial facility with a “No Dumping – 

Drains to Stream” or similar message. If select 

drains at your facility discharge to the sanitary 

sewer system or to a sump (for example, at 

a wash rack), you should label those with a 

“Drains to Sanitary Sewer” or similar message.

Figure 6. Two photos showing an industrial facility before and after it 

followed good housekeeping practices.

Tetra Tech

Describe any practices you are implementing to 

keep exposed areas of your site clean. Describe 

where each practice is being implemented at your 

site. Include here your schedule or approach for:

•	 Regular pickup and disposal of waste materials

and scrap equipment;

•	 Maintenance of clean work spaces;

•	 Routine inspections for leaks and of the

condition of drums, tanks, and containers;

•	 Routine inspections to make sure that industrial

materials are properly stored and labeled;

•	 A schedule for sweeping paved areas and

floors, including who will perform the 

sweeping (employee or contractor);

•	 The individual or position responsible for

emptying drip pans placed beneath leaking 

equipment, valves, and fill lines.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
18 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

4.C Maintenance

A good maintenance program requires regular inspections, testing, and the preventive 

maintenance and repair of industrial equipment (stationary and mobile) and industrial 

systems. Maintenance programs are intended 

to ensure that structural control measures 

and industrial equipment are kept in good 

operating condition and to prevent or minimize leaks and other releases of pollutants 

(see Section 4.D for more specific information). If you notice a deficiency or otherwise 

find that your control measures or industrial 

equipment need to be replaced or repaired to 

ensure proper functioning, and to avoid leaks 

or other releases, you must make the necessary repairs or modifications, typically prior 

to the next wet weather event and as expeditiously as practicable.

Facilities with good maintenance programs 

will keep a maintenance log that tracks the 

regular maintenance of industrial equipment 

and stormwater control measures. The log 

provides a maintenance history for each piece 

of equipment and demonstrates to regulatory 

authorities that you have implemented the 

maintenance program outlined in your SWPPP.

4.D Spill Prevention and Response 

Procedures

Spills and leaks, together, are the largest 

source of industrial stormwater pollution.

For this reason, your SWPPP must identify 

control measures that are used at your site to 

minimize the potential for spills, leaks, and 

other releases that may come into contact 

with stormwater. Among the practices that 

should be in place at your site are plans for 

effective response to spills if or when they 

occur. If your facility has more than 1,320 

gallons of oil storage capacity in aboveground 

tanks you may also be required to develop a 

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) plan consistent with 40 CFR 112.1.

Employees must be aware of notification 

procedures in the event of a spill or leak, 

including when to contact appropriate facility 

personnel, emergency response agencies, and 

regulatory agencies. State or local requirements 

may necessitate reporting of spills or other 

prohibited discharges to local emergency 

response, public health, or drinking water supply 

agencies. Contact information must be posted 

in locations that are readily accessible and 

available to employees. Where a leak, spill, or 

other release containing a hazardous substance

or oil in an amount equal to or in excess of a 

reportable quantity established under either 

40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, or 40 CFR

Part 302, occurs during a 24-hour period, you 

must notify the National Response Center (NRC)

at (800) 424-8802 or, in the Washington, 

DC, metropolitan area, call (202) 267-2675 in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117, and 40 CFR Part

302 as soon as you have knowledge of the 

discharge.

Figure 8. Spill kits should be maintained in 

areas with spill potential, such as fueling 

stations.

Describe procedures to:

•	 Maintain industrial equipment so that leaks

and other releases are avoided, and

•	 Maintain any of your site’s control measures in

effective operating condition.

Include the schedule you will follow for such 

maintenance activities. Describe where each 

applicable procedure is being implemented at the 

site.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Figure 7. Equipment should receive routine 

preventative maintenance to prevent drips and 

leaks.

Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 19

4.E Erosion and Sediment Controls

Permits typically require control measures to 

be selected and implemented to limit erosion 

on areas of the site that, due to topography, 

land disturbing activities, soils, cover, materials, or other factors, are likely to experience 

erosion. In general, erosion control measures, 

which prevent soil or sediment from becoming 

mobilized, should be used as the primary line 

of defense, while sediment control measures, 

which trap, infiltrate, or settle out mobilized 

sediments, should be used to back-up the erosion control measures. For instance, erosion 

control measures, include grading, seeding, 

mulching, and sodding, that prevent soil from 

becoming dislodged, should be considered 

first. Where sediment may be dislodged and 

potentially mobilized in stormwater runoff, 

sediment control measures that trap eroded 

sediment include silt fences, sediment ponds, 

and stabilized entrances should be considered.

When selecting, designing, installing, and 

implementing appropriate erosion and sediment control measures, you should consult 

with your Tribal, State, and local authorities to 

ensure that you consider the appropriate control measures. EPA’s internet-based resources 

relating to controlling erosion and sedimentation include the sector-specific Industrial 

Stormwater Fact Sheet Series, (www.epa.gov/

npdes/stormwater/msgp), National Menu 

of Stormwater BMPs (www.epa.gov/npdes/

stormwater/menuofbmps), and National 

Management Measures to Control Nonpoint 

Source Pollution from Urban Areas

(www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/

index.html).

Projects that disturb 1 acre or more of land 

generally require coverage under an NPDES 

construction general permit (CGP). Information 

on EPA’s 2008 CGP requirements, including 

links to construction SWPPP resources, is 

available at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.

Include the following:

•	 A narrative description of areas of your site that

are susceptible to erosion (note: the site map 

will also identify these areas);

•	 A description of erosion and sediment control

measures used at your site to stabilize exposed 

areas and contain runoff to minimize onsite 

erosion and potential offsite discharges of 

sediment.

Note: Permits often require flow velocity

dissipation devices at discharge locations and 

within outfall channels where necessary to reduce 

erosion and/or settle out pollutants. Describe

in your SWPPP the location of each control 

implemented at your site.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Figure 9. Slope drains to protect a hillside from 

erosion.

Tetra Tech

Describe any structural controls or procedures you are putting in place to minimize the potential for leaks, spills, and other 

releases. At a minimum, your SWPPP should include:

•	 The location(s) of spill response plans for significant materials;

•	 A schedule for training employees in spill response procedures;

•	 Procedures for plainly labeling containers (e.g., “Used Oil,” “Spent Solvents,” “Fertilizers and Pesticides,” etc.) that could be

susceptible to spillage or leakage to encourage proper handling and facilitate rapid response if spills or leaks occur;

•	 Preventative measures such as barriers between material storage and traffic areas, secondary containment provisions, and

procedures for material storage and handling;

•	 The individual or position responsible for making sure the spill kits are complete and ready for use;

•	 Procedures for expeditiously stopping, containing, and cleaning up leaks, spills, and other releases; and

•	 Procedures for notification of appropriate facility personnel, emergency response agencies, and regulatory agencies.

Describe where each control is to be located or where applicable procedures will be implemented.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
20 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

4.F Management of Runoff

Similar to erosion and sediment controls, the 

management of stormwater runoff that flows 

through your site is an effective way to reduce 

the pollutants that are discharged from your 

site. Where you employ structures or practices 

that are intended to divert, infiltrate, reuse, 

or otherwise reduce stormwater runoff so as 

to reduce the discharge of pollutants, your 

SWPPP must include a description of those 

controls. Appropriate measures are highly 

site-specific, but may include vegetative 

swales, berms, collection and reuse of stormwater, inlet controls, snow management, infiltration devices, and wet retention measures.

As mentioned previously, a combination of preventive and treatment control measures usually 

results in the most effective approach to stormwater management for minimizing the offsite 

discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff.

4.G Salt Storage Piles or Piles Containing 

Salt

Salt is commonly used for deicing and other 

commercial or industrial purposes, including 

maintenance of paved surfaces. Salt piles or 

piles that are predominantly composed of other 

materials that contain some salt typically must 

be covered or enclosed and otherwise isolated 

from coming into contact with stormwater 

(e.g., good housekeeping, diversions, containment). Piles do not need to be enclosed or 

covered if stormwater runoff from the piles is 

not discharged or if discharges from the piles 

are authorized under another NPDES permit.

To effectively document in your SWPPP that 

you are minimizing exposure of these piles 

to stormwater, you should consider creating a 

checklist to verify that salt loading and offloading operations occur within contained areas 

with appropriate measures in place to prevent 

the track out of salt from the contained areas.

When selecting control measures, be careful not 

to violate local building or fire codes and other 

ordinances. An example would be constructing 

a shed for storage of chemicals and then finding 

out from the fire department that you are in 

violation for locating the shed too close to the 

main building, not equipping the shed with 

sprinklers or other fire control device, and not 

properly labeling containers.

Figure 10. Vegetated berm used to prevent facility 

inundation when the river is at flood stage.

Tetra Tech

Figure 11. Salt pile covered with a tarp.

Tetra Tech

Include the following:

•	 A description of controls used at your site to

divert, infiltrate, reuse, contain, or otherwise 

reduce stormwater runoff.

•	 A description of locations at your site where

each control will be implemented.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 21

4.H Sector-Specific Requirements

Most industrial stormwater general permits 

regulate discharges of stormwater from a 

number of different industrial sectors. For 

instance, EPA’s 2008 MSGP regulates discharges from 29 different industrial sectors.

These “sectors” consist of similar facilities 

categorized by the nature of their industrial 

activity, type of materials handled, and material management practices employed. The 

sectors are structured to a large extent on the 

definition of “stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity” found at 40 CFR 

122.26 (b)(14)(i)–(ix), (xi), under which many 

sectors are identified based on their standard 

industrial classification (SIC) code.

Review your industrial stormwater general 

permit to determine if there are additional 

sector-specific discharge requirements (or 

“effluent limits”) for which your type of 

industrial activity are subject. If so, you will 

need to specifically document how you will 

comply with those requirements in your 

SWPPP. Not all sectors will necessarily have 

additional sector-specific discharge requirements. For example, Sector N of EPA’s 2008 

MSGP includes specific requirements for 

scrap recycling and waste recycling facilities as defined by SIC Major Group Code 50 

(5093). One of the specific Sector N discharge 

requirements is to “minimize surface runoff 

from coming in contact with scrap processing 

equipment.” Alternatively, the Chemical and 

Allied Products Manufacturing, and Refining 

sector (Sector C) does not have any sectorspecific discharge requirements in the 2008 

MSGP.

Note that, if covered by the 2008 MSGP, you 

are responsible for complying with sectorspecific requirements associated with your 

primary industrial activity and all co-located 

industrial activities. Co-located industrial 

activities are industrial activities, excluding your primary industrial activity, located 

on-site that are also required to be covered 

by the 2008 MSGP or a State general permit.

Statewide general permits may have different 

requirements for specific industrial sectors.

Sector-specific requirements for the 2008 

MSGP – All sector-specific requirements can be 

found in Part 8 of the 2008 MSGP.

Sector-specific fact sheets – EPA has developed 

fact sheets specific to the industrial activities, 

pollutants and control measures used at each 

of the 29 sectors covered by the 2008 MSGP. 

These sector fact sheets can be found at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/

swsectors.cfm.

Include the following:

•	 The industrial sector, or sectors, applicable to

the permitted site.

•	 A discussion of the control measures

implemented to address sector-specific 

requirements, if applicable, consistent with

Part 8 of the 2008 MSGP.

•	 The location of each control and/or procedure

used to comply with the sector-specific 

requirements.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Include the following:

•	 The identification of salt storage piles or piles containing salt, and a description of structures at your site

covering or enclosing such piles, or that prevent the discharge of stormwater from such piles.

•	 If tarps are used to cover piles, the SWPPP should describe procedures for when tarps will be placed over

the piles.

•	 A description of any controls or procedures used to minimize exposure resulting from adding to or removing

materials from the pile.

•	 The locations at your site where each control and/or procedure are implemented. Note that these locations

must be identified on the SWPPP site map as well.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
22 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

4.I Employee Training

Stormwater training is required for all 

employees who work in areas where industrial activities or material handling activities 

are exposed to stormwater, or who are responsible for implementing activities necessary 

to meet the conditions of this permit. These 

employees include inspectors, maintenance 

personnel, and all members of your Pollution 

Prevention Team. The training session or 

sessions are expected to cover the contents of 

the facility SWPPP, control measures implemented to achieve compliance with applicable 

discharge requirements, spill containment 

and cleanup procedures, maintenance, monitoring, inspection, planning, reporting, and 

documentation requirements.

EPA recommends that training be conducted 

for any applicable employees at least annually and whenever a new employee starts who 

meets the description above. You should have 

a sign-in/sign-out sheet at each training class 

to document that employees have participated. Keep the sign-in/sign-out sheet with 

your SWPPP.

Customize the employee training to the issues

at your facility, and ensure that employees 

are trained on the control measures they are 

expected to implement. Among the topics you 

cover in your training should be some of the 

basic principles of stormwater management. For 

example, you should convey that:

•	 Stormwater pollution occurs when rainfall

runoff picks up pollutants from the ground or 

areas exposed to rainfall.

•	 Polluted stormwater can cause significant

water quality problems, such as fish 

kills and drinking water contamination. 

Stormwater runoff is typically discharged 

directly to receiving waters, and is not 

treated somewhere else, like at a wastewater 

treatment plant.

•	 Potential stormwater pollutants should

be kept inside or under cover whenever 

possible.

•	 The best way to prevent stormwater

problems is through general good 

housekeeping practices. A clean and 

organized facility will usually have very few

stormwater problems.

•	 If anyone sees any potential stormwater

problems, they should report it to the facility 

operator or a member of the stormwater 

pollution prevention team.

Figure 12. In addition to employee training, labeling storm 

drains is a good measure to educate employees.

Include the following:

•	 Person(s) responsible for conducting the

training (a member of the Pollution Prevention 

Team, contractor, or other?)

•	 The employees or positions that will receive

stormwater training.

•	 The frequency of stormwater training

sessions (annually, upon hire, or other). 

EPA recommends at least once per year. 

For example, the SWPPP might state that 

stormwater training will be conducted annually 

in September so employees are ready for the 

upcoming wet weather season.

•	 The stormwater topics covered during the

training session or sessions.

•	 The sign-in/sign-out sheets from the training

session.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Tetra Tech
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 23

4.J Non-Stormwater Discharges

In Section 3.A, this guide discussed the 

assessment of allowable and prohibited nonstormwater discharges at your site. As stated 

in that section, unauthorized non-stormwater 

discharges cannot be discharged from your 

facility unless specifically authorized by a 

separate, individual NPDES permit. Your 

SWPPP should describe the assessment 

you conducted under Section 3.A, how you 

eliminated any unauthorized non-stormwater 

discharges, and your plans to prevent unauthorized non-stormwater discharges at your 

facility.

4.K Waste, Garbage, and Floatable 

Debris

You are responsible for making sure that 

stormwater runoff does not carry waste, garbage, and floatable debris to receiving waters.

To verify compliance with this requirement, 

you should identify and implement control 

measures (e.g., good housekeeping, sweeping, keeping lids closed on dumpsters) to 

keep exposed areas free of such materials.

Alternatively, your SWPPP should identify 

how you will intercept and properly dispose of 

these materials before they leave your facility.

Figure 13. Unauthorized non-stormwater discharge from 

an industrial facility.

Figure 14. Poor management of waste and garbage at a 

facility.

Include the following:

•	 A list of allowable non-stormwater discharges

that occur at your facility.

•	 A description of unauthorized non-stormwater

discharges found at your site and how they 

were eliminated.

•	 Steps taken to ensure that other unauthorized

non-stormwater discharges do not occur in the 

future.

Note: If this section is already addressed by your 

documentation of non-stormwater discharges 

(see Section 3.A), you can simply include a crossreference to that section of your SWPPP.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Include the following:

•	 A description of controls and procedures that

will be used to minimize discharges of waste, 

garbage, and floatable debris.

•	 Descriptions of the location of these control

measures and procedures at your site.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Tetra Tech

Tetra Tech
24 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

4.L Dust Generation and Vehicle Tracking 

of Industrial Materials

As an operator, you are responsible for 

minimizing generation of dust and off-site 

tracking of raw, final or waste materials. Dust 

control practices can reduce the activities and 

air movement that cause dust to be generated from disturbed soil surfaces. Airborne 

particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human health. Dust can be carried offsite, thereby increasing soil loss from 

disturbed areas and increasing the likelihood 

of sedimentation and water pollution. Control 

measures to minimize the generation of dust 

include:

•	 Sprinkling/Irrigation. Moistening the 

ground surface with water is an effective 

dust control method for haul roads and 

other traffic routes.

•	 Vegetative Cover. By establishing a vegetative cover on areas that will not see vehicle 

traffic, exposed soil is stabilized and wind 

velocity at ground level can be reduced, 

thus reducing the potential for dust to 

become airborne.

•	 Mulch. Mulch is a quick and effective, but 

not permanent, means of dust control for 

newly disturbed areas.

•	 Wind Breaks. Wind breaks can be trees or 

shrubs left in place during site clearing or 

constructed barriers such as a wind fence, 

snow fence, tarp curtain, hay bale, crate 

wall or sediment wall. The break reduces 

wind velocity, minimizing airborne transfer of soil off site.

•	 Tillage. Deep tillage in large open areas 

brings soil clods to the surface where they 

rest on top of dust, preventing it from 

becoming airborne.

•	 Stone. Stone can be an effective dust deterrent for construction roads and entrances 

or as a mulch in areas where vegetation 

cannot be established.

•	 Spray-on Chemical Soil Treatments 

(Palliatives). Examples of chemical adhesives include anionic asphalt emulsion, 

latex emulsion, resin-water emulsions 

and calcium chloride. Chemical palliatives should be used only on mineral soils.

When considering chemical application 

to suppress dust, determine whether the 

chemical is biodegradable or water-soluble 

and what effect its application could have 

on the surrounding environment, including 

waterbodies and wildlife.

To reduce vehicle tracking of materials and 

sediment, the operator should keep stored or 

spilled materials away from all roads within 

the site. Specific measures such as setting up 

a wash site or separate pad to clean vehicles 

prior to their leaving the site may be effective 

as well.

4.M Numeric Effluent Limitations Based 

on Effluent Limit Guidelines

Some industrial activities identified in industrial stormwater permits also have Federal 

numeric effluent limits (called effluent limitation guidelines) that must be achieved in 

stormwater discharges. The effluent limits are 

maximum concentrations or levels of specific 

pollutants that can be discharged in facility 

stormwater. If your facility includes one of the 

industrial categories listed below, refer to your 

industrial stormwater general permit (Parts 

6.2.2.1 and 2.1.3 of EPA’s 2008 MSGP) regarding numeric effluent limits and monitoring 

requirements to which you are subject:

•	 Discharges resulting from spray down or

intentional wetting of logs at wet deck 

storage areas

•	 Runoff from phosphate fertilizer manufacturing facilities that comes into contact 

with any raw materials, finished product, 

by-products or waste products

•	 Runoff from asphalt emulsion facilities

•	 Runoff from material storage piles at

cement manufacturing facilities

•	 Mine dewatering discharges at crushed

stone, construction sand and gravel, or 

industrial sand mining facilities

•	 Runoff from hazardous waste landfills

Include the following:

•	 A description of controls and procedures used

at your site to minimize the generation of dust.

•	 Descriptions of procedures and controls used

to minimize off-site tracking of raw, final, or 

waste materials.

•	 Describe the location where each control and/

or procedure will be implemented and include 

on the SWPPP site map.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 25

•	 Runoff from non-hazardous waste landfills

•	 Runoff from coal storage piles at steam

electric generating facilities

An example of a numeric effluent limit is the 

requirement for facilities that discharge stormwater from asphalt emulsion facilities to meet 

specific, numeric concentration limits for TSS, 

pH, and oil and grease (i.e., based on the limits in 40 CFR Part 443, Subpart A).

If your facility is subject to numeric effluent 

limits, you must document the location and 

type of control measures installed at your site 

to meet those limits.

4.N Additional Controls to Address 

Impaired Waters

Many general permits have additional requirements for discharges to impaired waters.

“Impaired waters” have been identified by 

a Tribe, State, or EPA as not meeting applicable State water quality standards pursuant 

to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

This may include both waters with approved 

or established Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs), and those for which a TMDL has 

not yet been approved or established.

A TMDL determines the greatest amount of 

a given pollutant, such as sediment, that a 

water body can receive without violating 

water quality standards and designated uses.

The TMDL then establishes pollution reduction goals to bring the water body into compliance with water quality standards. Facilities 

that are subject to NPDES permits (i.e., “point 

sources”), such as facilities subject to EPA’s 

2008 MSGP, which discharge the pollutant 

causing the water body impairment, receive 

“waste load allocations” or “WLAs”. The WLA 

estimates the daily amount of the impairment 

pollutant that can be discharged from particular sources or categories of sources so that 

the waterbody can be restored to meeting its 

applicable water quality standards.

Should your facility discharge stormwater to 

a water body subject to a TMDL, EPA or a 

State permit authority may require additional 

effluent limits, monitoring requirements, or 

other restrictions consistent with an applicable WLA, or you may be required to apply 

for an individual NPDES permit. Where you 

have been informed either in the permit or 

directly by EPA or a State permit authority 

that you are subject to any “water qualitybased” discharge requirement consistent with 

an applicable WLA, you are required to document in your SWPPP the control measures 

used to meet that requirement and to describe 

the location of such control measures.

Impaired waters are streams, rivers, and lakes 

that do not currently meet designated uses 

and water quality standards. States, territories, 

and authorized tribes are required under the

Clean Water Act to compile lists of known 

impaired waters, called 303(d) lists. Stormwater 

discharges to impaired waters may trigger 

additional control measures and monitoring 

requirements. For facilities subject to EPA’s 

2008 MSGP, see Part 2.2 for a more detailed 

discussion of water quality-based effluent 

limitations and conditions for discharging to 

impaired waters.

Find impaired waters near your facility – Use

EPA’s Water Locator Tool (available at

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp) or other 

tool to map impaired waters within 10 miles 

of your facility. Enter your facility address in 

Step 1, then click on “Retrieve List of Impaired

Waterbodies” under step 3 to see the list.

Include the following:

•	 All numeric effluent limits the facility is

required to meet based on effluent limit

guidelines.

•	 A description of the control measures used to

meet the numeric effluent limits.

•	 The location of each control measure at your

site.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Include the following:

•	 A description of the control measures used to

meet the water quality-based effluent limits.

•	 The location of each control measure at your

site.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
26 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Section 5: Procedures for 

Inspections and Monitoring (Step 4)

The next step in developing your SWPPP is to set out the procedures you will follow 

for inspecting your site and monitoring your stormwater discharge. The procedures 

you develop in your SWPPP for inspection and monitoring will help you understand 

whether your control measures are working and, if not, provide you with ways you 

may improve your stormwater control.

Industrial stormwater permits typically 

require three types of inspections:

1. Routine facility inspections 

(see Section 5.A)

2. Visual assessments (see Section 5.B)

3. Annual comprehensive site inspections (see Section 5.C)

Some States also require you to take 

samples of your stormwater discharge for 

laboratory analysis. Check the applicable 

section of your industrial stormwater 

permit to determine if you are required to 

collect water quality monitoring samples.

See Section 5.D for guidance on how to 

address your monitoring procedures in 

the SWPPP.

The following sections describe the type 

of information you should document in 

your SWPPP and the associated decisions 

you will have to make when planning for 

and conducting each of the three types of 

inspections.

5.A Routine Facility Inspections

Your industrial stormwater permit will likely specify a minimum frequency for conducting routine facility inspections. The minimum frequency typically ranges from 

once per month to once per quarter; however, EPA recommends that you develop 

a routine inspection schedule customized for your facility and specific site conditions, which in many instances will require that you inspect more frequently than 

the minimum requirement. EPA also suggests conducting routine inspections when 

measurable precipitation falls during normal business hours. Observing site conditions during storms provides you with real-time feedback on control measures that 

are working and those that are not working effectively.

EPA’s 2008 MSGP requires three types of 

facility inspections.

1. Routine facility inspections (2008 MSGP, Part 4.1)

2. Quarterly visual assessment of stormwater discharges 

(2008 MSGP, Part 4.2)

3. Comprehensive site inspections (2008 MSGP, Part 4.3)

The 2008 MSGP also includes the requirements 

for the following types of monitoring:

1. Benchmark monitoring (2008 MSGP, Part 6.2.1)

2. Effluent guidelines limitation monitoring

(2008 MSGP, Part 6.2.2)

3. State or Tribal monitoring (2008 MSGP, Part 6.2.3)

4. Impaired waters monitoring (2008 MSGP, Part 6.2.4)

Monitoring procedures are described in Part 6.1 of the 2008 

MSGP.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 27

Recommended Routine Facility Inspection 

Sequence

Although you are given the discretion to 

determine how best to conduct your inspection, EPA recommends that your inspection 

follow a sequence that corresponds to how 

raw materials arrive at your site and are 

stored or processed in areas exposed to stormwater, and to how intermediate or finished 

products are stored, processed, or transported 

from your facility. Accordingly, the following 

recommended inspection sequence will help 

ensure that you conduct a thorough routine 

inspection at your facility. Whichever process 

you determine is appropriate for your facility, 

you are required to describe that approach in 

your SWPPP.

1. Plan your inspection: Develop a consistent process to ensure that you inspect 

all areas. One method to ensure that your 

inspections are consistent and thorough is 

to create a checklist (or make notes on a 

copy of your SWPPP) of areas to inspect.

Use as a resource your updated site map 

identifying the locations of industrial 

activities exposed to stormwater, stormwater conveyances and discharge points, 

and any BMPs.

2. Evaluate the area where raw materials are 

delivered. Are these areas contained or 

is there potential for stormwater to carry 

spills or pollutants away from the drop 

area? If so, can these pollutants leave your 

site to an adjoining facility, storm drain, 

or surface water? If so, additional control 

measures should be implemented.

3. Are raw materials stored in a contained 

area with overhead cover, berms, or other 

secondary containment? If not, do the raw 

materials have the potential to contribute 

to stormwater pollution?

Note: Single-wall chemical containers 

need to be located within secondary 

containment structures, behind berms, 

or covered to prevent stormwater contamination from an accidental release of 

containerized chemicals. Similarly, solid 

materials with the potential to contain 

pollutants (i.e., scrap material or wrecked 

vehicles) should include secondary 

containment.

4. Is equipment maintenance and fueling 

conducted in appropriately contained 

areas? Are spill kits present and full 

in areas where a liquid spill could be 

expected?

5. Do the industrial processes occur in covered and contained areas?

6. Where do you store waste material?

Note: If the waste material has the potential to contaminate stormwater it must be 

stored in a contained area or otherwise 

controlled. Be sure to evaluate the facility “bone-yard” and scrap all equipment 

that is out-of-date and not intended to be 

reused.

EPA’s 2008 MSGP requires quarterly routine 

facility inspections of all areas where industrial 

materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, 

and of all stormwater control measures used 

to comply with the effluent limits contained 

in the permit. Inspections must be conducted 

by qualified personnel, including at least one 

member of your pollution prevention team, 

during regular business hours. You must specify 

the relevant inspection schedules in your 

SWPPP document as required in Part 5.1.5.

The 2008 MSGP requires that at least one of the 

four quarterly inspections each year be conducted 

when a stormwater discharge is occurring.

You should check your industrial stormwater 

general permit to determine if it establishes 

exceptions to the inspection requirements for 

certain types of sites. For example, 2008 MSGP 

Part 4.1.3 identifies exceptions to routine visual 

inspections for inactive or unstaffed sites.

Invest in an inexpensive digital camera to 

photo-document your inspections. Maintaining 

a photo history of inspections and control 

measures can help you to recognize if

conditions changed or your control measures are 

degrading. Photographs can also help provide 

documentation to EPA or state inspectors that 

control measures are being maintained and 

replaced as needed.
28 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

7. Is the finished product appropriately contained for potential pollutant sources?

8. Following the internal evaluation, walk the 

perimeter of your site and look for evidence 

of stormwater discharges—particularly 

stains from oil and grease or chemicals.

Should you observe these, look at the discharge area and consider additional control 

measures. You should specifically observe 

all stormwater outfalls where stormwater 

leaves your facility.

9. Following each inspection, you will need 

to make note of control measures that 

require maintenance, or that need to be 

replaced, and make sure that the SWPPP 

and site map are current regarding industrial activities and potential pollutants.

10. Finally, where appropriate, repair or 

replace worn or ineffective control measures as soon as possible but certainly 

before the next forecasted precipitation 

event. Routine Facility Inspection Reports

Your routine facility inspections will need 

to be recorded and documented. Generally, 

a standard inspection report is taken into 

the field and completed for each inspection.

You should include in your SWPPP a copy 

of the standard inspection form you will 

use. An example routine facility inspection 

form can be found in the “Additional MSGP 

Documentation Template” on EPA’s website at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/

msgp2008_recordkeepingtemplate.doc.

Remember to update your SWPPP if you add,

remove, or modify control measures following 

a routine visual, or other, inspection. Should 

you get inspected, EPA or the State agency will 

expect that all control measures identified in 

your SWPPP to be current and to be effectively 

implemented at your facility.

Figure 15. Example of a sheen indicating the presence of oil or other hydro 

carbons.

Tetra Tech

As you conduct your routine facility inspections, 

keep in mind these visual indicators of poor 

control measures or missing control measures:

1.	 Rainbow colored sheen on the surface of

stormwater indicates the presence of oil or 

other hydrocarbons;

2. Brown or other dark colored streaks in 

flowing stormwater indicates soil erosion or 

uncontained sediment;

3. Stormwater flowing through straw waddles or 

other stormwater containment barriers;

4. Foam;

5. Trash and other debris being carried off-site 

by stormwater; and

6. Overflowing storm drains or detention ponds 

could be indicative of a clog or poor inlet 

design.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 29

5.B Visual Assessments

The second component of an effective stormwater inspection program is periodic visual 

assessments of the stormwater discharging 

from your facility. Visual assessments are conducted on samples taken during a storm event, 

and require that you make observations of the 

stormwater sample in order to qualitatively 

assess the nature of your discharge based on 

several visual parameters. This requires that 

you collect a stormwater sample in a clean, 

clear jar and look at the sample in a well lit 

area. Generally, a sample must be collected 

from each stormwater discharge location associated with industrial activity. The purpose 

of conducting visual assessments is to make 

sure that stormwater discharges are free from 

objectionable characteristics (i.e., pollutants 

you can see). Should you observe objectionable characteristics, you should backtrack 

upstream from the sample collection location 

to identify potential sources of the pollutants.

Some pollutants may be present in stormwater 

but cannot be seen; for this reason EPA or your 

State may require benchmark or effluent limit 

monitoring depending on the facility SIC code 

or industrial sector. See Section 5.D for more 

information on monitoring.

Most industrial stormwater permits do not 

require visual assessment samples to be collected consistent with 40 CFR Part 136 procedures (the Clean Water Act guidelines for 

Your SWPPP should describe the routine facility inspection process in enough detail that a member of your staff could complete an 

inspection by following the description in the SWPPP. The SWPPP description should include:

1. Person(s) or positions of person(s) responsible for conducting the routine facility inspections

At least one member of your stormwater pollution prevention team should be involved in the routine facility inspections. Consider 

involving employees who regularly work in areas where stormwater may come into contact with industrial activity or materials.

2. Schedules for conducting the routine facility inspections

Identify the minimum inspection frequency (e.g., monthly, quarterly) in your SWPPP. Consider scheduling the inspections for a

set day every month or quarter, yet allow sufficient flexibility to be able to take advantage of a storm event, since many permits

require that at least one inspection be conducted during a rain event.

3. Routine facility inspection procedures

Describe how the routine facility inspection will be conducted, including which control measures or areas will be inspected 

and what the inspector will be looking for. Examples of things the inspector should be looking for include the condition of 

stormwater outfalls (trash accumulation, staining, evidence of unauthorized non-stormwater discharges, etc.); overall good

housekeeping; and the condition of installed control measures (do any need to be maintained or replaced?).

Among other procedures to describe, provide a description of the sequence you will follow during each inspection. One option is

to use the recommended inspection sequence above or customize it to better suit your facility’s layout.

4. Reporting procedures

Describe your reporting procedures and include a blank copy of the inspection form that will be used during the routine 

inspections. Most industrial stormwater general permits require that inspection reports include the following:

•	 The inspection date and time.

•	 The name(s), title(s), and signature(s) of the inspector(s).

•	 Weather information for the day of the inspection and, if appropriate, days or weeks prior to the inspection.

•	 A description of any discharges observed.

•	 A description of the visual quality of discharges (sheen, turbid, etc.).

•	 Control measures in need of maintenance or repairs.

•	 Control measures that need to be replaced.

•	 Any incidents of noncompliance observed.

•	 Additional control measures needed to comply with the permit requirements.

Inspection reports also need to be signed by the inspector. Your inspection form should include a signature line for this.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

Check your industrial stormwater permit to 

determine if you are required to submit your 

visual assessment samples to a laboratory for 

analysis. The 2008 MSGP does not require 

samples to be submitted to a laboratory. 

However, if your permit does require you to 

submit samples for laboratory analysis, the 

samples must be collected and documented in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 guidelines.
30 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

establishing test procedures for the analysis 

of pollutants); however, visual assessment 

samples should be collected in such a manner that the samples are representative of the 

stormwater discharge.

EPA’s 2008 MSGP includes specific requirements for when and how to collect the visual 

assessment sample. You should look in your 

permit to determine what requirements apply 

to your facility’s visual assessments. However, 

EPA believes its permit’s requirements offer 

a clear and consistent way to conduct these 

assessments. They are summarized as 

follows:

•	 Collect stormwater samples within the first

30 minutes of an actual discharge from a 

storm event. If it is not possible to collect 

the sample within the first 30 minutes of 

discharge, collect the sample as soon as 

possible after the first 30 minutes. In this 

case, be sure to document in your records 

(kept with your SWPPP) why it was not 

possible to take samples within the first 

30 minutes. In the case of snowmelt, 

samples must only be taken during a period 

with a measurable discharge from your site.

•	 Collect the sample in a clean, clear glass, or

plastic container.

•	 Examine the sample in a well-lit area

or, if necessary, illuminate with a strong 

flashlight.

•	 Collect the samples from discharges that

happen at least 72 hours (3 days) from the 

previous discharge event.

Include in your SWPPP a description of your visual assessment process:

1. Person(s) or positions of person(s) responsible for visual assessments.

Note: The visual assessment should be conducted by a member of your stormwater pollution prevention team.

2. Schedules for conducting the visual assessments.

Note: Identify the minimum inspection frequency (typically quarterly) in your SWPPP. You should also describe procedures

for determining when to conduct the visual assessments (e.g., within 30 minutes of an actual discharge, at least 3 days from

previous discharge, etc.).

3. Specific items to be covered by the assessment (e.g., the 2008 MSGP requires permittees to visually inspect the sample in a

well-lit area to assess the following water quality characteristics:

•	 Color

•	 Odor

•	 Clarity

•	 Floating solids

•	 Settled solids

4. The number and locations of outfalls scheduled for visual assessments. List the outfalls where visual assessments will take

place, and make sure these locations are identified on your site map.

5. A description of safety considerations, requirements, and equipment for collecting samples during wet weather events.

Note: Sample must be collected in a clean, clear glass (required for oil and grease samples) or plastic container. Describe any

other equipment necessary to collect the samples (such as sampling poles for hard to reach outfalls, rain gear, etc.). Describe

any necessary safety considerations for staff while collecting the samples (for example, if they are sampling at an outfall 

discharging into receiving water with high flows, or sampling in a manhole).

6. Reporting procedures: Describe your reporting procedures and include a blank copy of the assessment form that will be used 

during the visual assessments. Most industrial stormwater general permits require that visual assessment reports include the

following:

•	 Sample location(s)

•	 Sample collection date and time, and visual assessment date and time for each sample

•	 The names of individuals, and titles or job positions, collecting the sample and performing visual assessment, and their

signatures

•	 Nature of the discharge (i.e., runoff or snowmelt)

•	 Results of observations of the stormwater discharge

•	 Probable sources of any observed stormwater contamination

•	 If applicable, why it was not possible to collect samples within the first 30 minutes of discharge.

The SWPPP should also contain a checklist or list of the water quality parameters that must be observed and documented.

What to Include in Your SWPPP

•	 Suspended solids

•	 Foam

•	 Oil sheen

•	 Other obvious indicators of stormwater pollution)
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 31

Visual Assessment Documentation

Similar to the inspection reports for the 

routine facility inspections, you must document the results of your visual assessments in 

a written report. You should include a blank 

copy of your visual assessment report form 

that you will use in your SWPPP. An example 

of a visual assessment report can be found 

in the “Additional MSGP Documentation 

Template” on EPA’s website at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_

recordkeepingtemplate.doc.

Digital photos of the samples are recommended, but not required, to document the 

condition of the sample and future reference.

5.C Annual Comprehensive Site 

Inspections

Most industrial stormwater general permits 

require an annual comprehensive site inspection. The annual comprehensive site inspection is a more in-depth version of the routine 

facility inspection. The annual comprehensive 

site inspection evaluates the condition of 

control measures, taking into account trends 

observed in analytic and visual stormwater 

samples taken during the year, and found during routine inspections.

Check your general permit to determine if the 

comprehensive site inspection needs to be 

conducted at a certain time (e.g., by the end 

of the fiscal year). Some permits require you 

to submit your comprehensive site inspection 

findings to the State permit authority as part of 

your annual report, typically due shortly after 

the end of the fiscal year. EPA’s 2008 MSGP 

requires that the annual report be submitted 

and postmarked within 45 days of completing 

the annual comprehensive site inspection.

The comprehensive site inspection must cover 

all areas of the facility affected by the requirements of your industrial stormwater general 

permit, including all potential stormwater pollutant sources identified in the SWPPP, areas 

where control measures are used to comply 

with applicable effluent limits, and areas where 

spills and leaks have been documented in the 

three years prior to the annual comprehensive 

site inspection. In addition, the annual inspection must, as appropriate, include a review of 

visual stormwater monitoring data collected 

each quarter of the previous year and the 

results of the routine site inspections.

Comprehensive site inspections must be 

conducted by qualified personnel with at least 

one member of your stormwater pollution 

prevention team participating in the comprehensive site inspections.

The annual inspection should be preceded 

by evaluation of the year’s visual stormwater 

sample observations, analytic monitoring data, 

and your routine site inspection findings. The 

overall review of the previous year’s visual and 

analytic monitoring results will provide you 

with areas of focus for the annual inspection; 

however, the annual inspection must include 

all control measures included in the SWPPP, 

regardless of the results from the past visual 

assessments and site inspections. Inspecting 

all stormwater control measures is meant to 

ensure that they are functioning correctly, and, 

if not, to correct any deficiency or malfunction.

Accordingly, at the end of the annual comprehensive inspection you, and your stormwater 

pollution prevention team, should be able to 

answer the following questions.

•	 Are the control measures in place, maintained, and operating effectively?

•	 Is the routine site inspection protocol

effective and conducted at the appropriate 

frequency?

•	 If your previous visual samples been were

indicated the presence of pollutants in your 

stormwater, and your analytic samples 

been found to have high levels of any 

benchmark pollutants or other pollutants of 

concern, do you suspect that any particular 

areas of your site are contributing to these 

monitoring results? Do you suspect that the 

improper functioning of any stormwater 

control measures is contributing to these 

monitoring results?

•	 Is the SWPPP up-to-date regarding all of

the stated control measures and monitoring 

schedules?

EPA’s 2008 MSGP requires you to conduct annual comprehensive 

site inspections once during each of the following inspection periods:

Year 1: September 29, 2008 – September 29, 2009

Year 2: September 29, 2009 – September 29, 2010

Year 3: September 29, 2010 – September 29, 2011

Year 4: September 29, 2011 – September 29, 2012

Year 5: September 29, 2012 – September 29, 2013
32 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Based on the answers to these questions, you 

may need to modify your stormwater management program and to update your SWPPP 

to address problems found during your 

inspection.

Comprehensive Site Inspection Documentation

The results, and documentation, of your 

annual site inspection must be maintained 

on-site and, depending on the requirements 

in your stormwater permit, submitted with 

your annual report. An example of a comprehensive site inspection report can be found 

in the “Additional MSGP Documentation 

Template” on EPA’s website at 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_

recordkeepingtemplate.doc.

Include in your SWPPP a description of the annual comprehensive site inspection process:

1. Person(s) or positions of person(s) responsible for inspection

Note: Include at least one member of the stormwater pollution prevention team.

2. Schedules for conducting the inspections

Note: Describe when during the year the annual inspection will take place.

3. Describe the list of documents to be reviewed prior to the annual site inspection. This list will typically include:

•	 The current SWPPP

•	 All routine inspection reports for the past year

•	 All visual assessment reports for the past year

•	 Other documentation that may relate to how your facility complies with stormwater permit requirements, such as

maintenance records, spill records, etc. for the past year.

4. A copy of the current SWPPP site map

Note: A current copy of the site map can be used during the comprehensive site inspection to make sure the inspector is 

covering all required areas.

5. Procedures for how the annual inspection will be conducted. Describe how the annual inspection will be conducted, 

including which control measures or areas will be inspected and what the inspector will be looking for. Specific items to be 

covered by the inspection include:

•	 Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with stormwater;

•	 Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks, and other containers;

•	 Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit the site;

•	 Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to exposed areas; and

•	 Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.

6. A copy of the annual site inspection form you will use.

Note: EPA’s 2008 MSGP has a comprehensive site inspection form in Appendix I of EPA’s 2008 MSGP. Your annual site 

inspection form should contain:

•	 The date of the inspection;

•	 The name(s) and title(s) of the personnel making the inspection;

•	 Findings from the areas of your facility that were examined;

•	 All observations relating to the implementation of your control measures including:

– Previously unidentified discharges from the site,

– Previously unidentified pollutants in existing discharges,

–	 Evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system;

– Evidence of pollutants discharging to receiving waters at all facility outfall(s), and the condition of and around the 

outfall, including flow dissipation measures to prevent scouring, and

–	 Additional control measures needed to address any conditions requiring corrective action identified during the

inspection.

•	 Any required revisions to the SWPPP resulting from the inspection;

•	 Any incidents of noncompliance observed or a certification stating the facility is in compliance with this permit (if there is no

noncompliance); and

•	 A statement, signed and certified in accordance with Appendix B, Subsection 11 of EPA’s 2008 MSGP.

7. A schedule for completing and submitting (if required) the annual site inspection form/report in a timely manner.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 33

5.D Documentation of Monitoring 

Procedures

Your industrial stormwater general permit may 

include requirements to conduct stormwater 

discharge monitoring. The type of monitoring you are required to conduct will likely be 

based on your type of industrial activity. Not 

all types of industrial activity will be required 

to collect stormwater discharge samples, 

however, if your facility is required to conduct 

monitoring (such as benchmark monitoring or 

effluent limitation guideline monitoring), you 

must describe the procedures you will use to 

carry out this monitoring in your SWPPP.

EPA has prepared an Industrial Stormwater 

Monitoring and Sampling Guide (available 

at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp) 

that will support this guide. The Industrial 

Stormwater Monitoring and Sampling Guide 

provides a more detailed description of monitoring approaches and procedures that are 

recommended than is included in this guide.

As a general matter, your stormwater discharge 

samples will be taken at your facility’s stormwater outfall locations, not at locations within 

your facility. Some stormwater general permits 

allow you to sample at only one outfall when 

multiple outfalls at your facility have similar 

industrial activities, control measures, exposed 

materials, and runoff coefficients. Outfalls that 

have these similar characteristics are called 

“substantially identical outfalls” or “representative outfalls.” See your industrial stormwater 

general permit for more information.

Include in your SWPPP, a description of the following monitoring requirements:

1. What you need to monitor

Make sure your SWPPP clearly identifies the parameters you need to monitor, and any applicable benchmark concentrations or 

effluent limits associated with each parameter.

2. Where you need to monitor

Your site map should identify the outfalls at your facility. In your SWPPP, identify at which outfalls you will be required to

monitor. If you are allowed to sample one of the outfalls that are “substantially identical”, and you plan on using a representative 

outfall, include the following documentation in your SWPPP:

•	 Location of each substantially identical outfall;

•	 Description of the general industrial activities conducted in the drainage area of each substantially identical outfall;

•	 Description of the control measures implemented in the drainage area of each substantially identical outfall;

•	 Description of the exposed materials located in the drainage area of each substantially identical outfall that are likely to be

significant contributors of pollutants to stormwater discharges;

•	 An estimate of the runoff coefficient of the drainage areas (low = under 40%; medium = 40 to 65%; high = above 65%);

and

•	 Why the outfalls are expected to discharge substantially identical effluents.

3. When you need to monitor

If you are required to monitor, your industrial stormwater general permit will specify a monitoring frequency (typically quarterly

or annually). For each of the parameters you identified above, include in your SWPPP the monitoring frequency. Some permits

also specify exemptions or alternative monitoring periods, which should also be addressed in your SWPPP.

Your SWPPP should also describe the type of storm event that should be monitored. In the 2008 MSGP, EPA requires

monitoring during a storm event those results in an actual discharge from your site (“measurable storm event”) that follows the 

preceding measurable storm event by at least 72 hours (3 days).

4. How you will conduct the monitoring

Describe in your SWPPP how you will conduct the monitoring, including who will collect the samples. Typically, monitoring is 

conducted by taking one grab sample from a discharge resulting from a measurable storm event and collected within the first 

30 minutes of a measurable storm event, during normal business hours, when stormwater is discharging from your facility.

Also describe any sample documentation and preservation procedures you plan to use. Some samples may need to be analyzed 

within a short time, or may need to be preserved with blue ice before being analyzed.

5. Where you will send the sample for analysis

Finally, in your SWPPP, include information about the laboratory where you will send the samples for analysis. Include information 

such as lab name and address, any sampling procedures required by the lab, and who will take the samples to the lab.

What to Include in Your SWPPP
34 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Section 6: Completing Your SWPPP

Now that you have conducted a site assessment of your facility, developed maps, 

selected control measures, and developed procedures for inspections and monitoring.

You are almost done with your SWPPP! The last step is to make sure all this information is organized into a single document (your SWPPP) and to obtain NPDES permit 

coverage.

6.A Finish your SWPPP

The information you put together as part of Sections 3 through 5 make up the contents of your SWPPP. There are only two more steps for you to finish before your 

SWPPP is complete:

•	 Conduct a final review of your SWPPP; and

•	 Sign and certify your SWPPP

Review Your Draft SWPPP

You should review the SWPPP requirements in your industrial stormwater general 

permit to ensure that your SWPPP includes all required elements. For example, in the 

2008 MSGP, the SWPPP requirements are in Part 5. Check off all the SWPPP permit 

requirements as you verify that they have been met. Also, develop a final copy of your 

site map and make sure that all required elements are addressed.

EPA recommends that you have both your stormwater pollution prevention team, and 

someone who was not involved in developing the SWPPP, review your draft SWPPP.

Sign and Certify Your SWPPP

The last step in completing your SWPPP is to have a facility executive or duly authorized representative of that executive sign and certify that the SWPPP meets all the 

requirements in the general permit. This signature demonstrates that the SWPPP was 

reviewed by someone who has operational control over the facility (i.e., can commit 

resources to implementing the SWPPP and ensuring compliance with the permit).

You should check your general permit to determine which person is required to sign 

and certify the SWPPP. Note that the signatory requirements for the 2008 MSGP are 

found in Appendix B, Subsection 11 of EPA’s 2008 MSGP.

6.B Obtain NPDES Permit Coverage

Important! Before obtaining permit coverage, you should read the appropriate industrial 

stormwater permit and develop your SWPPP.

Most permits require that you develop your SWPPP before you can obtain NPDES permit coverage for your industrial stormwater discharges. However, in some instances, 

the permit may provide you with additional time to complete or update a SWPPP after 

permit coverage is obtained. Nevertheless, it is recommended that your SWPPP be 

completed at least in draft form prior to applying for permit coverage, even in those 

States where additional time is granted.

Obtaining Coverage Under a General Permit

To obtain coverage under a State industrial stormwater general permit, you will typically need to fill out and submit an application form, often called a Notice of Intent or 
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 35

NOI. Submitting an NOI form to the permitting authority indicates your certification that 

you have met the eligibility requirements for 

coverage under the permit, and your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions of 

the general permit. Depending on the permit, 

you may be authorized to discharge immediately or at some later time. In some cases, you 

are not authorized to discharge until the State 

has notified you accordingly. EPA’s 2008 MSGP 

(see Part 1.3.1) uses a 30 to 60-day waiting 

period following the receipt of a facility’s complete NOI. The waiting period expires when 

the permit’s status changes from “waiting” to 

“active” on the Agency’s eNOI website.

Read the application requirements in your 

general permit for information on the procedures and the specific form you will need to 

complete before becoming authorized. Some 

States charge an administrative fee to apply for 

permit coverage. Before submitting your application, you must also make sure that you meet 

all eligibility requirements in the permit. For 

example, if your facility discharges to one of 

several highly protected waters (e.g., a Tier 3 

or “Outstanding Natural Resource Water”), 

you may not be eligible for coverage under a 

general permit and instead may have to file an 

application for individual permit coverage.

6.C Updating Your SWPPP

Your SWPPP is a document that will need to 

be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.

Whenever you find the need to change a procedure that is described in your SWPPP or to 

modify a control measure described therein, 

you must update the SWPPP to reflect those 

changes as quickly as practicable. Should the 

SWPPP require modification to document corrective actions, a new certification statement 

must be signed and dated upon completion of 

the revision.

Below are some examples of events that, if 

they result in a change in control measures or 

procedures, will require prompt revision of the 

SWPPP to reflect the new facility conditions.

•	 A change in the composition of the stormwater pollution prevention team or new 

responsible official.

•	 An unauthorized release or discharge (e.g.,

spill, leak, or discharge of non-stormwater 

not authorized by this or another NPDES 

permit) occurs at your facility.

•	 A discharge violates a numeric effluent

limit.

•	 You become aware, or EPA determines, that

your control measures are not stringent 

enough for the discharge to meet applicable 

water quality standards;

•	 An inspection or evaluation of your facility

by an EPA official, or local, State, or Tribal 

entity, determines that modifications to the 

control measures are necessary to meet the 

non-numeric effluent limits in this permit.

•	 Construction or a change in design, operation, or maintenance at your facility significantly changes the nature of pollutants 

discharged in stormwater from your facility, or significantly increases the quantity 

of pollutants discharged.

•	 The average of four quarterly sampling

results exceeds an applicable benchmark.

If less than four benchmark samples have 

been taken, but the results are such that 

an exceedance of the 4 quarter average is 

mathematically certain (i.e., if the sum of 

quarterly sample results to date is more 

than 4 times the benchmark level) this is 

considered a benchmark exceedance, triggering a review of control measures and 

possible SWPPP modification.

Remember, revisions to the SWPPP to document corrective actions requires a new signed 

and dated certification statement by the responsible official. All other changes must be signed 

and dated by the person preparing the change.

In the interim between the annual inspection and completed SWPPP 

revision, keep a copy of the original SWPPP with your handwritten 

notes for SWPPP modifications at the facility. Should you be 

inspected before the revised SWPPP is complete, the copy with your 

notes can be used to demonstrate the changes that will be in the 

revised document.

Documentation to Support Eligibility 

Considerations Under Other Federal Laws

The 2008 MSGP requires that you keep with 

your SWPPP the documentation supporting 

your eligibility pertaining to endangered species 

requirements, historic properties requirements, 

and NEPA review requirements described in 

the permit (see Part 5.1.6 of the permit). State 

industrial stormwater permits may have other 

documentation requirements.
36 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Completing your SWPPP and obtaining NPDES permit coverage is an important step 

towards complying with your State or EPA Clean Water Act requirements. Having 

completed these steps, you are now ready to begin documenting your compliance 

with the requirements of your permit. EPA’s 2008 MSGP and many State permits 

require you to keep records of any activities at your site that are related to your compliance, such as conducting inspections, visual assessments, stormwater discharge 

monitoring, and corrective actions.

As you conduct inspections, monitoring, corrective actions, and other permit implementation activities, you will generate additional records, such as inspection reports 

and monitoring results. Keep this additional documentation on-site with your SWPPP, 

and ensure these records are accessible, complete, and up-to-date so that they demonstrate your full compliance with the conditions of your permit.

Some examples of this additional documentation include:

•	 Permit records – copies of the NOI or permit application submitted, any letters 

received from the permitting authority, and a copy of your general permit.

•	 Spill records – dates of any incidences of significant spills, leaks, or other releases 

that resulted in a discharge of pollutants, the circumstances leading to the release, 

actions taken in response to the release, and measures taken to prevent the recurrence of a release.

•	 Employee training records – keep copies of all employee training records, including 

dates, who was trained, and the training topics.

•	 Maintenance records – retain copies of all maintenance and repairs of control measures, including dates of regular maintenance, dates when maintenance needs were 

discovered, and dates when control measures were returned to full function.

•	 Inspection records – keep copies of all routine facility 

inspection reports, quarterly visual assessment reports, 

and annual comprehensive site inspection reports.

•	 Monitoring records – retain records of all sampling 

results including data collection forms, lab results, and 

discharge monitoring reports (DMRs).

•	 Corrective action records – keep records of any corrective actions and follow-up activities conducted to 

demonstrate compliance with the permit.

Section 7: Keeping Records of Your 

Implementation Activities

For 2008 MSGP permit holders, the list of 

additional documentation requirements can be 

found in Part 5.4 of the permit. Also, EPA has 

developed an “Additional MSGP Documentation 

Template” with sample forms that you can 

download from www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/

msgp to help you organize this information.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 37

The following are common problems found during inspections of industrial sites 

conducted by EPA. These are provided to assist you in developing and maintaining 

an effective SWPPP. As a general matter, it is not enough to simply have a completed 

SWPPP at your site. To establish compliance with your permit’s limits and conditions, you must also implement the procedures, and install and maintain the control 

measures, described in your SWPPP, and make modifications as necessary to improve 

your performance.

You should review these common compliance problems and consider how your 

SWPPP, or how your implementation of the procedures described in your SWPPP, can 

be modified to ensure you are not making the same mistakes.

1. No SWPPP developed. Some facilities do not realize that they 

need to develop a SWPPP, or they may copy a generic SWPPP or 

a SWPPP for another facility. A SWPPP is a site-specific plan and 

should address only your facility.

2. Control measures described in SWPPP not used. The SWPPP 

identifies stormwater control measures that are not actually being 

used at the site. The stormwater regulations hold you responsible 

for effectively implementing all control measures identified in your 

SWPPP. If your SWPPP has identified control measures not being 

used at your site, you need to edit your SWPPP accordingly to 

accurately reflect those measures you are in fact using.

3. No SWPPP on-site. A copy of the SWPPP is not available on-site 

for review when a permitting authority or other regulatory agency 

inspects your site. You are responsible for maintaining a copy 

on-site at all times. If your SWPPP is being updated off-site, keep 

a marked-up copy on-site or an electronic copy until the revised 

SWPPP arrives.

4. SWPPP not signed. The responsible facility representative did not sign and 

authorize the current version of the SWPPP.

5. Stormwater pollution prevention team not up-to-date. The stormwater pollution 

prevention team identified in the SWPPP is not current. This is particularly 

a problem at facilities with high turnover. Remember, you can identify team 

members by title rather than by name if high turnover makes it difficult to keep a 

current list of names.

6. On-site staff not familiar with SWPPP. Upon arrival of an inspector, no one 

familiar with the stormwater program is available. A common permit requirement 

is that at least one employee per shift is familiar with the stormwater program and 

has access to the relevant files.

Section 8: Common Compliance 

Problems at Industrial Facilities

Figure 16. Good housekeeping is probably the 

most common BMP in SWPPPs. Poor sweeping 

practices can contribute significant pollutants in 

stormwater runoff.

Tetra Tech
38 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

7. Improper collection of visual assessment 

samples. Visual stormwater samples are 

collected from pooled areas on site. Pooled 

areas tend to concentrate pollutants and 

are not representative, unless the contents 

of the pooled areas flow off of the facility 

(this is to your disadvantage).

8. Uncovered dumpsters. Dumpsters that 

receive metal waste are not covered or 

contained. Dumpsters from contract waste 

collection agencies are often not appropriately sealed and can leak oils or other 

contaminants.

9. Poor employee/contract staff training.

Employees or contract staff are not familiar with your stormwater management 

program. You are responsible for educating employees and contractors because if 

they release pollutants at your facility, you 

are responsible. If you use contractors, 

they should be referred to in your SWPPP 

and required to be trained as a part of the 

contract.

10. Inspection or monitoring records are not 

kept with the SWPPP. Records of routine 

site inspections, visual assessments, or 

monitoring results are not available with 

the SWPPP for review. All records on 

implementation of practices required in 

the permit must be kept with the SWPPP 

(see Section 6.C for more information).

SWPPP Availability – Keep a copy of the 

current, signed and certified SWPPP at your 

facility, and make it available to EPA, State, 

local agency or other regulatory agency staff 

at the time of an onsite inspection or upon 

request. The SWPPP should also be made easily 

available to facility staff, and should be readily 

referred to during regular facility operations to 

ensure that all activities are implemented as 

described in the SWPPP.

Figure 17. Leaking dumpsters can introduce 

pollutants into stormwater runoff.

Tetra Tech
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 39

Resources

EPA, 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit, issued September 29, 2008 

(available at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp).

EPA’s Stormwater Website – www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater

Industrial Stormwater Resource Locator – www.envcap.org/iswrl/

EPA’s Industrial Stormwater Website – www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/indust

EPA’s 2008 MSGP Website – www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp

The Industrial Stormwater and MSGP Websites have a number of resources and tools to aid MSGP 

permittees, which include:

•	 Annual Reporting Form – Permittees can use this form to report their annual comprehensive 

site inspection and corrective actions to EPA.

•	 Conditional “No Exposure” Exclusion – Industrial facilities can use this form to certify that their 

industrial materials and operations are not exposed to stormwater.

•	 Developing your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators – 

Provides guidance on how to develop a SWPPP that meets the requirements of the 2008 MSGP.

•	 Electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) System – Allows permittees to quickly apply for permit 

coverage under EPA’s 2008 MSGP.

•	 Industrial Stormwater Monitoring and Sampling Guide – Provides guidance on how to meet the 

monitoring and sampling requirements in the 2008 MSGP.

•	 Industrial Sector Fact Sheets – These fact sheets summarize the types of facilities included that 

sector, the pollutants associated with this sector, and the types of stormwater control measures 

generally used.

•	 List of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Waters – Lists of waters currently designated by states as Tier 2 or Tier 

3 for antidegradation purposes to help you complete your NOI.

•	 MSGP Discharge Monitoring Report (MDMR) – Permittees can use this paper copy form to 

submit monitoring data to EPA.

•	 Reporting MSGP Monitoring Data – Allows permittees to electronically file all benchmark, 

effluent limitation guidelines, and impaired waters monitoring data through the eNOI system.

•	 Sample MSGP SWPPP Template – Industrial facilities can use the “Industrial SWPPP Template” 

to create their own SWPPPs.

•	 Sample Recordkeeping Templates – Use the sample templates and forms to keep records of your 

monitoring, inspection, maintenance, visual evaluation, and corrective action activities.

•	 Search, Sort, and View Industrial NOIs – Searchable database of stormwater notices of intent 

(NOIs) for industrial facilities seeking coverage under EPA’s MSGP.

•	 Water Locator Tool – Helps industrial facilities pinpoint their site’s latitude and longitude, 

receiving water, and impairment status of the water, applicable total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs), and potential pollutants of concern.

EPA’s NPDES Authorization Status Website – www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/authorizationstatus

EPA’s Menu of National Stormwater BMPs – www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps

Industrial Stormwater Permit Guide – www.pneac.org/stormwater/
40 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Appendix A: MSGP SWPPP Template

EPA has created a template to assist operators in developing an industrial SWPPP that 

addresses the requirements in the 2008 MSGP. The template includes instructions and 

space to help operators document activities specific to their facility, such as:

•	 Facility Description and Contact Information

•	 Potential Pollutant Sources

•	 Stormwater Control Measures

•	 Schedules and Procedures for Monitoring

•	 Inspections

•	 Documentation to Support Eligibility Considerations under Other Federal Laws

•	 SWPPP Certification

•	 SWPPP Modifications

•	 SWPPP Attachments

A customizable Microsoft Word version of the MSGP SWPPP Template is available for 

download from www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.
Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators 41

Appendix B: Additional MSGP 

Documentation Template

EPA has created a template to assist 2008 MSGP permit holders in collecting the additional documentation required during implementation of the permit. The Additional 

MSGP Documentation Template includes example forms and tables to help permittees 

document activities related to:

•	 Significant spills, leaks or other releases

•	 Employee training

•	 Maintenance

•	 Routine Facility Inspection Reports

•	 Quarterly Visual Assessment Reports

•	 Comprehensive Site Inspection Reports

•	 Monitoring results

•	 Deviations from assessment or monitoring schedule

•	 Benchmark Exceedances

•	 Impaired Waters Monitoring: Documentation of Natural Background Sources or

Non-Presence of Impairment Pollutant

•	 Active/Inactive status change

•	 SWPPP Amendment Log

The Additional MSGP Documentation template can be downloaded in Microsoft Word 

format at www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/msgp.
42 Developing Your Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A Guide for Industrial Operators

Appendix C: Example Site Map
7/15/2010

 Page 1 of 22

APPENDIX D

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issues for Clean Water Act Facility Missouri State Operating Permits (MSOPs)

The following table contains the terms of resolution for certain Permit Appeal Issues raised by Defendants regarding the Missouri 

State Operating Permits (MSOPs) identified below. The left column of the table identifies each Permit Appeal Issue, and the second 

column from the left identifies the MSOP or MSOPs for which resolution is complete. 

a. Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MSOP No. MO-0001848: re-issued February 26, 2010; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed March 

26, 2010; supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

Collectively, the following ten facilities are referred to as the “CWA Facilities”:

b. Buick Mine/Mill - MSOP No. MO-0002003: re-issued September 25, 2009; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed October 23, 

2009; supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

c. Fletcher Mine/Mill - MSOP No. MO-0001856: re-issued November 13, 2009; modified July 28, 2010; appeal filed December 

11, 2009; first amended notice of appeal filed April 23, 2010; supplement to amended notice of appeal filed May 19, 2010

d. Sweetwater Mine/Mill - MSOP No. MO-0001881: re-issued July 10, 2009; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed August 7, 

2009; supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

e. Viburnum (#28/29) Mine/Mill - MSOP No. MO-0000086: re-issued December 4, 2009; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed 

January 4, 2010; supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

f. Viburnum Mine #35 (Casteel) - MSOP No. MO-0100226: re-issued March 19, 2010; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed 

April 16, 2010; supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

g. West Fork - MSOP No. - MO-0100218: re-issued March 12, 2010; modified July 13, 2010; appeal filed April 9, 2010; 

supplement to appeal filed May 19, 2010

h. Buick Resource Recycling - MSOP No. MO-0000337: re-issued August 23, 2002; modified February 23, 2007; comments 

filed March 15, 2010

i. Glover Facility - MSOP No. MO-0001121: re-issued March 23, 2007; appeal filed April 20, 2007; first amended notice of 

appeal filed April 14, 2010

j. Herculaneum Lead Smelter - MSOP No. MO-0000281: re-issued February 28, 2003; comments filed January 6, 2010 
7/15/2010

 Page 2 of 22

TABLE 1 – CWA Facility MSOPs Modifications to Resolve Permit Appeal Issues

MSOP Modifications Issued in July 2010

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

1 The Doe Run Resources Corporation is 

the correct owner name

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 10)

MDNR made the correction to the owner name.

2 Monthly mercury monitoring should 

not be required or should be changed to 

annual monitoring.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill – 002& 003

(para. 13)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 14 & 16)

MDNR changed the requirement to annual monitoring. 

MDNR also removed the requirement for mercury 

monitoring in the Buick Mine/Mill permit at Outfall 003, 

the in-stream monitoring point.

3 Monthly mercury monitoring should be 

changed to annual monitoring; 

WQBEL limit should be removed until 

sufficient data supports a reasonable 

potential analysis.

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004 

(para. 20)

MDNR changed the requirement to annual monitoring. 

4 Permit requires use of EPA methods 

1669 and 1631E for mercury sampling 

and analysis, respectively. Mercury is 

not part of the ore body mined and has 

not been detected since Jan 2006 at 

detection limit of 0.2 ug/L. EPA 

guidance only suggests use of the ultra 

low testing method, but indicates other 

methods may be appropriate 

sometimes.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 12)

(para. 24 – request for stay)

Buick Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(para. 13)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 15)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 15)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(para. 20)

West Fork Unit – 001, 003 & 004

(para. 8)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 7)

MDNR removed the sampling methodology requirements 

from the permit. Monitoring for mercury is required by 

the effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 440 Subpart J), 

unless the permittee can demonstrate mercury is not 

present in the discharge. The permittee shall choose 

sampling and analysis methods based on the detection 

limits necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

effluent guideline and the applicable state water quality 

standards. 

5 Monthly sampling for copper is not 

necessary and should be changed back 

to annual.

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 16)

MDNR changed the copper sampling frequency to 

annual.

6 Interim and final monitoring 

requirements and limits for oil and 

grease should be removed.

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003 

(para. 17)

MDNR removed the oil and grease limit from the permit
7/15/2010

 Page 3 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

7 Discrepancies between the fact sheet 

references to WET testing requirements 

and the permit should be resolved, 

including references to WET testing for 

001 and 004.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill

(para. 17)

MDNR prepared a fact sheet for the permit modification

that clarifies that WET testing is only required at Outfall 

002, as stated in the permit. The original fact sheet 

statement regarding WET testing at Outfalls 001 and 004

was in error.

8 The daily maximum and monthly 

average values in the fact sheet for 

cadmium, copper, lead and zinc on 

pages 7 & 11 should be updated based 

on the appropriate hardness (provided 

by Doe Run in para. 10 of the Appeal).

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill

(para. 23)

MDNR prepared a fact sheet for the permit modification 

that identifies the correct daily maximum and monthly 

average values for cadmium, copper, lead and zinc. The 

original fact sheet information regarding these limitations 

was in error.

9 Interim limits for metals should be 

adjusted upward using an appropriate 

translator to account for the undissolved portion. 

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 9 & 10)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(amended para. 14)

MDNR adjusted interim limits based on default hardness 

and dissolved metals translators (DMTs). 

10 Because neither outfall has discharged

in 5 years, the WET monitoring 

requirement should be annual, not 

quarterly

Because of infrequent discharges and 

likelihood of discharges only during 

high-flow conditions, an AEC of 100% 

at critical low-flow conditions is not 

meaningful. Therefore, WET testing 

requirement should be monitoring only.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(para. 14)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(amended para. 23)

MDNR revised permit language to clarify that WET 

testing is only required for Outfall 001, as stated in the 

table in Part C, paragraph 10. 
7/15/2010

 Page 4 of 22

TABLE 2 – Dismissed Permit Appeal Issues

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

11 The permit contains inconsistent 

requirements for WET testing of 100% 

AEC and 1.6 TUc, which should be 

clarified and corrected.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 21)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

12 The permit should clarify 

inconsistencies regarding effluent v. instream sampling.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 22)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

13 Only a single-dilution Allowable 

Effluent Concentration (ACE) of 100% 

should be required and not a multiple 

dilution test series.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 17)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 18)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 004

(para. 22)

Viburnum 28/29 – all outfalls

(para. 21)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 15)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

14 A TRE should not be required by 

Paragraph D.2 of the Schedule of 

Compliance because the facility has 

been passing its WET tests.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 21)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

TRE suspended by Consent Decree under compliance 

schedule

15 Only acute, and not chronic, WET 

testing should be required.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 15)

Buick Min/Mill – 002

(para. 16)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 18)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 20)

Viburnum 28/28 – 002, 003 & 004

(para. 21)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 13)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.
7/15/2010

 Page 5 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

16 A single failed WET test should not be a 

permit violation, but should trigger 

accelerated testing and potentially the 

TIE/TRE process.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 18)

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 10)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 16)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(amended para. 20)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

17 TIE or TRE should only be triggered 

after 3 consecutive WET failures, not 

simply after any 3 WET failures; 

TIE/TRE should be suspended after 3 

consecutive passing WET tests.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 18)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 18)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002, 003 & 004

(para. 21)

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 11)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 17)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

18 WET testing frequency should be 

changed from quarterly to annually.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 18)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002, 003 & 004

(para. 21)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 12)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

19 Permit description includes design flows 

and actual flows, but not “flows 

dependent upon precipitation” as 

requested by Doe Run; flows are highly 

variable based on rainfall and 

groundwater infiltration.

Viburnum 28/29 – 004

(para. 14)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

The permit as written authorizes stormwater flows and 

does not impose a limit on flow.

20 Preparation and implementation of a 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) and implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs) should 

not be required.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 18)

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 20 / amended para. 25)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill

(para. 23)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

Doe Run agrees, pursuant to the Consent Decree, to 

prepare and implement a SWPPP and implement BMPs 

at all CWA Facilities 
7/15/2010

 Page 6 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

21 Permit should authorize stormwater 

discharges in addition to wastewater 

discharges.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 9)

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 11)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill

(para. 7)

Viburnum 28/29

(para. 12)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

Note that each outfall that is authorized to include 

stormwater discharges is specifically identified (usually 

on the second page of the permit). 

22 Lat /Long coordinates for all three 

outfalls are incorrect; and should be in 

GPS format.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 10)

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 12)

Viburnum 28/29

(para. 13)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

23 Nitrate as nitrogen, total nitrogen and 

phosphorus should be removed from the 

permit; Outfall 001 has only negligible 

nutrients and Outfalls 002 & 003 have 

not discharged since at least 2004 – no 

reasonable potential.

Applicable to West Fork Mine/Mill, also, 

which discharges to the West Fork of the 

Black River

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 8)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

24 Draft TMDL for Courtois Creek and 

Indian Creek issued by MDNR but not 

final. DR has concerns with draft 

TMDL. Permit should not be issued 

until TMDL is final.

Viburnum 28/29

(para. 16)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

25 Schedule of compliance should be 

extended to 5 years to allow DR 

adequate time to respond to drastically 

lower limits and conduct site-specific 

water quality studies.

Globally issue applicable to all CWA 

Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 20)

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 23 / amended 28)

Viburnum 28/29

(para. 25)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

The Consent Decree provides a schedule of compliance.

26 In-stream monitoring at Outfall 003 

should be eliminated; such in-stream 

monitoring was eliminated from other 

DR permits.

Buick Mine/Mill – 003

(para. 17)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.
7/15/2010

 Page 7 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

27 Because the facility was not previously 

required to monitor for arsenic and 

nickel, the permit should not include 

limits, but rather monitoring only>

Buick Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(para. 12)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

28 Monitoring data from Jan 2006 to July 

2009 shows no potential for TSS to 

exceed permit limits; WQBEL for TSS 

should be removed and changed from 

monthly to annual monitoring.

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(para 13)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(para. 18)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

29 Recreation uses are not assigned to the 

unnamed tributary of Adair Creek; with 

in-stream aeration, bacteria die-off, and 

mixing, there will be no reasonable 

potential for discharges to cause or 

contribute to violations of the bacteria 

standard in Logan Creek. Therefore, 

bacteria limits should be removed from 

the permit.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 10)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

30 Limits in prior permit for BOD, TSS 

and percent removal efficiency are 

protective of downstream uses and 

should be maintained.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 8)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

31 Narrative WQBELs should not be in 

permit because they are not directly 

applicable to the discharges covered by 

the permit, a violation would not 

necessarily imply that one of the 

discharges was the cause, and there is 

no corresponding provision that proves 

an opportunity to assess or demonstrate 

compliance.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 19)

Fletcher Mine/Mill

(para. 22 / amended para. 27)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill

(para. 24)

Viburnum 28/29

(para. 24)

West Fork Unit

(para. 15)

Viburnum Mine #35

(para. 20)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.
7/15/2010

 Page 8 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

32 Outfalls 001, 002 & 003 should be 

combined into one outfall; drainage

pathway does not become waters of the 

State until it leaves Doe Run’s property; 

combined Outfall location should be on 

the east side of B Day Road with instream monitoring at Outfall 002.

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 6)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.

33 Numeric limits for lead, copper and zinc 

at Outfall 002 should be replaced with 

monitoring only; Outfall 002 is a 

domestic outfall that discharges no 

process wastewater; Outfall 002 

discharges infrequently and at low 

volume.

Viburnum Mine #35 – 002

(para. 11)

No change to the permit. Appeal dismissed.
7/15/2010

 Page 9 of 22

TABLE 3 – Permit Appeal Issues Held In Abeyance – Supporting Documentation for Permit Modification to be Filed and

Issue Resolved Pursuant to Section VII, Subsection D (See, Paragraph 79.a.i.)

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

34 Final site-specific limits for cadmium, 

lead and copper for Outfalls 001, 002 & 

003 should have been calculated using 

the site-specific translators provided by 

Doe Run in its July 29, 2009 comments.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 10)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

35 Site-specific hardness data from Bill’s 

Creek should be used to re-calculate the 

effluent limits for cadmium, copper, 

lead and zinc.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 11)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

36 An allowance based on flow in the 

West Fork Black River should be 

considered when calculating effluent 

limitations if chronic criteria are 

required (legal issue of whether mixing 

zones are allowed)

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 22)

Permittee may submit supporting information for 

interpretation of 10 CSR 20-7.031(4) regarding the 

application of mixing zones in unclassified waters.

37 MDNR should not have used default 

DMT to translate dissolved waste load

allocations to total recoverable metals 

limits; DR’s data from the previous 

permit should be used to develop sitespecific limits for metals.

Buick Mine/Mill

(para. 11)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

38 MDNR should not have used default 

DMT for Outfall 001 to translate 

dissolved waste load allocations to total 

recoverable metals limits; DR’s data 

from the previous permit should be 

used to develop site-specific limits for 

lead and zinc.

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 14 / amended para. 15)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

39 Effluent limits for cadmium, copper, 

lead and zinc should be calculated using 

site-specific hardness data for 2006-

2009 collected by DR to recalculate the 

WQBELs.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002 & 004

(para. 12)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 
7/15/2010

 Page 10 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

40 Default DMT should not have been 

used to calculate WQBELs for lead and 

zinc at Outfalls 002 & 004; MDNR 

should recalculate limits for lead and 

zinc using site-specific translators.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002 & 004

(para. 13)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

41 Effluent limits for cadmium, copper, 

lead and zinc for Outfalls 002 & 004 

should be calculated using site-specific 

hardness data for 2006-2009 collected 

by DR to recalculate the WQBELs.

Viburnum 28/29 – 002

(para. 17)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

42 MDNR should not have used default 

DMT for Outfall 004 to translate 

dissolved waste load allocations to total 

recoverable metals limits; DR’s data 

from the previous permit should be 

used to develop site-specific limits for 

lead and zinc.

Viburnum 28/29 – 004

(para. 19)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

43 Default DMT should not have been 

used to translate the dissolved waste 

load allocations for lead, zinc, copper 

and cadmium to total recoverable limits 

for Outfalls 001, 002 & 003; MDNR 

should recalculate metals limits 

consistent with DMTs derived from 

site-specific data.

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 8)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

44 Effluent limits for cadmium, copper, 

lead, mercury and zinc, as well as 

conversion factors for cadmium and 

lead, for Outfalls 001, 002 & 003 

should be calculated using the sitespecific hardness data for 2006-2009 

collected by DR, which is 

representative of the current discharge.

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 9)

Permittee may submit information for site-specific and/or 

permit-specific limitations. 

45 An allowance based on flow in Crooked 

Creek should be considered when 

calculating effluent limitations if 

chronic criteria are required (legal issue 

of whether mixing zones are allowed).

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 10)

Permittee may submit supporting information for 

interpretation of 10 CSR 20-7.031(4) regarding the 

application of mixing zones in unclassified waters.
7/15/2010

 Page 11 of 22

TABLE 4 – Permit Appeal Issues Held In Abeyance – Supporting Documentation for Alternative WET Sampling and/or 

Testing Methodologies to be Filed and Issue Resolved Pursuant to Section VII, Subsection E

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

46 An alternative test species (e.g., 

daphnia magna) should be used for 

chronic WET testing instead of 

Ceriodaphnia dubia because the latter is 

not endemic to the area and it is 

sensitive to the natural background 

levels of metals.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 002 & 004

(para. 16)

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 16)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 18 / amended para. 19)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 19)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(para. 21)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 14)

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 9)

Permittee may submit an application for alternative WET 

sampling and/or testing procedures.

47 In the event chronic WET testing is 

imposed on the facility, MDNR and 

EPA should approve an alternate WET 

test procedure, which may include, but 

not be limited to, employing a new test 

species, an endpoint or organism 

response, or a toxicity test concept that 

is not represented in EPA’s approved 

methods.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 002 & 004

(supplement para. 25)

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 21)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(supplement para. 29)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 26)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(supplement para. 26)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(supplement para. 21)

West Fork Unit – 001

(supplement para. 17)

Permittee may submit an application for alternative WET 

sampling and/or testing procedures.
7/15/2010

 Page 12 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

48 When conducting accelerated WET 

testing upon failure of a WET test, only 

the species that failed in initial test 

should be subject to the additional 

multiple dilution testing.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 19)

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 23)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(amended para. 21)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 28)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(supplement para. 28)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 18)

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 12)

Permittee may submit an application for alternative WET 

sampling and/or testing procedures.

49 WET test samples should not have to be 

collected using a 24-hour composite for 

logistical reasons.

Neither mine dewatering source nor 

effluent quality vary significantly over 

a 40 hour period; more labor and 

equipment, creating an undue burden; 

vandalism and threat of expensive 

equipment because of lack of security 

in the rural area where sampler must be 

paced.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 20)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(amended para. 22)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001 & 003

(para. 19)

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 13)

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 24)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 29)

Viburnum 28/29 – 002 & 004

(supplement para. 29)

Permittee may submit an application for alternative WET 

sampling and/or testing procedures.
7/15/2010

 Page 13 of 22

TABLE 5 – Permit Appeal Issues Held In Abeyance – Supporting Documentation for Permit Modification to be Filed and 

Issue Resolved Pursuant to Section VII, Subsection D (See, Paragraph 79.a.ii.)

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

50 The Clean Water Commission removed 

4-mile segment of Big Creek from 

303(d) list “because recent data 

indicated it is no longer impaired” after 

a TMDL was issued. Since Big Creek 

is no longer impaired, the TMDL is 

moot and any effluent limits based 

thereon for the 4-mile segment of Big 

Creek are invalid. 

Metals limits based on the TMDL for 

lead, copper, cadmium, zinc, selenium 

and thallium are moot and must be 

recalculated.

Selenium limits were added to the 

permit based on the recommendation of 

the TMDL, which is now moot.

Glover Facility

(para 14)

(para. 15)

Outfalls 004 & 005

(para. 20)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

51 Permit effluent limits are based on 

waste load allocation in the TMDL for 

Big Creek, not for Scoggins Branch, 

which is the actual receiving stream. 

Since Scoggins Branch is an 

unclassified water, only acute metal 

water quality standards apply.

Since Scoggins Branch is the receiving 

stream, acute water quality standards for 

metals should be basis for WQBELs.

Glover Facility

(para. 16)

(para. 17)

(para. 18)

No change to the permit. 

 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

52 If effluent limits are calculated as 

chronic WQBEL for Big Creek, then 

they should be based on an upstream 

7Q10 flow of 0.48 cfs and hardness 

level that accounts for hardness 

contributed by Scoggins Branch.

Glover Facility

(para. 21)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.
7/15/2010

 Page 14 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

53 Metals WQBELs should be recalculated 

for TMDL and permit based on more 

reliable, site-specific data.

Glover Facility – 001, 002, 003 & 006

(amended para. 11)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

54 Permit limits should be calculated for 

Scoggins Branch, not Big Creek, as the 

receiving stream.

Glover Facility – 001, 002, 003 & 006

(amended para. 12)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

55 WQBELs should be recalculated based 

on only acute metal water quality 

standards because Scoggins Branch is 

an unclassified water.

Glover Facility – 001, 002, 003 & 006

(amended para. 13)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

56 WQBELs for cadmium, copper, lead, 

and zinc at outfalls 003 and 006 should 

be recalculated using site-specific 

hardness values representative of low 

flow conditions.

Glover Facility – 003 & 006

(amended para. 14)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

57 Metals limits for Outfalls 003 and 006 

should be recalculated using sitespecific dissolved metals translators 

(DMTs).

Glover Facility – 003 & 006

(amended para. 15)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

 

58 The TMDL and permit limits for 

Outfalls 003 and 006 should be 

recalculated using more recent 7Q10 

values for Big Creek.

Glover Facility – 003 & 006

(amended para. 16)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

59

60

If effluent limits are calculated based on 

chronic WQBEL in Big Creek, then 

they should be segregated into 4 

different WQBELs for different stream 

flows (as in previous permit).

Flow tiered limits in previous permit are 

allowable under 10 CSR 20-

7.031(4)(A)4.F and should be retained.

Glover Facility – 003

(para. 22)

(amended para. 18)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.
7/15/2010

 Page 15 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

61 Doe Run has or will shortly submit an 

application to construct a pipeline to 

transport effluent from Outfall 003 to 

Big Creek; when the discharge is 

relocated, the TMDL and permit should 

recalculated metals limits for Outfalls 

003 and 006 using Big Creek and its 

7Q10 value.

Glover Facility – 003 & 006

(amended para. 19)

No change to the permit. 

If the Big Creek TMDL is modified, the permittee may 

submit an application for a permit modification.

62 If SWPPP is required for an industrial 

stormwater outfall, numeric limits for 

that outfall should be removed from the 

permit.

Global issue applicable to all CWA Facilities

Sweetwater – 004 

(para. 23)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

The permittee has agreed, pursuant to the Consent 

Decree, to prepare and implement a SWPPP and BMPs at 

all CWA Facilities. However, the permittee may submit 

a request for a permit modification to either eliminate the 

discharge authorization/outfall or to limit the discharge 

authorization to high-flow/wet weather events. MDNR 

would consider the data provided in the permit 

modification request in assessing reasonable potential 

under possible alternative discharge conditions. (10 CSR 

20-7.031(4)(A)4.F)

63 Non-contact cooling water discharged 

through 002 is derived from 

groundwater, which contains natural 

background concentrations of metals 

that often exceed the analytical 

detection limits. In lieu of setting limits 

at detection, they should be set at the 

water quality based effluent limit 

(WQBEL).

Glover Facility- 002

(para. 19)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

The permittee may submit a request for a permit 

modification, with supporting documentation, to 

eliminate the outfall and limits from the permit 

demonstrating that the outfall has been closed.

64 An allowance based on the flow in West 

Fork Black River should be considered 

when calculating effluent limits if 

chronic criteria are required.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 22)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

The permit limits for chronic criteria are required by 

application of State law to protect the down-stream 

classified water, the West Fork of the Black River. The 

permittee may submit a request for a permit modification

that provides supporting documentation for site-specific 

water quality based limitations consistent with 10 CSR 

20-7.031(4).
7/15/2010

 Page 16 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

65 Because MDNR did not provide data to 

justify new limits for chlorides plus 

sulfates, and data are not available to 

evaluate reasonable potential, the 

chloride plus sulfate limits should be 

removed.

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 14)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

This is a monitoring only requirement. Data regarding 

sulfates included in the permit application demonstrate 

the presence of sulfates. There were few data points 

available, which indicated a high degree of variability, 

therefore necessitating continued monitoring to assess 

potential impacts from the facility. If additional 

sampling indicates consistently lower levels of sulfates, 

the permittee may submit an application for a permit 

modification, with supporting documentation.

66 In the absence of data supporting 

reasonable potential for cadmium limits, 

the permit should contain only 

monitoring requirements.

Buick Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 15)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

In addition to being a WQBEL, the limit for cadmium is 

also required by the effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 

440, Subpart J). Previous sample analysis showing “nondetect” at a detection limit of 5 micrograms per liter was 

not a sensitive enough detection limit to indicate the 

current water quality standards for cadmium are being 

met. The permittee may submit a request for a permit 

modification, with supporting documentation, for sitespecific water quality based limitations. 

67 Outfall 003 was confirmed closed by 

EPA’s Apr 2009 inspection – seep along 

or near plugged pipe; monitoring & 

limits for Outfall 003 should be 

removed from permit.

Viburnum 28/29 – 003

(para. 15)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

MDNR will entertain a request for a permit modification, 

with supporting documentation, to eliminate the outfall 

from the permit.

68 Outfalls are emergency discharge points 

or stormwater outfalls that do not 

regularly discharged except in extreme 

storm events; they should not have 

monthly monitoring and effluent limits 

based on critical low flow conditions 

and should instead only have effluent 

event based monitoring requirements.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(para. 13)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 002 & 003

(para. 19 / amended para. 24)

Viburnum 28/29 – 005 & 006

(para. 22)

No change to permit unless and until the permittee 

submits an application for a permit modification. 

Existing data is not sufficient to support a no-reasonable 

potential determination. MDNR has required that the 

permit either prohibit discharge or specify limits based 

on low flow conditions. The permittee may submit a 

request for a permit modification, with supporting 

documentation and discharge options and limitations, for 

consideration by the department. 
7/15/2010

 Page 17 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

69 Special Condition 7 pertaining to 

operational conditions for Outfalls 003 

and 004 does not accurately reflect the 

ELG regulations at 40 CFR 441.100-

440.104.

West Fork Unit – 003 & 004

(para. 16)

No change to permit unless and until the permittee 

submits an application for a permit modification. 

Existing data is not sufficient to support a no-reasonable 

potential determination. MDNR has required that the 

permit either prohibit discharge or specify limits based 

on low flow conditions. The permittee may submit a 

request for a permit modification, with supporting 

documentation and discharge options and limitations, for 

consideration by the department. 

70 WQBELs should be calculated using 

acute and not chronic water quality 

criteria for Outfalls 001, 002 & 003; 

discharges are to an unclassified 

segment 4.2 miles from Crooked Creek; 

MO wqs do not require chronic 

protections for unclassified streams.

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 10)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

Both acute and chronic permit limits are required by 

application of State law to protect the down-stream 

classified water, Crooked Creek. The permittee may 

submit a request for a permit modification that provides

supporting documentation for site-specific water quality 

based limitations consistent with 10 CSR 20-7.031(4).

71 Outfall 002 should be deleted from the 

permit because the source of noncontact cooling water has been 

discontinued and will not discharge in 

the future.

Glover Facility – 002

(amended para. 17)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

MDNR will entertain a request for a permit modification, 

with supporting documentation, to eliminate the outfall 

from the permit.

72 Outfall 006 is an emergency spillway 

from a stormwater flow basin that only 

discharges during heavy rain and 

extreme storm events; therefore numeric 

limits should be removed and 

monitoring only should be required.

Glover Facility – 006

(amended para. 20)

No change to the permit under the current discharge 

scenario unless and until the permittee submits an 

application for a permit modification. 

The permittee may submit a request for a permit 

modification to either eliminate the discharge 

authorization/outfall or to limit the discharge 

authorization to high-flow/wet weather events. MDNR 

would consider the data provided in the permit 

modification request in assessing reasonable potential 

under possible alternative discharge conditions. (10 CSR 

20-7.031(4)(A)4.F)
7/15/2010

 Page 18 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

73 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(a)4.F allows flow 

tiered limits, and are appropriate for 

small headwater streams. Flow tiered 

limits should be allowed for chronic 

effluent limits calculated for Bee Fork 

Creek.

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 003

(para. 21 / amended para. 26)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

74 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(A)4.F allows flow 

tiered limits, and should be allowed, 

taking into consideration the significant 

upstream flows in Logan Creek. 

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 001, 002 & 004

(para. 11)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

75 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(a)4.F allows flow 

tiered limits, and are appropriate for 

small headwater streams. Flow tiered 

limits should be allowed for chronic 

effluent limits calculated for Indian

Creek.

Viburnum 28/29 – all outfalls

(para. 23)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification.

76 10 CSR 20-7.031(4)(a)4.F allows flow 

tiered limits. Flow tiered limits were 

allowed in the previous permit and 

should be continued.

West Fork Unit – 001

(para. 14)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification.

77 Because of ammonia degradation in dry 

ditch and mixing in Adair Creek, there 

will be no measurable increase in 

ammonia levels in Adair or downstream 

in Logan Creek, therefore there is no 

reasonable potential for discharges from 

Outfall 001 to impact aquatic life and 

the effluent limit should be removed 

from the permit.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 001

(para. 9)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 

78 Exiting effluent limits for cadmium, 

copper, lead and zinc at Outfall 002 

should be maintained until an 

appropriate study has been conducted 

that considers site-specific water quality 

criteria in streams receiving discharges 

from DR facilities, and site-specific

derivation of WQBELs.

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 002

(para. 25)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 
7/15/2010

 Page 19 of 22

Permit Appeal Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in appeal document)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

79 In the event chronic WET testing is 

imposed on the facility, the permits 

should include site-specific WET testing 

requirements that take into account 

assimilative capacity of the receiving 

stream at varying receiving stream 

flows and varying discharge rates 

through the outfall that may be caused 

by precipitation events, site-specific 

aquatic life, beneficial uses, or any other 

relevant and appropriate factors.

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill – 001

(supplement para. 26)

Buick Min/Mill – 002

(supplement para. 22)

Fletcher Mine/Mill – 001

(supplement para. 30)

Sweetwater Mine/Mill – 001

(supplement para. 27)

Viburnum 28/28 – 002, 003 & 004

(supplement para. 27)

Viburnum Mine #35 – 001

(supplement para. 22)

West Fork Unit – 001

(supplement para. 18)

No change to the permit - permittee may submit an 

application & information for a permit modification. 
7/15/2010

 Page 20 of 22

TABLE 6 – Future MSOP Potential Permit Appeal Issues

Future Permit Comment Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in comment letter)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

80 Primary lead smelter allowances should 

be used in determining and defining 

pollutant sources and the associated 

mass loading. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 1) 

Under review by MDNR.

81 A schedule of compliance of more than 

one year should be granted to this 

facility. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 2)

Under review by MDNR.

82 The default hardness used in the permit 

is inappropriate; DR’s site-specific 

hardness should be used.

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 3)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

83 There is no reasonable potential to 

violate water quality standards for Total 

Recoverable Chromium (III) and 

Dissolved Chromium (VI); quarterly 

sampling should be changed to annual 

sampling of these parameters.

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 4)

Under review by MDNR.

84 Acute water quality standards should 

apply, as this facility discharges to an 

unclassified stream.

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 5)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

MDNR interprets State law to require both acute and 

chronic permit limits to protect the down-stream classified 

water. The permittee may submit a request for permit 

limitations that provides supporting documentation for 

site-specific water quality based limitations consistent 

with 10 CSR 20-7.031(4).

85 The monthly average limit for ammonia 

should be calculated differently; 

ammonia degradation should be 

accounted for in deriving chronic 

ammonia limits. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 6)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

86 Default DMTs should not have been 

used; site-specific data for Sweetwater 

Mine should be used while DR 

continues to collect data and formulate 

site-specific DMTs

Buick Resource Recycling – 001

(comment 7)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 
7/15/2010

 Page 21 of 22

Future Permit Comment Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in comment letter)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

87 Doe Run requests that Outfalls 002 and 

003 be re-instated in the permit, or, in 

the alternative, requests the opportunity 

to conduct a no feasible alternatives 

analysis as to Outfalls 002 and 003. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 002, 003

(comment 10)

Under review by MDNR.

88 Special Condition 9 should be removed 

from the permit, as it is beyond the 

scope of federal and state clean water 

laws.

Buick Resource Recycling – 002, 003

(comment 12)

Under review by MDNR.

89 Special Condition 10 should be 

removed from the permit, as 

hydrocarbon parameters are not 

contained in the draft permit. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 002, 003

(comment 13)

Under review by MDNR.

90 WET testing at Outfalls 002 and 003 

should be removed from the permit. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 002, 003

(comment 14)

Under review by MDNR.

91 An alternative species, such as the 

daphnia magna, should be used in 

chronic WET testing. 

Buick Resource Recycling – 001, 002 & 003

(comment 14)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit 

information to support an alternate WET methodology. 

92 Water quality based limits were 

calculated using an ambient hardness; 

site-specific hardness is more 

appropriate.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001, 003, 004 

& 005

(comment 2)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

93 Water quality based effluent limitation 

should be calculated by first calculating 

a dissolved metal concentration, then 

translated using an appropriate 

dissolved metal translator, at which

time the long-term averages, average 

monthly limits, and maximum daily 

limits can be calculated using the EPA 

statistical method.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001, 003, 004 

& 005

(comment 3)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

94 Quarterly testing for silver is 

inappropriate as there is no reasonable 

potential to violate WQS and should be 

changed to annual monitoring.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001

(comment 6)

Under review by MDNR.

95 Chemical Oxygen Demand should be a 

monitoring only requirement.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001 

(comment 7)

Under review by MDNR.

96 Three years is an appropriate 

compliance schedule for meeting final 

limits.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001

(comment 8)

Under review by MDNR.
7/15/2010

 Page 22 of 22

Future Permit Comment Issue

(summary of issue raised by permittee)

Applicable MSOP(s) – Outfall(s) 

(paragraph in comment letter)

Resolution of Permit Appeal Issue

97 Monitoring requirement for sulfate at 

Outfall 003 should be removed from the 

permit.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 003

(comment 10)

Under review by MDNR.

98 Default DMTs should not have been 

used to translate dissolved waste load 

allocations to total recoverable effluent 

limits.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001, 003, 004 

& 005

(comment 2)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

99 An alternative species, such as the 

daphnia magna, should be used in 

chronic WET testing. 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001

(comment 13)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit 

information to support an alternate WET methodology. 

100 Site-specific mixing zones are 

appropriate.

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 001

(comment 14)

No change to the permit – permittee may submit an 

application & information for site-specific limitations. 

101 Outfall 004 should be eliminated from 

the Permit. 

Herculaneum Lead Smelter – 004

























































APPENDIX F 

TRUST AGREEMENT

Herculaneum Facility Site

Dated: ____________ __, 2010

This Trust Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of [date] by 

and between Doe Run Resources Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of New York (the “Grantor”), and [name of trustee], a [insert 

“corporation,” “banking organization,” “association,” etc.] organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of [_________] (the “Trustee”). 

Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),

an agency of the United States federal government, the State of Missouri and the Grantor 

have entered into a Consent Decree, United States of America v. the Doe Run Resources 

Corporation, Civil Action No. [_________], addressing multiple Sites in Southeast 

Missouri (hereinafter the “Consent Decree”);

Whereas, the Consent Decree provides that the Grantor shall provide 

assurance that funds will be available as and when needed for performance of the 

Remedial Action at the Herculaneum Facility as required by the Consent Decree;

Whereas, in order to provide such financial assurance, Grantor has agreed 

to establish and fund the trust created by this Agreement; and

Whereas, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has 

selected the Trustee to be the trustee under this Agreement, and the Trustee has agreed to 

act as trustee hereunder. 

Now, therefore, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:

(a) The term “Beneficiary” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in 

Section 3 of this Agreement. 

(b) The term “Business Day” means any day, other than a Saturday or a 

Sunday, that banks are open for business in Herculaneum, Missouri, USA. 

(c) The term “Claim Certificate” shall have the meaning assigned thereto 

in Section 4(a) of this Agreement. 

(d) The term “Fund” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 3 

of this Agreement. 

(e) The term “Grantor” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in the 

first paragraph of this Agreement. 
2

(f) The term “Objection Notice” shall have the meaning assigned thereto 

in Section 4(b) of this Agreement. 

(g) The term “Site” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 2 

of this Agreement. 

(h) The term “Trust” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 3 

of this Agreement. 

(i) The term “Trustee” shall mean the trustee identified in the first 

paragraph of this Agreement, along with any successor trustee appointed pursuant to the 

terms of this Agreement.

(j) The term “Work” shall be the work to complete the Herculaneum Lead 

Smelter Facility Remedial Action as that is defined in Appendix E (Financial Assurance) 

of the Consent Decree. 

Section 2. Identification of Facilities and Costs. This Agreement 

pertains to costs for Work required at the Herculaneum Lead Smelter Facility site in 

Herculaneum, Jefferson County, Missouri (the “Site”), pursuant to the above referenced 

Consent Decree.

Section 3. Establishment of Trust Fund. The Grantor and the Trustee 

hereby establish a trust (the “Trust”), for the benefit of EPA and the State of Missouri 

(the “Beneficiaries”), to assure that funds are available to pay for performance of the 

Remedial Action in the event that Grantor fails to conduct or complete the Remedial 

Action required by, and in accordance with the terms of, the Consent Decree. The 

Grantor and the Trustee intend that no third party shall have access to monies or other 

property in the Trust except as expressly provided herein. The Trust is established 

initially as consisting of funds in the amount of [_______] U.S. Dollars ($_________). 

Such funds, along with any other monies and/or other property hereafter deposited into 

the Trust, and together with all earnings and profits thereon, are referred to herein 

collectively as the “Fund.” The Fund shall be held by the Trustee, IN TRUST, as 

hereinafter provided. The Trustee shall not be responsible nor shall it undertake any 

responsibility for the amount or adequacy of, nor any duty to collect from the Grantor, 

any payments necessary to discharge any liabilities of the Grantor owed to the United 

States.

Section 4. Payment for Work Required Under the Consent Decree. The 

Trustee shall make payments from the Fund in accordance with the following procedures.

(a) From time to time, the Grantor and/or its representatives or contractors 

may request that the Trustee make payment from the Fund for Remedial Action

performed under the Consent Decree by delivering to the Trustee and EPA a written

invoice and certificate (together, a “Claim Certificate”) signed by an officer of the 

Grantor (or the relevant representative or contractor) and certifying:

(i) that the invoice is for Remedial Action performed at the 
3

Site in accordance with the Consent Decree;

(ii) a description of the Remedial Action that has been 

performed, the amount of the claim, and the identity of the payee(s); and

(iii) that the Grantor has sent a copy of such Claim Certificate 

to EPA, both to the EPA attorney and the EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and 

Remedial Branch Chief, and the State attorney and project manager, at their respective 

addresses shown in this Agreement, the date on which such copy was sent, and the date 

on which such copy was received by EPA and the State as evidenced by a return receipt 

(which return receipt may be written, as in the case of overnight delivery, certified mail, 

or other similar delivery methods, or electronic, as in the case of e-mail, facsimile, or 

other similar delivery methods). 

(b) EPA, after consultation with the State, may object to any payment

requested in a Claim Certificate submitted by the Grantor (or its representatives or 

contractors), in whole or in part, by delivering to the Trustee a written notice (an

“Objection Notice”) within thirty (30) days after the date of EPA’s receipt of the Claim 

Certificate as shown on the relevant return receipt. An Objection Notice sent by EPA 

shall state (i) whether EPA objects to all or only part of the payment requested in the 

relevant Claim Certificate; (ii) the basis for such objection, (iii) that EPA has sent a copy 

of such Objection Notice to the Grantor and the date on which such copy was sent; and 

(iv) the portion of the payment requested in the Claim Certificate, if any, which is not 

objected to by EPA, which undisputed portion the Trustee shall proceed to distribute in 

accordance with Section 4(d) below. EPA, after consultation with the State, may object 

to a request for payment contained in a Claim Certificate only on the grounds that the 

requested payment is not for the costs of Remedial Action under the Consent Decree or 

otherwise inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree. 

(c) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and does not receive an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, the 

Trustee shall, after the expiration of such time period, promptly make the payment from 

the Fund requested in such Claim Certificate. 

(d) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and also receives an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, but 

which Objection Notice objects to only a portion of the requested payment, the Trustee 

shall, after the expiration of such time period, promptly make payment from the Fund of 

the uncontested amount as requested in the Claim Certificate. The Trustee shall not make 

any payment from the Fund for the portion of the requested payment to which EPA has 

objected in its Objection Notice. 

(e) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and also receives an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, which 

Objection Notice objects to all of the requested payment, the Trustee shall not make any 

payment from the Fund for amounts requested in such Claim Certificate. 

(f) While this Agreement is in effect, disbursements from the Fund are 
4

governed exclusively by the express terms of this Agreement. 

Section 5. Trust Management. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the 

principal and income of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without 

distinction between principal and income, in accordance with directions which the 

Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, except that:

(a) securities, notes, and other obligations of any person or entity shall not 

be acquired or held by the Trustee with monies comprising the Fund, unless they are 

securities, notes, or other obligations of the U.S. federal government or any U.S. state 

government or as otherwise permitted in writing by the EPA, after consultation with the 

State;

(b) the Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits 

of the Trustee, to the extent such deposits are insured by an agency of the U.S. federal or 

any U.S. state government; and

(c) the Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or 

distribution uninvested for a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of 

interest thereon.

Section 6. Commingling and Investment. The Trustee is expressly 

authorized in its discretion to transfer from time to time any or all of the assets of the 

Fund to any common, commingled, or collective trust fund created by the Trustee in 

which the Fund is eligible to participate, subject to all of the provisions hereof and

thereof, to be commingled with the assets of other trusts participating therein.

Section 7. Express Powers of Trustee. Without in any way limiting the 

powers and discretion conferred upon the Trustee by the other provisions of this 

Agreement or by law, the Trustee is expressly authorized and empowered:

(a) to make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and all documents of 

transfer and conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the powers herein granted;

(b) to register any securities held in the Fund in its own name or in the 

name of a nominee and to hold any security in bearer form or in book entry, or to 

combine certificates representing such securities with certificates of the same issue held 

by the Trustee in other fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of 

such securities in a qualified central depositary even though, when so deposited, such 

securities may be merged and held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such depositary 

with other securities deposited therein by another person, or to deposit or arrange for the 

deposit of any securities issued by the U.S. federal government or any U.S. state 

government, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, with a Federal Reserve bank, but 

the books and records of the Trustee shall at all times show that all such securities are 

part of the Fund; and

(c) to deposit any cash in the Fund in interest-bearing accounts maintained 
5

or savings certificates issued by the Trustee, in its separate corporate capacity, or in any 

other banking institution affiliated with the Trustee, to the extent insured by an agency of 

the U.S. federal government.

Section 8. Taxes and Expenses. All taxes of any kind that may be 

assessed or levied against or in respect of the Fund shall be paid from the Fund. All other 

expenses and charges incurred by the Trustee in connection with the administration of the 

Fund and this Trust shall be paid by the Grantor.

Section 9. Annual Valuation. The Trustee shall annually, no more than

thirty (30) days after the anniversary date of establishment of the Fund, furnish to the 

Grantor and to the Beneficiaries a statement confirming the value of the Trust. Any 

securities in the Fund shall be valued at market value as of no more than 60 days prior to 

the anniversary date of establishment of the Fund. The annual valuation shall include an 

accounting of any fees or expenses levied against the Fund. The Trustee shall also 

provide such information concerning the Fund and this Trust as EPA, after consultation 

with the State, may request from time to time.

Section 10. Advice of Counsel. The Trustee may from time to time 

consult with counsel with respect to any question arising as to the construction of this 

Agreement or any action to be taken hereunder; provided, however, that any counsel 

retained by the Trustee for such purposes may not, during the period of its represenation 

of the Trustee, serve as counsel to the Grantor.

Section 11. Trustee Compensation. The Trustee shall be entitled to 

reasonable compensation for its services as agreed upon in writing with the Grantor and 

as notified in writing to the Beneficiaries.

Section 12. Trustee and Successor Trustee. The Trustee and any 

replacement Trustee must be approved in writing by EPA, after consultation with the 

State, and must not be affliliated with the Grantor. The Trustee may resign or the Grantor 

may replace the Trustee, but such resignation or replacement shall not be effective until 

the Grantor has appointed a successor trustee approved in writing by EPA, after 

consultation with the State, and this successor accepts such appointment. The successor 

trustee shall have the same powers and duties as those conferred upon the Trustee 

hereunder. Upon the successor trustee’s acceptance of the appointment, the Trustee shall 

assign, transfer, and pay over to the successor trustee the funds and properties then 

constituting the Fund. If for any reason the Grantor cannot or does not act in the event of 

the resignation of the Trustee, the Trustee may apply to EPA and the State, or a court of 

competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor trustee or for instructions. The 

successor trustee shall specify the date on which it assumes administration of the Fund 

and the Trust in a writing sent to the Grantor, the Beneficiaries, and the present Trustee 

by certified mail no less than 10 days before such change becomes effective. Any 

expenses incurred by the Trustee as a result of any of the acts contemplated by this 

Section shall be paid as provided in Section 8.
6

Section 13. Instructions to the Trustee. All instructions to the Trustee 

shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are empowered to act on behalf of the entity 

giving such instructions. The Trustee shall be fully protected in acting without inquiry on 

such written instructions given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The 

Trustee shall have no duty to act in the absence of such written instructions, except as 

expressly provided for herein.

Section 14. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be 

amended only by an instrument in writing executed by the Grantor and the Trustee, and 

with the prior written consent of EPA, after consultation with the State. 

Section 15. Irrevocability and Termination. This Trust shall be 

irrevocable and shall continue until terminated upon the earlier to occur of (a) the written 

direction of EPA, after consultation with the State, to terminate, consistent with the terms 

of the Consent Decree and (b) the complete exhaustion of the Fund comprising the Trust

as certified in writing by the Trustee to EPA, the State and the Grantor. Upon 

termination of the Trust pursuant to Section 15(a), all remaining trust property (if any), 

less final trust administration expenses, shall be delivered to the Grantor.

Section 16. Immunity and Indemnification. The Trustee shall not incur 

personal liability of any nature in connection with any act or omission, made in good 

faith, in the administration of this Trust, or in carrying out any directions by the Grantor 

or the EPA, after consultation with the State, issued in accordance with this Agreement. 

The Trustee shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Grantor from and against any 

personal liability to which the Trustee may be subjected by reason of any act or conduct

made by the Trustee in its official capacity, including all expenses reasonably incurred in 

its defense in the event the Grantor fails to provide such defense.

Section 17. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be administered, 

construed, and enforced according to the laws of the State of Missouri.

Section 18. Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, words in the 

singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular. The descriptive 

headings for each Section of this Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal 

efficacy of this Agreement. 

Section 19. Notices. All notices and other communications given under 

this agreement shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the parties as follows or to 

such other address as the parties shall by written notice designate:

(a) If to the Grantor:

Name

Title

Address

Address

(b) If to the Trustee:
7

Name

Title

Address

Address

(c) If to EPA:

Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch

U.S. EPA, Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kanas 66101

Steven L. Sanders

Office of Regional Counsel

U.S. EPA, Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

(913)551-7578

(d) If to the State:

Director

Hazardous Waste Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102
8

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be 

executed by their respective officers duly authorized and attested as of the date first 

above written: 

GRANTOR

[Signature of Grantor]

[Name and Title]

State of _________________________

County of _______________________

On this [date], before me personally came [name of Grantor official], to me known, who, 

being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she/he is [title] of [corporation], the 

corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that she/he signed 

her/his name thereto.

[Signature of Notary Public]

TRUSTEE

[Signature of Trustee] 

[Name and Title]

State of _________________________

County of _______________________

On this [date], before me personally came [name of Trustee official], to me known, who, 

being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she/he is [title] of [corporation], the 

corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that she/he signed 

her/his name thereto.

[Signature of Notary Public]
1

APPENDIX G

 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR MINE/MILL FACILITIES

I. Introduction

1. This Appendix sets forth the obligations of The Doe Run Resources Corporation and The 

Doe Run Resources Corporation d/b/a The Doe Run Company (“Doe Run”) to secure and 

maintain Financial Assurance as required under Paragraph 133 of the Consent Decree, 

including schedules and notice requirements. Submittals requiring EPA and State 

approval shall be submitted pursuant to Section XXIII (Notices) of the Consent Decree. 

“EPA and State approval” or “determination” as used in this Appendix shall not be 

subject to judicial review but shall be subject to Dispute Resolution (other than judicial 

review) pursuant to Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree, unless 

specified otherwise in this Appendix. Any time period specified by this Appendix may 

be changed by written agreement of the Parties. Any proposed material modification to 

this Appendix will be agreed to in writing by the Parties pursuant to Section XXVI

(Modification) of the Consent Decree.

2. Doe Run currently owns and/or operates the Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Buick Mine/Mill, 

Fletcher Mine/Mill, Sweetwater Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine/Mill (Mine # 28 and 29), 

and West Fork Mine/Mill (collectively “Mine/Mill Facilities”). These facilities contain 

tailings and tailings ponds, produced during the milling process, which contain lead and 

other heavy metals. Doe Run shall, according to the schedule provided in Section IV of 

this Appendix, provide Financial Assurance for Remedial Actions for these Mine/Mill 

Facilities after Doe Run permanently ceases its ore and mine water production, ore 

milling, and tailings disposal at these Mine/Mill Facilities. 

II. Definitions

3. Whenever the terms set forth below are used in this Appendix, the definitions set forth 

below shall apply. However, the definitions below only apply to matters relating to 

Financial Assurance for the Mine/Mill Facilities under this Consent Decree.

“Estimated Cost of Work” shall mean the EPA- and State-approved cost estimates for 

Remedial Actions at each individual Mine/Mill Facility, as necessary to allow for the 

future use of the properties as determined by Doe Run and comply with legal obligations 

including closure under the Metallic Minerals Waste Management Act.

“Current Dollars” shall mean U.S. dollars in the year actually received or paid, 

unadjusted for price changes or inflation.
2

“Doe Run” shall mean The Doe Run Resources Corporation and The Doe Run Resources 

Corporation d/b/a The Doe Run Company.

“Financial Assurance” shall mean a written demonstration of financial capability, in 

compliance with the terms of this Appendix, to implement the Remedial Actions to 

address all contamination at each individual Mine/Mill Facility in an amount at least 

equal to the approved Estimated Cost of Work. 

“Financial Mechanism” shall mean the mechanism or instrument specified in this 

Appendix used to secure funding for the Financial Assurance obligation under the 

Consent Decree.

“GAAP” shall mean U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

“Mine/Mill Facility” or collectively “Mine/Mill Facilities” shall mean Doe Run’s six 

mine and mill facility complexes at Brushy Creek, Buick, Fletcher, Sweetwater, 

Viburnum and West Fork. The six Mine/Mill Facilities are located in Southeast, 

Missouri and include hundreds of acres of property associated with the operation of each 

mine/mill facility. 

“Remedial Actions” shall mean those actions required to comply with legal obligations to 

remediate each of the Mine/Mill Facilities as necessary to allow for the future use of the 

property as determined by Doe Run and to comply with legal obligations including 

closure under the Missouri Metallic Minerals Waste Management Act, regulations, and 

applicable Metallic Minerals Waste Management Permits which include the remediation 

of tailings ponds, including draining if required, rock cover if required on tailings dams, 

remediation of mine water ponds, including draining if required, remediation of tailings, 

including grading to ensure positive drainage, and provision of soil, vegetative, and other 

cover as required and watering of vegetative cover as appropriate, sealing of service, 

production and ventilation shafts, removal of asbestos, PCBs and other regulated 

substances, environmental covenants established pursuant to the Missouri Environmental 

Covenants Act if required, and all actions necessary to comply with State, local and 

Federal requirements.
3

III. Cost Estimates

4. Doe Run shall provide to the United States and the State for approval by December 31, 

2010, a written estimate, in current dollars, of the cost of hiring a third party to perform 

all of the Remedial Actions at each of the individual Mine/Mill Facilities (hereafter 

“Estimated Cost of Work”). A third party is a party who (i) is neither a parent nor a 

subsidiary of Doe Run and (ii) does not share a common parent or subsidiary with Doe 

Run. A disapproval of the Estimated Cost of Work is subject to Dispute Resolution 

pursuant to Section XIX (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree, including judicial 

review.

5. Contemporaneous with the submittal of the Estimated Cost of Work, Doe Run shall 

provide an estimate of the operating life of the individual Mine/Mill Facility.

6. The Estimated Cost of Work shall be calculated based on the point in time when the 

extent and manner of the operation of the individual Mine/Mill Facility would make the 

Mine/Mill Facility Remedial Action and the associated activities the most expensive, and 

based on what it would cost to hire a Third Party to complete the Remedial Action. The 

Estimated Cost of Work pertaining to acquisition of soil and rock used for remediation 

shall be the third party cost to extract the soil and rock from property owned by Doe Run.

7. Doe Run shall not include in the Estimated Cost of Work any credit for salvage value that 

may be realized with the sale of hazardous wastes or non-hazardous wastes, facility 

structures or equipment, land or other assets associated with the Mine/Mill Facilities at 

the time the Mine/Mill Facilities close. Nor shall Doe Run incorporate a zero cost for 

handling hazardous waste with potential future value.

8. Doe Run shall submit annually to EPA and the State for approval, a revised written 

Estimated Cost of Work, together with supporting documentation, reflecting inflationary 

adjustments, significant cost adjustments and/or changes to the Remedial Action for each 

Mine/Mill Facility. The submissions shall be due sixty (60) days before the anniversary 

of the establishment of the Financial Mechanism. In preparing the revised Estimated 

Cost of Work Doe Run shall use the most recently published Implicit Price Deflator for 

the Gross Domestic Product.

9. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall maintain the latest

approved Estimated Cost of Work prepared in accordance with this Appendix at each 

Mine/Mill Facility for the duration of this Consent Decree. 
4

IV. Financial Assurance for Mine/Mill Facility

10. Within thirty (30) days of the approval of the Estimated Cost of Work and the draft trust 

agreement for each Mine/Mill Facility Doe Run shall provide to EPA and the State an 

originally signed certification by Doe Run’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), together 

with supporting documentation, including a complete executed trust fund agreement, 

confirming that it has secured Financial Assurance for the Estimated Cost of Work. The 

required amount of the Financial Assurance for each mine/mill facility shall be based on 

the following formula [(1+n)/ TOLM] x ECW, where n is the total number of years since 

the first Estimated Cost of Work was approved, TOLM is the total remaining operating 

life of the Mine/Mill Facility and ECW is the Estimated Cost of Work.1

 Doe Run shall 

provide documentation of Financial Assurance each year until Doe Run has provided 

documentation of Financial Assurance for 100% of the Estimated Cost of Work for each 

Mine/Mill Facility. 

11. Doe Run shall establish separate Financial Assurance for each Mine/Mill Facility. The 

Financial Assurance shall be in the form of an interest bearing trust fund established for 

the benefit of EPA and the State, administered by a trustee who has the authority to act as 

a trustee under federal or State law, whose trust operations are regulated and examined by 

a federal or State agency, and that is acceptable in all respects to the EPA and the State. 

12. Doe Run shall fund each trust fund, as specified in Paragraph 12 of this Appendix. The 

trust fund agreement shall provide that the trustee shall make payments from the fund as

directed by the EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief, after 

consultation with the State, in writing (1) to reimburse Doe Run from the fund for 

expenditures made by Doe Run for Remedial Actions performed in accordance with the 

Consent Decree and this Appendix, or (2) to pay any other person whom the EPA 

Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief, after consultation with the 

State, determines has performed or will perform the Remedial Actions in accordance with 

the Consent Decree and this Appendix. The trust fund agreement shall further provide 

that if after completion of the Remedial Actions at the Mine/Mill Facility, money remains 

in the trust fund for that facility, the trustee shall not refund to Doe Run any amounts 

from the trust fund unless and until EPA, after consultation with the State, has advised 

the trustee that the Remedial Actions at the Mine/Mill Facility have been successfully 

completed.

13. Doe Run shall initially fund the trust established pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this 

Appendix within thirty (30) days of the approval of the Estimated Cost of Work and draft 

trust fund agreement for each Mine/Mill Facility, and shall continue to fund the trust with 

the amount required pursuant to Paragraph 9 of this Appendix each year until the trust is 

fully funded at the completion of the operating life of each Mine/Mill Facility. Doe Run 

 1 For example, for a Mine/Mill Facility with a 20 year remaining operating life, Doe Run’ first certification of 

Financial Assurance shall amount to 1/20 the total Estimated Cost of Work; Doe Run second certification of 

Financial Assurance shall amount to 2/20 of the Estimated Cost of Work; for year three, 3/20, on so on, until in year 

20, the full amount of the Financial Assurance will be provided.
5

shall ensure that the amount of funds in the trust cover any increases in the Estimated 

Cost of Work, including inflationary adjustments, but may reduce the annual funding 

amount to reflect interest earned on monies in the trust.

14. After beginning implementation of the Remedial Actions, Doe Run or other person 

authorized to implement the Remedial Actions may request reimbursements for Remedial 

Action expenditures by submitting itemized bills to the trustee, the EPA Superfund 

Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief and the State. Doe Run may request 

reimbursement for Remedial Actions only if sufficient funds are remaining in the trust 

fund to cover the maximum costs of the remaining Remedial Actions. Within thirty (30) 

days after receiving bills for Remedial Actions the EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and 

Remedial Branch Chief, after consultation with the State, will instruct the trustee to make

reimbursements in those amounts as the EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial 

Branch Chief specifies in writing and/or shall file an Objection Notice pursuant to the 

trust agreement.

15. Doe Run shall use the exact wording specified in Appendix L for the trust agreement, 

except for changes necessary to identify the specific Mine/Mill Facility. The trust fund 

agreement must be accompanied by a formal certification of acknowledgment2

. Doe Run 

shall update the trust fund amount within sixty (60) days after a change in the amount of 

the Estimated Cost of Work. Doe Run shall ensure that the trustee provides to EPA and 

the State an annual accounting of the monies in the trust fund.

16. Doe Run shall pay all expenses incurred by the trustee in connection with the 

administration of the trust fund, including fees for legal services rendered to the trustee 

and compensation of the trustee.

17. For the Financial Assurance provided under this Section, Doe Run shall submit a draft 

trust fund agreement and related documents to the EPA and the State for review and 

approval at the same time it submits the initial Estimated Cost of Work. Within thirty 

(30) days of approval of the initial Estimated Cost of Work and draft trust fund

agreement, Doe Run shall execute or otherwise finalize the trust fund agreement in 

order to make the Financial Assurance legally binding in a form substantially identical 

to the trust fund agreement reviewed and approved by EPA and the State. Doe Run 

shall submit the executed and/or otherwise finalized trust fund agreement to EPA and 

the State within thirty (30) days after EPA’s and the State’s approval of the draft trust 

fund agreement and initial Estimated Cost of Work.

18. Doe Run shall submit all trust fund and related required documents by mail to the EPA 

Region 7 Financial Management Officer and the Director of the Hazardous Waste 

Program for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources at the addresses listed below. 

Copies shall also be sent to the EPA and State Project Officers.

For the EPA:

 2 For an example see 40 CFR § 264.151(a)(2).
6

Region 7 Financial Management Officer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

901 North 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

For the State:

Director

Hazardous Waste Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102

19. Doe Run shall provide adequate Financial Assurance, in the form of a trust fund that 

conforms to the requirements of this Appendix. Doe Run shall make changes to the 

Financial Assurance if the following occurs:

a. If at any time EPA or the State determine that the trust fund provided pursuant to 

this Section is inadequate, or no longer satisfies the requirements set forth or 

incorporated by reference in this Appendix, whether due to an increase in the 

Estimated Cost of Work or for any other reason, EPA or the State shall so notify 

Doe Run in writing. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of EPA’s or the 

State’s determination, Doe Run shall obtain and present to EPA and the State for 

approval an alternate or updated trust fund that satisfies all requirements set forth 

or incorporated by reference in this Appendix. If Doe Run needs additional time 

to provide the alternate or updated trust fund, Doe Run shall request an extension, 

in writing, within ten (10) days of EPA’s or the State’s determination. Doe Run’s 

request shall include an explanation for the additional time and specify when the 

alternate or updated trust fund will be in place. Doe Run shall not rely upon the 

alternate or updated trust fund, nor shall Doe Run terminate the original trust 

fund, until EPA and the State, have approved the alternate or updated trust fund. 

b. If at any time Doe Run becomes aware of information indicating that the trust 

fund provided pursuant to this Section is inadequate or no longer satisfies the 

requirements set forth or incorporated by reference in the Appendix, whether due 

to an increase in the Estimated Cost of Work or for any other reason, then Doe 

Run shall notify EPA and the State in writing of such information within ten (10) 

days. Within thirty (30) days of Doe Run’s becoming aware of such information, 

Doe Run shall obtain and present to EPA and the State for approval an alternate 

or updated trust fund that satisfies all requirements set forth or incorporated by 

reference in this Appendix. If Doe Run needs additional time to provide the 

alternate or updated trust fund, Defendant shall request an extension, in writing, 

within ten (10) days of Doe Run’s becoming aware of such information. Doe 

Run’s request shall include an explanation for the additional time and specify 

when the alternate or updated trust fund will be in place. Doe Run shall not rely 

upon the alternate or updated trust fund, nor shall Doe Run terminate the original 
7

trust fund, until EPA and the State, have approved the alternate or updated trust 

fund.

20. Doe Runs’ inability or failure to establish or maintain financial assurance for completion 

of the Remedial Actions at each Mine/Mill Facility shall in no way excuse performance 

of any other requirements of this Consent Decree.

21. Modification of Amount, Schedule, and Form of Financial Assurance

a.

.

Reduction of Amount and Schedule of Financial Assurance

b.

. If Doe Run believes 

that the Estimated Cost to complete the remaining Remedial Actions has 

diminished below the amount covered by the existing Financial Assurance 

provided under this Consent Decree or if the operating life of the Mine/Mill 

Facilities is more than previously provided, Doe Run may, at the same time that 

Doe Run submits the annual revised Estimated Cost of Work and updated 

Mine/Mill Facilities operating life estimate, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of this 

Appendix, or at any other time agreed to by EPA and the State, submit a written 

proposal to EPA and the State to reduce the amount of the Financial Assurance 

provided so that the amount of the Financial Assurance is equal to the estimated 

cost for the remaining Remedial Actions to be performed and/or the revised 

operating life of the Mine/Mill Facilities. The written proposal shall specify, at a 

minimum, the cost of the remaining Remedial Actions to be performed, the basis 

upon which such cost was calculated, and the basis for the revision in the 

estimated operating life of the Mine/Mill Facilities. In seeking approval of a 

revised Financial Assurance amount, Doe Run shall follow the procedures set 

forth in Paragraph 20.b of this Section. If EPA and the State, decide to accept 

such a proposal, EPA, after consultation with the State, shall notify Doe Run of 

the decision in writing. After receiving EPA’s written decision, Doe Run may 

reduce the amount of the Financial Assurance only in accordance with and to the 

extent permitted by such written decision. In the event of a dispute, Doe Run may 

reduce the amount of the Financial Assurance and schedule required hereunder 

only in accordance with the final EPA and State Dispute Decision resolving such 

dispute pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Appendix and Section XIX (Dispute 

Resolution) of the Consent Decree. No change to the form or terms of any 

Financial Assurance provided under this Appendix, other than a reduction in 

amount or schedule for providing Financial Assurance, is authorized. 

Release of Financial Assurance. Doe Run may submit a written request to the 

EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief and the State that 

EPA and the State release Doe Run from the requirement to maintain Financial 

Assurance under this Appendix at such time as EPA and the State agree that all 

Remedial Actions at that particular Mine/Mill Facility are complete pursuant to 

Section XXVII (Termination) of the Consent Decree. The EPA Superfund 

Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief, after consultation with the State,

shall notify both Doe Run and the provider(s) of the Financial Assurance that 
8

Doe Run is released from the Financial Assurance obligations associated with 

that particular Mine/Mill Facility under this Consent Decree. In the event of a 

dispute, Doe Run may release, cancel, or terminate the Financial Assurance 

required hereunder only in accordance with the final EPA and State dispute 

decision.

c.

i. If Doe Run desires to change the form or terms of Financial Assurance, 

Doe Run may, at the same time that Doe Run submits the annual revised 

Estimated Cost of Work, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of this Appendix, or at 

any other time agreed to by EPA and the State, submit a written proposal 

to EPA and the State to change the form of Financial Assurance. The 

submission of such proposed revised or alternative form of Financial 

Assurance shall be as provided in Paragraph 20.c(ii) below. The decision 

whether to approve a proposal submitted under this Paragraph 20.c shall 

be made in EPA’s and the State’s, sole and unreviewable discretion and 

such decision shall not be subject to challenge by Doe Run pursuant to the 

dispute resolution provisions of this Consent Decree or in any other form.

Change of Form of Financial Assurance.

ii. A written proposal for a revised or alternative form of Financial Assurance 

shall specify, at a minimum, the cost of the remaining Remedial Actions 

for the Mine/Mill Facilities, the basis upon which such cost was calculated 

and the proposed revised form of Financial Assurance, including all 

proposed instruments or other documents required in order to make the 

proposed Financial Assurance legally binding. The proposed revised or 

alternative form of Financial Assurance shall satisfy all requirements of 

this Consent Decree. Any proposed alternative Financial Assurance other 

than a trust fund shall comply with the requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R.

Section 264.143. EPA, after consultation with the State, shall notify Doe 

Run in writing of the decision to accept or reject a revised or alternative 

form of Financial Assurance submitted pursuant to this paragraph. Within 

ten (10) days after receiving a written decision approving the proposed 

revised or alternative Financial Assurance, Doe Run shall execute and/or 

otherwise finalize all instruments or other documents required in order to 

make the selected Financial Assurance legally binding in a form 

substantially identical to the documents submitted to EPA and the State as 

part of the proposal, and such Financial Assurance, shall be fully effective. 

Doe Run shall submit all executed and/or otherwise finalized instruments 

or other documents required in order to make the selected Financial 

Assurance legally binding to EPA Region 7 Financial Management 

Officer within thirty (30) days of receiving a written decision approving 

the proposed revised or alternative Financial Assurance, with a copy to the 

EPA Project Officer and the State. EPA and the State shall release, 

cancel, or terminate the prior existing Financial Assurance instruments 

only after Doe Run has submitted all executed and/or otherwise finalized 
9

new Financial Assurance instruments or other required documents to EPA

and the State.

22. Incapacity of Owners or Operators, or Financial Institutions. Doe Run shall notify the 

EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch Chief and the State by certified 

mail of the commencement of a voluntary or involuntary proceeding under Title 11 

(Bankruptcy), U.S. Code, naming Doe Run as debtor, within ten (10) days after 

commencement of the proceeding, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 264.148, incorporated 

by reference in 10 CSR 25-7.164(1). Doe Run will be deemed to be without the required 

Financial Assurance or liability coverage in the event of bankruptcy of the trustee or 

issuing institution, or a suspension or revocation of the authority of the trustee institution 

to act as trustee. Doe Run must establish other Financial Assurance within sixty (60) 

days after such an event.
 

Page 1 of 3 

Appendix H – Enclosure of Lead Concentrate Storage and Handling 

 In accordance with, and in addition to, the provisions of Section XIV of this 

Consent Decree (Additional Injunctive Relief), Doe Run shall comply with the provisions 

of this Appendix. Any submissions required of this Appendix shall be submitted to EPA 

and MDNR in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this Consent Decree. 

 A. Doe Run shall install and operate a building enclosure/ventilation system 

at the lead concentrate handling, storage and loading areas at the following mill facilities 

owned and operated by Doe Run: Buick Mine/Mill, Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, 

Sweetwater Mine/Mill, and Fletcher Mine/Mill. The building enclosure/ventilation 

system shall address the following specific components/areas: any interior lead 

concentrate conveyance system (i.e., conveyance system located totally inside an 

enclosed storage/loading building), the lead concentrate storage stockpile, the area 

containing the scale, and the vehicle loading zone (i.e., the area between the lead 

concentrate storage stockpile and the scale, within which the front-end loader or other 

loading equipment operates); and any exterior lead concentrate conveyance system (i.e., 

conveyance system located between the enclosed mill building and the enclosed 

storage/loading building). The exterior conveyance enclosure system may be ventilated 

by sharing the negative pressure ventilation system of the enclosed storage/loading 

building connected thereto. The enclosure/ventilation systems shall meet the following 

requirements: 

 1. all subject areas shall be fully enclosed with limited openings to 

allow proper ventilation, and access and egress for people and vehicles, as necessary; 

 2. any enclosure shall be subject to general ventilation that maintains 

the interior of the building enclosure at a lower than ambient pressure to ensure in-draft 

through any openings at all times; 

 3. any enclosure shall be ventilated to a baghouse or other type of 

filter particulate collection equipment; 

 4. all connected enclosures may utilize the same shared ventilation 

system, provided that the required negative pressure level is maintained; and 

 5. any enclosure/ventilation system shall provide adequate enclosure 

and ventilation for any interior lead concentrate conveyance system without the need for 

a redundant enclosure/ventilation of the interior conveyance system. 

 B. Doe Run shall sequentially complete installation and begin operation of an 

enclosure/ventilation system at the respective mill facilities by September 1 of the 

following consecutive years: 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. The sequence of 

enclosure/ventilation system installation and operation at the respective mill facilities will 

be determined by Doe Run; provided however, that Doe Run shall complete installation 

and begin operation of an enclosure/ventilation system at the Buick Mine/Mill facility by 
 

Page 2 of 3 

no later than September 1, 2013. If Doe Run chooses to substantially revise the 

engineering design of its enclosure/ventilation system based on comments received by 

EPA and/or MDNR and such revision requires delay of the finalization of the plans 

beyond December 1 of the year preceding the established installation/operation date (i.e., 

less than nine (9) months prior to the established completion/operation date), then such 

revisions shall be a basis for an extension of the compliance schedule equivalent to the 

actual period of delay and any related delay due to seasonal construction limitations. 

Any extension of the compliance schedule shall not be classified as a “material 

modification” of the Consent Decree. If Doe Run revises the engineering design of its 

enclosure/ventilation system based on comments received by EPA and/or MDNR, Doe 

Run shall submit the final plans to EPA and MDNR thirty (30) days prior to commencing 

construction on the enclosure/ventilation system. 

C. In accordance with the schedule set forth in Section B of this Appendix, 

Defendants shall install and operate a differential pressure gauge on the leeward wall of 

the enclosure at each facility to measure the pressure difference between the inside and 

outside of the enclosure that meets the following requirements: (1) the pressure gauge 

shall be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring pressure differential in 

the range of 0.02 to 0.2 mm Hg; (2) both the inside and outside taps shall be shielded to 

reduce the effects of wind; and (3) Defendants shall demonstrate that the inside of the 

building is maintained at negative pressure as compared to the outside of the building no 

less than 0.02 mm Hg when all doors are in the position they are in during normal 

operations. Doe Run may seek to implement an alternate method to that stated herein for 

monitoring negative pressure or in-draft, if such method is proven to be at least 

equivalent to or more accurate than the above described method. Any such alternate 

proposal shall be submitted to and reviewed by EPA in accordance with the schedule set 

forth in Section B of this Appendix. 

 D. No later than fourteen (14) months before the enclosure/ventilation system 

installation completion/operation commencement date for any enclosure/ventilation 

system required under Section A of this Appendix, and consistent with the schedule 

established in Section B of this Appendix, Doe Run shall submit to EPA and MDNR 

plans containing the specifications for the enclosure/ventilation system that will be 

installed at the specific mill facility selected by Doe Run. EPA will consult with MDNR 

and provide any comments on the proposed plans to Doe Run within sixty (60) days. If 

comments are not provided within the established timeframe, it will be assumed that EPA 

and MDNR have no comments, and Doe Run will proceed with the plans as submitted. 

The plans shall include the following information: 

 

1. A detailed description of the area and equipment to be enclosed at 

each facility listed above. 

 

2. The engineering designs, drawings, and cost estimates created by 

or for Doe Run for the building enclosure/ventilation system for the following 

areas: (a) the interior lead concentrate conveyance system (i.e., conveyance 

system located totally inside an enclosed storage/loading building); (b) the lead 
 

Page 3 of 3 

concentrate stockpile storage area; (c) the area containing the scale; and (d) the 

vehicle loading zone. The plans shall also include a detailed description and 

design basis for the enclosure system that will be used on any exterior lead 

concentrate conveyance system (i.e., conveyance located between exterior walls 

of the enclosed mill building and the enclosed storage/loading building), 

including enclosure options designed to prevent spillage to the ambient 

environment. The plans shall be based on an evaluation of best industry practices 

and shall present to EPA and MDNR the enclosure and ventilation technologies 

that are demonstrated to best minimize fugitive emissions and/or spillage to the 

ambient environment, to the extent practicable, and to best minimize the spillage 

of lead concentrate onto the exterior of the transport vehicle during loading inside 

the enclosed/ventilated storage/loading building (prior to entering the vehicle 

wash station) to the extent practicable. 

3. A description of the ventilation specifications and design basis for 

maintaining negative pressure in the enclosure, as well as the measurement 

equipment and the method that will be implemented to measure and confirm that 

negative pressure is being maintained in the building enclosure. 

4. A description of the specifications and design basis for any 

pollution control equipment that will be employed. 

5. The name and qualifications of any contractor candidates that may 

be used by Doe Run to complete the project, if not previously submitted to EPA 

and the State. 

6. A schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

7. A general description of the expected environmental benefits of the 

project, providing any data or calculations of the expected lead air emissions 

reductions. 

 E. Doe Run shall provide an update on the status of these projects as part of 

the six-month status reports required pursuant to Section XVI (Reporting Requirements) 

of this Consent Decree. 
7-30-2010

1

Appendix I - Statement of Work for Bee Fork Creek Mitigation

I. Introduction: General Overview of Work and Statement of Purpose

This Statement of Work (SOW) contains a variety of elements required for a

mitigation project in Bee Fork Creek located in Reynolds County, Missouri. The 

project will occur within the 8.5 mile segment of Bee Fork Creek extending from 

the most upstream inputs from the Fletcher Mine/Mill complex to its confluence 

with the West Fork of the Black River (approximate coordinates: upstream 

latitude and longitude 37.4426, -91.0915; downstream latitude and longitude 

37.4598, -90.9851) that is on the Missouri list of impaired waters under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act based on Pb in sediment. The objective of the 

work under this SOW is, in general, to ameliorate conditions harmful to aquatic 

life, and specifically to mitigate sediment toxicity to benthic macroinvertebrates;

other sediment-dwelling aquatic life; and reduce risks due to trophic transfer in 

the aquatic ecosystem due to Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni discharged from the Fletcher 

Mine/Mill complex to Bee Fork Creek. The goals and methods described in this 

SOW are limited to this project and do not set a precedent for any other project or 

program.

Any modifications to this SOW or a schedule proposed by Defendants and 

approved by MDNR pursuant to the requirements of this SOW shall not be 

considered “material modifications” within the meaning of Section XXVI 

(Modifications) of the Consent Decree. Any proposed modifications to this SOW

or a schedule approved by MDNR pursuant to the requirements of this SOW must 

be submitted to MDNR for review and prior approval pursuant to Section XII 

(Approval of Deliverables). Defendants shall submit all proposed modifications 

to MDNR and EPA at least thirty (30) Days prior to the due date of the milestone 

for which the extension is sought, unless otherwise approved by MDNR. 

Modification of this SOW or a schedule approved by MDNR pursuant to the 

requirements of this SOW shall not automatically extend any schedule to meet an 

interim or final compliance deadline under this Consent Decree. 

In addition, if any review or analysis is conducted under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), any deadlines or schedules of this SOW 

affected by the NEPA review or analysis will be extended by written agreement 

of the Parties for such time as necessary to complete the obligations affected by 

the review or analysis.

Doe Run shall commence implementation of the MDNR-approved Sampling and 

Analysis Plan and other mitigation work required under this Appendix and 

Section XIV (Additional Injunctive Relief) of the Consent Decree when all final 

permit conditions in the Fletcher Mine/Mill re-issued MSOP No. MO0001856 

become effective or when the final permit conditions become effective pursuant 
7-30-2010

2

to alternative compliance schedules provided under the Consent Decree, 

whichever is later.

II. General Description of Work Required

This SOW includes the following activities: 

A. Environmental sampling and testing of sediment quality, water quality, 

soil quality and other relevant conditions of the Bee Fork Creek channel 

and stream bank as described in a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for 

Stream Assessment in accordance with Section III of this SOW. The

sediment mitigation goal (SMG) for this project will be the threshold 

mean Probable Effects Concentration Quotient for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni 

calibrated to Bee Fork Creek conditions, consistent with Ingersoll et al. 

(2001), Ingersoll et al. (2009), Long et al. (2006), Besser et al. (2009b) 

and MacDonald et al. (2009) (hereinafter “threshold mean PEC-Q) as 

provided in Section III. In addition, concentrations of sediment in Bee 

Fork Creek demonstrated to be toxic to sensitive organisms (e.g., 

crayfish and sculpins) from past and current investigations shall be 

evaluated in determining the SMG (Allert et al. 2008). 

B. Development of a Stream Assessment Report and Geomorphology 

Characterization Work Plan in accordance with Section IV of this SOW. 

The Assessment Report will describe the analytical results for surface 

water, sediment pore-water, and sediment sampling in Bee Fork Creek 

and soil sampling in vegetated and unvegetated areas of wetlands, creek 

banks, and floodplains adjacent to Bee Fork Creek. The 

Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan will describe the methods 

that will be used to characterize the hydrology and geomorphological 

conditions of the 8.5 miles of Bee Fork Creek on the 303(d) list. 

Detailed analysis of geomorphology will focus on areas with sediment at 

or over the threshold mean PEC-Q, including erosional areas of the 

creek banks and floodplains.

C. Following the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ (MDNR) 

approval of the Stream Assessment Report and Geomorphology 

Characterization Work Plan, Doe Run shall conduct the geomorphologic 

characterization.

D. Upon completion of the geomorphologic characterization, Doe Run shall 

develop a Mitigation Design Document (MDD) in accordance with 

Section V of this SOW. The MDD will consider the locations and 

geomorphological characteristics of the areas of sediment and soil at or 

over the threshold mean PEC-Q; identify areas of potential sediment 

removal or other mitigation approaches within Bee Fork Creek; describe 

any access issues; and evaluate the cost of sediment mitigation 
7-30-2010

3

alternatives to meet the objectives of this SOW, and include detailed 

provisions governing any removal of sediment, including complying 

with applicable local, state and federal statutes and regulations covering 

these activities, such as timely obtaining applicable permits. 

E. As provided in Section V of this SOW, the MDD will consider the 

following actions to address sediments and soils at or over the SMG and 

to mitigate construction related impacts: 

1. removal of sediment at or over the threshold mean PEC-Q

potentially including from

a. exposed bars in compliance with Missouri’s gravel bar 

mining regulations, or 

b. behind (upstream) of low-water crossings.

2. stream bank or floodplain soil removal or stabilization in erodible 

areas with soil concentrations at or over the threshold mean PEC-Q 

that have the potential to cause sediment concentrations at or over 

the threshold mean PEC-Q;

3. riparian corridor mitigation particularly in areas that are adversely

affected by soil or sediment mitigation construction activities;

4. in-stream habitat improvements (potentially including fish passage 

improvement, bridge reconstruction, bank reconfiguration and 

structure, and in-stream structure) in areas that are adversely 

affected by sediment removal activities; and

5. environmental covenants where it is necessary to maintain restored 

riparian corridor areas on private property.

F. The MDD will include a description of proposed construction 

monitoring and maintenance measures, including submission of monthly 

progress reports.

G. Monitoring and maintenance of mitigation measures for a five (5) year 

period following completion will be performed by Doe Run under 

MDNR oversight. 

Doe Run shall not be required to spend more than $5,500,000, in 2010 dollars, on 

implementation of the work set forth in the approved MDD, approved 

Supplemental MDD, and item G, above. Doe Run shall have no obligation to 

undertake further actions to implement the work set forth in the approved MDD 

or Supplemental MDD or item G if, and at such time that, the costs incurred and 

documented to EPA and MDNR by Doe Run to implement such work are equal to 

or exceed $5,500,000. In the event that the costs to implement such work are 
7-30-2010

4

expected to equal or exceed $5,500,000, Doe Run shall promptly provide notice 

to EPA, MDNR and the United States, including a list of work set forth in the

MDD, Supplemental MDD or item G that has not been completed. However, in 

the event that such costs equal or exceed $5,500,000, nothing in the Consent 

Decree or this Appendix shall preclude Doe Run from voluntarily performing 

additional work or expending additional funds to complete the work, provided 

that such additional work has been approved by MDNR and comports with the 

requirements of the Consent Decree and this Appendix.

III. Sampling and Analysis Plan For Stream Assessment 

Within one year after the Effective Date of the Consent Decree, Doe Run shall 

submit a SAP for Stream Assessment for review and approval by the MDNR that 

details sampling and analysis protocols for items III.A. through H., discussed 

below. The SAP shall include quality assurance measures that identify analytical 

detection limits, toxicity test protocols (i.e., for development of the threshold 

mean PEC-Q), quality assurance/quality control measures, decontamination 

procedures, sample numbers, and locations, etc. The SAP will include a Quality 

Assurance Program Plan (“QAPP”) that conforms to “EPA Requirements for 

Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations” (EPA 

QA/R5. EPA/240/B-01/003 (March, 2001)) and “Guidance for Quality Assurance 

Plans” (EPA QA/G5. EPA/240/R-02/009 (December, 2002)). Doe Run shall plan 

and implement a sampling/survey regime that evaluates the following existing 

conditions: 

A. Sediment Quality: Sediment sampling will be focused on depositional 

areas where fine sediment (i.e., sand, silt and clay) is expected to 

predominate, gravel bars, and areas impeded by low-water crossings or 

other impediments to flow within the 8.5 stream miles. Sediment 

quality analyses will include analysis of metal concentrations (i.e., Pb, 

Zn, Cd, and Ni) in sediments finer than gravel (i.e., the <2 mm size)

fraction as determined through wet sieving using site water; the above 

metals in sediment pore water; analysis of conventional analytes (e.g., 

moisture content, grain size distribution and total organic carbon, etc.);

acid volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals in accordance 

with EPA guidance (EPA 2005a); and sediment toxicity testing at 

selected stations downstream and upstream of the Fletcher Mine/Mill 

complex to calibrate the threshold mean PEC-Q. Sediment quality 

sampling and evaluation will include analyses of sediment pore-water 

for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni;

B. Water Quality: Water quality sampling will include total and dissolved 

metals (Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni), hardness, dissolved organic carbon, other 

contaminants of concern discharged from the Fletcher Mine/Mill 

complex and standard water quality parameters (e.g. pH, specific 

conductance, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, etc.); 
7-30-2010

5

C. Biological integrity of the stream macrobenthic community shall be 

determined by using Rapid Bioassessment as modified by MDNR 

(Sarver, R. 2001) within Bee Fork Creek, including mine-affected 

areas within the 8.5 stream miles and appropriate reference locations,

and other indices of biotic integrity as proposed by Doe Run and 

approved by MDNR. Biotic sampling shall also include an evaluation 

of aquatic endpoints demonstrated to be sensitive to metals in the 

Viburnum Trend such as crayfish (Allert et al. 2009a) and sculpin

(Allert et al. 2009b);

D. Soil Quality: soil sampling of wetlands, creek banks, and floodplains 

adjacent to Bee Fork Creek to determine whether those areas contain 

Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni that could be transported to the Creek bed and 

result in sediment that is equal to or exceeds the threshold mean PECQ;

E. Potential locations for riparian corridor mitigation activities, to the 

extent foreseeable based on sediment and soil quality and likely access 

routes for sediment and/or soil removal or other mitigation 

construction activities;

F. Locations of wetlands, including Hines Emerald Dragonfly habitat 

(fens);

G. The SAP shall include an implementation schedule, which schedule 

shall be subject to approval by MDNR; and 

H. The raw data generated from the SAP shall be submitted to MDNR 

within thirty (30) days of receipt by Doe Run.

IV. Stream Assessment Report/Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan

Doe Run shall prepare and submit to MDNR for review and approval a Stream 

Assessment Report and Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan within four 

months of the date Doe Run receives all validated analytical results from the 

sampling performed pursuant to the SAP. The Stream Assessment Report will 

summarize the information collected pursuant to the SAP and provide information 

necessary for preparation of the MDD to address in-stream sediments that are 

equal to or exceed the SMG. This information will include determination of the 

threshold mean PEC-Q for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni calibrated to Bee Fork Creek using 

toxicity testing across a representative gradient of metals concentrations in 

sediments from selected stations downstream and upstream of the Fletcher 

Mine/Mill complex consistent with Ingersoll et al. (2001), Ingersoll et al. (2009), 

Long et al. (2006) Besser et al. (2009b), and MacDonald et al. (2009). This 

calculation will provide the threshold mean PEC-Q at which site-specific toxicity 
7-30-2010

6

to benthic macroinvertebrates is likely to occur. The Stream Assessment Report 

will consider existing literature on aquatic ecotoxicity specific to the Viburnum 

Trend, other sediment dwelling aquatic life, risks due to trophic transfer in the 

aquatic system, and incorporate this data as well as ecotoxicity data discussed 

under this Appendix in the development of the SMG. The SMG for this mitigation 

project is to attain sediment concentrations below the threshold mean PEC-Q as 

determined by incorporating all Bee Fork Creek site-specific ecotoxicity under the 

SAP. 

Based on the soil concentrations that are equal to or exceed the threshold mean 

PEC-Q, the Stream Assessment Report will also identify any areas of wetlands, 

floodplains or overbank deposits, fens and special and critical habitats that 

warrant further evaluation of sediment erosion and remobilization potential in the 

Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan. 

The Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan will describe the methods and 

schedule for evaluating geomorphologic characteristics including collection of the 

following information: 

A. Hydrology of the Creek, including flow measurement if previous 

stream gauging information is not available. 

B. Stream surface water elevations every 1⁄4 mile throughout the 8.5 

stream miles in the areas of potential sediment mitigation identified in 

the Stream Assessment Report, including longitudinal and 

perpendicular to flow cross sections. Stream cross sections will be 

conducted in accordance with approved methodology (Rosgen 1996 or 

1998).

C. Identification and description of locations to remove sediments based 

on either:

1. sediment concentrations equal to or exceeding the 

threshold mean PEC-Q for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni in

sediment impounded behind low-water crossings or 

other obstructions that serve to trap sediment and 

provide grade controls during excavation; or

2. sediment concentrations equal to or exceeding the 

threshold mean PEC-Q for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni in gravel 

bar deposits (if access can be obtained without 

importation of fill material or significant habitat loss).

D. Identification of sediment quantities that can be removed and still 

maintain the stream in a manner that prevents “sediment starved” 

conditions (i.e., conditions that would require additions of clean 

sediment to maintain a geomorphically stable sediment balance.) The 
7-30-2010

7

Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan will consider methods to 

evaluate quantity of sediment that could be removed from a given 

stream reach while avoiding head cuts or channel degradation in 

upstream locations. 

E. Identification of areas that function as grade controls or conditions that 

prevent head-cutting or significant downward erosion of the stream 

(e.g. bedrock bottom or low-water crossings). 

F. Identification of areas of sediment or soil in banks, overbanks, or 

floodplain deposits equal to or over the threshold mean PEC-Q that are 

located close to access roads and are in areas that are:

1. likely to suffer damage by heavy equipment during 

construction; 

2. that are susceptible to erosion, deeply incised or other 

sources of recontamination of in-stream sediment; or

3. likely to suffer impacts to floodplains or banks caused 

by the construction of roads to remove sediment. 

G. Evaluation of the erosion and remobilization potential of the areas of 

wetlands, floodplains, or creek banks identified in the Stream 

Assessment Report as containing sediments equal to or in excess of the 

threshold mean PEC-Q that could be remobilized by flood and high 

water events. 

H. An inventory of existing vegetation in the areas of potential sediment 

mitigation in order for the MDD to propose appropriate species for 

revegetation following any mitigation construction activities. 

I. Identification of stream segments in areas of potential sediment 

mitigation that would benefit from potential in-stream habitat 

enhancements, such as segments with straightened channels, lacking in 

woody structure in stream, poor riffle/pool development, or other 

aquatic habitat limitations. 

V. Mitigation Design Document

Doe Run shall submit an MDD to MDNR for review and approval within six 

months of the approval date of the Stream Assessment Report and 

Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan. The MDD will consider the areas 

and geomorphological characteristics of the sediment and soils equal to or in 

excess of the SMG; identify locations for potential removal or other management 

of such materials; describe any access issues; evaluate the costs of sediment 

mitigation alternatives to meet the objectives of this SOW; and present a 

prioritized inventory of sediment mitigation actions. The MDD will provide 

design criteria and specifications for sediment removal, transportation, and 
7-30-2010

8

disposal, bank stabilization, riparian corridor mitigation and in-stream habitat 

mitigation as applicable. Removal and mitigation methods that will be considered 

are described in sections A through I below:

A. Gravel Bar Mining: The Missouri natural resource agencies (MDNR, 

Missouri Department of Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service), have identified gravel bar mining as a method allowing 

removal of contaminated sediment within Ozark streams without 

seriously degrading other ecological and hydrologic functions of the 

stream. The gravel bar mining design should allow for periodic reexcavation of contaminated sediment, if necessary, from the same 

gravel bar with successive high water events. The following items 

shall be identified in the MDD and guide design and implementation 

of any gravel bar excavation to meet the SMG: 

1. Gravel/sediment excavation detail, including the techniques 

and equipment used;

2. Restrictions on gravel bar excavation as identified within the 

Missouri Land Reclamation Act Sand and Gravel Mining 

Regulations (In-Stream Gravel Removal Requirements are 

specifically found at 10 CSR 40-10.050 (14) and are on page 

10 of the Sand and Gravel Rules (found at 

http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c40-

10.pdf). In addition to these restrictions, Doe Run shall leave 

a 20 foot buffer of unexcavated deposits at the head (upstream 

end) of any gravel bar identified for excavation. This will 

increase stability of the bar and promote re-deposition of 

sediment during high water events.

3. The estimated periodicity (frequency) of sediment removal 

based on high flow or flood events and re-deposition of 

sediment;

4. An estimate of volume of sediment removal necessary to 

achieve the SMG in a specific gravel bar, not considering the

unexcavated deposits at the head of the gravel bar;

5. Sediment transport and disposal methods, including 

opportunities for beneficial reuse or other management options 

consistent with Federal and State regulations;

6. Erosion/sediment migration controls (e.g., silt curtains);

7. Operational monitoring (e.g., water quality monitoring);

8. Mitigation of any constructed access roads; and

9. Maintenance and monitoring to ensure that mitigation 

measures are geomorphically stable over the long-term and 

mitigated areas do not become re-contaminated after 

construction completion. 
7-30-2010

9

B. In-stream Excavation: The natural resource agencies have identified 

removal of contaminated sediment behind low-water crossings as an 

effective method of removing contaminated sediment while 

minimizing unintended negative ecological and hydrological 

consequences within the stream. Similar to gravel bar mining, this 

mitigation method could be designed to be repetitive in one location 

over a period of years depending on high flow or flood events, 

contaminated sediment volume above the excavation point, and 

mobility of sediment. The first excavation of the sediment behind a 

low-water crossing or stream obstruction enhances the depositional 

capacity of this location for upstream sediment. In-stream sediment 

removal behind low-water dams or other identified stream 

impoundments or grade controls may be planned for multiple 

iterations if such iterations are determined to be effective in decreasing 

sediment metal concentrations in a given stream reach below the 

SMG. As appropriate, the MDD will identify: 

1. Sediment excavation detail, including the techniques and 

equipment used;

2. Permitting requirements as identified within the federal Clean 

Water Act and state Clean Water Law (land disturbance, 

sections 401 and 404 permits, etc.); 

3. Periodicity (frequency) of sediment removal based on high 

flow or flood events and re-deposition of contaminated 

sediment;

4. An estimate of volume of sediment removal necessary to 

achieve the SMG;

5. Sediment transport and disposal methods, including 

opportunities for beneficial reuse or other management 

options consistent with Federal and State regulations;

6. Erosion/sediment migration controls (e.g., silt curtains);

7. Operational Monitoring (e.g., water quality monitoring);

8. Mitigation of constructed access roads; and/or

9. Maintenance and Monitoring.

C. In-Stream Habitat Mitigation: The MDD will consider in-stream 

habitat mitigation actions either in conjunction with or in lieu of 

sediment removal actions as determined by MDNR. In-stream 

habitat mitigation actions are a lower priority to MDNR than 

sediment mitigation actions, riparian corridor mitigation pursuant 

to Section V.F and monitoring and maintenance pursuant to 

Section V.G. The MDD must reserve adequate funding for post 

construction riparian corridor mitigation and monitoring and 

maintenance of the stream mitigation project. In-stream habitat 

mitigation may include:

1. woody or rock structures that improve conditions for fish and 

other aquatic organisms;
7-30-2010

10

2. fish passage improvements, including low-water bridge 

replacement;

3. construction of riffle/pool, or meander sequences; and/or

4. re-directing the channel away from eroding banks (or sections 

of the stream under construction), etc.

D. Stream Bank and Floodplain Excavation: The MDD shall consider 

options for stream bank or floodplain excavation or stabilization in

areas identified in the Stream Assessment Report and 

Geomorphology Characterization as exhibiting a high potential for 

erosion and containing sediment equal to or exceeding the SMG 

that may be remobilized and distributed to the stream bed in 

concentrations equal to or exceeding the SMG.

E. Riparian Corridor Mitigation: In general, forested canopy is the 

most beneficial watershed land cover for stream health. A healthy 

wooded watershed provides for the interception and infiltration of 

rainfall, filters leaf litter, and slows runoff, and the extensive 

interlocking root systems of forests provide resistance to erosion. 

The structure of the forested canopy provides shelter for a variety 

of wildlife, provides food for insects and other wildlife while 

growing, and provides the base of the food chain for stream 

systems after leaf-fall. The roots of trees near stream channels 

provide resistance to erosion and downed wood supplies habitat 

within the stream. In addition, stream health is enhanced by easy 

(low gradient) transitions between the stream channel and 

floodplains. The MDD will consider riparian corridor mitigation 

activities to mitigate construction-related impacts from sediment or 

soil removal actions. Where deemed appropriate based on the 

results of the sediment evaluations in Bee Fork Creek, the MDD 

will give consideration to lowering banks to provide flood storage 

and riparian wetland habitat as a form of riparian corridor 

mitigation. The riparian corridor mitigation design will include: 

1. Construction-related bank improvements where the bank or 

floodplain has been impacted by construction of roads 

necessitated for sediment removal actions. The MDD will 

identify bank re-grading, height, slope details, re-vegetation, 

and maintenance components. Low angles and low height 

banks are preferred over high banks and steep angles. 

2. Heavy construction equipment, fertilizers, or pesticides will 

not be used within 100 feet of identified fens less than 400 

square feet in area. For larger fens, the above activities are 

restricted to 500 feet on the upstream side and 300 feet on 

lateral and downstream sides. A greater set-back distance 
7-30-2010

11

may be necessary depending on topography, geology, and 

relative velocity of potential storm water runoff. In addition 

to Best Management Practices for land disturbance [10 CSR 

20-6.200(1)(C)] applicable to all riparian corridor restoration, 

adequate storm water controls must be in place to limit 

impacts to fens to the extent practicable, including but not 

limited to, temporary diversion of storm water associated with 

land disturbance activities or pesticide application around 

fens. Permanent vegetative cover must be restored/established 

as soon as possible after land disturbance activities cease in 

areas that drain to fens. In the case that a variance from these 

setbacks and requirements is considered necessary to 

complete other tasks of the MDD, written concurrence must 

be secured from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any 

activities. If concurrence is granted it may contain additional 

conditions. In the case of toxicological risk to fens, it may be 

desirable to waive construction restrictions. If toxicological 

risks are identified, written concurrence must be secured from 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any construction.

3. Site Preparation and Maintenance.

Many cleared areas are hotspots for invasive species, and 

other species that may compete with trees planted along the 

riparian corridor. Species of Conservation Concern, as 

determined by the Missouri Department of Conservation, may 

exist and should not be disturbed. In areas where construction 

activities under this SOW have disturbed stream banks or 

floodplains, the MDD will identify the degree of maintenance 

needed after tree planting and other revegetation efforts. The 

MDD will describe the frequency and type of herbicide 

treatments, fire, and frequency of mowing or other cultural 

practices used to facilitate the success of tree planting or other 

revegetation efforts.

4. Revegetation.

For areas to be reforested, the MDD will identify the native 

Missouri tree species to be planted, using the Terrestrial 

Natural Communities of Missouri (riverfront forest, mesic 

bottomland forest chapters) as a guide. Three gallon RPM 

(Root Production Method) trees shall be planted no closer 

than 30’ centers in rows that can accommodate future mowing 

to control competing vegetation. If invasive plants are 

problematic, an additional 50-100 native shrubs (such as gray 

dogwood, Cornus obliqua) per acre will be planted, and a 
7-30-2010

12

native cover crop (such as Virginia wild rye, Elymus 

virginicus) seeded. 

Trees will be planted in the fall or early spring, with 

appropriate site preparation to control competing vegetation 

and eradication of invasive species beforehand. Appropriate 

maintenance mowing and/or herbicide application will be 

implemented afterward. 

5. Other Mitigation Measures.

Doe Run will identify potential engineered or institutional 

controls to ensure long-term protection of stream and riparian 

corridor mitigation areas such as fencing, alternative water 

supplies for livestock, temporary or permanent conservation 

easements including land-owner payment, if necessary. 

F. Construction monitoring measures to ensure water quality 

compliance and geomorphic stability during construction: 

Construction monitoring procedures will be outlined in the MDD 

and will include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Water quality parameters to be sampled during in-stream or 

near-stream construction including, but not limited to, total 

and dissolved metals (Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni), sulfate, TP, nitrate, 

pore water metals, hardness, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, 

conductivity, temperature, and total suspended solids.

2. Stability or mechanical inspection and maintenance 

procedures during and after construction of gravel bar mining, 

low-water crossing, or in-stream habitat mitigation. 

Inspections should, at a minimum, specifically monitor for 

head cutting upstream of areas of excavated sediment. 

3. During construction, water quality conditions shall be 

monitored and quantitatively measured twice daily depending 

on the amount of in-stream activity. Measurements of 

dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity shall be taken and 

recorded at one location upstream and two locations 

downstream from the in stream construction activity. In an 

instance of turbidity from the construction activity greater 

than 100 NTU Doe Run shall notify MDNR immediately. If 

the turbidity level greater than 100 NTU continues for 6 

consecutive hours at the first downstream sample site, Doe 

Run shall modify operations to reduce turbidity levels. If a 

turbidity threshold level of 200 NTU from the construction 

activity is exceeded for 6 consecutive hours at the first 

downstream station, Doe Run shall cease operations and shall 
7-30-2010

13

mitigate the source of turbidity prior to resuming in-stream 

construction activities. 

4. No equipment maintenance will be performed in the vicinity 

of the stream or riparian work areas. Equipment fueling and 

other maintenance shall be performed outside the stream

channel and in a manner that prevents over filling, leaks, and 

spills. Equipment shall be maintained to minimize drips and 

leaks. Any accidental spills or leaks shall be immediately 

cleaned up and reported to MDNR. 

5. The MDD shall identify a schedule of sampling and reporting 

of construction monitoring measures during active 

construction.

G. Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance – Monitoring and 

maintenance measures shall continue for five years following 

completion of construction activities. Monitoring and maintenance 

measures for this period will be outlined in the MDD and will 

include, at a minimum, the following:

1. Water quality parameters to be sampled include, but are not 

limited to, pH, conductivity, temperature, hardness, total and 

dissolved metals for Pb, Zn, Cd, and Ni, turbidity, total 

suspended solids; 

2. Stability or mechanical inspection and maintenance 

procedures after construction of gravel bar mining, low-water 

crossing, or in-stream habitat mitigation. Inspections should 

specifically monitor for head cutting upstream of areas of 

excavated sediment; 

3. Inspection and maintenance procedures necessary to ensure

long-term vegetation success; and 

4. Sampling to assess the biological integrity of the stream 

macrobenthic community conducted pre-construction may be 

repeated to determine the degree of recovery one year after 

construction completion. 

H. Schedule for Implementation: The MDD shall include a schedule 

for implementation of the mitigation work. The mitigation work

(excluding monitoring and maintenance) shall be completed as 

expeditiously as possible, but no later than within one year of 

achieving the SMG.

I. Supplemental MDD:

1. Within three months after completion of the initial sediment 

removal effort (e.g., in-stream sediment removal behind low 

water crossings and/or gravel bar mining) Doe Run shall 

submit a Supplemental MDD based on its experience with that 

effort. The Supplemental MDD shall include, but is not limited 
7-30-2010

14

to, an updated cost analysis, a revision of the volume of 

contaminated sediment, and/or anticipated frequency of instream sediment removal behind low water crossings, and/or 

gravel bar mining. The Supplemental MDD shall identify the

shortest possible timeframe sufficient to achieve the SMG.

2. Based on the initial sediment removal, anticipated sediment 

removal volume, frequency, and resultant costs identified in the 

Supplemental MDD, Doe Run shall refine its design of 

sediment mitigation measures and any related riparian corridor 

and in-stream improvement as needed to meet the objectives of 

this SOW. 

3. The Supplemental MDD shall be submitted to MDNR for 

review and approval. Doe Run shall not commence the next 

sediment removal activity until the Supplemental MDD has 

been approved by MDNR, after consultation with the EPA. 

VI. Implementation

 

A. Doe Run shall submit the required documents (SAP, Stream 

Assessment Report and Geomorphology Characterization Work Plan, 

MDD and Supplemental MDD) and implement the activities in 

accordance with all approved documents and the schedules set forth 

therein, and in this Appendix. 

B. Construction Start. Construction shall commence within two months 

of Doe Run receiving all necessary approvals and permits on the 

MDD. Approved activities shall proceed in the following general 

sequence, to the extent applicable:

1. Excavation behind low-water crossings concurrently with 

construction of haul roads for gravel bar mining; 

2. Initial excavation of gravel bars;

3. Repeated excavation of re-deposited contaminated sediment 

after high water events as identified in the MDD;

4. Identification of in-stream habitat mitigation projects (if any);

5. Construct in-stream habitat mitigation projects (if any); 

6. Riparian corridor mitigation.

VII. Other Requirements

A. Any submission required by this Appendix shall be submitted to EPA 

and MDNR in accordance with Section XXIII (Notices) of this 

Consent Decree. For any submission requiring approval, MDNR, after 

consultation with EPA, will be the approving authority in accordance 

with Section XII (Compliance Requirements: Approval of 

Deliverables) of this Consent Decree. 
7-30-2010

15

B. During implementation of the MDD and until MDNR determines that 

the implementation activities are complete pursuant to Section VII.E. 

of this Appendix, Doe Run shall submit monthly progress reports to 

MDNR and EPA delineating the status of the project. The progress 

report for each month shall be submitted by the 10th day of the 

following month. The frequency of the progress reports may be 

reduced as agreed to by the EPA and MDNR. The progress report 

shall include, at a minimum, a description of:

1. Activities conducted during the reporting period;

2. Problems encountered during the reporting period;

3. Refined estimate of sediment mitigation (volume and/or 

frequency);

4. Schedule variances and corrective actions, if necessary;

5. Projected activities for the next reporting period and estimated 

costs (for Supplemental MDD and MDD implementation 

work);

6. Status of permits and applications; and

7. An accounting of costs incurred to date for the Supplemental 

MDD and MDD implementation work, including supporting 

documentation.

C. Doe Run shall use best efforts to obtain all necessary access 

agreements to conduct work required by this Appendix within three 

months of submitting the MDD to MDNR for review and approval. 

“Best efforts” shall include, at a minimum, a certified letter, a phone 

call, and a personal visit; it shall also include payment of reasonable 

sums of money in consideration of granting access. The access 

agreements shall also provide access for the State of Missouri, 

Missouri Department of Conservation (“MDC”), EPA, U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service (“USFWS”), U.S. Forest Service (“Forest”), and their 

representatives to move freely in order to conduct oversight and 

monitoring actions they determine necessary. The access agreements 

shall specify that Doe Run is not the State of Missouri’s, MDC’s, 

EPA’s, Forest’s, or USFWS’s agent with respect to any liabilities 

associated with activities to be performed. Doe Run shall provide 

MDNR with copies of all access agreements. Doe Run shall 

immediately notify MDNR if, after using best efforts, it is unable to 

obtain such agreements within the time required. Doe Run shall, 

within ten (10) days of its receipt of a denial of access, submit to 

MDNR a written description of its efforts to obtain access. MDNR 

may, in its discretion, assist Doe Run in obtaining access. In the event 

MDNR obtains access, Doe Run shall undertake the work on such 

property. Nothing in this Appendix shall be construed to limit the 

State of Missouri’s, MDC’s, EPA’s, Forest’s, and USFWS’s right of 
7-30-2010

16

access, entry, inspection, and information gathering pursuant to 

applicable law.

D. Doe Run shall perform all actions required by this Appendix in 

accordance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and 

regulations. Doe Run shall obtain or cause its representatives to obtain 

all permits and approvals necessary under such laws and regulations in 

a timely manner so as not to delay the work required by this Appendix.

E. Construction Completion. Within thirty (30) days of completing work 

set forth in the approved MDD and Supplemental MDD Doe Run shall 

submit a final progress report to MDNR for approval and 

determination that the mitigation project is completed. Stream 

Mitigation Completion shall be determined by, among other 

considerations, evidence that the sediment excavation has achieved the 

SMG; magnitude of sediment removal; and completion of additional 

stream habitat or riparian corridor mitigation measures identified in the 

approved Supplemental MDD. 

VIII. Oversight

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources shall oversee the stream 

mitigation project. The oversight will be provided in consultation with Missouri 

Department of Conservation, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 

addition, where the stream mitigation project involves activities on, or that 

impact, National Forest System land, additional oversight will be provided by the 

U.S. Forest Service. Oversight activities shall include, but are not limited to, plan 

and document review and approval, permitting, compliance with applicable 

environmental laws and regulations, contracting costs, data review, and 

construction inspection and oversight. 

MDNR will bill Doe Run on a periodic basis for oversight costs and such costs, 

with the exception of oversight costs related to agency review or approval of the 

site specific PEC-Q that will be used as the SMG, will be subtracted from Doe 

Run’s commitment to expend $5,500,000 on implementation of the stream 

mitigation. Any other agency oversight costs billed to Doe Run in connection 

with the Bee Fork Creek mitigation project, with the exception of oversight costs 

related to any agency review or approval of the site specific PEC-Q that will be 

used as the SMG, will also be subtracted from Doe Run’s commitment to expend 

$5,500,000 on implementation of the stream mitigation. 

IX. References

Allert, A.L., Fairchild, J.F., DiStefano, R.J., Schmitt, C.J., Besser, J.M., Brumbaugh, 

W.G., & Poulton, B.C. (2008). Effects of lead-zinc mining on crayfish (Orconectes hylas) 

in the Black River watershed, Missouri, USA. Freshwater Crayfish, 16, 97-111.
7-30-2010

17

Allert, A.L., Fairchild, J.F., Schmitt, C.J., Besser, J.M., Brumbaugh, W.G., & Olson, S.J. 

(2009) Effects of mining–derived metals on riffle-dwelling benthic fishes in Southeast 

Missouri, USA. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 72:1642-1651.

Besser, J.M., Brumbaugh, W. G., Allert, A. L., Schmitt, C. J. and Ingersoll, C. G. 

(2009a). Ecological impacts of lead mining on Ozark streams: Toxicity of sediment and 

pore water. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 72(2): 516-526.

Besser, J.M., Brumbaugh, W. G., Hardesty, D. K., Hughes, J.P., and Ingersol, C.G. 

(2009b). Assessment of metal-contaminated sediments from the Southeast Missouri 

(SEMO) mining district using sediment toxicity tests with amphipods and freshwater 

mussels. Administrative Report 08-NRDAR-02. Columbia Environmental Research 

Center, U.S., Geological Survey, Columbia, MO.

Ingersoll, C.G., MacDonald, D., Wang, N., Crane, J.L., Field, L.J., Haverland, P.S., 

Kemble, N.E., Lindskoog, R.A., Severn, C., and Smorong, D. E. (2001). Predictions of 

sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch. 

Environ. Contam. Toxicol 41:8-21.

Ingersoll, C.G., Kemble, N.E., Kunz, J.L., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D., and 

Smorong, D. (2009) Toxicity of sediment cores collected from the Ashtabula River in 

northeastern Ohio USA to the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. 

Toxicol. 57-315-329.

Long, E.R., Ingersoll, C.G., and MacDonald, D. (2006). Calculation and uses of mean 

sediment quality guidelines quotients: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40: 1726-

1736.

MacDonald, D.D., Ingersoll, C.G. and Berger, T.A. (2000). Development and Evaluation 

of Consensus-Based Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems. Arch. 

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 20-31.

Nelson, P.W et al. (2005). The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri. Revised ed. 

The Missouri Natural Areas Committee. Jeffereson City, MO 550pg.

Rosgen, D.L. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, 

CO.

Rosgen, D.L. (1998). Stream Classification Field Guide. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa 

Springs, CO.

Sarver, R. (2001). Semi-quantitative Macroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Services Program Project Procedure. 24 pp.
7-30-2010

18

EPA. (2001). Methods for collection, storage and manipulation of sediments for chemical 

and toxicological analyses: Technical manual. EPA-823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C.

EPA. (2005a). Procedures for derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment 

benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: Metals mixtures (cadmium, 

copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc). EPA-600-R-02-011. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C.

EPA. (2005b). Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste 

Sites, EPA-540-R-05-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C.
6/29/2010

Page 1 of 10

Appendix J – Environmental Mitigation Projects

In accordance with, and in addition to, the provisions of Section XV of this 

Consent Decree (Environmental Mitigation Projects), Defendants shall comply with the 

provisions of this Appendix to ensure that the benefits of $2 million in federally directed 

Environmental Mitigation Projects are achieved. 

I. Overall Environmental Mitigation Projects Schedule and Budget

A. Within 10 months of the Effective Date of this Consent Decree, unless 

extended by EPA and as further described below, Defendants shall submit plans to EPA 

for review and approval for completing $2 million in the federally directed 

Environmental Mitigation Projects specified in this Appendix, spread out over the course 

of, but within, four (4) years from the Effective Date of this Consent Decree. The plans 

may include any of the seven (7) projects listed below, but must include the following 4 

(four) projects: Provision II. (Clean Diesel Retrofit Project), IV. (School Laboratory 

Clean-Out), V. (School Energy Efficiency Projects), and VI. (Ground Source Heat 

Pumps). The minimum and maximum amounts listed for each project herein, if 

specified, will apply unless alternative amounts are approved by EPA. In addition, 

Defendants may submit to EPA additional projects to those listed herein within 6 months 

of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree. Defendants must submit the details of any 

alternative projects and proposed cost with an explanation of environmental benefit and 

the manner in which the proposed additional project will mitigate the effect of 

Defendants' prior actions. EPA will consult with MDNR before approving or 

commenting on any plans or proposed additional projects in accordance with Section XII 

of this Consent Decree (Compliance Requirements: Approval of Deliverables). The 

decision whether to approve an additional project submitted by Defendants under this 

Paragraph shall be made in EPA’s, after consultation with the State, sole and 

unreviewable discretion and such decision shall not be subject to challenge by 

Defendants pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of this Consent Decree or in any 

other form. The purpose of the Environmental Mitigation Projects shall be to mitigate 

the effects of Defendants’ actions in the period during which the allegations set forth in 

the Complaint transpired. As part of each plan submitted, Defendants shall explain the 

manner in which the Project will mitigate the effect of the Defendants' prior actions. 

B. Defendants may, at their election, consolidate the plans established by this 

Appendix into a single plan. 

C. Within 90 days of the approval of the plans by EPA and thereafter as part 

of the six-month status reports required pursuant to Section XVI (Reporting 

Requirements) of this Consent Decree until completion of each Project (including any 

applicable periods of demonstration or testing), Defendants shall provide the United 

States and the MDNR with written reports detailing the progress of each Project, 

including Project Dollars. 
6/29/2010

Page 2 of 10

D. As part of the next six-month status report required pursuant to Section 

XVI (Reporting Requirements) of this Consent Decree that is due following the 

completion of each Project agreed to under this Consent Decree (including any applicable 

periods of demonstration or testing), Defendants shall submit to the United States and 

MDNR a report that documents the date the Project was completed, the results of 

implementing the Project, including the emissions reductions or other environmental 

benefits achieved, and the Project Dollars expended by Defendants in implementing the 

Project. 

E. Upon EPA’s approval of the plans proposed in this Appendix, Defendants 

shall complete the Environmental Mitigation Projects according to the approved plans. 

Nothing in the Consent Decree or this Appendix shall be interpreted to prohibit 

Defendants from completing the Environmental Mitigation Projects before the deadlines 

specified in the schedule of an approved plan. Nothing in this Consent Decree or 

Appendix shall prohibit the modification of the plans, projects, or schedules, if approved 

by EPA. Any modifications approved by EPA are not “material modifications” to the 

Consent Decree. 

II. Clean Diesel Retrofit Project

A. Defendants shall submit a plan for EPA review and approval, in 

consultation with MDNR, to retrofit in-service diesel engines with emission control 

equipment further described in this Section, designed to reduce emissions of particulates 

and/or ozone precursors and fund operation and maintenance of the retrofit equipment for 

the time-period described below (the “Clean Diesel Retrofit Project”). Eligible vehicles, 

engines, and equipment may be owned or operated by or on behalf of a public entity. 

Preference shall be given to school buses. Eligible vehicles could also include vehicles 

owned or operated by Defendants’ contract haulers. Defendants use contractors to haul 

lead concentrate and other materials throughout Missouri. These contractor vehicles use 

diesel gasoline-powered vehicles. The retrofit of these diesel engines and the use of 

hybrid engine technologies in these contractor vehicles will improve fuel efficiency and 

reduce emissions of NOx, PM, VOCs, and other air pollutants. This Project shall include, 

where necessary, techniques, administration and infrastructure needed to support the 

Clean Diesel Retrofit Project. Defendants shall spend no less than $300,000 in Project 

Dollars on the Diesel Retrofits. 

B. The plan shall also satisfy the following criteria:

1. Involve public fleets based in and equipment located in Jefferson 

County, Missouri; if sufficient projects cannot be found in Jefferson County, 

projects may involve public fleets and equipment located in Dent County, Iron 

County, Washington County, Scott County, or Reynolds County, Missouri. If 

Defendants cannot find a public fleet(s) appropriate for the Diesel Retrofit Project 

or cannot use all of the Project Dollars on a public fleet, Defendants may spend 

Project Dollars to retrofit their contractor fleets and equipment. If Defendants use 
6/29/2010

Page 3 of 10

Project Dollars on retrofits for contractor fleets and equipment, Defendants shall 

state why those Project Dollars were not allocated to a public fleet(s). 

2. Provide for the retrofit of diesel engines with EPA verified 

emissions control technologies to achieve the greatest measurable mass reductions 

of particulates and/or ozone precursors for the fleet that participate(s) in this 

project. Depending upon the particular EPA-verified emissions control 

technology selected, the retrofit diesel engines must achieve emissions reductions 

of particulates and/or ozone precursors by 30%-90%, as measured from the preretrofit emissions for the particular diesel engine. 

3. Describe the process Defendants will use to determine the most 

appropriate emissions control technology for each diesel engine that will achieve 

the greatest mass reduction of particulates and/or ozone precursors. In making 

this determination, Defendants must take into account the particular operating 

criteria for the EPA-verified emissions control technology to achieve the verified 

emissions reductions. 

4. Provide for the retrofit of diesel engines with either: (a) diesel 

particulate filters, (b) diesel oxidation catalysts and closed crankcase ventilation 

systems, or (c) EPA-verified idling reduction technologies; cleaner fuel use; EPAverified aerodynamics technologies and low rolling resistance tires; and engine repowering (i.e. replacing older engines with newer, clean engines). 

5. Describe the process Defendants will use to notify fleet operators 

and owners that their fleet may be eligible to participate in the Clean Diesel 

Retrofit Project and to solicit their interest in participating in the project. 

6. Describe the process and criteria Defendants will use to select the 

particular fleet to participate in this project, consistent with the requirements of 

this Section. 

7. For each of the recipient fleet owners and operators describe the 

amount of Project Dollars that will cover the costs associated with: (a) purchasing 

the verified emissions control technology; (b) installation of the verified 

emissions control technology (including data logging); and (c) training costs 

associated with repair and maintenance of the verified emissions control 

technology (including technology cleaning and proper disposal of waste generated 

from cleaning). This project shall not include costs for normal repair or operation 

of the retrofit diesel fleet. 

8. Describe the process Defendants will use for determining which 

diesel engines in a particular fleet will be included in the Clean Diesel Retrofit 

Project with the verified emissions control technology, consistent with the criteria 

specified in Section II. B. 2., above. 
6/29/2010

Page 4 of 10

9. Ensure that recipient fleet owners and/or operators, or their 

funders, do not otherwise have a legal obligation to reduce emissions through the 

retrofit of diesel engines. 

10. For any outside party with whom Defendants might contract to 

carry out this Project, establish minimum standards that include prior experience 

in a Clean Diesel Retrofit Project and a record of prior ability to interest and 

organize fleets and community groups to join a clean diesel program. 

11. Ensure that the recipient fleets comply with local, state, and federal 

requirements for the disposal of the waste generated from the verified emissions 

control technology. 

12. Include a schedule and budget for completing each portion of the 

Project. 

C. In addition to the information required to be included in the report 

pursuant to Section I. C. above, Defendants shall also describe the fleet owner/operator; 

where they implemented this project; the particular types of verified emissions control 

technology (and the number of each type) that they installed pursuant to this Project; the 

type, year, and horsepower of each retrofit; an estimate of the number of citizens affected 

(if applicable) by this project and the basis for this estimate; and an estimate of the 

emission reductions for each project or engine, as appropriate (using the manufacturer’s 

estimated reductions for the particular verified emissions control technology), including 

particulates, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. 

D. Defendants shall complete the retrofit projects required by this paragraph 

within four (4) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 

III. Purchase and Retirement of SO2 Allowances

A. If this project is selected, Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for 

review and approval, in consultation with MDNR, to purchase and retire SO2 allowances. 

Defendants shall spend no more than $200,000 in Project Dollars on the project. 

Although the Defendants’ Herculaneum Lead Smelter is not required to purchase SO2

allowances under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, the smelter contributes significant 

amounts of SO2 to the atmosphere. SO2 is a criteria pollutant that, when emitted into the 

air, can adversely impact human health and the environment. SO2 interacts with other 

chemicals in the atmosphere to form sulfate aerosols, which can be transported long 

distances. In the eastern United States, sulfate aerosols make up about 25 percent of all 

inhalable particles, and according to recent studies, high levels of sulfate aerosols in the 

air are associated with increased sickness and mortality from lung disorders, such as 

asthma and bronchitis. 
6/29/2010

Page 5 of 10

B. Defendants’ proposed plan shall also satisfy the following criteria: 

1. Include a description of the transfer of any allowances purchased 

and retired directly to a non-profit third party. The plan shall: (i) identify the nonprofit third party recipient(s) of the SO2 allowances and list the serial numbers of 

the transferred allowances; and (ii) include a certification by the non-profit thirdparty recipient(s) stating that the recipient(s) will not sell, trade, or otherwise 

exchange any of the allowances and will not use any of the SO2 allowances to 

meet any obligation imposed by environmental law. Defendants shall include a 

statement that the non-profit third-party recipient(s) surrendered the SO2

allowances for permanent surrender to EPA in accordance with the plan within 

one (1) year after Defendants transferred allowances to them. Defendants shall 

not have completed this Project until all third party recipient(s) have actually 

surrendered the transferred SO2 allowances to EPA. 

2. Provide, for all SO2 allowances to be retired by Defendants or the 

third party transferee, an SO2 allowance transfer request to EPA’s Office of Air 

and Radiation’s Clean Air Markets Division directing the transfer of such SO2 

allowances to the EPA Enforcement Surrender Account or to any other EPA 

account that EPA may direct in writing. As part of submitting these transfer 

requests, Defendants or the third party recipient(s) shall irrevocably authorize the 

transfer of these SO2 allowances and identify by name of account and any 

applicable serial or other identification numbers or station names the source and 

location of the SO2 allowances being retired. 

3. Include a schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

4. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

E. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event later than 

four (4) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 

IV. School Laboratory Clean-Out

A. Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for review and approval, in 

consultation with MDNR, to clean out local school laboratories. Defendants shall spend 

no less than $200,000 in Project Dollars on the project. Hazardous waste management in 

high schools is a growing concern in Region 7. In many instances, hazardous chemical 

wastes are stored for lengthy periods far in excess of RCRA’s regulatory limits. This 

project will not only result in the removal of currently existing hazardous waste stored, 

but will also provide an excellent opportunity to provide training to school personnel who 

manage the laboratories.
6/29/2010

Page 6 of 10

B. Defendants’ proposed plan shall also satisfy the following requirements:

1. Involve a school(s) in Jefferson County; if such school(s) are not 

available, the plan may involve a school(s) in Dent County, Iron County, 

Washington County, Scott County, or Reynolds County, Missouri to receive the 

services described herein and name such school in the proposed plan. If an 

appropriate school cannot be found in those counties, Defendants shall propose 

another appropriate school or schools in the proposed plan and the reason for 

proposing that school(s). 

2. Provide for Defendants to retain a third-party contractor to perform 

a laboratory assessment that will identify laboratory materials that need to be 

managed properly and/or disposed. Laboratory materials that need to be disposed 

of will be removed and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. 

The services described in this subparagraph shall be performed by a third-party 

contractor at Defendants’ cost. 

3. Provide chemical management training for school personnel 

responsible for managing the laboratory that will focus on, at a minimum, RCRA 

regulatory requirements, hazardous waste determinations, classification, 

segregation, management control, and disposal processes for spent chemical 

waste. Defendants shall place an emphasis on waste minimization and pollution 

prevention. 

4. Describe how Defendants will assist the school in developing a 

chemical management plan that includes a basic process to properly identify, 

segregate, store and dispose of waste chemicals in accordance with regulatory 

requirements and best management practices. Part of this chemical management 

plan will include a spreadsheet or other system for tracking chemical inventory 

and training associated with the tracking program.

5. Include a schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

6. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

7. Provide that Defendants are not obligated to complete the 

manifests and generator, transporter or facility reports associated with 

implementation of this Project, but shall train and assist the high school personnel 

in the proper completion of any documents required by applicable regulatory 

requirements that are necessary for proper disposal of the waste removed during 

performance of the Project. 

C. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event later than 

four (4) years from the date of entry of the Consent Decree. 
6/29/2010

Page 7 of 10

V. School Energy Efficiency Projects

A. Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for review and approval, in 

consultation with MDNR, to improve energy efficiency in area schools. Defendants shall 

spend no less than $300,000 in Project Dollars on this project. Schools spend more 

money on energy than any other expense except personnel. Energy efficient schools can 

lower a school district's operating costs by up to 30%. Schools are a great place to teach 

the nation’s children about energy and resource conservation. 

B. Defendants’ proposed plan shall also satisfy the following requirements:

1. Involve a school(s) in Jefferson County; if school(s) are not 

available in Jefferson County, the plan may involve school(s) in Dent County, 

Iron County, Washington County, Scott County, or Reynolds County, Missouri to 

receive the services described herein and name such school in the proposed plan. 

If an appropriate school cannot be found in those counties, Defendants shall 

propose another appropriate school or schools in the proposed plan. 

2. Provide a baseline of energy use for the selected school(s), if 

possible, which will allow the school to measure the project’s success and to 

identify problem areas.

3. Describe the need for retrofits and consider what new equipment 

and/or energy-efficient technology the selected school(s) might need (e.g. lighting 

retrofits, motion sensors, LED exit lights, updating or upgrading HVAC systems, 

insulation upgrades, or energy efficient office equipment) or develop one or more 

demonstration projects that would reduce the school’s energy costs and serve as 

an educational tool for students and the community (e.g. photovoltaics project, 

micro wind turbines, or fuel cell technology). 

4. Describe the nature and cost of each energy efficiency measure or 

demonstration project to be implemented at the selected school(s). 

5. Include a training program for school officials or personnel who 

will be involved in implementing the energy efficiency projects. 

6. Include a schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

7. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

D. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event later than 

four (4) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 
6/29/2010

Page 8 of 10

VI. Ground Source Heat Pumps

A. Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for review and approval, in 

consultation with MDNR, to install ground source heat pumps to improve heating and 

cooling efficiency of buildings. Defendants shall spend no less than $300,000 in Project 

Dollars on this project. Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) are electrically powered 

systems that tap the stored energy of the earth. These systems use the relatively 

consistent earth’s temperature to provide heating, cooling and hot water to homes and 

commercial buildings. The GSHP is one of the most efficient residential heating and 

cooling systems available today, with heating efficiencies 50 to 70% higher than other 

heating systems and cooling efficiencies 20 to 40% higher than available air conditioners.

B. Defendants’ proposed plan shall also satisfy the following requirements:

1. Describe the buildings at which Defendants will install the GSHP. 

Defendants may install GSHP on commercial buildings owned or operated by 

Defendants or Defendants may work with a public entity (e.g. city, county) to 

install GSHP on buildings owned or operated by that public entity. The buildings 

or public entity shall be located in Jefferson County; if such building or entity(ies) 

is not available in Jefferson County, the project may involve a building or public 

entity in Dent County, Iron County, Washington County, Scott County, or 

Reynolds County, Missouri. 

2. Provide for the construction and installation of GSHP with 

established technologies. 

3. Account for hardware procurement and installation costs at the 

recipient location. For any outside party with whom Defendants might contract to 

carry out this Project, establish minimum standards that include prior experience 

in installing GSHP. 

4. Include a schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

5. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

C. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event 

later than four (4) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 

VII. Wastewater Infrastructure for the City of Herculaneum, Missouri

A. If this project is selected, Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for 

review and approval, in consultation with MDNR, to improve the wastewater 
6/29/2010

Page 9 of 10

infrastructure for the City of Herculaneum, Missouri. The purpose of improving the 

City’s infrastructure is to improve water quality on a watershed basis. 

B. Defendants’ proposed plan shall also satisfy the following requirements:

1. Describe in detail the proposed improvements and upgrades to the 

wastewater infrastructure of the City of Herculaneum, which may, but is not 

required to include, closure of the wastewater sludge lagoon, if not already 

completed; and long-term treatment and/or sludge management options for the 

City of Herculaneum. 

2. Describe the involvement of the City of Herculaneum, if any, in 

the Project. 

3. For any outside party with whom Defendants might contract to 

carry out this Project, establish minimum standards that include prior experience 

in improving or upgrading wastewater infrastructure. 

4. Include a schedule for completing each portion of the project. 

5. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

C. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event later than 

five (5) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 

VIII. Environmental Management System for Doe Run Facilities

A. If this projects is selected, Defendants shall submit a plan to EPA for 

review and approval, in consultation with MDNR, to implement or update environmental 

management systems for the Defendants’ facilities. An environmental management 

system (EMS) is a set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its 

environmental impacts and increase its operating efficiency.

B. Defendants proposed plan shall satisfy the following requirements:

1. Describe how Defendants will establish an EMS in accordance 

with EPA guidance1

 1 EPA Guidance can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/incentives/ems/.

for the following facilities: Buick Mine/Mill, Buick 

Resource Recycling, Glover Lead Smelter, Brushy Creek Mine/Mill, Sweetwater 

Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine/Mill, Viburnum Mine #35, and the West Fork Unit. 

If any or all of such facilities currently have an EMS that has been implemented, 

Defendants shall revise and update their EMS and shall state what actions have 

been taken to revise and update the EMS.
6/29/2010

Page 10 of 10

2. Describe the steps that will be taken to establish and implement or 

update an EMS at each facility listed above.

3. Provide whether Defendants intend to apply for ISO14001 

certification for any or all of the facilities listed above. If Defendants do not 

intend to apply for ISO14001 certification, Defendants shall state their reason for 

not applying.

4. Describe generally the expected environmental benefits of the 

project.

C. Upon completion of each EMS, Defendants shall submit a copy of each 

EMS to MDNR and EPA. 

D. Upon approval of the plan by the EPA, Defendants shall complete the 

mitigation project according to the approved plan and schedule, but in no event later than 

four (4) years from the date entry of the Consent Decree. 
8/19/2010

No.

1

C. dubia P. promelas

001 8/31/2005 Acute F P

001 9/14/2005 Acute F P

001 10/12/2005 Acute F P

001 Jul-06 7/26/2006 Acute F P

001 8/21/2006 Acute F P

Sampling event during EPA inspection of August 

2006

001 9/20/2006 Acute F P

001 10/4/2006 Acute F P

Test Procedure Violation: should have been 

multiple dilution test

001 11/1/2006 Acute F P

001 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute F P

001 9/19/2007 Acute F P

001 10/3/2007 Acute F P

001 10/17/2007 Acute F P

001 Jul-08 7/30/2008 Acute F P

001 8/20/2008 Acute F P

001 9/3/2008 Acute F P

001 9/17/2008 Acute F P

001 10/1/2008 Acute F P

001 10/15/2008 Acute F P

001 11/12/2008 Acute F P

001 12/3/2008 Acute F P

001 12/17/2008 Acute F P

001 1/7/2009 Acute F none

001 1/21/2009 Acute F none

001 2/4/2009 Acute F none

001 2/18/2009 Acute F P

001 3/4/2009 Acute F P

001 3/18/2009 Acute F P

001 3/18/2009 Acute F F MDNR split sample analysis 

001 4/1/2009 Acute F P

001 4/15/2009 Acute F P

001 4/29/2009 Acute F P

001 5/12/2009 Acute F P

001 5/20/2009 Acute F P

001 6/3/2009 Acute F P

001 6/17/2009 Acute F P

001 6/30/2009 Acute F P

001 7/14/2009 Acute F F MDNR split sample analysis 

001 7/28/2009 Acute F P MDNR split sample analysis 

001 8/11/2009 Acute F P

001 Mar-10 3/23/2010 Chronic F P

001 Apr-10 4/19/2010 Chronic F P

001 5/17/2010 Chronic F P

001 6/1/2010 Chronic F P

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE TYPE OF TEST

10/2004 - 2/25/2010 July Acute / Grab

2/26/2010 - present March, April, August, October Chronic / Composite

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Comment

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MSOP MO0001848 

Doe Run WET Violations

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results
8/19/2010

No.

2

D. magna P. promelas

002 4th Q 2004 No record of testing

002 1st Q 2005 No record of testing

C. dubia P. promelas 

002 Oct-09 Chronic No test was completed in October 2009

002 12/17/2009 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 1/25/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 2/9/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 2/23/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 Mar-10 Chronic No test was completed in March 2010

002 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE SAMPLE TYPE TEST SPECIES

10/2004 - 9/24/2009 Quarterly Grab D. magna & P. promelas

9/25/2009 - present March, April, August, October Composite C. dubia & P. promelas

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 

Doe Run WET Violations

BUICK MINE / MILL - MSOP MO002003

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 
8/27/2010

No.

3

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Nov-04 11/11/2004 Acute F P Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F P Second failure during accelerated testing; tests should be multiple dilution

001 1/13/2005 Acute F F Test Procedure Violation: grab sample & single dilution

001 Feb-05 2/17/2005 Acute F P No record of accelerated testing after failure

001 11/17/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 11/29/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 12/20/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 9/14/2006 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: should have been a multiple dilution test

001 5/23/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 6/5/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 6/18/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 1/8/2008 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 Nov-08 11/18/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: grab sample, should have been a composite

001 Feb-09 2/26/2009 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded & grab sample

001 6/18/2009 Acute P P Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 7/2/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 7/20/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing; should have been multiple 

dilution

001 9/14/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 9/29/2009 Acute F F Third failure during accelerated testing

001 10/19/2009 Acute F F Fourth failure during accelerated testing

001 12/17/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 3/23/2010 Acute F P Second failure during accelerated testing

001 4/6/2010 Acute F P Third failure during accelerated testing

C. dubia P. promelas

002 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

002 1/13/2005 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing; should be multiple dilution

002 Feb-08 2/18/2008 Acute F P No record of follow-up testing

002 9/6/2008 Acute F F Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

002 9/14/2008 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

002 6/19/2009 Acute F F

002 10/29/2009 Acute F P

002 Nov-09 No record of testing

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Nov-04 11/11/2004 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated test; should be multiple dilution

003 1/5/2005 Acute F F Third failure during accelerated testing; test should be multiple dilution

003 1/13/2005 Acute F P Fourth failure during accelerated testing; test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-05 No record of testing

003 Nov-06 11/16/2006 Acute F F Scheduled test; no record of accelerated testing

003 2/18/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

003 9/6/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

003 4/13/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 4/19/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-09 No record of testing

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - present February, May, August, November

Comment 

Results

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Comment 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates

Doe Run WET Violations

Buick Resource Recycling - MSOP MO0000337

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)
8/19/2010

No.

4

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Aug-06 10/11/2006 Acute Pass Pass Testing not conducted in August as required 

by permit

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 11/12/2009 August

11/13/2009 - present August

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Fletcher Mine - MSOP MO0001856

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

5

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Oct-05 11/9/2005 Acute Pass Pass

Test Procedure Violation: 20 degrees C, not 

25

003 Jun-07 No Record of Testing

003 Nov-07 No test completed in November 2007

003 Mar-08 4/16/2008 Acute Pass Pass Permit requires testing in March

003 9/12/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 9/26/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 10/10/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 9/30/2009 Acute Pass Fail Second failure during retesting period

003 Nov-09 12/2/2009 Acute Pass Pass Permit requires testing in November

003 Mar-10 4/28/2010 Acute Fail Pass No discharge in March; sampled in April

003 Jun-10 6/9/2010 Acute Pass Fail

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/22/2007 October

3/23/2007 - present March, June, August, November

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Glover Smelter - MSOP MO0001121 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/27/2010

No.

6

C. dubia P. promelas

001 3/5/2008 Acute Fail Fail

001 10/14/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 11/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - present January, August

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Herculaneum Smelter - MSOP MO0000281

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

7

D. magna P. promelas

002 4th Q 2004 No Record of Testing

002 1st Q 2005 No Record of Testing

002 2nd Q 2005 No record of testing in 2nd Q 2005

C. dubia P. promelas

002 Jan-10 Permit requires testing in January; not tested 

until March 

002 3/10/2010 Chronic Fail Fail Test species changed with new permit

002 Apr-10 Permit requires testing in April

002 5/25/2010 Chronic Fail Fail Accelerated testing not initiated within 14 days 

of 3/10/2010 test failure

002 6/7/2010 Chronic Fail Fail

002 Jun-10 6/22/2010 Chronic Pass Fail

D. magna P. promelas

004 4th Q 2004 No Record of Testing

004 1st Q 2005 No Record of Testing

C. dubia P. promelas

004 Jan-10 Permit requires testing in January; not tested 

until March 

004 Jan-10 3/10/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

004 Apr-10 Permit requires testing in April

004 5/24/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Accelerated testing not initiated within 14 days 

of 3/10/2010 test failure

004 6/7/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

004 Jun-10 6/22/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE TEST SPECIES

10/2004 - 12/3/2009 Quarterly D. magna & P. promelas

12/4/2009 - present January, April, July, October C. dubia & P. promelas

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

Viburnum 28 & 29 - MSOP MO0000086

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

8

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Jul-06 7/6/2005 Acute Fail Pass Bi-weekly testing required after failure

001 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute Pass Pass Test Procedure Violation: collected in August, 

not July as required

001 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute Pass Pass Test Procedure Violation: collected in August, 

not July as required

003 Jul-08 7/30/2008 Acute Fail Pass

003 9/3/2008 Acute Pass Pass Accelerated tests should commence within 14 

days after violation

003 9/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

003 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/18/2010 July

3/19/2010 - present March, April, August, October

Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

Viburnum No. 35 (Casteel) - MSOP MO0100226

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results Comment (EPA)
8/19/2010

No.

9

C. dubia P. promelas

001 11/28/2007 Acute Fail Pass Follow-up testing should be biweekly

001 12/12/2007 Acute Fail Pass

001 8/20/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 9/3/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 9/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 Oct-08 10/1/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 10/15/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 11/12/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 12/3/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 12/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 1/7/2009 Acute Invalid Toxicity in control invalidated C. dubia results

001 1/21/2009 Acute Fail --

001 2/4/2009 Acute Fail --

001 2/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 3/4/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 3/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/1/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/15/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/29/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 5/13/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 5/20/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 6/3/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 6/17/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 7/15/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 7/29/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 8/12/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 Apr-10 4/19/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

001 7/20/2010 Chronic pending pending Accelerated testing should have been initiated 

within 30 days of 4/19/10 failure

C. dubia P. promelas

003 2005 No WET test conducted 

003 2006 No WET test conducted 

003 2008 No WET test conducted 

003 2009 No WET test conducted 

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/11/2010 October

3/12/2010 - present March, April, August, October

Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

West Fork Mine / Mill - MSOP MO0100218

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/26/2010 Page 1 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Issued: 09/05/2003 Reissued: 02/26/2010 Revised: 07/28/2010

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

1.621 / 

0.99

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

dis.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.057

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0024 / 

0.0012

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in 

July

*

March 2005 0.814 ma

April 2005 9.3 dm

Oct 2005 0.785 ma

Aug 2006 0.838 

ma**

Nov 2006 0.8360 ma

May 2008 0.862 ma

June 2008 0.796 ma

Sept 2008 0.878 ma

Nov 2008 0.758 ma

Dec 2008 0.866 ma

Feb 2009 0.785 ma
8/26/2010 Page 2 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

1.621 / 

0.99

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

dis.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.057

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0024 / 

0.0012

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in 

July

*

Feb 2010 0.859 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

** Value includes one Doe Run sample and three EPA samples
8/26/2010 Page 3 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff (Reissued: 02/26/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.05

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 

0.001

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/quart

er in Mar, 

Apr, Aug, 

Oct.

*

Mar 2010 0.185 ma 1.22 dm

1.025 ma

Apr 2010 0.659 ma

May 2010 1.011 dm

0.762 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.
8/26/2010 Page 4 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff (Revised: 07/13/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.088 / 

0.053

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.417 / 

0.256

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.100 / 

0.05

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 

0.001

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/quart

er in Mar, 

Apr, Aug, 

Oct.

*

July 2010 0.936 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 004- Instream monitoring

Date pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.047 / 0.029 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.417 /0.255 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.557 / 0.340 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.019 / 0.012 mg/L

once/mo

April 28, 2005 9.23 dm
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Issued: 03/09/1990 Reissued: 09/25/2009 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Domestic waste discharged to tailings basin

Date pH

DM

Above 6

annual

BOD

WA / MA

65 / 45 mg/L

annual

TSS

WA / MA

120 / 80 mg/L

annual

Dec 8, 2006 121.7 (dm & ma)

Feb 2007 49 ma 86.67 ma

 

Mar 22, 2007 84.24 (dm & ma) 230 (dm & ma)

Outfall: 002- Mine, Mill, Stormwater and water from 001

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/yr in July

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

Jan 26, 2005 433 ma

March 2005 280 ma

July 2006 10.9 ma

Jan 25, 2007 437 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/yr in July

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

March 2008 495 ma

Jan 30, 2009 613 ma

Feb 25, 2009 546 ma

Mar 26, 2009 490 ma

Jun 26, 2009 219 dm, 112 ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Outfall: 002- Mine, Mill, Stormwater and water from 001 (Reissued: 09/25/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263 ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50 

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

Chlorides plus Sulfates

monitoring only

once/mo

Dec 2009 782 ma

Jan 2010 616 ma

Feb 2010 721 ma

Mar 2010 676 ma

Jun 2010 No analysis conducted

Outfall 003 – in stream monitoring point

Date Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

54 / 37 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

490/ 440 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

190 / 29

ug/l

once/mo

March 4, 2009 479 ma 30 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Issued: 08/23/2002 Modified: 02/23/2007 Reissued: (pending)

Outfall: 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging) - Treatment of stormwater, wash water, granulation water, laboratory, sanitary, noncontact cooling water

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

11/11/04 5.74** dm 0.389 

dm

11/30/04 11.15** 

dm

12/01/04 11.15** 

dm

01/05/05 5.51** dm

01/13/05 837.6**

dm

6.41** dm 2.08** 

dm

61.80** 

dm

24.08** 

dm
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

05/03/05 17 dm

11/15/05 297.5** 

dm

12.59** 

dm

3/12/06 10.86** 

dm

10/31/06 0.21 dm

11/15/06 4.78 

(003)

0.22 dm 10.55**

dm

1/15/07 16.35** 

dm

02/07/07 58.32 

dm

37.66 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

2/13/07 10.2 

(003)

 

6.31** dm

 

2/19/07 6.2 

(003)

 

2/6/08

 

8.58** dm

 

2/15/08 Failed to sample outfall 003 discharge event

2/17/08 57.61** 

dm

03/18/08 9771.6** 

dm

27.75** 

dm

126.04** 

dm 2.222 

ma

0.48 dm 45.40** 

dm

3/19/08 7.0 

(002)
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

4/1/08 6.96 

(002)

9.78** dm

4/2/08 7.48 

(002)

4/4/08 6.8 

(003)

04/09/08 0.28 dm

04/10/08 6.1 

(002)

7889** 

dm

12.89** 

dm

6.52**

dm

39.51** 

dm

1326.6** 

dm

0.27 dm 48.28**

dm

4/15/08 7.0 

(003)

9/4/08 1207.3**

dm

5.24** dm 2.78**

dm

4.56**

dm

70.41**

dm

19.38**

dm

9/14/08 3.66** dm 9.40** dm
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

12/28/08 6.6 

(002)

7.98** dm

02/11/09 4.07** dm 72 dm, 

ma

03/12/09 0.099 

dm

04/03/09 0.095 

dm

4/13/09 6.34** dm

4/19/09 6.7 

(003)

2.81** dm

05/13/09 74.8 dm, 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

06/03/09 932.5** 

dm

6.88** dm 27.21** 

dm

0.307

dm 

6/15/09 6.5 

(002)

3.39** dm 31.38** 

dm

08/2009 130.05 

dm, ma

10/29/09 3125** 

dm

15.84**

dm

5.04** 

dm

216.4** 

dm

9.89** dm

11/1/09 1156** 

dm

70.87**

dm

11/16/09 3.94** dm 9.736** 

dm

Nov 2009 2.048 ma 128.85 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 7 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

Feb 2010 49.9 dm, 

ma

Apr 2010 0.236 

dm

5/6/2010 60.5 dm, 

ma

6/15/2010 140.33

dm, ma

07/19/10 754.05**

dm

6.95** dm 3.49**

dm

50.07**

dm

9.19**

dm

* WET results not addressed in this table.

**A discharge event at Outfall 002 and/or Outfall 003 occurred and the value represents the combined load from all outfalls discharging.
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Issued: 07/30/2002 Reissued: 11/13/2009 Revised: 07/28/2010

Outfall: 001- Mine water and Stormwater Runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

01/25/05 5.9

01/23/07 0.1330 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 001- Mine water and Stormwater Runoff (Reissued: 11/13/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

Nov 2009 0.179 ma

Dec 2009 0.051 ma 0.140 ma 0.259 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

0.092 dm 0.372 dm

Jan 2010 0.163 ma

Mar 2010 0.194 ma 0.209 ma

Apr 2010 0.159 ma

May 2010 0.169 ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 004- Instream Compliance

Date Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.017 / 0.008

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.016 / 0.008

mg/L

once/mo

02/26/2007 <0.010 ma <0.010 ma

08/13/2007 <0.010 ma

10/09/2007 0.010 ma

11/05/2007 0.013 ma

12/05/2007 0.015 ma

01/07/2008 0.014 ma

Dec 2008 0.014 ma

Feb 2009 0.014 ma

Sep 2009 0.011 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Issued: 11/06/1998 Reissued: 03/23/2007

Outfall: 001- Sanitary wastewater (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date Chlorine

DM & 

MA

0.019 

mg/l

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

1.467 / 

0.930 

lbs/d

once/mo

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0046

0.0019

lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

80 / 60

ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0169

0.00578

lbs/d

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

1,180 

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.0033

0.0013

lbs/d

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM & MA

46 ug/l

once/mo

BOD5

WA / MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/

quarter

pH

DM

6 - 10 SU

once/

quarter

Fecal 

Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 

400

#/100 

ml

Copper, 

t.r.

DM & MA

46 ug/l

once/

quarter

Thallium, 

t.r.

DM & MA

58 ug/l

once/

quarter

Sep 2007 61.7 wa

61.7 ma

Dec 2007

32.7 ma

Jun 2009 440 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/wk

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.673/0.264

lbs/d

once/wk

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

flow >8cft

0.080/0.080

flow<8cfs

0.027/0.027

once/wk

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

2.452/0.745

lbs/d

once/wk

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

2.05/1.4

flow<8cfs

0.34/0.34

once/wk

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.481/0.192

lbs/d

once/wk

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.046/0.046

flow<8cfs

0.013/0.013

once/wk

Thallium, t.r.mg/l

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.176/0.176

flow<8cfs

0.011/0.011 

once/wk

WET

1/year in October

*

10/20/04

0.024 dm

05/03/05 49.00 dm

05/09/05 47.112 dm 

23.556 ma

11.00 dm

5.5 ma

32.00 dm

40.5 ma

07/19/05 0.325 dm, ma 1.882 ma 3.58 dm, ma 0.33 dm, ma

08/16/05

0.091 dm, ma

09/08/05 .061dm 0.451 dm 0.028 dm 0.020 dm

09/23/05 0.012 dm

 

12/27/05 0.038 dm, ma

 

06/05/06 0.014 dm

06/26/06 0.017 dm

08/01/06 0.013 dm

*WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.673/0.264

lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

flow >8cft

0.080/0.080

flow<8cfs

0.027/0.027

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

2.452/0.745

lbs/d

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

2.05/1.4

flow<8cfs

0.34/0.34

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.481/0.192

lbs/d

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.046/0.046

flow<8cfs

0.013/0.013

once/mo

Thallium, t.r.mg/l

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.176/0.176

flow<8cfs

0.011/0.011 

once/mo

WET

4/year

*

10/01/07 0.018 dm, ma

Aug 2008 0.031 dm, ma

Sept 2008 0.036 dm, ma

Oct 2008 0.035 dm & ma

July 2009 0.022 dm, ma

Sep 2009 0.023 dm, ma

*WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water (final effluent limits effective 03/23/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.012 lbs/d

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.9 μg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 lbs/d

MD / MA

218 /189 μg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM

0.001 lbs/d

DM / MA

0.52 / 0.26 μg/L

once/mo

Thallium, t.r. 

DM / MA

10.3 / 5.1 μg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.8 / 5.9 μg/L

once/mo

Selenium, t.r.

DM / MA

8.1 / 4.0 μg/L

once/mo

pH, SU

DM / MA

7.5 – 9.0 

once/mo

WET

4/year

*

Apr 2010 5.9 ma

11.8 dm

July 2010 0.30 ma 5.68 ma

*WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 006- Emergency overflow (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

09/08/07 1.002 dm 834 dm, ma 4.135 dm 3440 dm, ma 0.401 dm, ma 334 dm, ma 58 dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

03/18/08 45 dm 10 dm 1300 dm 130 dm 17400 dm 4 dm 482 dm 31 dm

03/19/08 204 dm 26 dm 1270 dm 360 dm 17600 dm 10 dm 475 dm 30 dm

March 2008 124.7 ma 1285 ma 17500 ma 7 ma 479 ma 31 ma

04/03/08 2.877 dm 861 dm 87.545 dm 26200 dm 2.102 dm 629 dm 32 dm

04/10/08 66.88 dm 4.177 dm 1250 dm 192.464 dm 57600 dm 1.621 dm 485 dm 28 dm

April 2008 33.4 ma 1056 ma 41900 ma 1.862 ma 557 ma 30 ma

06/15/09 0.914 dm 175 dm 9.196 dm 1760 dm 0.606 dm 116 dm 33 dm

06/16/09 0.920 dm 176 dm 9.196 dm 1760 dm 118 dm 33 dm

June 2009 175.5 ma 1760 ma 0.303 ma 58 ma 75.5 ma 16.5 ma

10/29/09 113.8 dm 15.0 dm 1190 dm 175.6 dm 13900 dm 4.274 dm 338 dm 22 dm
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

10/30/09 176.9 dm 32.1 dm 1270 dm 353.96 dm 14000 dm 8.217 dm 325 dm 21 dm

Oct 2009 145.4 ma 1230 ma 13950 ma 6.246 ma 332 ma 22 ma
8/23/2010 Page 1 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Issued: 02/28/2003 Reissued: (pending)

Outfall: 001 – Process water- lead smelting and acid plant

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

11/8/2004 3.580 dm 2.43 dm

Jan 2005 1.28 ma 3.63 ma

01/07/2005 4.345 dm

Feb 2005 102 ma

02/11/2005 142 dm

06/05/2005 No Samples Taken for the Week

Feb 2006 No Data

May 2006 No Data

10/10/2006 127 dm

02/1/2007 7.35 

dm

Mar 2007 1.62 ma 4.52 ma 105 ma

03/14/07 2.147 dm
8/23/2010 Page 2 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

03/20/2007 2.794 dm 149 dm

03/21/2007 2 977 dm 131 dm

03/22/2007 2.212 dm 

03/23/2007 1.971dm

4/5/2007 2.888 dm

4/27/2007 3.337 dm 1.18 dm

May 2007 1.18 ma

5/4/2007 4.014 dm 0.80 dm 4.716 dm

5/7/2007 3.962 dm 1.28 dm

July 2007 95 ma

Sep 2007 102 ma

Oct 2007 95 ma

Nov 2007 102 ma

Feb 2008 1.20 ma 3.37 ma

06/18/2008 7.12 

dm

07/8/2008 7.26 

dm
8/23/2010 Page 3 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

08/5/2008 7.24 

dm

10/10/08

124 dm

10/31/08 1.03 dm

11/19/08 2.148 dm

Nov 2008 1.39 ma

April 2009 97 ma

June 2009 1.14 ma

07/21/09 127 dm

Aug 2009 94 ma

09/11/09 3.035 dm 1.36 dm 4.909 dm 2.20 dm

09/22/2009 9.65 

dm

Sept 2009 1.441 ma 2.08 ma

Dec 2009 91.4 ma

Jan 2010 0.91 ma 1.2 ma

Feb 2010 2.502 ma 1.904 ma 105.5 ma
8/23/2010 Page 4 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

02/5/2010 2.89 dm

02/10/2010 2.500 dm 4.213 dm

02/19/2010 2.384 dm

02/25/2010 2.236 dm

Apr 2010 131 dm

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall 003 – Primary Lead Smelter

Date

pH

DM

6.0-9.0 SU

once/W

Oil and Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10.

mg/L

once/W

Jan 2005 No Samples 

Reported

Week of June 5, 2005 No sample reported

03/9/2006 19.5 dm

Week of April 23, 2007 No sample reported

09/22/2009 9.65 dm
8/26/2010 Page 1 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Issued: 06/30/1989 Reissued: 12/04/2009 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfalls: 002 & 004

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

12/11/04 002 2.15 dm & ma

01/26/05 002 1.45 ma

02/23/05 002 1.32 ma

03/30/05 004 0.308 ma

12/13/05 002 0.798 ma

03/14/06 002 87.80 dm & ma

04/18/06 002 38 dm & ma

07/18/06 004 10.8 ma

12/13/06 002 1.45 ma

01/24/07 002 1.33 ma
8/26/2010 Page 2 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

02/21/07 002 1.36 ma

03/13/07 002 0.811 ma

09/12/07 002 13.3 ma

09/12/07 004 11.75 ma

02/20/08 002 1.38 ma

03/12/08 002 1.268 ma

04/17/08 002 1.196 ma

05/06/08 002 1.117 ma

09/17/08 002 52 dm, ma

12/04/08 002 62 dm

12/17/08 002 71 dm

Dec 2008 002 45 ma

03/04/09 002 0.793 ma
8/26/2010 Page 3 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

04/09/09 002 186 dm

04/14/09 002 20 dm

April 2009 002 70 ma

05/04/09 002 29.7 dm

May 2009 002 15 ma

05/04/09 004 526.9 dm

May 2009 004 264 ma

06/04/09 002 329 dm

June 2009 002 168 ma

July 2009 002 21 dm, ma

Nov 2009 002 0.829 ma

Dec 2009 002 0.997 ma
8/26/2010 Page 4 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Outfalls: 002 & 004 (Reissued: 12/04/2009)

Date all outfalls Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 1500

μg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

600 / 300 μg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t, 

DM / MA

1000 / 500 ug/l

once / mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

100 / 50 μg/L

once/mo

Jan 2010 002 1418 ma

1372 dm

1464 dm

Feb 2010 002 93 dm, ma 1710 ma

1679 dm

1740 dm

Mar 2010 002 1546 ma

1683 dm

1495 dm

1515 dm

1490 dm

Apr 2010 002 23 dm, ma 653 ma

1153 dm
8/26/2010 Page 5 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Outfall: 007 

Date Copper, t

DM / MA

58 / 37 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

190 / 29 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

490 / 440 ug/l

once/mo

02/16/2006 31 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Issued: 08/08/2003 Reissued: 03/19/2010 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Settling basin; mine water and stormwater runoff

Date pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 0.051 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.432 / 0.264 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 0.057 

mg/L

once/mo

Jan 24, 2007 0.596 dm, ma

February 2007 0.4230 ma

Sep 2007 11.5 ma

July 2008 13 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Outfall: 002- Domestic wastewater

Date Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/yr

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/yr

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/yr

July 2005 43.77 ma

9/19/2006 57.92 dm, ma 62 dm, ma

09/30/09 37 ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Outfall: 003- Settling basin; mine water and stormwater runoff

Date pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 0.051 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.432 / 0.264 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 0.057 

mg/L

once/mo

December 2004 0.065 ma

July 2005 0.290 ma

12/14/2006 9.03 dm

Jan 24, 2007 0.80 dm, ma

September 2007 11.82 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Issued: 08/02/1996 Modified: 09/25/1998 Reissued: 03/12/2010 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Treatment of mine water

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

11/06/04 2.4 

dm, ma

12/11/04 4.8 

dm, ma

0.63 dm, 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/25/05 3.308 

dm, ma

02/24/05 0.054 ma 5.407 

dm, ma

03/23/05 4.91 

dm, ma

10/20/05 3.409 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/12/06 0.655 

dm, ma

2.411 

dm, ma

10/11/06 0.048 ma 2.026 

dm, ma

03/14/07 0.561 

dm, ma

05/10/07 520 ma 
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

07/16/07 4.505

dm, ma

01/07/08 0.586

dm, ma

04/14/08 0.822

dm, ma

05/05/08 0.727

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

07/02/08 15.1 

dm, ma

8/13/08

0.502 

dm, ma

0.62 

dm, ma

03/06/09 0.772 

dm, ma

04/07/09 0.671 dm

05/13/09 47 dm
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

05/28/09 344 dm

May 2009 196 ma

09/03/09 2.3 

dm, ma

418 ma

10/07/09 0.75 dm

10/13/09 0.892 dm
8/17/2010 Page 7 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

Oct 2009 0.821 ma

Nov 2009 

(11/11/09)

0.683 

dm, ma

12/15/09 0.862 dm
8/17/2010 Page 8 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

12/21/09 0.862 dm

Dec 2009 0.862 ma

01/14/10 0.875 dm 2.6 dm 
8/17/2010 Page 9 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/28/10 0.687 dm 

Jan 2010 0.781 ma 2.6 ma 

02/11/10 0.680 dm 5.1 dm 
8/17/2010 Page 10 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

02/26/10 0.902 dm 

Feb 2010 0.791 ma 5.1 ma 
8/17/2010 Page 11 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

OUTFALL 001 - Treatment of Mine Water(Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

03/03/10

833 dm 401 dm

03/15/10

800 dm 43 dm

Mar 2010

817 ma 222 ma

04/01/10

598 dm 188 dm

04/07/10

536 dm

221 dm

04/09/10

598 dm 212 dm

04/14/10 538 dm
8/17/2010 Page 12 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

04/19/10

223 dm

04/20/10

233 dm

04/21/10

101 dm

04/23/10

65 dm

04/26/10

253 dm

04/30/10

316 dm

Apr 2010 171 ma
8/17/2010 Page 13 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

May 2010

Duplicate 

sample 

not 

reported 

06/03/10 0.78 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 14 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Outfall: 003 - Stormwater Runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

02/24/05 1.24 

dm, ma

06/07/2005 1.44 

dm, ma

10/31/05 1.61 

dm, ma

11/15/2005 0.508 ma 3.46 

dm, ma

03/15/2006 1.56 

dm, ma

June 2006 2005 data 

submitted

07/21/2006 3.36 

dm, ma

02/18/08 6.349 

dm, ma

09/04/08 31

dm, ma

2.302 

dm, ma

5.66 

dm, ma

1.183 

dm, ma

0.112 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 15 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

10/16/08 3.6 

dm, ma

554.7 

dm, ma

no test

01/08/09 2.856 

dm, ma

05/14/09 1.935 

dm, ma

06/05/09 24 ma 0.354 ma 4.651

dm, ma

0.075 ma

07/08/09 2.474

dm, ma

14 ma

09/03/09 1.875

dm, ma

10/07/09 2.343 

dm, ma

11/11/09 2.618 

dm, ma

12/15/09 2.454 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 16 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

01/14/10 1.975 

dm, ma

 

* WET results not addressed in this table
8/17/2010 Page 17 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

OUTFALL 003 - Stormwater Runoff (Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

1/ day disch

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

170 / 84.6

ug/L

1/ day disch

Zinc t.r.

DM / MA

195 / 97 ug/l

1/ day disch

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

23.9 / 11.9 

ug/L

1/ day disch

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

9.0 / 4.5 ug/L

1/ day disch

pH

DM

> 6 SU

1/ day disch

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2.0 / 1.0 

ug/L

1/ day disch

04/22/10 1904 dm

04/23/10 1832 dm

Apr 2010 1868 ma

06/03/10 1639 dm

06/04/10 1809 dm

06/11/10 1561 dm

June 2010 94 ma 1670 ma 5.1 ma

07/08/10 853 dm 1843 dm . 13 dm
8/17/2010 Page 18 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

1/ day disch

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

170 / 84.6

ug/L

1/ day disch

Zinc t.r.

DM / MA

195 / 97 ug/l

1/ day disch

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

23.9 / 11.9 

ug/L

1/ day disch

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

9.0 / 4.5 ug/L

1/ day disch

pH

DM

> 6 SU

1/ day disch

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2.0 / 1.0 

ug/L

1/ day disch

07/10/10 977 dm 4069 dm 40 dm 25 dm 

07/14/10 234 dm 1955 dm

07/15/10 405 dm 2139 dm 11 dm

July 2010 617 ma 2502 ma 17 ma 15 ma

OUTFALL 002 – Sanitary Waste (Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date

BOD

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

pH

DM

6 – 9 SU

once/quarter

Fecal Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 400 

#/100ml

once/quarter

04/14/10

TNTC* dm
8/17/2010 Page 19 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

BOD

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

pH

DM

6 – 9 SU

once/quarter

Fecal Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 400 

#/100ml

once/quarter

04/23/10

TNTC* dm

April 2010

TNTC* ma

*Too numerous to count
8/19/2010

No.

1

C. dubia P. promelas

001 8/31/2005 Acute F P

001 9/14/2005 Acute F P

001 10/12/2005 Acute F P

001 Jul-06 7/26/2006 Acute F P

001 8/21/2006 Acute F P

Sampling event during EPA inspection of August 

2006

001 9/20/2006 Acute F P

001 10/4/2006 Acute F P

Test Procedure Violation: should have been 

multiple dilution test

001 11/1/2006 Acute F P

001 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute F P

001 9/19/2007 Acute F P

001 10/3/2007 Acute F P

001 10/17/2007 Acute F P

001 Jul-08 7/30/2008 Acute F P

001 8/20/2008 Acute F P

001 9/3/2008 Acute F P

001 9/17/2008 Acute F P

001 10/1/2008 Acute F P

001 10/15/2008 Acute F P

001 11/12/2008 Acute F P

001 12/3/2008 Acute F P

001 12/17/2008 Acute F P

001 1/7/2009 Acute F none

001 1/21/2009 Acute F none

001 2/4/2009 Acute F none

001 2/18/2009 Acute F P

001 3/4/2009 Acute F P

001 3/18/2009 Acute F P

001 3/18/2009 Acute F F MDNR split sample analysis 

001 4/1/2009 Acute F P

001 4/15/2009 Acute F P

001 4/29/2009 Acute F P

001 5/12/2009 Acute F P

001 5/20/2009 Acute F P

001 6/3/2009 Acute F P

001 6/17/2009 Acute F P

001 6/30/2009 Acute F P

001 7/14/2009 Acute F F MDNR split sample analysis 

001 7/28/2009 Acute F P MDNR split sample analysis 

001 8/11/2009 Acute F P

001 Mar-10 3/23/2010 Chronic F P

001 Apr-10 4/19/2010 Chronic F P

001 5/17/2010 Chronic F P

001 6/1/2010 Chronic F P

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE TYPE OF TEST

10/2004 - 2/25/2010 July Acute / Grab

2/26/2010 - present March, April, August, October Chronic / Composite

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Comment

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MSOP MO0001848 

Doe Run WET Violations

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results
8/19/2010

No.

2

D. magna P. promelas

002 4th Q 2004 No record of testing

002 1st Q 2005 No record of testing

C. dubia P. promelas 

002 Oct-09 Chronic No test was completed in October 2009

002 12/17/2009 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 1/25/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 2/9/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 2/23/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Failure to take composite sample

002 Mar-10 Chronic No test was completed in March 2010

002 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE SAMPLE TYPE TEST SPECIES

10/2004 - 9/24/2009 Quarterly Grab D. magna & P. promelas

9/25/2009 - present March, April, August, October Composite C. dubia & P. promelas

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 

Doe Run WET Violations

BUICK MINE / MILL - MSOP MO002003

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 
8/27/2010

No.

3

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Nov-04 11/11/2004 Acute F P Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F P Second failure during accelerated testing; tests should be multiple dilution

001 1/13/2005 Acute F F Test Procedure Violation: grab sample & single dilution

001 Feb-05 2/17/2005 Acute F P No record of accelerated testing after failure

001 11/17/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 11/29/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 12/20/2005 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 9/14/2006 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: should have been a multiple dilution test

001 5/23/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 6/5/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 6/18/2007 Acute none P Test Procedure Violation: should have sampled both species.

001 1/8/2008 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 Nov-08 11/18/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: grab sample, should have been a composite

001 Feb-09 2/26/2009 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded & grab sample

001 6/18/2009 Acute P P Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 7/2/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

001 7/20/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing; should have been multiple 

dilution

001 9/14/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 9/29/2009 Acute F F Third failure during accelerated testing

001 10/19/2009 Acute F F Fourth failure during accelerated testing

001 12/17/2009 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing

001 3/23/2010 Acute F P Second failure during accelerated testing

001 4/6/2010 Acute F P Third failure during accelerated testing

C. dubia P. promelas

002 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

002 1/13/2005 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated testing; should be multiple dilution

002 Feb-08 2/18/2008 Acute F P No record of follow-up testing

002 9/6/2008 Acute F F Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

002 9/14/2008 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

002 6/19/2009 Acute F F

002 10/29/2009 Acute F P

002 Nov-09 No record of testing

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Nov-04 11/11/2004 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-04 11/30/2004 Acute F F Second failure during accelerated test; should be multiple dilution

003 1/5/2005 Acute F F Third failure during accelerated testing; test should be multiple dilution

003 1/13/2005 Acute F P Fourth failure during accelerated testing; test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-05 No record of testing

003 Nov-06 11/16/2006 Acute F F Scheduled test; no record of accelerated testing

003 2/18/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

003 9/6/2008 Acute P P Test Procedure Violation: holding time exceeded

003 4/13/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 4/19/2009 Acute F F Accelerated test should be multiple dilution

003 Nov-09 No record of testing

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - present February, May, August, November

Comment 

Results

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Comment 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates

Doe Run WET Violations

Buick Resource Recycling - MSOP MO0000337

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)
8/19/2010

No.

4

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Aug-06 10/11/2006 Acute Pass Pass Testing not conducted in August as required 

by permit

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 11/12/2009 August

11/13/2009 - present August

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Fletcher Mine - MSOP MO0001856

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

5

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Oct-05 11/9/2005 Acute Pass Pass

Test Procedure Violation: 20 degrees C, not 

25

003 Jun-07 No Record of Testing

003 Nov-07 No test completed in November 2007

003 Mar-08 4/16/2008 Acute Pass Pass Permit requires testing in March

003 9/12/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 9/26/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 10/10/2008 Acute -- Pass Did not complete testing for C. dubia

003 9/30/2009 Acute Pass Fail Second failure during retesting period

003 Nov-09 12/2/2009 Acute Pass Pass Permit requires testing in November

003 Mar-10 4/28/2010 Acute Fail Pass No discharge in March; sampled in April

003 Jun-10 6/9/2010 Acute Pass Fail

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/22/2007 October

3/23/2007 - present March, June, August, November

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Glover Smelter - MSOP MO0001121 

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/27/2010

No.

6

C. dubia P. promelas

001 3/5/2008 Acute Fail Fail

001 10/14/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 11/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - present January, August

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Doe Run WET Violations

Herculaneum Smelter - MSOP MO0000281

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

7

D. magna P. promelas

002 4th Q 2004 No Record of Testing

002 1st Q 2005 No Record of Testing

002 2nd Q 2005 No record of testing in 2nd Q 2005

C. dubia P. promelas

002 Jan-10 Permit requires testing in January; not tested 

until March 

002 3/10/2010 Chronic Fail Fail Test species changed with new permit

002 Apr-10 Permit requires testing in April

002 5/25/2010 Chronic Fail Fail Accelerated testing not initiated within 14 days 

of 3/10/2010 test failure

002 6/7/2010 Chronic Fail Fail

002 Jun-10 6/22/2010 Chronic Pass Fail

D. magna P. promelas

004 4th Q 2004 No Record of Testing

004 1st Q 2005 No Record of Testing

C. dubia P. promelas

004 Jan-10 Permit requires testing in January; not tested 

until March 

004 Jan-10 3/10/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

004 Apr-10 Permit requires testing in April

004 5/24/2010 Chronic Fail Pass Accelerated testing not initiated within 14 days 

of 3/10/2010 test failure

004 6/7/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

004 Jun-10 6/22/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE TEST SPECIES

10/2004 - 12/3/2009 Quarterly D. magna & P. promelas

12/4/2009 - present January, April, July, October C. dubia & P. promelas

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Outfall

Scheduled 

Tests Actual Dates

Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

Viburnum 28 & 29 - MSOP MO0000086

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/19/2010

No.

8

C. dubia P. promelas

001 Jul-06 7/6/2005 Acute Fail Pass Bi-weekly testing required after failure

001 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute Pass Pass Test Procedure Violation: collected in August, 

not July as required

001 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

C. dubia P. promelas

003 Jul-07 8/29/2007 Acute Pass Pass Test Procedure Violation: collected in August, 

not July as required

003 Jul-08 7/30/2008 Acute Fail Pass

003 9/3/2008 Acute Pass Pass Accelerated tests should commence within 14 

days after violation

003 9/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

003 Apr-10 Chronic No test was completed in April 2010

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/18/2010 July

3/19/2010 - present March, April, August, October

Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

Viburnum No. 35 (Casteel) - MSOP MO0100226

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results Comment (EPA)
8/19/2010

No.

9

C. dubia P. promelas

001 11/28/2007 Acute Fail Pass Follow-up testing should be biweekly

001 12/12/2007 Acute Fail Pass

001 8/20/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 9/3/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 9/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 Oct-08 10/1/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 10/15/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 11/12/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 12/3/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 12/17/2008 Acute Fail Pass

001 1/7/2009 Acute Invalid Toxicity in control invalidated C. dubia results

001 1/21/2009 Acute Fail --

001 2/4/2009 Acute Fail --

001 2/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 3/4/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 3/18/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/1/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/15/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 4/29/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 5/13/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 5/20/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 6/3/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 6/17/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 7/15/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 7/29/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 8/12/2009 Acute Fail Pass

001 Apr-10 4/19/2010 Chronic Fail Pass

001 7/20/2010 Chronic pending pending Accelerated testing should have been initiated 

within 30 days of 4/19/10 failure

C. dubia P. promelas

003 2005 No WET test conducted 

003 2006 No WET test conducted 

003 2008 No WET test conducted 

003 2009 No WET test conducted 

TIME FRAME TESTING SCHEDULE

10/2004 - 3/11/2010 October

3/12/2010 - present March, April, August, October

Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

PERMIT CONDITIONS

Outfall Comment

Doe Run WET Violations

West Fork Mine / Mill - MSOP MO0100218

Outfall Scheduled 

Tests

Actual Dates Test Type 

(Acute/Chronic)

Results

Comment
8/26/2010 Page 1 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Issued: 09/05/2003 Reissued: 02/26/2010 Revised: 07/28/2010

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

1.621 / 

0.99

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

dis.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.057

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0024 / 

0.0012

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in 

July

*

March 2005 0.814 ma

April 2005 9.3 dm

Oct 2005 0.785 ma

Aug 2006 0.838 

ma**

Nov 2006 0.8360 ma

May 2008 0.862 ma

June 2008 0.796 ma

Sept 2008 0.878 ma

Nov 2008 0.758 ma

Dec 2008 0.866 ma

Feb 2009 0.785 ma
8/26/2010 Page 2 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

1.621 / 

0.99

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

dis.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.057

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0024 / 

0.0012

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in 

July

*

Feb 2010 0.859 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

** Value includes one Doe Run sample and three EPA samples
8/26/2010 Page 3 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff (Reissued: 02/26/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 

0.051

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.295 / 

0.181

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 

0.05

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 

0.001

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/quart

er in Mar, 

Apr, Aug, 

Oct.

*

Mar 2010 0.185 ma 1.22 dm

1.025 ma

Apr 2010 0.659 ma

May 2010 1.011 dm

0.762 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.
8/26/2010 Page 4 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Brushy Creek Mine/Mill - MO0001848 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 001- Settling basin containing mine water and stormwater runoff (Revised: 07/13/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.088 / 

0.053

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.417 / 

0.256

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.100 / 

0.05

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 

0.001

mg/L

once/yr

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

once/quart

er in Mar, 

Apr, Aug, 

Oct.

*

July 2010 0.936 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 004- Instream monitoring

Date pH

DM

6.5 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.047 / 0.029 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.417 /0.255 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.557 / 0.340 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.019 / 0.012 mg/L

once/mo

April 28, 2005 9.23 dm
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Issued: 03/09/1990 Reissued: 09/25/2009 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Domestic waste discharged to tailings basin

Date pH

DM

Above 6

annual

BOD

WA / MA

65 / 45 mg/L

annual

TSS

WA / MA

120 / 80 mg/L

annual

Dec 8, 2006 121.7 (dm & ma)

Feb 2007 49 ma 86.67 ma

 

Mar 22, 2007 84.24 (dm & ma) 230 (dm & ma)

Outfall: 002- Mine, Mill, Stormwater and water from 001

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/yr in July

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

Jan 26, 2005 433 ma

March 2005 280 ma

July 2006 10.9 ma

Jan 25, 2007 437 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/yr in July

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

March 2008 495 ma

Jan 30, 2009 613 ma

Feb 25, 2009 546 ma

Mar 26, 2009 490 ma

Jun 26, 2009 219 dm, 112 ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Mine/Mill - MO0002003 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003 

Outfall: 002- Mine, Mill, Stormwater and water from 001 (Reissued: 09/25/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 150 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

860 / 430 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

526 / 263 ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium

DM / MA

100 / 50 

ug/l

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2 / 1 ug/l

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

Chlorides plus Sulfates

monitoring only

once/mo

Dec 2009 782 ma

Jan 2010 616 ma

Feb 2010 721 ma

Mar 2010 676 ma

Jun 2010 No analysis conducted

Outfall 003 – in stream monitoring point

Date Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

54 / 37 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

490/ 440 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

190 / 29

ug/l

once/mo

March 4, 2009 479 ma 30 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Issued: 08/23/2002 Modified: 02/23/2007 Reissued: (pending)

Outfall: 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging) - Treatment of stormwater, wash water, granulation water, laboratory, sanitary, noncontact cooling water

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

11/11/04 5.74** dm 0.389 

dm

11/30/04 11.15** 

dm

12/01/04 11.15** 

dm

01/05/05 5.51** dm

01/13/05 837.6**

dm

6.41** dm 2.08** 

dm

61.80** 

dm

24.08** 

dm
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

05/03/05 17 dm

11/15/05 297.5** 

dm

12.59** 

dm

3/12/06 10.86** 

dm

10/31/06 0.21 dm

11/15/06 4.78 

(003)

0.22 dm 10.55**

dm

1/15/07 16.35** 

dm

02/07/07 58.32 

dm

37.66 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

2/13/07 10.2 

(003)

 

6.31** dm

 

2/19/07 6.2 

(003)

 

2/6/08

 

8.58** dm

 

2/15/08 Failed to sample outfall 003 discharge event

2/17/08 57.61** 

dm

03/18/08 9771.6** 

dm

27.75** 

dm

126.04** 

dm 2.222 

ma

0.48 dm 45.40** 

dm

3/19/08 7.0 

(002)
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

4/1/08 6.96 

(002)

9.78** dm

4/2/08 7.48 

(002)

4/4/08 6.8 

(003)

04/09/08 0.28 dm

04/10/08 6.1 

(002)

7889** 

dm

12.89** 

dm

6.52**

dm

39.51** 

dm

1326.6** 

dm

0.27 dm 48.28**

dm

4/15/08 7.0 

(003)

9/4/08 1207.3**

dm

5.24** dm 2.78**

dm

4.56**

dm

70.41**

dm

19.38**

dm

9/14/08 3.66** dm 9.40** dm
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

12/28/08 6.6 

(002)

7.98** dm

02/11/09 4.07** dm 72 dm, 

ma

03/12/09 0.099 

dm

04/03/09 0.095 

dm

4/13/09 6.34** dm

4/19/09 6.7 

(003)

2.81** dm

05/13/09 74.8 dm, 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

06/03/09 932.5** 

dm

6.88** dm 27.21** 

dm

0.307

dm 

6/15/09 6.5 

(002)

3.39** dm 31.38** 

dm

08/2009 130.05 

dm, ma

10/29/09 3125** 

dm

15.84**

dm

5.04** 

dm

216.4** 

dm

9.89** dm

11/1/09 1156** 

dm

70.87**

dm

11/16/09 3.94** dm 9.736** 

dm

Nov 2009 2.048 ma 128.85 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 7 of 7

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Buick Resource Recycling - MO0000337 - Outfall 001 (with 002 & 003, when discharging)

Date

pH

DM & 

MA

7.5-

10.0 

SU

once/M

TSS

DM / MA

283 / 162 

lbs/d

once/M

Arsenic, 

t.r.

DM / MA

3.34 / 

1.70

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM / 

MA

1.84 / 

0.74

lbs/d

once/M

Cadmium

, t.r.

DM

0.100

mg/L

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM / 

MA

2.420 / 

1.550

lbs/d

once/M

Copper, 

t.r.

DM

0.088

mg/L

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.58 / 

1.05

lbs/d

once/M

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.190

mg/L

once/M

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

9.38 / 

3.07

lbs/d

once/M

Zinc, 

t.r.

DM

2.12

mg/L

once/

M

Antimony, 

t.

DM/MA

6.900 / 

4.600

lbs/d

once/M

Ammonia

DM

16.1

mg/l

once/Q

BOD

WA / 

MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/Q

Silver, t.r.

DM

0.013

mg/l

once/Q

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% 

Survival

once/Q

*

Feb 2010 49.9 dm, 

ma

Apr 2010 0.236 

dm

5/6/2010 60.5 dm, 

ma

6/15/2010 140.33

dm, ma

07/19/10 754.05**

dm

6.95** dm 3.49**

dm

50.07**

dm

9.19**

dm

* WET results not addressed in this table.

**A discharge event at Outfall 002 and/or Outfall 003 occurred and the value represents the combined load from all outfalls discharging.
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Issued: 07/30/2002 Reissued: 11/13/2009 Revised: 07/28/2010

Outfall: 001- Mine water and Stormwater Runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

01/25/05 5.9

01/23/07 0.1330 ma

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 001- Mine water and Stormwater Runoff (Reissued: 11/13/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

Nov 2009 0.179 ma

Dec 2009 0.051 ma 0.140 ma 0.259 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 9 SU

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.270 / 0.130

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.049 / 0.024

mg/L

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001

mg/L

once/mo

Whole Effluent 

Toxicity

once/yr in Aug

*

0.092 dm 0.372 dm

Jan 2010 0.163 ma

Mar 2010 0.194 ma 0.209 ma

Apr 2010 0.159 ma

May 2010 0.169 ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Fletcher Mine/Mill - MO0001856 - Outfall 001 & 004

Outfall: 004- Instream Compliance

Date Copper, dis.

DM / MA

0.043 / 0.021

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, dis.

DM / MA

0.017 / 0.008

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, dis.

DM / MA

0.371 / 0.184

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, dis.

DM / MA

0.016 / 0.008

mg/L

once/mo

02/26/2007 <0.010 ma <0.010 ma

08/13/2007 <0.010 ma

10/09/2007 0.010 ma

11/05/2007 0.013 ma

12/05/2007 0.015 ma

01/07/2008 0.014 ma

Dec 2008 0.014 ma

Feb 2009 0.014 ma

Sep 2009 0.011 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Issued: 11/06/1998 Reissued: 03/23/2007

Outfall: 001- Sanitary wastewater (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date Chlorine

DM & 

MA

0.019 

mg/l

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

1.467 / 

0.930 

lbs/d

once/mo

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0046

0.0019

lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

80 / 60

ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

0.0169

0.00578

lbs/d

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

1,180 

ug/l

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

0.0033

0.0013

lbs/d

once/mo

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM & MA

46 ug/l

once/mo

BOD5

WA / MA

45 / 30

mg/l

once/

quarter

pH

DM

6 - 10 SU

once/

quarter

Fecal 

Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 

400

#/100 

ml

Copper, 

t.r.

DM & MA

46 ug/l

once/

quarter

Thallium, 

t.r.

DM & MA

58 ug/l

once/

quarter

Sep 2007 61.7 wa

61.7 ma

Dec 2007

32.7 ma

Jun 2009 440 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/wk

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.673/0.264

lbs/d

once/wk

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

flow >8cft

0.080/0.080

flow<8cfs

0.027/0.027

once/wk

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

2.452/0.745

lbs/d

once/wk

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

2.05/1.4

flow<8cfs

0.34/0.34

once/wk

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.481/0.192

lbs/d

once/wk

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.046/0.046

flow<8cfs

0.013/0.013

once/wk

Thallium, t.r.mg/l

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.176/0.176

flow<8cfs

0.011/0.011 

once/wk

WET

1/year in October

*

10/20/04

0.024 dm

05/03/05 49.00 dm

05/09/05 47.112 dm 

23.556 ma

11.00 dm

5.5 ma

32.00 dm

40.5 ma

07/19/05 0.325 dm, ma 1.882 ma 3.58 dm, ma 0.33 dm, ma

08/16/05

0.091 dm, ma

09/08/05 .061dm 0.451 dm 0.028 dm 0.020 dm

09/23/05 0.012 dm

 

12/27/05 0.038 dm, ma

 

06/05/06 0.014 dm

06/26/06 0.017 dm

08/01/06 0.013 dm

*WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.673/0.264

lbs/d

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

flow >8cft

0.080/0.080

flow<8cfs

0.027/0.027

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

2.452/0.745

lbs/d

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

2.05/1.4

flow<8cfs

0.34/0.34

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.481/0.192

lbs/d

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.046/0.046

flow<8cfs

0.013/0.013

once/mo

Thallium, t.r.mg/l

DM & MA

flow >8cft

0.176/0.176

flow<8cfs

0.011/0.011 

once/mo

WET

4/year

*

10/01/07 0.018 dm, ma

Aug 2008 0.031 dm, ma

Sept 2008 0.036 dm, ma

Oct 2008 0.035 dm & ma

July 2009 0.022 dm, ma

Sep 2009 0.023 dm, ma

*WET results not addressed in this table.
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Outfall: 003- Stormwater and process water (final effluent limits effective 03/23/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM

0.012 lbs/d

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.9 μg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 lbs/d

MD / MA

218 /189 μg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM

0.001 lbs/d

DM / MA

0.52 / 0.26 μg/L

once/mo

Thallium, t.r. 

DM / MA

10.3 / 5.1 μg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.8 / 5.9 μg/L

once/mo

Selenium, t.r.

DM / MA

8.1 / 4.0 μg/L

once/mo

pH, SU

DM / MA

7.5 – 9.0 

once/mo

WET

4/year

*

Apr 2010 5.9 ma

11.8 dm

July 2010 0.30 ma 5.68 ma

*WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall: 006- Emergency overflow (Reissued: 03/23/2007)

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

09/08/07 1.002 dm 834 dm, ma 4.135 dm 3440 dm, ma 0.401 dm, ma 334 dm, ma 58 dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

03/18/08 45 dm 10 dm 1300 dm 130 dm 17400 dm 4 dm 482 dm 31 dm

03/19/08 204 dm 26 dm 1270 dm 360 dm 17600 dm 10 dm 475 dm 30 dm

March 2008 124.7 ma 1285 ma 17500 ma 7 ma 479 ma 31 ma

04/03/08 2.877 dm 861 dm 87.545 dm 26200 dm 2.102 dm 629 dm 32 dm

04/10/08 66.88 dm 4.177 dm 1250 dm 192.464 dm 57600 dm 1.621 dm 485 dm 28 dm

April 2008 33.4 ma 1056 ma 41900 ma 1.862 ma 557 ma 30 ma

06/15/09 0.914 dm 175 dm 9.196 dm 1760 dm 0.606 dm 116 dm 33 dm

06/16/09 0.920 dm 176 dm 9.196 dm 1760 dm 118 dm 33 dm

June 2009 175.5 ma 1760 ma 0.303 ma 58 ma 75.5 ma 16.5 ma

10/29/09 113.8 dm 15.0 dm 1190 dm 175.6 dm 13900 dm 4.274 dm 338 dm 22 dm
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 6

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Glover Smelter - MO0001121 - Outfall 001, 003 & 006

Date TSS

DM / MA

36.056 / 

24.036 lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Lead, t.r.

DM 

0.012

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

6.0 / 2.90

micrograms/l

once/discharge

/day

Zinc, t.r.

DM 

0.512 

lbs/d

once/

discharge/

day

Zinc, t.r.

DM & MA

218 / 109

micrograms/l

once/discharge/

day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.001 / 00.192

lbs/d

once/discharge

/day

Cadmium, t.r.

DM & MA

0.52 / 0.260

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Thallium, t.r

DM & MA

10.3 / 5.1

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

Selenium, t.r

DM/MA

8.1 / 4.0

micrograms/l

once/

discharge/

day

10/30/09 176.9 dm 32.1 dm 1270 dm 353.96 dm 14000 dm 8.217 dm 325 dm 21 dm

Oct 2009 145.4 ma 1230 ma 13950 ma 6.246 ma 332 ma 22 ma
8/23/2010 Page 1 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Issued: 02/28/2003 Reissued: (pending)

Outfall: 001 – Process water- lead smelting and acid plant

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

11/8/2004 3.580 dm 2.43 dm

Jan 2005 1.28 ma 3.63 ma

01/07/2005 4.345 dm

Feb 2005 102 ma

02/11/2005 142 dm

06/05/2005 No Samples Taken for the Week

Feb 2006 No Data

May 2006 No Data

10/10/2006 127 dm

02/1/2007 7.35 

dm

Mar 2007 1.62 ma 4.52 ma 105 ma

03/14/07 2.147 dm
8/23/2010 Page 2 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

03/20/2007 2.794 dm 149 dm

03/21/2007 2 977 dm 131 dm

03/22/2007 2.212 dm 

03/23/2007 1.971dm

4/5/2007 2.888 dm

4/27/2007 3.337 dm 1.18 dm

May 2007 1.18 ma

5/4/2007 4.014 dm 0.80 dm 4.716 dm

5/7/2007 3.962 dm 1.28 dm

July 2007 95 ma

Sep 2007 102 ma

Oct 2007 95 ma

Nov 2007 102 ma

Feb 2008 1.20 ma 3.37 ma

06/18/2008 7.12 

dm

07/8/2008 7.26 

dm
8/23/2010 Page 3 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

08/5/2008 7.24 

dm

10/10/08

124 dm

10/31/08 1.03 dm

11/19/08 2.148 dm

Nov 2008 1.39 ma

April 2009 97 ma

June 2009 1.14 ma

07/21/09 127 dm

Aug 2009 94 ma

09/11/09 3.035 dm 1.36 dm 4.909 dm 2.20 dm

09/22/2009 9.65 

dm

Sept 2009 1.441 ma 2.08 ma

Dec 2009 91.4 ma

Jan 2010 0.91 ma 1.2 ma

Feb 2010 2.502 ma 1.904 ma 105.5 ma
8/23/2010 Page 4 of 4

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Herculaneum Smelting Division - MO0000281 - Outfall 001 & 003

Date pH

DM

7.5-10.0 

SU

once/W

TSS

DM / MA

350.15/

193.1 

lbs/d

once/W

Arsenic, t.r.

DM / MA

12.861 / 

5.216

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM / MA

1.964 / 

0.785

lbs/d

once/W

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM

0.720

mg/L

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

11.839 / 

4.750

lbs/d

once/W

Copper, t.r.

DM

0.580

mg/L

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

2.749 / 

1.127

lbs/d

once/W

Lead, t.r.

DM

1.500

mg/L

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

10.016 / 

3.307

lbs/d

once/W

Zinc, t.r.

DM

4.900

mg/L

once/W

Silver, t.r.

YA

0.130

mg/L

once/yr in 

Sep.

Whole 

Effluent 

Toxicity

% Survival

Twice/yr in 

Jan.&Aug.

*

Chemical 

Oxygen

Demand

120 DM / 

90 MA

mg/L

once/W

02/5/2010 2.89 dm

02/10/2010 2.500 dm 4.213 dm

02/19/2010 2.384 dm

02/25/2010 2.236 dm

Apr 2010 131 dm

* WET results not addressed in this table.

Outfall 003 – Primary Lead Smelter

Date

pH

DM

6.0-9.0 SU

once/W

Oil and Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10.

mg/L

once/W

Jan 2005 No Samples 

Reported

Week of June 5, 2005 No sample reported

03/9/2006 19.5 dm

Week of April 23, 2007 No sample reported

09/22/2009 9.65 dm
8/26/2010 Page 1 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Issued: 06/30/1989 Reissued: 12/04/2009 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfalls: 002 & 004

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

12/11/04 002 2.15 dm & ma

01/26/05 002 1.45 ma

02/23/05 002 1.32 ma

03/30/05 004 0.308 ma

12/13/05 002 0.798 ma

03/14/06 002 87.80 dm & ma

04/18/06 002 38 dm & ma

07/18/06 004 10.8 ma

12/13/06 002 1.45 ma

01/24/07 002 1.33 ma
8/26/2010 Page 2 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

02/21/07 002 1.36 ma

03/13/07 002 0.811 ma

09/12/07 002 13.3 ma

09/12/07 004 11.75 ma

02/20/08 002 1.38 ma

03/12/08 002 1.268 ma

04/17/08 002 1.196 ma

05/06/08 002 1.117 ma

09/17/08 002 52 dm, ma

12/04/08 002 62 dm

12/17/08 002 71 dm

Dec 2008 002 45 ma

03/04/09 002 0.793 ma
8/26/2010 Page 3 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Date Outfall No. Mercury, t

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t

DM / MA

0.3 / 0.15 mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

0.10 / 0.05 mg/L

once/mo

04/09/09 002 186 dm

04/14/09 002 20 dm

April 2009 002 70 ma

05/04/09 002 29.7 dm

May 2009 002 15 ma

05/04/09 004 526.9 dm

May 2009 004 264 ma

06/04/09 002 329 dm

June 2009 002 168 ma

July 2009 002 21 dm, ma

Nov 2009 002 0.829 ma

Dec 2009 002 0.997 ma
8/26/2010 Page 4 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Outfalls: 002 & 004 (Reissued: 12/04/2009)

Date all outfalls Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 / 0.001 

mg/l 1/yr

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

300 / 1500

μg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

600 / 300 μg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t, 

DM / MA

1000 / 500 ug/l

once / mo

Cadmium, t

DM / MA

100 / 50 μg/L

once/mo

Jan 2010 002 1418 ma

1372 dm

1464 dm

Feb 2010 002 93 dm, ma 1710 ma

1679 dm

1740 dm

Mar 2010 002 1546 ma

1683 dm

1495 dm

1515 dm

1490 dm

Apr 2010 002 23 dm, ma 653 ma

1153 dm
8/26/2010 Page 5 of 5

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnum Mine 28 & 29 - MO0000086 - Outfall 002, 004 & 007

Outfall: 007 

Date Copper, t

DM / MA

58 / 37 ug/l

once/mo

Lead, t

DM / MA

190 / 29 ug/l

once/mo

Zinc, t

DM / MA

490 / 440 ug/l

once/mo

02/16/2006 31 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Issued: 08/08/2003 Reissued: 03/19/2010 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Settling basin; mine water and stormwater runoff

Date pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 0.051 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.432 / 0.264 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 0.057 

mg/L

once/mo

Jan 24, 2007 0.596 dm, ma

February 2007 0.4230 ma

Sep 2007 11.5 ma

July 2008 13 ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Outfall: 002- Domestic wastewater

Date Biochemical Oxygen 

Demand

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/yr

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 mg/L

once/yr

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/yr

July 2005 43.77 ma

9/19/2006 57.92 dm, ma 62 dm, ma

09/30/09 37 ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 3

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

Viburnam Mine # 35 (Casteel) - MO0100226 - Outfall 001, 002 & 003

Outfall: 003- Settling basin; mine water and stormwater runoff

Date pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.084 / 0.051 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.432 / 0.264 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.5 / 0.75 mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.094 / 0.057 

mg/L

once/mo

December 2004 0.065 ma

July 2005 0.290 ma

12/14/2006 9.03 dm

Jan 24, 2007 0.80 dm, ma

September 2007 11.82 ma
8/17/2010 Page 1 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Issued: 08/02/1996 Modified: 09/25/1998 Reissued: 03/12/2010 Revised: 07/13/2010

Outfall: 001- Treatment of mine water

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

11/06/04 2.4 

dm, ma

12/11/04 4.8 

dm, ma

0.63 dm, 

ma
8/17/2010 Page 2 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/25/05 3.308 

dm, ma

02/24/05 0.054 ma 5.407 

dm, ma

03/23/05 4.91 

dm, ma

10/20/05 3.409 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 3 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/12/06 0.655 

dm, ma

2.411 

dm, ma

10/11/06 0.048 ma 2.026 

dm, ma

03/14/07 0.561 

dm, ma

05/10/07 520 ma 
8/17/2010 Page 4 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

07/16/07 4.505

dm, ma

01/07/08 0.586

dm, ma

04/14/08 0.822

dm, ma

05/05/08 0.727

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 5 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

07/02/08 15.1 

dm, ma

8/13/08

0.502 

dm, ma

0.62 

dm, ma

03/06/09 0.772 

dm, ma

04/07/09 0.671 dm

05/13/09 47 dm
8/17/2010 Page 6 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

05/28/09 344 dm

May 2009 196 ma

09/03/09 2.3 

dm, ma

418 ma

10/07/09 0.75 dm

10/13/09 0.892 dm
8/17/2010 Page 7 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

Oct 2009 0.821 ma

Nov 2009 

(11/11/09)

0.683 

dm, ma

12/15/09 0.862 dm
8/17/2010 Page 8 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

12/21/09 0.862 dm

Dec 2009 0.862 ma

01/14/10 0.875 dm 2.6 dm 
8/17/2010 Page 9 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

01/28/10 0.687 dm 

Jan 2010 0.781 ma 2.6 ma 

02/11/10 0.680 dm 5.1 dm 
8/17/2010 Page 10 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date Zinc, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.64

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.56

DM & MA 

≥20 to <30 

cfs 

0.49 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.442 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs

0.074 

DM&MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs

0.066 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.057 

DM & MA

<20 cfs 

0.04 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.10 DM

0.05 MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.083 DM

0.05 MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.059 DM

0.05 MA

<20 cfs 

0.045 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, tot.

Streamflow 

>40 cfs 

0.124 

DM & MA

≥30 to <40 

cfs 

0.097 

DM & MA

≥20 to <30 

cfs

0.069 

DM & MA

<20 cfs

0.053 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & 

Grease

15 DM 

10 MA

mg/L

once/mo

pH

6 - 9 

SU

once/M

BOD

15 DM 

15 MA

mg/L

once/M

TSS 

15 

DM & MA

mg/L

once/M

NH3 as 

N

5 DM 

5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Color

15 DM

15 MA

Pt-Co 

Units

once/M

Fecal 

Coliform

1000 DM 

400 MA

#/100ml

once/M

Phosphorus,

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Hydrogen 

Sulfide

0.2 DM 

0.2 MA

mg/L

once/M 

02/26/10 0.902 dm 

Feb 2010 0.791 ma 5.1 ma 
8/17/2010 Page 11 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

OUTFALL 001 - Treatment of Mine Water(Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

03/03/10

833 dm 401 dm

03/15/10

800 dm 43 dm

Mar 2010

817 ma 222 ma

04/01/10

598 dm 188 dm

04/07/10

536 dm

221 dm

04/09/10

598 dm 212 dm

04/14/10 538 dm
8/17/2010 Page 12 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

04/19/10

223 dm

04/20/10

233 dm

04/21/10

101 dm

04/23/10

65 dm

04/26/10

253 dm

04/30/10

316 dm

Apr 2010 171 ma
8/17/2010 Page 13 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

Zinc, t.r.

DM/ MA

442 / 

442 ug/l,

1 / m

Copper, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

40 / 40

ug/l,

1 / y

Cadmium, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

45 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

Lead, t.r.

DM/ MA

53 / 45

ug/l,

1 / m

O&G

DM / MA

15 / 10

mg / l 

1/mo

pH

6.5 - 9 

SU

once/M

TSS 

30 DM 

20 MA

mg/L

once/M

Nitrate & 

Nitrite as 

N

2 DM 

2 MA

mg/L

once/M

Phosphorus, 

tot.

0.5 DM 

0.5 MA

mg/L

once/M

Mercury, 

t.r.

DM/ MA

2 / 1 ug/l,

1 / y

May 2010

Duplicate 

sample 

not 

reported 

06/03/10 0.78 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 14 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Outfall: 003 - Stormwater Runoff

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

02/24/05 1.24 

dm, ma

06/07/2005 1.44 

dm, ma

10/31/05 1.61 

dm, ma

11/15/2005 0.508 ma 3.46 

dm, ma

03/15/2006 1.56 

dm, ma

June 2006 2005 data 

submitted

07/21/2006 3.36 

dm, ma

02/18/08 6.349 

dm, ma

09/04/08 31

dm, ma

2.302 

dm, ma

5.66 

dm, ma

1.183 

dm, ma

0.112 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 15 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

10/16/08 3.6 

dm, ma

554.7 

dm, ma

no test

01/08/09 2.856 

dm, ma

05/14/09 1.935 

dm, ma

06/05/09 24 ma 0.354 ma 4.651

dm, ma

0.075 ma

07/08/09 2.474

dm, ma

14 ma

09/03/09 1.875

dm, ma

10/07/09 2.343 

dm, ma

11/11/09 2.618 

dm, ma

12/15/09 2.454 

dm, ma
8/17/2010 Page 16 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

once/mo

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

0.6 / 0.3 

mg/L

once/mo

Zinc, t.r.

DM / MA

1.0 / 0.5 

mg/L

once/mo

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

0.30 / 0.15 

mg/L

once/mo

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

0.10 DM / 0.05 

MA

mg/L

once/mo

Oil & Grease

DM / MA

15 / 10 

mg/L

once/mo

pH

DM

6 - 9 SU

once/mo

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

0.002 DM / 0.001 

MA

mg/L

once/yr

Whole Effluent Toxicity

once/yr

*

01/14/10 1.975 

dm, ma

 

* WET results not addressed in this table
8/17/2010 Page 17 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

OUTFALL 003 - Stormwater Runoff (Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

1/ day disch

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

170 / 84.6

ug/L

1/ day disch

Zinc t.r.

DM / MA

195 / 97 ug/l

1/ day disch

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

23.9 / 11.9 

ug/L

1/ day disch

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

9.0 / 4.5 ug/L

1/ day disch

pH

DM

> 6 SU

1/ day disch

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2.0 / 1.0 

ug/L

1/ day disch

04/22/10 1904 dm

04/23/10 1832 dm

Apr 2010 1868 ma

06/03/10 1639 dm

06/04/10 1809 dm

06/11/10 1561 dm

June 2010 94 ma 1670 ma 5.1 ma

07/08/10 853 dm 1843 dm . 13 dm
8/17/2010 Page 18 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date TSS

DM / MA

30 / 20 

mg/L

1/ day disch

Lead, t.r.

DM / MA

170 / 84.6

ug/L

1/ day disch

Zinc t.r.

DM / MA

195 / 97 ug/l

1/ day disch

Copper, t.r.

DM / MA

23.9 / 11.9 

ug/L

1/ day disch

Cadmium, t.r.

DM / MA

9.0 / 4.5 ug/L

1/ day disch

pH

DM

> 6 SU

1/ day disch

Mercury, t.r.

DM / MA

2.0 / 1.0 

ug/L

1/ day disch

07/10/10 977 dm 4069 dm 40 dm 25 dm 

07/14/10 234 dm 1955 dm

07/15/10 405 dm 2139 dm 11 dm

July 2010 617 ma 2502 ma 17 ma 15 ma

OUTFALL 002 – Sanitary Waste (Reissued: 03/12/2010)

Date

BOD

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

pH

DM

6 – 9 SU

once/quarter

Fecal Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 400 

#/100ml

once/quarter

04/14/10

TNTC* dm
8/17/2010 Page 19 of 19

NPDES Permit Violation History from DMRs

West Fork - MO0100218 - Outfalls 001, 003, & 002

Date

BOD

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

TSS

WA / MA

45 / 30 

mg/L

once/quarter

pH

DM

6 – 9 SU

once/quarter

Fecal Coliform

DM / MA

1000 / 400 

#/100ml

once/quarter

04/23/10

TNTC* dm

April 2010

TNTC* ma

*Too numerous to count
APPENDIX L

TRUST AGREEMENT

___________Facility Site

Dated: ____________ __, 2010

This Trust Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of [date] by 

and between Doe Run Resources Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of New York (the “Grantor”), and [name of trustee], a [insert 

“corporation,” “banking organization,” “association,” etc.] organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of [_________] (the “Trustee”). 

Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),

an agency of the United States federal government, the State of Missouri and the Grantor 

have entered into a Consent Decree, United States of America v. the Doe Run Resources 

Corporation, Civil Action No. [_________], addressing multiple Sites in Southeast 

Missouri (hereinafter the “Consent Decree”);

Whereas, the Consent Decree provides that the Grantor shall provide 

assurance that funds will be available as and when needed for performance of the 

Remedial Action at the ________ Facility as required by the Consent Decree;

Whereas, in order to provide such financial assurance, Grantor has agreed 

to establish and fund the trust created by this Agreement; and

Whereas, the Grantor, acting through its duly authorized officers, has 

selected the Trustee to be the trustee under this Agreement, and the Trustee has agreed to 

act as trustee hereunder. 

Now, therefore, the Grantor and the Trustee agree as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement:

(a) The term “Beneficiary” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in 

Section 3 of this Agreement. 

(b) The term “Business Day” means any day, other than a Saturday or a 

Sunday, that banks are open for business in [_____________,_________], USA. 

(c) The term “Claim Certificate” shall have the meaning assigned thereto 

in Section 4(a) of this Agreement. 

(d) The term “Fund” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 3 

of this Agreement. 

(e) The term “Grantor” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in the 

first paragraph of this Agreement. 
2

(f) The term “Objection Notice” shall have the meaning assigned thereto 

in Section 4(b) of this Agreement. 

(g) The term “Site” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 2 

of this Agreement. 

(h) The term “Trust” shall have the meaning assigned thereto in Section 3 

of this Agreement. 

(i) The term “Trustee” shall mean the trustee identified in the first 

paragraph of this Agreement, along with any successor trustee appointed pursuant to the 

terms of this Agreement.

(j) The term “Work” shall be the work to complete the Remedial Action as 

that is defined in Appendix G (Financial Assurance for the Mines/Mills) of the Consent 

Decree. 

Section 2. Identification of Facilities and Costs. This Agreement 

pertains to costs for Work required at the __________________Facility site in 

______________, __________ County, Missouri (the “Site”), pursuant to the above 

referenced Consent Decree.

Section 3. Establishment of Trust Fund. The Grantor and the Trustee 

hereby establish a trust (the “Trust”), for the benefit of EPA and the State of Missouri 

(the “Beneficiaries”), to assure that funds are available to pay for performance of the

Work in the event that Grantor fails to conduct or complete the Work required by, and in 

accordance with the terms of, the Consent Decree. The Grantor and the Trustee intend 

that no third party shall have access to monies or other property in the Trust except as

expressly provided herein. The Trust is established initially as consisting of funds in the 

amount of [_______] U.S. Dollars ($_________). Such funds, along with any other 

monies and/or other property hereafter deposited into the Trust, and together with all 

earnings and profits thereon, are referred to herein collectively as the “Fund.” The Fund 

shall be held by the Trustee, IN TRUST, as hereinafter provided. The Trustee shall not 

be responsible nor shall it undertake any responsibility for the amount or adequacy of, 

nor any duty to collect from the Grantor, any payments necessary to discharge any 

liabilities of the Grantor owed to the United States.

Section 4. Payment for Work Required Under the Consent Decree. The 

Trustee shall make payments from the Fund in accordance with the following procedures.

(a) From time to time, the Grantor and/or its representatives or contractors 

may request that the Trustee make payment from the Fund for Work performed under the 

Consent Decree by delivering to the Trustee and EPA a written invoice and certificate 

(together, a “Claim Certificate”) signed by an officer of the Grantor (or the relevant 

representative or contractor) and certifying:

(i) that the invoice is for Work performed at the Site in 

accordance with the Consent Decree;
3

(ii) a description of the Work that has been performed, the 

amount of the claim, and the identity of the payee(s); and

(iii) that the Grantor has sent a copy of such Claim Certificate 

to EPA, both to the EPA attorney and the EPA Superfund Special Emphasis and 

Remedial Branch Chief, and the State attorney and project manager, at their respective 

addresses shown in this Agreement, the date on which such copy was sent, and the date 

on which such copy was received by EPA and the State as evidenced by a return receipt 

(which return receipt may be written, as in the case of overnight delivery, certified mail, 

or other similar delivery methods, or electronic, as in the case of e-mail, facsimile, or 

other similar delivery methods). 

(b) EPA, after consultation with the State, may object to any payment

requested in a Claim Certificate submitted by the Grantor (or its representatives or 

contractors), in whole or in part, by delivering to the Trustee a written notice (an

“Objection Notice”) within thirty (30) days after the date of EPA’s receipt of the Claim 

Certificate as shown on the relevant return receipt. An Objection Notice sent by EPA 

shall state (i) whether EPA objects to all or only part of the payment requested in the 

relevant Claim Certificate; (ii) the basis for such objection, (iii) that EPA has sent a copy 

of such Objection Notice to the Grantor and the date on which such copy was sent; and 

(iv) the portion of the payment requested in the Claim Certificate, if any, which is not 

objected to by EPA, which undisputed portion the Trustee shall proceed to distribute in 

accordance with Section 4(d) below. EPA, after consultation with the State, may object 

to a request for payment contained in a Claim Certificate only on the grounds that the 

requested payment is not for the costs of Work under the Consent Decree or otherwise 

inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree. 

(c) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and does not receive an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, the 

Trustee shall, after the expiration of such time period, promptly make the payment from 

the Fund requested in such Claim Certificate. 

(d) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and also receives an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, but 

which Objection Notice objects to only a portion of the requested payment, the Trustee 

shall, after the expiration of such time period, promptly make payment from the Fund of 

the uncontested amount as requested in the Claim Certificate. The Trustee shall not make 

any payment from the Fund for the portion of the requested payment to which EPA has 

objected in its Objection Notice. 

(e) If the Trustee receives a Claim Certificate and also receives an 

Objection Notice from EPA within the time period specified in Section 4(b) above, which 

Objection Notice objects to all of the requested payment, the Trustee shall not make any 

payment from the Fund for amounts requested in such Claim Certificate. 

(f) While this Agreement is in effect, disbursements from the Fund are 
4

governed exclusively by the express terms of this Agreement. 

Section 5. Trust Management. The Trustee shall invest and reinvest the 

principal and income of the Fund and keep the Fund invested as a single fund, without 

distinction between principal and income, in accordance with directions which the 

Grantor may communicate in writing to the Trustee from time to time, except that:

(a) securities, notes, and other obligations of any person or entity shall not 

be acquired or held by the Trustee with monies comprising the Fund, unless they are 

securities, notes, or other obligations of the U.S. federal government or any U.S. state 

government or as otherwise permitted in writing by the EPA, after consultation with the 

State;

(b) the Trustee is authorized to invest the Fund in time or demand deposits 

of the Trustee, to the extent such deposits are insured by an agency of the U.S. federal or 

any U.S. state government; and

(c) the Trustee is authorized to hold cash awaiting investment or 

distribution uninvested for a reasonable time and without liability for the payment of 

interest thereon.

Section 6. Commingling and Investment. The Trustee is expressly 

authorized in its discretion to transfer from time to time any or all of the assets of the 

Fund to any common, commingled, or collective trust fund created by the Trustee in 

which the Fund is eligible to participate, subject to all of the provisions hereof and

thereof, to be commingled with the assets of other trusts participating therein.

Section 7. Express Powers of Trustee. Without in any way limiting the 

powers and discretion conferred upon the Trustee by the other provisions of this 

Agreement or by law, the Trustee is expressly authorized and empowered:

(a) to make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and all documents of 

transfer and conveyance and any and all other instruments that may be necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the powers herein granted;

(b) to register any securities held in the Fund in its own name or in the 

name of a nominee and to hold any security in bearer form or in book entry, or to 

combine certificates representing such securities with certificates of the same issue held 

by the Trustee in other fiduciary capacities, or to deposit or arrange for the deposit of 

such securities in a qualified central depositary even though, when so deposited, such 

securities may be merged and held in bulk in the name of the nominee of such depositary 

with other securities deposited therein by another person, or to deposit or arrange for the 

deposit of any securities issued by the U.S. federal government or any U.S. state 

government, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, with a Federal Reserve bank, but 

the books and records of the Trustee shall at all times show that all such securities are 

part of the Fund; and

(c) to deposit any cash in the Fund in interest-bearing accounts maintained 
5

or savings certificates issued by the Trustee, in its separate corporate capacity, or in any 

other banking institution affiliated with the Trustee, to the extent insured by an agency of 

the U.S. federal government.

Section 8. Taxes and Expenses. All taxes of any kind that may be 

assessed or levied against or in respect of the Fund shall be paid from the Fund. All other 

expenses and charges incurred by the Trustee in connection with the administration of the 

Fund and this Trust shall be paid by the Grantor.

Section 9. Annual Valuation. The Trustee shall annually, no more than

thirty (30) days after the anniversary date of establishment of the Fund, furnish to the 

Grantor and to the Beneficiaries a statement confirming the value of the Trust. Any 

securities in the Fund shall be valued at market value as of no more than 60 days prior to 

the anniversary date of establishment of the Fund. The annual valuation shall include an 

accounting of any fees or expenses levied against the Fund. The Trustee shall also 

provide such information concerning the Fund and this Trust as EPA, after consultation 

with the State, may request from time to time.

Section 10. Advice of Counsel. The Trustee may from time to time 

consult with counsel with respect to any question arising as to the construction of this 

Agreement or any action to be taken hereunder; provided, however, that any counsel 

retained by the Trustee for such purposes may not, during the period of its represenation 

of the Trustee, serve as counsel to the Grantor.

Section 11. Trustee Compensation. The Trustee shall be entitled to 

reasonable compensation for its services as agreed upon in writing with the Grantor and 

as notified in writing to the Beneficiaries.

Section 12. Trustee and Successor Trustee. The Trustee and any 

replacement Trustee must be approved in writing by EPA, after consultation with the 

State, and must not be affliliated with the Grantor. The Trustee may resign or the Grantor 

may replace the Trustee, but such resignation or replacement shall not be effective until 

the Grantor has appointed a successor trustee approved in writing by EPA, after 

consultation with the State, and this successor accepts such appointment. The successor 

trustee shall have the same powers and duties as those conferred upon the Trustee 

hereunder. Upon the successor trustee’s acceptance of the appointment, the Trustee shall 

assign, transfer, and pay over to the successor trustee the funds and properties then 

constituting the Fund. If for any reason the Grantor cannot or does not act in the event of 

the resignation of the Trustee, the Trustee may apply to EPA and the State, or a court of 

competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor trustee or for instructions. The 

successor trustee shall specify the date on which it assumes administration of the Fund 

and the Trust in a writing sent to the Grantor, the Beneficiaries, and the present Trustee 

by certified mail no less than 10 days before such change becomes effective. Any 

expenses incurred by the Trustee as a result of any of the acts contemplated by this 

Section shall be paid as provided in Section 8.
6

Section 13. Instructions to the Trustee. All instructions to the Trustee 

shall be in writing, signed by such persons as are empowered to act on behalf of the entity 

giving such instructions. The Trustee shall be fully protected in acting without inquiry on 

such written instructions given in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The 

Trustee shall have no duty to act in the absence of such written instructions, except as 

expressly provided for herein.

Section 14. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement may be 

amended only by an instrument in writing executed by the Grantor and the Trustee, and 

with the prior written consent of EPA, after consultation with the State. 

Section 15. Irrevocability and Termination. This Trust shall be 

irrevocable and shall continue until terminated upon the earlier to occur of (a) the written 

direction of EPA, after consultation with the State, to terminate, consistent with the terms 

of the Consent Decree and (b) the complete exhaustion of the Fund comprising the Trust

as certified in writing by the Trustee to EPA, the State and the Grantor. Upon 

termination of the Trust pursuant to Section 15(a), all remaining trust property (if any), 

less final trust administration expenses, shall be delivered to the Grantor.

Section 16. Immunity and Indemnification. The Trustee shall not incur 

personal liability of any nature in connection with any act or omission, made in good 

faith, in the administration of this Trust, or in carrying out any directions by the Grantor 

or the EPA, after consultation with the State, issued in accordance with this Agreement. 

The Trustee shall be indemnified and saved harmless by the Grantor from and against any 

personal liability to which the Trustee may be subjected by reason of any act or conduct

made by the Trustee in its official capacity, including all expenses reasonably incurred in 

its defense in the event the Grantor fails to provide such defense.

Section 17. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be administered, 

construed, and enforced according to the laws of the State of Missouri.

Section 18. Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, words in the 

singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular. The descriptive 

headings for each Section of this Agreement shall not affect the interpretation or the legal 

efficacy of this Agreement. 

Section 19. Notices. All notices and other communications given under 

this agreement shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the parties as follows or to 

such other address as the parties shall by written notice designate:

(a) If to the Grantor:

Name

Title

Address

Address

(b) If to the Trustee:
7

Name

Title

Address

Address

(c) If to EPA:

Superfund Special Emphasis and Remedial Branch

U.S. EPA, Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kanas 66101

Steven L. Sanders

Office of Regional Counsel

U.S. EPA, Region 7

901 N. 5th Street

Kansas City, Kansas 66101

(913)551-7578

(d) If to the State:

Director

Hazardous Waste Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102
8

In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be 

executed by their respective officers duly authorized and attested as of the date first 

above written: 

GRANTOR

[Signature of Grantor]

[Name and Title]

State of _________________________

County of _______________________

On this [date], before me personally came [name of Grantor official], to me known, who, 

being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she/he is [title] of [corporation], the 

corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that she/he signed 

her/his name thereto.

[Signature of Notary Public]

TRUSTEE

[Signature of Trustee] 

[Name and Title]

State of _________________________

County of _______________________

On this [date], before me personally came [name of Trustee official], to me known, who, 

being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that she/he is [title] of [corporation], the 

corporation described in and which executed the above instrument; and that she/he signed 

her/his name thereto.

[Signature of Notary Public]