EPA Alleges 14 Wastewater Limit Exceedances at Pueblo Steel Mill

The Facts

Rocky Mountain Steel Mills is permitted to send treated industrial wastewater from its Pueblo facility through an outfall into the Arkansas River. That permission comes with numerical limits: the permit restricts how many pounds per day of specified pollutants the mill may discharge.

According to the EPA’s filing, the mill’s own discharge monitoring reports became the core evidence in the case. These monthly reports are certified by the company and record the monitoring required under its permit. EPA says the reports identified repeated exceedances involving total suspended solids, oil and grease, and zinc.

The permit was issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and took effect in 2011. A modification was scheduled to expire in 2016, but the filing says Colorado administratively extended the permit.

What the Monitoring Reports Recorded

The permit set four limits relevant to the case: a daily maximum of 3,527 pounds for total suspended solids; a daily maximum of 2,460 pounds for oil and grease; a 30-day oil-and-grease average of 64 pounds per day; and a 30-day zinc average of 10.39 pounds per day.

The table below presents every exceedance alleged in the agreement. Where EPA recalculated a company-reported figure under state guidance, both numbers are identified.

How the Permit System Was Supposed to Work

A discharge permit does not give an industrial facility unrestricted access to a river. It authorizes a specific outfall under specific conditions. The mill was required to operate its treatment and control systems properly, collect samples using approved methods, report the results monthly and remain within the permit’s numerical limits.

The allegations reach three different points in that process. EPA says the mill exceeded numerical limits, failed to maintain treatment and control systems properly, and used an unapproved method to collect oil-and-grease samples.

What Inspectors Found

EPA conducted a compliance inspection with sampling from June 12 through June 28, 2023. Inspectors reviewed company records and obtained documents associated with the facility.

The agency says inspectors saw oily substances and sheens spilled around the production mills and at both the North Mill and South Mill treatment systems. Based on those observations and its record review, EPA alleged that the facility had not properly operated and maintained all relevant treatment and control systems from April 2020 onward.

Inspectors also observed workers collecting oil-and-grease wastewater samples with a steel dipper cup before pouring the material into sample containers. The company’s written procedure called for rinsing the dipper three times and allowed multiple collections to be combined. It also allowed a larger glass jar to be used before liquid was transferred into two smaller jars.

EPA says those practices were inconsistent with approved Method 1664 Revision A or B and therefore violated the permit. The agreement does not explain whether the collection method made any particular result higher or lower. It establishes the agency’s objection to the procedure, not the direction or size of any measurement error.

What the Evidence Does—and Doesn’t—Establish

The agreement’s strongest evidence is numerical. It identifies the permit limits, the monitoring periods and the values submitted by the mill or recalculated by EPA. The maintenance and sampling allegations rest on inspector observations, company procedures and records reviewed during or after the 2023 inspection.

The filing does not quantify ecological damage to the Arkansas River, identify a documented injury to any person or community, or connect a specific environmental consequence to an individual discharge. A permit exceedance can support enforcement without proof of a separately measured injury, but the agreement should not be read as an environmental-damage finding it does not contain.

The Company’s Response

For purposes of the proceeding, CF&I Steel admitted the EPA’s jurisdiction but neither admitted nor denied the factual allegations in Sections IV and V of the agreement. It waived its right to contest the violations alleged in Section VI, waived a hearing and appeal, and agreed to pay the civil penalty after the agreement becomes effective.

Those provisions have a narrow legal meaning. They allow the enforcement matter to be settled without a trial or administrative hearing. They do not convert the EPA’s allegations into adjudicated factual findings.

The company sent EPA a response to the inspection report in March 2024, but that response is not included in the supplied document. The source therefore does not establish which observations or conclusions the company disputed before settlement.

What the Settlement Actually Does

EPA determined that $308,173 was an appropriate civil penalty after considering the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, ability to pay, compliance history, culpability, possible economic benefit and other statutory factors. The agreement cites a maximum Class II administrative penalty of $342,218 under the inflation-adjusted limits applicable when the penalty was assessed.

If approved, the company must pay within 30 calendar days of the agreement’s effective date. Late payment can trigger interest, handling charges, an additional annual penalty and collection action.

The settlement resolves only federal civil-penalty liability under Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act for the alleged violations listed in the agreement. It does not excuse future noncompliance, decide any separate permit issue or prevent EPA from taking action over other violations or conditions presenting an imminent and substantial danger.

What EPA Has Not Yet Decided

The supplied agreement is not the final order. EPA must publish notice and provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment before submitting it to a Regional Judicial Officer or Regional Administrator for approval. The agency may modify or withdraw from the agreement if comments reveal facts suggesting that it is inappropriate, improper or inadequate, or if a hearing is requested.

The agreement becomes effective only on the date specified in a later final order. Until then, the $308,173 payment deadline has not started under the terms of this document.

What a Legitimate Fix Looks Like

The settlement sets a financial consequence, but the supplied document contains no detailed corrective-action schedule. A response proportionate to the cited failures would have to address each point in the compliance chain: treatment systems capable of meeting the numerical limits, routine maintenance that deals with oily spills and sheens, and sample collection that follows the approved methodology.

Subsequent monitoring reports would then need to demonstrate sustained compliance. A penalty can settle liability for the past. It cannot, by itself, establish that the operational causes of repeated exceedances have been removed.