Talk:Doe Run Company

Untitled
This page seems more like a one-sided rail against The Doe Run Co. and perceived enviromental offences than one that provides any genuine information about the company216.60.101.49 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)tim

I hope my amendments have gone some way to remedy this problem.Egoli (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In the section titled "Pollution at the Peruvian operations", the last sentence reads "In October 2009 Doe Run still refuses to fulfill licensing requirements and orders forcing Peruvian authorities to grant another 30 months adjournment.[16]". Perhaps it would be better as "As of October 2009 Doe Run has not fulfilled their licensing requirements. Peruvian authorities decided to grant another 30 months adjournment.[16]"

A comparison of current conditions with the conditions as they were when Doe Run took over this operation might be useful. Would the situation be better or worse if the entire operation had just been shut down instead of being operated by Doe Run? It seems like the place was an environmental disaster when Doe Run took it over.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Doe Run Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511005402/http://www.epa.gov/region7/factsheets/2007/fs_doe_run_resources_corp_rcra_stlouis_mo0207.htm to http://www.epa.gov/Region7/factsheets/2007/fs_doe_run_resources_corp_rcra_stlouis_mo0207.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello
My name is Tammy and I am an employee of Doe Run. I'm here as a representative of the company in order to help correct the inaccuracies and very dated facts in this article. I know that I should not amend the page myself, so I'll post recommendations here and let others revise.

Something that can be updated very quickly: the closing primary lead smelter noted in the introduction has, in fact, closed. Here's a source for that. I've composed an updated introduction paragraph with all of the company's current holdings. I also removed outdated production numbers.


 * The Doe Run Resources Corporation (registered to do business as the The The Doe Run Company) is a privately held natural resources company and global producer of lead, copper, and zinc concentrates. It owns four mills, six mines and a lead battery recycling plant, all in southeast Missouri, United States, and a subsidiary Fabricated Products Inc. with locations in Arizona and Washington. It also owns two former primary lead smelter sites sites in the U.S. that are currently being remediated. It is wholly owned by the The Renco Group, Inc.

Here's a new sentence to "Operations in the United States".


 * The Herculaneum smelter, the last remaining primary lead smelter in the United States, ceased operations on December 31, 2013.

Since the Pollution at the "U.S. operations segment" primarily refers to the now-closed Herculaneum facility, I'd also suggest it be made past tense.

I've also put together an infobox that can take the place of the photo of the Herculaneum smelter on the right side of the page (maybe the image can be moved to "History" and note that it is "Doe Run's former lead smelter"?). Note: I've left out the starting and ending brackets to prevent it from formatting, so those will have to be added in.

{Infobox company }
 * name = The Doe Run Company
 * logo =
 * type = Subsidiary
 * industry = Mining
 * fate =
 * predecessor = St. Joseph Lead Company
 * successor =
 * founded = 1864 in New York, United States
 * founders = Lyman W. Gilbert, John E. Wylie, Edmund I. Wade, Wilmot Williams, James L. Dunham and James L. Hathaway
 * defunct =
 * hq_location_city = St. Louis
 * hq_location_country =
 * area_served =
 * key_people = Jerry L. Pyatt, Chief Executive Officer and President
 * products = Lead, copper, and zinc concentrates and lead metal
 * owner =
 * num_employees = 1,278
 * parent = The Renco Group, Inc.
 * website = http://www.doerun.com/

I also wanted to point out that the article often conflates Doe Run and Doe Run Peru—the media sometimes does this as well, though they are starting to get it right more often. Here is [ http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/doe-run-timeline/article_29549272-3d89-5452-9326-a190ce0df8cf.html an example of a news story] that shows the companies have been completely separate since 2007.

I'm in the process of collecting sources and writing out suggested wording to correct the misunderstandings. I also intend to find new Operations information to replace everything from 2006. I'll return soon. TS at Doe Run (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have gone ahead and made your requested changes, I found the wording you provided for the lead to be better. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is great news. Thanks for reviewing and making the improvements so quickly, kelapstick. I plan to return with more updates soon, but the article is in a much better place thanks to your help! TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Updated article
As promised above, I have returned with an expanded and updated draft, which I saved here: User:TS at Doe Run/The Doe Run Company. My goals are to correct factual inaccuracies and outdated information throughout the article, provide a more thorough overview of the company's operations, and resolve the issue of conflation of Doe Run and Doe Run Peru. Newer details are included about Doe Run's Operations, to replace the details from 2005 and 2006.

The current article has a lot of unsourced information, so I've proposed a sourced draft with neutrality in mind.

Per my last request here, I am an employee of Doe Run and I'm here as a representative of the company. I know that I should not try to change the page myself, so I'm posting my draft as a recommendation and welcome others to review and make revisions. You were kind enough to help with the above edit request, so I am hoping you may be willing to assist with this one as well. I will likely post requests for help at a couple of projects as well, such as WikiProject Mining or WikiProject Missouri, as an invitation for editors to help out. If reviewing the whole draft is too much work, I can spread this request out into one for each section, and I'm willing to answer any questions here. TS at Doe Run (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Sorry for the incredibly slow response. As you can see, our customer service department is a bit short-staffed ;) Ok I'm part-way through your draft, and will get through the rest over the coming days. For the most part, your text is far superior to what already exists, so I mostly implemented that. I trimmed a bit of text, but nothing substantial. When you make citations, you don't need to use such a large chunk of text in the "quote" parameter, so I trimmed some of that where it didn't seem informative, but that's no big problem. The only slightly large change I made was to pull the environmental criticism stuff out of the "History" section and move it back to a separate section. I've only done this with the Peru stuff so far, but plan to do it with the Herculaneum stuff as well. I think that keeps the History section a bit more focused on the company history instead of the blow-by-blow of clean-up operations etc. If you have any questions or concerns, I'm happy to chat about them, just let me know here. Thanks! And sorry again for being so slow about it. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for working on the updates to the page. I know it’s a lot to digest. I see you are making good progress and am curious what you have in mind for how to finish off the updates. I fully recognize the challenges of an understaffed “customer service department” ;). TS at Doe Run (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to merge the info in your Operations/Enviornmental Health & Safety section, the current old Environmental Issues/U.S. Operations subsection, and the current Lead Usage section (not sure if there's anything we should keep in there) all into the new Environmental Issues section. Then I'd like to go through and standardize some of the references. There are some that are used multiple times that can be merged into a single named reference, and some quotes that can be shortened to make the reference section more readable. Other than that, I think we're in pretty good shape. Happy to take other suggestions or complaints. I should get a chance to do that this weekend (sorry again for being very slow about this) Thanks for all your work! Ajpolino (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

✅ Ok I think I'm all done for now. Let me know if I missed anything or if you have any other suggestions! Ajpolino (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help. I will review changes to the article as soon as possible, and share any remaining concerns here on the article's talk page. I did notice the duplicate use of "the" in the article's opening sentence, if you're able to remove that in the meantime, terrific. Thanks again! TS at Doe Run (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've had a chance to review your changes to the article. Thanks again for your help. I do have a few requests, if you're available, otherwise I can convert this comment into a separate edit request:
 * Are you able to remove the extra "the The"s in the article's introduction? I mentioned this above, but didn't want my request to get lost in the shuffle, and I also noticed an extra "the" before The Renco Group, too.
 * ✅ Not sure how those snuck in there. Must've missed them. I think I've got them all? Ajpolino (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "History", can you add back "registered to do business as The Doe Run Company" after "renamed the company The Doe Run Resources Corporation"? This provides explanation of the introduction of the company's current name, otherwise this is missing.
 * I left this out because it seemed like unnecessary business jargon. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the reasoning? It seems to me that it'd be entirely clear to any reader that The Doe Run Company = The Doe Run Resources Corporation. Alternatively if it never goes by The "Doe Run Resources Corporation" and is instead registered as "The Doe Run Company" then maybe we just shouldn't mention the "Resources Corporation" bit? Either way, this isn't a big deal, it's just not clear to me what its purpose is. Some clarification would be appreciated.Ajpolino (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for diving in on this. While I would hope that readers make the connection to the two "Doe Run" names, I think clarifying it is important. Many years ago there was a company called The Doe Run Company a Missouri General Partnership. We are not related to that former company and have had to demonstrate that over the years, so we think it is important to use both our legal registered entity name (at first reference) as well as the dba name. Thanks for the edits so far have a good weekend. TS at Doe Run (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I went with a bit of a compromise on the wording here. I used the registered to do business bit in the history section, but then changed the wording in the lead of the article to clarify for people unfamiliar with the process. This seems to be how things are done on the pages of most other businesses known by trade names. Let me know if you remain concerned with this. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sentence: "The company built six mines and four mills along the trend." Can you change "built" to "owns"? I just caught this on re-reading: the company did not actually build all of these, some were acquired, so "owns" is more accurate.
 * ✅Ajpolino (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The following was cut from the "History" section re: Peru: "It also took over the environmental program in place to improve environmental conditions, which had never been addressed by previous owners. Doe Run invested more than $100 million in improvements to reach a goal to reduce emissions within a decade. The company received an extension from the government in 2006. " Could these details be incorporated into the "Environmental issues" section? Specifically, that the previous owners had not addressed the environmental conditions and the investment made by Doe Run.
 * ❌ I tried to condense that information into wording that didn't sound like a press release. I hope it's clear from the current wording that when Doe Run took over the site, it was heavily-polluted. Also, I felt the dollar amount of improvements was an unnecessary detail so I went with "heavy investment in site improvements and local infrastructure" to try to give a bit of the flavor from the PBS article that improvements were made both to the site and in the community. I think the current wording gets both of those ideas across without either vilifying Doe Run or making the company out to be a totally-blameless saint-figure. If you feel strongly that I'm misreading this, please let me know. If we can't agree on wording, we can always ask another editor to weigh in. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The following was cut from the "History" section re: Herculaneum: "By the end of the year, Doe Run was in compliance with the Clean Air Act lead standard". While this has been incorporated into the "Environmental issues" section, it's not as clear with the current wording that Doe Run got back in compliance.
 * The history section reads "...replacing soil for over 700 properties to bring the site back into compliance with the U.S. Clean Air Act". The Environmental issues section reads: "By the end of the year, Doe Run was in compliance with the Clean Air Act lead standard". What, specifically, is unclear? Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On that note, in general, there's duplication re: Herculaneum between the "History" and "Environmental issues" sections. Could this information be removed, or at least reduced, in the "History" section? Based on the details and sourcing from the "Environmental issues" section which gives the most accurate overview, perhaps information about Herculaneum could be summarized as: "After high levels of lead were found around the company's Herculaneum smelter in 2001, Doe Run purchased approximately 160 homes and removed lead-contaminated soil from more than 700 properties. In 2008, Doe Run agreed to pay $65 million for past violations of the federal Clean Air and Clean Water acts in Herculaneum. The company closed the smelter in 2013. "
 * I condensed the wording in the history section so that the section wouldn't get bogged down in details. The details remain in the Environmental Issues section for any interested reader. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the following was cut from the "History" section re: Herculaneum smelter and I don't see it incorporated into the "Environmental issues" section: "The company allocated more than $8 million for cleanup of the property following its closure. "
 * ✅Now in the environmental issues section. Ajpolino (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The following was cut from the "History" section and seems like a straightforward fact to include: "In 2014, Doe Run celebrated its 150th anniversary"
 * ❌ I understand how this seems straightforward and may have felt important there. In general, this type of thing isn't included in encyclopedia articles (e.g. in the Walmart article you won't see mention that its 50th anniversary was just a few years ago). It's considered trivia and not of lasting interest to readers. Let me know if you disagree or that seems unfair/unclear. Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the end of "Operations", two paragraphs have been retained from the original version of the article. The information in these paragraphs is outdated and confusing. For example it implies Doe Run's Herculaneum smelter is still operating. Also, the MRBT railway never went to Viburnum, the site of our mines since the 1970s (a different railway operated between Viburnum and Herculaneum.) The MRBT operated between The Old Lead Belt and Viburnum. Is there anything that needs to be retained or could this all be cut? If there's some historical information in here you feel is necessary to keep, could it be moved into "History"? If the information about the railway should be kept in some form, I suggest: "In 2002, rail service from Viburnum to the Herculaneum plant ceased and lead concentrates were transported by truck."
 * ✅ Pardon my ignorance, this may have already been covered elsewhere, but is Boss, MO recycling smelter info close-enough to current reality to be informative? Or is this also radically different? Ajpolino (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, it looks like none of the following content from my draft was added into the article: "Between 2010 and 2015, Doe Run spent $289 million on environmental expenditures in Herculaneum and around the mining and mill sites in the Viburnum Trend. The funds have been used in part for remediating old mining sites and for the construction of water treatment plants. Environmental safety precautions implemented by Doe Run include washing trucks that may have come into contact with lead. In addition, exposed lead workers at the company's secondary smelter shower and change their clothing at the end of each shift to avoid the spread of lead outside of work.  " What do you think about incorporating the details into "Environmental issues" and / or into "Operations"?
 * For the most part I added your wording to the end of the environmental issues section. As best I could tell, Jerry Pyatt's comments were about the company as a whole, not about Herculaneum in particular(?) so I tweaked the wording a bit. Also didn't add the safety measures bit because I assumed those types of precautions are fairly typical for that type of operation, and would therefore be a better fit for an article about lead mining or refining. If you'd like to talk more about it I'm happy to.Ajpolino (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ajpolino, you've been very helpful so far, so thank you. Sorry for the additional requests, but this subject matter is quite complicated and I just want to make sure the article is accurate. Thanks again for your consideration. TS at Doe Run (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow responses. I've gone through a few more bullet points. I hope to finish out your first set of concerns within the next few days. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Just checking in again on the remaining concerns, and requesting one change to the edits completed so far. Currently, the article says the Herculaneum closure was announced in 2008 (see "In 2008, Doe Run agreed to close the Herculaneum smelter..."). This should be changed to 2010, per this source, which is already used as an inline citation at the end of the previous sentence. Otherwise, I think the other changes made to the article so far are correct, and I look forward to discussing the rest of the requests at your earliest convenience. Thanks again! TS at Doe Run (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oops! Good catch! Ajpolino (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I have just a few thoughts on the latest changes to the article:
 * 1. One very small tweak is needed for the updated sentences in the "History" section. The second sentence should technically begin "Earlier that year" not "Later that year" as the announcement for the electrowinning plant was in the spring, then the closure announcement came in the fall. Apologies for not clarifying this previously.
 * 2. How do you feel about removing the final paragraph of the "Operations" section? The information about the Boss smelter and Fabricated Products is either covered above in the section, or is outdated data.
 * 3. Your reply above noted that you weren't sure about adding in the sentences "Environmental safety precautions implemented by Doe Run include washing trucks that may have come into contact with lead. In addition, exposed lead workers at the company's secondary smelter shower and change their clothing at the end of each shift to avoid the spread of lead outside of work." I do want to talk some more about this, if you are open to it. While this information may seem obvious to those in the industry, I saw a document produced by Cal OSHA that made it apparent that many agencies don't know that workers at secondary smelters take these precautions. Unless there's a strong reason not too, I would very much like to see if these details could be added. My suggestion is that the two sentences could be added at the end of the 3rd or 4th paragraph in the "Operations" section, so that they're included alongside details about the smelter operations.

I am glad this article has been updated with your help and look forward to closing this request very soon. Thanks! TS at Doe Run (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for prodding me to get back to this. (1) Done. Sorry didn't notice that. Changed to "the same year" so as not to interrupt the flow of the paragraph. (2) Paragraph removed. I agree that the paragraphs above communicate substantially the same information in a better way. (3) Added a slightly-abbreviated version to Operations section. Didn't specify secondary smelters because the quote in the article appears to be referencing all Doe Run lead operations in the area.
 * Let me know if you have any other concerns! Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so very much for your assistance and diligence! The article is greatly improved, and I very much appreciate your willingness to help. TS at Doe Run (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction
I have returned on behalf of my employer, Doe Run, to address some problematic content in this article, specifically the last sentence of the "Holdings and products" section: "

The text "" is particularly problematic, and here's why: the first inline citation does not even mention Doe Run, and the second is a government report that does not specifically discuss a "high death rate" in general or in relation to the Glover site. As the sentence above is written, it fails to explain this "high death rate", giving a misleading impression that this may have been human deaths. This St. Louis Post-Dispatch article says "Doe Run acquires a primary lead smelter in Glover, Mo., from ASARCO" in 1998, and "The Glover smelter [was] idled" in 2003. I think the following is a more accurate representation of sourcing:



You assisted with my last request. Might you be able to take a look at this one as well? I'm willing to answer any questions here. Thanks. TS at Doe Run (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other secondary sources about why the smelter was closed? Or even PR from DRC as a starting point to find more sourcing? All the sources I've checked out indicate there was definitely an environmental component to the smelter shutdown, and that the smelter was part of a larger set of environmentally damaging lead operations in the lead belt. The first source doesn't mention Doe Run, but mentions the Glover smelter as part of a set of environmental remediation sites, so I think it makes sense why it was there. The government report details the extensive environmental damage throughout the Old Lead Belt at several sites, including specific reference to the environmental effects of the smelter. It is also true that the smelter was owned by Doe Run at the time of its shutdown, so I think the sources help support the statement. I've slapped a citations needed on the high death rate, and asked the contributor for any sourcing. If you've got a specific citation that the smelter was noted for its safety or particularly low industry death rate I'd be happy to take a look. Poking around at medical studies, it seems like there have been decades of studies specifically on elevated mortality for US primary lead smelter workers, so I imagine part of the decision to close stemmed from a decision to limit tort liability, given these consistent findings. Depending on what we hear from the original contributor, perhaps the point about death rates is more properly expressed something like:



-Furicorn (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting. I'll try to share some sourcing I think could be helpful.


 * Regarding accidents/fatalities, you can perform a search at https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.html. Required search terms include: SIC 3339, NAICS 331419, Date Range 01/01/1984 to 12/31/2003, Office All, and Insp Nr All. From that page, if you check the boxes by the two accidents that are listed, you can see the detail. Neither of these accidents are from our operations. When I perform the search myself it takes me to this link: https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/accidentsearch.accident_detail?id=201058054&id=171059108.


 * The cohort of smelter workers in the cited study all started working at the Idaho smelter in question between 1945 and 1965. Glover would not even begin operating until 3 years later, so it was a much more modern facility. As a matter of fact, the records collected for the cited study end in 1975 and the smelter itself closed in 1982. This facility is in no way representative of Glover or worker exposures and the citation irrelevant related to Glover and our operation of it from 1984 to 2003.


 * The second unsubstantiated claim relates to environmental performance at Glover. You can search the 2004 Federal Register for Air compliance: Federal Register/ Volume 69, No. 209/ Friday, October 29, 2004/ Rules and Regulations 63072 (Section Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [R07-OAR-2004-MO-0003; FRL – 7831-1] ) The link is here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/10/29/04-24134/approval-and-promulgation-of-implementation-plans-state-of-missouri-designation-of-areas-for-air.


 * Federal Register, Volume 69, Number 209, 63072, October 29, 2004:
 * "The major source of lead emissions in this nonattainment area is the Doe Run Primary Smelting Facility, near Glover, Missouri. Primary smelting of lead began at this location in 1968. Currently the facility has ceased production and has been operating on a care and maintenance schedule since December 1, 2003. The state submittal provided ambient air monitor data showing that this area has consistently shown compliance with the NAAQS for lead since the first quarter of 1997, well before the recent shutdown of the facility. Ambient monitoring for lead has shown compliance with the NAAQS for 28 consecutive calendar quarters… The facility is currently in a nonproduction mode, but attainment had been shown for several years prior to this change in operation in December 2003. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable SIP controls."


 * As the above clearly states, the smelter was not closed due to environmental compliance. One of our analysts, Wood MacKenzie, reported on this in the May 2006 edition of the Brook Hunt publication "Global Lead Concentrate Market to 2016". The second to last paragraph on page 33 of the report states: "The final closure of the year was in some ways the most surprising. Weak lead demand in the US prompted the closure of Doe Run’s 124Kt/a Glover blast furnace in that country.  Although a closure of some sorts was not unexpected, Doe Run’s old and environmentally-problematic Herculaneum smelter appeared to be a more likely candidate for closure than its newer, cleaner and more efficient Glover operation."


 * Wood MacKenzie has offered to make a redacted version of this section of their document publicly available, so I can have the report uploaded to the Doe Run website if that'd be helpful. Please advise.


 * What do you think, Furicorn? TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, User:Furicorn, I noticed my last post was out of order, but I've fixed. I also saw the editor who added the detail about the Glover smelting facility has not edited other articles or replied to you at User talk:Cards2018. I hope this and my previous reply are sufficient enough for removing the claim. Thanks. TS at Doe Run (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, User:Ajpolino, but I've struggled to get editors to remove the incorrect claim discussed above. User:Furicorn posted notes at WikiProjects Chemistry, Environment, Medicine, and Occupational Safety and Health, but no one has replied or updated the article. I've been trying to get the page corrected for a while now, but I'm running out of ideas for getting editors to help. Since you've assisted with this article before, are you willing to take a look at the explanation above and remove the claim from the article? TS at Doe Run (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request edit
I am adding the "request edit" template hoping an editor can assist me. I've made a genuine effort to get this article corrected, and while Ajpolino and Furicorn have both been helpful, the article remains incorrect. Furicorn posted messages at WikiProjects Chemistry, Environment, Medicine, and Occupational Safety and Health, as well as the Lead poisoning article discussion page, but no editors have replied. Can someone please review this discussion and remove the incorrect claim? Thank you. TS at Doe Run (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the very slow response. Took a quick glance through the messages here but haven't had a chance to look through those sources you both posted. My first impression is that if you could post that Wood MacKenzie "Global Lead Concentrate Market to 2016" report (or however much of it they're willing to make public) on the Doe Run website as you'd proposed, that would go a long way towards assuaging the concerns of other editors. Report or no report, I'll get a chance to look through the available sources soon. If another editor wants to beat me to it, I certainly won't object. Thanks all for your responses and patience. Ajpolino (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ edit request is unclear. SportsFan007 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input here as well SportsFan, but I think was handling this edit request and intended to come back to it at some point, so it might be a good idea to go ahead and leave it open for now to act as a reminder for that editor to close when they've finished with it. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ After some digging, I can find no source that indicates that the Glover facility was closed due to environmental concerns (though certainly there's lots of documentation of environmental concerns around the facility). If anyone is interested, there's almost certainly enough source material for an article on the Glover facility itself. Thanks all for your input. Sorry this became such a prolonged discussion. If anyone has questions, concerns, or disagrees, I'm more than happy to talk about it. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, Ajpolino. TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction
I have returned on behalf of my employer, Doe Run, to address some incorrect content in this article, specifically the last sentence of the "Holdings and products" section: ""

This text is inaccurate: Doe Run still owns the Buick Mine and accesses it from two of our other mines, which are connected. The following news article is a publicly available source for this information.

You assisted with one of my earlier requests. Might you be able to take a look at this one as well to update the number of mines to six, including Buick Mine? I'm willing to answer any questions here. Thanks. TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Tammy, I'm happy to help. In the news article you linked (here), I don't see anything specific about the Buick mine, just the statement ... environmental management certification at its six mines and four mills.. Funny enough the reference for the incorrect content actually says something different from the Wikipedia article. It says ...or the cleanup of Herculaneum and six active or former mining and milling facilities: Brushy Creek, Buick, Fletcher, Sweetwater, Viburnum and West Fork. and then later ... Clean Water Act permits at 10 of its facilities, including Herculaneum, Glover, Buick Mill, Brushy Creek, Fletcher, Sweetwater, Viburnum, West Fork, Mine #35 (Casteel), and Buick Resource Recycling.. Neither quite supports the current text, nor the current text + Buick mine. Any chance you've got a source that lists the mines Doe Run owns? It has been a while since I've looked at this article so I don't remember if the correct list is in another one of the sources here. Ajpolino (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you for your quick response. I can see how these references create confusion, and hope the below help clear up questions.

This article from Missouri Business, which is already a reference for other points in the Wikipedia article, confirms Doe Run’s ownership of Buick Mine. url=https://mobizmagazine.com/2015/06/16/doe-run-the-lead-belt-heavyweight/|accessdate=July 19, 2021 |work=Missouri Business|date=June 16, 2015}} }}

In addition, this article from last year shows the list of the six mines Doe Run operates, if you think a footnote should be included: url=https://www.mymoinfo.com/how-the-doe-run-company-is-dealing-with-the-coronavirus/|accessdate=July 19, 2021 |work=MyMOInfo.com|date=November 25, 2020}} }}

Will these be sufficient to justify the correction? Thank you for your help. Tammy. TS at Doe Run (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)