https://www.recastingthesmelter.com/?page_id=8
Mcmurray emails and cleanup trusts' responses
May 25, 2016
Email Response from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga
Email Subject Heading: RE: Isotopes at Asarco El Paso site
Dear Mr. Puga,
Thank you for responding.
The El Paso ASARCO site DID smelt nuclear control rod materials. That data was given to TCEQ, EPA and US
DOJ many years ago.
The clean up Trust was exempt by the bankruptcy court from testing for ANY radioactive materials.
I asked why we have not ever been given the levels of any of the isotopes listed in the attached picture: i.e.
ANY radioactive isotopes. You did not answer.
The 1998 EPA US DOJ ASARCO 73 page confidential for settlement purposes only document lists many
invoices at the back. The Trust never reviewed that set of invoices, nor were these ever released to anyone.
Equipment was powerwashed and sold with stipulation that any testing for radioactive material be done by
the buyer.
You out-right refused to run free radon tests on site. You out right refused to allow collection of any of the
distillation unit’s slag. No one has tested the WWII old lead dump (where the lead smelter’s waste was
deposited) for by products of wulfenite smelting.
And these examples are only a few of the many.
There is a COMPLETE absence of data from the people formerly and currently in control of the site
concerning these matters.
A COMPLETE silence: NO data.
It is very glaring. What you wrote me does not concern testing for or providing this data to el paso citizens.
You categorically state that no radioactive wastes (not talking NORM) were smelted here, when that is not
true. Plus you mention the smelting of NORM waste, which can be more toxic than controlled High level
radioactive wastes.
Then you end your reply by stating that the site is not above regulatory levels for radioactivity: have you
tested for that and where is your data ?
A single alpha particle is more toxic than the arsenic that is listed as a chemical of concern.
It is unbelievable that you sent me NO DATA in your reply.
It is a complete silence concerning the high level radioactive wastes that ASARCO , engelhard and Dupont
sent here for burning. Each of them were U.S. DOE high level radioactive radioactive waste disposal
contractors; and, each of them listed as sending illegal materials here for burning.
The nuclear control rod material measurements should come from our government and contractors….NOT
from citizen action.
You know that the slag offgases, and that capping with clean soil and asphalt is not protective of long term
exposure on that site. And you know that turning the primary arroyo into a dump, when the hugely toxic
arsenic bubble exists beneath and according to TCEQ has reached the rio grande, is not protective of our
public health.
Selling this site, even to a government body like UTEP, will not make it safe. I believe you know that, Mr. Puga,
and I belive you care enough to speak up.
If you do not, then you leave a legacy for your family a hundred years from now of covering up something
you could have exposed. That is a sad legacy, followed with the people who will grow up poisoned, with
teratogenic birth defects and diseases associated with long term exposure to even low level radioactive
wastes.
You have to have known this. I write this letter so future generations will know that buck stopped at your
desk;and, that instead of coming clean about ASARCO’s role here as a HLRW (high level radioactive waste) U.S
DOE official disposal contractor, you perpetuated the cover up. Not for just Asarco, but for several other such
U.S. DOE contractors whom were caught sending illegal wastes here to ASARCO for burning (engelhard and
dupont).
This entire site SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.
Sincerely,
H. Mcmurray, m.s. biological sciences
0 comments
May 21, 2016
Email from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga
Email Subject Heading: Isotopes at Asarco El Paso site
Dear Mr Puga,
There is a complete absence of data from Asarco/agencies regarding radioactive isotope levels from asarco
site. Why?
To not even release data on those radioactive isotopes common to smelting….to eliminate *all* as “chemicals
of concern” for clean up is disrespectful of our El Paso families’ right to know. We know that Asarco, Engelhard and Dupont (each caught sending illegal materials to adarco el paso for
burning) were among the key U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste disposal contractors; and, that nuclear
control rod material was burned here.
I respectfully ask why we citizens in El Paso TX have never been given the levels of the isotopes listed in the
attached picture….we know that some are common to smelters and that the Asarco el paso smelter installed a
distillation unit to remove some of the low level radioactive isotopes (all enviromental agencies and you
refused to allow me to pick up slag from this unit after its fire).
So, why the deep silence and total lack of *any* public data from this site over its lifetime??
It is not responsible, ethical, or protective of citizens to keep this under wraps. And to make $$ as the
company charged with “clean up” of that site, even if endorsed by the bankruptcy, implies that it cannot be
cleaned up.
This silence suggests that so much damage was done by a decade of disposal for the U.S. DOE, that disclosure
of the isotopes’ levels would be detrimental to the declared value of that land, and the 1000 square miles
around the site (e.g., Tacoma, WA).
Please state for the record if any data exists for the amount of isotopes listed in the attached picture, for the
asarco site: whether confidential, classified, business-privileged, etc. ANY at all? And, if not, why?
Keeping a lid on it is not protective of public health.
Sincerely,
H. Mcmurray, m.s. biol. Sci.
Response from Roberto Puga:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you once again for your continued interest in the Former ASARCO Smelter site. Please see below
for our responses to the questions you posed in your May 21, 2016 e-mail. As we have done in the past
both your original e-mail and our responses will be posted on the blog section of the
www.recastingthesmelter.com webpage.
The Asarco site has been extensively investigated and the results from the various site investigations
may be found at the TCEQ website. These results are included in the attachments and appendices to
the investigation reports. See the following website:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco/downloads
Because the site did not handle radioactive materials and no facilities that shipped waste to Asarco
handled radioactive material, no radiation surveys were required and the Texas Custodial Trust (the
Trust) has not collected measurements for radioactivity at the Site.
Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is present everywhere in the environment and the
Trust carefully reviewed the study the EPA produced in 1999 that specifically examines copper mining
in Arizona, and the technological enhancement of natural radioactive material (TENORM) through the mining process . Given the nature of the smelter feed, the level of documentation on the subject, and
the scrutiny by the regulatory agencies involved in the project, we do not believe that the concentrates
processed at the plant could result radioactive levels above any regulatory limits.
The Trust has also investigated records received from EPA regarding material shipments to the site,
specifically materials that may have been processed by ENCYCLE and other sources. In October 2010
the Trust issued the Review of Asarco El Paso Smelting Processes, which can be found here:
http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/?page_id=16
The review document included an evaluation of shipment records that were available to the Trust at
that time. Section 3.1 of the review document included the list of 17 records, posted in 2010 to the
USEPA Region 6 Website that describe materials that had been shipped to ENCYCLE from numerous
sources. This evaluation found a letter dated December 1995 where ENCYCLE informed the TNRCC that
it had received a lead sulfide waste; containing naturally occurring radioactive material at quantities
less than the regulated level; but it did not indicate the quantity of material or if the material was
shipped to the El Paso Site. It should be noted that there was no lead processing on the site since the mid-1980s.
In 2012 the Trust initiated the evaluation of shipment records, made available by the USEPA in 2011
and 2012, related to shipments concerning ENCYCLE. The resulting evaluation of records made
available by the USEPA was included in the Supplement Remedial Investigation (RI) Report that is
available here:
http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-
content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/Revised-Supplemental-RI-Report-2014-10-
17/Revised-Supplemental-Remedial-Investigation-Report_Oct2014-sealed.pdf
To date the evaluation of shipment records has not found indications of radioactive materials. In
addition, the records document that quench brine from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado
(RMA) and the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah (DCD) were shipped to ENCYCLE. RMA and DCD
were/are chemical weapons facilities, not nuclear facilities, so their wastes are not expected to be
radioactive. The 2005 Five-Year Review Report for Rocky Mountain Arsenal does not list radioactive
isotopes as chemicals of concern. According to a May 14, 2010, letter from the USEPA to community members, each waste shipment sent from RMA to ENCYCLE (which later shipped the waste to the Site)
was tested and found not to be radioactive.
Given the scrutiny of the site from both state and federal authorities, we do not expect natural or man-
made radioactive materials above regulatory levels on or around the facility or in the stack.
The Trust has been completely transparent in its discussions regarding the constituents of concern at
the Site and made available to the public all material it has and there is nothing kept “secret” by the
Trust. For the current cleanup program, the Trust has posted on its website all documents it produces
in the form of plans, specifications, presentations and reports.
Regards,
Roberto Puga, P.G.
0 comments
May 20, 2016
Community Meeting Announcement
A Community Meeting regarding the Former ASARCO Smelter Site is currently being scheduled for June 16,
2016. The purpose of this meeting is to inform the public of the current status of the site remediation.
Downtown Main Library
501 N Oregon
El Paso, TX 79901
Time: 5:30-7:00PM
Additional information will be provided if available.
Visit the Trust’s website: www.recastingthesmelter.com.
January 01, 2016
Upper Parker Brothers Arroyo Improvements Underway
January 2012
September 2012
September 12, 2015
Email from Heather McMurray to Rep. Beto O’Rourke (c/o Alejandra Gaytan) and Site Trustee, Roberto
Puga
To: Attention of the Honorable Rep. Beto O’Rourke (c/o Alejandra Gaytan)
Asarco El Paso Clean Up Trustee, Roberto Puga
El Paso Inc.
Fr: Heather McMurray, m.s. biological sciences
sb: Sale of the remaining ASARCO El Paso smelter land (estimated current worth nearly 1/2 billion dollars)
Dear Sirs:
Please provide me with U.S. Mail Addresses to all the above so that I may send a copy of this letter to
each of you through registered mail.
Below is a copy of a statement dictated to the Hon. Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s staff last year. Please forward a copy
to all bidders on the ASARCO land: IT CANNOT BE CLEANED UP. Even the chemicals of concern that are
discussed publicly (Cd, Pb, As etc) have only cosmetically been sealed up.
Statement made 2/21/2014 at 3PM EST for Honorable Rep. O’Rourke’s Attention
My Background: Masters in Science
Fully endorsed by Nobel team winner Dr. Devra Davis, author of “Secret history of Cancer”
Attended Rachel Carson’s College – she wrote “Silent Spring” a key book about the dangers of both toxic
chemicals and radiation
Trained under the last PHD student for Nobel Medical Prize Winner Dr. Niko Tinbergen
Fully certified designated highly qualified Science teacher grades 8-12, also, certified to teach gifted students
(UTEP, 2010)
Bachelors of Science at the Ohio State University
Endorsed by Father of semiotics, Dr. Thomas Sebeok (on file OSU), who participated in WA D.C. panel on how
to label nuclear waste sites to warn off future generations
Researcher who uncovered the US DOJ EPA ASARCO 1998 73 page confidential for settlement purposes only
document that was front page NYTimes news 10/2006 [added 9/15]
It has come to my attention that development is planned for a 200+ acres of land on the other side of TX
Interstate I-10, part of the original Asarco properties a stone’s throw away from the site of the Asarco stacks.
The plans for this site are to create family homes. Under smart code development requirements they are
required to build an elementary school and playground. We know per Dr. Goodell (UTEP) statement to
Channel 7 KVIA that paving the Asarco site will not make the area safe for people. We know that slag gives off
gases (called “off-gassing”) for nearly 100 years. Some of these gases are toxic (I.e Arsenic) and cannot be
smelled or tasted. We know from the Mesita School Health Study (Peer reviewed) that children growing up
attending that school close to the Asarco site have a greater chance in their lifetime of getting MS.
• Honorable Rep. Beto O’Rourke has a greater chance of getting MS from attending the Mesita School.
• Males who have MS have greater chance of passing MS to their children.
• According to smart code Dover Kohl diagram an elementary school will be placed on top of Asarco old lead
dump, which is quite large. The grading permits are in place.
• This lead dump was created during the 1940s and 1950s and has remained undisturbed throughout the
cleanup.
• During the 1940s the UTEP (formerly College of mines, next to Asarco site) grads were at the center of the
largest uranium strikes found in the Western United States.
• Asarco during those years was a custom smelter. It would smelt anything. It had a lead smelter.
• Lead smelter during those years (1940s-1950s) were used to separate out Uranium from their parent ores
(i.e. Wulfenite).
• The waste material (ores) would’ve been put in the old lead dump and likely are radioactive tailings.
• Under the bankruptcy agreement, the trustee for the cleanup is not required to address radioactive waste.
• Despite 8 years of research, all government agencies (EPA, USDA, DoD, DOJ, etc) have refused any
information regarding “regulated” radioactive materials going through our El Paso Asarco site. They claim no
knowledge and refuse to release key invoices listed in the 73 page US DOJ EPA Asarco confidential for
settlement purposes only document (now in public domain, see NYTimes 10/2006)
• The old Atomic Energy Act still protects Asarco and all involved from disclosure and liability.
• Engelhard, Dupont, Asarco were listed in the aforementioned 1998 confidential for settlement purposes
only document sludges, incinerator ashes and only God knows what else through the two El Paso Asarco con-
top furnaces (that metal curled stack was shorter than the others so its smoke stayed more local – likely a 30 mile radius including Juarez Mexico, Southern New Mexico and Texas).
• I uncovered a document from Idaho National Laboratory Library detailing how Asarco, Dupont, Engelhard
were official U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste disposal contractors from places like Oakridge TN and
Hanford WA during the years Asarco was burning illegal, secret hazardous waste (1998 73 page USDOJ EPA
Asarco formerly confidential for settlement purposes only document)(New York Times, front page story,
October 2006).
• The community has not been told all the details about what has been burned all those years and is still not
being told.
• We have data showing that the chemical element Hafnium is found in greater quantities amount near the
stack location. Hafnium is unusual. Hafnium is commonly found in nuclear control rods.
• In 1998 an EPA publicly announced that El Paso had the highest Beta radiation levels in the nation. Higher
than Oakridge, Higher than Hanford. In October 1998, Texas suddenly decided to deny the license of the
Sierra Blanca Nuclear Dump site. During that time, the media coverage on that issue of the dump was so high
that thousands of people were marching at the Capitol of Mexico against the dump. Media coverage was
huge.
• By December 1998, Asarco said in the El Paso Times it was thinking about “idling” the Asarco Smelter, and it
did beginning of February 1999. The plant never re-opened. All the staff who worked at the site’s steam plant
are dead now, from unusual diseases, according to an unnamed supervisor.
• I asked all the environmental agencies representatives to give me a sample of slag from the Asarco water
distillation unit (it went up in flames during clean-up) rated to remove radioactive waste from the plant’s
process water. They refused.
Given all this information, we know Asarco ran U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste materials through the
El Paso Asarco smelter and it is likely that the old lead dump contained radioactive material. That whole area
would be contaminated by Arsenic for years to come. If the powers that be still continue with development of
the Asarco site as detailed recently in an El Paso Inc article by David Crowder, I plead, deeply plead, with
Honorable Representative Beto O’Rourke, given his own experience attending Mesita Elementary School a mile from Asarco, that they do not allow children to grow up on any of the Asarco land. That they do not
build play grounds. That they do not build an elementary school there. He of all people should understand
having attended Mesita the risks that that all these children will undergo if they allow the school and
playground to be built. As a certified teacher and a Christian, it deeply grieves me. It hurts my heart to watch
this happen.
Sincerely,
Heather McMurray
January 14, 2013
Email from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga
Email Subject Heading: Why has the Trust lied by omission to the El Paso Community?
Roberto Puga’s response is bolded.
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you once again for your continues interest in the Former ASARCO site. I apologize for the length
of time it took for us to respond to you – it was a combination comprehensively answering your
questions coupled with the holiday season vacations of my staff. Please see below for our responses,
and as you requested this exchange will be posted on our website blog.
Mr. Puga,
ASARCO has been acting for years as a HLRW (high level radioactive waste) U.S. DOE waste disposal
contractor — for places like Oakridge, TN and Hanford, WA and nearly 30 other sites. Why did you never tell
the community? You, the EPA, the US DOE, DOJ and others would not mention it even under TX PIA or federal
FOIA acts to many of those agencies for full disclosure of ASARCO.) It is my understanding that once the Trust
sold materials to be used, burned, etc, that it was those company’s responsibility to run radiation tests on the
materials after receipt.
Response: As we have stated previously, both the EPA and GAO have reviewed and reported on the
Asarco and Encycle matter which addressed the issue of improper waste handling. Enforcement action
was taken against Asarco and the matter was settled in 1999. The GAO report and subsequent EPA
documents are clear in their findings and conclusions regarding the issue.
As we discussed above, Asarco, as a large integrated metal producer and refiner obviously handled a
wide variety materials including radioactive materials. Given the scrutiny of the site from both state
and federal authorities, we do not expect man-made radioisotopes, TENORM, byproducts or residues at
levels above their respective natural levels. Our focus is on the identified constituents which include
lead, arsenic and cadmium.
The Trust issued the Review of Asarco El Paso Smelting Processes in October 2010. The review
document was based on the evaluation of shipment records that were available to the Trust at that
time. Section 3.1 of the review document included the list of 17 records, posted in 2010 to the USEPA
Region 6 Website (http://www.epa.gov/region6/asarco_documents/asarco_documents.html), that
describe materials that had been shipped to ENCYCLE from numerous sources.
In 2012 the Trust initiated the evaluation of records, made available by the USEPA in 2011 and 2012,
related to shipments to ENCYCLE. This evaluation is ongoing and should be completed in January 2013
and will be documented as part of the Supplement Remedial Investigation (RI) for the site that is
currently being prepared. It is anticipated that the Supplemental RI will be completed in the first
quarter of 2013 and will be made available for public review at the time it is submitted for agency
review.
Please do not continue to act as if the grounds are safe for tours, that the stack can be safely blown and the
pieces stored in an arroyo over a maximum-life 40 year plastic liner right next to the Rio Grande that supplies
60 % of our drinking water. The stack is safer left plugged and standing.
You have allowed visitors onto the site and in the stack without testing for any of the alpha or beta radiation
remaining. You have hidden, protected under the Atomic energy act and subsequent asarco bankruptcy that
refused to discuss the U.S. DOE radioactive high level waste disposal contractors (at least two more besides
asarco) CAUGHT sending illegal waste sludges and incinerator ashes to El Paso. You have ignored the levels of
hafnium found at higher levels nearer the stacks — an element mostly used in nuclear control rods.
Please stop the tours.
Response in regard to Tours: The former Asarco El Paso Smelter Site has been extensively investigated
and the issues surrounding handling of wastes have been addressed. Environmental monitoring is
performed throughout the project and the data has been reviewed by both EPA and TCEQ, as well as
industrial hygienists charged with assuring compliance with the applicable health, safety and
environmental regulations as directed by those agencies. On this basis we believe the Site is safe for
guided tours of short duration.
Response in regard to the Demolition of the Stack: Dykon Explosive Demolition, Inc. has more than 30
years in explosive demolition experience and is responsible for the felling of more than 100 stacks
around the world. Dust suppression techniques will be customized to address any area where dust is
anticipated to be generated. Additionally, traffic will be controlled and rerouted, as necessary, by the
El Paso Police Department on the day of the demolition.
You mentioned in the press/media years ago that as a young person you had assisted a local Catholic Priest in
Sunday worships. I hope that you will repent what you are doing and quit and get out of this business if it
does not let you be honest with us. Even the integrity of the local head of the clean up firm you are using has
come under scrutiny by having his powers as Trustee on the EPISD school board removed (David Dodge of Malcolm Pirnie).
No elementary school or personal housing should be built across the freeway on top of the old lead ASARCO
dump (it has not been touched or remediated). Be honest with this community.
Response: As you may be aware, the City of El Paso in 2010 commissioned a development study of
various parts of the City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl.
The development study included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the
community regarding their vision for the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study
recommended that the former ASARCO site properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the
area between Paisano Drive and the Rio Grande formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for
commercial/light industrial use. These properties are not zoned for residential use.
However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have
wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be
cleaned up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of
contamination on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on
the findings of the investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be
developed as residential. As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired
uses for all of the properties and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.
It is common scientific knowledge that the chemicals illegally disposed of in our El Paso ASARCO stacks can
be associated with leukemias, birth defects including loss of organs at birth ( brain, limb/s) , cancers, and
other diseases. It is also common knowledge that the slag does not hold the chemicals forever and that every
ten years 10 percent of the materials have off-gassed or leached out.
Response: The Trust was not provided with resources or mandate to address past physical injuries that
may have been incurred by any person who worked at the ASARCO plant, and was not provided with
resources or mandate to address ASARCO’s “actions,” legal or otherwise, while it owned the site. The
Trust is tasked with: 1) coming up with the best remedial plan achievable with the money provided by
the bankruptcy court to address the environmental concerns and 2) to sell the property according to
the appropriate uses allowed by the TCEQ and EPA, in conjunction with consultation with the City of El
Paso on the use and sale of the property; the Trust is committed to fulfilling these tasks.
Again, I plead with you to be honest with the people of this region or quit.
Response: The Trust has been completely transparent in its discussions regarding the constituents of
concern at the Site and made available to the public all material it has and there is nothing kept
“secret” by the Trust. Any other documents not in our possession are available from TCEQ or EPA. For
the current cleanup program, the Trust has posted on its website all documents it produces in the form
of plans, specifications, presentations and reports. The allegation that the Trust, which is charged with
cleaning up the Asarco site, is somehow withholding information or failing to pursue issues relevant to
health and safety of the community is simply false and unsupported by its actions.
Heather McMurray, M.S. Biological sciences , certified/highly qualified composite science teacher
1 comment
January 14, 2013
Email from Ross Maynard to Site Trustee Roberto Puga
The following is an email exchange between Ross Maynard and the Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses are in
bold.
You may have a fantastic opportunity in those smokestacks!
Go to these web sites and you’ll see what I’m talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower
http://www.solaripedia.com/13/371/5025/solar_updraft_tower_in_manzanares_spain.html
Please take this message seriously. You could get international attention with a project like this.
Ross Maynard Williamston MI
Roberto Puga’s response:
Dear Mr. Maynard,
Thank you for your interest in the former ASARCO site, and for sending me the solar updraft
information.
In our opinion, using the on-site tower as the basis of a solar updraft project is not feasible for the
following reasons:
Tower Height – the tallest onsite tower is 826-feet high. Typically, solar updraft project specify towers
in commercial projects that are being planned are thousands of feet tall.
Solar Energy Collector Area – Also, the need a significant area around the base of the tower for solar
energy collector (>100 acres). The entire smelter site property is about 125 acres, but it is
asymmetrical, i.e., the tower is on one end of the oval shaped property. This asymmetry would reduce
the available solar energy collection area.
Potential Output – The experimental solar updraft project in Manzanares, Spain was 50 kW (per the
information you sent me). The Manzanares tower height and collection area were similar to what we
would have at the former ASACRO site. 50 kW is a very small return for the capital investment
necessary to convert the tower to a solar updraft project. And, more importantly, it will make the City’s
vision for redevelopment impossible.
Tower Structural Stability – A recent evaluation of the tower structural stability indicates that there is
a serious deflect in the tower’s design vis-à-vis wind loads. This defect would have to be corrected
before the tower could be used for any purpose.
Thank you for interest, and don’t hesitate to contact us again with any other question or comment.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
Trustee.
April 05, 2012
Comment from Heather McMurray
The following is a duplication of a blog exchange between El Paso resident, Heather McMurray and Site Trustee,
Roberto Puga from the March 27th blog post titled “The future for ASARCO.”
Comment by Heather — March 28, 2012 @ 1:14 am
As the El Paso Trustee has stated before, the TRUST is under NO fiduciary or contractual responsibility to test
the stack [s] or slag from the process water distillation unit —- in other words to let us know what illegal
chemicals remain here. The EPA and Federal Dept of Justice said that Asarco had run an illegal multi state
hazardous waste incineration operation from 1991 to 1998 to make $$$$. Despite the Trust spending nearly
1/2 million dollars on testing we still do not have test results as thorough as those run for $twenty-thousand
dollars by a private citizen — which provided a full metals panel. This site should not have schools,
playgrounds or businesses until we are told the complete picture. It takes only swallowing or breathing ONE
alpha radioactive particle for the exposure to be more toxic than arsenic. So why after six years of questions
to the EPA and others, we cannot get a report showing what radioisotopes remain including radioactive lead,
radium, radon, actinide-metals……. Why on earth is this land zoned for high-density of people and as a
‘walkable’ area when it is safer to stay inside with the windows shut according to an arsenic expert in N.C.?
admin Reply: April 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Response from the Trust
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your comment and continued interest in this challenging project.
The Trust, the TCEQ and the EPA maintain that the Site is adequately characterized and based on the
extensive sampling effort and chemical analyses performed on soil, slag and groundwater, the constituents of
concern that drive the current remediation program are the previously identified metals: arsenic, lead and
cadmium. Regarding other wastes handled at the site and their potential to have left residues after
incineration which could pose some risk over and beyond the risk posed by the metals contamination, the
Trust has fully evaluated the site documentation, including EPA records, process information, and manifests
for shipments to the Site (a review of materials is currently provided on the Trust’s website at
http://www.RecastingTheSmelter.com and will be updated as new information is identified and reviewed)
and conferred with EPA, TCEQ and former employees on the matter. We additionally conducted additional
sampling and testing in all areas where the former employees indicated concerns. We have also reviewed
and commented previously regarding both enhanced natural and man made radioactive materials and noted
that many radioactive materials occur naturally and are present everywhere and that there is no evidence of
improper handling of radioactive materials at the Site.
Given the many investigations performed at the Site, the close oversight by TCEQ and EPA and the review of
all available information and data by the Trust team, the conclusion is that the chemical characterization of
the site is adequate and the proposed plan for the cleanup of the Site is protective of both human health and
the environment.
The current cleanup standard for the plant site is Commercial/Industrial, which was previously determined
by TCEQ. Only future development that is consistent with commercial / industrial use is allowed in the plant
site. This precludes schools, daycare facilities, extended care facilities, residential uses and hospitals from
being built on the Site.
Additionally, as you may be aware, in 2010 the City of El Paso commissioned a development study of various
parts of the City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl. The development
study included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the community regarding their
vision for the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study recommended that the former
ASARCO site properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the area between Paisano Drive and the
Rio Grande formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for commercial/light industrial use. Again, these
properties are not zoned for residential use.
However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have
wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be cleaned
up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of contamination
on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on the findings of the
investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be developed as residential.
As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired uses for all of the properties
and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.
January 16, 2012
Email regarding zoning at the Site
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga. Mr. Puga’s response is
bolded
Mr. Puga,
I plead with you, to examine your conscience, your faith and values as a human-being: do not let children
grow up on the old Asarco site. Tell the community the truth.
According to the Federal Dept. of Justice/EPA Asarco sent the stuff here to be incinerated for the almighty-
dollar. Mexican American children, the elderly and the ill were deliberately sacrificed for profit.
Someone sent secret hazardous wastes to Asarco El Paso for incineration during the 1990’s knowing it would
hurt us.
Please let the communities know that the TRUST is not responsible under its Asarco-Bankruptcy-Contract for
addressing any of what Asarco did between 1991 and 1998. That our region has been environmentally
sacrificed to materials more toxic than arsenic if inhaled or swallowed. That you and the Trust are not
required to address that problem. Paving over the Asarco site will not make it safe.
thank you,
Heather
Mr. Puga’s response:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your continued interest in the remediation of the former ASARCO site.
As you may be aware, the City of El Paso in 2010 commissioned a development study of various parts of the
City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl. The development study
included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the community regarding their vision for
the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study recommended that the former ASARCO site
properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the area between Paisano Drive and the Rio Grande
formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for commercial/light industrial use. These properties are not
zoned for residential use.
However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have
wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be cleaned
up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of contamination
on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on the findings of the
investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be developed as residential.
As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired uses for all of the properties
and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.
As to your second point, the Trust was not provided with resources or mandate to address past physical
injuries that may have been incurred by any person who worked at the ASARCO plant, and was not provided
with resources or mandate to address ASARCO’s “actions,” legal or otherwise, while it owned the site.
However, the Trust was tasked with: 1) coming up with the best remedial plan achievable with the money
provided by the bankruptcy court to address the environmental concerns and 2) to sell the property
according to the appropriate uses allowed by the TCEQ and EPA, in conjunction with consultation with the
City of El Paso on the use and sale of the property; the Trust is committed to fulfilling these tasks.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
Trustee
Comment by Heather — April 4, 2012 @ 3:28 am
Mr. Puga,
Dover Kolh did not inform the community about the illegal wastes present at the Asarco site. I was there. So the community was dreaming a better life for land far more contaminated than they were told.
I realize that “smart growth” is a process begun along with prior EPA staff to cleanup what the call “brownfields” However,
this site should be a superfund site and to “clean it up” —- to move people to work and live there is wrong
You worked on this site’s remediation without giving this community a chemical analysis of the pond sludge that had been dried in the bedding building and then sent clear down to corpus christi for disposal [2006]. Were samples taken fron the inside of this building when testing for the ex-workers. I could not find any mention of it — only the outside.
Same as we were denied an official sample from the remains of that facilities “Ionics brine distillation unit” by the Trust, the TCEQ and the EPA. Not only are we denied full metals-analysis of that machine — and the “contop” stack — including actinide metals; but, we have been denied a sample of of our own to test—-unbelievable since the Trust has spent nearly half a million dollars on testing without apparently testing for actinides.
This community is not being told the whole story
December 01, 2011
Question regarding mercury values for water and soil samples
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga. Mr. Puga’s response is
bolded.
Hello, Mr. Puga,
Have you seen this EPWU data taken at two sample sites (2006) – one being the old Asarco bridge where
storm water from the Asarco site would flow into the canal around the posts at the old bridge. Mercury and strontium showed high values.
We do not know what strontium isotopes were involved. Other chemicals also showed high values.
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your continued interest in the ASARCO project.
The concentrations of mercury and strontium in the water and soil samples attached to your e-mail were
compared to the EPA drinking water standards and the TCEQ total soil combined standards for both
residential and commercial properties. The sample concentrations of strontium and mercury do not exceed
the referenced standards.
The concentrations of lead and arsenic are the two chemicals in the soil samples that do exceed commercial
standards. However, that is not surprising since lead and arsenic are the main constituents of concern that
are driving the remedial response. The lead and arsenic around the storm water ponds will be addressed as
part of the environmental remedial actions taken at the site.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
October 18, 2011
Question regarding analyzed soil samples at the ASARCO site
The following is an email exchange that took place 10/6/2011 – 10/18/2011 between Heather McMurray and the
Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses are bolded.
Mr. Puga,
Is there any chance for the following, “If the lab is now done with the soil samples, please provide these to the
community to a lab of choice, with chain of custody instead of allowing these to be destroyed (this has
precedence – we have soil samples archived already from the TCEQ).”
thank you,
Heather McMurray
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Unfortunately, the Trust cannot comply with your request. As you know, environmental samples only yield
valid results when the sampling and analysis are conducted to a rigid and agreed upon protocol. Releasing
the samples to other parties after they have undergone analysis is not part of our Quality Assurance/Quality
Control protocol.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
Dear Mr. Puga,
We already have chain of custody soil samples from the Asarco site.
Please send me the link (or a copy) of your “quality assurance/quality control protocol”.
“Releasing the samples to other parties after they have undergone analysis is not part of our Quality
Assurance/Quality Control protocol.”
Heather McMurray
Dear Ms. McMurray,
The Quality Assurance Project Plan and Field Sampling Plan are Appendices B and C of the Final Remedial
Action Work Plan. You can find these documents on the Trust’s website at the following link:
http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/asarco-
final-rawp-with-appendices-04-2011.pdf
If you would like a hard copy sent to you, we would be happy to prepare one and mail it. Please send my your
address if you would like the hard copy.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
October 18, 2011
Question regarding stormwater stored onsite
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee.
Dear Mr. Puga,
Thank you for contacting me.
The storm water is not suitable for dust suppression — unless the Trust only tests for the chemical-analytes
that the bankruptcy-court legally requires and/or the ones that the Trust has added. These do not look for
actinide-metals and the low level radioactive waste isotopes — even though we know that the material went
to the smelter, that it removed LLRW from the process water, and we have repeatedly asked for the data.
That storm water requires a pass through a Distillation unit that is rated to remove LLRW.
Please send me a picture (jpg) of the data-sheet(s) showing the max-daily 24-hr rain events. I live 3 miles from
the asarco site and remember this year’s storms.
Is there a rain collection cylinder at the Parker Brothers arroyo?
We have traced the water feeding the Parker Brothers arroyo. Water from a huge area of the Franklin mts is
directed to paved-culverts that meet in a single culvert that travels beneath the IBWC building and then
empties to the beginning of the Parker Brother’s arroyo. That is a huge surface area funneled into a single
flow. Doesn’t that water flow go immediately into the culvert that travels under I10 and the Asarco property.
There must be engineering diagrams for those city culverts showing expected flow from various rain events.
The flow in Parker Brother’s Arroyo cannot be simply calculated by the amount of rainfall on site.
We are concerned about the site runoff that always occurs down the unpaved-road from Asarco to Executive.
The storm-water permit never declared water-discharge to Executive Drive. Also, we are concerned about the manholes and culverts on the Asarco site-proper that receive storm water.
The storm ponds at Asarco were built relatively recently, and water was allowed to accumulate in Rubber
Lake until the 500 year flood event that caused the side of Rubber Lake to fail. Although that was shored-up
with new soil (still visible from I10) rubber lake’s liner was compromised on that side. I have films of that,
and there is also a film posted online. We have never heard if that liner can still-withstand a 100-year-flood-
event as specified.
Visual confirmation for total rainfall is not effective unless you are visually confirming the water-
accumulation against the proper measuring-scale (a rain collection cylinder) or can confirm amount of debris
carried off (water flow).
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Dear Ms. McMurray, We have not used the stored storm water for dust suppression. All water used for dust suppression so far has
been potable city water.
I have attached the 2011 rain fall total taken from our on-site weather station. The data are from January
through September 2011.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
October 18, 2011
Question regarding conducting beryllium tests at the ASARCO site
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga.
Dear Trustee Puga,
Hazardous constituents regulated under waste codes K061, K062, and F006 include: beryllium, nickel, lead,
silver, cadmium, thallium, vanadium and zinc. These were handled by Asarco Encycle and El Paso.
Are you responsible under your contract with the Bankruptcy court for conducting tests for Beryllium at the
Asarco El Paso site?
Thank you for answering questions from the public. I was concerned about workers at the site not wearing
dust masks; and, if the Asarco stormwater and/or sewer pipes joined the stormwater pipe running the length
of the Paisano-IBWC access road (and emptying into the old American canal); but, have not gotten a reply. I
realize that you are busy.
Thank you,
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Beryllium has not been identified as a constituent of concern at the EL Paso Smelter site; this finding is
consistent with previous work conducted under TCEQ and EPA oversight, and is consistent with our
approved Remedial Action Work Plan.
The smelter site storm water has one outlet on Paisano Drive which drains directly to the Rio Grande. The
site’s storm water drainage system is not designed to drain storm water to Paisano Drive.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
October 06, 2011
Site Trustee answers questions regarding the ASARCO 800-ft stack
The following is an email exchange between Heather McMurray and the Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses
are in bold.
Please respond about the horizontal crack/fracture at the top of the 800-plus foot-tall-concrete Asarco stack
(near top, facing the Cd. Juarez side – visible when wet) ; and, to also let us know where the concrete/debris
will be landfilled.
Also, please identify for us the pipe (below) looking toward the Railroad trestle.
Does this pipe show up on any of the drainage/pipe diagrams that you have, and what does it drain?
Thank you,
Heather Mcmurray
El Paso, TX
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you once again for your continued interest in this project.
We have contracted with Dykon Explosive Demolition to design the implosion of the two towers. Part
of the preparation of the blasting plan is a complete assessment of the current condition of the stacks.
Current weaknesses in the stacks will be factored into the blast plan.
We are planning a public meeting on Thursday November 3, 2011, specifically to explain how the
implosions will take place, the engineering evaluations behind the plan and the measures be taken to
protect the surrounding community. We have begun meeting with the Fire Department, which has the
primary responsibility for permitting the implosions.
The concrete debris from the stacks will be landfilled on-site in specially designed waste cells. The
draft design for the hazardous waste cell can be found on our website.
Our crews will be walking the canal bank to find the pipe shown on the photograph. Once we locate it,
we can answer your question more fully.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
Thank you, Mr. Puga.
-Heather McMurray
Dear Ms. McMurray, We have located the pipe shown in the photograph embedded in your e-mail. It is located adjacent to
the IBWC facility on Paisano Drive. The pipe is connected to a storm sewer inlet on Paisano in front of
the IBWC property. Attached please find a series of photographs that show the pipe and the inlet.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
Mr. Puga,
Thank you for the very quick follow-up. It is much appreciated.
Does that storm water inlet connect midway to a storm-sewer tunnel traveling beneath Paisano? Or, is that
storm inlet the very beginning of that pipe/tunnel.
thank you,
Heather McMurray
Dear Ms. McMurray,
From our observation from the street, it appears that the inlet leads directly to the pipe terminating at
the bank of the canal.
Roberto Puga
0 comments
October 06, 2011
Question regarding stack demolition safety
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee:
Mr. Puga,
The El Paso Times’ photo showing the workers standing next to the Acid-Plant/Contop Stack after it fell did
not show the workers wearing dust masks.
http://elpasotimes.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?
image=37840764&event=1325919&CategoryID=34682&picnum=5&move=B#Image
Were the workers required to wear dust masks?
Thank you,
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Ms. McMurray,
The workers shown in the photograph approached the fallen stack after it had been dropped and the
dust had cleared. There was no one around the stack during the drop and immediately after.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
October 06, 2011
Trustee responds to email regarding TV station news story about the latest soil sampling results
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee:
I find the following news from the Trust about Asarco El Paso test results incredulous. “If there are decades of
pollution contaminating El Paso’s Asarco site, there is no evidence of it …”
Please provide link to test protocol/chain of custody and results(or copy of same). If the lab is now done with
the soil samples, please provide these to the community to a lab of choice, with chain of custody instead of
allowing these to be destroyed (this has precedence – we have soil samples archived already from the TCEQ).
Thank you,
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Hello Ms. McMurray,
I was also disturbed by the characterization by the TV station of our soil sampling results.
Clearly, the site is heavily impacted and contaminated. The Trust released a press statement on
Tuesday of this week clarifying that 1) the site is very much contaminated and 2) what are the actual
purposes of the soil sample results released on Monday. I have attached the press release for your
information.
[Click to view press release.]
Regards,
Roberto Puga
[The TV station has recently updated their story.]
0 comments
October 06, 2011
Trustee answers questions regarding the effect of the stack demolition on the American Canal
The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Trustee:
Hello, Mr. Puga,
We respectfully request a sample of the stack brick from the inside surface of the stack and any hollow
ventilation wall; as well as a scraping from the inside of the ConTop metal stack – to be sent for archiving to a
scientist of our choice, with chain of custody.
The stack implosion is not the only source of vibration – the stack-debris landing on the surface of that 80 feet
of slag would create an impact. Juan Garza had predicted that the side of the long -storm pond above the
railroad tracks and next to that stack was failing; and, showed through photographs that the concrete stack
itself has a crack in it – visible when it is wet. Although vibration may not appear to impact that storm pond,
it could have an effect on that “dam” above the railroad tracks in a 100 yr flood event. Perhaps you could
include an IBWC engineer in the study’s initial design, before it is finished and posted/discussed. IBWC is
responsible for the old American Canal that not only feeds over 70 miles of farm irrigation but also now
supplies over 60% of our City drinking water.
There are two American canals locally and one in California. Generally the one beside Asarco that travels five
miles to the Franklin Canal is described as the old American canal because it was constructed in the 1930’s.
IBWC would have pictures of the construction showing the two-layered bi-directional construction of the
concrete panels making up that canal. When the canal was patched-up in 2007 (just before it passed under
Paisano to travel along the smelter), the El Paso Inc. photos suggest that they patched it with a single concrete
layer (which would respond differently to vibration).
You will be demolishing the stack during winter. Can the engineers predict the behavior of the old american
canal panels after-implosion of the stack when irrigation/drinking water begins flowing in March/April?
Please let me know if possible where the stack debris will be taken for disposal. I would like to know where
other debris has been sold, melted, and/or disposed of, also. Some of that is on the recastingthesmelter site
but I do not know what dump is being used for disposal of dirt and concrete debris. Is any of that debris
being taken to the Camino Real Dump or the El Paso City dumps?
The IBWC asked for nearly 30 million dollars way back in 2001 to both repair and remediate the old
American Canal. That is almost the entire amount that the Bankruptcy court gave the Trust to clean up all of
the Asarco El Paso site.
In my lay opinion, your Trust should be legally notifying the current Administration’s DOJ Bankruptcy
Trustee (for-that-court’s-region in Corpus Christi TX) that her predecessor under the Bush Administration
failed to oversight the Asarco Bankruptcy allowing the court to ignore all Asarco’s liabilities from the illegal
unpermitted and secret multi-state hazardous-waste disposal operation. In my lay opinion, the court should
have awarded your Trust way more monies for the remediation than the Trust got; and, as a result of
ignoring the illegal wastes have placed you/the Trust in a terrible situation whereby your contract ignores
those poisons, also – and so places our community’s health in perpetual risk.
Please do not include the signature trailer on email to me that says: “This electronic mail transmittal (“E-
mail”) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including, but not limited
to, information protected by the attorney/client privilege. If the reader of this E-mail is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the E-mail to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail communication is strictly
prohibited.”
All my work is for the public good and not for private gain; and, I reserve the right to disseminate your email
to the public if necessary. I appreciate your help.
Thank you,
Heather McMurray
Roberto Puga’s response:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your continued interest in this challenging project.
The Trust does not allow private parties to collect samples on its properties. The Trust does willingly
cooperate with the regulatory agencies overseeing the work (TCEQ and EPA) and certainly allows them
access for observation and sampling as they find necessary. I suggest that you run your request for
sampling through them.
The IBWC is part of the large group of agency stakeholders that we are coordinating the stack
demolition with; in their case specifically regarding the canal. We will make sure that they understand
the results of our studies and that they be allowed to provide input.
The concrete debris from the stack will be disposed of on the site. Metal debris such as rebar will be
recycled.
The Trust was funded with $52,000,000 for the clean-up of the site. I have been able to augment that
amount by the sale of various site assets such as rail lines, the oxygen plant, and scrap metals. There is
no more money available from the ASARCO settlement.
The trailer at the end of our e-mails is meant solely for someone who gets the e-mail in error. You, as
the main correspondent, have every right to use and distribute the e-mails as you see fit. Additionally,
as you are aware, our correspondence with you is posted on the Trust’s website and is therefore in the
public domain.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
September 16, 2011
Question for the Site Trustee from Heather McMurray
The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga:
Hello,
Has an engineer studied the effect of the proposed-demolition-charges for the Asarco stack(s) on the
concrete-panels of the old american canal right next to those stacks?
The panels are warping and very old – one panel failed in 2006-7 and many others along that stretch have
problems. The canal is over 80 years old.
This canal carries 60% of our drinking water and all the irrigation water for over 70 miles of irrigation
system. Any cracks or failures of the canal next to the demolition (or the vibration from the stacks falling on
the ground) would allow the toxins just beneath those panels to enter the canal.
If a study has been done, I would like to be allowed to view a copy. If not, then the IBWC should be allowed to
comment on the demolition’s possible effects to their water system (including the American Dam) before the
demolition begins in 2012.
thank you,
Heather
Response from Roberto Puga:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your question. We have begun the planning and engineering for the stack demolition.
We envision that the stack demolition will occur in the first quarter 2012.
One of the first engineering tasks is a ground vibration study that will look at resultant ground motions from the stack implosion and their potential effects
to exisitng structures on and adjacent to the ASARCO site, including on-site buildings, rail tracks and of
course the All-American canal. The study’s findings will be discussed face to face with representatives
of the IBWC. The study will also be posted to the Trust’s website. We anticipate that the study will be
availble to the IBWC and the website in about 4 to 5 weeks.
Regards,
Roberto Puga
0 comments
September 07, 2011
Storm Water Discharge Analytical Results 2011
The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga:
Hello, are there any results for 2011? I can only find results from last year posted. We have had a lot of rain
recently.
Storm Water Discharge Analytical Results
July 26, 2010
February 16, 2010
Response from Roberto Puga:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thanks again for your continued interest in the ASARCO project.
The plant site has received approximately 1.9 inches of rain this year, with a maximum daily amount
of 0.16 inches of rain observed in July. This rainfall has generated approximately 500,000 gallons of
storm water collected in lined ponds on the plant site. The storm water is currently contained in Pond
A of the storm water system. The storm water system can hold approximately 8 Million gallons of
water. The Trust is currently evaluating if the water is suitable for reuse on site for dust suppression.
Since the ponds are approximately 10 percent of capacity, there are currently no plans to discharge the
storm water. If the water is discharged to the storm water system an analytical sample will be
collected and analyzed prior to discharge to ensure the water meets the discharge limits.
In addition to the storm water stored onsite, storm water is also sampled, when present, in Parker
Brothers Arroyo. Based on site history, the amount of rainfall required to generate storm water flow in
Parker Brothers Arroyo is approximately 0.25 inches of rainfall in a short period of time. Based on the
rainfall totals observed on site this year, a daily maximum of 0.16 inches, and confirmed with visual
observation, no storm water flow has been generated in Parker Brothers Arroyo; therefore, no storm
water sample has been collected. When storm water samples are collected on site the results will be
posted to the project website (www.recastingthesmelter.com).
Regards,
Roberto Puga
February 17, 2011
Questions for the Site Trustee from Heather McMurray
The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga: Ms. Schell,
Please do not play the community for being fools. That Pirnie document did not include all Encycle
documents – left out the illegal wastes — left out ALL the manifests regarding that.
That was brought to the attention of the EPA in Dallas.
Your contractors also did not warn the community yesterday during the ASARCO fire about the dangers
within that black billowing smoke from the illegal-secret chemicals caked onto those metal conduits from
years of Asarco’s illicit activities.
Why not??
thank you,
Heather McMurray
Response from Roberto Puga:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you for your continued interest in the ASARCO Smelter project.
The document referenced in your question did contain and evaluate all of the relevant Encycle
documents posted on the EPA Region 6 website, in total 2176 pages that included 300 manifests of
wastes that were shipped illegally to El Paso. We augmented that with one additional manifest we
found at the site. This represents all available documentary information on the illegal wastes sent to
the smelter from Encycle. We had extensive discussions with EPA Region 6 to make sure we had all
available Encycle information for our report.
Regarding yesterday’s incident, we contacted EPA, TCEQ and OSHA about the incident. I have ordered
all work stopped until we have completed our Root Cause Analysis investigation and I am assured that
it is safe to resume our work. The unit that burned was part of the water treatment plant at the site,
which was not among the process units at the smelter that came in contact with materials to be
smelted. The black smoke seen was caused by a fiberglass access grate on the unit that caught fire.
Sincerely,
Roberto Puga, Site Trustee
0 comments
February 16, 2011
Questions from Heather McMurray
The following are questions sent from Heather McMurray Ms. Schell,
Have the proposed contractors been notified about the presence of unknown illegal toxic wastes onsite?
Has the matte been fully analyzed for all potential hazardous metals including actinides? Why/why not?
thank you,
Heather McMurray
Response from Elizabeth Schell:
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thanks you for your continued interest in this project.
Both of our contractors for the project, Malcolm-Pirnie and ERM, are fully briefed on all information
about the site processes, both legal and illegal. As a matter of fact, Malcolm-Pirnie has prepared a
comprehensive report on the legal and illegal processes that occurred at the site; it is very thorough
and includes a discussion of every document found about the Encycle materials brought to the site.
You can find the report at:
http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-
content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/Review-of-ASARCO-El-Paso-Smelting-
Processes-Report-FINAL.pdf
.
*****
Regards,
Elizabeth Schell
anuary 05, 2011 Where are the most recent Storm Water Discharge analytical results?
Question emailed from Heather McMurray: Where are the most recent Storm Water Discharge analytical results? Currently there are only results from
February and July 2010.
Response from the Trust:
Dear Ms. McMurray, Water from the site is accumulated in the retention ponds and is only sampled when one of the ponds
starts to reach capacity. The storm water accumulation depends on the weather and we maintain pond
water levels to handle seasonal storm events. Because of the overall low rainfall only a few sampling
and discharge events may occur during the year. All storm water analytical results are currently
posted on the Trust website.
November 17, 2010
Site Trustee Responds to Emailed Questions from Heather McMurray
Trustee responses are in bold.
Dear Ms. McMurray,
Thank you once again for your continuing interest in this very challenging project. We have been
researching and compiling responses to your previous questions. Your questions and our responses
are below; your questions appear in black font and our responses are in bold.
Mr. Puga:
Current research by M.D.’s (2009) show significant radon contamination throughout El Paso – heavily
associated with the dirt outside of homes, and they recommend clean-up. The levels are very significant. It is
very interesting that you state “El Paso County has low radon potential” when the medical doctors are finding
radon to be a huge problem here.
Response: As we pointed out in our previous response and as described in the paper referenced, radon
is naturally occurring. Radon is a recognized concern in homes in some areas of the country. The
Asarco plant area is a commercial / industrial site and since no residences are present on the property,
radon is simply not a constituent of concern to be measured. The paper you are referring to which is
by Dr. Irina Cech and others from the University of Texas titled: Factors Contributing to Elevated
Indoor Radon in the Paso Del Norte Region of the Texas-Mexico Border: Information for Physicians
published in the in the Southern Medical Journal, July 2009 – Volume 102 – Issue 7 – pp 701-706 discusses
the issue. Notwithstanding the discussion in the paper relating soil radon to levels in homes, the fact is
that both EPA and the State of Texas rate El Paso County as having low overall radon potential. While
the paper gives cause to consider the matter in a broader public health forum, plainly stated, there is
simply no linkage between natural radon levels discussed the paper and the smelter operations that
warrant additional investigation.
We already know from the EPA that El Paso TX had the highest Beta Radiation levels in the nation just before
Asarco El Paso shut down in 2/99. Mr. Bill Luthans asserted that this was “naturally occurring radiation” (or
“NORM”/”TENORM”) and said it was not a problem – but could not provide data to back-up his statement that
the radiation was not a problem.
Response: We are unaware of any information regarding high beta radiation levels in El Paso during
the 1998-1999 time period that you refer to. The EPA maintains a series of monitoring stations which
record radiation levels in air, water and precipitation throughout the country and radiation monitors
in El Paso have operated continuously between 1981 and 2010. EPA data for the time period between
June 1998 and June 1999 show no anomalous gross beta radiation readings. The only significant beta
readings in El Paso as well as in other locations in the US occur between March and June of 1986 which
corresponds to the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Russia.
To the extent we can comment on Mr. Luthans response, we do not believe that any sort of beta
radiation can be attributed to the El Paso smelter given the nature of the mineral concentrates sent to
the plant for smelting. To clarify, NORM is essentially natural uranium, thorium and potassium that is
present in trace amounts in all rock, soil, water and air. These elements are present from the time the
Earth was created and over time, decay and change into “daughter” products, some of which are
radioactive (i.e. radon), others of which are stable or non-radioactive. Processing can “Technologically
Enhance” NORM and create “TENORM” under certain chemical conditions. We know TENORM occurs
in copper mining and leaching operations in Arizona and given this fact, we carefully reviewed the
study by EPA produced in 1999 on this subject and reviewed additional data sheets from mining
companies producing concentrates. Beta radiation issues are not reported in this study. To the extent
of our information, given the nature of the smelter feed and the level of documentation on the subject,
we do not believe that the concentrates processed at the plant could result in elevated beta radiation,
TENORM or other radioactive materials above any regulatory limits. For further information on
natural radioactivity see this link (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm).
You are incorrect to state that “Radon gas, which is a naturally occurring substance, is not measured using
XRF methods”. Radon is an element that appears from radium decay, and can be detected with many
different methods. It is radioactive and hazardous to our health.
Response: It is correct that radon can be measured a number of different ways. However, as we stated
previously, radon gas is not measured using XRF methods. Methods to measure radon under field and
laboratory conditions which are documented by EPA may be found at the EPA’s website.
http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/device_protocols.html. XRF methods are not included in this list.
You did not provide any links or documents showing any XRF data from ASARCO. In fact, Asarco El Paso
refused to allow XRF technology to be tested on-site) to determine what chemicals have been left here by the
nearly ten years of illegal, untracked, incineration of both military and industrial wastes for profit by Asarco
El Paso.
Response: The Asarco site has been extensively investigated and the results from the various site
investigations which include the analytical results for metals done by XRF methods may be found at
the TCEQ website. These results are included in the attachments and appendices to the investigation
reports. See the following website: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco/downloads
The metal results in previous site investigations appear to be laboratory XRF results. We should point
out that XRF methods are primarily screening tools for detecting metals at semi-quantitative levels
and are not used to measure organic chemicals. We cannot comment on Asarco’s use of these
instruments since their activities ceased long before the Trust took possession of the property. From a
compliance perspective, we rely on laboratory analytical results which are much more accurate and
sensitive than analytical field methods such as XRF.
I would like to know why Project Navigator continues to dodge the question of the illegal chemical residues at
the site. I would like Project Navigator to provide data showing the radon, radium and radio-isotope levels at
the site. EPA has provided proof now that ASARCO handled radioactive materials.
Response: As we have stated previously, both the EPA and GAO have reviewed and reported on the
Asarco and Encycle matter which addressed the issue of improper waste handling. Enforcement action
was taken against Asarco and the matter was settled in 1999. The GAO report and subsequent EPA
documents are clear in their findings and conclusions regarding the issue.
As we discussed above, Asarco, as a large integrated metal producer and refiner obviously handled a
wide variety materials including radioactive materials. Given the scrutiny of the site from both state
and federal authorities, we do not expect man-made radioisotopes, TENORM, byproducts or residues at
levels above their respective natural levels. Our focus is on the identified constituents which include
lead, arsenic and cadmium.
A review of the available records found a December of 1995 letter where ENCYCLE informed the
TNRCC that it had received a lead sulfide waste; containing naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM). This letter stated that the NORM was present at quantities less than the regulated level; but it
did not indicate the quantity of material or if the material was shipped to the Asarco El Paso smelter.
We reviewed the letter described and it only states that Encycle received some type of lead sulfide
material containing NORM. There is no other information we have found which shows where the material went or the quantity.
I would like to know who Mary Koks is (you copied her on your reply) at ; and, why you felt it necessary to
also copy the TCEQ attorney, Caroline Sweeney on your reply. Are Radon and NORM/TENORM at ASARCO
something that Project Navigator is afraid to discuss with the public?
Response: Mary Koks is the attorney for Texas Custodial Trust and is part of the project team. As part
of the project team she is copied on correspondence and reviews product produced by the Trust. Since
Trust operates at the direction of the TCEQ, they are copied on correspondence relating to the site
submitted by the public. We have been completely up-front with our information regarding issues of
contamination at the site including radon as discussed above.
Details about what chemicals have been left here by the nearly ten years of illegal, untracked, incineration of
both military and industrial wastes for profit by Asarco El Paso continue to be kept secret; but, such
secrecy/gag is likely illegal now that the Federal Dept. of Justice made the confidential-for-settlement-
purposes-only EPA-DOJ-Asarco agreement public domain.
Project Navigator should honor the intent of this public-domain-release of information; and, also the La Paz
Accord JAC committee International Recommendation (to measure background contamination levels). To
continue to withhold full disclosure from the public about the poisons remaining around this site is ethically
and morally wrong; potentially places the elderly, the young, the unborn and the ill in grave dangers that
could be averted; and potentially puts Project Navigator in the sad role of making profits in a fake clean-up at
the expense of our future generations.
Heather Mcmurray
Response: As we have stated previously, the Trust has been completely transparent in its discussions
regarding the constituents of concern at the site and made available to the public all material it has
and there is nothing kept “secret” by the Trust. Any other documents not in our possession are
available from TCEQ or EPA. For the current cleanup program, the Trust has posted on its website all
documents it produces in the form of plans, specifications, presentations and reports. The allegation
that the Trust, which is charged with cleaning up the Asarco site, is somehow withholding information
or failing to pursue issues relevant to health and safety of the community is simply false and
unsupported by its actions.
The Trust operates under the direction of TCEQ and EPA, however, cross-border matters as they relate
to the La Paz Accord are not within the scope of the Trust’s charge. These matters are managed EPA.
Project Navigator will continue to review information related the Asarco El Paso smelter as
appropriate and we will seek the guidance of the regulatory agencies as new information becomes
available.
We believe we have responded to your, and the El Paso community’s, questions openly and honestly. We will continue to do so during the course of our activities at the site.
Best Regards,
Roberto Puga
Trustee
0 comments
***** [Mcmurray]
If you look at that pdf (which states it cannot be downloaded securely, btw) at http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp- content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/Review-of-ASARCO-El-Paso-Smelting- Processes-Report-FINAL.pdf
It has an appendix "B. ENCYCLE 1992-1997 Manifest Summary"
And, it lists references at the bottom including the (1) "EPA Response to Encycle/ASARCO Settlement Statement, (1998 Confidential Document) July 31, 1998 (73 pages)"
SO you'D *think* that the long manifest summary considers that confidential document?!!! Well, look at the far right column for a (1) and there AREN'T ANY. !!!!!!!
