El Paso County Metals Survey Site
Timeline of Events
2001 - 2005
January 2001. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh contacts the Texas Department of Health on January 29, 2001 and asks them to form a soil work group to investigate health risks to the community. His request is based on an article “Soil at UTEP includes toxins” regarding researchers Richard Okrasinski and Janet Greenlee fugitive dust research.
March 2001. The Texas Department of Health forms the soil work group with 16 participants including the Texas Department of Health, El Paso City/County Health Department, University of Texas at El Paso, SCERP, ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), Local EPA office, Dallas EPA office, CEMRC/NMSU – Carlsbad and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Asarco was not invited to participate.
March 2001. The consensus of the group is that the contamination is due to air fall out from past smelter exhaust. They conclude that if left alone and undisturbed the area should pose no threat to the community.
March 2001. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh does not accept the work groups’ conclusions and asks the TDH to contact the EPA Region 6 Superfund Division to do an investigation.
May 2001. A superfund plan was developed that included stabilizing and removing soil.
June 2001. Superfund is officially invited to El Paso. EPA holds a press conference announcing the investigation. Asarco officials or homeowner associations were not contacted regarding Superfund or the investigation.
June 2001. Asarco issues a press release informing the public that Asarco is under a 1996 Agreed Order with the State of Texas, signed by federal consent decree in 1999 with the EPA. The press release highlights Asarco’s ongoing environmental investigation of the plant site and the results of their investigation to date.
July 2001.
TCEQ officially turns over the lead to the EPA Region 6 Superfund Division based
on
“Five schools and several public parks that had elevated metals.”
July 2001. EPA releases validated data. Three sites at UTEP had elevated lead & slightly elevated arsenic above screening levels of 500 parts per million (ppm) lead (Pb) and 24 ppm arsenic (As). Five 5 residences on San Marcos had slightly elevated arsenic, 2 had slightly elevated lead, and 2 schools had slightly elevated lead (further sampling demonstrated no elevated levels) and one park had slightly elevated arsenic.
August 2001. EPA releases health consultations of high access public areas (schools, parks, university), and concludes that area public parks, schools and UTEP are safe. EPA states that ambient air monitoring did not reflect elevated metals in the air.
October 2001. EPA names Asarco, Inc. and an independent, third party crushing operation, Oglebay Norton Minerals Inc. (formerly Parker Brothers) potentially responsible parties for elevated metals in the La Calavera residential neighborhood (San Marcos Street) based on modeling and fugitive emissions of arsenic and lead. The neighborhood is adjacent to the Asarco operating site. The EPA gave both parties 90 days to respond.
November 2001. EPA announces to soil group that there is no health threat and no remediation necessary in Phase I. At the urging of State Senator Eliot Shapleigh, EPA Superfund agrees to sample 300 additional residential locations beginning in 2002.
November 2001. Asarco contacts residents living in La Calavera and receives access agreements to sample soils. Asarco performs the science including speciation (sources), and bioaccessibility. Asarco’s consultants scientifically determine elevated metals were not due to historical stack fallout. The primary sources of lead and arsenic were found to be slag fines and lead based paint chips and dust.
February 2002. EPA holds press conference to announce additional residential sampling.
February - March, 2002. EPA conducts scientific grid sampling of residential sites in a 3-mile radius of the American Canal.
March 2002. Asarco applies for the 10-year renewal of its air permit.
April 2002. The mayor’s environmental task force contacts the EPA for soil sample results. The task force sends an “emergency” memorandum to the mayor of El Paso targeting Asarco and copies the EPA.
April 2002. The TCEQ rules that Asarco’s permit renewal application is administratively complete.
May 2002. Oglebay Norton Minerals Inc. reaches a settlement with the EPA regarding the La Calavera neighborhood on San Marcos Street. Oglebay agrees to remove and replace soil using EPA screening levels of 500 ppm Pb and 24 ppm As.
May 2002. Asarco asks for public comments on its air permit renewal application during a 2-week period. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh, Harless Benthal (on behalf of the City of El Paso) and three other individuals file timely letters requesting a contested case hearing.
July 2002. The EPA declares El Paso a time-critical, emergency Superfund Site by issuing an "Action Memorandum" in which it proposes to spend up to $2 million removing contaminated soils found on the residential properties with the highest levels of contamination, at an estimated cost of $33,000 per yard. The EPA indicates it will use screening levels of 24 ppm As and 500 ppm Pb.
July 2002. The Texas Department of Health (TDH) in concert with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) releases results of a health consultation. The study concludes that the levels found which exceed "screening values" do not pose immediate health threats. The Consultation recommends further testing, including a bioavailability study (discussed below), and further characterization prior to deciding on appropriate public health actions.
July 2002. EPA identifies ASARCO as a potentially responsible party for the elevated metals, and requests ASARCO to assume responsibility for an open-ended cleanup of 45-2,000 yards within ten days of the notice.
July 2002. TCEQ writes to Senator Eliot Shapleigh regarding his request for a contested case hearing for Asarco’s permit renewal. TCEQ writes, “because this application is for a “no-increase” renewal, the opportunity for a contested case hearing is limited by the provisions of the Texas Clean Air Act.”
July 2002. ASARCO responds to EPA's letter stating EPA’s conclusions are “premature.” Asarco points out incomplete research and an inconsistent standard with EPA’s push for a soils clean-up and ask EPA to follow the TDH action plan before drawing any conclusions. Asarco also points out to EPA that they are under a 1996 Agreed Order with the State of Texas and signed by federal consent decree with the EPA in 1999 and suggests that this agreement would serve the community better.
August 2002. EPA releases its first round of soil tests at 432 residential sites within a three-mile radius of Asarco, and finds elevated levels of arsenic in excess of EPA's screening level of 24 PPM in 35 yards. The exact levels, number of elevated samples, and addresses remain confidential. The EPA announces that arsenic is their primary metal of concern.
July 2002 - April 2003. EPA conducts additional soil tests at more than 1,900 residential properties in the Mission Hills, Kern Place, Rim Area, Rio Grande and Sunset Heights neighborhoods.
October, 2002 – March, 2003. Asarco launches a volunteer program to sample soil in neighborhoods in the EPA investigation area. Asarco collects soil and begins speciation and bioavailability studies.
December 2002. Results of blood testing of 293 elementary school-aged children at Vilas Elementary School in Sunset Heights are released. Only 3 children tested higher than the current acceptable level for lead, showing no evidence of elevated lead levels attributable to area soils. Results of blood testing of nearly 400 elementary school-aged children and Mesita Elementary School show no elevated blood lead levels.
December 2002. EPA begins bioavailability and speciation tests to determine the risk of the elevated lead and arsenic levels and the source of contamination.
January 2003. The EPA states in an interview with the El Paso Inc that there is not an imminent health threat in El Paso.
March 2003. Asarco releases the preliminary data from its speciation study. Asarco announces that historical stack fallout is not a significant source of the metals and further testing will be done.
May 2003. Project Head Start conducts blood lead tests for more than 330 children in or near the investigation area. Two children test positive but are not attributed to elevated metals in soil.
June 2003. EPA receives approval to spend an additional $4 million to clean-up yards in the affected neighborhoods. EPA receives an additional $1 million from Asarco’s Environmental Trust Fund with the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA.
June 2003. The City of El Paso applies for a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for lead hazard control from lead based paint chipping and peeling in low-income neighborhoods including Segundo Barrio and Chihuahita.
July 2003. EPA releases the results of its bioavailability and speciation tests, changing the cleanup level for arsenic to 46 PPM and maintaining the lead clean up level at 500 PPM. The EPA announces that lead is now considered the primary metal of concern because most of the yards with elevated arsenic have been completed.
July 2003. Asarco releases the results of its bioassessibility and speciation tests. The significant sources of lead and arsenic are slag fines, lead based paint chips and dust, arsenical pesticides and naturally occurring metals.
September 2003. The City of El Paso receives approval for a nearly $750,000 federal grant from HUD to address lead paint. (Grant Agreement Number TXL0237-03)
September 2003. An independent, national expert paid by Asarco to peer review their speciation study, review blood lead data from the Texas Department of Health, and the EPA’s study writes, “As a result, blood lead values for the childhood population in the vicinity of the smelter do not result in a level of health concern that would warrant soil remediation, according to the criteria currently in use by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. EPA (i.e., that no more than 5% of the population will exceed 10 ug/dl lead in blood)… Given that blood lead concentrations around the smelter already conform to the U.S. EPA criteria for percentage of the childhood population below 10 ug/dl lead in blood, there do not appear to be unacceptable exposures occurring at the site. As a result, there is no justification for emergency soil removals. It is recommended that the Integrated Exposure Uptake BioKinetic (IEUBK) model be run, with an appropriate lead bioavailability value (as discussed above) and other site-specific model inputs, to establish a cleanup goal for lead in soil. The expert also recommends studying house dust.
October 2003. EPA and Neighborhoods participate in facilitated meetings. Establish three working groups to: 1) assess health issues, conduct bioavailability tests for lead, and re-visit IUEBK model for cleanup levels of lead; 2) explore alternate remediation strategies; and 3) address legal issues related to a potential NPL listing.
November 2003. EPA begins indoor dust sampling and refines lead bioavailability study. EPA expands the investigation to South El Paso neighborhoods (Segundo Barrio, San Antonio and Chihuahuita). EPA sends out 1100 access letters for additional sampling in South El Paso neighborhoods to determine boundaries of contamination. Working groups meet on health, alternatives and legal issues.
December 2003. HUD grant funds are released to the City of El Paso.
March 2004. The TCEQ announces a public meeting on Asarco’s air permit renewal and asks for written responses by April 19, 2004.
April 2004. The TCEQ allows State Senator Eliot Shapleigh to make a live presentation before the Commissioners. Asarco is not allowed to respond to Senator Shapleigh’s claims. The Commissioners rule (2-1) that they have “plenary” authority to grant a contested case hearing in El Paso in the “public interest.” The Commissioners name the City of El Paso as a party to the case and assigns the burden of proof on Asarco. This is the first time in the history of Texas that a contested case hearing is granted on “plenary” authority.
April 2004. The TDH in concert with the ATSDR releases a study on “Analysis for Risk Factors in Childhood Blood Lead Study 1997-2002.” The elevated blood lead Citywide is determined to be among the lowest percent in urban cities across Texas at 1.2%. Elevated blood lead correlations were shown for children living in older homes, immigration from Mexico, poverty, and distance from the smelter. 2.7% of children living within 1.9 miles of the smelter had elevated blood lead. However, all the children with elevated blood lead did not have elevated metals in their soil.
May 2004. EPA and Neighborhoods participate in a follow-up session to the October meeting and working groups. EPA proposes lead cleanup levels of 640 PPM, based on additional study. TCEQ proposes alternative cleanup strategies. Legal committee presents legal issues related to NPL listing. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh disputes the studies.
May 2004. Asarco files a Motion for Reconsideration to the TCEQ citing that the Commissioners overstepped their authority according to the law. The TCEQ asks for written responses from the timely filers and amicus briefs. Amicus briefs are filed by the El Paso Chamber of Commerce, Texas Association of Business, Association of Electric Companies of Texas, Texas Oil & Gas Association, Texas Chemical Council and the Texas Aggregates and Concrete Association. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh and the Office of Public Interest Council are filed in favor of the TCEQ’s decision.
June 2004. EPA receives additional $1 million from the Asarco’s Environmental Trust Fund with the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA for additional residential soil removal.
June 2004. A public meeting is held at City Hall to discuss whether the City of El Paso should file an application for NPL. After a long meeting, the homeowner association representatives ask for more time due to a 30-day public comment period on clean-up values and other pending questions. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh’s staff argues that the City of El Paso and the TCEQ should begin the process immediately to apply for a listing on the NPL. The mayor of El Paso informs the Senator’s staff that he will listen to the neighborhood representatives.
June 2004. Asarco officials meet with representatives from the mayor’s office, TCEQ, EPA, TDH and Senator Shapleigh’s office in Austin, Texas. Asarco indicates that their position on the source of the elevated metals has not changed, but that they will consider an open dialog and further meetings with the EPA to discuss solutions for the community utilizing Asarco’s environmental trust account.
June 2004. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh conducts a community meeting at El Paso Community College and asks the students to help shutdown Asarco.
July 2004. The mayor of El Paso announces that he will honor the requests of the homeowner association and only consider applying for the NPL as a last resort if no private funding for yard clean-up exists.
July 2004. State Senator Eliot Shapleigh leads a community activist group, Get the Lead Out Coalition, for a “March on City Hall.” The senator demands that City Council join the coalition in their efforts to shutdown Asarco and fight Asarco’s air permit renewal.
November 2004. The TCEQ Commissioners deny Asarco’s Motion for Reconsideration and TCEQ asks the State Office of Administrative Hearing to conduct a contested case hearing on Asarco’s air permit renewal. The date of the preliminary hearing is eventually set for January 27, 2005.
December 2004. Asarco files a lawsuit in the 261st District Court in Travis County against TCEQ stating that the Commissioner’s questions should be asked of the more than 3,000 TCEQ employees, not through a costly contested case hearing.
January 2005. The U.S. Department of Justice announces that $2 million has been approved for the 2005 for the El Paso residential clean-up. The EPA and Asarco must also approve that expenditure.
January 2005. The preliminary hearing on Asarco’s air permit renewal is held at the Tomas Rivera Center on the University of Texas at El Paso’s campus. The aligned parties are named and a hearing date is set for July 2005.
February 2005. A judge in the 261st Court of Travis County rules in favor of the TCEQ without an explanation in her ruling.
March 2005. The $2 million expenditure from Asarco’s national environmental trust fund is finalized.
May 2005. The U.S. EPA issues Asarco an unilateral administrative order authorizing Asarco to do residential cleanup utilizing an Asarco-hired contractor.
June 2005. Asarco issues a response to the unilateral administrative order and agrees to comply with the order.
June 2005. The U.S. EPA conducts a community meeting at Sunland Park, NM in conjunction with the New Mexico Environmental Department and other health officials.
July 2005. The contested case hearing lasts 2 weeks. Closing briefs are due in August.
July 2005. The U.S. EPA conducts a community meeting at UTEP at the Tomas Rivera Conference Center.
July 2005. Oglebay Norton Minerals begins dismantling their crushing operation at their operating site adjacent to the smelter.
July 2006. The U.S. Department of Justice releases an additional $2 million from Asarco's environmental trust fund for residential soil remediation making Asarco's total from the fund to date $6 million.
Documents
· El Paso/Doña Ana County Metals Survey Sampling Report - August 2001
· Removal Assessment Report for El Paso County Metals Site - December 2001
· Request for Removal Action Memorandum -
· Quality Assurance Sampling Plan and Response Plan for El Paso County Metals Survey Site -
· Final Site Assessment Report for El Paso/Doña Ana County Metals Survey Site - November 2002
· El Paso County Metals Site Timeline - 2003 and 2004
· Determination of In Vitro Bioaccesible Arsenic in Soils and Slags from Weston Solutions - May 2003
o Tables
[Home] [Asarco in El Paso] [El Paso Metals Investigation] [Lead and Arsenic Information]
[Community Newsletters] [Questions and Answers] [Company News] [Other Links] [Contact Us]