Don't Blow Your Stack, Part 2

Parker Brothers Arroyo - will contained contaminants one day leak out and 'cross the street' to the Rio Grande and El Paso drinking water?

Many conscientious, intelligent, reasonable members of El Paso's environmental community have argued for a long time now that the Asarco stacks should come down. They believe that razing them can be done without releasing any dangerous contaminants into the environment and any pollutants still remaining can be remediated or forever contained on site in a way that will never affect the health and welfare of the general public. They certainly don't agree that the stacks can ever be anything but reminders of a history of pollution and ill health even if not a puff of smoke will ever again come out of those chimneys.  Many of these people are friends or colleagues whose friendships and opinions I value. Among them is Peggy McNiel who took time to research for elpasonaturally the reasons for bringing the stacks down. I'm grateful to her for her work and her patience as she has waited two months now for me to publish what she found out. What follows is her report to me. Afterwards some rebuttal from others.  First Peggy:

"Here are a few follow-up comments to the discussion of the Asarco smokestacks.

"You are right about one point in my opinion, TCEQ has always wanted to demolish the smokestacks as part of their original remediation plan for the sight.  The same is true of the EPA in Tacoma, Washington and the Omaha, Nebraska site.  In all three areas clearing the smokestacks was part of the plan to rid the sites of toxic materials.

"The Expert Report, Estimation of Costs to PerformClean-Up at Asarco, April,2009 is available on the TCEQ website.  In it there is a section in the plan called, Demolition of Structures.

"'Since the plant has ceased operations, the reuse of existing buildings and structures is unlikely because different operations require different structure and building specifications. The lack of routine maintenance will accelerate the deterioration of the buildings and structures.  The deterioration of the structures will pose a hazard to any unauthorized persons and, as is the case with the smokestacks and the bridge over I-10, will pose a direct hazard to the public.

"'Demolition of the existing buildings and structures is the most cost effective remedy for long term care of the facility.  Demolition will also allow TCEQ to address any contamination under such buildings and structures. 

"'The TCEQ proposes to remove all buildings and structures at the site.'

"Demolition of the structures was the first item on the $52 million budget.

"From a letter from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club to the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C. as part of the Public Comments:

'11. The entire large 828 stack and other stacks need to be regarded as Toxic Waste...'

"From reading the TCEQ's documents, it is quite clear to the reader that the demolition of the stacks was well thought out by the TCEQ.  The cost estimate was intensely evaluated with consideration given to the process and indeed was the first task listed in the itemized remediation budget.

"Yet, the TCEQ and the EPA in coordination with Puga continued their evaluation and sought community input before making a decision.  This debate went on for at least 3 years.  So I don't think we can say that TCEQ, the EPA and Puga made this decision lightly.

"Those of us who wanted Puga to stick by his original deadline of Nov. 2011 were furious with him for extending the deadline by 1 year and then another month. 

"However, Puga outlined what conditions had to be met and the cost to safely leave the stacks standing.  These conditions were not met and the money was not available to properly maintain the stacks no matter how many times the Save the Stacks group and Susie Byrd hurled insulting accusations at Puga.

"We need only talk to Ms. Leslie Rose of Tacoma, Washington for an informed,experienced opinion. She is the on site manager for Citizens for a healthy bay. When I asked her which is better--to leave the stacks up or demolish them, she practically jumped through the phone to say,'Controlled demolition is safer than leaving the stacks up and not properly maintaining them.'  She asks why would you want to leave the stacks as a liability for future generations.  The Tacoma stacks were demolished according to their EPA directed remediation plan.  They were buried on site in much the same type of design planned for the El Paso site which is a combination of geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane and a geocomposite drainage layer.  The combination will create a nearly impermeable barrier surrounding the buried material.

"Rose told me that in 10 years they have been through 2 earthquakes and lots and lots of rain.  Any moisture at the bottom is pumped out and the contaminant levels are going down.

"She went on to say that if the stacks remain, someone is always responsible for maintenance.  An uncontrolled,unplanned failure of the stacks could be catastrophic and end up killing people. 

"Also, she offered that if the stack had remained, no one would buy the property---the same objection reported by Puga. 

"She also talked about the workers and said there are many ways to honor the workers rather that leaving up stacks which may kill someone in the future.  That is no way to honor the workers.

"I agree with her. I don't think leaving a toxic stack is anyway to memorialize anyone." - Peggy McNiel

On the other hand, preservationists with Save the Stacks make the following rebuttals:

Dr. Paul Maxwell, the Executive Director and CEO of the Bin-National Sustainability Laboratory, writes:

"It seems to me Peggy is comparing apples and oranges on a number of fronts here. First of all there is a major difference in looking at the geology and geography of Tacoma, Washington and El Paso, Texas. Without knowing the specific details I think it obvious that the soils, strata and geological structure would be vastly different from each site. Ditto regarding subterranean and surface waters and their movements.   Specific to the El Paso site is the fact that the stacks sit next to a major arroyo that was filled in over the hundred years or more of the smelters operation. Puga is now 'mining' this arroyo and appears to look at refilling this natural water way with the remains of the stacks. Despite man's hubris that they can bend the will of nature our own recent experience with local flooding with 'hundreds year' rains suggests the arroyo will likely continue to be a point for major movement of any waste products buried there with the Rio Grande river and lower valley the likely recipients of any leachants. Far better the stacks be kept intact where we can easily monitor any 'toxicity' associated with them rather than bury them where they will pose much more of a danger. A second contrast is regarding the stability of the stacks in seismically active regions. For Tacoma which sits on one of worlds most seismically active regions ( the Pacific's infamous 'Ring of Fire') where earthquakes of Richter scale 5, 6, or higher are not uncommon or unusual removal of such stacks may make sense. This is not the case here where earthquakes rarely if ever reach beyond the 1 or 2 Richter scale levels (UTEP's Doser can provide more specifics). There are active volcanoes in Washington!  Our last volcanic event was 10' s of thousands of years ago. 

"Another point-- we are not proposing little or no maintenance of the stacks but rather a plan that goes out at least 50 years. More to the point our analysis shows that the stacks after close to 50 years are stable and enduring and not now and not ever likely to pose any danger of falling as suggested by Peggy or her colleagues. 

"Finally, her point that destruction of the stacks was well thought out because they were considered early in the process to be destroyed is hardly supportive since there was no engineering analysis to support the conclusion they should be destroyed in the first place. Rather these early conclusions show they were unduly biased to destroy these stacks rather than consider any alternative."

Mr. Geoffrey Wright, a well-known El Paso Architect, chimes in:

"That the TCEQ has 'always wanted to demolish the smokestacks' is hardly an argument for their removal.  It points more to a foregone conclusion that fails to take into account the actual physical condition of what was once the tallest chimney in the world and which, after nearly 50 years of existence, shows virtually no signs of deterioration.  

"This pre-determined death sentence also fails to take into account any cultural or historic value of this extraordinary structure nor the will of the people of El Paso who in public opinion polls show nearly 70% of the people want to keep the stack in place. [It's under 50% if they have to pay for it.] It also ignores the willful destruction of for the tallest monument in the United States with an estimated replacement value of $15mm to $20mm. 

"Save the Stacks believes we have met the technical aspects of the environmental custodian. We also believe we are well on our way to meeting the requirement for the ongoing liability issue with active support from the Mayor of El Paso, City Council members, the State Senator, and the Congressman-elect, all of whom have expressed to Mr Puga their desire to save the stacks.

"We have yet to see any evidence that the site is less valuable with the stack in place than without it.  There are numerous examples of sites across the United States where communities have honored their industrial heritage with successful commercial developments that maintain obsolete industrial structures.  Common sense tells any open-minded person that the advertising value alone of the structure is tremendous.

"The time to save the stack is now.  Once it is gone, a $20 million asset will be gone forever and a great opportunity to move our great city forward will be lost."

There you have it - a disagreement between reasonable, good and intelligent people. The last part of this series will deal with the dirtier question - just how nasty is the site. The appeal of an historic, cultural and potential commercial landmark is enticing. But how contaminated is the site and has Puga really come clean? For the sake of the public's health, safety and welfare  can it hurt to ask and to wait a bit longer? The engineering study shows the stacks to be strong, straight and solid anyway.  Besides, we still haven't heard back from Attorney General Greg Abbott. One hopes that Mr. Puga, who has shown restraint so far, will continue to do so as unanswered questions get answered.