This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Riverside Libraries]On: 10 October 2014, At: 11:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Lead astray: scale, environmentaljustice and the El Paso smelterKate J. Darby aa Department of Environmental Science , Allegheny College , 520N Main St., Meadville , PA , 16335 , USAPublished online: 06 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Kate J. Darby (2012) Lead astray: scale, environmental justice and the El Pasosmelter, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 17:8, 797-814,DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2012.688732

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.688732

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Lead astray: scale, environmental justice and the El Paso smelter

Kate J. Darby∗

Department of Environmental Science, Allegheny College, 520 N Main St., Meadville, PA 16335,USA

Residents in Paso del Norte (El Paso, Texas; Sunland Park, New Mexico; and Juarez,Mexico) have been concerned about heavy metal contamination in their communitiessince the 1970s, when high blood lead levels were found in children living inSmeltertown – a company town for the local metals smelter. After the smelter’sclosure in 1999, and throughout onsite and offsite cleanup efforts, residents havecontinued to express concerns about these contamination issues. Using a politics ofscale framework and analysing ethnographic data and government, media andscientific documents, this paper identifies a set of major disjunctures between thescales of heavy metal contamination and the scales at which that contamination isregulated. These disjunctures exacerbate regional environmental injustice bycomplicating public participation, neglecting vulnerability and displacing hazards tonew communities. Consequently, applying a politics of scale framework to this casestudy highlights regulatory and policy failures to address environmental justice.

Keywords: environmental justice; environmental regulation; politics of scale; heavymetals; US–Mexico border

Introduction

Heavy metals such as lead and arsenic create unique threats to environmental health andchallenges for environmental regulation. When emitted into the air from an industrialfacility, lead and arsenic tend to deposit onto surrounding soils, where they remainlargely un-degraded until that soil is removed by cleanup efforts or wind and water.When ingested or inhaled, these chemicals also take up residence in human bodies,where they impair neurological functioning. Smelters – industrial facilities that processand concentrate metal ores – produce large amounts of heavy metal pollution and thuscontribute to heavy metal legacies within their communities.

In 1887, a metals smelter was opened in El Paso, Texas, to take advantage of metal oresbeing produced south of the border in Mexico (Marcosson 1949). Locally and regionally,the smelter served as an important economic, cultural and social place while also tying intoa global system of production and consumption by creating metals, profits and also heavymetal pollution that travelled across social and physical space. This paper interrogates thedisjuncture between the scales of heavy metal contamination from the El Paso smelter andthe scales at which this contamination is regulated, and uses this investigation to identifyfailures to address environmental justice within the regulatory system. By rooting this

ISSN 1354-9839 print/ISSN 1469-6711 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.688732

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Email: kdarby@allegheny.edu

Local EnvironmentVol. 17, No. 8, September 2012, 797–814

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

research at the El Paso smelter, the research takes advantage of the particularly complicatedregulatory structure in the Paso del Norte border zone and the undeniable spatial connec-tivity of smelter pollution throughout the region. This paper begins with an overview ofheavy metal contamination and cleanup efforts at the El Paso smelter and then situatesthis work in the politics of scale and environmental justice approaches. Drawing on ethno-graphic data, as well as scientific, media and government documents, the analysis comparesscales of contamination and regulation in the region to support the argument that scalesinvoked by regulatory agencies and practices do not correspond with the scales at whichresidents contend with contamination. Finally, this paper explores the implications ofthese scalar disjunctions for environmental justice and regulation in the region.

The El Paso smelter and its pollution legacy

The metals smelter operated within a regional geography that includes three states (Texas,New Mexico and Chihuahua) within two countries (USA and Mexico). The population ofthe Paso del Norte region, including Juarez, is just over two million people, with around600,000 living in El Paso, 13,000 in Sunland Park, New Mexico, and 1.17 million inJuarez (2009 US Census 2009) (Figure 1).

From 1887 through 1999, the smelter engaged in active industrial metabolism, trans-forming labour, capital and metal ore concentrate into metal anodes (concentratedmetals), profits and pollution. Beginning in 1901, the smelter was owned and operatedby the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) – an international miningand metals giant (Marcosson 1949). Although throughout its history the El Paso smelterproduced copper, lead and zinc, during its final operating years, the facility primarily pro-duced copper (“ASARCO” 1996). Citing low copper prices, in 1999, ASARCO tempor-arily stopped producing metals at the El Paso site, but promised its employees that theirjobs would be reinstated when financial conditions improved (Stack 1999). In the sub-sequent 10 years, ASARCO took small steps towards reopening, but in August 2005,ASARCO, LLC filed for bankruptcy and in February 2009, ASARCO announced perma-nent closure of the site. ASARCO was purchased later in 2009 by Grupo Mexico, whichthen became engaged in the largest environmental bankruptcy in US history (Blumenthal2009).

Although the smelter is no longer operating, some of the pollutants emitted from theplant – most notably lead and arsenic – remain in the region’s soils (Ketterer 2006),perhaps as well as in the bodies of residents who live there and in groundwater andsurface water. These two pollutants, which are of most concern for the activist groupsand other concerned citizens, are present in metal ores and emitted as both air pollutants(which tend to deposit on the ground) and solid waste (1999 Toxic Release InventoryPublic Data Release 1988–1998, Biswas and Davenport 1994). These two pollutantshave received particularly strong attention from residents and regulatory agenciesbecause of their health impacts on children and their permanence in the environment.Lead is a particularly insidious hazard given that it tends to settle in the soil, wherehumans can be exposed through ingestion or inhalation (Mielke and Reagan 1998).Long-term lead exposure leads to decreased cognitive functioning, which can then affectresidents’ educational outcomes and consequently limit their employment and economicopportunities (Lilis et al. 1985, Schell 1997). Although the current action blood leadlevel designated by the Center for Disease Control for children in the USA is 10 mg/dl,many researchers believe that there is no safe level of lead for children (Sanborn et al.2002), and regulatory agencies and health practitioners contest the definition of

798 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

appropriately “safe” levels (i.e. Rogan and Ware 2003). Heavy metal soil contamination is aparticularly concerning health issue for children, who are vulnerable to health impacts dueto increased exposure (e.g. ingesting soil) and because of the physiological vulnerability oftheir developing neurological systems (Lin-Fu 1973, Bellinger et al. 1991). Ironically, theEl Paso site served an important historical role in US public health responses to lead. In1971, concern about the effect of lead emissions on the residents of Smeltertown, theASARCO company town adjacent to the smelter, led to one of the first large-scalepublic health investigations of lead exposure (Landrigan et al. 1975) and eventually, tothe eviction of Smeltertown residents and the demise of this company town (Romero1997, Perales 2008).

On 23 January 2001, decades after the Smeltertown incident, El Paso Times publishedan article suggesting that areas adjacent to the smelter near the Sun Bowl Stadium at Uni-versity of Texas-El Paso were contaminated by lead and arsenic. In response to communityconcern and spurred by a state senator, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

Figure 1. Paso del Norte geography.Data sources: 2000 US Census 2000, 2000 INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Geografıa),Paso del Norte Mapa, 1999 US EPA Toxic Release Inventory.

Local Environment 799

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

other agencies initiated heavy metal sampling for lead and arsenic in El Paso (Texas) andSunland Park (New Mexico) in 2001. After over 400 samples were taken in schoolyardsand parks in July 2001, as well as subsequent sampling at residential sites, the US EPAdecided a removal action was necessary (Roy W. Weston 2001). The US EPA spearheadedresidential cleanup efforts in El Paso through programmes created by the 1980 Comprehen-sive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).1 When aban-doned industrial areas are designated as Superfund sites under the terms of CERCLA, theyare added to the National Priorities List (NPL) (i.e. the Superfund list), which includes themost serious hazardous waste cleanup sites. The cleanup at the El Paso site, however, pro-ceeded as a removal activity – a separate CERCLA mechanism for emergency cleanupresponse (Martinez 2005). Cleanup continued, funded and led by the US EPA Region 6,with assistance from the state agencies and local government officials (US EPA 2008).The contaminants of concern in these cleanup efforts included lead and arsenic, andcleanup focused on remediation of residential soils.

Because the US EPA accessed CERCLA funding for cleanup, the agency was required todetermine the source of the lead and arsenic contamination. A speciation study finding that84% of arsenic and 53% of the lead contamination at residential properties could be attributedto ASARCO (US EPA 2008) led the US EPA to name ASARCO a potentially responsibleparty (PRP) in July 2002 and initiated efforts to compel the company to fund the cleanupefforts (Shapleigh 2009). By 2004, negotiations had broken down with ASARCO largelyrefusing to pay, though they did agree to use $2 million of a Department of Justice-managed $100 million environmental trust fund for the El Paso cleanup – funds requiredto be set aside for environmental remediation by the US Department of Justice in 2003,after ASARCO sold one arm of its company to Grupo Mexico (Negron 2005). Beyondthis funding, additional monies could be made available if the site were designated on theNPL, which Paso del Norte residents vehemently opposed due to concerns that this desig-nation would drive down property values (Martinez 2005). Through early 2008, 955 proper-ties out of 3831 tested had been remediated (Shapleigh 2009) using $2 million from theASARCO environmental trust and another $6 million from the EPA (Washington Valdez2005). By 2008, the US EPA ran out of money to continue additional remediation efforts.

A new set of cleanup efforts began after ASARCO announced permanent closure in 2009.This onsite cleanup has been guided by a different set of regulatory mechanisms and fundedthrough a separate process from the offsite cleanup. A 2009 Consent Decree declared the ElPaso smelter site a custodial trust, and required ASARCO, LLC to pay $52 million for themaintenance and cleanup of the El Paso smelter facility. The Texas Commission on Environ-mental Quality (TCEQ)2 is charged with overseeing the cleanup process, while a trustee isultimately responsible for carrying out the cleanup as described in the settlement (Negron2010). The allocated money provides for remediation rather than restoration, with moneydesignated for groundwater remediation, demolition, asphalt paving to encase contaminatedsoils, construction of a containment cell and fence and maintenance – a process described byactivists as “fence it, pave it, crypt it” (Adios ASARCO, Hello Future Event 2009).

The various pieces of legislation that created the regulatory landscape guiding cleanupefforts were intended to protect the health and wellbeing of residents from environmentalharm, and to protect environmental quality. Because the TCEQ, EPA and other agenciespreside over different and sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, however, these goals arenot addressed evenly across the geographic landscape. The border location further compli-cates this, since in addition to the nested (i.e. state, federal) jurisdictions, pollution is gov-erned by abutting and often conflicting jurisdictions along the state and national borders.Consequently, environmental outcomes are not applied evenly across the social landscape.

800 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

This paper examines the role scale plays in creating uneven patterns of both environmentalprotection and environmental contamination. This work specifically addresses how theseissues apply to soil contamination, and both onsite and offsite cleanup of the El Pasosmelter.

The role of scale in environmental justice

In the USA, the environmental justice movement emerged in response to growing aware-ness of the health implications of toxics and concerns that hazardous land uses were dispro-portionately located in minority and low-income communities (Cole and Foster 2001).Early academic research confirmed this pattern of disproportionate siting across theUnited States (Bullard 1990, Brown 1995), though more recent empirical spatial studiessuggest that these patterns do not always hold true across all spatial scales. Recent researchconducted in the region suggests that the concerns of environmental justice scholars andactivists regarding distributive justice and vulnerability to environmental hazards holdtrue for the Paso del Norte border region (Collins et al. 2009), as well. Given the prolifer-ation of hazards in the region, Paso del Norte may serve as an environmental “sacrificezone” – a poor, minority region plagued with numerous environmental hazards and posses-sing few resources to address those hazards (Lerner 2010).

Environmental justice researchers examining conditions in places like El Paso contendwith methodological and theoretical considerations of scale (Cutter et al. 1996, Sze et al.2009). Although originally conceived of in terms of cartographic representation, scalenow maintains a set of contested definitions, and scholars concerned with space tend to dis-tinguish between representative, methodological and constructivist scales (Johnston et al.2000). Environmental justice researchers have struggled with the methodology of scale;that is, determining appropriate scales of analysis within spatial analysis remains a chal-lenge (Bowen 2002, Baden et al. 2007), as different scales of analysis produce differentconclusions about environmental justice patterns (Cutter et al. 1996). In some cases, thefact that investigators’ scalar choices can affect study results weakens arguments suggestingenvironmental injustice, with some scholars using conflicting results to argue that low-income communities and communities with a high proportion of minorities are not necess-arily subjected to a disproportionate hazardscape (Anderton 1995).

In addition to these methodological considerations of scale, constructivist approaches toscale have contributed to our understanding of the conditions and explanations for environ-mental injustice. Although the meaning and production of scale has been the subject ofvehement debate, critical human geographers tend to share an understanding of scale associally produced and socially producing (Marston 2000). Their work suggests that scaleis not “ontologically given” (Smith 1992, p. 73), but instead is a product of how we seethe world, or how we want to see the world. Scale can also be a productive force – produ-cing, for example, empowerment of a particular group of people (Williams 1999). Conse-quently, scalar definitions, whether analytic or discursive, are political actions that carryconsequences for environmental justice (Herod and Wright 2002). The deliberate and inci-dental use of scale by individuals and groups to sway perceptions and policies is the subjectof research collectively referred to as “the politics of scale”. Although a politics of scaleapproach presents a useful framework for understanding environmental justice patternsand processes, few environmental justice scholars have engaged these ideas in their work(Williams 1999, Heynen 2003, Kurtz 2003, Sze et al. 2009). The most relevant researchin this area identifies the environmental justice concerns that arise when different represen-tations of scale conflict (Williams 1999, Heynen 2003).

Local Environment 801

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

This paper focuses on Williams’ description of politics of scale as the mismatch ofscales of contamination and scales of governance. Williams argues that scale can becomepolitical when there is a disjuncture between “scale of a societal problem and its politicalresolution” (Williams 1999, p. 56). In the context of this case study, the scale at whichPaso del Norte residents experience heavy metal contamination from ASARCO does notmatch up to scales created by political jurisdictions and regulatory actions, and this mis-match contributes unfavourably to conditions of environmental justice. The “scale of con-tamination” refers to the biophysical extent and degree of lead and arsenic contamination inthe environment. Any scientific assessment of the scalar extent of heavy metal contami-nation depends upon methodological constructions of scale that are driven by outsideforces. For example, scientific studies may examine a limited geographic extent due tofunding limitations or the researcher’s priority. Researchers also make choices about thescalar unit of analysis that are driven by labour and instrumentation limitations; thesechoices regarding units of analysis then affect research outcomes. Because the biophysicalscale of heavy metal contamination is difficult to ascertain from a single scientific study orfrom a single stakeholder’s perception, this work uses existing scientific studies and stake-holder concerns to triangulate the biophysical extent of contamination. Regulatory agenciesconstruct scale in order to facilitate governance, cleanup and regulation; in this work,“scales of governance, cleanup and regulation” refer to the scales constructed via regulatoryand political processes that define the scales at which heavy metal contamination is dealtwith through the regulatory structures in Paso del Norte.

The goal of this paper, then, is to highlight the existence and importance of this discon-nect within environmental regulation and policy praxis. Most politics of scale literature hasbeen conducted by political geographers; when environmental social scientists haveexplored this theoretical approach, they have largely focused on the implications of thisscalar disjunction for environmental governance, including environmental assessment(Lebel 2006) and water allocation (Swyngedouw 2004, Bolin et al. 2008), but have notused this lens to examine soil pollution and other environmental governance challenges.This paper contributes an empirical case study to these theoretical developments to betterunderstand politics of scale and better understand how scalar choices of the regulatoryagencies contribute to social and environmental injustice (Sze et al. 2009).

The scales of contamination

To examine these issues, this work draws upon 24 semi-structured interviews with stake-holders in El Paso conducted in 2008 and 2009, as well as observations from events andpublic meetings, analysis of government and scientific documents and media accounts ofsmelter issues in Paso del Norte. Using these data, the following section examines thescales of contamination determined by scientific studies, while a subsequent sectionrelies on ethnographic data to create a more complete understanding of contamination.

Extent of contamination: scientific scales

Peer-reviewed and regulatory scientific studies begin to reveal the extent of environmentalcontamination in Paso del Norte. A thorough literature review uncovered 11 geological andecological studies of soil contamination (Table 1). The early studies conducted in the 1970sfocused on soil lead levels in Smeltertown (Landrigan et al. 1975, McNeil et al. 1975),while subsequent studies have extended sampling across Paso del Norte (Garcıa et al.2004, Ketterer 2006). These studies reveal three notable patterns. First, this research

802 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

suggests that much of the lead and arsenic soil contamination in the region is centred on andcan be attributed to the smelter (Miller 1972, Landrigan et al. 1975, Ndame 1993, Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997, Ketterer 2006). Early studies show lead contamination dropping dra-matically after 2 or 3 km from the site (Landrigan et al. 1975). Second, the studies showthat lead and arsenic concentrations have decreased over time since the 1970s (Pingitoreet al. 2005). Finally, according to many of the studies, the contamination extends acrosspolitical borders into New Mexico and Mexico. Recent studies have found areas withhighest average soil lead concentrations both near the smelter in El Paso, but also inSunland Park, New Mexico, and Ciudad Juarez (Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997, Garcıa et al.2004, Ketterer 2006), and isotopic analysis suggests that soil lead levels are linked to

Table 1. Scientific literature on heavy metal contamination in Paso del Norte.

Geographic extent Extent of lead contaminationHighest lead

contamination

Miller (1972) Flood plain of RioGrande in El PasoCounty

No samples above the currentEPA action levels

Closest to the smelter

Landriganet al. (1975)

City of El Paso Average levels greater thanthe current EPA actionlevel for at least 3.6 kmfrom the smelter

Closest to the smelter

McNeil et al.(1975)

Smeltertown area Average levels greater thanthe current EPA actionlevel for Smeltertown andSunset Heights, nearaction level in Old FortBliss and Kern

Smeltertown

Barnes (1993)a El Paso City Average levels greater thanthe current EPA actionlevel near the smelter only

Closest to the smelter

Ndame(1993)a

El Paso City (nearUTEP)

West of UTEP and east of I-10 (using TCLP)

Western UTEP andclosest to the smelter

Devanahalli(1994)a

Downtown El Paso N/A Geography not indicated

Srinivas(1994)a

City of El Paso N/A All within regulatorylimit

Dıaz-Barrigaet al. (1997)

Anapra in CiudadaJuarez

None over the current EPAaction level

Closest to the smelter

Garcıa et al.(2004)

Paso del Norte (CiudadJuarez, Dona AnaCounty, El PasoCounty)

N/A Closest to the smelter

Pingitore et al.(2005)b

City of El Paso N/A Closest to the smelter,downtown and westside of FranklinMountains

Ketterer(2006)

Paso del Norte (CiudadJuarez, Dona AnaCounty, El PasoCounty)

N/A Closest to the smelter(with some highconcentrationselsewhere)

aThese studies were conducted under the supervision of Pingitore, a geology faculty member at the University ofTexas-El Paso.bThis chapter synthesizes the results from many of Pingitore’s Masters students’ work.

Local Environment 803

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

historical emissions from ASARCO (Ketterer 2006). These studies also confirm the abilityof lead to be transported from site of initial soil deposition to other areas in the regionthrough wind transport of fugitive dust (Garcıa et al. 2004).

These studies provide only a limited understanding of the biophysical scales of contami-nation, since only average concentrations are reported and the sampling strategies of thesestudies are not necessarily geared towards determining a comprehensive understanding ofheavy metal contamination across the regional landscape. Although the studies suggest thatcontamination extends to New Mexico and Mexico, establishing boundaries of concernfrom these studies is difficult, since few of them include sampling outside of El Paso,Texas. Also, sampling strategies are often designed to establish connections between contami-nation and soil type (Miller 1972) or to understand the sources and transport of fugitive dust(Garcıa et al. 2004), rather than to establish the extent of contamination across the landscape.Since most of these studies present average lead levels in particular regions (Landrigan et al.1975, McNeil et al. 1975, Barnes 1993), they are not in and of themselves indicative of theextent of contamination, though they do suggest some very minimum scalar extents.

Health studies conducted in the region (Table 2) have established an understanding ofhow soil contamination translates to health impacts and contributes to a better understand-ing of the scales of contamination. A series of initial blood lead studies in the 1970sprompted the Smeltertown shutdown by identifying health-threatening levels of lead inthe blood of many Smeltertown children (Landrigan et al. 1975). This and subsequenthealth studies provide three insights about the scale of contamination experience: bloodlead levels and soil lead levels are related (Landrigan et al. 1975, McNeil et al. 1975,Ordonez et al. 1976, Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997), the ASARCO Smelter is a likely contributorto elevated blood lead levels (Landrigan et al. 1975, McNeil et al. 1975, Ordonez et al.1976, Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997) and they suggest that elevated children’s blood leadlevels extend to at least 1.6–4.8 km from the smelter (Landrigan et al. 1975, McNeilet al. 1975, Ordonez et al. 1976, Morse et al. 1979, Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997).

Like the soil studies, the results of these health studies do not reveal the extent of thehealth effects from the smelter’s heavy metal pollution because most of the studies havefocused on the Smeltertown site. Furthermore, when all but the most recent (Dıaz-Barriga et al. 1997) of these studies were conducted, the US regulatory blood lead levellimit was 40 mg/dl, while the current limit is 10 mg/dl. Consequently, these studies usethe earlier standard (40 mg/dl) as a threshold for data reporting and analysis; actualblood levels are not reported.

Nested scales: residents’ contamination concerns

To better understand scales of contamination, it is important to look beyond scientific find-ings – which are often limited in scope by research goals and funding sources – to the localknowledge held by stakeholders (Wynne 1996). An analysis of ethnographic material col-lected in the region in 2008 and 2009 suggests three important concerns about the scale ofcontamination. First, residents express concern that contamination extends beyond politicalborders and beyond the areas deemed contaminated by government officials. Some resi-dents suggest that people within 20 miles in any direction are affected by the soil contami-nation (US EPA Public meeting comments 11 May 2009). Residents on both sides of theborder are particularly concerned about contamination in Juarez and New Mexico, sincelittle attention has been given to contamination and cleanup efforts there. For example,at a public meeting regarding the onsite facility cleanup, a Juarez resident expressedconcern for cleanup in Mexico: “So many people have been affected there and the soil is

804 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

contaminated” (US EPA Public meeting comments, 11 May 2009). Another stakeholdersuggested that the contamination in New Mexico has been particularly overlooked:

New Mexico knew that Anapra in Sunland Park was the most contaminated spot in all of NewMexico and it was from ASARCO and they’ve known that for 20 years . . .They just forgotthem, you know, forgot Anapra in particular. And then did a cursory cleanup about two,three years ago (Interview subject 2009).

During interviews and in public fora, residents also expressed concerns about contami-nation resulting from the sale and regional distribution of Ionate – a locally produced

Table 2. Health literature on blood lead levels in Paso del Norte.

Health outcome PopulationExtent of

contaminationPopulation most

affected

Landriganet al.(1975)

Blood lead levels Childrenbetween 1 and19 (and someadults)

In outer twosampling rings,about 27% ofsmall children hadlevels over the oldstandard (40 mg/dl)

Highest blood leadlevels closest tothe smelter

McNeilet al.(1975)

Blood lead levelsand physical andpsychologicalindicators andlead poisoning

Children within1.6 km of thesmelter

All samples over thecurrent standard(10 mg/dl)

Highest blood leadlevels closest tothe smelter butno statisticalcorrelation withblood poisoningsymptoms

Ordonezet al.(1976)

Blood lead levels 1–9 years old inareasurroundingthe smelter onthe Juarez side

For 2.6–4 miles, 9%over the oldstandard (40 mg/dl); for 1–2.5 miles, 18%(age 1–4) and11% (age 5–9)over 40 mg/dl; for.1 mile, 53%(age 1–4) and50% (age 5–9)over 40 mg/dl

Children closest tothe smelter(19.5% 60 mg/100 ml)

Morse et al.(1979)

Blood lead levels Childrenbetween 1 and18

All samples over thecurrent standard(10 mg/dl)

Highest blood leadlevels in childrenliving between0.8 and 1.6 kmfrom the smelter(very smallsample size for,0.8 km)

Dıaz-Barrigaet al.(1997)

Blood lead level Children inMexicobetween 5 and13

43% in Sector I, 21%in Sector II, 11%in Sector III overthe currentstandard (10 mg/dl)

Closest to thesmelter

Local Environment 805

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

fertiliser that is believed to contain heavy-metal-contaminated slag from the smelter(Carman 2009, Shapleigh 2009).

Second, residents also express concern about the connectivity of contamination acrossmedia – soils, air and water. A recent TCEQ report confirms this connection and notes thatsome arsenic and lead has leached into the groundwater below the smelter and that runofffrom slag piles at the site has transported heavy metals into the Rio Grande River and Amer-ican Canal (a source of drinking water), creating concerning levels of arsenic (Texas Com-mission on Environmental Quality 2010). Consequently, residents are concerned aboutcontamination in the region’s drinking water (US EPA Public meeting comments 11 May2009). Because participants at some public meetings recognise the ability of lead andarsenic from soils to be transported by winds, these residents suggested air monitoring ofsites during soil cleanup. “You start moving the dust over there and you’re going to recon-taminate the city and the contractors that you hire” (Public meeting comments 11 May2009).

Third, some residents also acknowledge the connectivity between soil lead levels andlead levels of indoor dust, since heavy metals can be tracked inside by foot traffic andtrapped on surfaces, especially carpeting (Interview subjects, 2008 and 2009). They areconcerned that these contaminated indoor locations are not addressed by regulation andcleanup: “I’m concerned because EPA did come out to remediate the yard, but they didnot remediate the indoor dust, the metals dust that was produced by the metals smelter”(New Mexico resident public meeting comments 11 May 2009).

In summary, triangulating the constructions of the scales of contamination put forth byresidents and scientists suggests a biophysical scale of contamination that centres on thesmelter and extends across the landscape. Both the residents’ experiences and the scientificstudies acknowledge the interconnectivity of contamination in the air, soil and water, aswell as the connection between indoor and outdoor contamination. As described in thenext section, however, the regulatory structure does not reflect these connections.

Scales of governance, cleanup and regulation

These scales of contamination, although often noted by government agencies in public par-ticipation processes, are not mirrored by agency jurisdictions, nor their decisions. Thus,regulatory choices have redrawn boundaries and scales in ways that fail to represent thescales of contamination expressed by residents or exposed by research efforts. Onenotable scalar disjunction is the regulatory separation of offsite and onsite cleanup efforts.

Offsite cleanup

The US EPA decision-making surrounding offsite cleanup has created spatial patterns ofcleanup that do not reflect the scales of contamination described above. Regulatoryagencies bounded the scale of cleanup to within a 3-mile (4.8 km) radius on the US sideof the border, largely ignored Mexico and New Mexico, excluded adults from the popu-lation of concern, privileged outdoor contamination over indoor and paid little heed to con-taminated soil displaced across the landscape via wind and sales of slag-derived fertiliser.The EPA established its cleanup effort strategy based on the results of a 2001 consultantreport commissioned by the agency, which found an “area of concern” radiating 3 milesfrom ASARCO and extending into New Mexico and “potentially south of the RioGrande into Mexico” (Roy W. Weston 2001, pp. 2-1). The EPA’s cleanup efforts focusedon risk to children, so for example, areas of the University of Texas-El Paso campus had

806 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

soil lead levels over 500 mg/kg, but those areas were not targeted for cleanup since they areunlikely to be frequented by small children (Texas Department of Health 2001b).

Although the early consultant reports suggested that contamination extended into Anapraand Sunland Park, New Mexico, cleanup efforts in Dona Ana County (New Mexico) werelimited. Initial lead testing in Sunland Park, New Mexico, was funded through a grantfrom the US Centers for Disease Control to the New Mexico State Health Departmentbecause of concerns surrounding smelter contamination (Alba 2005). Cleanup of 24 homesin New Mexico has been funded by $200,000 of the money ASARCO owed EPA throughthe environmental settlement (Stone 2007). Recently, the bankruptcy court awarded thestate of New Mexico’s Office of Natural Resources $1.2 million in damage claims, someof which are dedicated to Dona Ana County, New Mexico, cleanup (“Asarco pays $3.6Mfor pollution cleanup” 2010). This new funding source may lead to additional testing andcleanup of residential yards, but no concrete plan to do so exists at this point. Althoughsome regulatory attention has been granted to New Mexico, no soil testing or remediationwas conducted in Ciudad Juarez or elsewhere in Mexico.

Although the EPA only conducted remediation of outdoor residential spaces, governmentdocuments acknowledge potential contamination indoors. For example, the Texas Depart-ment of Health (2002) recommended that families living in the most contaminated areasremove shoes before heading indoors and to wipe down counters and windows regularly,and damp-mop floors. In initial assessments, the EPA used indoor testing as a means to deter-mine the extent of contamination. The resulting 2004 EPA report of this indoor and outdoortesting in 30 homes in El Paso County Metals Site in West and Central El Paso found thattwo-thirds of indoor dust samples had lead levels above action level, as compared withonly one-third of soil samples (Weston Solutions 2004). This disparity is possibly due tolead contamination from sources within the home such as lead pipes and lead paint, whichmay compound exposure to ASARCO-sourced lead and arsenic in yard soils. BecauseEPA was only responsible for cleaning up contamination originating from ASARCO, theagency did not address indoor heavy metal contamination, despite the connection that resi-dents and scientists acknowledge between indoor and outdoor contamination.

Rather than using blood lead level testing as a way to directly determine contamination,the US EPA used metrics to extrapolate from soil contamination levels to effects on health.Using a scaling factor called the health-based assessment comparison, which estimates howmuch contamination in various media could adversely affect human health, the TexasDepartment of Health determined a soil lead level of 500 mg/kg as an appropriate healththreshold, because at that level, about 5% of children exposed would be likely to haveblood lead levels over 10 mg/dl, the Centers for Disease Control threshold (Texas Depart-ment of Health 2001a). Choices about which residences were eligible for cleanup, then,were determined by a theoretical extrapolation from soil lead levels to blood lead levelsrather than measurements of blood lead levels of the residents. So, unlike scales of contami-nation reflected by scientific studies and residents’ concerns, the scales of governance havebeen restricted to a small outdoor area surrounding the smelter on the US side of the border.

Onsite cleanup

The onsite cleanup was prompted by the announcement of permanent closure and thus fol-lowed a different set of regulatory guidelines than the offsite cleanup. Because funding hasbeen allocated through the bankruptcy proceedings, onsite cleanup efforts have notincluded consideration of offsite contamination and the onsite cleanup has been limitedto the boundaries of ASARCO-owned land in El Paso. In response to public comments

Local Environment 807

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

suggesting that the onsite cleanup should address the spread of hazards through Ionate fer-tiliser use, and by wind dispersal, the US Bankruptcy Court and the TCEQ have reinforcedthose site boundaries. For example, the court deemed that concerns about Ionate and con-tamination in Mexico are “beyond the scope of the settlement” (United States BankruptcyCourt Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division) 2009b, pp. 36 and 39).

The settlement focuses on contamination in two media: soil and groundwater. Conse-quently, the settlement cleanup plan does not explicitly address heavy metal transportfrom soil to air pollution, nor does it address the movement of contaminated groundwateroffsite (United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Div-ision) 2009b). Although the cleanup includes some monitoring of dust content from thecleanup efforts, the trustee is not required to monitor dust, nor is it required to act upondust contamination (United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (CorpusChristi Division) 2009b, p. 38). Also, the surface water and offsite groundwater contami-nation issues are treated separately through a United States Section of the InternationalBoundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) settlement, though the Bankruptcy Courtsuggests “there is also potential for coordination between the groundwater remediationefforts at the USIBWC Site and the El Paso smelter Site” (United States BankruptcyCourt Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division) 2009b, p. 25).

The scale of cleanup onsite does not extend to the contamination within the bodies ofnearby residents, as US Department of Justice also deemed health assessments to be“beyond the scope of this settlement (United States Bankruptcy Court Southern Districtof Texas (Corpus Christi Division) 2009b, p. 38). Instead, concerns about blood leadlevels were forwarded to another agency (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Reg-istry) for consideration since “Health assessments on individual citizens are not within thescope of activities that TCEQ performs as the environmental agency of the State of Texas”(United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division)2009a, p. 4). In summary, the scales of governance for the onsite cleanup extend to mostof the ASARCO-owned acreage, as well as groundwater under that land. Connectionsbetween the site and its context are ignored.

Environmental justice implications: the disconnect between contamination andgovernance

In both the onsite and offsite cleanup processes, scale has played a role in the production ofinjustice, as the scale of governance does not reflect the scale of contamination revealed byscientific studies and residents’ concerns (Table 3). These scalar mismatches are revealed inseveral conflicts. First, blood lead levels reflect health impacts of lead contamination, butwithin the regulatory environment, soil lead levels are used as a proxy for health assess-ments. Second, although the scientific studies and residents’ concerns suggest that heavymetal contamination from the smelter has spread across the Paso del Norte landscape,cleanup efforts have focused only on the area within 3 miles from the smelter in theUSA. Finally, while our understanding of the fate and transport of chemicals suggeststhat lead and arsenic readily move through the ecological system via natural processes(e.g. deposition) (Zhang 2003, Garcıa et al. 2004, Momani 2006) and ethnographic evi-dence suggests significant anthropogenic heavy metal transport (e.g. movement of contami-nated soils), cleanup efforts reflect a more compartmentalised and static notion ofcontamination.

These scalar mismatches result from the practicalities of political jurisdictions, financialexpediency of the actors and agencies’ limited jurisdictions. The negotiations of regulatory

808 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

agencies and governments in three states, two nations and three cities create some of thespatial mismatch described above. Limited political jurisdiction, however, does not entirelyexplain disconnects between the scale of contamination experience and the regulatoryexperience, since cross-border environmental initiatives have addressed regional pollutantsin the past. For example, the La Paz agreement contributed to the closure of Arizona’sDouglas Smelter, which had been contributing to agricultural damage in Sonora,Mexico. That same agreement also led to pollution controls at the Nacozori Smelter inSonora (Wirth 2000). Some stakeholders in Paso del Norte have attempted to bring LaPaz into the discussion: at the El Paso onsite cleanup hearing, activist Mariana Chew pre-sented a resolution from Chihuahua asking TCEQ to honour the La Paz agreement in allremediation plans (Public meeting comment 9 May 2011). Theoretically, agencies designedto address cross-border issues, including the Border Environment Cooperation Commis-sion, US–Mexico Border Health Commission and North American Commission onEnvironmental Cooperation, could address some of these issues (Carter et al. 1996). Inthis case, the financial expediency of handling cleanup through the bankruptcy proceedingsand through EPA’s programme was chosen instead of engaging in longer, cross-bordercleanup processes.

This scalar mismatch has contributed to regional environmental injustice in severalways. First, because the cleanup has been partitioned both by political jurisdiction andalso by the type of contaminated media (i.e. soil, air, water), participation in decision-making regarding the cleanup has been similarly partitioned. In other words, the scalesof governance have produced scales of inclusion and exclusion. This finding is similar toone by geographer Hilda Kurtz who found that scale was used as a way to determineinclusion/exclusion in political debate surrounding facility siting in Louisiana (2003). Inthis case, defining the scale of the offsite cleanup as an area surrounding the smelter inthe USA, the process has created a scale of exclusion and inclusion in which Mexican resi-dents are excluded from decision-making. In a recent interview, Robert Puga, the trustee ofthe ASARCO site, was asked whether El Paso has an obligation to the citizens of Juarez, towhich he responded,

I can answer that question only from the point of view of the trust, and the trust’s obligations areto clean up the site only. There were other forums and mechanisms to address offsite contami-nation. In my position as trustee, my obligations are limited to the site. (Negron 2010)

Table 3. Disconnects between scales of contamination and scales of regulation.

The contamination experience The regulatory experience

Blood lead levels reflect contamination Soil lead levels reflect contaminationHeavy metal contamination occurs across the

Paso del Norte landscape, centred around thesmelter in Texas, New Mexico and CiudadJuarez

Heavy metal contamination is regulated andmanaged within 3 miles of the smelter in theUSA only and focused on Texas, rather thanNew Mexico

Contamination in air, soil, surface water andground water is connected

Contamination in air, soil, surface water andground water is regulated through separateprocesses and considered unrelated

Indoor lead sources compound exposure fromASARCO-contaminated soils

Only ASARCO-contaminated soils are eligiblefor cleanup

Contamination from Ionate and contaminated soildisposal in landfills created new locations ofheavy metal hazards

Only contamination directly resulting fromASARCO’s emissions is eligible for cleanup

Local Environment 809

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

This raises another issue related to environmental injustice: because the cleanup processesare partitioned, each action undertaken by an agency assumes similar processes are occur-ring in different geographies, and with different media foci, without any regional coordi-nation to ensure that these are actually occurring.

The disjuncture between scales of contamination and scales of regulation also contrib-utes to environmental injustice because it creates conditions in which vulnerability is notconsidered in decision-making. A large body of literature supports the notion that poorand minority communities are more likely to be exposed to heavy metal hazards in andoutside of the home (Kraft and Scheberle 1995, Mielke et al. 1999). Because the regulatoryenvironment in this case focuses only on contamination from ASARCO, it neglects theadditive and synergistic effects of multiple pollution sources and multiple heavy metals,both of which may be likely to affect marginalised residents. A focus on soil rather thanblood testing, and outdoor rather than indoor spaces fails to capture these likely additiveexposures. Finally, spatial mismatches described above may displace hazards to new com-munities: “All we’re really talking about when we’re talking about cleanup is moving thedirt from one place to another to contaminate somewhere else (Interview subject 2009)”. Insummary, this scalar disjunction creates spaces of inclusion and exclusion, impedes con-siderations of vulnerability and may displace hazards to new communities.

Persistent patterns and processes of injustice

The spatial mismatch between governance and contamination reveals three persistent pat-terns and processes contributing to environmental and social injustice:

(1) The regulatory landscape focuses on point source exposures for which blame canbe assigned: the CERCLA process, in fact, requires a PRP to be named for cleanupsites. Although this is arguably a necessary strategy for achieving the financing forenvironmental cleanup, the identification of a PRP simultaneously constructs thescale of regulation based on that point source. Because of this requirement, additiveand synergistic effects of pollutants from multiple sources are ignored, and cleanupdecisions are based on contaminants attributed to the PRP rather than directly onhealth studies in the affected area. The exposure and health implications forpeople on the ground are thus neglected, creating conditions for unjust distributionsof hazards and vulnerabilities across the physical and social landscapes.

(2) The regulatory landscape compartmentalises physically interconnected contami-nation: The regulatory landscape partitions environmental problems into politicaljurisdictions and media (air, soil, water). The goal of the EPA in the agency’sauthorising language was to transcend these divisions, but in practice, those div-isions are reinforced despite the tendency of pollutants such as heavy metals totravel across political borders. In other words, the resulting biophysical scale ofenvironmental regulation is a result of scalar constructions related to the movementof pollutants within a particular medium. The administrative requirements of gov-ernments do not map well onto the physical and social world. People whose con-cerns are not captured by regulatory frameworks are systematically disadvantaged.In this case, the residents of Ciudad Juarez and New Mexico are at particulardisadvantage.

(3) The scales of governance neglect the issue of body burden: From an environmentaljustice perspective, low-income and minority populations are already more vulner-able to lead exposure from lead paint and the legacy of leaded gasoline. As these

810 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

populations are exposed to heavy metals from the smelting facility, that exposure iscompounded in their bodies. Because regulatory structures invoke scalar construc-tions that lie explicitly outside of the body, they do not have a way to deal with thatcompounded exposure and increased health risk. Even when environmental screen-ing acknowledges body burden, lead levels are usually measured through theblood, despite the fact that once exposure stops, lead settles into bones (Needleman1990).

This research underscores a disjuncture between the goals and implementation of environ-mental policies. For example, CERCLA has governed the offsite cleanup efforts in El Paso;this piece of legislation was explicitly written to “protect human health and theenvironment”.

Environmental health researcher Steinemann (2004) suggests that “regulation neglectshow the pollutants actually reach and affect humans: through exposures, mixtures of pollu-tants, several media routes . . . causing multiple health effects. It instead focuses on emis-sions, isolated pollutants, one medium, and cancer as the sole regulatory criterion”(p. 705). Similarly, in Seeing Like a State, Scott (1998) writes, “The necessarily simpleabstractions of large bureaucratic institutions, as we have seen, can never adequately rep-resent the actual complexity of natural or social processes” (p. 262). For the people wholive in Paso del Norte and who must contend with the contamination from heavy metal pol-lution, the scale of regulation is an abstraction that limits the effectiveness of environmentalregulations to protect human health.

AcknowledgementsBob Bolin, Chris Boone, Alex Brewis-Slade, David Pijawka and Mark Neff provided valuable feed-back on earlier drafts of this work. This material is based upon work supported by the NationalScience Foundation under Grant No. 0504248, IGERT in Urban Ecology. The opinions, findingsand conclusions expressed in this material are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Notes1. Also known as Superfund, CERCLA establishes procedures for assigning responsibility for

cleanup issues associated with abandoned hazardous waste activities.2. In the USA, the TCEQ and other state agencies are responsible for carrying out national EPA

regulations and programmes.

ReferencesAdios Asarco, Hello Future Event, 2009. Adios Asarco, Hello Future. University of Texas-El Paso,

El Paso, TX, 21 February.Alba, D.M., 2005. Sunland residents to be tested for metals. Las Cruces Sun-News, 11 March.Anderton, D.L., 1995. Studies used to prove charges of environmental racism are flawed. In: J.

Petrikin, ed. Environmental justice. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 24–37.ASARCO, 1996. 10-K Stockholder Report. Available through Buckmaster Stockholder Reports http://

buck.com/10k?tenkyear=96&idx=A&co=!ASARCO&nam=DEMO2&pw=DEMO2 [Accessed 3September 2009].

Baden, B.M., Noonan, D.S., and Turaga, R.M., 2007. Scales of justice: is there a geographic bias inenvironmental equity analysis? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50 (2),163–185.

Local Environment 811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Barnes, B.E., 1993. An evaluation of metals concentrations in surficial soils, El Paso County, Texas.Master’s thesis. ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso.

Bellinger, D., et al., 1991. Low-level lead exposure and children’s cognitive function in the preschoolyears. Pediatrics, 87 (2), 219.

Biswas, A.K. and Davenport, W.G., 1994. Extractive metallurgy of copper. Oxford: Pergamon.Blumenthal, L., 2009. Asarco: Cleanup almost skirted Attorneys: Grupo didn’t want to pay. Amarillo

Globe-News, 30 Dec.Bolin, B., Collins, T., and Darby, K., 2008. Fate of the verde: water, environmental conflict, and the

politics of scale in Arizona’s central highlands. Geoforum, 39 (3), 1494–1511.Bowen, W., 2002. An analytical review of environmental justice research: what do we really know?

Environmental Management, 29 (1), 3–15.Brown, P., 1995. Race, class, and environmental health: a review and systematization of the literature.

Environmental Research, 69 (1), 15–30.Bullard, R., 1990. Dumping in Dixie. Boulder, CO: Westview.Carman, N., 2009. In re ASARCO LLC, DJ Ref. No. 90-11-3-08633. Written Public Comment to

Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, US Department ofJustice. Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club, 11 April.

Carter, D.E., et al., 1996. Environmental health and hazardous waste issues related to the US-Mexicoborder. Environmental health perspectives, 104 (6), 590.

Cole, L.W. and Foster, S.R., 2001. From the ground up: environmental racism and the rise of theenvironmental justice movement. New York: NYU Press.

Collins, T.W., Grineski, S.E., and de Lourdes Romo Aguilar, M., 2009. Vulnerability to environ-mental hazards in the Ciudad Juarez (Mexico)-El Paso (USA) metropolis: a model for spatialrisk assessment in transnational context. Applied Geography, 29 (3), 448–461.

Cutter, S.L., Holm, D., and Clark, L., 1996. The role of geographic scale in monitoring environmentaljustice. Risk Analysis, 16 (4), 517–526.

Devanahalli, D.D., 1994. Survey of heavy metal concentrations of soils in downtown El Paso, Texas.Master’s thesis. University of Texas-El Paso, El Paso, TX.

Dıaz-Barriga, F., et al., 1997. The El Paso smelter 20 years later: residual impact on Mexican children.Environmental Research, 74 (1), 11–16.

Garcıa, J.H., et al., 2004. Characterization and implication of potential fugitive dust sources in thePaso del Norte region. Science of the Total Environment, 325 (1–3), 95–112.

Herod, A. and Wright, M.W., 2002. Placing scale: an introduction. In: A. Herod and M. W. Wright,eds. Geographies of power: placing scale. Cornwall, U.K: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd, 1–14.

Heynen, N.C., 2003. The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode, 35 (5),980–998.

INEGI, 2000. Censo General de Poblaciœn y Viviend, 2000. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica yGeografia. Available from: http://www.inegi.org.mx/default.aspx [Accessed 9 November 2009].

Johnston, R.J., et al., 2000. The dictionary of human geography. Cornwall, UK: Blackwell Pub.Ketterer, M.E., 2006. The ASARCO El Paso Smelter: a source of local contamination of soils in El

Paso (Texas), Ciudad Juarez (Chihuahua, Mexico), and Anapra (New Mexico). Flagstaff, AZ:Sierra Club.

Kraft, M.E. and Scheberle, D., 1995. Environmental justice and the allocation of risk: the case of leadand public health. Policy Studies Journal, 23 (1), 113–122.

Kurtz, H.E., 2003. Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmentalinjustice. Political Geography, 22 (8), 887–916.

Landrigan, P.J., et al., 1975. Epidemic lead absorption near an ore smelter. New England Journal ofMedicine, 292, 123–129.

Lebel, L., 2006. The politics of scale in environmental assessment. In: W. Reid, F. Berkes, T.Wilbanks and D. Capistrano, eds. Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and appli-cations in ecosystem assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, 37–57.

Lerner, S., 2010. Sacrifice zones: the front lines of toxic chemical exposure in the United States.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lilis, R., et al., 1985. Effect of low-level lead and arsenic exposure on copper smelter workers.Archives of environmental health, 40 (1), 38–47.

Lin-Fu, J.S., 1973. Vulnerability of children to lead exposure and toxicity. New England Journal ofMedicine, 289 (23), 1229–1233.

812 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Marcosson, I.F., 1949. Metal magic: the story of the American Smelting & Refining Company.New York: Farrar, Straus.

Marston, S.A., 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24 (2), 219.Martinez, E.A., 2005, June 13. Getting to the bottom of the “Superfund”. Newspaper Tree, 13 June.

Available from: http://newspapertree.com/politics/617-getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-superfund[Accessed 10 October 2009].

McNeil, J.L., Ptasnick, J.S., and Croft, D.B., 1975. El Paso Smelter Effects on Smeltertown Children.Paper presented at the International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment, Toronto,Canada.

Mielke, H.W. and Reagan, P.L., 1998. Soil is an important pathway of human lead exposure.Environmental health perspectives, 106 (Suppl 1), 217.

Mielke, H.W., et al., 1999. The urban environment and children’s health: soils as an integrator of lead,zinc, and cadmium in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Environmental Research, 81 (2), 117–129.

Miller, C.B., 1972. Environmental lead analysis of soils, Rio Grande flood plain, El Paso County,Texas. Master’s thesis. ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso.

Momani, K.A., 2006. Partitioning of lead in urban street dust based on the particle size distributionand chemical environments. Soil & Sediment Contamination, 15 (2), 131–146.

Morse, D.L., et al., 1979. El Paso revisited. Epidemiologic follow-up of an environmental leadproblem. JAMA, 242 (8), 739.

Ndame, E.C., 1993. Heavy metals in soils in the vicinity of the University of Texas at El Paso Campus(El Paso County, Texas). Master’s thesis. ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso.

Needleman, H.L., 1990. What can the study of lead teach us about other toxicants? EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives, 86, 183.

Negron, S., 2005. City seeks to enforce 1999 Asarco Penalty. Newspaper Tree, 30 March. Available from:http://newspapertree.com/politics/552-city-seeks-to-enforce-1999-asarco-penalty [Accessed 5 August2009].

Negron, S., 2010. Q and A with Robert Puga: the main in charge of Asarco cleanup. El Paso, 27 Jan.Ordonez, B.R., Ruiz Romero, L., and Mora, I.R., 1976. Investigacion epidemiologica sobre niveles de

plomo en la poblacion infantil y en el medio ambiente domiciliario de ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua,en relacion con una fundicion de El Paso, Texas. Boletin de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana(OSP), 80 (4), 303.

Perales, M., 2008. Fighting to stay in Smeltertown: lead contamination and environmental justice in aMexican American Community. Western Historical Quarterly, 39 (1), 41.

Pingitore, N. E. Jr, et al., 2005. Toxic metals in the air and soil of the Paso del Norte region. In:R. C. Currey, K. E. Kelly, H. L. C. Meuzelaar and A. F. Sarofim, eds. The US–Mexican borderenvironment; an integrated approach to defining particulate matter issues in the Paso delNorte region. San Diego: San Diego State University, 131–171.

Rogan, W.J. and Ware, J.H., 2003. Exposure to lead in children—how low is low enough? NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 348 (16), 1515–1516.

Romero, M., 1997. The death of Smeltertown: a case study of lead poisoning in a Chicano commu-nity. Chicano Studies: Survey and Analysis, 115, 26–37.

Roy W. Weston, 2001. Removal Assessment Report for El Paso County Metals Site, El Paso County,Texas. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 and US Army Corps ofEngineers, Fort Crook Area, Rapid Response Resident Office.

Sanborn, M.D., et al., 2002. Identifying and managing adverse environmental health effects: 3. Leadexposure. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 166 (10), 1287–1292.

Schell, L.M., 1997. Culture as a stressor: a revised model of biocultural interaction. American journalof physical anthropology, 102 (1), 67–77.

Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition havefailed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shapleigh, E., 2009. ASARCO in El Paso: moving to a bright future – away from a polluted past. ElPaso, TX: The Senate of the State of Texas.

Smith, N., 1992. Geography, difference, and the politics of scale. In: J. Doherty, E. Graham and M.Malek, eds. Postmodernism and the social sciences. London: Macmillan, 55–79.

Srinivas, S., 1994. Heavy metal contamination of soils in public parks, El Paso, Texas. Master’sthesis. ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso.

Stack, M., 1999. Asarco begins shutdown: idea would keep part of plant working. El Paso Times, 9Feb.

Local Environment 813

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Steinemann, A., 2004. Human exposure, health hazards, and environmental regulations.Environmental impact assessment review, 24 (7–8), 695–710.

Stone, M., 2007. EPA begins cleanup of contaminated soil at residential properties in Anapra, N.M.Press Release: State of New Mexico Environment Department.

Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Social power and the urbanization of water: flows of power. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sze, J., et al., 2009. Defining and contesting environmental justice: socio-natures and the politics ofscale in the delta. Antipode, 41 (4), 807–843.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2010. Groundwater and surface water sampling at theASARCO site, El Paso, Texas [online]. Available from: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco/sampling [Accessed 5 September 2009].

Texas Department of Health, 2001a. Review of historical soil sampling results: El Paso County MetalSurvey Site. El Paso, TX [online]. Available from: www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/HistSoil.pdf [Accessed 28 August 2009].

Texas Department of Health, 2001b. University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) soil sample results. ElPaso, TX [online]. Available from: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/consults/UTEP1.shtm[Accessed 1 April 2009].

Texas Department of Health, 2002. El Paso County Metals Survey Health Consultation SummaryFact Sheet. El Paso, TX [online]. Available from: www.dshs.state.tx.us/epitox/fact_sheets/Sumfacts.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2009].

United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division), 2009a. TexasCommission on Environmental Quality’s Response to Public Comments Regarding the ConsentDecree and Settlement Agreement Establishing a Custodial Trust for the owned smelter site in ElPaso, Texas and the owned zinc smelter site in Amarillo, Texas, In re: ASARCO, LLC, et al.Debtor.

United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi Division), 2009b. UnitedStates’ Brief in Support of Debtors’ Motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 for Order ApprovingSettlement of Environmental Claims and Notice of Response to Public Comments Received,In re ASARCO, LLC, et al. Debtors.

US EPA, 2008. El Paso County/Dona Ana County Metals Site. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/texas/el_paso/tx_el_paso_index.html [Accessed 1 September 2009].

Washington Valdez, D., 2005. Arsenic, lead standards vary - Advocates say measure should be same.El Paso Times, 21 Feb.

Weston Solutions, 2004. Indoor sampling report for El Paso County metals survey site designatedresidences in Segundo Barrio, Chihuahuita, Kern Place, Rio Grande, and Sunset Heights, ElPaso, El Paso County, Texas. Prepared for US EPA Region 6, San Antonio, TX.

Williams, R.W., 1999. Environmental injustice in America and its politics of scale. PoliticalGeography, 18 (1), 49–73.

Wirth, J.D., 2000. Smelter smoke in North America: the politics of transborder pollution. Lawrence,KS: University Press of Kansas.

Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings; social identities and public understanding ofscience. In: A. Irwin and B. Wynne, eds. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstructionof science and technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University, 19–46.

Zhang, Y., 2003. 100 years of Pb deposition and transport in soils in Champaign, Illinois, USA. Water,Air, and Soil Pollution, 146 (1), 197–210.

1999 Toxic Release Inventory Public Data Release, 1988–1998 [online]. Available from: http://www.rtknet.org [Accessed 5 May 2009].

2000 US Census, 2000. US Census Bureau [online]. Available from: http://www.census.gov[Accessed 1 May 2009].

2009 US Census, 2009. US Census Bureau. Available from: http://www.census.gov [Accessed 1 May2009].

2010. ASARCO pays $3.6M for pollution cleanup. New Mexico Business Weekly, 22 Jan.

814 K.J. Darby

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

1:24

10

Oct

ober

201

4