State Inspects Asarco Slag Disposal

State Inspects Asarco Slag Disposal

Three years before Asarco shut down in Omaha, there was an investigation into whether Asarco was properly disposing of their slag. This March 1994 newspaper article shows a glimpse of the tension between Asarco and State Officials and also some of the action leading up to Asarco’s eventual closure. According to the article, slag was a waste byproduct of smelting. They explain that slag contains substances like lead, arsenic, antimony, copper, along with other substances. The improper removal of slag could result in exposing people to hazardous waste, with toxic materials entering soil and water, which would prove dangerous for residents. Slag also turns into almost dust when it is dried and easily drifts into the air. This dust is made up of lead and other materials and as it gets blown onto the streets, it becomes a hazard for people in the area. At the time of the article, the State was looking into Asarco’s slag removal to ensure that it was being done properly.
The State’s investigation into Asarco’s slag removal was argued against by employees at Asarco. The plant manager, Gus Paul, claimed that there was no proof that slag was toxic in any way. Asarco’s stance was that they didn’t do anything wrong. Asarco did agree to move the slag and make sure that it was properly disposed of, which was a very costly endeavor.
This all came out about a month after a lawsuit was filed against Asarco by the State of Nebraska. The claims made in this suit were directly related to the State’s investigation of the slag disposal, and give a more clear picture as to what the implications of the improper removal of the slag had on Omaha’s residents. The lawsuit specified that the slag contained lead, arsenic, barium, beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, calcium, cobalt, chlorine, chromium, iron, manganese, titanium, thallium, zinc, and vanadium. It also specified that the slag had contaminated waterways that people frequented for activities including boating, fishing, and swimming, showing that this contaminated water was probably ingested by many unknowing people.
The suit also claimed that Asarco did not have the permit they needed for their discharges, which the state insinuates was in order for Asarco to get economic benefits despite the environmental harm. Gus Paul also commented on this saying that, once again, “there is no evidence that the discharge is harmful to aquatic life.” These instances start to show Asarco’s resistance to allowing lead remediation efforts to take full effect. It gives insight into why it might have taken so long and been such a slow process to start these efforts in Omaha. It paints a much clearer picture as to why it was a slow and expensive process to go to Omaha’s root of the lead problem and make corrections.
Another article included in this timeframe was a short opinion piece, sharing the perspective of an Asarco employee, expressing that without Asarco he will be out of a steady income. The takeaway from this was that while there might be some environmental harm, some people would prefer that over losing a company that had become a part of the city of Omaha and had provided wages to many people for over a century. To these people, it was not as clear why challenges to Asarco were necessary, as they depended on Asarco for their livelihood. A challenge to Asarco, or essentially action taken to hold Asarco accountable for wrongdoing, seemed to punish far more people than it would help, especially in the immediate aftermath. That could have added to the resistance against the EPA taking control of lead remediation in Omaha and explain why it was such a slow start.

Omaha World Herald

Omaha World Harold

Omaha World Harold

March 29th, 1994

Chelsea Greenway