Rebuttal Expert Report

Analysis of Contamination on the United States Section International

Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) Property in Relation to
the ASARCO El Paso Smelter

In Re: ASARCO, Inc

TXS, 05-21207

Prepared for

U. S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Section
Environmental Enforcement Section
Washington, DC

Prepared by

Allen J. Medine, Ph.D., P.E.

Water Science and Engineering, LLC
900 Valley Lane
Boulder, CO 80302

September 14, 2007

1
 Rebuttal Expert Report

Analysis of Contamination on the United States Section International Boundary and Water
Commission (USIBWC) Property in Relation to the ASARCO El Paso Smelter

Allen J. Medine, Ph.D., P.E.

Water Science and Engineering, LLC
900 Valley Lane
Boulder, CO 80302

I have reviewed the reports submitted by Jeffrey Zelikson and Richard White, and Dr. Robert
Powell, P.E. and Dr. William Desvousges concerning the USIBWC property. From my review
of these reports and information for the USIBWC, ASARCO and other off-site property
concerning contamination, it is my opinion that remediation of contaminated soils on the
USIBWC Field Office and Island property will be needed. In addition, the volume of
contaminated groundwater extracted during dewatering will exceed the capacity of the ASARCO
treatment plant and will require treatment prior to discharge, as described in the Conceptual
Design Report. In response to the reports offered in this case, I have the following additional
opinions:

1) Soil contamination has been observed at several feet in depth as opposed to the
several inches assumed by Drs. Powell and Desvousges in their report.

Soil contamination at the Field Office property has been found to be greater than the several
inches suggested by Drs. Powell and Desvousges1. Contamination of soils has been shown to be
as deep as 5 feet and contain lead, arsenic, cadmium, zinc and other metals, consistent with the
smelter across the road as the source. At the field office property and at locations along the canal,
soil samples collected showed lead, arsenic and other metal concentrations that are excessive enough
to warrant soil remediation and treatment of extracted ground water. Soil contamination has been
observed to the depth of sampling, generally 5 feet at many locations, and to show a general decrease
with depth although there were exceptions to this observation.
Soils beneath the metal buildings at the field office were likely contaminated from the ASARCO
Smelter during the period from 1887 up to the 1930’s when the buildings were constructed. Samples
were collected from the area of the Guardhouse and found to be contaminated with arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, tin and zinc from releases from the ASARCO facility.
Concentrations were found above residential soil screening levels (SSL) for arsenic, cadmium, and
lead, above the industrial Outdoor Worker SSL of 800 ppm for lead, and above the groundwater
protection SSLs for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and mercury. Remediation of the Guardhouse
area has been completed. Considering the observed data and that the depth of contamination varies
by location, assuming an average of two feet for soil removal is a reasonable estimate for the depth of
contamination, although the exact depth will be determined from confirmation sampling and risk
reduction criteria that are applied to the subsurface soils.

1
Drs. Powell and Desvousges Expert Report, Page 7 of 10, July 27, 2007.

2
2) Contaminated groundwater extracted during dewatering activities will need
treatment to remove contaminants prior to discharge.

Based on the contamination observed in groundwater and soils along the canal, remediation of
both of these media will be required during construction activities planned for the area
(contamination reported in my Expert Report). The Conceptual Design report provides the
needed specifics to sufficiently evaluate the removal and disposal of soil and the treatment of
contaminated groundwater. Drs. Powell and Desvousges refer to the contamination of soils and
groundwater impacts to be alleged, however, existing data shows this to not be alleged but
observed. Furthermore, the state of Texas in 2000 noted that “groundwater with elevated arsenic
concentrations appears to have migrated beyond the facility’s boundary in the western section of
the plant” and that “groundwater flow direction is generally in the westward direction toward the
Rio Grande”.2 The state noted that one of the wells contained arsenic at 315 mg/L (ppm) and
concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 3.7 mg/L (ppm) and provided “evidence that arsenic
concentrations in the groundwater have migrated from ASARCO’s main plant property onto the
adjacent landowner property (Railroad tracks and Piasano (sic) Drive) and back onto ASARCO’s
Smeltertown property.”3 The Smeltertown property is adjacent to and on the south-southeastern
side of the USIBWC Field Office. The state required ASARCO to submit an Interim Corrective
Measures Plan within 120 days to prevent arsenic in the contaminated groundwater from
migrating off-site to adjacent property. A control strategy to eliminate the off-site migration of
metals from the ASARCO property has not been implemented to my knowledge. For Drs.
Powell and Desvousges to refer to the USIBWC problem as “alleged contamination” when, in
fact, data is available showing the presence of contamination above health-based criteria has no
scientific merit. The MCL for arsenic in the groundwater is 0.05 mg/L (ppm) and, for example,
was observed in 2005 ranging from 0.41 to 1.7 mg/L along the upper section of the American
Canal.

3) Soils at the USIBWC Field Office and “Island” property pose a risk to office
staff/workers the environment, and must be remediated to protect human health and the
environment.

Concentrations of metals in soils exceeded screening levels for industrial activities; however, it is
not the only factor to consider when evaluating the need for remedial action. While the criteria
for cleanup of the off-site contamination on the USIBWC property has not been established by
the State of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), it is clear that the TCEQ will
implement criteria necessary to be protective of human health and the environment. In
discussing the Conditional Approval of the ASARCO Corrective Action Proposal for
remediation of contaminated soils at the ASARCO plant, the TCEQ in 2005 stated

2
TNRCC, 2000. Letter to Mr. Larry Johnson, Environmental Manager, ASARCO, regarding Area of
Contamination at the ASARCO El Paso Copper Smelter, Interim Corrective Action, from Brad Wilkinson, Project
Manager, Team I, Corrective Action Section, Remediation Division, Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission, July 13 (IBWC011638-640).
3
TNRCC, 2000. Letter to Mr. Larry Johnson, Environmental Manager, ASARCO, regarding Area of
Contamination at the ASARCO El Paso Copper Smelter, Interim Corrective Action, from Brad Wilkinson, Project
Manager, Team I, Corrective Action Section, Remediation Division, Texas Natural Resources Conservation
Commission, July 13 (IBWC011638-640).

3
 “ASARCO shall not terminate the remedial excavations until soil
analytical sampling results demonstrate that concentration protective of
human health and the environment have been reached, pursuant to the
Risk Reduction Rules or other Risk Reduction Rules adopted by the
TCEQ.”4

Soil remediation was estimated at 15,000 to 21,000 cubic yards by the MWH Conceptual Design
Report. Zelikson and White include no action as the predominant remedial choice (75%) and the
removal of 3,000 cubic yards (14% of the Conceptual Design Report estimate) as the next
predominant remedy. Zelikson and White suggest that the USEPA HHRB screening levels
represent very conservative default values and that they are generally not used to determine
remediation levels. While the TCEQ Human Health Risk Based guidelines may be used to
determine the scope of remediation, it must be recognized that alternative levels for the
protection of groundwater or surface water would need to be considered by the regulators. In
addition, samples collected of the upper several inches of soils would show considerably
elevated metal concentrations compared to the 0-1 foot interval (the deeper interval tends to
dilute excessive surface soil concentrations. The probability of no action or a very limited
removal (14% of the Conceptual Design Report estimate) is judged to be zero because it is not an
acceptable remedial scenario for soils that are clearly contaminated with metals.

In addition to the evaluation of human health risks posed by contaminants, the State of Texas
Risk Reduction Rules require the consideration of cross-media protection. For example, the soil-
to-groundwater cross-media protection requires a demonstration that contaminants in soil do not
pose the potential for leaching of contaminants to the groundwater. The concentration in soils
(referred to as the protective concentration level (PCL, in mg/kg) is established by determining
the upper level concentration for the soils that will not result in leaching to the ground water in
excess of the relevant criteria. In this case, the Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs: arsenic, 0.05 mg/L; cadmium, 0.005 mg/L; lead, 0.015 mg/L; and selenium, 0.05
mg/L) are relevant because the ground water is directly linked to a public water supply.
Considering the soil-to-groundwater cross-media concern, the Tier 1 ground water protection
standard for arsenic is 5 mg/kg and lead 3 mg/kg, respectively. This level can be modified if it is
established that leaching will be less than anticipated for the contaminated soil area.

Implementing a response action to achieve cleanup standards is a necessary part of the Texas
Risk Reduction Program process when critical protective concentration levels (PCLs) have been
exceeded. The cross-media soil to ground water linkage is illustrated in the following figure
from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Soil and Groundwater Response
Objectives (RG-366/TRRP-29).

4
TCEQ, 2005. Letter to Thomas Aldrich, ASAARCO, Vice President Environmental Affairs, regarding ASASROC
Corrective Action Proposal – Conditional Approval, from Ata-Ur-Rahman, Section Manager, Corrective Action
Section, Remediation Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, May 20 (IBWC011641-646).

4
 Reference: TNRCC, 2001. Regulatory Guidance, Remediation Division, RG-
366/TRRP-29, Soil and Groundwater Response Objectives.

Texas Surface Water Quality Standards must also be considered are also appropriate for erosion
of contaminated soils and discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters.
Additionally, Risk Reduction Rules state that contaminants in near-surface soils (defined as
within two feet of the surface) shall not exceed the lower of the soil MSC or the soil-to-
groundwater cross-media protection concentration. “In no event shall compliance be achieved
with the surface soil criteria by applying two feet of clean soil onto the surface of a facility or
area without prior approval. The concentration of a contaminant in subsurface soils (i.e., greater
than two feet in depth from the land surface) shall not exceed the soil-to-groundwater cross-
media protection concentration.”5 It is clear that decisions to remediate or not remediate are
inclusive of all pathways for the contaminants found in the soils and that contaminated soils
posing a risk to human health or the environment will be remediated. It is my opinion that
remediation of the contaminated soils on the USIBWC property will require remediation to
eliminate these threats.

There is no question that soils on USIBWC property have become contaminated from releases
from the ASARCO Smelter. Review of information in the Drexler and Ketterer Reports shows
impacts to considerable distances from the smelter and well beyond the USIBWC property area
directly adjacent to the smelter.6 The Conceptual Design Report and supporting Technical
Memorandum, issued well in advance of the bankruptcy litigation, established soil and

5
Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 335, Subchapter S, Risk Reduction Standards.
6
Drexler, J.W., 2003. The Source of Anomalous Lead and Arsenic Concentrations in Soils from the El Paso
Community – El Paso, Texas, prepared for the USEPA, June 5 (IBWC00552-614); 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), prepared for Sierra Club, January 27 (IBWC003778-3835).

5
groundwater contamination at levels requiring the development of waste management plans and
cost analyses to address the contamination.7

Furthermore, storm drains leaving ASARCO’s property and entering the Rio Grande just above
the American Dam and Canal have been observed to contain waste slag from ASARCO’s
operation. Runoff from ASARCO property flows directly into the canal and can be an additional
source during periodic events. Based on canal seepage to ground water losses reported by
Encon, migration of contamination entering the canal during runoff events and the subsequent
seepage into the surrounding soils and groundwater is a real issue.8

Soil samples collected from the Wash Rack Area at the USIBWC Field Office exceeded the Tier
1 ground water protection standard for arsenic (5 mg/kg) and lead (3 mg/kg), respectively as well
as a less stringent estimate for standards considering soil acid-base level (pH).9 Concentrations
measured in the surface soils ranged from 1.28 mg/kg to 8.87 mg/kg for arsenic and from 4.42
mg/kg to 85.8 mg/kg for lead. The authors provided an increase of these standard levels in an
attempt to predict the effects of pH on the availability of lead and arsenic to leach to ground
water. It must be emphasized that the leachability would need to be established by an
appropriate study of the potential to contaminate ground water from leaching. The Synthetic
Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) is referred to in the Texas Administrative Code as an
indicator of the potential leaching of lead, arsenic and other contaminants to soils. In the
leaching test, the concentrations of the metals in the liquid extract10 in mg/L are compared to the
applicable criteria for the ground water or the MCL (0.010 mg/L for arsenic and 0.15 mg/L for
lead). The mg/kg units for metals in soils represent the metal content while the mg/L in leachate
represents the amounts of metals that dissolve during leaching. Based on leaching results, the
total concentration of metals allowed in the soil, in mg/kg, can be established by simple
calculations.

While leaching tests have not been conducted using the SPLP, leaching of metals from
contaminated soils has been observed in a similar test used for hazardous waste determination.
During sampling for the Guard House construction, two samples were subjected to the TCLP
Test (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) required for disposal decisions regarding
excavated soils. While the one of the samples passed the characteristic test, the other sample
failed for cadmium. In addition, lead and cadmium concentrations in the Sample B4-A leachate
indicated that lead and cadmium leaching would be of concern with respect to MCLs for
groundwater, and the potential soil-to-groundwater cross-media contamination. Detection limits
for the analysis of arsenic and lead, while acceptable for hazardous waste determinations, were
not sufficiently low to evaluate the leaching with respect to the MCLs. These results point to the

7
MWH, 2002. Conceptual Design Report, American Canal Lining Replacement Study, prepared for USIBWC,
June (IBWC002727-3199); MWH, 2001. Technical Memorandum: Environmental Issues and Concerns,
Conceptual Design Study of Replacement Canal Lining, American Canal, American Dam to International Dam,
Prepared for U.S. IBWC, October 15 (IBWC000227-338).
8
ENCON, 2001. Final Environmental Assessment for “Replacement of the Old American Canal”, Located in El
Paso, Texas, prepared for the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, December 6
(IBWC002287).
9
Parsons, 2003. Soils Investigation Report, Wash Rack Area, American Dam Facility, prepared for USIBWC, June
(IBWC000511). (Does Anyone have the calculation for Appendix A, mine has a blank sheet????)
10
Using a 1:20 ratio of soil and synthetic rainwater representative of the western United States.

6
likely cross-media contamination from contaminated soils at the Field Office, the Island and
associated USIBWC property.

Guard House Soil Samples, TCLP - Metal Concentration, mg/L 11

Sample Composite Detection TCLP MCL
Metal B4-A Sample Limit, mg/L Limit, mg/L mg/L
As ND ND 0.2 5 0.010
Cd 1.18 mg/L 0.298 0.02 1 0.005
Pb 0.78 ND 0.1 5 0.015
Se ND ND 0.05 5 0.050

4) Dewatering of the construction site will generate volumes far greater than the
capacity of ASARCO’s water treatment plant and in significantly greater quantity (20X)
than Zelikson and White’s most probable estimate.

Drs. Powell and Desvousges assume for their calculation that the flows can be delivered to
ASARCO’s plant via a pipeline up to 5,000 feet long. The capacity of the ASARCO treatment
plant was listed in 2002 as 150 gpm12 and would be unable to meet the design flows of 400 gpm
proposed by Zelikson and White, let alone the flows estimated in the Conceptual Design Report.
Furthermore, the Conceptual Design report and recent calculations place the dewatering flows at
8,000 gpm or greater; the ASARCO treatment plant would only be able to handle 2% of the flow
and would do little to impact the estimated costs of groundwater treatment for the canal project.

5) Costs for the pipeline were underestimated by nearly a factor of 5 by Drs. Powell
and Desvousges in their report.

If ASARCO could provide treatment of some portion of the flow, the high density polyethylene
pipe (HDPE) pipeline proposed by Drs. Powell and Desvousges would need to be increased in
size and double-walled to provide leak protection and prevent releases to the environment from a
ruptured pipe, leading to increased costs. Costs for a comparable 6” double-walled pipe to
handle 400 gpm are estimated at $48/foot for material costs13 and $33/foot for installation14; total
costs including 15% contingency and a 10% design cost for 5,000 ft. would be $506,000 rather
than the $100,000 estimated by Drs. Powell and Desvousges. A larger pipe to handle increased
flow would only add to the cost underestimated by the debtors’ report.

11
VEGA Environmental Services, Inc., 2004. Waste Characterization Report and dust Mitigation Plan for the
Removal of contaminated Soil for the construction of a Guardhouse at the USIBWC American Dam Facility,
prepared for J&J Contracting and USIBWC, May 4 (IBWC000720-737)
12
ASARCO Consulting, 2002. Memorandum: Record of the October 7, 2002 IBWC-ASARCO Meeting, dated
October 11, 2002, prepared by Arturo Burgos, ASARCO Consulting (IBWC011420-422).
13
RS Means, 2005. Environmental Remediation Cost Data, 11th Annual Edition, with a slight increase to reflect
current costs.
14
Based on experience and recent estimated costs for installation of a groundwater piping and remediation system
for the Eagle-Picher Site in Socorro, New Mexico.

7
6) Dewatering flows are confidently estimated at 8,000 gpm for the canal project as
reported by MWH.

While Mssrs. Zelikson and White in their Supplemental Expert Report15 accept the exceedance
of MCLs in groundwater and that the dewatered groundwater may require treatment, they
dismiss the estimated dewatering flows of 8,000 gpm by geotechnical engineers (Law Crandall)
and instead substitute an unreasonable amount of 400 gpm as the 95% probable flow and 1,200
gpm as the 5% probable flow, with no justification and no engineering analysis.16 Furthermore,
they refer to “a meeting between ASARCO and IBWC acknowledged that the groundwater
treatment ‘volume of 8,000 GPM (18 cfs) from dewatering was very excessive.’ ”17 What Mssrs.
Zelikson and White did not point out was that this quote was ASARCO’s version of minutes of a
meeting at which an ASARCO employee (Tom Klempel, ASARCO Consulting) “indicated that
the volume of 8000 GPM (18 cfs) from dewatering was very excessive”.18 USIBWC notes from
the same meeting do not record an acknowledgement by USIBWC that the flows were very
excessive, and, in fact, do not refer to the flows at all from dewatering.19 In determining that the
Law Crandall flow was likely overstated, Zelikson and White indicate that the estimate was “not
based on any site-specific pumping data and therefore is likely to be significantly over-
estimated”. Their conclusion regarding the estimated flows is not based on engineering analysis
as discussed below.

The estimated dewatering rate of 8,000 gpm for a 500-foot section was developed by the
geotechnical firm of Law Crandall and signed by a professional engineer using the “degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical
consultants practicing in this or similar localities.”20 The estimated rate of 8,000 gpm was
determined from a series of calculations using assumptions for important factors and considering
that the calculated flow rate was affected by the proximity of the Rio Grande River to the canal,
the permeability of the materials, and the need to uniformly lower the groundwater to
accommodate construction along a 500-foot segment. Assumptions included the following:

• Dimensions of the excavation

• Dewatering wells placed along both sides of the dewatered section
• Unconfined aquifer
• Permeability coefficient of 0.01 cm/sec
• Channel depth of 12 feet below ground surface (bgs)
• Depth to groundwater at 7 feet below the top of the channel
• Depth to bedrock at 50 ft bgs
• Drawdown needed to dewater for construction at 10 feet
15
Zelikson, J. and White, R.L., 2007. Supplemental Expert Report and Appendix B-17.
16
Zelikson, J. and White, R.L., 2007. Appendix B-17, page 12.
17
ASARCO Consulting, 2002. Memorandum: Record of the October 7, 2002 IBWC-ASARCO Meeting, dated
October 11, 2002, prepared by Arturo Burgos, ASARCO Consulting (IBWC011420-422).
18
Same memo, ASARCO Consulting, 2002 (IBWC011420-422).
19
USIBWC, 2002. Minutes of a meeting between ASARCO and USIBWC concerning the MWH soil and
groundwater results, October 8 (IBWC000019-021).
20
Law Crandall, 2002. Report of Geotechnical Investigations, Proposed Replacement Canal Lining, American
Canal Reach “F”, El Paso, Texas, prepared for MWH, April 17 (IBWC002848), report sealed by David L.
Thomasson, a registered professional engineer in the State of Texas.

8
While the Law Crandall estimate was not based on site-specific pumping, recent dewatering
work done at American Dam allowed an evaluation of dewatering requirements in the area. As
part of an inspection of the sheetpile at the American Dam by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (Vicksburg, MS), a dewatering project by Western Dewatering was implemented to
allow dam inspection.21 Western Dewatering used a well field of 70 wells on a two-foot spacing
to dewater the sheetpile area for inspection after installing a temporary cofferdam 300 ft
upstream and diverting the Rio Grande into the American Canal (groundwater was subsequently
lowered 7 feet below the slab elevation). Subsequent calculations by Gabe Duran, USIBWC,
were reviewed by myself and substantiate the estimate of 8,000 gpm by Law Crandall for the
canal project as a reasonable estimate of dewatering flows.22 Using information from the
Western Dewatering project, Mr. Duran calculated a dewatering flow of approximately 10,300
gallons per minute for the 500 linear ft. area for the relining project and provides a check on the
Law Crandall calculation.

7) Groundwater contamination will continue to migrate and will enter the canal
depending on the seasonal groundwater levels and the water level in the canal.

Groundwater is free to move into the canal during low flow or de-watered conditions of the
canal. During canal de-watering, groundwater can freely move into the canal through joints and
weep holes. Depth to groundwater was 10-16 feet, measured during the geotechnical
investigations23 during August 2 to September 7, 2001 for the Conceptual Design report (MWH,
200224) in borings near the canal. However, groundwater elevations fluctuate on a seasonal
basis, irrigation practices and other factors.

The site-wide groundwater remediation system required by the state in 2000 does not exist to my
knowledge and will not likely be effective at restoring groundwater quality in the near future. A
slurry wall system, based on experience in similar geological formations, will have little chance
of acceptance by the regulators to address the ASARCO groundwater contamination and the
need to protect public health and the environment. Zelikson and White suggest that the
groundwater pump and treat remedy would be effective at 200 gpm: no data, discussion,
hydrologic analysis or engineering analysis is provided by competent hydrologists or engineers
that the pump and treat remedy would be effective at this rate. Furthermore, the ASARCO
groundwater remedy will not address contamination that has already migrated past the property
boundary and to USIBWC property.

21
ERDC, 2007. Letter Report: Sheetpile Inspection at American Dam, El Paso, TX, 14-15 January 2007. Prepared
by Joseph Padula and Joseph Dunbar, Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station,
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS, March 14 (IBWC011648).
22
Gabe Duran, 2007. American Canal De-Water Estimate, USIBWC, dated August 7, 2007 (IBWC011647).
23
Law Crandall, 2002. Report of Geotechnical Investigations, Proposed Replacement Canal Lining, American
Canal Reach “F”, El Paso, Texas, prepared for MWH, April 17 (IBWC002841).
24
MWH, 2002. Conceptual Design Report, American Canal Lining Replacement Study, prepared for USIBWC,
June (IBWC002727-3199).