Asarco secret document mcmurray 73 page 1998 conf settlement purposes only epa usdoj asarco: Search for "Elizabeth Schell", and read the "*****" footnote

Sunday, May 19, 2024

Search for "Elizabeth Schell", and read the "*****" footnote

https://www.recastingthesmelter.com/?page_id=8

Mcmurray emails and cleanup trusts' responses

May 25, 2016

Email Response from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga

Email Subject Heading: RE: Isotopes at Asarco El Paso site

Dear Mr. Puga,

Thank you for responding.

The El Paso ASARCO site DID smelt nuclear control rod materials. That data was given to TCEQ, EPA and US

DOJ many years ago.

The clean up Trust was exempt by the bankruptcy court from testing for ANY radioactive materials.

I asked why we have not ever been given the levels of any of the isotopes listed in the attached picture: i.e.

ANY radioactive isotopes. You did not answer.

The 1998 EPA US DOJ ASARCO 73 page confidential for settlement purposes only document lists many

invoices at the back. The Trust never reviewed that set of invoices, nor were these ever released to anyone.

Equipment was powerwashed and sold with stipulation that any testing for radioactive material be done by

the buyer.

You out-right refused to run free radon tests on site. You out right refused to allow collection of any of the

distillation unit’s slag. No one has tested the WWII old lead dump (where the lead smelter’s waste was

deposited) for by products of wulfenite smelting.

And these examples are only a few of the many.

There is a COMPLETE absence of data from the people formerly and currently in control of the site

concerning these matters.

A COMPLETE silence: NO data.

It is very glaring. What you wrote me does not concern testing for or providing this data to el paso citizens.

You categorically state that no radioactive wastes (not talking NORM) were smelted here, when that is not

true. Plus you mention the smelting of NORM waste, which can be more toxic than controlled High level

radioactive wastes.

Then you end your reply by stating that the site is not above regulatory levels for radioactivity: have you

tested for that and where is your data ?

A single alpha particle is more toxic than the arsenic that is listed as a chemical of concern.

It is unbelievable that you sent me NO DATA in your reply.

It is a complete silence concerning the high level radioactive wastes that ASARCO , engelhard and Dupont

sent here for burning. Each of them were U.S. DOE high level radioactive radioactive waste disposal

contractors; and, each of them listed as sending illegal materials here for burning.

The nuclear control rod material measurements should come from our government and contractors….NOT

from citizen action.

You know that the slag offgases, and that capping with clean soil and asphalt is not protective of long term

exposure on that site. And you know that turning the primary arroyo into a dump, when the hugely toxic

arsenic bubble exists beneath and according to TCEQ has reached the rio grande, is not protective of our

public health.

Selling this site, even to a government body like UTEP, will not make it safe. I believe you know that, Mr. Puga,

and I belive you care enough to speak up.

If you do not, then you leave a legacy for your family a hundred years from now of covering up something

you could have exposed. That is a sad legacy, followed with the people who will grow up poisoned, with

teratogenic birth defects and diseases associated with long term exposure to even low level radioactive

wastes.

You have to have known this. I write this letter so future generations will know that buck stopped at your

desk;and, that instead of coming clean about ASARCO’s role here as a HLRW (high level radioactive waste) U.S

DOE official disposal contractor, you perpetuated the cover up. Not for just Asarco, but for several other such

U.S. DOE contractors whom were caught sending illegal wastes here to ASARCO for burning (engelhard and

dupont).

This entire site SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.

Sincerely,

H. Mcmurray, m.s. biological sciences

0 comments

May 21, 2016

Email from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga

Email Subject Heading: Isotopes at Asarco El Paso site

Dear Mr Puga,

There is a complete absence of data from Asarco/agencies regarding radioactive isotope levels from asarco

site. Why?

To not even release data on those radioactive isotopes common to smelting….to eliminate *all* as “chemicals

of concern” for clean up is disrespectful of our El Paso families’ right to know. We know that Asarco, Engelhard and Dupont (each caught sending illegal materials to adarco el paso for

burning) were among the key U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste disposal contractors; and, that nuclear

control rod material was burned here.

I respectfully ask why we citizens in El Paso TX have never been given the levels of the isotopes listed in the

attached picture….we know that some are common to smelters and that the Asarco el paso smelter installed a

distillation unit to remove some of the low level radioactive isotopes (all enviromental agencies and you

refused to allow me to pick up slag from this unit after its fire).

So, why the deep silence and total lack of *any* public data from this site over its lifetime??

It is not responsible, ethical, or protective of citizens to keep this under wraps. And to make $$ as the

company charged with “clean up” of that site, even if endorsed by the bankruptcy, implies that it cannot be

cleaned up.

This silence suggests that so much damage was done by a decade of disposal for the U.S. DOE, that disclosure

of the isotopes’ levels would be detrimental to the declared value of that land, and the 1000 square miles

around the site (e.g., Tacoma, WA).

Please state for the record if any data exists for the amount of isotopes listed in the attached picture, for the

asarco site: whether confidential, classified, business-privileged, etc. ANY at all? And, if not, why?

Keeping a lid on it is not protective of public health.

Sincerely,

H. Mcmurray, m.s. biol. Sci.

Response from Roberto Puga:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you once again for your continued interest in the Former ASARCO Smelter site. Please see below

for our responses to the questions you posed in your May 21, 2016 e-mail. As we have done in the past

both your original e-mail and our responses will be posted on the blog section of the

www.recastingthesmelter.com webpage.

The Asarco site has been extensively investigated and the results from the various site investigations

may be found at the TCEQ website. These results are included in the attachments and appendices to

the investigation reports. See the following website:

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco/downloads

Because the site did not handle radioactive materials and no facilities that shipped waste to Asarco

handled radioactive material, no radiation surveys were required and the Texas Custodial Trust (the

Trust) has not collected measurements for radioactivity at the Site.

Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is present everywhere in the environment and the

Trust carefully reviewed the study the EPA produced in 1999 that specifically examines copper mining

in Arizona, and the technological enhancement of natural radioactive material (TENORM) through the mining process . Given the nature of the smelter feed, the level of documentation on the subject, and

the scrutiny by the regulatory agencies involved in the project, we do not believe that the concentrates

processed at the plant could result radioactive levels above any regulatory limits.

The Trust has also investigated records received from EPA regarding material shipments to the site,

specifically materials that may have been processed by ENCYCLE and other sources. In October 2010

the Trust issued the Review of Asarco El Paso Smelting Processes, which can be found here:

http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/?page_id=16

The review document included an evaluation of shipment records that were available to the Trust at

that time. Section 3.1 of the review document included the list of 17 records, posted in 2010 to the

USEPA Region 6 Website that describe materials that had been shipped to ENCYCLE from numerous

sources. This evaluation found a letter dated December 1995 where ENCYCLE informed the TNRCC that

it had received a lead sulfide waste; containing naturally occurring radioactive material at quantities

less than the regulated level; but it did not indicate the quantity of material or if the material was

shipped to the El Paso Site. It should be noted that there was no lead processing on the site since the mid-1980s.

In 2012 the Trust initiated the evaluation of shipment records, made available by the USEPA in 2011

and 2012, related to shipments concerning ENCYCLE. The resulting evaluation of records made

available by the USEPA was included in the Supplement Remedial Investigation (RI) Report that is

available here:

http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-

content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/Revised-Supplemental-RI-Report-2014-10-

17/Revised-Supplemental-Remedial-Investigation-Report_Oct2014-sealed.pdf

To date the evaluation of shipment records has not found indications of radioactive materials. In

addition, the records document that quench brine from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado

(RMA) and the Deseret Chemical Depot in Utah (DCD) were shipped to ENCYCLE. RMA and DCD

were/are chemical weapons facilities, not nuclear facilities, so their wastes are not expected to be

radioactive. The 2005 Five-Year Review Report for Rocky Mountain Arsenal does not list radioactive

isotopes as chemicals of concern. According to a May 14, 2010, letter from the USEPA to community members, each waste shipment sent from RMA to ENCYCLE (which later shipped the waste to the Site)

was tested and found not to be radioactive.

Given the scrutiny of the site from both state and federal authorities, we do not expect natural or man-

made radioactive materials above regulatory levels on or around the facility or in the stack.

The Trust has been completely transparent in its discussions regarding the constituents of concern at

the Site and made available to the public all material it has and there is nothing kept “secret” by the

Trust. For the current cleanup program, the Trust has posted on its website all documents it produces

in the form of plans, specifications, presentations and reports.

Regards,

Roberto Puga, P.G.

0 comments

May 20, 2016

Community Meeting Announcement

A Community Meeting regarding the Former ASARCO Smelter Site is currently being scheduled for June 16,

2016. The purpose of this meeting is to inform the public of the current status of the site remediation.

Downtown Main Library

501 N Oregon

El Paso, TX 79901

Time: 5:30-7:00PM

Additional information will be provided if available.

Visit the Trust’s website: www.recastingthesmelter.com.

January 01, 2016

Upper Parker Brothers Arroyo Improvements Underway

January 2012

September 2012

September 12, 2015

Email from Heather McMurray to Rep. Beto O’Rourke (c/o Alejandra Gaytan) and Site Trustee, Roberto

Puga

To: Attention of the Honorable Rep. Beto O’Rourke (c/o Alejandra Gaytan)

Asarco El Paso Clean Up Trustee, Roberto Puga

El Paso Inc.

Fr: Heather McMurray, m.s. biological sciences

sb: Sale of the remaining ASARCO El Paso smelter land (estimated current worth nearly 1/2 billion dollars)

Dear Sirs:

Please provide me with U.S. Mail Addresses to all the above so that I may send a copy of this letter to

each of you through registered mail.

Below is a copy of a statement dictated to the Hon. Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s staff last year. Please forward a copy

to all bidders on the ASARCO land: IT CANNOT BE CLEANED UP. Even the chemicals of concern that are

discussed publicly (Cd, Pb, As etc) have only cosmetically been sealed up.

Statement made 2/21/2014 at 3PM EST for Honorable Rep. O’Rourke’s Attention

My Background: Masters in Science

Fully endorsed by Nobel team winner Dr. Devra Davis, author of “Secret history of Cancer”

Attended Rachel Carson’s College – she wrote “Silent Spring” a key book about the dangers of both toxic

chemicals and radiation

Trained under the last PHD student for Nobel Medical Prize Winner Dr. Niko Tinbergen

Fully certified designated highly qualified Science teacher grades 8-12, also, certified to teach gifted students

(UTEP, 2010)

Bachelors of Science at the Ohio State University

Endorsed by Father of semiotics, Dr. Thomas Sebeok (on file OSU), who participated in WA D.C. panel on how

to label nuclear waste sites to warn off future generations

Researcher who uncovered the US DOJ EPA ASARCO 1998 73 page confidential for settlement purposes only

document that was front page NYTimes news 10/2006 [added 9/15]

It has come to my attention that development is planned for a 200+ acres of land on the other side of TX

Interstate I-10, part of the original Asarco properties a stone’s throw away from the site of the Asarco stacks.

The plans for this site are to create family homes. Under smart code development requirements they are

required to build an elementary school and playground. We know per Dr. Goodell (UTEP) statement to

Channel 7 KVIA that paving the Asarco site will not make the area safe for people. We know that slag gives off

gases (called “off-gassing”) for nearly 100 years. Some of these gases are toxic (I.e Arsenic) and cannot be

smelled or tasted. We know from the Mesita School Health Study (Peer reviewed) that children growing up

attending that school close to the Asarco site have a greater chance in their lifetime of getting MS.

• Honorable Rep. Beto O’Rourke has a greater chance of getting MS from attending the Mesita School.

• Males who have MS have greater chance of passing MS to their children.

• According to smart code Dover Kohl diagram an elementary school will be placed on top of Asarco old lead

dump, which is quite large. The grading permits are in place.

• This lead dump was created during the 1940s and 1950s and has remained undisturbed throughout the

cleanup.

• During the 1940s the UTEP (formerly College of mines, next to Asarco site) grads were at the center of the

largest uranium strikes found in the Western United States.

• Asarco during those years was a custom smelter. It would smelt anything. It had a lead smelter.

• Lead smelter during those years (1940s-1950s) were used to separate out Uranium from their parent ores

(i.e. Wulfenite).

• The waste material (ores) would’ve been put in the old lead dump and likely are radioactive tailings.

• Under the bankruptcy agreement, the trustee for the cleanup is not required to address radioactive waste.

• Despite 8 years of research, all government agencies (EPA, USDA, DoD, DOJ, etc) have refused any

information regarding “regulated” radioactive materials going through our El Paso Asarco site. They claim no

knowledge and refuse to release key invoices listed in the 73 page US DOJ EPA Asarco confidential for

settlement purposes only document (now in public domain, see NYTimes 10/2006)

• The old Atomic Energy Act still protects Asarco and all involved from disclosure and liability.

• Engelhard, Dupont, Asarco were listed in the aforementioned 1998 confidential for settlement purposes

only document sludges, incinerator ashes and only God knows what else through the two El Paso Asarco con-

top furnaces (that metal curled stack was shorter than the others so its smoke stayed more local – likely a 30 mile radius including Juarez Mexico, Southern New Mexico and Texas).

• I uncovered a document from Idaho National Laboratory Library detailing how Asarco, Dupont, Engelhard

were official U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste disposal contractors from places like Oakridge TN and

Hanford WA during the years Asarco was burning illegal, secret hazardous waste (1998 73 page USDOJ EPA

Asarco formerly confidential for settlement purposes only document)(New York Times, front page story,

October 2006).

• The community has not been told all the details about what has been burned all those years and is still not

being told.

• We have data showing that the chemical element Hafnium is found in greater quantities amount near the

stack location. Hafnium is unusual. Hafnium is commonly found in nuclear control rods.

• In 1998 an EPA publicly announced that El Paso had the highest Beta radiation levels in the nation. Higher

than Oakridge, Higher than Hanford. In October 1998, Texas suddenly decided to deny the license of the

Sierra Blanca Nuclear Dump site. During that time, the media coverage on that issue of the dump was so high

that thousands of people were marching at the Capitol of Mexico against the dump. Media coverage was

huge.

• By December 1998, Asarco said in the El Paso Times it was thinking about “idling” the Asarco Smelter, and it

did beginning of February 1999. The plant never re-opened. All the staff who worked at the site’s steam plant

are dead now, from unusual diseases, according to an unnamed supervisor.

• I asked all the environmental agencies representatives to give me a sample of slag from the Asarco water

distillation unit (it went up in flames during clean-up) rated to remove radioactive waste from the plant’s

process water. They refused.

Given all this information, we know Asarco ran U.S. DOE high level radioactive waste materials through the

El Paso Asarco smelter and it is likely that the old lead dump contained radioactive material. That whole area

would be contaminated by Arsenic for years to come. If the powers that be still continue with development of

the Asarco site as detailed recently in an El Paso Inc article by David Crowder, I plead, deeply plead, with

Honorable Representative Beto O’Rourke, given his own experience attending Mesita Elementary School a mile from Asarco, that they do not allow children to grow up on any of the Asarco land. That they do not

build play grounds. That they do not build an elementary school there. He of all people should understand

having attended Mesita the risks that that all these children will undergo if they allow the school and

playground to be built. As a certified teacher and a Christian, it deeply grieves me. It hurts my heart to watch

this happen.

Sincerely,

Heather McMurray

January 14, 2013

Email from Heather McMurray to Site Trustee, Roberto Puga

Email Subject Heading: Why has the Trust lied by omission to the El Paso Community?

Roberto Puga’s response is bolded.

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you once again for your continues interest in the Former ASARCO site. I apologize for the length

of time it took for us to respond to you – it was a combination comprehensively answering your

questions coupled with the holiday season vacations of my staff. Please see below for our responses,

and as you requested this exchange will be posted on our website blog.

Mr. Puga,

ASARCO has been acting for years as a HLRW (high level radioactive waste) U.S. DOE waste disposal

contractor — for places like Oakridge, TN and Hanford, WA and nearly 30 other sites. Why did you never tell

the community? You, the EPA, the US DOE, DOJ and others would not mention it even under TX PIA or federal

FOIA acts to many of those agencies for full disclosure of ASARCO.) It is my understanding that once the Trust

sold materials to be used, burned, etc, that it was those company’s responsibility to run radiation tests on the

materials after receipt.

Response: As we have stated previously, both the EPA and GAO have reviewed and reported on the

Asarco and Encycle matter which addressed the issue of improper waste handling. Enforcement action

was taken against Asarco and the matter was settled in 1999. The GAO report and subsequent EPA

documents are clear in their findings and conclusions regarding the issue.

As we discussed above, Asarco, as a large integrated metal producer and refiner obviously handled a

wide variety materials including radioactive materials. Given the scrutiny of the site from both state

and federal authorities, we do not expect man-made radioisotopes, TENORM, byproducts or residues at

levels above their respective natural levels. Our focus is on the identified constituents which include

lead, arsenic and cadmium.

The Trust issued the Review of Asarco El Paso Smelting Processes in October 2010. The review

document was based on the evaluation of shipment records that were available to the Trust at that

time. Section 3.1 of the review document included the list of 17 records, posted in 2010 to the USEPA

Region 6 Website (http://www.epa.gov/region6/asarco_documents/asarco_documents.html), that

describe materials that had been shipped to ENCYCLE from numerous sources.

In 2012 the Trust initiated the evaluation of records, made available by the USEPA in 2011 and 2012,

related to shipments to ENCYCLE. This evaluation is ongoing and should be completed in January 2013

and will be documented as part of the Supplement Remedial Investigation (RI) for the site that is

currently being prepared. It is anticipated that the Supplemental RI will be completed in the first

quarter of 2013 and will be made available for public review at the time it is submitted for agency

review.

Please do not continue to act as if the grounds are safe for tours, that the stack can be safely blown and the

pieces stored in an arroyo over a maximum-life 40 year plastic liner right next to the Rio Grande that supplies

60 % of our drinking water. The stack is safer left plugged and standing.

You have allowed visitors onto the site and in the stack without testing for any of the alpha or beta radiation

remaining. You have hidden, protected under the Atomic energy act and subsequent asarco bankruptcy that

refused to discuss the U.S. DOE radioactive high level waste disposal contractors (at least two more besides

asarco) CAUGHT sending illegal waste sludges and incinerator ashes to El Paso. You have ignored the levels of

hafnium found at higher levels nearer the stacks — an element mostly used in nuclear control rods.

Please stop the tours.

Response in regard to Tours: The former Asarco El Paso Smelter Site has been extensively investigated

and the issues surrounding handling of wastes have been addressed. Environmental monitoring is

performed throughout the project and the data has been reviewed by both EPA and TCEQ, as well as

industrial hygienists charged with assuring compliance with the applicable health, safety and

environmental regulations as directed by those agencies. On this basis we believe the Site is safe for

guided tours of short duration.

Response in regard to the Demolition of the Stack: Dykon Explosive Demolition, Inc. has more than 30

years in explosive demolition experience and is responsible for the felling of more than 100 stacks

around the world. Dust suppression techniques will be customized to address any area where dust is

anticipated to be generated. Additionally, traffic will be controlled and rerouted, as necessary, by the

El Paso Police Department on the day of the demolition.

You mentioned in the press/media years ago that as a young person you had assisted a local Catholic Priest in

Sunday worships. I hope that you will repent what you are doing and quit and get out of this business if it

does not let you be honest with us. Even the integrity of the local head of the clean up firm you are using has

come under scrutiny by having his powers as Trustee on the EPISD school board removed (David Dodge of Malcolm Pirnie).

No elementary school or personal housing should be built across the freeway on top of the old lead ASARCO

dump (it has not been touched or remediated). Be honest with this community.

Response: As you may be aware, the City of El Paso in 2010 commissioned a development study of

various parts of the City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl.

The development study included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the

community regarding their vision for the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study

recommended that the former ASARCO site properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the

area between Paisano Drive and the Rio Grande formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for

commercial/light industrial use. These properties are not zoned for residential use.

However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have

wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be

cleaned up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of

contamination on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on

the findings of the investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be

developed as residential. As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired

uses for all of the properties and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.

It is common scientific knowledge that the chemicals illegally disposed of in our El Paso ASARCO stacks can

be associated with leukemias, birth defects including loss of organs at birth ( brain, limb/s) , cancers, and

other diseases. It is also common knowledge that the slag does not hold the chemicals forever and that every

ten years 10 percent of the materials have off-gassed or leached out.

Response: The Trust was not provided with resources or mandate to address past physical injuries that

may have been incurred by any person who worked at the ASARCO plant, and was not provided with

resources or mandate to address ASARCO’s “actions,” legal or otherwise, while it owned the site. The

Trust is tasked with: 1) coming up with the best remedial plan achievable with the money provided by

the bankruptcy court to address the environmental concerns and 2) to sell the property according to

the appropriate uses allowed by the TCEQ and EPA, in conjunction with consultation with the City of El

Paso on the use and sale of the property; the Trust is committed to fulfilling these tasks.

Again, I plead with you to be honest with the people of this region or quit.

Response: The Trust has been completely transparent in its discussions regarding the constituents of

concern at the Site and made available to the public all material it has and there is nothing kept

“secret” by the Trust. Any other documents not in our possession are available from TCEQ or EPA. For

the current cleanup program, the Trust has posted on its website all documents it produces in the form

of plans, specifications, presentations and reports. The allegation that the Trust, which is charged with

cleaning up the Asarco site, is somehow withholding information or failing to pursue issues relevant to

health and safety of the community is simply false and unsupported by its actions.

Heather McMurray, M.S. Biological sciences , certified/highly qualified composite science teacher

1 comment

January 14, 2013

Email from Ross Maynard to Site Trustee Roberto Puga

The following is an email exchange between Ross Maynard and the Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses are in

bold.

You may have a fantastic opportunity in those smokestacks!

Go to these web sites and you’ll see what I’m talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

http://www.solaripedia.com/13/371/5025/solar_updraft_tower_in_manzanares_spain.html

Please take this message seriously. You could get international attention with a project like this.

Ross Maynard Williamston MI

Roberto Puga’s response:

Dear Mr. Maynard,

Thank you for your interest in the former ASARCO site, and for sending me the solar updraft

information.

In our opinion, using the on-site tower as the basis of a solar updraft project is not feasible for the

following reasons:

Tower Height – the tallest onsite tower is 826-feet high. Typically, solar updraft project specify towers

in commercial projects that are being planned are thousands of feet tall.

Solar Energy Collector Area – Also, the need a significant area around the base of the tower for solar

energy collector (>100 acres). The entire smelter site property is about 125 acres, but it is

asymmetrical, i.e., the tower is on one end of the oval shaped property. This asymmetry would reduce

the available solar energy collection area.

Potential Output – The experimental solar updraft project in Manzanares, Spain was 50 kW (per the

information you sent me). The Manzanares tower height and collection area were similar to what we

would have at the former ASACRO site. 50 kW is a very small return for the capital investment

necessary to convert the tower to a solar updraft project. And, more importantly, it will make the City’s

vision for redevelopment impossible.

Tower Structural Stability – A recent evaluation of the tower structural stability indicates that there is

a serious deflect in the tower’s design vis-à-vis wind loads. This defect would have to be corrected

before the tower could be used for any purpose.

Thank you for interest, and don’t hesitate to contact us again with any other question or comment.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

Trustee.

April 05, 2012

Comment from Heather McMurray

The following is a duplication of a blog exchange between El Paso resident, Heather McMurray and Site Trustee,

Roberto Puga from the March 27th blog post titled “The future for ASARCO.”

Comment by Heather — March 28, 2012 @ 1:14 am

As the El Paso Trustee has stated before, the TRUST is under NO fiduciary or contractual responsibility to test

the stack [s] or slag from the process water distillation unit —- in other words to let us know what illegal

chemicals remain here. The EPA and Federal Dept of Justice said that Asarco had run an illegal multi state

hazardous waste incineration operation from 1991 to 1998 to make $$$$. Despite the Trust spending nearly

1/2 million dollars on testing we still do not have test results as thorough as those run for $twenty-thousand

dollars by a private citizen — which provided a full metals panel. This site should not have schools,

playgrounds or businesses until we are told the complete picture. It takes only swallowing or breathing ONE

alpha radioactive particle for the exposure to be more toxic than arsenic. So why after six years of questions

to the EPA and others, we cannot get a report showing what radioisotopes remain including radioactive lead,

radium, radon, actinide-metals……. Why on earth is this land zoned for high-density of people and as a

‘walkable’ area when it is safer to stay inside with the windows shut according to an arsenic expert in N.C.?

admin Reply: April 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Response from the Trust

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your comment and continued interest in this challenging project.

The Trust, the TCEQ and the EPA maintain that the Site is adequately characterized and based on the

extensive sampling effort and chemical analyses performed on soil, slag and groundwater, the constituents of

concern that drive the current remediation program are the previously identified metals: arsenic, lead and

cadmium. Regarding other wastes handled at the site and their potential to have left residues after

incineration which could pose some risk over and beyond the risk posed by the metals contamination, the

Trust has fully evaluated the site documentation, including EPA records, process information, and manifests

for shipments to the Site (a review of materials is currently provided on the Trust’s website at

http://www.RecastingTheSmelter.com and will be updated as new information is identified and reviewed)

and conferred with EPA, TCEQ and former employees on the matter. We additionally conducted additional

sampling and testing in all areas where the former employees indicated concerns. We have also reviewed

and commented previously regarding both enhanced natural and man made radioactive materials and noted

that many radioactive materials occur naturally and are present everywhere and that there is no evidence of

improper handling of radioactive materials at the Site.

Given the many investigations performed at the Site, the close oversight by TCEQ and EPA and the review of

all available information and data by the Trust team, the conclusion is that the chemical characterization of

the site is adequate and the proposed plan for the cleanup of the Site is protective of both human health and

the environment.

The current cleanup standard for the plant site is Commercial/Industrial, which was previously determined

by TCEQ. Only future development that is consistent with commercial / industrial use is allowed in the plant

site. This precludes schools, daycare facilities, extended care facilities, residential uses and hospitals from

being built on the Site.

Additionally, as you may be aware, in 2010 the City of El Paso commissioned a development study of various

parts of the City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl. The development

study included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the community regarding their

vision for the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study recommended that the former

ASARCO site properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the area between Paisano Drive and the

Rio Grande formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for commercial/light industrial use. Again, these

properties are not zoned for residential use.

However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have

wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be cleaned

up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of contamination

on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on the findings of the

investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be developed as residential.

As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired uses for all of the properties

and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.

January 16, 2012

Email regarding zoning at the Site

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga. Mr. Puga’s response is

bolded

Mr. Puga,

I plead with you, to examine your conscience, your faith and values as a human-being: do not let children

grow up on the old Asarco site. Tell the community the truth.

According to the Federal Dept. of Justice/EPA Asarco sent the stuff here to be incinerated for the almighty-

dollar. Mexican American children, the elderly and the ill were deliberately sacrificed for profit.

Someone sent secret hazardous wastes to Asarco El Paso for incineration during the 1990’s knowing it would

hurt us.

Please let the communities know that the TRUST is not responsible under its Asarco-Bankruptcy-Contract for

addressing any of what Asarco did between 1991 and 1998. That our region has been environmentally

sacrificed to materials more toxic than arsenic if inhaled or swallowed. That you and the Trust are not

required to address that problem. Paving over the Asarco site will not make it safe.

thank you,

Heather

Mr. Puga’s response:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your continued interest in the remediation of the former ASARCO site.

As you may be aware, the City of El Paso in 2010 commissioned a development study of various parts of the

City, including the former ASARCO site from the city planning firm Dover Kohl. The development study

included a community interaction phase that solicited input from the community regarding their vision for

the future of the former ASARCO property. The Dover Kohl study recommended that the former ASARCO site

properties west of I-10, i.e., the primary plant site and the area between Paisano Drive and the Rio Grande

formerly called Smeltertown, would be zoned for commercial/light industrial use. These properties are not

zoned for residential use.

However, the former ASARCO properties east of I-10, which were not part of the plant site but did have

wastes disposed on them, potentially could be utilized for residential uses if the properties could be cleaned

up to residential health and safety standards. The Trust is currently investigating the extent of contamination

on these properties and the cost of cleaning them up to residential standards. Based on the findings of the

investigation, the Trust will make a decision as to whether these properties could be developed as residential.

As we have in the past, the Trust will confirm with TCEQ and EPA the desired uses for all of the properties

and will announce its decisions via the Trust’s website and the media.

As to your second point, the Trust was not provided with resources or mandate to address past physical

injuries that may have been incurred by any person who worked at the ASARCO plant, and was not provided

with resources or mandate to address ASARCO’s “actions,” legal or otherwise, while it owned the site.

However, the Trust was tasked with: 1) coming up with the best remedial plan achievable with the money

provided by the bankruptcy court to address the environmental concerns and 2) to sell the property

according to the appropriate uses allowed by the TCEQ and EPA, in conjunction with consultation with the

City of El Paso on the use and sale of the property; the Trust is committed to fulfilling these tasks.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

Trustee

Comment by Heather — April 4, 2012 @ 3:28 am

Mr. Puga,

Dover Kolh did not inform the community about the illegal wastes present at the Asarco site. I was there. So the community was dreaming a better life for land far more contaminated than they were told.

I realize that “smart growth” is a process begun along with prior EPA staff to cleanup what the call “brownfields” However,

this site should be a superfund site and to “clean it up” —- to move people to work and live there is wrong

You worked on this site’s remediation without giving this community a chemical analysis of the pond sludge that had been dried in the bedding building and then sent clear down to corpus christi for disposal [2006]. Were samples taken fron the inside of this building when testing for the ex-workers. I could not find any mention of it — only the outside.

Same as we were denied an official sample from the remains of that facilities “Ionics brine distillation unit” by the Trust, the TCEQ and the EPA. Not only are we denied full metals-analysis of that machine — and the “contop” stack — including actinide metals; but, we have been denied a sample of of our own to test—-unbelievable since the Trust has spent nearly half a million dollars on testing without apparently testing for actinides.

This community is not being told the whole story

December 01, 2011

Question regarding mercury values for water and soil samples

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga. Mr. Puga’s response is

bolded.

Hello, Mr. Puga,

Have you seen this EPWU data taken at two sample sites (2006) – one being the old Asarco bridge where

storm water from the Asarco site would flow into the canal around the posts at the old bridge. Mercury and strontium showed high values.

We do not know what strontium isotopes were involved. Other chemicals also showed high values.

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your continued interest in the ASARCO project.

The concentrations of mercury and strontium in the water and soil samples attached to your e-mail were

compared to the EPA drinking water standards and the TCEQ total soil combined standards for both

residential and commercial properties. The sample concentrations of strontium and mercury do not exceed

the referenced standards.

The concentrations of lead and arsenic are the two chemicals in the soil samples that do exceed commercial

standards. However, that is not surprising since lead and arsenic are the main constituents of concern that

are driving the remedial response. The lead and arsenic around the storm water ponds will be addressed as

part of the environmental remedial actions taken at the site.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

October 18, 2011

Question regarding analyzed soil samples at the ASARCO site

The following is an email exchange that took place 10/6/2011 – 10/18/2011 between Heather McMurray and the

Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses are bolded.

Mr. Puga,

Is there any chance for the following, “If the lab is now done with the soil samples, please provide these to the

community to a lab of choice, with chain of custody instead of allowing these to be destroyed (this has

precedence – we have soil samples archived already from the TCEQ).”

thank you,

Heather McMurray

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Unfortunately, the Trust cannot comply with your request. As you know, environmental samples only yield

valid results when the sampling and analysis are conducted to a rigid and agreed upon protocol. Releasing

the samples to other parties after they have undergone analysis is not part of our Quality Assurance/Quality

Control protocol.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

Dear Mr. Puga,

We already have chain of custody soil samples from the Asarco site.

Please send me the link (or a copy) of your “quality assurance/quality control protocol”.

“Releasing the samples to other parties after they have undergone analysis is not part of our Quality

Assurance/Quality Control protocol.”

Heather McMurray

Dear Ms. McMurray,

The Quality Assurance Project Plan and Field Sampling Plan are Appendices B and C of the Final Remedial

Action Work Plan. You can find these documents on the Trust’s website at the following link:

http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/asarco-

final-rawp-with-appendices-04-2011.pdf

If you would like a hard copy sent to you, we would be happy to prepare one and mail it. Please send my your

address if you would like the hard copy.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

October 18, 2011

Question regarding stormwater stored onsite

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee.

Dear Mr. Puga,

Thank you for contacting me.

The storm water is not suitable for dust suppression — unless the Trust only tests for the chemical-analytes

that the bankruptcy-court legally requires and/or the ones that the Trust has added. These do not look for

actinide-metals and the low level radioactive waste isotopes — even though we know that the material went

to the smelter, that it removed LLRW from the process water, and we have repeatedly asked for the data.

That storm water requires a pass through a Distillation unit that is rated to remove LLRW.

Please send me a picture (jpg) of the data-sheet(s) showing the max-daily 24-hr rain events. I live 3 miles from

the asarco site and remember this year’s storms.

Is there a rain collection cylinder at the Parker Brothers arroyo?

We have traced the water feeding the Parker Brothers arroyo. Water from a huge area of the Franklin mts is

directed to paved-culverts that meet in a single culvert that travels beneath the IBWC building and then

empties to the beginning of the Parker Brother’s arroyo. That is a huge surface area funneled into a single

flow. Doesn’t that water flow go immediately into the culvert that travels under I10 and the Asarco property.

There must be engineering diagrams for those city culverts showing expected flow from various rain events.

The flow in Parker Brother’s Arroyo cannot be simply calculated by the amount of rainfall on site.

We are concerned about the site runoff that always occurs down the unpaved-road from Asarco to Executive.

The storm-water permit never declared water-discharge to Executive Drive. Also, we are concerned about the manholes and culverts on the Asarco site-proper that receive storm water.

The storm ponds at Asarco were built relatively recently, and water was allowed to accumulate in Rubber

Lake until the 500 year flood event that caused the side of Rubber Lake to fail. Although that was shored-up

with new soil (still visible from I10) rubber lake’s liner was compromised on that side. I have films of that,

and there is also a film posted online. We have never heard if that liner can still-withstand a 100-year-flood-

event as specified.

Visual confirmation for total rainfall is not effective unless you are visually confirming the water-

accumulation against the proper measuring-scale (a rain collection cylinder) or can confirm amount of debris

carried off (water flow).

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Dear Ms. McMurray, We have not used the stored storm water for dust suppression. All water used for dust suppression so far has

been potable city water.

I have attached the 2011 rain fall total taken from our on-site weather station. The data are from January

through September 2011.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

October 18, 2011

Question regarding conducting beryllium tests at the ASARCO site

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga.

Dear Trustee Puga,

Hazardous constituents regulated under waste codes K061, K062, and F006 include: beryllium, nickel, lead,

silver, cadmium, thallium, vanadium and zinc. These were handled by Asarco Encycle and El Paso.

Are you responsible under your contract with the Bankruptcy court for conducting tests for Beryllium at the

Asarco El Paso site?

Thank you for answering questions from the public. I was concerned about workers at the site not wearing

dust masks; and, if the Asarco stormwater and/or sewer pipes joined the stormwater pipe running the length

of the Paisano-IBWC access road (and emptying into the old American canal); but, have not gotten a reply. I

realize that you are busy.

Thank you,

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Beryllium has not been identified as a constituent of concern at the EL Paso Smelter site; this finding is

consistent with previous work conducted under TCEQ and EPA oversight, and is consistent with our

approved Remedial Action Work Plan.

The smelter site storm water has one outlet on Paisano Drive which drains directly to the Rio Grande. The

site’s storm water drainage system is not designed to drain storm water to Paisano Drive.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

October 06, 2011

Site Trustee answers questions regarding the ASARCO 800-ft stack

The following is an email exchange between Heather McMurray and the Site Trustee. The Trustee’s responses

are in bold.

Please respond about the horizontal crack/fracture at the top of the 800-plus foot-tall-concrete Asarco stack

(near top, facing the Cd. Juarez side – visible when wet) ; and, to also let us know where the concrete/debris

will be landfilled.

Also, please identify for us the pipe (below) looking toward the Railroad trestle.

Does this pipe show up on any of the drainage/pipe diagrams that you have, and what does it drain?

Thank you,

Heather Mcmurray

El Paso, TX

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you once again for your continued interest in this project.

We have contracted with Dykon Explosive Demolition to design the implosion of the two towers. Part

of the preparation of the blasting plan is a complete assessment of the current condition of the stacks.

Current weaknesses in the stacks will be factored into the blast plan.

We are planning a public meeting on Thursday November 3, 2011, specifically to explain how the

implosions will take place, the engineering evaluations behind the plan and the measures be taken to

protect the surrounding community. We have begun meeting with the Fire Department, which has the

primary responsibility for permitting the implosions.

The concrete debris from the stacks will be landfilled on-site in specially designed waste cells. The

draft design for the hazardous waste cell can be found on our website.

Our crews will be walking the canal bank to find the pipe shown on the photograph. Once we locate it,

we can answer your question more fully.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

Thank you, Mr. Puga.

-Heather McMurray

Dear Ms. McMurray, We have located the pipe shown in the photograph embedded in your e-mail. It is located adjacent to

the IBWC facility on Paisano Drive. The pipe is connected to a storm sewer inlet on Paisano in front of

the IBWC property. Attached please find a series of photographs that show the pipe and the inlet.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

Mr. Puga,

Thank you for the very quick follow-up. It is much appreciated.

Does that storm water inlet connect midway to a storm-sewer tunnel traveling beneath Paisano? Or, is that

storm inlet the very beginning of that pipe/tunnel.

thank you,

Heather McMurray

Dear Ms. McMurray,

From our observation from the street, it appears that the inlet leads directly to the pipe terminating at

the bank of the canal.

Roberto Puga

0 comments

October 06, 2011

Question regarding stack demolition safety

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee:

Mr. Puga,

The El Paso Times’ photo showing the workers standing next to the Acid-Plant/Contop Stack after it fell did

not show the workers wearing dust masks.

http://elpasotimes.mycapture.com/mycapture/enlarge.asp?

image=37840764&event=1325919&CategoryID=34682&picnum=5&move=B#Image

Were the workers required to wear dust masks?

Thank you,

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Ms. McMurray,

The workers shown in the photograph approached the fallen stack after it had been dropped and the

dust had cleared. There was no one around the stack during the drop and immediately after.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

October 06, 2011

Trustee responds to email regarding TV station news story about the latest soil sampling results

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee:

I find the following news from the Trust about Asarco El Paso test results incredulous. “If there are decades of

pollution contaminating El Paso’s Asarco site, there is no evidence of it …”

Please provide link to test protocol/chain of custody and results(or copy of same). If the lab is now done with

the soil samples, please provide these to the community to a lab of choice, with chain of custody instead of

allowing these to be destroyed (this has precedence – we have soil samples archived already from the TCEQ).

Thank you,

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Hello Ms. McMurray,

I was also disturbed by the characterization by the TV station of our soil sampling results.

Clearly, the site is heavily impacted and contaminated. The Trust released a press statement on

Tuesday of this week clarifying that 1) the site is very much contaminated and 2) what are the actual

purposes of the soil sample results released on Monday. I have attached the press release for your

information.

[Click to view press release.]

Regards,

Roberto Puga

[The TV station has recently updated their story.]

0 comments

October 06, 2011

Trustee answers questions regarding the effect of the stack demolition on the American Canal

The following is an email from Heather McMurray to the Trustee:

Hello, Mr. Puga,

We respectfully request a sample of the stack brick from the inside surface of the stack and any hollow

ventilation wall; as well as a scraping from the inside of the ConTop metal stack – to be sent for archiving to a

scientist of our choice, with chain of custody.

The stack implosion is not the only source of vibration – the stack-debris landing on the surface of that 80 feet

of slag would create an impact. Juan Garza had predicted that the side of the long -storm pond above the

railroad tracks and next to that stack was failing; and, showed through photographs that the concrete stack

itself has a crack in it – visible when it is wet. Although vibration may not appear to impact that storm pond,

it could have an effect on that “dam” above the railroad tracks in a 100 yr flood event. Perhaps you could

include an IBWC engineer in the study’s initial design, before it is finished and posted/discussed. IBWC is

responsible for the old American Canal that not only feeds over 70 miles of farm irrigation but also now

supplies over 60% of our City drinking water.

There are two American canals locally and one in California. Generally the one beside Asarco that travels five

miles to the Franklin Canal is described as the old American canal because it was constructed in the 1930’s.

IBWC would have pictures of the construction showing the two-layered bi-directional construction of the

concrete panels making up that canal. When the canal was patched-up in 2007 (just before it passed under

Paisano to travel along the smelter), the El Paso Inc. photos suggest that they patched it with a single concrete

layer (which would respond differently to vibration).

You will be demolishing the stack during winter. Can the engineers predict the behavior of the old american

canal panels after-implosion of the stack when irrigation/drinking water begins flowing in March/April?

Please let me know if possible where the stack debris will be taken for disposal. I would like to know where

other debris has been sold, melted, and/or disposed of, also. Some of that is on the recastingthesmelter site

but I do not know what dump is being used for disposal of dirt and concrete debris. Is any of that debris

being taken to the Camino Real Dump or the El Paso City dumps?

The IBWC asked for nearly 30 million dollars way back in 2001 to both repair and remediate the old

American Canal. That is almost the entire amount that the Bankruptcy court gave the Trust to clean up all of

the Asarco El Paso site.

In my lay opinion, your Trust should be legally notifying the current Administration’s DOJ Bankruptcy

Trustee (for-that-court’s-region in Corpus Christi TX) that her predecessor under the Bush Administration

failed to oversight the Asarco Bankruptcy allowing the court to ignore all Asarco’s liabilities from the illegal

unpermitted and secret multi-state hazardous-waste disposal operation. In my lay opinion, the court should

have awarded your Trust way more monies for the remediation than the Trust got; and, as a result of

ignoring the illegal wastes have placed you/the Trust in a terrible situation whereby your contract ignores

those poisons, also – and so places our community’s health in perpetual risk.

Please do not include the signature trailer on email to me that says: “This electronic mail transmittal (“E-

mail”) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain

information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including, but not limited

to, information protected by the attorney/client privilege. If the reader of this E-mail is not the intended

recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the E-mail to the intended recipient, you are

hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail communication is strictly

prohibited.”

All my work is for the public good and not for private gain; and, I reserve the right to disseminate your email

to the public if necessary. I appreciate your help.

Thank you,

Heather McMurray

Roberto Puga’s response:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your continued interest in this challenging project.

The Trust does not allow private parties to collect samples on its properties. The Trust does willingly

cooperate with the regulatory agencies overseeing the work (TCEQ and EPA) and certainly allows them

access for observation and sampling as they find necessary. I suggest that you run your request for

sampling through them.

The IBWC is part of the large group of agency stakeholders that we are coordinating the stack

demolition with; in their case specifically regarding the canal. We will make sure that they understand

the results of our studies and that they be allowed to provide input.

The concrete debris from the stack will be disposed of on the site. Metal debris such as rebar will be

recycled.

The Trust was funded with $52,000,000 for the clean-up of the site. I have been able to augment that

amount by the sale of various site assets such as rail lines, the oxygen plant, and scrap metals. There is

no more money available from the ASARCO settlement.

The trailer at the end of our e-mails is meant solely for someone who gets the e-mail in error. You, as

the main correspondent, have every right to use and distribute the e-mails as you see fit. Additionally,

as you are aware, our correspondence with you is posted on the Trust’s website and is therefore in the

public domain.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

September 16, 2011

Question for the Site Trustee from Heather McMurray

The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga:

Hello,

Has an engineer studied the effect of the proposed-demolition-charges for the Asarco stack(s) on the

concrete-panels of the old american canal right next to those stacks?

The panels are warping and very old – one panel failed in 2006-7 and many others along that stretch have

problems. The canal is over 80 years old.

This canal carries 60% of our drinking water and all the irrigation water for over 70 miles of irrigation

system. Any cracks or failures of the canal next to the demolition (or the vibration from the stacks falling on

the ground) would allow the toxins just beneath those panels to enter the canal.

If a study has been done, I would like to be allowed to view a copy. If not, then the IBWC should be allowed to

comment on the demolition’s possible effects to their water system (including the American Dam) before the

demolition begins in 2012.

thank you,

Heather

Response from Roberto Puga:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your question. We have begun the planning and engineering for the stack demolition.

We envision that the stack demolition will occur in the first quarter 2012.

One of the first engineering tasks is a ground vibration study that will look at resultant ground motions from the stack implosion and their potential effects

to exisitng structures on and adjacent to the ASARCO site, including on-site buildings, rail tracks and of

course the All-American canal. The study’s findings will be discussed face to face with representatives

of the IBWC. The study will also be posted to the Trust’s website. We anticipate that the study will be

availble to the IBWC and the website in about 4 to 5 weeks.

Regards,

Roberto Puga

0 comments

September 07, 2011

Storm Water Discharge Analytical Results 2011

The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga:

Hello, are there any results for 2011? I can only find results from last year posted. We have had a lot of rain

recently.

Storm Water Discharge Analytical Results

July 26, 2010

February 16, 2010

Response from Roberto Puga:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thanks again for your continued interest in the ASARCO project.

The plant site has received approximately 1.9 inches of rain this year, with a maximum daily amount

of 0.16 inches of rain observed in July. This rainfall has generated approximately 500,000 gallons of

storm water collected in lined ponds on the plant site. The storm water is currently contained in Pond

A of the storm water system. The storm water system can hold approximately 8 Million gallons of

water. The Trust is currently evaluating if the water is suitable for reuse on site for dust suppression.

Since the ponds are approximately 10 percent of capacity, there are currently no plans to discharge the

storm water. If the water is discharged to the storm water system an analytical sample will be

collected and analyzed prior to discharge to ensure the water meets the discharge limits.

In addition to the storm water stored onsite, storm water is also sampled, when present, in Parker

Brothers Arroyo. Based on site history, the amount of rainfall required to generate storm water flow in

Parker Brothers Arroyo is approximately 0.25 inches of rainfall in a short period of time. Based on the

rainfall totals observed on site this year, a daily maximum of 0.16 inches, and confirmed with visual

observation, no storm water flow has been generated in Parker Brothers Arroyo; therefore, no storm

water sample has been collected. When storm water samples are collected on site the results will be

posted to the project website (www.recastingthesmelter.com).

Regards,

Roberto Puga

February 17, 2011

Questions for the Site Trustee from Heather McMurray

The following is an email sent from Heather McMurray to the Site Trustee, Roberto Puga: Ms. Schell,

Please do not play the community for being fools. That Pirnie document did not include all Encycle

documents – left out the illegal wastes — left out ALL the manifests regarding that.

That was brought to the attention of the EPA in Dallas.

Your contractors also did not warn the community yesterday during the ASARCO fire about the dangers

within that black billowing smoke from the illegal-secret chemicals caked onto those metal conduits from

years of Asarco’s illicit activities.

Why not??

thank you,

Heather McMurray

Response from Roberto Puga:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you for your continued interest in the ASARCO Smelter project.

The document referenced in your question did contain and evaluate all of the relevant Encycle

documents posted on the EPA Region 6 website, in total 2176 pages that included 300 manifests of

wastes that were shipped illegally to El Paso. We augmented that with one additional manifest we

found at the site. This represents all available documentary information on the illegal wastes sent to

the smelter from Encycle. We had extensive discussions with EPA Region 6 to make sure we had all

available Encycle information for our report.

Regarding yesterday’s incident, we contacted EPA, TCEQ and OSHA about the incident. I have ordered

all work stopped until we have completed our Root Cause Analysis investigation and I am assured that

it is safe to resume our work. The unit that burned was part of the water treatment plant at the site,

which was not among the process units at the smelter that came in contact with materials to be

smelted. The black smoke seen was caused by a fiberglass access grate on the unit that caught fire.

Sincerely,

Roberto Puga, Site Trustee

0 comments

February 16, 2011

Questions from Heather McMurray

The following are questions sent from Heather McMurray Ms. Schell,

Have the proposed contractors been notified about the presence of unknown illegal toxic wastes onsite?

Has the matte been fully analyzed for all potential hazardous metals including actinides? Why/why not?

thank you,

Heather McMurray

Response from Elizabeth Schell:

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thanks you for your continued interest in this project.

Both of our contractors for the project, Malcolm-Pirnie and ERM, are fully briefed on all information

about the site processes, both legal and illegal. As a matter of fact, Malcolm-Pirnie has prepared a

comprehensive report on the legal and illegal processes that occurred at the site; it is very thorough

and includes a discussion of every document found about the Encycle materials brought to the site.

You can find the report at:

http://www.recastingthesmelter.com/wp-

content/themes/recastingasarco/downloads/site_documents/Review-of-ASARCO-El-Paso-Smelting-

Processes-Report-FINAL.pdf

*****

Regards,

Elizabeth Schell

anuary 05, 2011 Where are the most recent Storm Water Discharge analytical results?

Question emailed from Heather McMurray: Where are the most recent Storm Water Discharge analytical results? Currently there are only results from

February and July 2010.

Response from the Trust:

Dear Ms. McMurray, Water from the site is accumulated in the retention ponds and is only sampled when one of the ponds

starts to reach capacity. The storm water accumulation depends on the weather and we maintain pond

water levels to handle seasonal storm events. Because of the overall low rainfall only a few sampling

and discharge events may occur during the year. All storm water analytical results are currently

posted on the Trust website.

November 17, 2010

Site Trustee Responds to Emailed Questions from Heather McMurray

Trustee responses are in bold.

Dear Ms. McMurray,

Thank you once again for your continuing interest in this very challenging project. We have been

researching and compiling responses to your previous questions. Your questions and our responses

are below; your questions appear in black font and our responses are in bold.

Mr. Puga:

Current research by M.D.’s (2009) show significant radon contamination throughout El Paso – heavily

associated with the dirt outside of homes, and they recommend clean-up. The levels are very significant. It is

very interesting that you state “El Paso County has low radon potential” when the medical doctors are finding

radon to be a huge problem here.

Response: As we pointed out in our previous response and as described in the paper referenced, radon

is naturally occurring. Radon is a recognized concern in homes in some areas of the country. The

Asarco plant area is a commercial / industrial site and since no residences are present on the property,

radon is simply not a constituent of concern to be measured. The paper you are referring to which is

by Dr. Irina Cech and others from the University of Texas titled: Factors Contributing to Elevated

Indoor Radon in the Paso Del Norte Region of the Texas-Mexico Border: Information for Physicians

published in the in the Southern Medical Journal, July 2009 – Volume 102 – Issue 7 – pp 701-706 discusses

the issue. Notwithstanding the discussion in the paper relating soil radon to levels in homes, the fact is

that both EPA and the State of Texas rate El Paso County as having low overall radon potential. While

the paper gives cause to consider the matter in a broader public health forum, plainly stated, there is

simply no linkage between natural radon levels discussed the paper and the smelter operations that

warrant additional investigation.

We already know from the EPA that El Paso TX had the highest Beta Radiation levels in the nation just before

Asarco El Paso shut down in 2/99. Mr. Bill Luthans asserted that this was “naturally occurring radiation” (or

“NORM”/”TENORM”) and said it was not a problem – but could not provide data to back-up his statement that

the radiation was not a problem.

Response: We are unaware of any information regarding high beta radiation levels in El Paso during

the 1998-1999 time period that you refer to. The EPA maintains a series of monitoring stations which

record radiation levels in air, water and precipitation throughout the country and radiation monitors

in El Paso have operated continuously between 1981 and 2010. EPA data for the time period between

June 1998 and June 1999 show no anomalous gross beta radiation readings. The only significant beta

readings in El Paso as well as in other locations in the US occur between March and June of 1986 which

corresponds to the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Russia.

To the extent we can comment on Mr. Luthans response, we do not believe that any sort of beta

radiation can be attributed to the El Paso smelter given the nature of the mineral concentrates sent to

the plant for smelting. To clarify, NORM is essentially natural uranium, thorium and potassium that is

present in trace amounts in all rock, soil, water and air. These elements are present from the time the

Earth was created and over time, decay and change into “daughter” products, some of which are

radioactive (i.e. radon), others of which are stable or non-radioactive. Processing can “Technologically

Enhance” NORM and create “TENORM” under certain chemical conditions. We know TENORM occurs

in copper mining and leaching operations in Arizona and given this fact, we carefully reviewed the

study by EPA produced in 1999 on this subject and reviewed additional data sheets from mining

companies producing concentrates. Beta radiation issues are not reported in this study. To the extent

of our information, given the nature of the smelter feed and the level of documentation on the subject,

we do not believe that the concentrates processed at the plant could result in elevated beta radiation,

TENORM or other radioactive materials above any regulatory limits. For further information on

natural radioactivity see this link (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm).

You are incorrect to state that “Radon gas, which is a naturally occurring substance, is not measured using

XRF methods”. Radon is an element that appears from radium decay, and can be detected with many

different methods. It is radioactive and hazardous to our health.

Response: It is correct that radon can be measured a number of different ways. However, as we stated

previously, radon gas is not measured using XRF methods. Methods to measure radon under field and

laboratory conditions which are documented by EPA may be found at the EPA’s website.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/device_protocols.html. XRF methods are not included in this list.

You did not provide any links or documents showing any XRF data from ASARCO. In fact, Asarco El Paso

refused to allow XRF technology to be tested on-site) to determine what chemicals have been left here by the

nearly ten years of illegal, untracked, incineration of both military and industrial wastes for profit by Asarco

El Paso.

Response: The Asarco site has been extensively investigated and the results from the various site

investigations which include the analytical results for metals done by XRF methods may be found at

the TCEQ website. These results are included in the attachments and appendices to the investigation

reports. See the following website: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/sites/asarco/downloads

The metal results in previous site investigations appear to be laboratory XRF results. We should point

out that XRF methods are primarily screening tools for detecting metals at semi-quantitative levels

and are not used to measure organic chemicals. We cannot comment on Asarco’s use of these

instruments since their activities ceased long before the Trust took possession of the property. From a

compliance perspective, we rely on laboratory analytical results which are much more accurate and

sensitive than analytical field methods such as XRF.

I would like to know why Project Navigator continues to dodge the question of the illegal chemical residues at

the site. I would like Project Navigator to provide data showing the radon, radium and radio-isotope levels at

the site. EPA has provided proof now that ASARCO handled radioactive materials.