SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION

OF A GUARDHOUSE AT THE AMERICAN DAM FACILITY

LOCATED AT 2616 WEST PAISANO, EL PASO, TEXAS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:
J & J General Contracting, Inc.
And

The United States Section of the

International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC)
El Paso, Texas

Prepared by:
VEGA Environmental Services, Inc.

April 7, 2004
SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUARDHOUSE AT THE
AMERICAN DAM FACILITY LOCATED AT 2616 WEST PAISANO,
EL PASO, TEXAS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared For:
J & J GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.
AND
THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

Prepared By:
VEGA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

April 7, 2004
VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

SUMMARY
This report describes the work performed and the results obtained during a soil investigation
conducted in an area of the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC)
American Dam Facility in El Paso, Texas, where a guardhouse and its required utility lines will
be constructed. The investigation was conducted to measure the concentration of potential
contaminants in soil from areas that are going to be disturbed during the construction of the
guardhouse and to determine if these concentrations are above risk-based soil screening levels
(SSLs). A literature review was also conducted to obtain information on the results of previous
soil contaminants investigations conducted in the area known as El Paso County Metal Site, a 3-
mile radius area around the El Paso Plant of the American Smelting and Refining Company
(ASARCO). The American Dam Facility of the USIBWC is within this area, which is currently
subject to a Superfund investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
because some soils in this area contain concentrations of arsenic and lead above risk-based health
standards.
Field-screening techniques and laboratory analyses were used to either rule out or establish the
presence and concentration of potential contaminants in soil samples collected at two soil depths
from seven selected locations in the areas that are going to be disturbed during the construction.
The areas to be disturbed and the soil depths at which disturbances will occur were identified
through a revision of the guardhouse construction plans provided by the contractor that is going
to build the guardhouse. The soil profile to a depth of 3 feet below the ground surface (BGS)
was carefully examined at each sampling location to identify and characterize the soil layers
present, their thickness, and any abnormal material, coloration or odor present. The examination
was conducted in small trenches of approximately 3 feet long, 1.5 feet wide and 3.5 feet deep,
which were excavated with a bobcat tractor equipped with an excavation arm.
Most of the area where the guardhouse and utility lines are going to be constructed has a surface
layer of imported yellowish brown fill material that has fine sandy loam texture with abundant
gravel and pebbles and is approximately 1 foot thick, dry, and highly compacted. However, the
soil layer is not so evident or compacted at the west end of the facility, near a cyclonic fence, in
the area where the guardhouse is going to be built. A native dark brown loamy sand or sandy
soil layer is present below the surface layer of fill material.
Representative samples from the surface layer and the underlying soil were collected at each
sampling location for analysis of heavy metals and for field screening of volatile hydrocarbons.
The samples for heavy metals were submitted to an environmental laboratory, where they were
analyzed for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tin and zinc.
Volatile hydrocarbons in the samples were field screened using the headspace methodology with
a portable Photo-Ionization Detector (PID).
The results of this soil investigation show that the soil surface layer at the site is an imported fill
material that is very dry, highly compacted, and has elevated concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, tin and zinc that exceed several times the groundwater
protection (GWP) standards for these metals. The average concentration of arsenic and lead in
the surface layer, the arsenic concentration in four of the seven surface samples, and the
concentration of lead in three of the surface samples exceed health-based residential SSLs for
these metals established by the EPA. Two of the reported lead concentrations exceed the
Industrial Outdoor Worker SSL of 800 ppm. Three of the surface samples report concentrations

Soil Investigation Page i

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

of cadmium that exceed the residential SSL for this metal. The concentration of antimony in all
of the surface samples is similar to background concentrations for this metal in the El Paso area
and none of the surface samples report detectable concentrations of chromium or nickel.
Because the site surface soil contains concentrations of heavy metals that exceed environmental
and health-based SSLs, VEGA concludes that the heavy metals present in the soil may adversely
affect human health and the environment. Moreover, human heath and environmental risks at
the site are underestimated in this study, because the measured concentrations of heavy metals in
the site surface soil are estimates for the entire layer and not just for the top one inch of soil as it
is generally done in other risk assessment studies. Data from other studies conducted in the El
Paso County Metal Site area show that the concentration of metals in the top one-inch of soil is
several times greater than the concentrations reported a few inches below the surface.
Except for two samples (B1-B and B2-B) collected from the area where the fill material is not so
compacted or evenly distributed, all of the other samples from the underlying soil report
concentrations of metals that are similar to background levels. The concentration of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead and mercury in samples B1-B and B2-B exceed the groundwater
protection standard. The information suggests that the high soil compaction found at five of the
seven sampling locations prevented or greatly reduced the migration of metal contaminants to
the underlying soil, which resulted in their accumulation at the surface layer. Soil erosion caused
by wind and by surface water flow are probably the two main processes removing metal
contaminants from the areas where the surface soil layer is highly compacted. However, metals
are probably leaching down to groundwater in areas that are not covered by a layer of compacted
fill material. These areas are characterized by friable sandy soils and shallow groundwater.
Field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons revealed no evidence of these contaminants in the
soil to be disturbed during the planned construction operations.
VEGA recommends that an Exposure Mitigation Plan be prepared for the planned construction
of the guardhouse and required utility lines at the site and that an experienced environmental
scientist be assigned to oversee compliance with this plan. The plan must address the prevention
of dust generation and the testing and disposal of the soil from the surface layer. Dust generation
may be prevented or reduced to acceptable levels by applying small quantities of water prior to
and during excavations and by avoiding days with wind speed greater than 15 miles per hour to
conduct this work. Construction workers should use gloves, wash well before eating or smoking,
and shower after work. The use of dust masks should also be considered. Excavations should be
conducted carefully to remove first the surface layer, which should be placed in a container or in
a properly constructed berm, lined and covered with plastic. This soil and the soil underlying the
proposed guardhouse location should be tested for waste classification using the TCLP extraction
method and then disposed of in compliance with the solid waste regulations issued in Title 30 of
the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 335.

Soil Investigation Page ii

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ iii
I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
I.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
I.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1
II. Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 2
III. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
III.1. Environmental Sampling and Analysis ............................................................. 3
IV. Site Description ............................................................................................................ 3
IV.1. Area, Location, Topography, Elevation, and Climate........................................ 3
IV.2 Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology....................................................................... 4
IV.3 Potential Receptors ............................................................................................ 4
V. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 5
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 9
VII. References............................................................................................................................ 10
Appendices
Appendix 1: Figures
Appendix 2: Field Sampling Documentation, Chain of Custody, Laboratory Reports of Analysis
and Quality Control Report.

List of Tables
Table 1. Concentration of metals in soil samples collected from the area where the guardhouse
and utility lines are planned to be constructed

List of Figures in Appendix 1

Figure 1. Map of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez showing the location of the USIBWC American
Dam Facility, ASARCO and the 3-mile radius area of El Paso County Metals Site
under Superfund investigation by the EPA.
Figure 2. Topographic map showing the location of the USIBWC American Dam Facility,
ASARCO and the 3-mile radius area under Superfund investigation by the EPA.

Soil Investigation Page iii

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

Figure 3. Aerial photograph from 1991 showing the American Dam Facility, the Rio
Grande, the Franklin Canal and a portion of the ASARCO Plant in El Paso,
Texas.
Figure 4. Aerial photograph from 1991 showing a closer look at the American Dam
Facility, the Rio Grande, the Franklin Canal and the approximate location of the
guardhouse.
Figure 5. Site plan showing the sampling locations used for this soil investigation and the
locations of the proposed guardhouse and utility lines
Figure 6. A bobcat tractor equipped with an excavation arm was used to excavate
small trenches at the selected sampling locations.
Figure 7. One of the small trenches that were excavated to examine the soil characteristics
and obtain soil samples.
Figure 8: The samples were collected from the trenches into a stainless steel container.
Figure 9: Soil samples were prepared for PID analysis using the headspace methodology.
Figure 10: The trenches excavated for soil examination and sample collection were
backfilled and compacted after sample collection.
Figure 11-1. Arsenic concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-2. Cadmium concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-3. Copper concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-4. Lead concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-5. Mercury concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-6. Tin concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-7. Zinc concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-8. Group one of metals that show significantly higher concentrations in the surface
soil layer.
Figure 11-9. Chromium concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-10. Nickel concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-11. Antimony concentration in soil at the American Dam Facility of the USIBWC.
Figure 11-12. Metals from the group two and three

Soil Investigation Page iv

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 Background
At the request of J&J General Contracting, Inc. (J&J), VEGA Environmental Services, Inc.
(VEGA) prepared this soil investigation report for an area where a guardhouse and its associated
utility lines will be constructed (herein after referred to as the “site”) at the American Dam
Facility of the USIBWC located on 2616 W. Paisano (Figs. 1 through 4). The investigation was
conducted to address concerns that the soil to be disturbed during the planned construction
operations contains elevated concentrations of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons that
could affect human health or the environment. Elevated concentrations of heavy metals in this
area have been associated with emissions from ASARCO, a large smelter that operated from
1887 to 1999 and is located across the street from the facility (Figs. 3 and 4). The EPA is
currently conducting a Superfund investigation and remedial actions within a 3-mile radius area
around ASARCO, known as El Paso County Metals Site, where several published documents
have reported concentrations of heavy metals in soils above health-based standards. Concerns of
soil contamination with hydrocarbons exist not only because several fuel releases from
underground storage tanks (USTs) have been reported at the USIBWC facility, but also because
a large groundwater contamination plume has been reported in this area from past fuel releases
that occurred at ASARCO.
The investigation was conducted to determine the concentration of potential contaminants in
samples from the soil to be disturbed during construction operations at the site and to compare
these concentrations with environmental and health-based soil standards used to identify and
assess environmental risks. The investigation also included a site characterization for assisting
with the interpretation of the results and the selection of the soil standards to be utilized in the
assessment. Surface and subsurface soil information was obtained during field sampling
operations and from previous investigations conducted at this facility and nearby areas.
The soil characterization revealed that the surface soil layer encountered in the area under
investigation is a layer of imported fill material, which is underlain by native soil. Soil samples
from seven selected sampling locations (Fig. 5) were collected from both the surface layer and
the underlying soil and submitted to a laboratory for analysis of ten heavy metals. The samples
were screened in the field for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using the headspace
methodology and a Photo-Ionization Detector (PID).

I.2 Objectives
The purpose of the investigation is to determine if the soil to be disturbed during the planned
construction contains concentrations of contaminants that may affect the environment or the
health of construction workers, USIBWC personnel, or the general public. Specific objectives of
the investigation are to:
1. Screen for VOCs and determine the concentration of ten heavy metals in the surface and
underlying soil layers encountered in the areas to be disturbed during the construction of the
guardhouse and associated utility lines.
2. Identify and assess environmental risks to human health and the environment associated with
potential soil contaminants at the USIBWC American Dam Facility and provide
recommendations to minimize these risks during the planned construction.

Soil Investigation Page 1

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

The American Dam Facility of the USIBWC is located within an area recently designated by the
EPA as the El Paso County Metals Site, a 3-mile radius area around the ASARCO Plant in El
Paso, Texas, which is currently subject to Superfund investigative and remedial actions.
According to the EPA, concentrations of arsenic (As) and lead (Pb) in soils from this area above
health-based soil screening levels (SSLs) are the result of emissions from ASARCO, which
operated from 1887 to 1999 across the street from the American Dam Facility (Figs. 3 and 4).
The presence of lead in the El Paso County Metals Site area has been known for over 25 years.
In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1975, Dr. Philip Landrigan et.
al. reported that 53 % of the children younger than nine years living within 1.6 Km of ASARCO
and 18% of those living between 1.6 and 6.6 Km had lead concentrations in their blood equal to
or greater than 40 µg/100 ml. In 1989, a soil investigation conducted by the Texas Air Control
Board (TACB) found concentrations of arsenic and lead that were several times greater than
SSLs. One surface soil sample collected from the USIBWC American Dam Facility during the
TACB investigation reported a concentration of 1,100 mg of arsenic per kilogram (Kg) of soil, a
concentration far greater than the SSL for Industrial Outdoor Worker exposure scenario of 230
mg/Kg of soil.
Soil contaminant investigations by Barnes (1993), Chukwuka (1993), Devanahalli (1994) and
Srinivas (1994) also reported elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic in areas around
ASARCO. These investigations discovered that the concentration of contaminants in the first
inch of soil is several times higher than the concentrations found at 6 inches and that the
concentration of lead near the surface does not appear to be related to soil lithology or soil type.
More recently, an investigation conducted by the EPA in July of 2001 found concentrations of
138 mg of arsenic and 5260 mg of lead in the soil around an air quality monitoring station of the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) located at the corner of Hawthorne and
Rim Road, on the Campus of the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), located just east of
ASARCO.
Finally, it is important to mention that given the location of the emission stacks and installations
of ASARCO just southeast of the USIBWC facility, and the fact that windrose data shows that
the prevalent wind for El Paso comes from the southeast (Figs. 4 and 5), it is highly probable that
the soils at this facility have received emissions from ASARCO for over one hundred years.

III. METHODOLOGY
The first tasks completed for this project were a visual inspection of the site and a review of the
guardhouse construction plans and specifications. The information obtained after these tasks
was used for preparing a detailed site-sampling plan, which was submitted on November 12,
2003. The visual inspection provided information on site environmental settings and soil
characteristics. The review of construction plans and specifications was used to identify the
areas to be disturbed and the soil depths at which the disturbances will occur. Field sampling
operations were conducted on January 22, 2004, one week after notice of approval of the
sampling plan was received.

Soil Investigation Page 2

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

III.1 Environmental Sampling and Analysis

On January 22, 2004, a bobcat tractor equipped with an excavation arm (Fig. 6) was used to
excavate small trenches in seven of the eight proposed sampling locations (Fig. 5) to expose and
examine the soil profile and identify and characterize the soil layers present, their thickness, and
any abnormal material, color or odor. The trenches were approximately 3 feet long, 1.5 feet
wide and 3.5 feet deep (Fig. 7). At each location, a sample from each layer was collected from
one of the walls of the trench using a 6-inch wide clean shovel to remove a 1-inch thick slice of
soil throughout each of the two layers. Therefore, each collected sample is a continuous sample
representative of the entire soil layer. Each sample was collected into a stainless steel container
where it was homogenized (Fig. 8). A portion of the sample was placed into a 4-ounce clean
sampling jar that was properly labeled to identify the sample location and layer. Another portion
of the sample was placed into a mason jar and was used to screen the soil for VOCs using a PID
and the headspace methodology. The PID was calibrated in the field using a 100-ppm VOC gas
and an activated carbon filter for the zero VOC calibration.
The samples collected into 4-ounce jars were submitted to a laboratory for analysis of antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tin and zinc. The analyses for
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc were performed using
EPA Method SW 846-3050A/6010 B with an Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) unit. Mercury
and tin were analyzed using EPA Method SW 846-7471 B with a CV Atomic Absorption
(CVAA) unit and EPA Method SW 846-3050A/6020 B with an ICP-Mass Spectrometer (MS),
respectively. A Quality Control Summary Report (Appendix 1) was required from the laboratory
and reviewed to ensure that proper control spikes were used and that Percentage Spike Recovery
(% Recovery) and Relative Percent Difference (RPD) are within accepted reporting ranges.
All of the tools used during sample collection operation were decontaminated prior to the
collection of each sample. The decontamination procedure consisted of a thorough wash with a
brush and tap water and a final rinse with de-ionized water. Because the reduced number of
samples, and because only a small amount of water was used for each decontamination, the
wastewater from sampling equipment decontamination was allow to evaporate and none was
present at the end of the sampling process.
The sampling trenches were backfilled with the same soil that was excavated. This operation
was carefully performed to place first the soil from the lower layer and then the soil from the top
layer. The soil was compacted several times before the trenches were completely backfilled and
then at the surface soil was compacted to the existing grade (Fig. 10).

IV. SITE DESCRIPTION

IV.1 Location, Topography, Elevation and Climate

The site is located near the intersection of New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico borders, in a narrow
floodplain strip of land along the US side of the Rio Grande (Figs. 2 through 4). The topography
at the site is nearly level and its elevation is approximately 1185 meters above average sea level.
The site is located within the Chihuahuan Desert Biotic Province and its climate is classified as
continental, dry, and cold. This type of climate is typically found in medium latitude temperate
deserts and is characterized by:

Soil Investigation Page 3

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

o
• A warm period (average daily temperature greater than 10 C) shorter than 8 months per
year, and abundant sunshine throughout the year;
• Low average annual precipitation (average annual precipitation at the El Paso Airport is 8.6
inches), which occurs mostly in the summer months (more than 50 percent generally occurs
between July and September);
• High average potential evapotranspiration, which exceeds 80 inches per year; and
• A relatively dry winter.

Windrose data for El Paso shows that the prevalent wind comes from the southeast, especially
during the warmer months.

IV.2 Soil, Geology and Hydrogeology

The site has a surface soil layer of imported fill material that is approximately 12 inches thick
and has fine sandy loam texture with abundant gravel and pebbles. The underlying native soil at
the site is nearly flat and deep, has sandy texture, and developed from recent alluvial sediments
recently deposited by the Rio Grande, which are known as Rio Grande Alluvium. Andesite and
limestone rocks have been reported below the Rio Grande Alluvium in borings advanced at the
southern end of ASARCO.
Groundwater in the Rio Grande Alluvium sediments at the site is encountered at approximately
10 feet below the ground surface (BGS). The water in this aquifer is slightly saline (TDS= 1000
to 1100 ppm) and flows toward the south, to the Rio Grande.

IV. 3 Potential Receptors

The site is located immediately adjacent to the Franklin Canal and the American Dam on the Rio
Grande, both of which are important bodies of surface water, which is used for irrigation and for
supplying potable water to the City of El Paso. The water is taken and treated by El Paso Water
Utilities (EPWU), which is one of the large water utilities in the country that has to implement
expensive modifications to its water treatment facilities to reduce the concentration of arsenic in
water to attain a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 ppb, instead of the former 50 ppb
MCL. It is estimated that the EPWU needs to investment $76 million dollars to comply with the
new water standard for arsenic.
The American Dam and the Rio Grande are also habitat for a variety of species of invertebrates,
fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, mercury
and zinc cause not only detrimental effects to these species, but they also bioaccumulate in the
food chain. This is why the most stringent environmental benchmarks should be used to assess
this site and protect the river habitat.
Movement of contaminants to the river may occur through two different routes, as surface runoff
that flows directly to the river, and as groundwater that recharges the river. This latter requires
that the contaminants migrate first from the soil to groundwater and then toward the river.

Soil Investigation Page 4

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

Finally, construction workers, USIBWC personnel working at the American Dam Facility and
the general public are potential receptors of the contaminants present at the site soil, which are
released with dust to the air and then inhaled. Of special importance are USIBWC personnel that
may have been exposed to the contaminants for many years.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The examination of the 3.5 feet of exposed soil profile revealed that the sampled area has a
yellowish brown soil surface layer of imported material. This layer has fine sandy loam texture
and abundant gravel and pebbles and is about 12 inches thick, dry, and highly compacted, except
at sampling locations B1 and B2. These samples were collected from the area proposed to build
the guardhouse, which is located near a cyclonic fence at the west end of the site where the
surface layer is diffused and less compacted. A brown medium-grain sandy soil is found below
the surface layer to a depth of 3.5 feet. Data from other studies in the area indicate that the
subsoil has a sandy subsurface soil down to the water table, which is found about 10 feet BGS.
The results of field screening for VOCs revealed no evidence of contamination with petroleum
hydrocarbons in neither one of the two sampled soil layers. All PID readings of the headspace
air in the soil samples yielded 0 ppm of VOCs. The results of PID analysis (Appendix) are
supported by field observations that revealed no abnormal colors or odors in the soil.
Chain of custody documentation, copies of the laboratory reports of analyses showing the
measured concentrations of heavy metals and detection limits, and a Quality Control Report for
the performed analyses are presented in Appendix 1. A summary of the measured heavy metals
concentrations in the soil samples is shown in Table 1, which also contains statistics
characterizing the data and the environmental and health-based standards used to perform the
assessment. Figures 11-1 through 11-13 present the data in graphical form.
The analysis of the data presented in Table 1 and Figures 11-1 to 11-13 shows clear differences
in the distribution of the heavy metals into the two sampled soil layers. These differences were
used to separate the heavy metals into the three following groups:
1. Metal Group One: arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, tin and zinc;
2. Metal Group Two: chromium and nickel; and
3. Metal Group Three: includes only antimony.

Group One
The seven metals included in this group show significantly higher concentrations in the surface
layer than in the underlying native soil. Metal concentrations at the surface layer are in some
cases over 100 times greater than background levels for soils in Texas established by the TCEQ.
The concentrations of metals in the underlying soil are similar to the background levels, except at
sampling locations B1 and B2, located near the west end of the facility where the surface layer is
not so compacted.
Furthermore, the reported concentrations of these metals are highly correlated. For example,
correlation coefficients (r) between lead and copper concentrations and between arsenic and tin
concentrations in the surface layer are 0.98 and 0.94, respectively. These strong correlations

Soil Investigation Page 5

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

suggest that the concentrations of heavy metals deposited on the surface soil at the site follow a
pattern that could be used to establish the source of the depositions. A summary of the findings
for each of the seven metals in this group is presented below.
Arsenic (As). This metal is present in concentrations above its quantitative limit (QL) in all of
the 7 samples from the top layer and 6 of the samples from the layer below. The average of the
top layer (70.54 ppm) is significantly different (p<0.01) from the layer below (16.73 ppm). The
average and five of the concentrations reported in the surface layer exceed the 46 ppm cleanup
level recently calculated by the EPA for the EL Paso County Metal Site. This cleanup level was
developed using arsenic relative bioavailability data from a study conducted at this site. None of
the samples from the underlying soil layer exceeds the EPA cleanup level. All of the samples
from the surface soil layer and 5 of the samples from the layer below exceed the SSL for
groundwater protection (GWP) of 6.2 ppm. This SSL GWP was calculated by Parsons (2003)
adjusting for soil pH the 5 ppm SSL GWP established by the TCEQ.
Cadmium. Cadmium is reported in concentrations above its QL in all of the samples from the
top layer and 6 of the 7 samples from the layer below. Average concentrations for the surface
layer (36.04 ppm) and the lower layer (3.17 ppm) are statistically different (p<0.01). Three of
the samples from the top layer exceed the 39 ppm residential SSL but not the 560 ppm SSL for
Industrial Outdoor Worker. All concentrations from the top layer and 2 of the lower layer
exceed the SSL for GWP (0.5 ppm).
Copper. This metal is reported above its QL in all of the samples, however, the average of the
top soil layer (680 ppm) is significantly higher (p<0.04) than the average from the samples in the
layer below (177.13). Two of the samples from the top layer exceed or equal 1180 ppm, but no
sample reports a copper concentration above the SSL for residential exposure. All but 4 samples
from the lower layer exceed the SSL for GWP (130 ppm).
Lead. All of the samples from the surface layer and six of the seven samples from the
underlying layer report lead concentrations above the QL. Only one sample from the underlying
layer reports a non-detectable lead concentration. The average lead concentration in the top layer
(599.4 ppm) is significantly higher (p<0.02) than the average concentration of the lower layer
(103.4 ppm). Two of the samples from the top layer report concentrations equal or greater than
1050 ppm. One of the samples from the lower layer exceeds the 800 ppm SSL for industrial
outdoor worker exposure scenario. All of the samples from the top layer and 3 samples from the
underlying layer exceed the 70.2 ppm GWP standard, which was calculated for the American
Dam Facility using the TCEQ recommended methodology to adjust for soil pH (Parsons, 2003).
Mercury. All of the samples from the top layer and 4 of the samples from the lower layer report
concentrations above the QL for this metal. The average for the top layer (0.61 ppm) is
significantly higher (p<0.02) than the average of the layer below (0.15 ppm). All of the samples
from the top layer and the samples B1-B and B2-B report concentrations above the SSL GWP
for this metal of 0.2 ppm.
Tin. All of the samples from both the surface and underlying soil report concentrations of tin
above the QL for this metal. The average concentration of this metal in the surface layer is
significantly higher than the average concentration in the underlying soil and that the background
concentration for this metal. The concentrations in the lower layer are below or slightly above

Soil Investigation Page 6

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

the background level for this metal. None of the reported concentrations exceed health-based or
GWP SSLs.
Zinc. Findings for this metal are almost identical to the findings for tin. The only difference is
that the concentrations of zinc in soil are in some cases 100 times greater than the concentrations
of tin.
It is important to recall that the measured concentrations in this soil investigation represent the
concentration of the metal in the entire soil layer and that the concentrations in the first inch of
soil have been shown to be significantly higher in other soil investigations. Because of this, it is
probable that the concentrations of the seven metals discussed above are much greater that the
concentration reported herein, and that the results of this assessment are underestimating
environmental and health risks at the site.

Metal Group Two

This group includes chromium and nickel, which are present at detectable concentrations only in
the underlying native soil layer. None of the samples collected from the surface layer report any
detectable concentration of these metals. A summary of the findings for each of these two
metals is presented below.
Chromium. No concentrations above quantitation limits are reported for the samples collected
from the top layer or for 3 of the samples from the layer below. The concentrations of chromium
in the four remaining samples are within background levels for this metal in Texas established by
the TCEQ.
Nickel. The results for nickel are almost identical to the results for chromium, except that nickel
is reported in 5 of the seven samples collected from the underlying soil layer and that one of the
samples report a concentration slightly above background, but within the natural range of soil
concentration of this metal in soil.

Metal Group Three

Antimony. Three samples from the surface layer and 5 samples from the underlying layer report
detectable concentrations of this metal. The average concentration of the surface layer is slightly
lower than the concentration in the layer below. However, the individual concentrations from
the surface layer are greater than the ones from the lower layer and the difference in average is
not statistically significant. None of the reported concentrations in either layer exceeds the SSL
for industrial or residential use. But all of the samples reporting detectable antimony exceed the
SSL for GWP of 0.6 ppm.

Soil Investigation Page 7

 VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

Table 1. Concentration of metals in soil samples collected from the area where
the guardhouse and utility lines are planned to be constructed
SAMPLE ID Sb As Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn
Top Layer:
B1-A 0.0 32.5 15.0 0.0 276 195 0.23 0.0 2.7 216
B2-A 14.4 53.8 21.7 0.0 594 479 0.53 0.0 6.3 487
B4-A 124
16.1 115.0 68.6 0.0 1280 1110 0.96 0.0 9.2 0
B5-A 128
0.0 119.0 59.0 0.0 1180 1050 0.93 0.0 10.9 0
B6-A 112
17.3 93.7 54.0 0.0 668 731 0.75 0.0 6.3 0
B7-A 0.0 30.8 15.7 0.0 324 285 0.23 0.0 3.1 329
B8-A 0.0 49.0 18.3 0.0 438 346 0.67 0.0 4.4 359
Average 6.8 70.5 36.0 0.0 680 599 0.61 0.0 6.1 719
Confidence Interval (0.05) 6.3 28.1 17.34 UND 297 274 0.22 UND 2.3 349

Lower Layer:
B1-B 0.0 38.1 5.25 0.0 821.0 397.0 0.59 0.0 3.1 231.0
B2-B 0.0 29.2 13.00 0.0 227.0 191.0 0.27 17.7 2.7 216.0
B4-B 12.5 0.0 0.00 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.06 0.0 0.7 24.6
B5-B 12.4 14.4 0.53 6.0 5.2 11.8 0.00 5.7 0.9 25.6
B6-B 10.8 5.6 0.80 5.8 12.6 18.8 0.00 6.2 0.9 32.8
B7-B 11.8 16.6 0.89 5.8 18.9 20.1 0.00 5.9 0.9 33.3
B8-B 10.9 13.2 1.70 6.1 139.0 85.0 0.12 5.3 2.2 88.2
Average 8.3 16.7 3.17 3.4 177.1 103.4 0.15 5.8 1.6 93.1
Confidence Interval (0.05) 4.2 9.7 3.46 2.35 219.4 107.9 0.16 4.4 0.75 68.0
T-TEST 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
TCEQ [background] 1.0 5.9 NA 30 15 15 0.04 10 0.9 30
*
SSL residential exposure 31.0 46.0 39.00 210 2900 400 23 1600 47000 23000
SSL indust outdoor worker 450 280 560 500 42000 800 340 23000 100000 100000
**
SSL groundwater protect. 0.6 6.2 0.5 10.0 130 70.2** .2 73 2200 3100

UND= Undefined
NA= Not available
*
Arsenic SSL for residential exposure calculated by the EPA using bioavailability data for El
Paso Metal Site.
**
Site-specific Lead SSL for groundwater protection calculated by Parsons to adjust for soil
pH.

Soil Investigation Page 8

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this soil investigation show that the soil surface layer at the site is an imported fill
material that is dry and highly compacted and has elevated concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead, mercury, tin and zinc. The average concentration of arsenic and lead in the surface
layer, the arsenic concentration in four of the seven surface samples, and the concentration of
lead in three of the surface samples exceed health-based residential SSLs established by the
EPA. Two of the reported lead concentrations exceed the Industrial Outdoor Worker SSL of 800
ppm. Three of the reported cadmium concentrations exceed the residential SSL for this metal.
All of the reported concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead and mercury exceed several
times their groundwater protection standards. VEGA concludes that the concentrations of heavy
metals encountered in the site surface soil exceed environmental and health-based soil standards
and, therefore, may affect human health and the environment. Moreover, human heath and
environmental risks at the site are underestimated in this study, because the measured
concentrations of heavy metals in the site surface soil are estimates for the entire layer and not
just for the top one inch of soil as it is generally done in other risk assessment studies. Data from
other studies conducted in the El Paso County Metal Site area show that the concentration of
metals in the top one-inch of soil is several times greater than the concentrations reported a few
inches below the surface.
Except for two samples (B1-B and B2-B) collected from the area where the fill material is not so
compacted or evenly distributed, all of the other samples from the underlying soil report
concentrations of metals that are similar to background levels. The concentration of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead and mercury in samples B1-B and B2-B exceed the groundwater
protection standard. The information suggests that the high soil compaction found at five of the
seven sampling locations prevented or greatly reduced the migration of metal contaminants to
the underlying soil, which resulted in their accumulation at the surface layer. Soil erosion caused
by wind and by surface water flow are probably the two main processes removing metal
contaminants from the areas where the surface soil layer is highly compacted. However, metals
are probably leaching down to groundwater in areas that are not covered by a layer of compacted
fill material. These areas are characterized by friable sandy soils and shallow groundwater.
Field screening for petroleum hydrocarbons revealed no evidence that these contaminants are
present in the soil to be disturbed during the planned construction operations.
VEGA recommends that an Exposure Mitigation Plan be prepared for the planned construction
of the guardhouse and required utility lines at the site and that an experienced environmental
scientist be assigned to oversee compliance with this plan. The plan must address the prevention
of dust generation and the testing and disposal of the soil from the surface layer. Dust generation
may be prevented or reduced to acceptable levels by applying small quantities of water prior to
and during excavations and by avoiding days with wind speed greater than 15 miles per hour to
conduct this work. Construction workers should use gloves, wash well before eating or smoking,
and shower after work. The use of dust masks should also be considered. Excavations should be
conducted carefully to remove first the surface layer, which should be placed in a container or in
a properly constructed berm, lined and covered with plastic. This soil and the soil underlying the
proposed guardhouse location should be tested for waste classification using the TCLP extraction
method and then disposed of in compliance with the solid waste regulations issued in Title 30 of
the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 335.

Soil Investigation Page 9

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

VII. REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2003. Health Consultation: El
Paso County Metals Survey – Arsenic Soil Clean-up Levels. El Paso, El Paso County,
Texas. Report prepared in Cooperation with the Texas Department of Health.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002. Health Consultation: El
Paso County Metals Survey, El Paso, El Paso County, Texas. Report presented to the
Environmental protection Agency (EPA), July 11, 2002.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2001. Health Consultation:
Heavy Metals Confirmation Sampling, El Paso County Metal Survey Site, El Paso, El
Paso County, Texas. August 2001.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2001. Health Consultation:
Review of Historical Soil Sampling Results, El Paso County Metal Survey Site, El Paso,
El Paso County, Texas. Report to the Texas Department of Health (TDH), July 20, 2001.
Barnes, E. Brenda. 1993. An Evaluation of Metals Concentrations in Surficial Soils, El Paso
County, Texas. Master thesis presented to the Geology Department of the University of
Texas at El Paso. May 1993.
Chukwuka, Emmanuel. 1993. Heavy Metals in Soils in the Vicinity of the University of Texas
at El Paso Campus. Master thesis presented to the Geology Department of the University
of Texas at El Paso. December 1993.
Devanahalli, Dilip Kurnar. 1994. Survey of Heavy Metal Concentrations in Soils in Downtown
El Paso, Texas. Master thesis presented to the Geology Department of the University of
Texas at El Paso. May 1994.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. El Paso and Doña Ana County Metals Survey
Sampling Report. Prepared by the US Army Corp of Engineers for the EPA on August
17, 2001.
Landrigan, Philip J., Stephen Gehlbach, Bernard Resenblum, Jimmie Shoults, Robert Candelaria,
William Barthel, John Liddle, Ann Smrek, Norman Staehling and John Sanders. 1975.
Epidemic Lead Absorption Near an Ore Smelter. New England Journal of Medicine,
Volume 292, January 1975.
Parsons Engineering, Inc. 2003. Soils Investigation Report: Wash Rack Area, American Dam
Facility. Prepared for the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission. June
2003.
Srinivas, Shyarn. 1994. Heavy Metals Contamination of Soils in Public Parks, El Paso, Texas.
Master thesis presented to the Geology Department of the University of Texas at El Paso.
May 1994.
Texas Air Control Board (TACB). 1989. Sampling and Analysis of Soil in the Vicinity of
ASARCO in El Paso, Texas - Final Report. August 1989.
Weston Solutions, Inc. 2002. Site Assessment Report for El Paso/DoñaAna County Metals
Survey Site. El Paso, El Paso County, Texas. Sunland Park, Doña Ana County, New
Mexico. November 2002.

Soil Investigation Page 10

VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

Appendix 1: Figures

Soil Investigation
VEGA April 7, 2004
Project # AR-0322 American Dam / USIBWC

Appendix 2: Field Sampling Documentation, Chain of Custody,

Laboratory Reports of Analysis and Quality Control Report.

Soil Investigation