U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–164PDF 2012

POISON HARVEST:

DEADLY U.S. MINE POLLUTION IN PERU

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 19, 2012

Serial No. 112–171

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

His Excellency Pedro Barreto, Archdiocese of Huancayo, Peru ........................... 7

Ms. Rosa Amaro, president, Movement for the Health of La Oroya ................... 14

Fernando Serrano, Ph.D., assistant professor of environmental and occupational health, School of Public Health, St. Louis University ............................ 18

Mr. Keith Slack, global program manager, Oxfam America ................................ 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

His Excellency Pedro Barreto: Prepared statement ............................................. 9

Ms. Rosa Amaro: Prepared statement ................................................................... 15

Fernando Serrano, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ..................................................... 20

Mr. Keith Slack: Prepared statement .................................................................... 37

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 50

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 51

(1)

POISON HARVEST: DEADLY U.S. MINE 

POLLUTION IN PERU 

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. Good afternoon, and thank you for being here. Today’s hearing will examine the human tragedy that is an unfortunate but largely preventable byproduct of development. On the one 

hand, the world at large needs materials, such as gold, silver, copper, and lead, and people gain employment in the extractive industry. 

But extracting the myriad of metals and minerals from the Earth 

often has a dark side and results in elevated health hazards for the 

people who work at or live in proximity to mines and the facilities 

that process these minerals. 

Since 1922, a metallic smelter has operated in the La Oroya region of Peru, and has been the almost sole source of employment 

for the area’s now 30,000 residents. In 1974, the Government of 

Peru nationalized the facility and, in 1997, sold it back to the private sector. The buyer was an American company, Doe Run Resources Corporation, of St. Louis, Missouri. Both parties acknowledged that there was considerable pollution both within and outside the facility. 

Under the purchase agreement, Doe Run was to clean up the 

smelter complex, while the Government of Peru was supposed to 

clean areas outside of the facility. Unfortunately, cleanup has been 

much more difficult than perhaps either side or either party seem 

to have anticipated. Doe Run faced nine phases in the Peru-mandated environmental cleanup program. Company spokespeople tell 

us that they spent more than $300 million and completed more 

than eight of the nine phases. However, repeated extensions provided by the Peruvian Government for the cleanup were not 

enough to complete the process, which cost much more than originally estimated. 

When word circulated that the company might not get another 

extension, the banks declined to continue providing working capital, and after vendors went unpaid, the government shut down the 

Doe Run Peru smelter in 2009. Earlier this year, the Blacksmith 

2

Institute, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to 

fighting the effects of pollution in developing countries, confirmed 

Doe Run’s account of making progress in ending pollution from the 

smelter, as well as the company’s claim of continuing to pay the 

workers even after the smelter was closed down. 

In 2007, the Blacksmith Institute had listed the La Oroya site 

as one of the most polluted in the world. Even though much of the 

cleanup at the smelter reportedly has been accomplished, the facility cannot be operated in an environmentally safe manner until the 

final phase is completed. The matter is now in the hands of the arbiters. But while the smelter has not polluted La Oroya since 2009, 

the residents of this area and indeed Peruvians miles away from 

this facility still face significant negative environmental and health 

effects from the nearly 90 years of pollution from the smelter site. 

A study on pollution at the site presented earlier this year by our 

witness Dr. Fernando Serrano, showed that 3,312 tons of particulate matter has been released from the site each year, along with 

847 tons of lead, 423 tons of arsenic, 226 tons of nitrogen oxides, 

and 43 tons of cadmium. 

Even at relatively small levels in the body, these elements can 

negatively impact children’s development permanently. Minimal effects include the loss of IQ and hearing and growth problems and 

at much higher levels can cause brain damage, seizures, and even 

death. The level of toxic elements found in residents of La Oroya 

is three to six times the United States average. These substances 

in the environment have robbed generations of children and adults 

in this area of the lives that they should have had. 

To properly clean up the environment outside the smelter facility, it is estimated that as much as 3 feet of topsoil has to be removed and cleaned through an incineration process before being replaced. The cost is high because two rivers pass through this area, 

carrying contaminated soil and water downstream. In addition to 

the negative health impact to those who drink the water, the crops 

and livestock fed by the waters on contaminated soils constitute a 

poison harvest for residents as far away as the capital of Lima. 

In addition to the health issues posed by this environmental disaster, an even broader interest is the effectiveness of the free trade 

agreements, such as the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 

Agreement. Congress has oversight over such agreements, and we 

must ensure that after we have approved these pacts, that they 

live up to the promises that led to their original approval. 

The U.S. Government must ensure that American companies 

carry out their end of the bargain. But it is also our responsibility 

to determine whether the government in question has lived up to 

its part of the agreement. In this case, the Government of Peru 

faces a truly daunting task of cleaning up decades of mineral contamination from this smelter alone. It is an unenviable task, but 

one on which the well-being of Peru’s citizens depends. We had 

hoped to ask the administration about this matter at this hearing 

today, especially how it manages the implementation of the FTAs. 

Unfortunately, the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Environmental Protection Agency all 

declined our invitation to testify today. Whatever the reason, our 

Government cannot just approve trade agreements. We also have 

3

the responsibility to see that these agreements are fully, effectively, 

and fairly implemented. 

So we will again invite these U.S. agencies to come here and give 

testimony and answer questions. Environmental damage in Peru is 

our concern, not just because we care about the suffering people 

outside of our borders, which we do, we absolutely do, but it is also 

because we have a responsibility to make sure our own companies 

aren’t at fault. 

Doe Run admits polluting the area from the smelter facility over 

more than a decade. However, the smelter has been in operation 

for nearly 90 years, and the accumulated pollution will endanger 

Peru’s people even if the smelter never operates again. We will 

hear today from four distinguished witnesses, including Archbishop 

Pedro Ricardo Barreto Jimeno of the Archdiocese of Huancayo, 

Peru, who will testify. I note parenthetically before briefly quoting 

him, that the genesis of this hearing came out of a meeting that 

Greg Simpkins and I had with the archbishop several months ago. 

He provided an enormous amount of documentation to our subcommittee about this issue. And that is why we are here today. So 

I thank the archbishop for that. He will say that this is a matter 

of grave concern, not just to the citizens and residents of La Oroya 

and of Peru, but also to the world, and in particular to the United 

States. ‘‘Frankly, I have been very—’’ this is him speaking—‘‘very 

critical of Doe Run Peru for its constant noncompliance with environmental standards as it operates this metallurgical complex.’’

He also points out that he has been the victim of death threats 

and hostility directed at him in his role as bishop and pastor of his 

flock. 

Similar threats have been leveled against another witness today 

who will testify, Ms. Rosa Amaro. I will include in the record some 

of their statements, which I thought were very, very telling, but 

they will make those I know in just a few moments. 

Just let me say that in the United States, it was not until the 

enactment of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, PL 96–510, commonly called the 

Superfund law, that the United States got serious about cleaning 

up toxic waste sites. Additionally, numerous laws to mitigate pollution at its source have also reduced common day pollution in the 

United States and are a model for the world. Thousands of what 

we call Superfund sites that are on what we call the National Priority Listing, including 112 sites in my own home State of New 

Jersey, have been rendered clean or have had serious mitigation 

action done, including capping and incineration. 

One example in my district is the Roebling Steel Mill in 

Roebling, New Jersey. The business, formed and run by John A. 

Roebling, engineered and built such landmarks as the Brooklyn 

Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Niagara Falls Suspension 

Bridge. Unfortunately, the environmental disaster left after 

Roebling shuttered its gates had cost more than $80 million to 

clean up. So I fully understand the challenges facing the Government of Peru and its industry. 

Finally, the La Oroya crisis offers a major test of our FTA process. How we live up to our responsibilities to uphold our end of the 

international trade agreements, such as the United States-Peru 

4

Trade Promotion Agreement, will determine the value of future 

agreements. Our witnesses today will tell, I know because I have 

now read their testimonies, a chilling story of how legitimate commerce can sometimes threaten the life of those who live near a 

mineral wealth. What God has provided as a blessing must not be 

allowed to come, remain or become a curse through sickness and 

disability. I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague 

the ranking member, Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

holding today’s hearing and raising this issue of environmental 

contamination caused by the smelting complex in La Oroya, Peru. 

There is no question that the leaching of high levels of heavy 

metals in the surrounding environment from the complex has put 

the health of the local population at risk, particularly those most 

vulnerable, including children, pregnant women, and the elderly. I 

hope this hearing provides an opportunity to better understand the 

current situation regarding pending bankruptcy hearings, community efforts to raise awareness around public safety, and what continued contamination may cause for those in the surrounding 

areas. 

I will also be particularly interested in hearing today’s witnesses 

remark on the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, 

and how its health and environmental provisions are enforced, and 

what more can be done to strengthen enforcement requirements. 

We must see to it that companies and governments alike adhere 

to international standards and agreements, and that they honor 

commitments that place the well-being of citizens before that of 

profit. It must be acknowledged that the health and security of people is in the best interests of the state and therefore should be pursued without fail. 

The 90-year history of mining activities in La Oroya goes back 

to 1922, in a metallic smelter complex high in the Andes, which my 

colleague has already described. I understand that the Peruvian 

Government took over that operation in 1974, and in 1997, it was 

transferred to the Metal Oroya company. That same year, Metal 

Oroya was acquired by the Doe Run Resource Corporation of Missouri. 

It is my understanding that under the terms of the merger, Doe 

Run, in full cooperation with the Peruvian Government, committed 

to invest funds for the fulfillment of a proportion of Metal Oroya’s 

environmental adjustment and management program. Legislation 

passed in 1993 required all mining companies to work with the 

government to protect the environment and ensure that certain 

standards were followed. 

We have heard of the detrimental effects on the Doe Run-owned 

complex and surrounding environment and the effect it has had on 

the health of the local community. Large amounts of lead, copper, 

zinc, and sulfur dioxide from the site, I understand, have affected 

over 35,000 people, and the level of toxins found in the residents 

of La Oroya are three to six times the U.S. average for acceptable 

levels. 

Data shows that nearly all children and seven out of 10 adults 

in La Oroya were found to have more than 10 micrograms of lead 

in their blood, a level that we know results in IQ loss and hearing, 

5

learning, language, and growth problems in children. At these levels, lead toxicity can also cause cancer of the kidneys, and at a 

higher level, it can lead to more serious problems, including brain 

damage and anemia. I just have to tell you, as I read about this 

situation, I found it particularly outrageous, considering in our 

country I certainly remember—and I look forward to hearing from 

one of the witnesses in particular, Ms. Rosa Amaro, because I remember what happened in our country. And as my colleague here 

mentioned the laws that were put into place, the Superfund, I remember on the other side, which was a grass roots community 

movement that led to the legislation being changed. And I imagine 

when we hear from Mrs. Amaro that she will describe a similar 

grass roots movement. 

Well, through that movement in the United States, it led to us 

taking lead out of paint. And so it is illegal now to paint houses 

in our country with lead. And we are just talking about the paint 

that is in a house. People in this community have lived where they 

have had to deal with toxins spewed into the air. And I just think 

it is outrageous and unacceptable. And I am going to be very interested to hear what the community has done to respond to this and 

how we can continue to be supportive in your efforts. 

So, once again, Mr. Chair, thank you very much for having this 

hearing, and I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses 

today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. 

Before going to Mr. Carnahan, we also took lead out of our gas. 

Ms. BASS. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. SMITH. Comprehensive efforts to lessen or mitigate risk. 

Ms. BASS. Because we know the damage. 

Mr. SMITH. Exactly. I would like to yield now to my friend and 

colleague, Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member. 

It is good to be here, to be having this hearing today. 

I want to first welcome Dr. Fernando Serrano from St. Louis 

University. Thank you for your presence here today. 

Dr. Serrano’s studies have shed important light on the environmental contamination related to the La Oroya smelter facility and 

its effects on public health, especially the risks to children. Dr. 

Serrano’s work has found that La Oroya’s population levels for 

many of the most toxic metals are more than three to six times the 

U.S. average, with dangerously elevated lead levels found in the 

blood of 97 percent of children between 6 months and 6 years of 

age, and 98 percent of those between 7 and 12 years old. 

In 2007, the Blacksmith Institute declared the Doe Run Peru 

complex one of the world’s most polluted places. Just south of St. 

Louis, Missouri, my home, is a lead smelter operation owned by the 

Doe Run Corporation and its parent company, Renco Group, which 

has also had its share of environmental and public health problems. And for years, families and children living in the area of the 

Doe Run facility were exposed to high levels of lead. And according 

to the EPA, it is one of the most dangerous neurotoxins in the environment. In 2010, the company reached an agreement with the 

EPA to pay $65 million for a violation of environmental laws, as 

well as a $7 million civil penalty. 

6

By the end of 2013, Doe Run is supposed to be closing down the 

old plant there. They had originally announced plans to build a 

new facility. But as recently as June 30, in an article in the St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch, they announced that they won’t be building a 

new plant. 

So this has been kind of a moving target in our part of the country. But we also see the implications what is going on in Peru. 

We also understand there is an economic argument involved 

here. Doe Run Peru’s smelting operations provided important jobs 

to many Peruvians, with the mining industry counting for over 60 

percent of Peru’s export earnings. We must look for ways, I think, 

as a government to bring all the parties together to comply, to comply with commitments under the program for environmental mediation and to reach solutions that allow for economic development 

and jobs but do so with a top priority of protecting public health. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for holding 

this hearing. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Carnahan, thank you so very much, and for 

being here with us today. 

I would like to now welcome to the witness table our four very 

distinguished witnesses, beginning first with Archbishop Pedro Ricardo Barreto Jimeno, who is from the Archdiocese of Huancayo, 

Peru. He is also the vice president of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference and president of the Justice and Solidarity Department of 

the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Bishops Council. In 

2005, Archbishop Barreto was named the general coordinator of a 

multi-stakeholder effort to address contamination in the community of La Oroya and has been recognized for his work on this situation. 

Archbishop Barreto has recently received death threats for his 

continued efforts to address urgent health and environmental concerns. 

And I, again, on behalf of this subcommittee, thank him for his 

courage and for his willingness to speak out so bravely throughout, 

including at today’s hearing. 

We will then hear from Dr. Fernando Serrano, who is the principal investigator of the St. Louis University CDC study to determine levels of toxic metals in La Oroya population and in the environmental assessment of soil, water, and air quality and the 

Mantaro watershed. Dr. Serrano’s studies have provided evidence 

of the extensive environmental contamination related to the Doe 

Run smelter in Peru, and its effects on the health of the people, 

especially children. He is also an assistant professor of the department of environmental and occupational health at St. Louis University. 

If you two could please come to the witness table. Then we will 

hear from Ms. Rosa Amaro, who is the president of the Movement 

for the Health of La Oroya, a social organization founded with the 

goal of advocating at the national and international level around 

the severe health damage caused by the activities of the La Oroya 

metallurgical complex, a multi-mineral smelter. 

Rosa’s family lives in the neighborhood most affected by the pollution. She is the mother of two sons, the youngest of which suffers 

7

from severe hearing problems that have led them to seek specialized care in Lima. 

And finally, we will hear from Keith Slack, who is the extractive 

industries global program manager in the DC office of Oxfam 

America, where he coordinates the organization’s extractive industries reform program, which promotes greater respect by corporations, international financial institutions, and governments for the 

basic rights of communities in developing countries mal-affected by 

oil and mining operations. 

He has previously worked on the ground in Peru for Catholic Relief Services. He has published multiple articles and has written 

chapters in volumes on extractive industries and sustainable development. 

STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY PEDRO BARRETO, 

ARCHDIOCESE OF HUANCAYO, PERU 

Archbishop BARRETO. [The following testimony was delivered 

through an interpreter.] 

Good afternoon to all of you. I am Archbishop Pedro Ricardo 

Barreto Jimeno, and I have been the archbishop of the Archdiocese 

of Huancayo in the center of the Andean area of Peru since 2004. 

That is where the City of La Oroya is located. It is one of the most 

polluted cities in the world. 

I am grateful to Congressman Christopher Smith, the chair of 

the subcommittee, and to Congresswoman Karen Bass, the ranking 

member, for this opportunity to be a witness before you, witness to 

the joys and the sorrows and the hopes of the population of La 

Oroya. 

I also want to thank the 18 Congressmen and Congresswomen 

who sent a letter to Ms. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State on 

March 29, at the initiative of Congressman Raul Grijalva. 

The letter reveals a great truth. And it says, We are writing to 

express our serious concern with the behavior of this U.S. company, 

Renco Group, and its subsidiary, Doe Run Peru, which has negatively affected the image of the United States in Peru and in Latin 

America. 

I am a witness to the fact that these statements are unfortunately true. I have seen people cry because of their children and 

grandchildren, who are suffering serious consequences and environmental contamination. 

And that is why we are very happy that today we have both 

Democratic and Republican Representatives here together to defend the life and the health of the population of La Oroya. This is 

an encouraging sign and example for Peru and the world. 

I am not a political leader, and I am not an expert on the economy. I am a bishop, a pastor, who in faithfulness to Jesus Christ, 

our good shepherd, has decided to try to plow fields to sew the seed 

of life, of justice, and of peace. 

La Oroya is inside the territory of my archdiocese, whose population has suffered since 1922 from the serious effects of the toxic 

emissions coming from the polymetallic smelter since 1922 until 

June 2009. 

It was on that date, in June 2009, that Doe Run declared itself 

to be bankrupt. But the truth is different. The Doe Run CorporaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Oct 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\071912\75164 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

tion has not complied with its commitments to complete in 10 

years, over the course of 10 years, the environmental mitigation 

projects it had promised to complete. 

The government, under pressure from Doe Run and its workers, 

decided to give the company an extension of 30 more months to be 

able to comply with its environmental mitigation program. We also 

know that here in the United States an affiliate of this company 

has received severe economic sanctions because of the effects it has 

caused on the life and health of girls and boys, and because of environmental noncompliance with environmental laws in the City of 

Herculaneum, Missouri. 

In fact, the National Mining Society of Peru in 2010 decided to 

expel the organization of Doe Run from the society for poor corporate practices. And recently, the president of a Peruvian enterprise organization, called Confia, has stated that companies like 

Doe Run should not be in Peru. 

The smelter in La Oroya has emitted toxic gases on the surrounding population from 1922 until 2009. So we are talking about 

a period of 87 years. Of those years, during 65 years, the facility 

was run by two North American companies. One was Cerro de 

Pasco Copper Corporation, which no longer exists, and the other is 

Doe Run Peru. Both of these companies leased the property of the 

metallurgical complex in La Oroya, and they are responsible for 

generating three-quarters of the environmental liabilities that are 

existing today. 

I should say that in La Oroya and in Peru we are going through 

difficult times. And that is because of the historic way in which 

mining activities have been carried out without any kind of 

socioenvironmental responsibility. And this has generated mistrust. 

The poor population does not trust the companies or the central 

government itself. 

That is why decisions like the ones that you may make here, 

Congressmen and women, are important and effective for helping 

to keep people from continuing to be affected by this kind of contamination and to prevent the deterioration of the image of the 

Government and the people of the United States. 

Your actions and determination here has received a great deal of 

attention in the Peruvian press. And this has helped the Peruvian 

Congress and Government to comply more faithfully with chapter 

18 of the free trade agreement between the United States and 

Peru, which is currently in effect. 

I want to end my testimony by making an explicit reference to 

something that Jesus Christ, our good shepherd, said. And he 

strengthened us by saying two things, that if we are faithful to his 

word, he says, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set 

you free. 

We will know the scientific truth that Dr. Serrano will tell us, 

Dr. Serrano from the University of St. Louis of Missouri, and we 

will also hear the truth of the human suffering of the people of La 

Oroya from the experiences of Ms. Rosa Amaro. 

We will also hear and learn about the ethical and moral truth 

that we are trying to give testimony to today. Because of our faith 

in Jesus Christ, believers cannot be silent in the face of evil. 

9

That is why our position is firm, it is clear, and it is nonnegotiable. For Doe Run or any other company to operate the smelter 

and the metallurgical complex at La Oroya, this should only happen after the environmental mitigation projects have been completely finished. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Archbishop Barreto follows:]


75164a-1.eps
10


75164a-2.eps
11


75164a-3.eps
12


75164a-4.eps
13


75164a-5.eps
14

Mr. SMITH. Archbishop, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would like to now ask Ms. Amaro if she would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ROSA AMARO, PRESIDENT, MOVEMENT 

FOR THE HEALTH OF LA OROYA 

Ms. AMARO. [The following testimony was delivered through an 

interpreter.] 

Thank you, Chairman Smith and Members of Congress for the 

opportunity to give my testimony here today. 

My name is Rosa Amaro Toykin. I am the president of the Movement for Health in La Oroya, called by its acronym MOSAO. 

I have lived in La Oroya since I was born. The same is true of 

my parents and my family. MOSAO is a group of residents of La 

Oroya who are concerned about the health of women, children, and 

the elderly in the city. 

I am not here as a political leader or as a technical expert. I am 

here as a citizen of La Oroya and as a concerned mother of two 

children, Moises and Jesus. 

I founded MOSAO to help find a solution for the citizens of La 

Oroya so that we can live in a healthy environment that is free of 

toxic gases and smoke. 

In 1999, the Ministry of Health of Peru did a study to see what 

the level of contamination was among the children of La Oroya. 

The results were terrifying. My 5-year-old boy Jesus had a level of 

58.3 micrograms of lead for each deciliter of blood. This is higher 

than what is considered to be the maximum limit by the World 

Health Organization. 

As you know, lead attacks the brain and the central nervous system. Children who survive intoxication, lead intoxication, in general suffer from a series of negative effects, including dyslexia. 

These effects are permanent, but unfortunately health care is very 

scarce in La Oroya. 

The toxic emissions that are poisoning the children of La Oroya 

come from the lead smelter that is operated by Doe Run. I believe 

that Doe Run is a bad example of foreign investment in Peru. 

The government has already given Doe Run several opportunities 

to resolve the contamination problems at the metallurgical complex. But the company has never complied with these commitments, and now it has the nerve to sue the state. 

Doe Run has also caused many conflicts inside La Oroya, conflicts among family members and between neighbors. Some workers that support Doe Run are used by the company to demonstrate 

against MOSAO and against the Peruvian Government. For example, the company has its own radio stations that it uses to defame 

and to insult people like myself and like Archbishop Barreto, who 

are only trying to help the people. 

Those who support Doe Run company have thrown rocks at my 

house, and they have threatened my life. When they see us in the 

streets, they shout, ‘‘Death to MOSAO.’’ We don’t have any protection against these threats. 

As a precautionary measure, I hide inside my house, and I don’t 

go out much into the streets because I am afraid of being attacked 

by workers and their family members. 

15

Currently, the level of pollution has gone down quite a bit because the Doe Run plant has been closed. And it is the first time 

that my city has had clean air and a clear sky. 

As a citizen, I want my neighbors to live with this clean air, and 

I want any operator of this complex to respect the highest environmental standards that protect the health of the population. 

I am asking you today to help us so that Doe Run will comply 

with the highest standards of air, soil, and water quality, the kinds 

of standards that are used in the United States, so that our children can live healthy lives like children in the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Amaro follows:]


75164c-1.eps
16


75164c-2.eps
17


75164c-3.eps
18

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Amaro, thank you so very much for your testimony, and at great risk to yourself for being here. I am very sorry 

to hear of all of the threats that have been made against you. 

Dr. Serrano. 

STATEMENT OF FERNANDO SERRANO, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SERRANO. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Honorable 

Chris Smith, chair, and the other members of the committee. 

Thank you so much for inviting me this afternoon. 

I am Fernando Serrano, assistant professor at the School of Public Health, St. Louis University, and I have served as the principal 

investigator of several studies to determine the levels of toxic metals in the people and in the environment in La Oroya and the 

Mantaro region. 

This afternoon, I am going to show the key findings of these 

studies with you. The study we conducted in 2005 indicated that 

97 percent of children between 6 months and 6 years of age have 

elevated levels of lead in their bodies, and 98 percent of children 

between 7 and 12. What that means is practically the entire population in this age group in La Oroya had elevated levels, as was 

indicated, three to six times what we would consider acceptable in 

the United States. The same happened with other age groups. 

We found cadmium six times the U.S. average; the same for arsenic in La Oroya. We found in another city far away from La 

Oroya, we found lead in the blood of children, which indicates that 

the contamination has traveled from La Oroya to the entire region. 

And of concern to us is the issue of multiple exposure. These people are suffering not from one but from all of these contaminants 

affecting their bodies. 

All this contamination is particularly associated to the Doe Run 

Peru smelter in La Oroya. So because people were concerned about 

what they had in their bodies and the high levels of toxic metals, 

they also wanted to know what is happening in the environment. 

So we conducted a comprehensive environmental assessment of air, 

water, and soil in the region. And this is what we found. In soil, 

we had 70 sampling sites. In each one of them, we found elevated 

levels of lead and arsenic in the entire region. The highest levels 

were found in La Oroya, extremely high. 

Peru does not have regulations for soil, so we used our own in 

the United States and Canada. And they exceeded many, many 

times the levels of what we would consider acceptable in soil. 

Regarding water, of the 45 sampling sites in the entire area, only 

eight are clean any more. Only eight rivers are clean. The rest 

have contamination. The worst areas were of course around La 

Oroya, where we found higher levels of lead and arsenic. This is 

of concern because this water is used for irrigation, and the farmers are concerned that lead will be absorbed by crops used by animals and people. 

Lastly, in regarding air quality, we tested air in various areas of 

the region and the City of La Oroya. We found many days where 

the peak sulfur dioxide reached emergency levels in the city. So the 

19

air was extremely contaminated, not only by sulfur dioxide, but 

also by cadmium, arsenic, and lead. 

It is important to note that after the plant closed its operations 

in 2009 in July, we have seen that SO2, sulfur dioxide, has decreased 99 percent. Lead has decreased by 98 percent. Arsenic has 

come down by 99 percent, and cadmium by 99 percent. The first 

time in decades that the people of La Oroya are breathing clean 

air. 

Also, some blood level screening has been conducted in the last 

5 years. And what we see now, after the closing of the plant, that 

blood lead levels in children have come down significantly. So, 

again, for the first time we have seen children with blood levels decreasing. 

So what does this mean? First, that we have sound scientific evidence of the grave threat to the people of La Oroya and the environment, as the studies have shown. Of great concern, again, is the 

multiple exposure, all these toxic metals affecting the body and the 

health effects. So in the discussion of the economic and legal and 

other factors related to the relationship between the United States 

Government and Peru in the framework of the United States free 

trade agreement, I believe we must put an emphasis, we must 

make a priority of the health needs and rights of the people of La 

Oroya, especially the children, and especially the unborn. We have 

children being born with lead in their bodies. And that is something that we consider completely unacceptable. 

So the gains in clean air and decreasing blood levels should be 

protected. If that company, whoever reopens the smelter in La 

Oroya, reopens it without strict environmental regulations, the entire community will be recontaminated. And this would pose again 

a great, great threat to people who are already suffering for decades. 

Lastly, in the public health field, which is our field, we don’t lose 

sight of the definition of health, which is this: Health is a state of 

complete physical, mental, and social well being, and not just the 

absence of disease. La Oroya people, the population, does not have 

this health. It is their aspiration. So this testimony I hope sheds 

light on this big gap between this aspiration of health and the reality of suffering, vulnerability, and risk faced by the people of La 

Oroya, 35,000 of them. 

In closing, for St. Louis University, a Jesuit university committed 

to making sure that research and education serve those who most 

need it, this has been an opportunity for us to serve the people of 

La Oroya, and their organizations, and the church that speaks on 

their behalf. We will continue speaking truth to power and providing the scientific evidence until the people of La Oroya have 

good health and a clean environment. Thank you. I have submitted 

a written statement with more additional information on these 

studies, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Serrano follows:]

20


75164b-1.eps
21


75164b-2.eps
22


75164b-3.eps
23


75164b-4.eps
24


75164b-5.eps
25


75164b-6.eps
26


75164b-7.eps
27


75164b-8.eps
28


75164b-9.eps
29


75164b-10.eps
30


75164b-11.eps
31


75164b-12.eps
32


75164b-13.eps
33


75164b-14.eps
34


75164b-15.eps
35

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Serrano. 

Without objection, your full statement, and that of all of our witnesses, and any other materials you would like to submit for the 

record will be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Slack. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KEITH SLACK, GLOBAL PROGRAM 

MANAGER, OXFAM AMERICA 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for 

holding this very important hearing today. 

The Doe Run lead smelter that we have been hearing about in 

La Oroya, Peru, is at a critical juncture. The Peruvian Government 

next week in fact will make a decision about whether or not to 

allow Doe Run to continue operating the smelter. So your oversight 

of this issue is needed now more than ever. 

My organization, Oxfam America, is an international relief and 

development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, 

hunger, and injustice in more than 90 countries. We have worked 

in Peru for more than 30 years. In that time, Peru has made great 

strides in reducing poverty, yet nearly one-third of the population 

still lives in poverty. In rural areas, that poverty rate is nearly 60 

percent. 

This poverty sits in sharp contrast to the great mineral wealth 

that the country possesses. Much of this wealth, unfortunately, has 

not trickled down to the poorest areas of the country. Local communities are also concerned about the environmental impacts of large 

scale mining and oil and gas activity. 

These impacts can be seen most clearly in La Oroya, as we have 

heard from Bishop Barreto, Ms. Amaro, and Dr. Serrano. In that 

town, an American company, Doe Run, for more than a decade has 

been contributing to serious environmental contamination, despite 

having the resources and the technology to operate in a more responsible way. 

Rising concerns about environmental contamination in La Oroya 

and elsewhere in Peru have contributed to a cycle of conflict and 

human rights violations around extractive industries projects 

throughout the country. Most prominently, the Mina Conga project, 

which is a $4.8 billion investment by the Denver-based Newmont 

Mining Corporation, has been the site of repeated conflict and violence. Just 2 weeks ago, five protesters against the project were 

shot and killed by Peruvian national police during a protest there. 

In a related incident, Marco Arana, a Catholic priest and mining 

activist, was detained and savagely beaten by police, an incident 

that was captured on video and broadcast on YouTube. 

In all, Peru’s national human rights ombudsman counts 245 conflicts across the country, most of these related to oil and mining 

projects. Such a high level of social conflict threatens the viability 

of Peru’s natural resource sector and threatens to undermine the 

Government of President Ollanta Humala. 

In order to address this critical situation, and ensure respect for 

human rights and the environment and Peru’s continued stability, 

Oxfam America makes the following recommendations for the committee’s consideration. First, human rights training for police, military, and private security forces that provide security to oil and 

36

mining installations in the country needs to be dramatically increased. To address the situation, Peru’s endorsement of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which is a 

United States and United Kingdom-led global initiative that sets 

human rights standards for the oil and mining sectors, would be 

a critical step. The Obama administration and Congress should 

urge Peru to endorse and fully implement the voluntary principles 

without delay. 

Secondly, Peru’s environmental oversight could be substantially 

strengthened. The U.S. Government should offer the support of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Peru in helping to address critical environmental and public health concerns like those 

that we see in La Oroya. The U.S. EPA has extensive experience 

in dealing with lead contamination issues, including those caused 

by Doe Run’s lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri, and this expertise should be offered to the Peruvian Government. 

Thirdly, Doe Run’s parent company, Renco Group, is seeking 

$800 million in damages against the Government of Peru under the 

United States-Peru free trade agreement. This suit is an attempt 

to increase pressure on the government in its ongoing negotiations 

with Doe Run, Peru, over the fate of the lead smelter in La Oroya. 

The U.S. Government should support the Peruvian Government in 

defending itself against this claim. 

Finally, the U.S. Government should encourage all American 

companies operating in Peru and elsewhere in the region to ensure 

that they are following the highest possible human rights and environmental standards, even in those cases where they are legally allowed to do less than if they were operating in the United States. 

American corporations serve as important ambassadors of the 

United States. It is thus in the United States’ interest to ensure 

that they comport with American values and standards for environmental protection and human rights. 

The U.S. Congress can play an important role in supporting 

Peru’s efforts to address these issues and solve urgent problems 

like those we have heard about in La Oroya. 

I thank the chairman and the members of the committee again 

for their attention to this critical issue, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slack follows:]

37


75164d-1.eps
38


75164d-2.eps
39


75164d-3.eps
40

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Slack, thank you very much for your testimony 

as well. 

Let me begin with Archbishop Barreto and also to Ms. Amaro. 

Not only are you trying to defend people from the horrific impacts of chemical poisoning, but your very lives have been threatened and others as well. In reading your testimonies, especially 

you, Ms. Amaro, you indicate that the police have been far less protective. They want names. When somebody is saying something on 

a radio station, you might not have a name. It is up to them to initiate investigations. That is what police do. 

So I would like to know if you could speak to, first and foremost, 

the two issues of safety: Pollution and violence. Because you are 

fighting against pollution, you now have the threat of violence directed against you. Have the police, has the central government, 

has any government body shown a willingness to very aggressively 

protect those who are under threats, like yourselves? What do they 

do when you come forward, Archbishop? Do they just say, ‘‘Thank 

you very much,’’ and that is the end of it? 

Ms. AMARO. When we go to government offices to denounce the 

kinds of threats we are experiencing, often these threats come over 

the radio and the representatives in the government office will say, 

well, we need proof. Tell us the names and the addresses of the 

people that are threatening you. And this is something we aren’t 

able to do, because it is never possible to know exactly who is behind these threats, who are the people that are making the telephone calls. 

The workers who work in these radio stations are practicing a 

kind of what we call a white terrorism. They are trying to scare 

people. And what they are doing is agitating the workers and the 

family members of the workers in the plants, scaring them, telling 

them we are their enemies. And in fact their children are also contaminated by what is happening in the environment, but they are 

afraid to come forward. But Dr. Serrano and Monsignor Barreto 

have known cases of workers’ families’ children who are also affected by this, but sometimes they don’t even want to come forward 

and find out what the results of the tests are on their children. 

Sometimes they will have a march in favor of the company, and 

they will march with a coffin, and they will say death to Pedro 

Barreto, Monsignor Barreto, for example, death to MOSAO, our organization. 

Our organization has never been against the workers or even 

against the company. We are not their enemies. We want the company to be able to continue functions in La Oroya, but we think 

it has to function under certain conditions, and we think that we 

should have complete freedom to be able to talk about what is happening there. 

When the police come, they come most of all to protect the site 

of the metallurgical complex, but often what they do is to attack 

the members of the population. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Archbishop. 

Archbishop BARRETO. I would like to add to what Mrs. Rosa just 

said. The people who are defending the health of the people of La 

Oroya in La Oroya, they are heroes; and that is why I really want 

41

to recognize the courage of Mrs. Rosa and of her entire group that 

defends life there. 

I really am grateful for the question that Chairman Chris Smith 

has asked, because it gives me the opportunity to say that it seems 

that the groups that are coming in to look for profit are only interested in making more money. They are not interested at all in the 

lives of the people there. 

The church social doctrine does the best to try to follow church 

social teachings and other people of goodwill. We try to put the life 

and the dignity of human beings and the health of human beings 

at the center of decisions that are made and not the opposite. It 

is not the economy that we need to be looking out for. It is the 

human beings that we need to be looking out for. 

It is important to know the truth in these situations, and here 

the scientific truth coincides completely with moral and ethical 

truth. It is true that I have also had threats to my own person 

since 2005. I saw, for example, a clip on YouTube where there was 

a coffin inside the installations, the facilities of the plant. The coffin had my last name on it, and it had a church symbol that indicated death. 

The national police force itself has actually had two of its members killed in La Oroya. They were victims of the population and 

of the pressure that the Doe Run Corporation was putting on the 

population. 

And recently the national police were actually at fault in the 

place of Cajamarca in the Conga mines. All of us are very outraged 

at their brutal response to the demonstrations there. It is a serious 

error that they have made that will lead to more conflict. 

Going back to my own situation, thanks once again for your concern, Chairman Smith. It is true that there have been a number 

of threats on my life since 2005, and these threats are very difficult 

to prove. Some of these threats have come through the public, have 

been made through public phone booths. There was even a 

Facebook threat saying that my days were numbered. But rather 

than discouraging me or making me too afraid, this is actually giving me more strength. We feel like we are on the right path because we are defending the life and the health of the population. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Archbishop. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Serrano and Mr. Slack, the remediation option, the cleanup option that the government as well as the company has to follow, or should follow, it is my understanding that 

the soil could be contaminated to up to three feet and maybe more, 

so that would require incineration, I take it. How much of an effort 

at what cost do you think that would actually entail, and is it in 

your opinion a viable option? Is that the best course to take? 

Mr. SERRANO. As I indicated, we found toxic metals in the soil; 

and, for us, the top surface is what is of concern. Because that is 

what gets in contact with children, with people, and with animals. 

So the first level of remediation is actually the very top level, the 

first 5, 10 inches. And, of course, more in-depth remediation takes 

place, as you indicated, going lower. 

To my knowledge, no remediation has taken place in La Oroya, 

and this is serious. Because, although we have seen contamination 

42

in the Earth going down, we know that the legacy of lead in the 

soil and the dust is still there since 1922. 

Mr. SMITH. Whose responsibility is that? Is that the government’s or is that the company’s? 

Mr. SERRANO. It is both. It is both. So when, as you indicated, 

when the plant started to operate in 1922, it started to emit all 

these contaminants, and they accumulate in the environment on 

the soil. In ’74, it went back to the government, and then it was 

back to the private sector. So, yes, the Government of Peru is responsible for some of it, but so is the first American company who 

operated that and now, since 1977, Doe Run Peru. 

From our perspective, whoever is responsible, they need to take 

full responsibility for remediation. Otherwise, that will forever be 

a source of contamination to these people. 

Mr. SMITH. My friend and colleague, Ms. Bass, does have to 

leave, so I would like to yield to her. I have additional questions. 

I will yield to her. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and I am sorry 

I will not be able to stay. Both my colleague, Mr. Carnahan, and 

I have to leave for other commitments. 

But I wanted to, first and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to come. Your testimony, your courage, I am very clear 

about that and understand what the danger is that you face. And 

as I said in the beginning, I think that it is particularly egregious 

that you are having to face this situation, something that we would 

never tolerate here. 

But I just have a couple of questions, because, you know, we 

talked with the free trade agreement and the fact that the company could even use a provision of the free trade agreement to sue 

the government. And I wanted to know, since the company has 

been there so long, has the situation gotten worse after the trade 

agreement? And then is there any consideration, frankly, about the 

Government of Peru suing the company or, you know, your organization suing the company? There are certainly many international 

examples of that. 

The plant has closed and so all this issue of the harassment and 

threats and all are from workers who want the plant to reopen 

again, and is it true that they are still being paid, even though that 

the plant is closed? 

Archbishop BARRETO. Yes, the liquidation company that is now 

in charge of the Doe Run operations has been paying the workers 

70 percent of their salary since June 2009. They also get a little 

extra pay for the patron saint celebration time and around Christmastime. And, as I said before, on July 26th, the Creditors Board 

will be deciding whether it is going to accept the third and last proposal that Doe Run Peru is making to restructure itself and continue to operate the smelter. 

Ms. BASS. Has there been any consideration to suing the company? 

Ms. AMARO. We have a judicial process right now where we are 

directing it toward the Peruvian Government asking for programs 

to benefit the population of La Oroya. That is where we have been 

focusing on so far. The Constitutional Court has ordered the Ministry of Health to give special attention to some of the most vulnerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Oct 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\071912\75164 HFA PsN: SHIRL
43

able people in our community: The children, pregnant women, elderly, and the entire community. 

Doe Run itself has also signed some agreements with the regional government where they are supposed to do some lead testing, and they also have a center where basically what they are 

doing is taking the kids out of the most contaminated areas in the 

in morning, having the daycare about eight kilometers away, and 

returning them back to the contaminated areas at night. 

Archbishop BARRETO. I should also say that some U.S. lawyers 

have sued Doe Run Peru under U.S. laws, specifically for the cases 

of 107 children in La Oroya, and the case was moving along. But 

I understand it has stopped now because of Doe Run’s suit against 

the Government of Peru. So it is sort of in suspension right now. 

Ms. BASS. Let me just close out by once again thanking the chair 

of the committee, and thank you especially letting me ask my questions before I leave. My staff member who is sitting behind me will 

be here and will follow up. 

Because I do want to specifically ask—and I am sure the chairman is going to raise this—is there anything specifically that we 

can do to aid the situation, especially given that deadline, the July 

26th situation? 

So I again thank you for all of your testimony. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Who would like to answer? 

Mr. SLACK. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Bass. 

Just to add one additional point to what the Bishop was saying, 

the Renco Group is in fact using the United States-Peru FTA to 

protect itself from liability against the lawsuit that has been filed 

in the Missouri courts. So that is to make that connection there 

that the ranking member was asking about in terms of the free 

trade agreement. 

I think one of the most difficult things to understand about this 

is situation is, given the resources that are available to Renco 

Group as a broad corporate entity, why they haven’t taken the 

steps that are needed to address the problems at La Oroya, which 

consist primarily and most importantly of installing a sulfuric acid 

treatment plant to reduce the amount of toxic emissions that are 

produced in La Oroya. This is the issue that people are most concerned about in terms of whether it is Doe Run or whether it is 

a company that ends up operating the smelter: Will there be a commitment to actually install that technology before the smelter begins operating again? 

And this gets to the other question that you had raised, Mr. 

Chairman, about the soil. The concern about the remediation of the 

soil is if the emissions aren’t controlled first, then you would have 

to go back, right back, and clean up the soil again, because they 

would become immediately contaminated. So, in a sense, it 

wouldn’t make sense to clean the soils first if you don’t have the 

control over the toxic emissions, because you will just end up with 

the contaminated soil again. 

In reference to Congressman Carnahan’s experience with Doe 

Run in Herculaneum, Missouri, in that situation the company has 

demonstrated that it does in fact have technology that can be used 

that would reduce emissions almost to zero. So the question is, why 

44

aren’t they considering that technology in La Oroya? Again, it 

would seem that, within the greater resources of the Renco Group, 

there would be the capacity to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the most important elements of our Superfund 

law is that before the government fund does cleanup, the principally responsible party is identified, and they are made to bear 

the cost of cleanup. Does such a mechanism exist in Peru? Is it 

being contemplated by the government? But, currently, does it 

exist? 

Archbishop BARRETO. Definitely not. Because, as I said in my 

testimony, during the 87 years that the complex has been polluting 

La Oroya, during 65 of those years it has been two North American 

companies that have been responsible for the environmental liabilities and contamination. The State of Peru through Centromin 

Peru was also in charge of the smelter for 23 years. So if we use 

this mathematical calculation you might say that the two American 

companies should perhaps pay for three-quarters of the cleanup. 

Unfortunately, Cerro de Pasco Corporation, which operated the 

complex for 52 years, is no longer in existence. 

And Doe Run has often said, well, it is the government that 

hasn’t complied with the environmental commitments or the environmental mitigation activities necessary. But, again, the question 

is, how can the government do anything while toxic gasses are continuing to be emitted by the Doe Run company? That is why we 

say that any new operator of the complex, whether that is Doe Run 

or any other company that wants to run the metallurgical complex 

in La Oroya, should only do so after complying with the environmental mitigation commitments. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to ask you, what does delay in cleanup 

of contaminated soils mean in terms of risk? We talk about some 

of this being three feet down and leeching, I suppose, the issue of 

runoff. How long can this stay unfocused upon and unacted upon 

and not lead to further risks in terms of runoff and leeching? 

Maybe, Dr. Serrano, that might be one for you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

As I said, I am not aware of any remediation program that has 

taken place in La Oroya, although we have called for that. We believe that that will eliminate a source of contamination. So it has 

not taken place. And because of the reasons you have heard between the discussion of who is responsible, it was indicated it is 

clear who is responsible, and the polluter is responsible. 

So we know we have the methods and techniques to do remediation. That is well known. We have done it in the U.S. in Superfund sites. We have done it in cities. It can be done in La Oroya. 

It can be done in that region. 

But we do need the commitment of the polluters, in this case Doe 

Run Peru and the government, to come up not only with the program but with the money to fund it. They need to fund, they need 

to remediate, and they need to solve this problem of soil contamination. They haven’t done so yet. 

Mr. SMITH. We received a letter from Mr. Dennis Sadlowski, who 

is the Vice President-Law for Renco, and he asks a question in his 

letter that ‘‘we believe it is in the interests of both the United 

States and Peru to ensure agreements made are agreements that 

45

are kept, and we hope the subcommittee will direct our State Department to communicate this to the current Peruvian administration.’’

As I said earlier, we had invited the State Department, USAID, 

and other responsible people within the Obama administration to 

come here and give testimony. For whatever reason, they have declined to do so. 

But what do you make of that question? Has the U.S. Government done that to the Peruvians? 

Maybe, Mr. Slack, you might be aware of that? 

Mr. SLACK. I think the key issue at stake here is the extent to 

which the company is genuinely committed to taking the actions 

that are necessary to address the environmental problems at La 

Oroya. And, in our view, it seems to be largely a distraction, a 

waste of time and money to engage in these legal proceedings when 

those resources could be invested toward addressing these problems. 

So Doe Run has not committed to installing the emission control 

technology that is needed there. So, instead of pursuing these legal 

strategies, why doesn’t it simply commit to doing that? Working 

with the Peruvian Government and with the support of the United 

States Government, I think that would be beneficial, to find a solution to address this problem and not pursue these issues through 

those legal means. 

Mr. SMITH. Is there a question that any of you would have for 

the U.S. administration, over which obviously as an American, as 

a lawmaker in the U.S. Congress, are we doing our part? 

One of my concerns with each of the free trade agreements, going 

back to NAFTA with Mexico, which I did vote against primarily because of workers’ rights and because of environmental protections, 

is that while on paper it looked to be very strong and robust, but 

were anything but in terms of implementation. And I am wondering with regard to the United States-Peru Trade Promotion 

Agreement that went into effect in December 2007, is there a similar weakness with regards to environmental standards? It may look 

good on paper, but are they truly enforced by the Government of 

Peru and are we doing our part as a Government to push in that 

important area? Archbishop? 

Archbishop BARRETO. The first thing the U.S. Government can 

do is to not support the Doe Run Corporation. 

Secondly, the Mining Society of Peru has already thrown Doe 

Run out of its organization for its poor environmental practices, 

and the president of the Corporations Association has said clearly 

that companies like Doe Run should not be in the country. So, for 

me, it is very clear that if the United States Government supports 

a U.S. company that is known for noncompliance with environmental laws that it really is going to be colluding in this irresponsibility. 

I also have to say, unfortunately, as a Peruvian that our Peruvian Governments over the years have closed their eyes to this serious problem and have not passed laws to protect the lives of our 

population. But the past Peruvian Governments and the current 

government have indeed tried to take more firm measures. When 

the company has applied for extensions, it has denied extensions 

46

to this company, which has sought to profit—and I have to say it 

clearly—to profit on the lives and health of our population. 

I think the United States has to be very firm as well, that never 

again should we allow complexes like this to get up and running 

again without first doing the cleanup and environmental mitigation 

necessary. 

I think that in the defense of life and human rights, both the 

U.S. and the Peruvian Governments should get together and have 

serious dialogues about how to get out of this situation, out of this 

trap. I think La Oroya is an emblematic case of both governmental 

and corporate irresponsibility. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

On that point, Mr. Slack, you mentioned that the U.S. Government should offer the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to Peru in helping to address critical environmental and 

public health concerns like those we have seen in La Oroya. Has 

it? 

Mr. SLACK. In conversations that we have had with the EPA, 

they have indicated their interest in trying to be supportive in this 

situation, and that is subject to requests from the Peruvian Government to make that happen. So I think an expression of interest——

Mr. SMITH. We are never shy in—honestly, because I have been 

in Congress 32 years, we are never shy in admonishing, requesting, 

encouraging a government to do something proactively. We don’t 

wait for an invitation. 

Mr. SLACK. And I think that would be extremely helpful. If this 

were to rise up in the priority level of U.S. policy versus Peru, a 

resolution of this situation, I think that would have a tremendous 

impact on that. 

Mr. SMITH. We will follow up on that. That is a great idea. 

Are there any final comments that any of the distinguished witnesses would like to make? 

Archbishop BARRETO. I just want to close by giving our special 

thanks to you, Chairman Chris Smith, for the kindness and the determination that you have shown in inviting us to be here to be 

witnesses on behalf of the life and the health of the people of our 

country. Thank you for being concerned about the threats that we 

are facing and for accompanying the hopes of the Peruvian people. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. AMARO. Thank you. 

Yes, I would like to ask the congressmen and women of the 

United States to advocate for the children and for the pregnant 

women of La Oroya, to pressure the Doe Run company, if it is 

going to continue there, for it to build its sulfuric acid plant. It had 

a deadline for finishing this plant in 2009. It received an extension. 

It asked for another extension without having done anything. 

I think if the U.S. Government can demand of owners like the 

Renco Group and the Doe Run company that, in addition to thinking about the money that they are going to produce in their operations, that they also think about the lives and the health of the 

people in the area. 

47

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I want to thank you for your tremendous testimony, your answers to questions that were very, very informative 

and incisive. 

I do want to say that, Archbishop Barreto, when I first met you 

I was struck by the balance that you brought to this issue. You emphasize that you want the people of Peru and the people in this 

area to have jobs but not at the expense of people’s health, wellbeing and whether or not their health is degraded by these chemicals and these minerals and environmental pollution. You emphasized that especially as it relates to children and because they are 

so vulnerable at that critical time, the impact that this has disproportionately to its impact on unborn children, who often are 

hurt irreparably by this contamination. 

As I think all of you know, especially the Americans, we have 

had a multi-decade-long fight for environmental protection. Every 

bill, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Superfund, everything was 

rife with contention. But at the end of the day, if we are not protecting our people from environmental hazards, we have failed utterly. So I again salute you for being beacons of hope and clarity 

on behalf of the people who are put at risk. 

So, again, I want to thank you. We will follow up. We will ask—

there are a number of takeaways for this subcommittee from this 

hearing in terms of requests to the administration. We will be in 

contact with the Government of Peru and all parties, we have already heard from Renco, to do our part. Because, again, if these 

free trade agreements are to have any validity, they cannot be engraved invitations for anyone anywhere in the world to pollute and 

to, again, put people’s lives at risk. 

So I thank you, and we will follow up. This has been a very, very 

informative and disturbing hearing. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(49)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

50

f


75164n.eps
51

Æ


75164m.eps