COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLANMattheissen & Hegeler Superfund Site

October 2016

i

ContentsSection 1INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Section 2COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 3

Section 3COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT GOALS AND ACTIVITIES .............................................................................. 5

Section 4THE COMMUNITY .................................................................................................................................................11

Section 5THE SITE ...................................................................................................................................................................17

APPENDICESAppendix A – Glossary – Initials – Acronyms: Lists the definition of key words, initials and acronyms (words are in bold throughout the document).

Appendix B – Community Resources: Identifies places where community members can find more information about the site and the public meeting location recommended by people interviewed.

Appendix C – List of Contacts: Provides a list of federal, state, and local agencies and interested groups.

Appendix D – Community Engagement and the Superfund Process: Gives an overview of the step-by-step process U.S. EPA follows to determine the best way to clean up a contaminated site and opportunities for community involvement throughout the process.

Appendix E – Fact Sheets: Includes U.S. EPA fact sheets.

1

Section 1INTRODUCTION

This section describes the purpose of this CIP and present’s U.S. EPA’ community outreach goals.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prepared this Revised Community Involvement Plan to inform, engage and support the community affected by the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Company Superfund site located in the city of LaSalle, LaSalle County, Ill. This revised plan is an update of the 2005 CIP for the M&H Superfund site.

The original CIP developed in 2005 noted the following primary concerns:

• What are the contaminants at the site

• Could the contaminants be in the air

• What is the potential effect of the contamination onthe Little Vermilion and Illinois rivers

• Potential impact on the fish in the rivers

• Will slag remaining on the site

• Lack of communication

• What, if any, impact does the site have on drinkingwater, gardens and property values

Our community involvement effort is committed to promoting effective and meaningful communication between the public and the Agency. We always want to make sure the community’s current concerns and information needs are taken into account. Effective community involvement can be beneficial to both the community and the Agency. It gives community members a better understanding of the Superfund process and provides opportunities for the public to be heard during the decision-making process. When the public is involved it results in a better outcome for everyone. Words appearing in boldface are defined in Appendix A.

This updated CIP describes U.S. EPA’s plan for addressing concerns and keeping residents informed and involved in cleanup activities at the site. We will use this document as a guide to involve and communicate with residents, businesses and local government officials in LaSalle and Peru.

If you are interested in submitting comments or have questions or suggestions concerning the CIP, please contact:

Teresa JonesCommunity Involvement CoordinatorU.S. EPA Region 5 (SI-7J)77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604-3507312-886-0725 jones.teresa@epa.gov

WHAT IS A CIP?A Community Involvement Plan, or CIP is a “living” document that will evolve as activities at the site continue and input is received from the community. The CIP identifies the community’s issues, needs, and concerns, as well as specific activities, outreach products, and programs EPA will use to address the community’s concerns. It is a flexible guide for EPA’s communications with community residents, businesses and organizations.

The role of the CIC is to make sure the community is meaningfully engaged in site activities.

2

Brief Site OverviewThe 227-acre M&H Zinc site of La Salle and Peru Illinois. A primary zinc smelting and rolling facility operated on the site from 1858 to 1978. Former smelting and rolling processes produced pollution that remains on site. Environmental concerns include slag waste piles across

the site that contain metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. Contamination from the former smelting processes have also been found in samples collected from the surrounding residential area. See Section 5, The Site, for more detailed information.

Community Engagement is Essential to the Success of SuperfundOngoing input and involvement by the community is essential to our efforts to provide effective community engagement. We have learned that the Agency’s decision-making ability is enhanced by actively seeking input and information from the community. EPA encourages community members to be involved at all phases of the cleanup. Residents, business owners and local government officials may be able to provide valuable information about a site and the effectiveness

of a cleanup. Information can help identify any problems associated with the cleanup, where contamination might still remain and how people may still be exposed to the contamination and perhaps sources of the contamination.

EPA’s community outreach program objectives

• Assist the public in understanding EPA’s Superfund regulations and the community’s role in the cleanup process.

• Give the public accurate and understandable information in a timely manner and an accessible fashion.

• Ensure adequate time and opportunity for public input and for that input to be considered in EPA’s decision making process.

• Respect and fully consider public input.

3

Section 2COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS

This section summarizes what community members are concerned about, the questions they asked and what they told U.S. EPA.

Community Issues and ConcernsU.S. EPA held a public meeting in October 2015 to discuss and present cleanup alternatives for the site. Based on comments from residents that there was not enough notice given about the meeting and that other people would have attended, U.S. EPA held a second public meeting in December 2015. Some of the same concerns expressed in 2004 were discussed in 2015 such as what contaminants are at the site, health concerns, airborne dust, property values, the slag pile and gardening. Concerns raised during the 2015 meetings are summarized below.

Site contaminantsResidents wanted to know more information about the risks of the contaminants at the site, specifically lead and arsenic. People asked how high the lead and arsenic levels have to be before you take immediate action since there are 50 out of the 185 homes already above the level.

Site boundarySeveral people asked if there is a definite site boundary established for the residential area. They wanted to know how far north, west, south and east U.S. EPA was going

to sample yards. A question was also asked if U.S. EPA intended to test every residence in LaSalle, Ill.

Residents also want to make sure the parks, play areas, schools, community gardens and other properties are being sampled and will be cleaned up if needed. “You have to sample everything.”

Gardens and vegetablesMany people expressed concern about eating vegetables from their gardens and wanted to know if it was safe.

Airborne dustConcern was expressed about contaminated dust being released when digging up the contaminated soil.

Property valuesPeople said they were concerned about their property values and being associated with a Superfund site. It was stated that all sampling should be done before creating the perception that all residents in the area are part of the Superfund site. A realtor asked what his liability was for disclosure of contamination at homes in the area.

Information needsSeveral people stated that they needed more information about the site, specifically sampling results, site boundaries and the cost of the project before they could make an informed decision about cleanup options.

Complex sites like this one are often broken down into smaller, manageable sections called operable units, or OUs.

Note to readers: Please be cautioned that the statements made and the opinions and concerns expressed during the public meetings and summarized in this section may not be factually correct or based on valid information.

4

Health concernsA few people stated that there is a large instance of multiple sclerosis, or MS, and cancer in the area and wanted to know if it could be from the site. One woman said her father-in-law and husband used to work at Carus Chemical Company. Her father-in-law died from cancer. Her dog had cancer from pesticides. She wondered if this cancer has come from the site. Another resident said that the type of cancer is a specific cancer called melanoma tumor, it’s behind the eye. Cleveland Clinic says it’s one in a million and she knows of two people and Dr. Pode knows of seven that have it. Her dad was one that died from it and he worked at M&H for 32 years.

Worker protectionA resident expressed concern over worker protection and asked if there are protocols for this level of exposure to city workers and construction workers. What happens if they are digging a foundation for a house in a highly contaminated area. Are you testing everywhere? What happens if you miss a spot and you go away and someone is digging in contaminated dirt?

Community outreachResidents said some people did not get the information about the public meetings, specifically neighbors on the north side of LaSalle in the wooded area.

A worker sprays water on a building to help reduce the dust from demolition at the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc site.

5

Section 3COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

This section highlights U.S. EPA’s goals, activities and timeline for conducting site-specific activities to keep residents and local officials informed and involved. It also provides a history of community involvement activities at the site.When establishing the objectives for a site-specific community involvement program, we consider several factors, including federal requirements that assess the nature and extent of known or perceived site contaminants and known community concerns and requests.

To be effective, our community involvement program is designed to meet the community’s need to know, give information in a timely manner and accommodate the community’s interests and its willingness to participate in decision-making processes. We must also share information in non-technical language the public can understand.

To meet the needs of the community and to respond to information obtained from community interviews conducted in August 2004 and the 2015 public meetings, U.S. EPA has established the objectives outlined below for our community involvement efforts. We will update and revise these objectives as necessary following additional community interviews and input.

• Engage and collaborate with LaSalle and Peru cityofficials and community leaders.

• Monitor citizen interest in the Site and respondaccordingly.

• Keep the community well informed of ongoing andplanned site activities.

• Explain technical site activities and findings in anunderstandable format for residents.

• Get public input on key decisions.

• Modify planned activities, when necessary andappropriate, based on community input.

• Regularly update U.S. EPA’s website to provide usefulinformation for the community.

• Hold public meetings at locations that are accessibleby all residents of the community.

Specific Community Involvement ActivitiesU.S. EPA will continue to implement or will begin to implement the activities described below to meaningfully and actively engage the community as cleanup progresses at the Site. Through these activities, it is our goal to inform, involve and engage the community during site cleanup decisions and efforts. As the needs of the community changes, we will modify the community involvement strategies to address those changes.

• Maintain point of contact. Teresa Jones is theprimary liaison between U.S. EPA and the LaSalle andPeru communities. Ms. Jones serves as the point ofcontact for community members and fields general

questions about the site. For technical site issues, Ms. Jones coordinates with U.S. EPA’s remedial project manager for the site, Demaree Collier.

U.S. EPA will include current contact information on all written and electronic information and will notify the community of any contact information changes.

• Establish a toll-free number for residents to askquestions and receive information. Ms. Jones (ext.60725) and Ms. Collier (ext. 60214) are located in theChicago office and can be reached using the toll-free number listed on page 6. Ask for them by name

6

or use the telephone extensions listed above. You can call this number as questions or concerns arise instead of waiting for a public meeting or to receive written information. We provide this toll-free number periodically in local newspaper advertisements and include it in all fact sheets and all other U.S. EPA communications with the public.

• Maintain communication with local officials, agencies and community residents. U.S. EPA interviewed local officials from the city of LaSalle. They indicated they would like to be contacted with updated site information on a periodic basis so that they can update their constituents. We will continue to share information with local officials throughout the remainder of the cleanup process.

• Share site information on the Internet. We will share information on site activities and past communications on the following U.S. EPA website. The website will be updated as events occur: www.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc.

• Update and maintain the site mailing list. U.S. EPA has established a mailing list of local residents, organizations, businesses and officials for the site. This list will be used for mailing fact sheets, site updates, invitations to public meetings and events and other site-related information mailed to the community. We will update the list regularly to reflect address changes and changes in elected

officials and to add new people interested in site activities.

U.S. EPA uses the site mailing list to distribute written information such as fact sheets and meeting notifications. This is a way to ensure that those who do not have access to the Internet or other information sources still have a way to receive information directly about the site and are notified about important meetings. The mailing list is for U.S. EPA use only and is not shared with outside entities. If a community member is interested in being placed on the mailing list they can contact Teresa Jones, CIC.

• Prepare and distribute fact sheets and site updates. U.S. EPA will prepare fact sheets, letters and site updates summarizing current information about the site and describing upcoming activities. We will distribute these fact sheets, letters and updates to those on the site mailing and e-mail lists. These documents are written in non-technical language and typically done to coincide with important site activities.

U.S. EPA uses these types of documents to give the community detailed information in a relatively quick, simple and easy-to-understand manner. In addition to being shared with individuals on the site mailing list, fact sheets and site updates are also placed in the information repository and posted on U.S. EPA’s website: www.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc.

• Establish and maintain a site-specific information repository. U.S. EPA has set up a local information repository for the site at the following location:

LaSalle Public Library 305 Marquette St. LaSalle, IL 61301 815-223-2341

• The repository is a reference collection of site information available to the public for reading and photocopying. Documents include fact sheets, technical reports, the CIP, general Superfund information and other documents. We add new documents about the site as the documents become available. Information repositories give residents local access to site information in forms that can

The EPA has designated two people as primary site contacts for local residents:

Teresa JonesCommunity Involvement Coordinator312-886-0725jones.teresa@epa.gov

Demaree Collier Remedial Project Manager312-886-0214collier.demaree@epa.gov

They can also be reached weekdays toll-free at 800-621-8431 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

7

be easily read and photocopied for future use. An online information repository is also available on the site’s web page www.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc for the community to access information electronically.

• Establish and maintain the administrative record. A copy of the Administrative Record for the M&H site can be found at the LaSalle Public Library and at the U.S. EPA Region 5 Superfund Record Center in Chicago (see Appendix B). U.S. EPA will update the Administrative Record as necessary. The Administrative Record gives residents a paper trail of all documents U.S. EPA relied on, or considered, to reach decisions about the Superfund site cleanup.

• Conduct public meetings and information sessions. A public meeting is an opportunity for U.S. EPA to present specific information and a proposed course of action. Agency staff is available to share information and answer questions. A public meeting is not a formal public hearing where testimony is received. Instead, it might be a meeting to exchange information or comments. In addition, U.S. EPA may hold information sessions where residents can meet U.S. EPA experts one-on-one to discuss the activities at the site. Either type of meeting allows community members an opportunity to express their concerns and ask questions of U.S. EPA, state or local government officials. Public meetings or information sessions can be held at various times throughout the cleanup process. A meeting is typically scheduled when there are technical milestones or the community has expressed an interest in having a meeting.

We will consider conducting additional meetings at different times and different locations throughout the community to give all residents an opportunity to attend as needed.

• Write and distribute news releases and public notices. U.S. EPA will prepare and release announcements to the local newspaper such as LaSalle News Tribune and the Peoria Journal Star to share information about events such as significant site investigation findings, completion of major milestones, significant scheduling information and other pertinent site-related information.

News releases allow U.S. EPA to reach large audiences quickly. They will also be posted on U.S. EPA’s website, www.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc. We typically publish news releases and public notices to announce major events such as comment periods, public meetings and major milestones such as the selection of a cleanup plan.

We will issue news releases and public notices as site activities progress. Copies of the news releases and public notices will also be available in the site information repository.

• Assist the community in forming a community advisory group. A CAG is made up of local residents and provides a formal mechanism for community members to have a voice in decisions. We encourage the formation of CAGs. CAGs are eligible for technical assistance and funding to help residents more fully understand the technical aspects of environmental investigations, sampling data and interpretation of results and potential health risks. CAGs assist us in making decisions on how to clean up sites. More information on CAGs can be found at www.epa.gov/superfund/community/cag. We may hold a meeting to present information on how to form a CAG.

• Evaluate community involvement and outreach efforts and make adjustments as warranted. This CIP was designed to consider site- and community-specific factors as well as to comply with federal requirements. Community concerns, the objectives of the community involvement program for the site and specific activities to address these concerns in the original CIP produced in 2005 were based to a large extent on information obtained during interviews with local residents and officials. We recognize that changes in areas such as community perceptions, information needs and population demographics can occur over time and that such changes may necessitate a revised approach to conducting community involvement activities. For this reason as well as to determine whether the activities in this plan are achieving their intended objectives, we will conduct periodic reviews to determine whether additional activities are warranted or whether changes to current methods of activities outlined in the plan are necessary. As the needs of the community changes, U.S. EPA will

8

modify the community involvement strategies to address them in a CIP revision. Based on what we learned about community concerns that remain and information needs at meetings held in 2015, we are modifying the original CIP from 2005 by developing this revised CIP to respond to those needs.

The graphic on the next page presents the status of activities outlined above.

A Community Advisory Group is made up of representatives of diverse community interests. Its purpose is to provide a public forum for community members to present and discuss their needs and concerns related to the Superfund decision-making process. A CAG can assist EPA in making better decisions on how to clean up a site. It offers EPA a unique opportunity to hear-and seriously consider-community preferences for site cleanup. However, the existence of a CAG does not eliminate the need for the Agency to keep the community informed about plans and decisions throughout the Superfund process.

9

Teresa Jones312-886-0725joens.teresa@epa.gov 800-621-8431, Ext. 60725

In Process

Ongoing

www.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zincUpdate as needed

Completed - update as needed

Prepare as needed

LaSalle Public Library305 Marquette St., LaSalleUpdate as needed

LaSalle Public Library305 Marquette St., LaSalleUpdate as needed

As requested by the community

Ongoing

Not yet started

Ongoing

Community involvement activities Status

Status of Community Involvement Activities

Maintain point of contact

Establish a toll-free number

Conduct community interviews and develop Community Involvement Plan

Maintain communication with local officials, agencies and community residents

Share site information on the Internet

Update and maintain site mailing list

Prepare and distribute fact sheets and site updates

Establish and maintain a site-specific information repository

Establish and maintain the administrative record

Conduct public meetings and information sessions

Write and distribute news releases and public notices

Assist the community in forming a community advisory group

Evaluate community involvement and outreach efforts and make adjustments as warranted

10

Community Involvement EffortsThe following is a list of past community involvement activities at the site:

• 1995 - Illinois EPA prepared a fact sheet explaining the sample results and discussed site activities and held a public meeting in LaSalle to discuss sample results and next steps.

U.S. EPA conducted the following activities at the site:

• June 2001 - Prepared a press release announcing the proposal of the site to be placed on the National Priorities List.

• June 14-August 13, 2001 - Held a public comment period on the site being proposed for the NPL.

• September 2003 - Prepared a press release announcing the placement of the site on the National Priorities List.

• August 17-18, 2004 - Conducted community interviews with area residents and officials.

• August 2004 – Established the site information repository at the LaSalle Public Library.

• August 2004 – Established a web page for the site.

• December 2004 –Distributed a fact sheet in December 2004, soliciting residents’ opinions and concerns about the M&H site.

• February 2005 – Completed the original CIP.

• October 2006 –Mailed out requests for access agreements to sample properties.

• September 2015 – Prepared and distributed a fact sheet explaining the cleanup options for the site and announcing a public comment period and public meeting on the cleanup options.

• October 20, 2015 – Held a public meeting to discuss the proposed cleanup options for the site. A transcript of the meeting was taken.

• November 2015 - EPA prepared and redistributed a fact sheet explaining the cleanup options for the

site and announcing a public comment period and public meeting on the cleanup options.

• October 5 – December 12, 2015 - Held a public comment period on the proposed cleanup options.

• December 3, 2015 – Held a public meeting to discuss the proposed cleanup options for the site. A transcript of the meeting was taken.

• February 2016 – Mailed sampling results to residents.

• September 2016 –Developed this revised CIP for the site.

11

Section 4THE COMMUNITY

This section describes the composition of the city of LaSalle, city of Peru and LaSalle County Illinois.

LaSalle Community ProfileLaSalle is located in LaSalle County, Illinois, at the intersection of Interstates 39 and 80. It encompasses an area of about 11.76 square miles, spanning from the Illinois River to Interstate 80.

The city of LaSalle is named after Rene-Robert Cavelier Sieur de LaSalle, who began exploration of the area in 1678. Settlers began moving into the Illinois Valley in the early 1800s and LaSalle County was established in 1831. The town of LaSalle was platted in 1838 with construction of the 96-mile long Illinois & Michigan Canal completed in 1848. The canal connected Lake Michigan to the Illinois River, with Chicago becoming the eastern end and LaSalle the western end. Many of the first LaSalle residents were canal workers and shopkeepers who sold supplies to workers. Activity in the area boomed after the canal was officially opened in 1848 and the population of LaSalle continued to grow (Sources: http://www.lasalle-il.gov/content/history-16201094224am.aspx, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle,_Illinois).

In the mid-1850s, LaSalle started taking advantage of the coal that lied beneath most of the city and in 1856, the LaSalle Coal Mining Co. completed the first mine shaft. In 1858, mining school graduates from Germany, Frederick Matthiessen and Edward Hegeler, traveled to the United States and chose LaSalle as the location for the country’s first zinc smelting plant. Before the plant came into operation, all the zinc used in the U.S. was imported. Within ten years of the plant opening, Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Works became the largest producer of zinc in the country, and one of the largest in the world.

Lock No. 14 of the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

The Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Works plant.

12

The Matthiessen and Hegeler families were heavily involved in developing the community and assisted in establishing many industries in the area. Frederick Matthiessen served as the Mayor of LaSalle from 1886-1895 and donated thousands of dollars to help build the city’s sewer system, electric light plant, and numerous roads and bridges. He was a generous public donor and opened most of his estate, named Deer Park, to the public and charged a nominal entrance fee that went to charity. The property was named Matthiessen State Park in 1943 in his honor.

After the end of Prohibition in 1933, illegal gambling and related businesses flourished in LaSalle, supporting food, tobacco, liquor, and lodging businesses in the city. The city became known as “Little Reno” and people traveled from Chicago for a night of fun at one of the city’s many clubs. They arrived in such large numbers that many of the city streets became standing-room only. The city’s 60-80 saloons served as the town’s primary commercial enterprises until a federal raid on the major liquor and gambling house ended the era in 1953 (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle,_Illinois).

LaSalle has continued to develop and today it is home to a revitalized downtown district, various community festivals and arts events, quality public schools, a state-of-the-art-library, and many tourist activities.

LaSalle Governmental StructureLaSalle is organized under a Mayor-Aldermanic form of government. Eight alderman from four wards make up the City Council. The City Council meets every other Monday in the council chambers at 7:00 p.m. See Appendix C for a list of current city officials.

Frederick Matthiessen Edward Hegeler

City Hall houses offices for LaSalle’s Mayor, City Clerk, and other city officials and departments.

13

Peru Community ProfilePeru is located in LaSalle County, Illinois, on the Illinois River and three miles west of the intersection of Interstates 39 and 80. It encompasses an area of about 8.9 square miles and along with its twin city, LaSalle, makes up the core of the Illinois Valley.

The first white settler in Peru was John Hays who, with his wife, four sons and one daughter, came here from Tennessee in 1830. They built a cabin near the present site of the Peru Products Company, and farmed a piece of land on the river bank. In 1851, Peru was incorporated as a city. For ten years they ran a ferry across the river, near the spot which later became the mouth of the canal. The street, now called Adam, which runs from Fourth to Water Streets, just west of the present Lincoln School, was in Peru’s early days called Ferry Street, which would seem to show that it led to the ferry. Due to its position on the Illinois River, Peru quickly became a busy steamboat port. Major transportation routes and coal mining also helped Peru rise to its status as an industrial center (Source: https://archive.org/stream/peruillinoiscent00peru/peruillinoiscent00peru_djvu.txt).

The Western Clock Company, trademarked as “Westclox,” was a major employer for residents in both Peru and LaSalle, starting in the late 1800s. The company served as a model for workers’ benefits, offering life insurance, a safety committee, a shortened work week, a company park, and housing for workers. When the clock factory closed in Peru in 1980, the population in both Peru and LaSalle dropped (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru,_Illinois#Clock_City_.281884.E2.80.931980.29).

Today, Peru is home to several business districts, a hospital that serves the Illinois Valley, the Peru mall, and is close to many tourist attractions like Starved Rock State Park.

Peru Governmental StructureThe town is headed by a mayor and eight alderman to make up the City Council. Two alderman represent each of Peru’s four wards. The City Council meets every other Monday in the council chambers at 7:00 p.m. See Appendix C for a list of current city officials.

Former Westclox factory. City Hall houses offices for Peru’s Mayor, City Clerk, and other city officials and departments.

14

LaSalle County Community ProfileLaSalle County, Illinois is located in North Central Illinois, 60 miles southwest of Chicago. It encompasses an area of about 1,135 square miles and both the Illinois and Fox Rivers flow through the county.

Rene-Robert Cavelier Sieur de LaSalle, for whom the county is named, first explored the area in the 1600s. People began settling the area in the early 19th century, forming LaSalle County in 1831. These settlers were primarily descendants of English Puritans from New England. In the late 1800s, Irish and German migrants moved into the county from other Midwest states.

The county has strong ties to President Abraham Lincoln. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 took place in Ottawa. Several Underground Railroad sites were located in the county leading up the American Civil War as well (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle_County,_Illinois).

LaSalle County is home to many visitor attractions like Starved Rock State Park, historic mansions, festivals and boat tours.

LaSalle County Governmental StructureThe county is headed by a County Board Chairman and 29 County Board Members. Each Board Member represents one of the county’s districts. The County Board meets once a month at the LaSalle County Courthouse. See Appendix C for a list of current city officials.

Statue depicting the Lincoln-Douglas debates in Ottawa, Illinois.

15

Demographics Using information from www.census.gov, the following graphs show that the population in LaSalle, Peru and Lake County is predominantly white alone (April 2010 Census data).

The median age of residents, households and education levels of each of these three communites are compared in the following graphs (April 2010 Census data).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Area Demographics

White Alone Black or AfricanAmerican Alone

Asian Alone American Indianor Alaskan Native

Alone

Some Other Race

Two or MoreRaces

Hispanic or Latino of Any

Race

LaSalle

Peru

LaSalle County

16

38.938.9

45.345.3

4141

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

AG

E IN

 YEA

RS

MedianResident

Age

LaSalleLaSalle PeruPeru LaSalle CountyLaSalle County

Pho

to b

y Ca

ther

ine

Scot

t

$42,456$48,689 $51,232

$57,166

Household Income ‐2014

LaSalle Peru LaSalle County State of Illinois

17

Section 5THE SITE

Location and Site FeaturesThe Mattheissen and Hegeler Zinc site is a 180-acre inactive zinc smelting and rolling facility on the east side of LaSalle that operated from about 1858 to 1978. The Little Vermilion River borders the site to the east, with residential properties on the other sides. The site is enclosed by a chain-link fence. Also part of the site is Carus Chemical Co. which is an active manufacturing company.

Environmental concerns include slag waste piles across the site which contain metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. Contamination from the former smelting processes has been found in samples collected from the surrounding residential area. Following immediate actions to protect human health and the environment, investigations and cleanup planning are ongoing.

Site BackgroundComplex sites like this one are often broken down into smaller, manageable sections called operable units, or OUs. At this site, OU1 consists of the Carus Chemical Corp. and a large slag pile, while OU2 consists of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. and the surrounding residential area (see the map on the right).

Site Map

This section describes the M&H Zinc site and summarizes the history of activities at the site.

18

OU1 Site characteristicsOU1 covers about 47 acres and includes the southern portion of the site and the Little Vermilion River next to the site. Carus Chemical Corp. operates a facility on the location that produces potassium permanganate and other specialty chemicals. A large slag pile generated from smelting operations on OU2 is mostly located on the Carus property.

HistoryCarus Corp. makes specialty chemicals in its facility in OU1, which is independent of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. facilities.

Carus began operations in 1915, manufacturing potassium permanganate products for water purification and wastewater treatment. The company has added other products to its manufacturing operations over time.

From 1858 to 1961, sinter and slag from the smelting operations at OU2 were placed at various locations on

what is now designated as OU1, primarily in an upland area between the Carus facility and the river. The resultant slag pile covers an area of approximately 17.7 acres and stands approximately 80 to 90 feet tall.

Carus did not own the slag pile area when the zinc smelting was being done.

OU2 Site characteristicsOU2 covers around 180 acres that includes the industrial portion of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. property as well as the nearly 5,000 properties in the surrounding residential area in the LaSalle/Peru area. The smelting plant ceased operations in 2000.

LaSalle obtains all its drinking water from a cluster of four wells located three-quarters of a mile south of the site, with the nearest municipal well approximately 3,700 feet south of the location. There is a wetland about 2 miles upstream of the site on the river. Also, the Lake DePue State Fish and Wildlife Area and the Spring Lake Heron Colony, which provides breeding habitat for the state-endangered great egret, are about 15 miles downstream of the site. These areas are not affected by any site activities.

HistoryThe Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. operated a zinc smelter at the OU2 portion of the site from 1858 until 1961. The company added a rolling mill to its operations in 1866 to produce zinc sheets. This process included a furnace that used producer gas as fuel. Any sulfur dioxide generated was recovered and converted into sulfuric acid and stored in on-site tanks.

For a few years during the early 1950s, an ammonium sulfate fertilizer plant operated at OU2. Coal mining also occurred on OU2 until 1937, and two mining shafts (one vertical and one horizontal) still remain at the site. Zinc smelting ceased in 1961, and sulfuric acid manufacturing halted in 1968 when Matthiessen & Hegeler declared bankruptcy. Only basic rolling mill operations took place at OU2 from 1968 until 1978.

In 1980, Fred and Cynthia Carus purchased the 12-acre rolling mill tract of land, which became home to the

This material is called sinter, which along with debris and abandoned structures, remains at the former smelting site.

19

LaSalle Rolling Mill Inc. The mill made penny blanks for the U.S. Mint until 2000, when the company ceased operations and declared bankruptcy.

The table below outlines the operations and timeline of activities at each OU.

History and Cleanup ProgressIn 1993, Illinois EPA collected three sediment samples from the Little Vermilion River, seven on-site soil and 13 off-site soil samples for a preliminary evaluation of possible effects of past M&H operations and in preparation for scoring the site for possible inclusion on the National Priorities List or NPL. The NPL is U.S. EPA’s list of the most serious hazardous waste sites in the United States. These samples were significantly higher in metals than background samples collected in areas not affected by past operations of the M&H facility. Zinc was elevated significantly in all samples, and cadmium and lead were significantly elevated in all but one sample. Other metals were also found at elevated levels. On-site samples also showed low levels of a variety of other contaminants including pesticides, PCBs, solvents and chemicals found in oil and coal.

The site is private property and surrounded by a fence, and residents are strongly urged against trespassing on the site due to the chemicals and physical hazards found on the site. The off-site soil samples collected by the Illinois EPA in 1993 showed elevated levels of metals. The Illinois EPA at that time determined that concentrations found did not pose a health risk from short-term exposure but that more information needed to be gathered to determine if there may be a risk from long-term exposure.

In 1995, Illinois EPA prepared a fact sheet explaining the sample results and discussed site activities and held a public meeting in LaSalle to discuss sample results and next steps.

The Illinois Department of Public Health collected additional off-site soil samples from different locations in 1999. According to IDPH, levels of metals in these samples did not pose a health risk from long-term or short-term exposure. Concentrations of some chemicals in the IDPH samples, however, did exceed screening levels set by the Illinois EPA and warranted further investigation of off-site soils.

U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA proposed the site for the NPL in June 2001. The site was placed on the NPL in September 2003 because of the widespread slag across the site that has metal contamination, including arsenic and lead. In 2003, EPA oversaw an emergency removal action at the LaSalle Rolling Mill portion of OU2 to clean up chemicals associated with the old plating line and removed the waste and various other chemicals from storage tanks that remained after the mill ceased metal rolling activity.

In September 2006, EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement and Agreement on Order of Consent, or ASAOC with Carus, one of the potentially responsible parties at the Site. Under the ASAOC, Carus conducted the RI/FS work at OU1 and U.S. EPA conducted the

OU1 – Carus Chemical1915 – present Production of potassium permanganate

OU2 – Former Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Company1858 – 1961 Zinc smelting operations1886 – 1978 Produced zinc sheets (Rolling Mill)1858 – 1937 Mined coal 1858 – 1968 Manufactured sulfuric acid 1950s Produced ammonia sulfate fertilizer1980 – 2000 Produced penny blanks for U.S. Mint (Rolling Mill)

20

RI/FS work at OU2. The ASAOC required a single, comprehensive RI Report, Risk Assessment Report, and FS Report for the Site. The RI work at the Site began in 2007.

From 2007 to 2009, Carus sampled soil, slag, groundwater, surface water, sediment and air in OU1. For the investigations conducted at OU2, U.S. EPA sampled soils, building materials, debris piles, groundwater, surface water and air during the period 2007-2010.

In response to asbestos being encountered during the RI around the rolling mill, or OU2, in 2008 EPA tasked

the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor to conduct another removal assessment at the Site. The assessment activities included investigating unknown chemicals in a former laboratory building, conducting asbestos sampling at multiple buildings and investigating unknown oil in sewer drains.

In 2009, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to Frederick L. Carus and LaSalle Acres, Inc. for the removal of asbestos-containing material, cadmium and zinc at and around the rolling mill building and demolition of a former chemical laboratory building.

Current StatusU.S. EPA has sampled numerous properties in the area and has plans to clean up contaminated soil at the M&H Zinc site and in the surrounding residential area. This soil is contaminated mostly with metals. Under its proposed cleanup plan, U.S. EPA plans to dig up contaminated soil and put it into what the Agency calls a “containment cell” on the former smelter site.

U.S. EPA prepared a proposed plan and held public meetings in 2015 to explain the proposed cleanup alternatives. A copy of the proposed plan fact sheet is in Appendix E. Many of the questions and concerns raised are summarized in Section 2.

A-1

APPENDIX AGlossary – Initials – Acronyms

Administrative Order on Consent. A legal agreement signed by U.S. EPA and an individual, business or other entity through which the violator agrees to pay for correction of violations, take the required corrective or cleanup actions or refrain from an activity. It describes the actions to be taken, may be subject to a comment period, applies to civil actions, and can be enforced in court. Unlike a consent decree, an administrative order on consent does not have to be approved by a judge.

Administrative Record. The body of documents that forms the basis for the selection of a particular response at a site. For example, the Administrative Record for remedy selection includes all documents that were considered or relied upon to select the remedy through the record of decision.

Administrative Settlement and Agreement on Order of Consent. An agreement with a PRP to perform activities outlined in a statement of work.

AOC. See Administrative Order of Consent.

ASAOC. See Administrative Settlement and Adminstrative Order of Consent.

CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

CIC. See Community Involvement Coordinator.

CIP. See Community Involvement Plan.

Cleanup. Actions taken to deal with a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance that could affect humans and/or the environment. The term “cleanup” is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms “remedial action,” “remediation,” “removal action,” “response action,” or “corrective action.”

Community. An interacting population of various types of individuals, or species, in a common location; a neighborhood or specific area where people live.

Community Engagement. The process of involving communities in all phases of the cleanup process. Communities are asked to provide input on how the cleanup will be conducted and how it may affect community plans and goals. See also Community Involvement.

Community Involvement. The term used by U.S. EPA to identify its process for engaging in dialogue and collaboration with communities affected by Superfund sites. The U.S. EPA community involvement approach is founded in the belief that people have a right to know what the Agency is doing in their community and to have a say in it. Its purpose is to give people the opportunity to become involved in the Agency’s activities and to help shape the decisions that are made.

Community Involvement Coordinator. The U.S. EPA official whose lead responsibility is to involve and inform the public about the Superfund process and response actions in accordance with the interactive community involvement requirements set forth in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

Community Involvement Plan. A plan that outlines specific community involvement activities that occur during the investigation and cleanup at the site. The CIP outlines how U.S. EPA will keep the public informed of work at the site and the ways in which residents can review and comment on decisions that may affect the final actions at the site. The document is available in the site’s information repository maintained by U.S. EPA. The CIP may be modified as necessary to respond to changes in community concerns, information needs and activities.

A-2

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. A federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA is intended to protect people’s health and the environment by investigating and cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program, U.S. EPA can either:

• Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or unable to do the work; or

• Take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or pay back the federal government for the cost of the cleanup.

Contaminant. Any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter that has an adverse effect on air, water or soil.

Contamination. Introduction into water, air and soil of microorganisms, chemicals, toxic substances, wastes or wastewater in a concentration that makes the medium unfit for its next intended use. Also applies to surfaces of objects, buildings and various household use products.

Feasibility Study. Analysis of the practicality of a proposal—e.g., a description and analysis of potential cleanup alternatives for a site such as one on the National Priorities List. The feasibility study usually recommends selection of a cost-effective alternative. It usually starts as soon as the remedial investigation is under way; together, they are commonly referred to as the remedial investigation/feasibility study.

Hazardous Waste. Byproducts that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. Hazardous wastes usually possess at least one of four characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity) or appear on special U.S. EPA lists.

Information Repository. A file containing current information, technical reports and reference documents regarding a site. The information repository usually is located in a public building convenient for local residents such as a public school, town hall or library.

National Priorities List. U.S. EPA’s list of serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term cleanup under Superfund. The list is based primarily on the score a site receives from the Hazard Ranking System. U.S. EPA is required to update the National Priorities List at least once a year.

NPL. See National Priorities List.

PA/SI. See Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation.

Potassium Permanganate. Chemical used in the water treatment industry .

Potentially Responsible Parties. Any individual or organization—including owners, operators, transporters or generators—potentially responsible for, or contributing to, a spill or other contamination at a Superfund site.

Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation. The PA/SI is the process of collecting and reviewing available information about a known or suspected hazardous waste site or release. The PA/SI usually includes a visit to the site.

Proposed Plan. A plan for a site cleanup that is available to the public for comment.

PRP. See Potentially Responsible Parties.

Public Comment Period. A formal opportunity for community members to review and contribute written comments on various U.S. EPA documents or actions.

A-3

Public Meeting. Formal public sessions that are characterized by a presentation to the public followed by a question-and-answer session. Formal public meetings may involve the use of a court reporter and the issuance of transcripts. Formal public meetings are required only for the proposed plan and Record of Decision amendments.

Public. The community or people in general or a part or section of the community grouped because of a common interest or activity.

Record of Decision. A ROD is a legal, technical and public document that explains which cleanup alternative will be used at a Superfund NPL site. The ROD is based on information and technical analysis generated during the remedial investigation and feasibility study and consideration of public comments and community concerns.

RD/RA. See Remedial Design/Remedial Action.

Remedial Design/Remedial Action. Remedial design is a phase in the CERCLA response process in which technical drawings are developed for the chosen remedy, costs for implementing the remedy are estimated and roles and responsibilities of U.S. EPA, states and contractors are determined. During the remedial action phase, the remedy is implemented generally by a contractor, with oversight and inspection conducted by U.S. EPA, the state or both.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. A study designed to collect the data necessary to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a site. The second part of a two-part study called an RI/FS. The feasibility study involves identifying and evaluating the most appropriate technical approaches to addressing contamination problems at a site. Alternatives are evaluated for their effectiveness in protecting human health and the environment.

Remedial Project Manager. The U.S. EPA official who is the technical lead on a project.

Responsiveness Summary. A summary of oral and/or written public comments received by U.S. EPA during a comment period on key U.S. EPA documents and U.S. EPA’s responses to those comments.

RI/FS. See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

ROD. See Record of Decision

Sinter. Material that is formed from heating certain substances containing metal.

Slag. A stony waste matter separated from metals during the smelting or refining of ore.

Sulfuric Acid. A very strong chemical that is corrosive. Corrosive means it can cause severe burns and tissue damage when it comes into contact with the skin.

Superfund. The program operated under the legislative authority of CERCLA that funds and carries out U.S. EPA solid waste emergency and long-term removal and remedial activities. These activities include establishing the National Priorities List, investigating sites for inclusion on the list, determining their priority and conducting and/or supervising cleanup and other remedial actions.

Unilateral Administrative Order. A legal document directing the PRP to take corrective action or refrain from an activity. It describes the violations and actions to be taken, and can be enforced in court.

B-1

APPENDIX BInformation Repository, Administrative Record, Web-

sites and Public Meeting LocationsLocal Information Repository LaSalle Public Library305 Marquette St.LaSalle, IL 61301815-223-2341

Official Information RepositoryEPA Region 5 Superfund Record CenterRoom 711, 7th FloorRalph Metcalfe Federal Building 77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/sfd/foia/sf-records-center.html

EPA Site Web Pagewww.epa.gov/superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc

Possible Meeting LocationsLaSalle Public Library305 Marquette St.LaSalle, IL 61301815-223-2341

City HallCity of LaSalle745 Second St.LaSalle, Illinois 61301815-223-0077

LaSalle Peru Township High School541 Chartres St.LaSalle, Illinois 61301815-223-1721

C-1

EPA Region 5 Project Contacts

Teresa JonesCommunity Involvement CoordinatorSuperfund Division (SI-7J)77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604-3590312-886-0725800-621-8431, ext. 36196jones.teresa@epa.gov

Demaree CollierRemedial Project Manager Superfund Division (SR-6J)77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604-3590312-886-0214800-621-8431, ext. 60214collier.demaree@epa.gov

Illinois EPA Project Contact

Michael HaggittEnvironmental Protection EngineerIllinois EPABureau of Land, DRM/FSRS/FFU

1021 North Grand Ave. EastSpringfield, IL 62794217-558-1989michael.haggitt@illinois.gov

Federal Elected Officials

Senator Richard Durbin230 S. Dearborn St, Suite 3892Chicago, IL 60604312-353-4952

711 Hart Senate BuildingWashington, DC 20510202-224-2152https://www.durbin.senate.gov/contact/email

Senator Mark Kirk230 S. Dearborn St, Suite 3900Chicago, IL 60604312-886-2117

524 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-2854 https://www.kirk.senate.gov/?p=contact

Representative Adam Kinzinger 628 Columbus St. #507 Ottawa, IL 61350 815-431-9271

1221 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 202-225-3635 http://kinzinger.house.gov/contact/

APPENDIX CList of Contacts

(information is current as of September 2016)

C-2

State Elected Officials

Governor Bruce RaunerState of Illinois 207 Statehouse Springfield, IL 62706 217-782-0244http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactus/Pages/default.aspx

State Senator Sue RezinDistrict 38 103 Fifth St. Peru, IL 61354 815-220-8720 http://www.senatorrezin.com/Contact/Contact-Form

State Representative Frank MautinoDistrict 76221 St. Paul St.Spring Valley, IL 61362815-664-2714patti76th@ivnet.com

Local Officials

City of LaSalle

745 Second St.LaSalle, IL 61301218-828-2307

Jeff GroveMayor218-828-2308j.grove@lasalle-il.gov

Carrie BrownCity Clerk 815-223-0077c.brown@lasalle-il.gov

Brian BrownCity Engineer815-223-7041b.brown@lasalle-il.gov

City of LaSalle Council

James ‘Diz’ DemesFirst Ward Alderman815-224-3754

Jim BacidoreFirst Ward Alderman815-223-9357

Jerry ReynoldsSecond Ward Alderman815-252-3888

Tom PtakSecond Ward Alderman815-228-3491

John ‘Doc’ LavieriThird Ward Alderman815-252-3888

John Duncan, Sr.Third Ward Alderman815-223-0111

Mark SchneiderFourth Ward Alderman815-303-1582

T. ‘Boo’ HerndonFourth Ward Alderman815-224-4291

C-3

City of Peru

1901 4th St.Peru, IL 61354

Scott J. HarlMayor 815-223-1148 sharlmayor@peru.il.us

Dave BartleyCity Clerk 815-223-0061 dbartley@peru.il.us

City Council

Becky MuellerFirst Ward815-343-3558bmueller@peru.il.us

Tony FerrariFirst Ward815-224-2368tferrari@peru.il.us

Tom PaytonSecond Ward815-252-2729tpayton@peru.il.us

Mike RadtkeSecond Ward815-434-8099mradtke@peru.il.us

David WaldorfThird Ward815-224-4889dwaldforf@peru.il.us

Mike SapienzaThird Ward815-223-0913msapienza@peru.il.us

David PotthoffFourth Ward815-223-7904dpotthoff@peru.il.us

Jim LukosusFourth Ward815-223-1307jlukosus@peru.il.us

C-4

LaSalle County

707 East Etna RoadOttawa, IL 61350

LaSalle County Board

Jerry L. Hicks, Chairman815-434-8242

JoAnn Carretto, County Clerk815-434-8203

Steve Abel, District 1815-539-7534

Joanne McNally, District 2815-539-7011

David Zielke, District 3815-495-9424

Allen E. Erbrederis, District 4815-498-9675

Cathy Owens, District 5815-786-3075

Chuck Borchsenius, District 6815-496-2417

Gary Small, District 7815-667-4562

Jill Bernal, District 8815-223-9429

Joe Oscepinski, Jr., District 9815-223-6749

Larry Butkus, District 10815-223-8221

Joseph Savitch, District 11815-223-7622

Joseph Savitch, District 11815-223-7622

Mike Kasap, District 12815-223-8360

Sandi Billard, District 13815-883-8828

Tina Busch, District 14815-442-3480

Steve Tuftie, District 15815-792-8009

Russell Boe, District 16815-433-0184

Lou Anne Carretto, District 17815-433-3753

Tom Walsh, District 18815-434-6750

Douglas Trager, District 19815-434-3609

Thomas Thrush, District 20815-433-4562

Brian Dose, District 21815-343-7472

E. “Mike” Weiss, District 22815-434-3696

Robert Lee, District 23815-252-6139

Randy Freeman, District 24815-257-3266

Jerry Myers, District 25815-672-4728

Scott Orban, District 26815-672-4728

Walter Roach, Jr., District 27815-672-2424

Norman Sedlock, District 28815-672-2115

Elmer Walter, District 29815-434-3696

C-5

Newspapers

LaSalle News Tribune426 2nd St.LaSalle, IL 61301815-223-3200 http://newstrib.com/index.asp

Peoria Journal Star1 News Plaza Peoria, IL 61643 309-686-3000 http://www.pjstar.com/

The Times110 West Jefferson St.Ottawa, IL 61350 815-433-2000 http://www.mywebtimes.com/

Radio Stations

WLPO/WAJK1 Broadcast LaneOglesby, IL 61348815-223-3100 http://www.classichits1039wlpo.com/contact-us/http://www.993wajk.com/

WNIW/WNIJNorthern Public Radio 801 N. First St. DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-9000 http://northernpublicradio.org/contact-us

WALSStudstill Media 3905 Progress Blvd. Peru, IL 61354 815-224-2100 http://www.walls102.com/

WCMYNews Room216 W. LaFayetteOttawa, IL 61350 815-434-6050 http://www.1430wcmy.com/

Television Stations

WMAQ – Channel 5 (Chicago)http://www.nbc5.com/

WEEK TV/WHOI – Channel 25 (NBC Affiliate)Attn: News Director2907 Springfield Rd.East Peoria, IL 61611309-698-2525 http://www.cinewsnow.com/

WTVP-TV – Channel 47 (PBS Affiliate)Attn: News Director 101 State St.Peoria, IL 61602309-677-4747

WLS – Channel 7 (Chicago)http://abc7chicago.com/

WBBM – Channel 2 (Chicago)http://chicago.cbslocal.com/

WMBD TV – Channel 31 (CBS Affiliate)3131 N. University St.Peoria, IL 61604 309-688-3131 http://www.centralillinoisproud.com/contact-us

WYZZ TV – Channel 28 (Fox Affiliate)3131 N. University St.Peoria, IL 61604 309-688-3131 http://www.centralillinoisproud.com/contact-us

WGN – Channel 9 (Chicago)http://wgntv.com/

D-1

Superfund is an environmental cleanup program enabled by a federal law enacted in 1980 known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also called Superfund. In 1986, another law, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) reauthorized CERCLA to continue Superfund

cleanup activities. The CERCLA law gives EPA the authority to require those parties responsible for creating hazardous waste sites to clean up those sites or to reimburse the government if EPA cleans up the site. EPA compels responsible parties to clean up hazardous waste sites through administrative orders, consent decrees and other legal settlements. EPA is authorized to enforce the Superfund laws within Indian reservations, in all 50 states and in U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring and response activities are coordinated with state, tribal and territorial environmental protection or waste management agencies.

There are several steps involved in cleaning up a contaminated site. Once EPA has been made aware of a contaminated site from individual citizens, local, tribal or state agencies or others, EPA follows a step-by-step process (see Exhibit 1 on the next page) to determine the best way to clean up the site and protect human health and the environment.

If the site poses an immediate threat to public health or the environment, EPA can intervene with an emergency response action. The goal of EPA’s Emergency Response and Removal Program is to protect the public and the environment from immediate threats posed by the release or discharge of hazardous substances.

The Superfund program encourages active dialogue between communities affected by the release of hazardous substances and all of the agencies responsible for carrying out or overseeing cleanup actions. EPA considers community involvement to be an important part of the Superfund program and opportunities for community involvement occur throughout the process. At each step in the process, there are opportunities for various levels of community involvement. (See Exhibit 2 on page 3 of this Appendix.)

Visit these EPA websites for more information on the Superfund process.

Superfund: www.epa.gov/superfund Cleanup Process: www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/index.htm

Community Involvement: www.epa.gov/superfund/community/index.htm

APPENDIX DCommunity Engagement and the Superfund Process

D-2

Exhibit 1: Superfund Process Steps.

Legend PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation NPL Listing National Priorities List RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action NPL Deletion National Priorities List DeletionNote: These steps are defined in Appendix A – Glossary - Initials - Acronyms.

D-3

NPLDeletion

Post-ConstructionCompletion

ConstructionCompletion

Remedial Design/Remedial Action

Record of Decision

ProposedPlan

RemedialInvestigation/

Feasibility Study

NationalPriorities List

Process

PreliminaryAssessment/Site

Inspection

• Gather historical site condition information to determine if further investigation is needed

• Use Hazard Ranking System to evaluate risks

• Provide any information you have about the site to the EPA

• Publish notice in Federal Register and local media announcing proposed listing and public commentperiod

• Once listed, EPA publishes notice in Federal Register and responds to comments

• Read information about EPA’s proposal to list the site • Contact EPA for questions or additional information• If concerned, submit comments during the Public

Comment period

• Determines the nature and extent of contamination, evaluates human health and ecological risk

• Consider forming a Community Advisory Group and applying for a Technical Assistance Grant

• Participate in public meetings• Contact community involvement coordinator with

questions

• Presents the cleanup alternatives and is issued for a 30-day public comment period

• Read proposed plan• Participate in public meetings• Visit Information Repository

• Contains the selected remedy for a site and the Responsiveness Summary which provides responses to all comments received during the public comment period

• Read the ROD for site cleanup• Participate in public events or visit the information

repository• Contact site CIC with questions

• Includes preparing for and doing the bulk of the cleanup at the site

• Final design is developed

• Learn about the final design• Work through your CAG, TAG or Technical Assistance

Services for Communities provider for information• Attend meetings and site visits• Contact CIC with questions

• Any necessary physical construction has been completed (even though final cleanup levels may not have been reached)

• Attend meetings and site visits• Contact CIC with questions

• Ensures that Superfund cleanups provide long-term protection of human health and environment

• Monitoring continues

• Work through your CAG, TAG or TASC provider for information

• Visit the site or arrange a site tour through EPA• Contact CIC with questions

• All site work completed• EPA requests comments on upcoming deletion of

site from NPL list

• Read EPA’s proposal and Responsiveness Summary• Read the final deletion report• Plan a community event to celebrate deletion

from NPL

After site is clean:• EPA works with community to help return site to

productive use• EPA will ensure that any land use restrictions

continue to be met

• Work with EPA and neighbors to plan the redevelopment

• Explore EPA’s tools and resources• Be supportive of redevelopment plans once they’ve

been agreed upon

Community InvolvementOpportunities

SuperfundProcess Steps

Reuse

Exhibit 2. Community Involvement Opportunities During the Superfund Process

E-1

APPENDIX EFact Sheets

FIRST CLASS

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

This fact sheet is printed on paper made of recycled fibers.

Region 5Office of Public Affairs (P-19J)77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604

United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency

MATTHIESSEN & HEGELER ZINC SITE:EPA Seeking Your Opinion About Polluted Site

Do you want to receive information about M& H Zinc? Do you have a preference about how information about M&H Zinc is delivered?

All interviewees would like to receive more information about the site. Most preferred to receive newsletters or letters.

Although newspapers were identified as a good way to dispense information, most felt mail was better to insure the information was not missed. Posting information about the site online and e-mail delivery of information were also suggested.

Do you feel the site has received adequate coverage by the local/regional media?

Most residents and officials did not remember any media coverage.

Some residents had seen articles in the local media but it had been some time ago.

What type of media (for example, newspaper, Internet, radio) do you rely on for information about the site?

Most residents indicated that the LaSalle Daily News Tribune was their main source of information. The Peoria Journal Star (local section) is another paper read by the majority of those interviewed.

Others rely primarily on area television and radio stations for their local information. WLPO-AM was the radio station suggested by most as a potential source of information about the site.

Do you share the opinions summarized above? Do you want to share additional

information with us?

Call Yolanda Bouchee at (312) 353-3209

EPA Seeking Your Opinion United States Environmental Protection About Polluted Site Agency

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site LaSalle, Illinois December 2004

If you are interested in the site, we would like to talk with you. up an appointment, please contact:

Coordinator Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, Ill. (312) 353-3209 bouchee.yolanda@epa.gov

Site-related documents may be reviewed at:

Jackson Blvd., 7th Floor Chicago

LaSalle Public Library 305 Marquette St.

If you are interested in the site we would like to talk with you. Please contact

appointment.

During these community

process, and how the community involvement process could be improved.

The meetings indicated varying levels of knowledge about the site and former operations. The residents with whom we spoke have lived in the area from one and a half to 48 years. Residents who have lived there the longest naturally had the highest level of awareness about the site. In fact, several

Location map: Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc

Talk to us

To set

Yolanda Bouchee EPA Community Involvement

77 W.

EPA Region 5 Records Center 77 W.

On the Web: http://www.epa.gov http://www.epa.gov/region5

To learn more about concerns and issues regarding the Matthieson & Hegeler Zinc site, EPA is seeking your views about the subject.

EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Yolanda Bouchee to set up an

In an effort to start collecting information about the site, EPA spent two days in LaSalle speaking to residents and local officials. interviews, EPA asked residents and city and county officials about issues related to the site’s contamination and cleanup, the community involvement

3

risk from long-term exposure. Illinois Department of Public Health collected additional off-site soil samples from different locations in 1999 and determined that the contamination did not pose a health risk from long-term or short-term exposure. Concentrations of some chemicals in the samples, however, did exceed safe levels set by Illinois EPA and warrant further investigation of off-site soils.

Who will pay for the cleanup?Under the Superfund law, potentially responsible parties include past and present owners and operators of a site. EPA has entered into negotiations with the PRPs for the M&H site. If negotiations are unsuccessful, then money from the Superfund could be used to conduct a remedial investigation. The purpose of this investigation would be to determine the nature and extent of contamination and any risks that contamination might pose to human health and the environment.

What we heardThe questions EPA asked residents and a summary of their responses follows.

Are you aware of contamination at the formerMatthiessen and Hegeler Zinc site?

Many residents had first-hand knowledge of activities at the site as they were living in the area at the time of its operation. Those who were familiar with the site knew that it had produced zinc. Most individuals were aware that the property currently contains a chemical company. Opinions varied on how much pollution was associated with the site, with several individuals remembering that children used to play on the slag piles. Those new to the area were unaware of the prior operations at the site, nor were they aware of any potential pollution associated with the site.

What are your concerns about the contamination at M&H Zinc?

Concerns were raised about the site=s impact on residential property values and about the time frame of the cleanup.

Residents also asked the following questions about the site that will be addressed as further investigation is completed:

• What contaminants were found on the site? • Is airborne pollution a problem?• Is fishing in the Illinois River affected?

• What’s been coming from the Carus Chemical Co. since the late 1960’s? Could whatever’s been released from Carus Chemical have caused allergies, respiratory problems and trouble with growing grass?

• Is the state testing above and below the Little Vermilion River? How far down does the contamina-tion go? Is the slag next to the Little Vermilion River dangerous? Should we be concerned with the white powder seen on the surface and the green water in the river?

How long have you been aware of the contamination/impending cleanup at M&H Zinc?

Long-time residents were well aware of the site, however, most didn’t know any specifics concerning contamination/cleanup at the site. Newer residents knew nothing about the situation.

Are you aware of the site’s public involvement process? If yes, what are your perceptions of it?

Most were not aware of any public involvement concerning the site.

Have you had contact with government officials about M&H Zinc?

Residents had not had contact with government officials about the site.

Do you feel that local, state and federal officials (including EPA) have been responsive to yourconcerns?

According to the mayor of LaSalle, EPA has been keeping him informed of activities at the site.

How frequently do you believe meetings should be held in the community to discuss activities at M&H Zinc?

Residents expressed mixed opinions on public meetings to discuss site activities. Several individuals indicated they would attend meetings and think that others would as well. One person suggested the meetings should cover the proposed remediation and time frame. Others indicated they would not attend and they did not think that people would come to such meetings.

Do you have location preference(s) for the meetings?

The Library Community Room and the City Council Chamber at City Hall were the locations suggested for public meetings.

of them remember when the site was operating. However, even the long-time residents and local officials indicated that the site has received minimal coverage in the local media and also indicated a relatively low interest in the situation. None of the residents had contacted government officials about the site, and likewise none of the officials have heard from local residents about the issue.

The level of interest in the area varied. While all interviewees want to be kept on the mailing list, less than half of them indicated an interest in attending meetings. If meetings are held, however, City Hall and the local library were picked out as the best locations for such events. In advance of meetings, announcements should be advertised in the LaSalle News Tribune and possibly the local section of the Peoria Journal Star. Residents said radio announcements should air on WLPO particularly during the morning hours.

Background The Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc site is a 160-acre inactive zinc smelting and rolling facility that operated from about 1858 to 1978. The site is located on the east side of LaSalle and is bordered by the Little Vermilion River on the east, with residential properties surrounding the remainder of the area. The site is enclosed by a chain-link fence. The southern portion of the property contains an active specialty chemicals firm, Carus Chemical, and the now-closed LaSalle Rolling Mills plant. The former smelting and rolling processes produced pollution that remains on the site. Environmental concerns include a 6-acre slag waste pile containing metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. Runoff from the piles washes directly into the river, and sediment samples from the river bottom indicate elevated levels of these metals.

Site history M&H Zinc began operations in 1858 and stopped in 1978 after declaring bankruptcy. During the 120 years of the company’s existence it produced slab zinc, sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate fertilizer. These processes resulted in the release of airborne particles containing cadmium, lead, zinc and other chemicals. Additional manufacturing operations occurred in conjunction with the smelting process. A gas plant was operated on the site in the early years to manufacture fuel for the Hegeler furnace. Coal was mined on the site until 1937. During the 1950s, the company produced ammonium sulfate fertilizer. In 1961, the company stopped smelting zinc.

The manufacture of sulfuric acid was discontinued in 1968, and from 1968 until closing in 1978 the facility only did rolling operations.

After the bankruptcy, the Matthiessen and Hegeler property was sold at auction in 1979.

In 1993, Illinois EPA collected sediment (mud) and soil samples from the Little Vermilion River and the site. This was done for a preliminary evaluation of possible effects of past Matthiessen and Hegeler operations and in preparation for scoring the site for inclusion on the National Priorities List of EPA Superfund sites. These samples were much higher in metal concentrations than background samples collected in areas not affected by past operations of the facility. Zinc was elevated significantly in all samples, and cadmium and lead were greatly elevated in all but one sample. Other metals were also found at high levels. On-site samples also showed low levels of a variety of other contaminants including pesticides, PCBs, solvents and chemicals found in oil and coal.

The site is private property and surrounded by a fence, and residents are strongly urged against trespassing due to the chemicals and physical hazards found on the property.

Illinois EPA held a public meeting in LaSalle to discuss sample results in 1995.

The off-site soil samples collected by Illinois EPA in 1993 showed elevated levels of metals. Illinois EPA at that time determined that concentrations found did not pose a health risk from short-term exposure but that more information needed to be gathered to determine if there may be a

What is the NPL?

of polluted sites that have had known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. determining which sites warrant further investigation

Identified sites are ranked using a “hazard ranking system,” and those that score the highest are placed on the NPL. In June 2001 the M&H site was

Following the proposal, a public comment period was

site on the NPL.

The National Priorities List or NPL is a record

The NPL guides EPA in

and may be eligible for Superfund cleanup money.

proposed for the NPL by EPA and Illinois EPA.

held, and in September 2003 EPA officially placed the

2

3

risk from long-term exposure. Illinois Department of Public Health collected additional off-site soil samples from different locations in 1999 and determined that the contamination did not pose a health risk from long-term or short-term exposure. Concentrations of some chemicals in the samples, however, did exceed safe levels set by Illinois EPA and warrant further investigation of off-site soils.

Who will pay for the cleanup?Under the Superfund law, potentially responsible parties include past and present owners and operators of a site. EPA has entered into negotiations with the PRPs for the M&H site. If negotiations are unsuccessful, then money from the Superfund could be used to conduct a remedial investigation. The purpose of this investigation would be to determine the nature and extent of contamination and any risks that contamination might pose to human health and the environment.

What we heardThe questions EPA asked residents and a summary of their responses follows.

Are you aware of contamination at the formerMatthiessen and Hegeler Zinc site?

Many residents had first-hand knowledge of activities at the site as they were living in the area at the time of its operation. Those who were familiar with the site knew that it had produced zinc. Most individuals were aware that the property currently contains a chemical company. Opinions varied on how much pollution was associated with the site, with several individuals remembering that children used to play on the slag piles. Those new to the area were unaware of the prior operations at the site, nor were they aware of any potential pollution associated with the site.

What are your concerns about the contamination at M&H Zinc?

Concerns were raised about the site=s impact on residential property values and about the time frame of the cleanup.

Residents also asked the following questions about the site that will be addressed as further investigation is completed:

• What contaminants were found on the site? • Is airborne pollution a problem?• Is fishing in the Illinois River affected?

• What’s been coming from the Carus Chemical Co. since the late 1960’s? Could whatever’s been released from Carus Chemical have caused allergies, respiratory problems and trouble with growing grass?

• Is the state testing above and below the Little Vermilion River? How far down does the contamina-tion go? Is the slag next to the Little Vermilion River dangerous? Should we be concerned with the white powder seen on the surface and the green water in the river?

How long have you been aware of the contamination/impending cleanup at M&H Zinc?

Long-time residents were well aware of the site, however, most didn’t know any specifics concerning contamination/cleanup at the site. Newer residents knew nothing about the situation.

Are you aware of the site’s public involvement process? If yes, what are your perceptions of it?

Most were not aware of any public involvement concerning the site.

Have you had contact with government officials about M&H Zinc?

Residents had not had contact with government officials about the site.

Do you feel that local, state and federal officials (including EPA) have been responsive to yourconcerns?

According to the mayor of LaSalle, EPA has been keeping him informed of activities at the site.

How frequently do you believe meetings should be held in the community to discuss activities at M&H Zinc?

Residents expressed mixed opinions on public meetings to discuss site activities. Several individuals indicated they would attend meetings and think that others would as well. One person suggested the meetings should cover the proposed remediation and time frame. Others indicated they would not attend and they did not think that people would come to such meetings.

Do you have location preference(s) for the meetings?

The Library Community Room and the City Council Chamber at City Hall were the locations suggested for public meetings.

of them remember when the site was operating. However, even the long-time residents and local officials indicated that the site has received minimal coverage in the local media and also indicated a relatively low interest in the situation. None of the residents had contacted government officials about the site, and likewise none of the officials have heard from local residents about the issue.

The level of interest in the area varied. While all interviewees want to be kept on the mailing list, less than half of them indicated an interest in attending meetings. If meetings are held, however, City Hall and the local library were picked out as the best locations for such events. In advance of meetings, announcements should be advertised in the LaSalle News Tribune and possibly the local section of the Peoria Journal Star. Residents said radio announcements should air on WLPO particularly during the morning hours.

Background The Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc site is a 160-acre inactive zinc smelting and rolling facility that operated from about 1858 to 1978. The site is located on the east side of LaSalle and is bordered by the Little Vermilion River on the east, with residential properties surrounding the remainder of the area. The site is enclosed by a chain-link fence. The southern portion of the property contains an active specialty chemicals firm, Carus Chemical, and the now-closed LaSalle Rolling Mills plant. The former smelting and rolling processes produced pollution that remains on the site. Environmental concerns include a 6-acre slag waste pile containing metals such as cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc. Runoff from the piles washes directly into the river, and sediment samples from the river bottom indicate elevated levels of these metals.

Site history M&H Zinc began operations in 1858 and stopped in 1978 after declaring bankruptcy. During the 120 years of the company’s existence it produced slab zinc, sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate fertilizer. These processes resulted in the release of airborne particles containing cadmium, lead, zinc and other chemicals. Additional manufacturing operations occurred in conjunction with the smelting process. A gas plant was operated on the site in the early years to manufacture fuel for the Hegeler furnace. Coal was mined on the site until 1937. During the 1950s, the company produced ammonium sulfate fertilizer. In 1961, the company stopped smelting zinc.

The manufacture of sulfuric acid was discontinued in 1968, and from 1968 until closing in 1978 the facility only did rolling operations.

After the bankruptcy, the Matthiessen and Hegeler property was sold at auction in 1979.

In 1993, Illinois EPA collected sediment (mud) and soil samples from the Little Vermilion River and the site. This was done for a preliminary evaluation of possible effects of past Matthiessen and Hegeler operations and in preparation for scoring the site for inclusion on the National Priorities List of EPA Superfund sites. These samples were much higher in metal concentrations than background samples collected in areas not affected by past operations of the facility. Zinc was elevated significantly in all samples, and cadmium and lead were greatly elevated in all but one sample. Other metals were also found at high levels. On-site samples also showed low levels of a variety of other contaminants including pesticides, PCBs, solvents and chemicals found in oil and coal.

The site is private property and surrounded by a fence, and residents are strongly urged against trespassing due to the chemicals and physical hazards found on the property.

Illinois EPA held a public meeting in LaSalle to discuss sample results in 1995.

The off-site soil samples collected by Illinois EPA in 1993 showed elevated levels of metals. Illinois EPA at that time determined that concentrations found did not pose a health risk from short-term exposure but that more information needed to be gathered to determine if there may be a

What is the NPL?

of polluted sites that have had known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. determining which sites warrant further investigation

Identified sites are ranked using a “hazard ranking system,” and those that score the highest are placed on the NPL. In June 2001 the M&H site was

Following the proposal, a public comment period was

site on the NPL.

The National Priorities List or NPL is a record

The NPL guides EPA in

and may be eligible for Superfund cleanup money.

proposed for the NPL by EPA and Illinois EPA.

held, and in September 2003 EPA officially placed the

2

United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc SiteLaSalle, Illinois December 2004

Talk to usIf you are interested in the site, we would like to talk with you. To set up an appointment, please contact:

Yolanda BoucheeEPA Community Involvement Coordinator77 W. Jackson Blvd.Chicago, Ill.(312) 353-3209bouchee.yolanda@epa.gov

Site-related documents may be reviewed at:EPA Region 5 Records Center77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th FloorChicago

LaSalle Public Library305 Marquette St.

On the Web:www.epa.govwww.epa.gov/region5

EPA Seeking Your Opinion About Polluted Site

To learn more about concerns and issues regarding the Matthieson & Hegeler Zinc site, EPA is seeking your views about the subject. If you are interested in the site we would like to talk with you. Please contact EPA Community Involvement Coordinator Yolanda Bouchee to set up an appointment.

In an effort to start collecting information about the site, EPA spent two days in LaSalle speaking to residents and local officials. During these community interviews, EPA asked residents and city and county officials about issues related to the site’s contamination and cleanup, the community involvement process, and how the community involvement process could be improved.

The meetings indicated varying levels of knowledge about the site and former operations. The residents with whom we spoke have lived in the area from one and a half to 48 years. Residents who have lived there the longest naturally had the highest level of awareness about the site. In fact, several

Location map: Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5 Office of Public Affairs (P-19J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604

FIRST CLASS

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

MATTHIESSEN & HEGELER ZINC SITE: EPA Seeking Your Opinion About Polluted Site

This fact sheet is printed on paper made of recycled fibers.

Do you want to receive information about M& H Zinc? Do you have a preference about how information about M&H Zinc is delivered?

All interviewees would like to receive more information about the site. Most preferred to receive newsletters or letters.

Although newspapers were identified as a good way to dispense information, most felt mail was better to insure the information was not missed. Posting information about the site online and e-mail delivery of information were also suggested.

Do you feel the site has received adequate coverage by the local/regional media?

Most residents and officials did not remember any media coverage.

Some residents had seen articles in the local media but it had been some time ago.

What type of media (for example, newspaper, Internet, radio) do you rely on for information about the site?

Most residents indicated that the LaSalle Daily News Tribune was their main source of information. The Peoria Journal Star (local section) is another paper read by the majority of those interviewed.

Others rely primarily on area television and radio stations for their local information. WLPO-AM was the radio station suggested by most as a potential source of information about the site.

Do you share the opinions summarized above? Do you want to share additional

information with us?

Call Yolanda Bouchee at (312) 353-3209

1

Share your opinion EPA invites your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the Matthiessen & Hegeler site.

The public comment period is Oct. 5 – Nov. 2. There are several ways to comment:

Orally or in writing at the public meeting.

Fill out and mail the enclosed comment form, or submit it at the meeting.

By fax to Teresa Jones at 312-692-2007

By email to Teresa Jones at jones.teresa@epa.gov

Read the proposed plan You may review the detailed cleanup plan at the information repository:

LaSalle Public Library, 305 Marquette St., LaSalle; U.S. EPA Record Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Floor, Chicago; or for more information please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov.

Public meeting EPA encourages you to attend the public meeting, Tuesday, Oct. 20, at 7 p.m. at LaSalle Peru Township High School, 541 Chartres St., LaSalle.

EPA will accept oral comments at the public meeting. A court reporter will record all oral comments.

See a list of EPA contacts on Page 3.

EPA Proposes Cleanup PlanAt Former Zinc Smelter

.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to clean up contaminated soil at the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc site and in the surrounding residential area. This soil is contaminated mostly with metals. U.S. EPA plans to dig up contaminated soil and put it into what EPA calls a “containment cell” on the former smelter site.

Complex sites like this one are often broken down into smaller manageable sections called operable units, or OUs. At this site, OU1 consists of the Carus Chemical Corp. and a large slag pile, while OU2 consists of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. and the surrounding residential area. EPA has identified its recommended cleanup alternatives for each OU.1

Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting and seek comments from the public (see box, left). The Agency, in consultation with the Illinois EPA, may select a different cleanup alternative based on public comments, so your opinion is important.

1Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA known as the Superfund law) requires publication of a notice and a proposed plan. It also requires a public comment period and the opportunity for a public meeting. This fact sheet summarizes the technical written proposed plan and other site-related environmental reports that can be viewed at the LaSalle Public Library, 305 Marquette St., LaSalle; and the U.S. EPA office in Chicago.

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site LaSalle, Illinois September 2015

A worker sprays water on a building to help reduce the dust from demolition at the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc site.

MATTHIESSEN & HEGELER ZINC SITE: EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for Contaminated Soil

EPA Proposes Soil Cleanup Plan

for

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site LaSalle, Illinois (details inside)

Attend an information session and public meeting to find out more about the recommended cleanup plan and to provide your comments to EPA.

Tuesday, Oct. 20, 7 p.m. LaSalle Peru Township High School

541 Chartres St. LaSalle

7

The various parts of the Matthiessen & Hegeler site can be seen here.

The various parts of the Matthiessen & Hegeler site can be seen here.

2

OU1 site characteristics OU1 covers approximately 47 acres and includes the southern portion of the site and the Little Vermilion River adjacent to the site. Carus Chemical Corp. operates a facility on the site that produces potassium permanganate and other specialty chemicals. A large slag pile generated from smelting operations on OU2 is mostly located on the Carus property. OU2 site characteristics OU2 covers approximately 180 acres that includes the industrial portion of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. property, as well as the nearly 5,000 properties in the surrounding residential area in the LaSalle/Peru area. The smelting plant ceased operations in 2000. LaSalle obtains all its drinking water from a cluster of four wells located three-quarters of a mile south of the site, with the nearest municipal well approximately 3,700 feet south of the site. There is a wetland approximately two miles upstream of the site on the river. Also, the Lake DePue State Fish and Wildlife Area and the Spring Lake Heron Colony, which provides breeding habitat for the state-endangered great egret, are about 15 miles downstream of the site. Nature and extent of contamination The site was placed on the National Priorities List in September 2003 because of the widespread slag across the site that has metals contamination, including arsenic and lead. The NPL is a list of the nation’s most hazardous waste areas and are eligible for cleanup under the Superfund program. Human health risks People who could be exposed to Matthiessen & Hegeler pollutants in the soil include residents in the surrounding community, employees of Carus Chemical, utility workers and construction workers at the site, children playing in the area, and people walking through the site. Experts found there were no significant adverse effects on the overall health of the ecological community in the Little Vermillion River.

The recommended cleanup alternatives in the proposed plan are designed to protect people and the environment from these potential health threats.

OU1 history Carus Corp. makes specialty chemicals in its facility in OU1, which is independent of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. facilities. Carus began operations in 1915, manufacturing potassium permanganate products for water purification and wastewater treatment. The company has added other products to its manufacturing operations over time. From 1858 to 1961, sinter and slag from the smelting operations at OU2 were placed at various locations on what is now designated as OU1, primarily in an upland area between the Carus facility and the river. The resultant slag pile covers an area of approximately 17.7 acres and stands approximately 80 to 90 feet tall. Carus did not own the slag pile area during the OU2 zinc smelting operational period.

A worker inspects an old pipe extending above the ground within the former zinc smelting plant.

3

Summary of cleanup alternatives U.S. EPA considered numerous options for cleaning up both OU1 and OU2. The recommended options are summarized here. For a listing of all of the alternatives evaluated, refer to the technical proposed plan, which is available in the technical documents on file at the LaSalle Public Library or please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov.

EPA’s recommended cleanup alternatives OU1: Carus Plant Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. Approximately 4,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil across the area would be dug up and removed with an engineered soil cover installed to isolate Carus workers from the soil. Cost: $1.67 million OU1: Slag Pile Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. An estimated 50,000 cubic yards of engineered soil, 18 inches thick, would be placed to cover the slag pile and prevent people from being exposed. Cost: $7.1 million Alternative 15—Sloping and Benching + Plantings + Revetments at the Toe of the Slope + Best Management Practices. Vegetation would be removed from the slag pile, which would then be excavated, sloped and benched along the river, and a two-foot-thick engineered soil cover installed. Revetments (a retaining wall) would be installed at the toe of the slope for erosion protection along the river, and best management practices, including seeding for the soil cover, would be installed to help stabilize the slope of the pile. The two-foot cover would be sufficient to support the anticipated tree root depth. Cost: $18.4 million

Contact EPA These EPA representatives are available to answer questions and share information. If you need special accommodations at the Oct. 20 meeting, contact Teresa Jones. For technical questions: Demaree Collier Remedial Project Manager 312-886-0214 collier.demaree@epa.gov For general questions: Teresa Jones Community Involvement Coordinator 312-886-0725 jones.teresa@epa.gov Call EPA toll-free 800-621-8431, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., weekdays.

OU2 history The Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. operated a zinc smelter at the OU2 portion of the site from 1858 until 1961. The company added a rolling mill to its operations in 1866 to produce zinc sheets. This process included a furnace that used producer gas as fuel. Any sulfur dioxide generated was recovered and converted into sulfuric acid and stored in on-site tanks. For a few years during the early 1950s, an ammonium sulfate fertilizer plant operated at OU2. Coal mining also occurred on OU2 until 1937, and two mining shafts (one vertical and one horizontal) still remain at the site. Zinc smelting ceased in 1961, and sulfuric acid manufacturing halted in 1968, when Matthiessen & Hegeler declared bankruptcy. Only basic rolling mill operations took place at OU2 from 1968 until 1978. In 1980, Fred and Cynthia Carus purchased the 12-acre rolling mill tract of land, which became home to the LaSalle Rolling Mill Inc. The mill made penny blanks for the U.S. Mint until 2000, when the company ceased operations and declared bankruptcy.

This material is called sinter, which – along with debris and abandoned structures – remains at the former smelting site.

6

How do the alternatives compare? U.S. EPA compared each alternative against seven of the nine evaluation criteria (see comparison chart, Page 5) and selected its recommended alternative. State and community acceptance will be evaluated after a review of public comments on the proposed plan. Summary of cleanup goals U.S. EPA has several objectives for this cleanup. They were developed while the alternatives were being evaluated and include the following: OU1 Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale, or touch contaminants in affected parts of the Carus Plant Area and the Slag Pile Area that could be harmful to human health. Reduce surface water runoff and erosion of material from the Slag Pile slope to prevent any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, and to protect the viability of the cleanup. OU2 Site Property Soils (Main Industrial Area, Rolling Mill Area, North Area, Wooded Area-Northeast, Building 100 Hot Spot):

Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale or touch soil that contains metals, PCBs, PAHs or asbestos. Off-Site Residential Area: Prevent people from ingesting, inhaling or touching affected soil at residential properties that contains contaminants of concern. Next steps Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will review all comments from the public. The Agency will respond to the comments and make those responses available in the final decision document. U.S. EPA could change its recommended cleanup plan based on public comments and its consultation with Illinois EPA. The Agency will announce its final cleanup plan in a local newspaper advertisement. Copies of the final plan will be available at the LaSalle Public Library, in the EPA Records Center in Chicago and for more information please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov. Some of the abandoned structures and debris remaining at the former zinc smelter.

5

Comparing EPA’s recommended cleanup alternatives with the nine Superfund cleanup selection criteria. Evaluation Criteria OU1 Exposure Areas - Alternatives

(Carus Chemical Company & Large Slag Pile) Alt-6: Carus Plant Area

Alt-6: Slag Pile Area

Alt-15: Slag Pile Area

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Short-term Effectiveness

Implementability

Capital Cost $1.67 million $7.1 million $18.4 million State Acceptance These criteria will be evaluated after the public comment period. Community Acceptance

Evaluation Criteria OU2 Exposure Areas - Alternatives

(Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Company & Residential Area) Alt-2: Main Industrial Area

Alt-4: North Area

Alt-3: Building 100 Area

Alt-3: Roll Mill Area

Alt-3: Off-Site Residential

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Short-term Effectiveness

Implementability

Capital Cost $34.9 mil. $19.6 mil. $4.0 mil. $4.5 mil. $113 mil. State Acceptance These criteria will be evaluated after the public comment period. Community Acceptance

Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion Does not meet criterion

4

OU2: Main Industrial Area Alternative 2 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Main Industrial Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated on-site. Any hazardous soil would be treated before being consolidated. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to protect workers, to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial and to protect the cleanup. Cost: $34.9 million OU2: North Area Alternative 4 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the North Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $19.6 million OU2: Building 100 Area Alternative 3 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Building 100 Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $4 million. OU2: Rolling Mill Area Alternative 3— Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Rolling Mill Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $4.5 million. OU2: Off-Site Residential Area Alternative 3— Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Contaminated soil at affected properties in the Off-site Residential Area would be excavated to a maximum depth of 24 inches and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. If contamination remains in place deeper than 24 inches, a visual barrier would be installed on top of the underlying contamination prior to backfilling with clean soil. Land-use restrictions would be implemented as appropriate. Cost: $113 million.

Explanation of evaluation criteria U.S. EPA compares each cleanup option or alternative with these nine criteria established by federal law: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment examines whether an option protects both human health and the environment. This decisive factor can be met by reducing or removing pollution or by reducing exposure to it. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ensures options comply with federal and state laws. 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence evaluates how well an option will work over the long term, including how safely remaining contamination can be managed. 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment determines how well the treatment option reduces the amount and movement of contamination. 5. Short-term effectiveness compares how quickly an option can help the situation and how much risk exists while the option is under construction. 6. Implementability evaluates how practical the option is, and whether materials and services are available. 7. Cost includes not only buildings, equipment, materials and labor, but also the cost of operating and maintaining the cleanup for the life of the project. 8. State acceptance determines whether the state environmental agency accepts the option. 9. Community acceptance is considered by evaluating the oral and written public comments on the proposed plan and alternatives.

5

Comparing EPA’s recommended cleanup alternatives with the nine Superfund cleanup selection criteria. Evaluation Criteria OU1 Exposure Areas - Alternatives

(Carus Chemical Company & Large Slag Pile) Alt-6: Carus Plant Area

Alt-6: Slag Pile Area

Alt-15: Slag Pile Area

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Short-term Effectiveness

Implementability

Capital Cost $1.67 million $7.1 million $18.4 million State Acceptance These criteria will be evaluated after the public comment period. Community Acceptance

Evaluation Criteria OU2 Exposure Areas - Alternatives

(Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Company & Residential Area) Alt-2: Main Industrial Area

Alt-4: North Area

Alt-3: Building 100 Area

Alt-3: Roll Mill Area

Alt-3: Off-Site Residential

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Compliance with ARARs

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Short-term Effectiveness

Implementability

Capital Cost $34.9 mil. $19.6 mil. $4.0 mil. $4.5 mil. $113 mil. State Acceptance These criteria will be evaluated after the public comment period. Community Acceptance

Fully meets criterion Partially meets criterion Does not meet criterion

4

OU2: Main Industrial Area Alternative 2 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Main Industrial Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated on-site. Any hazardous soil would be treated before being consolidated. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to protect workers, to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial and to protect the cleanup. Cost: $34.9 million OU2: North Area Alternative 4 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the North Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $19.6 million OU2: Building 100 Area Alternative 3 — Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Building 100 Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $4 million. OU2: Rolling Mill Area Alternative 3— Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Parts of the Rolling Mill Area with higher than acceptable soil contamination levels would be excavated and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. Land-use restrictions and property access restrictions would be implemented to ensure the land use remains commercial/industrial. Cost: $4.5 million. OU2: Off-Site Residential Area Alternative 3— Soil Excavation + On-Site Consolidation Under a Soil Cover. Contaminated soil at affected properties in the Off-site Residential Area would be excavated to a maximum depth of 24 inches and consolidated at the Main Industrial Area. If contamination remains in place deeper than 24 inches, a visual barrier would be installed on top of the underlying contamination prior to backfilling with clean soil. Land-use restrictions would be implemented as appropriate. Cost: $113 million.

Explanation of evaluation criteria U.S. EPA compares each cleanup option or alternative with these nine criteria established by federal law: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment examines whether an option protects both human health and the environment. This decisive factor can be met by reducing or removing pollution or by reducing exposure to it. 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ensures options comply with federal and state laws. 3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence evaluates how well an option will work over the long term, including how safely remaining contamination can be managed. 4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment determines how well the treatment option reduces the amount and movement of contamination. 5. Short-term effectiveness compares how quickly an option can help the situation and how much risk exists while the option is under construction. 6. Implementability evaluates how practical the option is, and whether materials and services are available. 7. Cost includes not only buildings, equipment, materials and labor, but also the cost of operating and maintaining the cleanup for the life of the project. 8. State acceptance determines whether the state environmental agency accepts the option. 9. Community acceptance is considered by evaluating the oral and written public comments on the proposed plan and alternatives.

3

Summary of cleanup alternatives U.S. EPA considered numerous options for cleaning up both OU1 and OU2. The recommended options are summarized here. For a listing of all of the alternatives evaluated, refer to the technical proposed plan, which is available in the technical documents on file at the LaSalle Public Library or please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov.

EPA’s recommended cleanup alternatives OU1: Carus Plant Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. Approximately 4,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil across the area would be dug up and removed with an engineered soil cover installed to isolate Carus workers from the soil. Cost: $1.67 million OU1: Slag Pile Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. An estimated 50,000 cubic yards of engineered soil, 18 inches thick, would be placed to cover the slag pile and prevent people from being exposed. Cost: $7.1 million Alternative 15—Sloping and Benching + Plantings + Revetments at the Toe of the Slope + Best Management Practices. Vegetation would be removed from the slag pile, which would then be excavated, sloped and benched along the river, and a two-foot-thick engineered soil cover installed. Revetments (a retaining wall) would be installed at the toe of the slope for erosion protection along the river, and best management practices, including seeding for the soil cover, would be installed to help stabilize the slope of the pile. The two-foot cover would be sufficient to support the anticipated tree root depth. Cost: $18.4 million

Contact EPA These EPA representatives are available to answer questions and share information. If you need special accommodations at the Oct. 20 meeting, contact Teresa Jones. For technical questions: Demaree Collier Remedial Project Manager 312-886-0214 collier.demaree@epa.gov For general questions: Teresa Jones Community Involvement Coordinator 312-886-0725 jones.teresa@epa.gov Call EPA toll-free 800-621-8431, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., weekdays.

OU2 history The Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. operated a zinc smelter at the OU2 portion of the site from 1858 until 1961. The company added a rolling mill to its operations in 1866 to produce zinc sheets. This process included a furnace that used producer gas as fuel. Any sulfur dioxide generated was recovered and converted into sulfuric acid and stored in on-site tanks. For a few years during the early 1950s, an ammonium sulfate fertilizer plant operated at OU2. Coal mining also occurred on OU2 until 1937, and two mining shafts (one vertical and one horizontal) still remain at the site. Zinc smelting ceased in 1961, and sulfuric acid manufacturing halted in 1968, when Matthiessen & Hegeler declared bankruptcy. Only basic rolling mill operations took place at OU2 from 1968 until 1978. In 1980, Fred and Cynthia Carus purchased the 12-acre rolling mill tract of land, which became home to the LaSalle Rolling Mill Inc. The mill made penny blanks for the U.S. Mint until 2000, when the company ceased operations and declared bankruptcy.

This material is called sinter, which – along with debris and abandoned structures – remains at the former smelting site.

6

How do the alternatives compare? U.S. EPA compared each alternative against seven of the nine evaluation criteria (see comparison chart, Page 5) and selected its recommended alternative. State and community acceptance will be evaluated after a review of public comments on the proposed plan. Summary of cleanup goals U.S. EPA has several objectives for this cleanup. They were developed while the alternatives were being evaluated and include the following: OU1 Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale, or touch contaminants in affected parts of the Carus Plant Area and the Slag Pile Area that could be harmful to human health. Reduce surface water runoff and erosion of material from the Slag Pile slope to prevent any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, and to protect the viability of the cleanup. OU2 Site Property Soils (Main Industrial Area, Rolling Mill Area, North Area, Wooded Area-Northeast, Building 100 Hot Spot):

Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale or touch soil that contains metals, PCBs, PAHs or asbestos. Off-Site Residential Area: Prevent people from ingesting, inhaling or touching affected soil at residential properties that contains contaminants of concern. Next steps Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will review all comments from the public. The Agency will respond to the comments and make those responses available in the final decision document. U.S. EPA could change its recommended cleanup plan based on public comments and its consultation with Illinois EPA. The Agency will announce its final cleanup plan in a local newspaper advertisement. Copies of the final plan will be available at the LaSalle Public Library, in the EPA Records Center in Chicago and for more information please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov. Some of the abandoned structures and debris remaining at the former zinc smelter.

7

The various parts of the Matthiessen & Hegeler site can be seen here.

The various parts of the Matthiessen & Hegeler site can be seen here.

2

OU1 site characteristics OU1 covers approximately 47 acres and includes the southern portion of the site and the Little Vermilion River adjacent to the site. Carus Chemical Corp. operates a facility on the site that produces potassium permanganate and other specialty chemicals. A large slag pile generated from smelting operations on OU2 is mostly located on the Carus property. OU2 site characteristics OU2 covers approximately 180 acres that includes the industrial portion of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. property, as well as the nearly 5,000 properties in the surrounding residential area in the LaSalle/Peru area. The smelting plant ceased operations in 2000. LaSalle obtains all its drinking water from a cluster of four wells located three-quarters of a mile south of the site, with the nearest municipal well approximately 3,700 feet south of the site. There is a wetland approximately two miles upstream of the site on the river. Also, the Lake DePue State Fish and Wildlife Area and the Spring Lake Heron Colony, which provides breeding habitat for the state-endangered great egret, are about 15 miles downstream of the site. Nature and extent of contamination The site was placed on the National Priorities List in September 2003 because of the widespread slag across the site that has metals contamination, including arsenic and lead. The NPL is a list of the nation’s most hazardous waste areas and are eligible for cleanup under the Superfund program. Human health risks People who could be exposed to Matthiessen & Hegeler pollutants in the soil include residents in the surrounding community, employees of Carus Chemical, utility workers and construction workers at the site, children playing in the area, and people walking through the site. Experts found there were no significant adverse effects on the overall health of the ecological community in the Little Vermillion River.

The recommended cleanup alternatives in the proposed plan are designed to protect people and the environment from these potential health threats.

OU1 history Carus Corp. makes specialty chemicals in its facility in OU1, which is independent of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. facilities. Carus began operations in 1915, manufacturing potassium permanganate products for water purification and wastewater treatment. The company has added other products to its manufacturing operations over time. From 1858 to 1961, sinter and slag from the smelting operations at OU2 were placed at various locations on what is now designated as OU1, primarily in an upland area between the Carus facility and the river. The resultant slag pile covers an area of approximately 17.7 acres and stands approximately 80 to 90 feet tall. Carus did not own the slag pile area during the OU2 zinc smelting operational period.

A worker inspects an old pipe extending above the ground within the former zinc smelting plant.

3

Summary of cleanup alternatives U.S. EPA considered numerous options for cleaning up both OU1 and OU2. The recommended options are summarized here. For a listing of all of the alternatives evaluated, refer to the technical proposed plan, which is available in the technical documents on file at the LaSalle Public Library or please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov.

EPA’s recommended cleanup alternatives OU1: Carus Plant Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. Approximately 4,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil across the area would be dug up and removed with an engineered soil cover installed to isolate Carus workers from the soil. Cost: $1.67 million OU1: Slag Pile Area Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. An estimated 50,000 cubic yards of engineered soil, 18 inches thick, would be placed to cover the slag pile and prevent people from being exposed. Cost: $7.1 million Alternative 15—Sloping and Benching + Plantings + Revetments at the Toe of the Slope + Best Management Practices. Vegetation would be removed from the slag pile, which would then be excavated, sloped and benched along the river, and a two-foot-thick engineered soil cover installed. Revetments (a retaining wall) would be installed at the toe of the slope for erosion protection along the river, and best management practices, including seeding for the soil cover, would be installed to help stabilize the slope of the pile. The two-foot cover would be sufficient to support the anticipated tree root depth. Cost: $18.4 million

Contact EPA These EPA representatives are available to answer questions and share information. If you need special accommodations at the Oct. 20 meeting, contact Teresa Jones. For technical questions: Demaree Collier Remedial Project Manager 312-886-0214 collier.demaree@epa.gov For general questions: Teresa Jones Community Involvement Coordinator 312-886-0725 jones.teresa@epa.gov Call EPA toll-free 800-621-8431, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., weekdays.

OU2 history The Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. operated a zinc smelter at the OU2 portion of the site from 1858 until 1961. The company added a rolling mill to its operations in 1866 to produce zinc sheets. This process included a furnace that used producer gas as fuel. Any sulfur dioxide generated was recovered and converted into sulfuric acid and stored in on-site tanks. For a few years during the early 1950s, an ammonium sulfate fertilizer plant operated at OU2. Coal mining also occurred on OU2 until 1937, and two mining shafts (one vertical and one horizontal) still remain at the site. Zinc smelting ceased in 1961, and sulfuric acid manufacturing halted in 1968, when Matthiessen & Hegeler declared bankruptcy. Only basic rolling mill operations took place at OU2 from 1968 until 1978. In 1980, Fred and Cynthia Carus purchased the 12-acre rolling mill tract of land, which became home to the LaSalle Rolling Mill Inc. The mill made penny blanks for the U.S. Mint until 2000, when the company ceased operations and declared bankruptcy.

This material is called sinter, which – along with debris and abandoned structures – remains at the former smelting site.

6

How do the alternatives compare? U.S. EPA compared each alternative against seven of the nine evaluation criteria (see comparison chart, Page 5) and selected its recommended alternative. State and community acceptance will be evaluated after a review of public comments on the proposed plan. Summary of cleanup goals U.S. EPA has several objectives for this cleanup. They were developed while the alternatives were being evaluated and include the following: OU1 Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale, or touch contaminants in affected parts of the Carus Plant Area and the Slag Pile Area that could be harmful to human health. Reduce surface water runoff and erosion of material from the Slag Pile slope to prevent any unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, and to protect the viability of the cleanup. OU2 Site Property Soils (Main Industrial Area, Rolling Mill Area, North Area, Wooded Area-Northeast, Building 100 Hot Spot):

Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to ingest, inhale or touch soil that contains metals, PCBs, PAHs or asbestos. Off-Site Residential Area: Prevent people from ingesting, inhaling or touching affected soil at residential properties that contains contaminants of concern. Next steps Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will review all comments from the public. The Agency will respond to the comments and make those responses available in the final decision document. U.S. EPA could change its recommended cleanup plan based on public comments and its consultation with Illinois EPA. The Agency will announce its final cleanup plan in a local newspaper advertisement. Copies of the final plan will be available at the LaSalle Public Library, in the EPA Records Center in Chicago and for more information please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov. Some of the abandoned structures and debris remaining at the former zinc smelter.

1

Share your opinion EPA invites your comments on the proposed cleanup plan for the Matthiessen & Hegeler site.

The public comment period is Oct. 5 – Nov. 2. There are several ways to comment:

Orally or in writing at the public meeting.

Fill out and mail the enclosed comment form, or submit it at the meeting.

By fax to Teresa Jones at 312-692-2007

By email to Teresa Jones at jones.teresa@epa.gov

Read the proposed plan You may review the detailed cleanup plan at the information repository:

LaSalle Public Library, 305 Marquette St., LaSalle; U.S. EPA Record Center, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Floor, Chicago; or for more information please search for Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc online at www.epa.gov.

Public meeting EPA encourages you to attend the public meeting, Tuesday, Oct. 20, at 7 p.m. at LaSalle Peru Township High School, 541 Chartres St., LaSalle.

EPA will accept oral comments at the public meeting. A court reporter will record all oral comments.

See a list of EPA contacts on Page 3.

EPA Proposes Cleanup PlanAt Former Zinc Smelter

.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to clean up contaminated soil at the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc site and in the surrounding residential area. This soil is contaminated mostly with metals. U.S. EPA plans to dig up contaminated soil and put it into what EPA calls a “containment cell” on the former smelter site.

Complex sites like this one are often broken down into smaller manageable sections called operable units, or OUs. At this site, OU1 consists of the Carus Chemical Corp. and a large slag pile, while OU2 consists of the former Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. and the surrounding residential area. EPA has identified its recommended cleanup alternatives for each OU.1

Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will hold a public meeting and seek comments from the public (see box, left). The Agency, in consultation with the Illinois EPA, may select a different cleanup alternative based on public comments, so your opinion is important.

1Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA known as the Superfund law) requires publication of a notice and a proposed plan. It also requires a public comment period and the opportunity for a public meeting. This fact sheet summarizes the technical written proposed plan and other site-related environmental reports that can be viewed at the LaSalle Public Library, 305 Marquette St., LaSalle; and the U.S. EPA office in Chicago.

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site LaSalle, Illinois September 2015

A worker sprays water on a building to help reduce the dust from demolition at the Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc site.

MATTHIESSEN & HEGELER ZINC SITE: EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for Contaminated Soil

EPA Proposes Soil Cleanup Plan

for

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site LaSalle, Illinois (details inside)

Attend an information session and public meeting to find out more about the recommended cleanup plan and to provide your comments to EPA.

Tuesday, Oct. 20, 7 p.m. LaSalle Peru Township High School

541 Chartres St. LaSalle