*>EPA

United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan At Former
Zinc Smelter And Surrounding Homes

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site
LaSalle, Illinois

November 2015

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

The public comment period is Oct. 5 -
Dec. 12. 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
j one s .teresa@epa.gov

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

LaSalle Public Library, 305 Marquette
St., LaSalle; U.S. EPA Record Center,
77 W. Jackson Blvd., 7th Floor, Chicago;
or at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
matthie ssen-hegeler-zinc.

Public meeting

EPA encourages you to attend an open
house from 4 to 5:30 p.m. and a public
meeting at 7 p.m., Thursday, Dec. 3 at
LaSalle Peru Township High School
(Auditorium), 541 Chartres St., LaSalle.

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

See a list of EPA contacts on Page 3.

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

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. Under its proposed cleanup plan,
U.S. EPA plans to dig up contaminated soil and put it into what the federal
Agency 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 Cams
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

U.S. EPA picked its recommended cleanup plan from a number of alternatives
explained in this fact sheet. Before making a final decision, U.S. EPA will hold
a public meeting and seek comments from the public (see box, left). The
federal Agency, in consultation with the Illinois EPA, may select a different
cleanup alternative based on public comments, so your opinion is important.

Section 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.


-------
0U1 site characteristics

OUl 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.

OU2 site characteristics

OU2 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.

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 metal contamination, including arsenic and
lead. The NPL is a list of the nation's most hazardous waste
areas that are eligible for cleanup under the EPA Superfund
program.

Human health risks

To evaluate risks related to the site, samples are collected to
determine what contaminants are present. 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 wildlife 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 OUl, 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
QU1, 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.

2


-------
0U2 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.

EPA's recommended cleanup alternatives
QUI: Carus Plant Area

Alternative 6 — Soil Cover. Approximately 4,600 cubic
yards of contaminated soi l 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.

QUI: 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: included in Alternative 15 below.

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: $17.7 million.

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

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 online at http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/matthiessen-hegeler-zinc.

Contact EPA

For technical questions:

Demaree Collier
Remedial Project Manager
312-886-0214
collier.demaree@epa.gov

For health questions:

Keith Fusinski, Ph.D

Risk Assessor
312-886-4445
fusinski.keith gSSpa.gov

For general questions:

Teresa Jones

Community Involvement Coordinator

312-886-0725

jones.teresa a epa.gox

Call EPA toll-free 800-621-8431. 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., weekdays.

3


-------
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.

4


-------
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

O

O

O

Short-term Effectiveness

•

•

•

Implementability

•

•

•

Capital Cost

$1.67 million

$17.7 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

O

O

O

O

O

Short-term Effectiveness

•

•

•

•

®

Implementability

•

•

•

•

•

Capital Cost

$34.9 million

$19.6 million

$4 million

$4.5 million

$113 million

State Acceptance
Community Acceptance

These criteria will be evaluated after t

he public comment period.

• Fully meets criterion	® Partially meets criterion	O Does not meet criterion

5


-------
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:

QUI

Cams Plant Area and the Slag Pile Area: 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):

Some of the abandoned structures and debris remaining at the former zinc smelter.

Minimize or reduce the potential for someone to mgest,
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 federal 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 at www.epa.gov.

6


-------
Matthiessen and Hegeler
Zinc Company Site /

LaSalle. IL

SoQdlb

Basemaps source E*

Residential area surrounding the site showing homes where soil samples were taken.

1


-------
EPA Proposes Soil Cleanup Plan

for

Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Site
And Surrounding Residential Area
LaSalle, Illinois
(details inside)

Thursday, Dec. 3
Open House: 4 to 5:30 p.m.

Public Meeting: 7 to 9 p.m.

Public comment period October 5 to December 12

If you will need special accommodations at the meeting, contact Community Involvement

Coordinator Teresa Jones (see Page 5)

06SE-W9091I 'oBeomo
PAia uos>per M LL
(rz-is) uojSjAjQ punpadns
9 uo|60y

ge-9 on iiujjad

Vd3

pjBd saaj pue aBejsOci
MeiAl sseio jsjy

Aoua6v

uoipsjojd lejuaujuojiAug

sajeis psiiun

Vd3'
-------