Chemetco

Last updated
Chemetco Inc.
Company typePrivate
IndustryNon-ferrous metal recycling
Founded1972
Defunct2001
FateChapter 11 bankruptcy following felony criminal conviction under the Clean Water Act
HeadquartersHartford, Illinois, United States
Area served
United States
Key people
  • John M. Suarez, described in Illinois Pollution Control Board testimony as company owner in 1993 and listed as president in EPA PRP records and FEC filings [1] [2] [3]
  • Denis L. Feron, former executive (named in 1999 federal indictment) [4]
ProductsCopper anodes and cathodes

Chemetco was primarily a major U.S. secondary copper smelter in Hartford, Illinois, but gained public prominence after its closure for its long-term environmental violations. The plant had begun operation in 1969. Discovery in 1996 of a concealed pipe discharging heavy metals and waste into a waterway for over a decade led to its prosecution and a guilty verdict on felony Clean Water Act charges, after which it ceased operations in 2001. [5] [6] [7]

Contents

The case became a landmark in environmental criminal law, as the Seventh Circuit's ruling in United States v. Chemetco, Inc. established that the number of violation days under the Clean Water Act is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a fact for a jury. [7]

Its former site remains a Superfund cleanup project under long-term remediation managed by the U.S. EPA, with efforts targeting contaminated soils, slag piles, risks to groundwater, and residual hazardous waste. It is also the focus of litigation involving hundreds of potentially responsible parties, including many Fortune 500 companies. [5]

In a separate case, the Federal Election Commission cited Chemetco, Inc. and its owner John M. Suarez for unlawfully channeling corporate funds into political donations. According to the agency’s General Counsel’s Report in Matter Under Review (MUR) 3541, the contributions were described as 'clearly laundered money' [8]

Federal investigations by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found extensive worker exposure at the Chemetco smelter to toxic metals and sulfuric acid mist, including confirmed cases of chronic beryllium disease and widespread lead overexposure. These findings later became part of the broader assessment of Chemetco's systemic pollution and safety failures.

Chemetco's environmental violations not only affected air, water and land, but were also enmeshed with managing by-products. Chemetco’s attempts to market its scrubber residue as a commercial product were later rejected by regulators, who classified it as hazardous waste due to its excessive lead, cadmium, and copper content. Damaging effects of its operation on marine and human life have been tracked to vulnerable communities many thousands of miles away. Modeling dentified Chemetco as one of the top individual North American dioxin sources impacting Nunavut in the Canadian Arctic, where airborne pollutants entered marine food webs and raised ecological and human health concerns. [9]

The significance and manner of Chemetco's closure remain topical in industry circles. [10] The case has ever since been cited in environmental, legal, and public health literature as a prime example of large-scale industrial pollution in the United States. [11] Recent geochemical studies have traced copper, lead, and zinc contamination in nearby Horseshoe Lake directly to the smelter's period of operation, confirming the facility's long-term influence on the regional watershed. [12] [13] Research in the field of environmental justice identifies Chemetco among the industrial sites contributing to disproportionate risks in the greater St. Louis area. [14]

At the time of its October 2000 sentencing, the plant employed about 157 workers. [15] Reported annual revenues were about $500 million in 1999. [16]

Location, history and operations

38°50′06″N90°05′42″W / 38.83500°N 90.09500°W / 38.83500; -90.09500 (Chemetco)

Chemetco Superfund site Chemetco, Hartford, IL, site & surroundings.png
Chemetco Superfund site

Location

The Chemetco smelter was in Hartford, Illinois, one mile east of the Mississippi River, within Madison County's American Bottom floodplain. The facility occupied roughly 41 acres of a 230-acre tract.

History

Construction of the plant, originally with the name Chemico, began in 1969. Three 70-ton gas-fired converters were installed, and a fourth later. For each converter, there was also a melting furnace.

The business was incorporated as a Delaware company and renamed Chemetco, Inc. in 1972. [17] Corporate records indicate that Chemetco underwent a change in ownership during the early 1990s. In testimony before the Illinois Pollution Control Board, Chemetco president David Hoff stated that John M. Suarez purchased Chemetco in 1993. [18]

EPA records also list Suarez as president and as the company contact in Potentially Responsible Party documentation for the Chemetco Superfund Site. [19]

John M. Suarez, listed as Chemetco’s president and owner in federal and state records, acquired the company in 1993. [20]

In addition to environmental violations, Chemetco, Inc.,and its owner John M. Suarez were named respondents in a Federal Election Commission investigation for unlawful campaign contributions. In Matter Under Review (MUR) 3541, the FEC’s General Counsel’s Report found that corporate funds from Chemetco and related entities were routed through individuals to make political donations in violation of federal election law (2 U.S.C. § 441f, now 52 U.S.C. § 30122). The report described the contributions as 'clearly laundered money. [21]

John Suarez was not among the individuals charged when the company and several employees were indicted in 1999 for Clean Water Act violations. [22]

Chemetco's role in U.S. Secondary copper industry collapse

The permanent closure of Chemetco's Hartford facility in 2001 signaled the end of large-scale secondary copper smelting in the United States. The company ceased operations on October 31, 2001, following criminal convictions for environmental violations and mounting financial pressures, and Chemetco then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on November 13, 2001. [23] [24] The plant had an output of 95,000 metric tons and was operating at roughly 30% below capacity before closure.

Secondary smelters operated by Southwire in Georgia and South Carolina, as well as Cerro Copper Products' facility in Sauget, Illinois, had already shut down. [25] [26] Between 1997 and 2001, when Chemetco closed down, approximately 200,000 metric tons of secondary refining capability was effaced. Refined secondary copper output in the United States fell to zero. [27]

Chemetco's exit from the market was the final point in a cycle of closures mediated by market pressures and the substantial capital investments required to meet evolving environmental standards that operators found economically unviable. [28]

Operation

Main products

Entrance to the Chemetco site, where truckloads of copper-bearing materials arrived from industrial customers. Chemetco site entrance.jpg
Entrance to the Chemetco site, where truckloads of copper-bearing materials arrived from industrial customers.

Chemetco was primarily a secondary smelter of copper anodes and cathodes. Its peak historic capacity was about 125,000 tonnes of refined copper annually, from an average of 250,000 tonnes of scrap copper and residues.

Subsidiary products and precious metals

The smelter also produced lead and tin ingots. [29] [30] Independent evaluations of the tankhouse sludges confirmed gold, silver, and other metals. [31]

Feedstock and input materials

From the receiving yard, Chemetco's furnaces were charged with a wide spectrum of feed materials, with an average copper recovery of about 50%. The facility had the facility to recover copper from materials containing very low copper content.

Map showing layout of Chemetco site and nearby facilities. Chemetco drawing map.png
Map showing layout of Chemetco site and nearby facilities.

Smelting and refining

Chemetco Metallo-Chimique Kaldo converters after disassembly Chemetco Metallo-Chimique Kaldo converters after disassembly.jpg
Chemetco Metallo-Chimique Kaldo converters after disassembly

Material from the furnaces was first smelted into ‘black copper,’ a product containing around 70 per cent copper. This was then refined using oxygen in top-blown rotary converters (TBRC), also known as 'Kaldo' converters, and the slag, containing lead, tin and zinc, was poured off.

Tankhouse and electrolytic refining

These anodes had two possible pathways. They could be further refined in Chemetco's own tankhouse into copper cathodes of 99.99 per cent purity. Impurities as well as precious metal content dropped out as sludge during this process.

Introduction of Kaldo /Top-blown rotary converter (TBRc) technology to secondary copper smelting


While the Kaldo/TBRC principle was already well known, Chemetco appears to mark the first large-scale, continuous application of it in secondary copper refining. Comparable trials were underway elsewhere in Europe, notably at Boliden’s Rönnskär smelter in Sweden and at Norddeutsche Affinerie in Hamburg, Germany, but parent company Metallo’s implementation was one of the earliest and most fully developed examples. [32] [33]

Chemetco slag pot manufactured by MECO (Mechanical Equipment Company, USA) for collecting and cooling molten metal residues from copper smelting operations. Chemetco slag pot.png
Chemetco slag pot manufactured by MECO (Mechanical Equipment Company, USA) for collecting and cooling molten metal residues from copper smelting operations.

Competitors

Secondary copper smelting competitors

During Chemetco’s operating years (1970–2001), direct competitors in the United States secondary copper smelting market included Cerro Copper Products, Franklin Smelting and Southwire. [34]

Noranda (Canada)

Chemetco’s primary North American rival was Noranda’s Horne Smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec.

Characterization of by-products

Slag pile visible from outside Chemetco site. Image taken January 2005. Chemetco slagpile.jpg
Slag pile visible from outside Chemetco site. Image taken January 2005.

Chemetco operated under state and federal environmental regulations that governed the handling of secondary materials and industrial residues. In a significant hearing in front of the Illinois Pollution Control Board (PCB) the company petitioned for an 'amended standard' that would allow it to slurry its bunker material, which it described as 'zinc oxide,' then blend it with copper and tin fines before shipment overseas. [35] Chemetco presented this process as a means of recovering metal value from material it characterized as a product.

The PCB reviewed the proposal, took comments from regulators and nearby landowners, and ultimately denied the petition for an amended standard. [35] The decision left the bunker material subject to existing waste management requirements rather than reclassification as a recoverable product. The case illustrates how Chemetco's operational approach to by-product recovery was tested and limited within the regulatory framework that governed its activities.

Analysis of what Chemetco described as 'zinc oxide' by-product

Laboratory analyses by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the material referred to by Chemetco as 'zinc oxide' was not a product at all. Rather, it was a hazardous by-product containing extremely high concentrations of lead, cadmium, and copper, along with trace elements such as antimony, cobalt, nickel, and mercury. [36]

EPA laboratory testing found that Chemetco's by-product failed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) standards for lead and cadmium, classifying it as hazardous waste under federal regulations. [36] The agency's analyses concluded that the material posed significant risks due to toxicity as well as its potential for leaching.

EPA-confirmed metal and metalloid content

Metal / ElementConcentration rangeNotes
Lead (Pb)29,400–152,000 mg/kg (2.94–15.2% w/w)Exceeds TCLP limits
Cadmium (Cd)793–5,350 mg/kg (0.08–0.53% w/w)Exceeds TCLP limits
Zinc (Zn)30–60% by massMajor component
Copper (Cu)Variable, often >0.1–2%Elevated across batches
Minor/traceAntimony, cobalt, iron, nickel, mercury, silver, sodium, berylliumDetected in multiple samples
Dioxins/furansDetected in some batchesLinked to feedstock composition

All samples analyzed failed EPA regulatory thresholds for lead and cadmium. [36]

Comparison with pure zinc oxide

CharacteristicPure zinc oxide (industrial/USP grade)Chemetco by-product "zinc oxide"
Zinc (Zn)>99% (as ZnO)30–60% by mass
Lead (Pb)<2 mg/kg (≤0.0002% w/w)29,400–152,000 mg/kg (2.94–15.2% w/w)
Cadmium (Cd)<1 mg/kg (≤0.0001% w/w)793–5,350 mg/kg (0.08–0.53% w/w)
Copper (Cu)<10 mg/kgOften >0.1–2% by weight
Other metals<10 mg/kg eachAntimony, iron, cobalt, nickel, mercury, etc.
Organics (dioxins)NoneDetected in some samples
UsageRubber, ceramics, pharmaceuticals, foodNot suitable for commercial use
Hazard statusNon-hazardousFails EPA hazardous waste limits (TCLP)

EPA's characterization established that Chemetco's 'zinc oxide' could not be marketed or exported as a recyclable product and instead required management as hazardous waste. [36] This distinction underscored the difference between genuine industrial zinc oxide and the metal-rich residues generated by Chemetco's refining operations.

The unusable waste generated by Chemetco accumulated in a massive pile in one corner of the site for decades. It is visible in the aerial photograph and tagged by U.S govt. [See photo above.]

Logistics and transportation

Chemetco land showing proximity to highways and railhead. Chemetco estate map.jpg
Chemetco land showing proximity to highways and railhead.

A railhead adjoining the site connected Chemetco directly into national freight networks. Semi-trailers also delivered raw material and shipped out finished product.

Supply network and warehouse affiliates

Chemetco was associated with a network of warehouses around the United States, whose function was to buy consignments of scrap locally, aggregate it, and then send it Chemetco. [37] Concorde Trading Company was a principal trading affiliate and numerous Concorde-branded sites are characterized in court filings as affiliated suppliers. Related company Tri-Me Trading company handled logistics, sorting, and haulage of scrap.

These firms were jointly owned by John M. Suarez and Bill Wegrzyn, who were associated with Chemetco’s management during the late 1980s.

Occupational health hazards

Systemic occupational health deficiencies

The findings of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation showed profound and systemic failures in occupational health protection at Chemetco. Documented overexposures to arsenic, lead, and sulfuric acid, combined with contamination of eating areas, demonstrated that the facility lacked effective exposure controls and hygiene measures. [38]

NIOSH concluded that worker exposures exceeded recognized safety limits for multiple hazardous substances, resulting in adverse health effects including respiratory irritation, skin damage, beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium disease and elevated blood lead levels. These findings indicated that Chemetco fell very short of fundamental occupational health and safety standards. [38]

Chronic beryllium disease

NIOSH investigators confirmed one case of chronic beryllium disease in a 31-year-old furnace operator who had worked at the plant for two and a half years. The worker was diagnosed with chronic berylliosis requiring lifelong steroid treatment. [39]

The affected worker was found to be charging small quantities of metal scrap into a sample furnace without respiratory protection, and further, his job classification did not require such equipment. NIOSH found that historical beryllium concentrations at the facility exceeded recommended occupational limits, with 17 percent of company air samples from 1981 above NIOSH exposure standards. [39]

Chemetco occupational lead exposure levels visualized Chemetco occupational lead exposure levels visualized.png
Chemetco occupational lead exposure levels visualized

Lead and other exposure hazards

NIOSH reported widespread exposure hazards across plant operations. Personal air monitoring detected lead concentrations were described by NIOSH as potentially toxic. [39] NIOSH also noted that production areas lacked exhaust ventilation and that workers performing charging, sampling and scrap handling often did not use respiratory protection. Dust and metal fumes were identified as consistent exposure sources throughout smelting and refining operations. [39]

NIOSH identified additional exposure hazards involving arsenic, lead contamination in eating areas, and sulfuric acid mist in the electrolytic tankhouse. [40]

Arsenic exposure and health impact on workers

Arsenic contamination originated from the metallic feedstocks processed through Chemetco’s secondary copper smelting operation. Copper-bearing alloys commonly contained arsenic as an impurity. During high-temperature smelting, arsenic trioxide was formed, then became volatile and concentrated in flue dust, creating multiple exposure pathways throughout the facility. [38]

Personal air monitoring by NIOSH recorded personal overexposure to arsenic across several job categories, indicating that arsenic exposure was not confined to specific work areas but represented a facility-wide occupational hazard. [38]

Epidemiological studies of copper smelter workers establish arsenic as a carcinogenic hazard in copper smelting operations. [38]

Exposure at Chemetco occurred primarily through the inhalation of dusts and vapors generated during furnace charging and smelting. Workers in furnace operations, material handling and maintenance experienced the highest risks. [38]

Contamination of eating areas

The NIOSH evaluation found evidence of contamination extending into non-production areas, including locations used for food and beverage consumption. [38]

Surface sampling indicated a secondary exposure pathway through ingestion, as workers could transfer contaminated material from surfaces to their hands and mouths. [38]

The presence of contamination in administrative areas suggested broader facility contamination. NIOSH concluded that if eating areas showed measurable levels of heavy metals, production areas, worker clothing, and protective equipment likely carried substantially higher contamination loads. [38]

Adverse health affects on Chemetco's tankhouse workers

The tankhouse operation, where copper anodes underwent electrolytic refining to produce high-purity cathodes, presented additional hazards from sulfuric acid mist generated during electrowinning. [38]

NIOSH medical examinations documented respiratory and skin effects among all seven tankhouse employees evaluated and found each worker reported nasal irritation and symptoms including sore throat and burning eyes. Fissuring of the skin on the hands was also common, and was caused by contact with acid-contaminated surfaces and airborne mist. [38]

NIOSH classified sulfuric acid mist as a confirmed human carcinogen and noted that even low-level chronic exposure could contribute to elevated risks for laryngeal and lung cancer. The consistent presence of respiratory and skin irritation among tankhouse workers suggested that long-term employment under such conditions could lead to progressive health deterioration. [38]

Labor relations

In 1996, Geri Heinemeier (née Champion) filed a lawsuit against two companies, Chemetco, Inc. and Tri-Me Transportation, Inc., claiming she was sexually harassed, discriminated against because of her age, and fired in retaliation after reporting the harassment. [41]

Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc. (246 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 2001)) was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concerning joint-employer liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court held that factual disputes about shared control of employment conditions prevented summary judgment. Instead, they required a jury to decide whether both companies concerned functioned as the plaintiff’s employers. [42]

Before the case went to trial, the district court had ruled in favor of Chemetco, deciding that it could not be held responsible because Heinemeier was legally employed by Tri-Me, not by Chemetco. The rest of the case continued against Tri-Me alone, and a jury found in Heinemeier’s favor. She was awarded about $411,000 in damages for sexual harassment and in retaliation. [43]

Heinemeier then appealed the ruling that had originally dismissed Chemetco from the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with her, finding that there was enough evidence for a jury to decide whether Chemetco and Tri-Me both acted as her employers. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings. [44]

The appellate court explained that a company can be treated as an employer even if it does not issue paychecks, if it shares control over pay, benefits, or working conditions. It found that Chemetco and Tri-Me were closely connected in their operations, and that a jury could reasonably find that both companies employed Heinemeier under the 'economic reality' test used in employment discrimination cases. [45]

Environmental problems

Long before an illegal waste pipe was uncovered, Chemetco already had a thick compliance file. EPA and IEPA documents describe repeated violations through the 1980s and early 1990s. One EPA briefing put it plainly: “... a long history of criminal and civil environmental noncompliance.” [46] [47]

Water

Long Lake, a tributary of the Mississippi River, where deep heavy-metal contaminated sludge from Chemetco's unpermitted and illegal pipe accumulated for ten years. LongLakeJan2003OriginalPhotoAstralHighway.jpg
Long Lake, a tributary of the Mississippi River, where deep heavy-metal contaminated sludge from Chemetco's unpermitted and illegal pipe accumulated for ten years.

Acting on an anonymous tip-off from a security guard, on 18 September, 1996, an Illinois EPA inspector found a concealed 10-inch pipe with water bubbling up from it in a ditch near the truck parking lot. [48] EPA and IEPA came to the conclusion that it had been in use since the mid-1980s to carry process water and metal-laden runoff into Long Lake, which drains toward the Mississippi River. [49] Under the Clean Water Act, it is a felony to pollute a navigable waterway. After the plant's closure, Hazmat-protected environmental investigators found long-term releases of copper, lead, cadmium, zinc and other contaminants extending to great depth in soils as well as in surface waters. [50]

Samples taken at multiple sites showed cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc and many other metals of concern at highly elevated levels. Investigators and prosecutors concluded that the pipe had been used to dispose of the accumulating piles of ‘zinc oxide’, which had been debarred from being sold as a recyclable material and instead, tagged as a hazardous waste. [51] [52]

After the site was impounded and detailed risk assessment had taken place, it was shown in a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) document that the site's surface-water pathway scored highly based. It was found that runoff from waste units migrated miles downstream. [53]

The score was focussed on observed releases to Long Lake; however, records show that the Cahokia Diversion Channel, a canal, was within the same drainage system. A watershed plan for the American Bottom later listed the Chemetco site among Superfund sources within the Cahokia Creek (Cahokia Canal) basin. [53] [54]

Pre-1996 violations

EPA and IEPA records describe a pattern of violations stretching back way before the 1996 discovery. Superfund briefings note a “....long history of criminal and civil environmental noncompliance” at the site. [46] [47] IEPA preliminary and expanded site inspection work put together a history of multiple violations from the 1980s onward. A DOJ notice shows that a Clean Air Act civil case was lodged in 1999. [55]

Air

The state of Illinois entered into a consent order with Chemetco in 1988, then again in 1993. This set objectives for compliance with national ambient air quality standards for lead, particulate limits, and permit conditions. [56] These were ignored. The plant operated without a permit for its entire history.

IEPA later documented violations of the Illinois primary lead standard in 1997 and again from 1998 through 2001. [57]

In November 1999, the United States lodged a Clean Air Act consent decree requiring Chemetco to pay a civil penalty and undertake 'injunctive measures.' These included a requirement to install a Continuous Particulate Mass Monitor system (CPMS). [55] The company did not do so. [46]

A local resident testified in 1997 how acid mist and 'blue smoke' episodes from the tankhouse affected the air quality at her home and farm. [51] Industrial-hygiene investigators in the early 1980s documented respiratory and skin irritation among tankhouse workers. These symptoms were found to be best explained by exposure to sulfuric acid fumes. [58]

Long-range dioxin and furans deposition to Nunavut [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation study, led by Barry Commoner and others in 2000, modeled emissions from more than 44,000 North American dioxin sources, including over 5,000 individual facilities such as smelters and incinerators. Within that large inventory, Chemetco ranked among the highest single contributors to measured deposition at two Arctic receptor sites. The study’s chemical fingerprinting and atmospheric transport analysis demonstrated that dioxins emitted by Chemetco were deposited at Coral Harbour and Sanikiluaq, Nunavut. Chemetco’s emissions accounted for about three to four percent of total dioxin deposition recorded at those locations, which is a substantial share given the number of sources evaluated.

In the model, the ten largest individual sources together accounted for 18–26 % of total deposition, meaning that Chemetco’s 3-4 %share placed it within that top group. This is roughly two hundred times higher than the mean contribution per facility.

Dioxin deposition from Chemetco (Nunavut receptors, 1996–97) [64]
MetricValue
Number of North American dioxin sources in model44,091
Number of individual facilities (point sources)5,343
Total deposition (Coral Harbour, NU)19.24 pg TEQ m⁻²
Chemetco’s contribution at Coral Harbour0.69 pg TEQ m⁻² (3.6 %)
Total deposition (Sanikiluaq, NU)53.47 pg TEQ m⁻²
Chemetco’s contribution at Sanikiluaq1.74 pg TEQ m⁻² (3.3 %)
Highest ten sources share range (all receptors)18 – 26 %
*Values from Tables 5.2 and 5.3 of Commoner et al. (2004). TEQ = toxic equivalent.*

This finding is consistent with the Chemetco's admission that it used low grade materials to charge its furnaces, and inspection of inventories shows material such as insulated wire and computer scrap being charged into the furnaces in quantity. [65]

Dioxin contamination on site from incinerator ashes

Chemetco was recognised as a potential dioxin site as early as 1987. Records show that Chemetco intentionally charged its furnaces with large quantities of incinerator ash from one supplier over a period of time. This was the by-product of burning PVC-covered electrical wire to reveal the bare copper beneath, and a very concentrated source of dioxins and furans. The practice drew attention to the fact that Chemetco was capable of putting material with no copper content whatsoever into its furnaces for commercial reasons. A contemporaneous report noted how dioxin and furans would end up in flue gases emitted by the plant, and from there to be concentrated in scrubber sludge, where it could again be redistributed on land.

Land and soil

The Federal EPA points out the existence of a large iron-silicate slag pile and stockpiles of ‘zinc oxide’ scrubber sludge generated over decades by the flue-gas cleaning system. These materials contain lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc and contribute to runoff and soil contamination. [50] EPA estimated about 452,000 cubic yards of slag and 62,000 cubic yards of scrubber sludge present at the site. [53] An inspector described the slag heap as a 'monumental pile of hazardous waste' and it became known within the IEPA as ‘Mount Slagmore.’ [46]

In 1997, Chemetco petitioned the Illinois Pollution Control Board to treat the 'zinc oxide' bunker as recyclable feedstock rather than solid waste. The Board's order described the material's origin in the scrubber system, noted its significant lead and copper content, and rejected Chemetco's request, leaving the stockpile regulated as waste. [51] Chemetco had by this time discharged huge quantities of the material into Long Lake and surrounding wetlands. As noted, this created a sludge metres deep. [50]

Practices leading to the discovery of dioxin on the site have been noted in the previous section and led to alarm by the authorities and detailed investigation of the risk to human health in the vicinity.

Impact and legacy

Geochemical research has examined the broader consequences of Chemetco's operations in the St. Louis–Madison County region. [66] There has also been academic study in the field of environmental justice. [66]

Environmental injustice impacts in St Louis Metropolitan area

On a metropolitan scale, Chemetco appeared among facilities analyzed in studies of environmental risk and inequality in the St. Louis region. Those analyses used U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory data to map industrial emissions and found that such facilities were concentrated near lower-income communities, raising environmental-justice concerns. [66] [67] [68]

The spatial analysis conducted by Abel (2008) identified Chemetco's Hartford smelter among the region's major industrial point sources in the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory dataset. In that study, 319 manufacturing sites were evaluated for potential air-pollution exposure risk, and Chemetco appeared within the upper tier of modeled emissions for the St. Louis metropolitan area. [67]

Together, these metropolitan-scale assessments and later geochemical investigations illustrate how the effects of Chemetco's operations extended from the regional level, through patterns of industrial inequality, right down to measurable ecological impacts in local waterways.

Chemetco fingerprinted in back-trajectories of heavy metals

Scientists have described aspects of Chemetco's environmental legacy in Madison County, particularly at Horseshoe Lake, through rigorous geochemical methods. [69] These have allowed researchers to trace back-trajectories of heavy metal contamination pointing directly to the smelter. [70]

Horseshoe Lake

Horseshoe lake, an oxbow feature of great ecological significance and a National Natural landmark, functions as a recreational and educational resource for the St. Louis metropolitan region, from where it attracts anglers and bird-watchers.

The lake's proximity to industrial zones and its role as a receiving body for urban and industrial runoff have made it a key site for environmental monitoring and geochemical study assessing heavy-metal contamination across the lower American Bottom region. [70] and field researchers from regional universities. [71]

A direct quotation affirms how: [70]

'...Isotope ratios in...post-1970 sediment layers clearly indicate a signature consistent with modern copper smelting and not with prehistoric metallurgy, providing compelling evidence for the attribution of contamination to the Chemetco facility.

Robust geochemical methods provide clear scientific attribution connecting Chemetco's operational period and emissions to the persistent heavy-metal contamination observed throughout the Horseshoe Lake watershed.

See also section on impact of airborne Dioxin reaching vulnerable receptor communities in Nunavut

Prosecution and conviction

Discovery of the concealed discharge

Between 1986 and 1996 Chemetco operated a secondary copper refining facility at Hartford, Illinois, which was later found to have discharged untreated wastewater through a hidden pipe into wetlands leading to the Mississippi River. [72] The pipe was not shown on site diagrams and its exposed sections were covered with straw, but after a tip-off, it was discovered by an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency field manager on September 18, 1996, along with a valve which enabled it to be shut off at the distal end. Its existence had allowed the plant to bypass permitted outfalls and monitoring systems for about a decade, resulting in unreported releases of heavy metals including lead and cadmium. [73]

Charges, plea, and sentencing

Chemetco, its president and several employees were indicted for conspiracy, knowing violations of the Clean Water Act and making false statements to federal officials. [74] The company pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate and knowingly violating the Act, and entered a plea of nolo contendere to making false statements, admitting that the concealed pipe had been used during the charged period. [75]

On appeal, Chemetco argued that the number of violation days, which determined the magnitude of the fine, should have been found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). [76] The Seventh Circuit held that the number of days was a sentencing factor, not an element of the offense, and therefore could be decided by the judge on a preponderance of the evidence. [76] The ruling affirmed Chemetco's sentence and established a binding precedent within the Seventh Circuit on the treatment of per-day penalties under the Clean Water Act. Subsequent legal analyses have cited the case as a leading authority in environmental criminal law and sentencing. [77]

The decision clarified that where a statute imposes penalties 'per day of violation,' without setting an upper statutory maximum, district courts may determine duration and corresponding fines judicially, even when the financial range in dispute is extensive. [76]

The company's criminal conviction and subsequent bankruptcy left the Hartford site abandoned, leading to its eventual designation and management under federal oversight. [78]

Denis L. Feron

Denis L. Feron was a billionaire Belgian industrialist and served for several decades as Chemetco's president. Before establishing the Hartford plant in 1970, Feron owned Metallo Chimique in Belgium. It was under his direction that Chemetco expanded to become one of the largest secondary copper producers in North America.

In April 1999, Feron and six junior employees acting under his direction were indicted on federal charges for long-term violations of the Clean Water Act. These centered on the concealed pipeline that discharged contaminated wastewater into wetlands near the Mississippi River. [79] Feron did not appear in court and left the United States, remaining abroad during the ensuing proceedings. Because there was no extradition agreement with Belgium, he was at liberty to escape trial.

In December 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation Division placed him on its 'Most Wanted' fugitives list, describing him as a corporate officer who had evaded prosecution for nearly a decade. [80]

Feron voluntarily returned in 2010 and entered a pretrial diversion agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. As part of the settlement he paid US$500,000 in restitution toward site cleanup. Once payment was completed, the charges against him were dismissed. [81] [82]

Former TBRC units after removal at the Chemetco site. U.S. EPA photograph. Chemetco Metallo-Chimique Kaldo converters after disassembly.jpg
Former TBRC units after removal at the Chemetco site. U.S. EPA photograph.

Superfund

Chemetco-signs-wikipedia.jpg

The former Chemetco facility was added to the EPA's National Priorities List on March 2, 2010. [83] The listing made the site eligible for long-term cleanup under the federal Superfund program.

Following the company’s bankruptcy in 2001, there was no viable owner to carry out cleanup. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) conducted early stabilization work, including demolition of several structures and fencing off the main industrial area. [84] A 2015 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) established the framework for a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to define the contamination and evaluate cleanup options. [85]

The site remains under EPA oversight with restricted access. It still contains large amounts of waste material, including slag and residues from copper smelting operations. [84] Elevated levels of copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc are present in soil, sediment and water on and near the site. [84]

Since the site was tagged for Superfund remedy, large volumes of metal-bearing material have been processed and removed under EPA and trustee supervision. This included recovery and sale of copper-rich slag and other residues for recycling. [84] In February 2018, the Chemetco Site PRP Group filed what is described as a 'contribution complaint' in the United States District Court (Chemetco Site PRP Group v. A Square Systems, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00179). The group was made up of companies that had earlier entered into a settlement with the EPA to contribute to site cleanup. [86] The complaint named more than 300 firms shown to have supplied copper-bearing scrap or waste between 1969 and 2001. The PRP Group sought to recover part of its contribution and to share liability for future cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The defendants ranged from small regional scrapyards to Fortune 500 multinational corporations. The litigation is notable for its scale, involving hundreds of defendants across multiple industries.

References

  1. ↑ Illinois Pollution Control Board, [insert docket], testimony of Dave Hoff, transcript p. [page]. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  2. ↑ EPA PRP Contact List, semspub.epa.gov. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  3. ↑ Federal Election Commission, MUR 3541 docket, FEC.gov. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  4. ↑ EPA press release, “Federal agencies charge Chemetco with environmental crimes,” 4 Aug 1999. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  5. 1 2 "EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Chemetco Site". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  6. ↑ "Chemetco, Inc. Pleads Guilty to Clean Water Act Violations". U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  7. 1 2 F.3d(7th Cir.2001).
  8. ↑ "Matter Under Review 3541 (Chemetco, Inc.; John M. Suarez; Concorde Trading Company)" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. p. 12. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  9. ↑ Commoner, Barry; Woods Bartlett, Patricia; Eisl, Helga; Couchot, Kimberly (2000). Long-range air transport of dioxin from North American sources to ecologically vulnerable receptors in Nunavut, Arctic Canada (Report). Center for Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, CUNY.
  10. ↑ Brose, D.A. (2002). "Interpreting the Criminal Sentencing Provisions of the Clean Water Act: Lessening the Government's Burden of Proof at the Cost of Constitutional Rights". Michigan Environmental & Land Use Review. 10 (1): 85–110.
  11. ↑ Church, S.E.; Fey, D.L.; Unruh, D.M. (1995). Geochemical and lead-isotopic studies of stream and river sediments, Animas River watershed, Colorado (Report). U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report.
  12. ↑ Pompeani, D.P.; Abbott, M.B.; Steinman, B.A.; Bain, D.J. (2013). "Lake sediments record prehistoric lead pollution related to early copper production in North America". Environmental Science & Technology. 47 (11): 5545–5552.
  13. ↑ Brugam, R.; McFarland, B.; Kolata, D.; Lemke, L.; Hwang, Y.H.; Sherwood, D. (2003). "The sedimentary record of environmental contamination in Horseshoe Lake, Madison County, Illinois, USA". Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 96 (3): 205–220.
  14. ↑ Abel, T.D. (2008). "Skewed riskscapes and environmental injustice: a case study of metropolitan St. Louis". Environmental Management. 42 (2): 232–248.
  15. ↑ Shaw, Michael (31 October 2000). "Chemetco is fined $3.8 million in pollution case". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 10 October 2025– via WaterWorld.
  16. ↑ "Pending court order will signal green light for Chemetco project to begin reclaiming metals". Illinois Business Journal. 2 July 2013. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  17. ↑ "Chemetco, Inc. Entity File No. 080387". Delaware Division of Corporations. 25 February 1972.
  18. ↑ "Petition of Chemetco, Inc. for an Adjusted Standard". Illinois Pollution Control Board. 26 August 1997. Retrieved 10 October 2025. Q. What position do you currently hold with Chemetco? A. President. … [Hoff testimony includes the ownership history and purchase by John M. Suarez in 1993.]
  19. ↑ "Chemetco Superfund Site Administrative Record: PRP Correspondence" (PDF). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. 1996–2001.
  20. ↑ "Chemetco". Wikipedia. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  21. ↑ "Matter Under Review 3541 (Chemetco, Inc.; John M. Suarez; Concorde Trading Company)" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. p. 12. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  22. ↑ "Illinois Company, Officials Indicted for Environmental Crimes" (Press release). U.S. Department of Justice. 21 September 1999.
  23. ↑ "Bankruptcy". Chemetco Estate. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  24. ↑ "Settlement reached at the Chemetco Superfund Site". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 24 August 2025. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  25. ↑ "History". Southwire Company. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  26. ↑ "Facility Details for Cerro Copper Products Co". Illinois State Fire Marshal. 4 August 1996. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  27. ↑ The U.S. Copper-base Scrap Industry and Its By-products (PDF) (Report). Mitchell Williams Law. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  28. ↑ 2013 Technical Report (PDF) (Report). Copper Development Association. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  29. ↑ Used Equipment Chemetco Estate. https://www.chemetcoestate.com/html/used_equipment.html. Chemetco Estate. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  30. ↑ Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Chemetco, Inc.. https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12045. Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1 May 1997. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  31. ↑ ASM International / Metallurgical Society. Extractive Metallurgy of Copper. 2013. Covers copper anode (98–99% Cu) and cathode (99.9–99.99% Cu) production, refining process, solder, zinc oxide, zinc sulfate, and tankhouse sludges containing precious metals. Supported by EPA Chemetco Superfund Report. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  32. ↑ Ericsson, M. (1974). “Kaldo and TBRC Use at Rönnskär Smelter.” Scandinavian Journal of Metallurgy, 3(2): 65–72. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  33. ↑ Müller, K. and Pötschke, H. (1978). “Top-Blown Rotary Converter Operation in Copper Refining at Norddeutsche Affinerie.” Metall, 32(10): 948–953. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  34. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42 Section 12.9: Secondary Copper Smelting, background technical support document, 1998. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  35. 1 2 Illinois Pollution Control Board Opinion and Order, Chemetco, Inc. (AS 96-4). https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12078. Illinois Pollution Control Board. 1996. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  36. 1 2 3 4 Site Profile - Chemetco Superfund Site Removal Action - EPA OSC Response. https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=8994. response.epa.gov. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  37. ↑ Illinois Pollution Control Board. Hearing Testimony, In the Matter of Chemetco, Inc., 1992. . Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  38. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 82-024-1428, Chemetco, Inc., Hartford, Illinois (PDF) (Report). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. March 1984. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  39. 1 2 3 4 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 82-024-1428, Chemetco, Inc., Hartford, Illinois." March 1984. CDC.gov. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  40. ↑ Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 82-024-1428, Chemetco, Inc., Hartford, Illinois (PDF) (Report). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. March 1984. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  41. ↑ Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc.,F.3d(United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApril 18, 2001).
  42. ↑ Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc., F.3d (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApril 18, 2001).
  43. ↑ Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc.,F.3d(United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApril 18, 2001).
  44. ↑ Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc.,F.3d(United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApril 18, 2001).
  45. ↑ Heinemeier v. Chemetco, Inc.,F.3d(United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitApril 18, 2001).
  46. 1 2 3 4 Chemetco PRP Information Briefing. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/913463.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. 2013. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  47. 1 2 Expanded Site Inspection Report: Chemetco Site, Madison County, Illinois. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/913462.pdf. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  48. ↑ Case Summary: Settlement Reached at the Chemetco Superfund Site. https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-settlement-reached-chemetco-superfund-site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  49. ↑ United States v. Chemetco, Inc.. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/274/1154/475028/. 2001. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  50. 1 2 3 Removal Site Evaluation Report, Chemetco Site. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/914220.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  51. 1 2 3 In the Matter of Chemetco, Inc. (Petition for Determination of Non-Waste Status). https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-3632/S97002A.PDF. Illinois Pollution Control Board. Dec 1997. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  52. ↑ Chemetco, Inc. Pleads Guilty to Clean Water Act Violations. https://www.justice.gov/archive/enrd/pressroom/pressreleases/2001/Chemetco.html. U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  53. 1 2 3 Hazard Ranking System Documentation Record for Chemetco Site. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/633071.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  54. ↑ Watershed Plan for the American Bottoms. https://www2.illinois.gov/epa/Documents/iepa/water-quality/watershed-management/tmdls/american-bottoms/ab-watershed-plan.pdf. Illinois EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  55. 1 2 Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree under the Clean Air Act. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-11-02/pdf/99-28558.pdf. Federal Register. Department of Justice. Nov 2, 1999. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  56. ↑ Supplemental Consent Order, Chemetco, Inc.. https://pcb.illinois.gov/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-2651/S97002A.PDF. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  57. ↑ Air Monitoring Data: Chemetco Site, 1997–2001. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Air Bureau. 2002. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  58. ↑ Health Hazard Evaluation Report: Chemetco, Hartford, Illinois. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/1983-0129-1492.pdf. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1983. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  59. ↑ World Health Organization. "Dioxins and their effects on human health." (2016). WHO Fact Sheet. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  60. ↑ Ayotte, P. et al. "Exposure of a remote Canadian Inuit population to coplanar PCBs and PCDDs/PCDFs: a risk assessment." Chemosphere 32(1): 211–223 (1996). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  61. ↑ Dewailly, E. et al. "Breast milk contamination by PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs in Arctic Quebec: a preliminary assessment." Chemosphere 25(7–10): 1245–1249 (1992). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  62. ↑ AMAP. AMAP Assessment 2002: Human Health in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2003). AMAP Reports. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  63. ↑ Hwang, H.M. et al. "Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of dioxins and furans in polar bears." Environmental Science & Technology 53(15): 9145–9153 (2019). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  64. ↑ Long-Range Air Transport of Dioxin, Furans and Hexachlorobenzene: Contributions of North American Sources to Atmospheric Deposition in the Arctic. https://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/arcticdioxrep.pdf. Commission for Environmental Cooperation / Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College, CUNY. 2004. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  65. ↑ Long-Range Air Transport of Dioxins and Furans in North America. https://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/1706-long-range-air-transport-dioxins-and-furans-in-north-america-en.pdf. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 2000. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  66. 1 2 3 Abel, T. D. (2008). "Skewed riskscapes and environmental injustice: a case study of metropolitan St. Louis." Environmental Management 42 (2): 232–248. doi:[10.1007/s00267-008-9126-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9126-2). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  67. 1 2 Skewed Riskscapes and Environmental Injustice in St. Louis and Seattle (author manuscript). https://archive.epa.gov/ncer/ej/web/pdf/abel_formatted.pdf. U.S. EPA Archives. 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  68. ↑ Being overburdened and medically underserved: assessment of this double disparity for populations in the state of Maryland. Environmental Health. 2014. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  69. ↑ Brugam, R.; McFarland, B.; Kolata, D.; Lemke, L.; Hwang, Y.H.; Sherwood, D. (2003). "The sedimentary record of environmental contamination in Horseshoe Lake, Madison County, Illinois, USA". Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 96 (3). Illinois State Academy of Science: 205–220. Sediment cores from Horseshoe Lake show elevated copper, lead, and zinc concentrations whose isotopic signatures correspond to emissions from the Chemetco copper smelter, identifying it as a principal source of contamination in the region.
  70. 1 2 3 Pompeani, D. P.; Shumchenia, E. J.; Brugam, R. B.; et al. (2019). "The environmental impact of a pre-Columbian city based on geochemical insights from lake sediment cores recovered near Cahokia." Quaternary Research 92 (1): 1–15. doi:[10.1017/qua.2018.49](https://doi.org/10.1017/qua.2018.49). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  71. ↑ Brugam, R.; McFarland, B.; Kolata, D.; Lemke, L.; Hwang, Y.H.; Sherwood, D. (2003). "The sedimentary record of environmental contamination in Horseshoe Lake, Madison County, Illinois, USA". Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. 96 (3). Illinois State Academy of Science: 205–220. Researchers from Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, the Illinois State Geological Survey, and the Illinois State Water Survey conducted field and sediment studies at Horseshoe Lake to evaluate heavy-metal contamination and sediment deposition linked to surrounding industrial activities, including Chemetco.
  72. ↑ "Illinois Company and Six Employees Indicted for Environmental Crimes". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 20 November 1996. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  73. ↑ "Superfund Site Profile: Chemetco Site". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  74. ↑ Justice Department Press Release – Chemetco Sentenced for Clean Water Act Violations. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2000/September/525enrd.htm. U.S. Department of Justice. September 2000. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  75. ↑ F.3d (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2001)("The district court determined that Chemetco had violated the Clean Water Act on 676 separate days, rejecting the government’s contention of 949 days and Chemetco’s argument of 71 days.").
  76. 1 2 3 F.3d (7th Cir.2001).
  77. ↑ Brose, D.A. (2002). "Interpreting the Criminal Sentencing Provisions of the Clean Water Act: Lessening the Government's Burden of Proof at the Cost of Constitutional Rights". Michigan Environmental & Land Use Review. 10 (1): 85–110.
  78. ↑ "Superfund Site Profile: Chemetco Site". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
  79. ↑ "Illinois Company and Six Employees Indicted for Polluting Mississippi River". U.S. Department of Justice . 29 April 1999. Retrieved 9 October 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  80. ↑ "EPA Most Wanted Environmental Criminals". The Guardian . 11 December 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  81. ↑ United States v. Denis L. Feron,No. 99-cr-30048(U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois;20 January 2010).
  82. ↑ "Hartford looking at TIF for Chemetco site". The Telegraph (Alton, Illinois) . 7 August 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  83. ↑ EPA Adds Chemetco Site to National Priorities List. United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 2010. , from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-adds-chemetco-site-national-priorities-list (archived 4 March 2017 at https://web.archive.org/web/20170304074210/https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-adds-chemetco-site-national-priorities-list). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  84. 1 2 3 4 Chemetco Superfund Site Fact Sheet. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. , from https://epa.illinois.gov/topics/community-relations/sites/chemetco.html (archived 1 April 2023 at https://web.archive.org/web/20230401044729/https://epa.illinois.gov/topics/community-relations/sites/chemetco.html). Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  85. ↑ Chemetco Superfund Site Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. EPA Region 5, 2015. , from https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/918920.pdf. Retrieved 9 October 2025.
  86. ↑ Chemetco Site PRP Group v. Amax Zinc Company, et al. Complaint for Contribution under CERCLA §§107 and 113, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, filed February 2018. , from https://www.justislawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Chemetco_Complaint.pdf (archived 15 May 2021 at https://web.archive.org/web/20210515085145/https://www.justislawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Chemetco_Complaint.pdf). Retrieved 9 October 2025.

See also

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.