US EPA RECORDS CENTER REGION 5

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 466638

Fourth Five-Year Review Report

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site

Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Prepared by

u.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5

Chicago, Illinois

May 2013

~--20-13

Richard C. Karl, Director Date Superfund Division

[This page intentionally left blank.]

'~-.!I ',. "

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms ~ v

Executive Summary 1

Five-Year Review Summary Form 3

I. Introduction 5

II. Site Chronology 6

III. Background 7 Physical Characteristics 7 Land and Resource Use 8 History of Contamination 8 Initial Response 9 Basis for Taking Action 9

IV. Remedial Actions 12 Remedy Selection 12 Remedy Implementation 12 Institutional Controls 14 System Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) .18

V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 21

VI. Five-Year Review Process 22 Administrative Components 22 Community Notification and Involvement 23 Document Review 23 Data Review 23 Site Inspection 27 Interviews 28

VII. Technical Assessment 28

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 28

action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? 29

the protectiveness of the remedy? 30 Technical Assessment·Summary 30

VIII. Issues 31

IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions .32

iii

x. Protectiveness Statement .32

XI. Next Review 33

Tables Table 1 - Chronology of Site Events 6 Table 2 - Monitoring Events Conducted at the FDDS 14 Table 3 - Institutional Controls Swnmary Table. . . . .. . . .. . 15 Table 4 - Operation and Maintenance Actions 19 Table 5 - Protectiveness Determinations from 2008 Five-Year Review 21 Table 6 - Actions Taken Since 2008 Five-Year Review..... .. . 21 Table 7 - Current Remedial Action Monitoring Program 24 Table 8 - Groundwater Constituents Meeting or Exceeding Cleanup Criteria 24 Table 9 - Issues Warranting Further Attention 32 Table 10 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions " 32

Figures Figure 1 - Site location overview map Figure 2 - Site location map Figure 3 - Site features map with groundwater monitoring wells Figure 4 - Site property IC map Figure 5 - Site parcel map Figure 6 - City of Franklin water infrastructure map

Attachments Attachment 1 - Declaration of Restrictions for the FDDS Attachment 2 - Petition and Partial Release of Deed Restrictions Attachment 3 - Environmental Sampling Corp. 2012 Monitoring Activities Summary Attachment 4 - Groundwater Monitoring Field Form Attachment 5 - Semi-Annual Site Inspection Report Form Attachment 6 - Public NOJice Announcing Start of2013 Five-Year Review Attachment 7 - List of Documents Reviewed for the Five-Year Review Attachment 8 - Swnmary of Selected Indicators for Cumulative Groundwater Data Attachment 9 - EPA Five-Year Review Inspection Checklist Attachment 10 - Photograph Log of2012 Site Inspection

iv

List of Acronyms

ACLs Alternate Concentration Limits AOC Administrative Order on Consent

ARARs Applicable, Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria

CERCLA Comprehensive Enviromnental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIC Conmmnity Involvement Coordinator

DCA Dichloroethane

EPA United States Enviromnental Protection Agency

ES Enforcement Standard (State of Wisconsin)

FCOR Final Closeout Report (documents completion of Remedial Action)

FR Federal Register

FS Feasibility Study

FSP Field Sampling Plan

LTS Long-tenn Stewardship

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

mg/L Milligrams per Liter

MW Monitoring Well

NCP National Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List

NR Natural Resources (as in "NR 140.28, WAC")

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PALs Preventive Action Limits (State of Wisconsin)

PCE Perchloroethylene or Tetrachloroethylene

PCOR Preliminary Closeout Report ppb Parts oer billion or m.!lL (water) and uu/kQ (soil/sediment) oom Parts oer million or mQ/L (water) and mQ/kQ (soil/sediment) PRPs Potentiallv Responsible Parties RA Remedial Action

RAO Remedial Action Objective

RD Remedial Design

RI Remedial Investigation

ROD Record of Decision

v

RPM Remedial Project Manager

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

SEWRPC Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

SVOC Semi~Volatile Organic Compound

TAL Target Analyte List

TBC To Be Considered

TCA Trichloroethane

TCE Trichloroethylene

TCL Target Compound List

UAO Unilateral Administrative Order

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code

WACLs . Wisconsin Alternate Concentration Limits

WDNR Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY·

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), has completed the fourth Five-Year Review (FYR) of the Fadrowski Drum Disposal (FDD) Superfund Site in Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The purpose of a FYR is to review site information to detennine if the cleanup remedy being implemented is protective of human health and the environment. The triggering action for this statutory FYR of the FDD site is the date EPA issued the third FYR report (July 30, 2008).

The FDD site occupies about 22 acres of suburban land in the city of Franklin in southeastern Wisconsin (see Figure 1). From 1970 until 1982, the site was operated as an unlicensed disposal facility that accepted demolition and construction waste. In 1981, WDNR discovered that unlicensed disposal of non-exempt waste had also occurred at the site. In January 1983, Menards, Inc. purchased the FDD site property and two adjacent parcels to construct a lumber and retail facility. During excavation, buried drums containing liquids and sludges were ruptured, releasing hazardous materials. EPA placed the FDD site on the National Priorities List in 1986 and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in June 1991, which selected a cleanup remedy that included the removal of drummed waste, on-site consolidation of other wastes, closure of an on-site pond, landfilling and capping the consolidated waste, installing a groundwater monitoring network, and recording deed restrictions (institutional controls (ICs)). The selected remedial action was completed in 1994.

The FDD site has been in the monitoring phase since 1995 and it was projected to continue for 30 years. Groundwater monitoring results have shown that site-related contaminants have declined in the groundwater and that cleanup goals have been met for all contaminants of concern.

EPA has determined that the remedial action at the FDD site is protective of human health and the environment. All data and observations collected and evaluated during this FYR indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and it is projected to continue in this manner. The FDD site neither poses a threat to human health or the environment, nor is it projected to do so in the future. Operation and maintenance activities have been effective. Groundwater and leachate monitoring will continue until EPA and WDNR determine that it is no longer necessary.

Since compliance with effective ICs is necessary to assure the protectiveness of the remedy, effective rcs must be in-place and long-term stewardship (LTS) is required. Long-term stewardship involves assuring that effective ICs are in place, as well as the procedures to properly maintain, monitor, and enforce them so that the remedy continues to remain protective of human health and the environment. To that end, although rcs have been implemented in the fonn of deed restrictions,-a Wisconsin Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenant ("Restrictive Covenant") is being pursued to better assure that the remedy will continue to provide long-term protection and additional evaluation activities will occur to ensure that no other encumbrances will interfere with the ICs.

1

[This page intentionally left blank]

2

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION I :

Site name (fl'om WasteLAN): Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site

EPA ID (from WasteLAN): WID980901227

Region: 5 State: WI City/County: Franklin, Milwaukee County

SITE STATUS I I

NPL status: 0 Final IRI Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction IRl Operating IRI Complete

Multiple OUs?* 0 YES IRI NO Construction completion date: 08/28/1995

Has site been put into re-use? 0 YES IRI NO

REVIEW STATUS I I

Lead agency: IRI EPA 0 State 0 Tribe 0 Other Federal Agency

Author name: Sheila A. Sullivan r

Author title: Remedial Project Manager Author affiliation: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5

Review period: 05/1 0/20 12 to OS/26/2013

Date(s) of site inspection: 10/05/2012 and 10/11/2012

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: Four

Triggering action date: 07/30/2008

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 07/30/2013

* "GU" refers to operable unit

3

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

: Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without IssueslRecommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OUI

, Site-wide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

EPA has detem1ined that the remedial action at the FDD site is protective of human health and the environment. All data and observations collected and evaluated during this FYR indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and it is projected to continue in this manner. The FDD site neither poses a threat to human health or the environment, nor is it projected to do so in the future. Operation and maintenance activities have been effective. Groundwater and leachate monitoring will continue until EPA and WDNR detem1ine that it is no longer necessary.

Since compliance with effective rcs is necessary to assure the protectiveness of the remedy, effective rcs must be in-place and LTS is required. Long-term stewardship involves assuring that effective rcs are in place, as well as the procedures to properly maintain, monitor, and enforce them so that the remedy continues to remain protective of human health and the environment. To that end, although rcs have been implemented in the form of deed restrictions, an updated Restrictive Covenant is being pursued to better assure that the remedy will continue to provide long-term protection and additional evaluation activities will occur to ensure that no other encumbrances will interfere with the rcs.

4

Five-Year Review Report

I. Introduction

EPA conducts FYRs at Superfund sites to evaluate the perfonnance of cleanup remedies to detennine if the remedies are protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

EPA prepares FYRs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 121 states:

"If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, ifupon such review it is the judgment ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section {l 04} or [106}, the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and any actions taken as a result ofsuch reviews. ,.

EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(t)(4)(ii), which states:

"Ifa remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allowIor unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such actions no less often than every jive years after the initiation ofthe selected remedial action."

EPA, in consultation with WDNR, conducted the fourth FYR of the remedial actions implemented at the Fadrowski Drum Disposal (FDD) Superfund Site in Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. EPA was the lead agency for developing and implementing the remedy at the FDD site until 2005 when the WDNR, representing the State of Wisconsin, became the lead agency for oversight of operation and maintenance work. WDNR reviewed all supporting documentation and provided input to EPA during the FYR process.

The triggering action for this statutory review was the completion of the third FYR report (July 30, 2008). A FYR is required because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the FDD site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UUIUE).

5

II. Site Chronology

TABLE 1- CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

Event Date

FDD site was operated as unlicensed disposal facility 1970 to 1982

WDNR site inspection; discovery of nonexempt waste disposal February 1981

Menards, Inc. purchases the site from Edward Fadrowski January 5, 1983

Buried drums uncovered, ruptured May 1983

WDNR tests indicate that the drummed and released wastes are hazardous

1983

FDD site proposed for National Priorities List (NPL) October 15, 1984

Site finalized on NPL June 10, 1986

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) signed by PRPs, EPA, and WDNR: PRPs agree to conduct Remedial Investigation! Feasibility Study (RIfFS)

May 11,1987

RIfFS completed April 17, 1987 to May 22, 1991

EPA signs Record of Decision (ROD) June 10, 1991

AOC signed between PRPs, EPA, and WDNR: PRPs agree to conduct Remedial DesignJRemedial Action (RDfRA)

September 30, 1991

Cooperative Agreement signed: EPA funds WDNR ov.ersight of RDfRA

September 1991

RD completed January 1993

EPA and WDNR approve RD March 17, 1993

Unilateral Administrative Order (DAO) issued by EPA: directs PRPs to perfoml RA

April 21, 1993

RA starts September 7, 1993

RA field activities completed September 1994

Certification of Construction Completion March 24, 1995

6

Event Date

Preliminary Closeout Report signed signifying construction completion

August 28, 1995

First FYR Report completed September 14, 1998

.EPA and WDNR approve reduced site monitoring November 2000

Declaration of Restrictions is modified to release land for re-use July3I,2001

WDNR approves WACLs for groundwater contaminants July 29, 2003

Final Close-out Report signed August 6, 2003

Second FYR Report completed September 25,2003

AOC signed between Menards, Inc. and WDNR: Menards, Inc. agrees to continue O&M

March 2005

Site deleted from NPL September 6, 2005

EPA terminates 1993 UAO October 5, 2006

SWRAU determination completed February 22, 2008

Third FYR Report completed July 30, 2008

Assessment of site reuse potential is performed April 10, 2010

WDNR Situation Assessment Report completed January 2011

Fourth FYR site inspection conducted October 5 and 11,2012

III. Background

Physical Characteristics

The FDD site occupies approximately 22 acres of suburban land in the southeast quarter of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The city of Franklin is located just outside of the Milwaukee city limits. The site is fronted by U.S. 41 (also known as South 2ih Street) on the east. Rawson Avenue is about 1,400 feet to the south and College Avenue is located approximately 3,400 feet to the north. An unnamed tributary flows southward along the western boundary of the site and eventually empties into the Root River about three miles southwest (Figures 1 and 2). The tributary carries overflow water from Mud Lake in Grobschmidt Park, which is about one-quaI1er mile north of the site, and also receives storm water discharge from South 2ih Street and other paved areas.

7

Land Resource and Use

The FDD site abuts and is downgradient of the now-defunct Menards lumber and retail facility located directly to the north ofthe site property. Several commercial retail facilities are situated directly north, south, and southwest of the site. A Menards Home Improvement Center is located east of the site across U.S. 41. Residential subdivisions and multi-unit residential properties are situated west of the unnamed tributary along Rawson and West Marquette Avenues. Additional residential areas are located along 31 st, 34th and 35th Streets (Figure 3).

There is considerable development of small businesses and homes along South 2ih Street. About one-quarter mile north of the site, along South 27th Street, a large residential development is situated on the east side of the street and a mobile home park is on the west side of street. Several residences with private wells are within 2,000 feet of the site. •

Several municipal wells for the cities of Franklin and Oak Creek are located within three miles of the FDD site. These wells range from 350 to 1,500 feet deep and are cased to the top of the dolomite bedrock. The closest municipal well is a back-up well for the city of Oak Creek and is located about one-quarter mile north of the site on South 2ih Street. This well also draws from the dolomite aquifer. However, drinking water from these wells has not been impacted by site contaminants.

Grobschmidt Park is considered to be an environmentally significant area by Franklin and is also classified as a wetland by WDNR and the Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). The unnamed tributary west of the site and the small wooded area along the stream southwest of the site are listed as a secondary environmental corridor by Franklin; however, only the wooded area southwest of the site is listed as a wetland by WDNR and SEWRPC.

History of Contamination

Between 1970 and 1982, the FDD site was owned and operated by Edward J. Fadrowski as an unlicensed disposal facility that accepted demolition and construction wastes. Pursuant to applicable state regulations, the operation would have been exempt from regulation had it only accepted solid waste consisting of clean earth fill and containing less than 25 percent demolition waste. During the same period, Mr. Fadrowski was also the principal operator of a waste collection and transportation company called Ed's Masonry & Trucking ("Ed's Trucking") which was licensed to collect and transport noncombustible waste, wood, refuse and garbage. The clients of Ed's Trucking generated a variety of wastes.

After WDNR learned in 1981 that substantial amounts of nonexempt solid and possibly hazardous waste were being disposed of at the FDD site, it held a site inspection and found that metal, wood, foundry waste, crushed drums, and slag-type boiler waste had been disposed of at the site, but WDNR found no specific evidence of hazardous waste disposal.

8

Later in 1981, Franklin requested that Mr. Fadrowski provide a schedule for bringing the FDD site into compliance with city code. Mr. Fadrowski did not comply and continued to operate the site as an unlicensed and uncontrolled landfill. Reports indicate that Mr. Fadrowski accepted waste oil sludges, foundry sand, contaminated soils from underground storage tank removals, household waste, miscellaneous commercial waste, and containerized liquids and semisolids for disposal.

On January 5, 1983, Menards, Inc. ("Menards") of Eau Claire, Wisconsin purchased the FDD site property and two adjacent land parcels to the north to construct a lumber and retail facility at 6801 S. 2ih Street. The site property was intended as a source of borrow soil to be used during the grading and construction of the lumber and retail facility on the adjacent parcels. During excavation of soil fill material from May through June 1983, buried drums containing unknown liquids and sludges were uncovered; some of the drums had been ruptured, releasing their contents. WDNR conducted sampling of the drum contents and found them to be hazardous. The samples revealed high concentrations of lead at 32,700 parts-per-million (ppm) and chromium at 6,800 ppm. Trace levels of arsenic, the pesticide DDT at 1,450 ppm, and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were also identified.

EPA determined that the carcinogenic risks from the buried containerized wastes exceeded EPA's upper threshold of acceptable carcinogenic risk of one-in-ten-thousand (l x10 -4).

Initial Response Actions

WDNR prepared a Potential Hazardous Waste Site Preliminary Assessment in January 1984 that concluded that the containerized waste and sludge at the FDD site were a potential source of contamination to surface water and groundwater. EPA proposed the FDD site for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 15, 1984 and placed it on the NPL on June 6, 1986.

An Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) was then signed on May 11, 1987 by the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), EPA, and WDNR, under which the PRPs agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) at the site.

Basis for Taking Action

The RI fully characterized the chemical wastes at the site, defined contaminant sources, determined the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, identified contaminant migration pathways and movement, and assessed public health and environmental risk. The RI results are summarized below.

Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring was first conducted during the RI after the potential for groundwater contamination was realized. The groundwater investigation involved the installation and

9

monitoring of five water table wells and three piezometers in nested arrangements at the four comers of the landfill. A private well (at the Ballotta residence) was also included in the network.

The RI detennined that groundwater flows in a different direction within each of the three geologic units. In the uppennost clay till aquifer groundwater flows in a north to northwesterly direction; in the middle sand and gravel aquifer, the groundwater flows eastward toward Lake Michigan; and, in the deeper dolomite bedrock aquifer, the flow component is south to southwest. These units are hydraulically connected.

The RI results confirmed that the groundwater in the clay till had been impacted by cyanide, chromium and barium in excess of the Wisconsin Preventive Action Limits (PALs)l, and mercury was found in excess of the Wisconsin Enforcement Standard (Esi. There are several private wells located within 2,000 feet of the site and several municipal backup wells for the cities of Franklin and Oak Creek sited within three miles of the site; however, testing showed that drinking water from these groundwater sources has not been impacted by the site. Lake Michigan is the municipal water supply source for Oak Creek and Franklin (Franklin purchases its water from Oak Creek). Benzene, mercury, and cyanide were the major groundwater contaminants of concern (COCs) to human health at the FDD site.

Surface Water

Surface water was contained on-site in a manmade pond approximately 360 feet long,by 120 feet wide. The pond, which was created during the excavation of bOll"oW fill material for the construction of the Menards facility, was located in the western central portion of the site. The pond intercepted most surface water runoff over the site and was also a point of groundwater discharge. The pond water contained elevated cyanide levels. The water in the unnamed tributary along the western site boundary (see Figure 2) contained low levels ofVOCs. The COCs that were evaluated with respect to potential human health risk included aluminum, arsenic, potassium, and cyanide.

Sediments

The sediments sampled in the on-site pond contained site-related contaminants. Sediments collected downstream of the site in the unnamed tributary showed higher concentrations of certain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than did the samples collected upstream of the site. Similarly, inorganics, including aluminum, barium, beryllium, calcium, lead, and

1 Preventive Action Limits (PALs) are contaminant-specific limits which signify a potential groundwater contamination problem. When PALs are exceeded for any constituent measured at a groundwater monitoring point, WDNR must take action to manage or control the contamination so that the ES is not attained.

2 Enforcement Standards (ES) are adopted under Wisconsin Administrative Code Section NR 140 as groundwater quality standards that WDNR consistently applies to all facilities, practices and activities that may affect groundwater quality. .

10

magnesium, showed higher concentrations in the downstream samples compared to the upstream samples, indicating that the tributary sediments may have been impacted by the site. The COCs that were evaluated with respect to human health risk included the VOCs toluene and acetone, and the SVOCs fluoranthene, pyrene, and butylbenzylphthalate.

Soil

Surface soils from the western slope of the fill pile showed PAH concentrations as high as 10,290 parts-per-billion (ppb). This finding indicated that runoff or seeps from the fill pile were affecting surface soils that were both adjacent to and west of the fill pile. Subsurface soils

. collected from the site were contaminated with organic compounds, namely toluene, at levels as high as 1,800 ppb. Total PAHs were also frequently detected in the subsurface soil at levels as high as 24,300 ppb. The subsurface soil borings revealed DDT at its highest concentration of 310 ppb and the polychlorinated biphenyl Arochlor 1254 at a maximum concentration of 1,900 ppb. Cyanide was found in one boring at 6,360 ppb and numerous inorganic compounds such as lead, mercury, nickel, cadmium, and zinc were also detected. The COCs in the soil that were evaluated with respect to human health risk included PAHs and phthalates, dibenzofuran, and VOCs such as benzene, xylenes, trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethane (TCA) and dichloroethane (DCA).

Risk Assessment

A baseline risk assessment was conducted to determine the current and future potential risks that may be sustained by human and ecological receptors if the site were not cleaned up. The risks to human health from the contaminated soils, sediment, surface water and groundwater were within EPA's target 1x10-4 to 1x10.6 excess lifetime cancer risk range for carcinogens3

. The risk assessment, however, did not factor in the presence of the containerized waste at the site. Buried drums on site presented a principal threat if the site were to be developed in the future since the drums would degrade over time and release their contents. Some of the drums had already ruptured and contaminated the environment. EPA estimated that the carcinogenic risk from direct contact with containerized waste at the site exceeded the target risk range and that the noncarcinogenic risk exceeded a Hazard Index of one (1.0), the upper limit of EPA's acceptable risk range for noncarcinogens4

• Ecological risks were identified by the presence of cyanide in

3 For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of a person developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. These risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific notation (e.g., IXIO·6

). An excess lifetime cancer risk of Ix10·6 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum exposure estimate has a I in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site­related exposure. This is referred to as an "excess lifetime cancer risk" because it would be in addition to the cancer risk individuals face from other causes.

4 Noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a certain time period (e.g., life-time) with a reference dose (RID) derived for a similar exposure period. An RID is an amount of chemical that an individual may be exposed to that is not expected to cause any adverse effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a Hazard Quotient (HQ). An HQ below I indicates that the toxic noncarcinogenic effects from the chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all chemical(s) of concern that affect the same target organ (e.g., liver). An HI below I indicates that, based on the sum of all HQ's from different

11

surface water at the site exceeding Clean Water Act Ambient Water Quality Criteria.

IV. Remedial Actions

Remedy Selection

On June 10, 1991 , EPA issued a ROD for the FDD site with concurrence from WDNR. The remedial action objectives (RAOs) were to eliminate or reduce migration of the contaminants from the site to the groundwater, reduce contamination to surface waters on site, achieve PALs where technically and economically feasible, reduce the threat of direct contact to the waste, and reduce the risk associated with exposure to the containerized waste and contaminated media. The major components of the selected remedy included:

• Excavation of buried drums and associated characteristically hazardous soils; • Construction of trenches to find and excavate additional containerized waste and

associated hazardous soils; • Off-site recycling or treatment and disposal of drummed wastes; • Off-site treatment and disposal of contaminated soil; • Construction of a landfill cover (cap) in compliance with Chapter NR'504.07, WAC

landfill closure requirements; • Natural attenuation of groundwater • Fencing • Use ofICs on landfill property to restrict future land and groundwater use and to prohibit

future development of the site within the Waste Management Boundary; • Monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediment to ensure the effectiveness of

the Femedial action (RA), i.e., the achievement of achieving Wisconsin established Chapter NR 140 PALs where technically and economically feasible, and to evaluate the need for future groundwater treatment.

Remedy Implementation

On September 30,1991, EPA and Menards entered into an AGC under which Menards agreed to perfoml the Remedial Design (RD). EPA and WDNR (the "agencies") subsequently signed a Cooperative Agreement to support state oversight of the RD/RA.

After the RD was completed, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to the PRPs on April 21, 1993, requiring them to perform the RA. From the start of RA field activities on September 7, 1993 to the completion of construction on August 28, 1994, the PRPs:

Removed 167 buried drums;

contaminants and exposure routes, toxic effects from all contaminants are unlikely. An HI above I indicates that site-related exposures may present a risk to human health.

12

Excavated approximately 100 cubic yards of impacted soils; De-watered and backfilled the 2.6 million gallon pond; Consolidated over 18,000 cubic yards of waste (primarily demolition debris) in order to minimize the capped area; Installed a multi-layered soil cover system and a leachate collection system; Installed a perimeter fence; and Installed both upgradient and downgradient nested monitoring wells which were screened within the three geological units (clay, sand and gravel, and dolomite bedrock) at the site.

All construction activities and the final operation and maintenance (O&M) manual were completed in fall 1995. The agencies project that groundwater would meet the RA clean-up standards through natural attenuation. The RA required that, after two years and then five years of groundwater monitoring, statistical evaluations of the data are performed to determine if the site was meeting the cleanup requirements established in the 1991 ROD (Wisconsin 1988 NR 140 Ground Water Quality Standards). The effectiveness and progress of the remedy has been tracked through the monitoring program. Groundwater monitoring data collected since November 1995 included semiannual sampling of groundwater and leachate for field parameters (temperature, pH, conductivity), EPA target analyte list (TAL) compounds, EPA target compound list (TCL) compounds, WAC Chapter NR 508 parameters (alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand, hardness, sodium, dissolved iron, chloride, and fluoride), and percent organic material and grain size analysis (stream sediment samples only).

The sampling included the nine on-site nested monitoring wells, one private well (at the Ballotta residence), two surface water/sediment locations and one leachate collection tank location. Table 2 (next page) provides a schedule of past and present monitoring events at the FDDS.

In November 2000, after reviewing the five-year statistical ground\Yater report submitted by Menards, the agencies eliminated the surface water monitoring requirement and reduced the number of required monitoring parameters for groundwater, since no impacts from the site had been detected. The quarterly results showed that the concentrations of site-related contaminants had declined.

Statistical evaluation of the groundwater data collected over the first 15 monitoring events also indicated that iron, manganese, and fluoride had been consistently detected above their respective PALs at the five percent statistical significance level. Although these constituents exceeded their PALs, they are also common elements found naturally in Wisconsin groundwater. An evaluation of the background groundwater quality in Milwaukee County indicated that" concentrations of fluoride, iron and manganese above the established 1988 Chapter NR 140 PALs are common; hence, the PAL exceedances reported on site were unlikely to be related to past waste disposal activity and more likely reflected naturally occurring groundwater quality. This finding suggested that it was neither technically nor economically feasible to achieve PALs for these constituents via natural attenuation. In July 23,2003, WDNR granted an exemption, allowing the PRPs to use Wisconsin Alternate Cleanup Levels (WACLs or ACLs) as cleanup goals for

13

those constituents in the monitoring wells where the PALs were exceeded.

TABLE 2 - MONITORING EVENTS CONDUCTED AT THE FDD SITE

Year Surface Water and

Sediment * Ground Water Leachate

1995 November November November

1996 March, August, November March, August, November March, August, November

1997 August and November August and November August and November

1998 February, May, December February, May, December February, May, December

1999 May and November May and November May and November

2000 May May and November May and November

2001 Not Required May and November May and November

2005 Not Required May May

2007 Not Required May May

2008 ­2013 Not Required May May

* The table implies 12 surface water and sediment events, however nine surface water and seven sediment monitoring events were conducted within the 12-event time frame.

The approved ACLs are to be regarded as PALs within the waste boundary, which is the edge of the cap. Outside the waste management boundary, an ACL is to be treated as a PAL if it is less than the NR 140 ES; otherwi~e it acts as an ES except in cases where the background concentration is higher than the ES, as is the case at the FDD site.

Institutional Controls

Institutional controls (lCs) are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and/or legal controls, that help minimize the potential for exposure to contamination and protect the integrity of the remedy. Compliance with ICs is required to assure long-term protectiveness for any areas which do not allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

ROD Provisions:

The 1991 ROD called for the use ofICs on landfill property to restrict future land and groundwater use and to prohibit future development of the site within the Waste Management Boundary. Cleanup goals for soil, groundwater, and surface water were based on the residential use of offsite groundwater and limited commercial or industrial use since waste contaimnent is part of the remedy. The cleanup goals for the site have been achieved for all media that may

14

affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses.

Physical Area:

Figure 4 identifies those areas that do not support UUIUE. Table 3 below summarizes ICs for these restricted areas.

TABLE 3 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE

Map of Media, Engineered Controls, & Areas that Do Not Support UUIUE

Based on Current Conditions

IC Objective in Decision Document

Title of Institutional Control Implemented and Physical Area

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Landfill Cap -Area of soil covered to prevent direct contact with waste and infiltration of water to the waste, identified as Area 2 in Figure 4.

To prevent direct contact with residual hazardous waste and infiltration of water through the waste by prohibiting the residential use of the property.

Declaration of Restriction on Use of Real Property No. 6778270, recorded on June 14, 1993 prohibits the installation of any structure on the landfill cap area. This restriction originally covered Area I (22 acres); however, as per the EPA modification to the Declaration of Restrictions on July 24,2001, the restriction currently applies to Area 2 (1 I .4 acres).

Groundwater ­ groundwater underlying the site property identified as Area 2 (11.4 acres) of Figure 4.

To prohibit groundwater use for potable water

Declaration of Restriction on Use of Real Property No. 6778270, recorded on June 14, 1993 applies to and covers Area 2 (11.4 acres) (see Figure 4).

Fa{/rowski Drum Disposal Site - Area of the site property identified as Area 3 (0.4 acres).

To prohibit activities and uses that may interfere with the work perfonned and the RA.

Declaration of Restriction on Use of Real Property No. 6778270, recorded on June 14, 1993 applies to Area 3 (0.4 acres) of Figure 4.

Objectives of the ICs:

The objectives of the ICs at the site are: 1) to prevent direct contact with residual hazardous waste and infiltration of water through the waste by prohibiting the residential use of the property; 2) to prohibit groundwater use, including for potable purposes; and, 3) to prohibit activities and uses that may interfere with the work performed and the RA. All non UUIUE areas are addressed by ICs as determined by the IC evaluation activities discussed below.

Current ICs:

Menards, Inc. Declaration of Restriction No. 6778270

15

As part of the remedy, land and groundwater use restrictions were filed by the PRPs at the Milwaukee County Register's Office on June 14, 1993 (see Attachment 1). The Declaration of Restriction on Use of Real Property No. 6778270 covers the entire 22-acre site and:

1) Prohibits the use or development ofland within the Waste Management Boundary in a manner that is inconsistent with or may impair the integrity of the remedial measures and O&M undertaken at the Site (see Area 1 in Figure 4);

2) Prohibits the installation, construction, removal or use of any structures at the portion of the property covered by the landfill cap;

3) Prohibits all future residential use of the property and the use of groundwater underlying the site as a potable water source; and,

4) Provides that all of the restrictions contained within are covenants and will run with the land; all future owners must accept the ternlS of the declaration.

Site access controls are in place and consist of a perimeter fence and posted warning signs. As of October 2012, the perimeter fence and signs were being adequately maintained as part of the site O&M plan and are discussed in more detail under the O&M Section of this report.

On July 24,2001, EPA approved modification of the deed notice (see Attachment 2). The deed restrictions implemented under the remedy were relaxed on private property adjacent to the siteS to encourage redevelopment. This modification was fully-documented in the previous FYR reports. The areas released from the restrictions had previously been considered buffer areas around the site (see Figure 4, Areas A, B and C); however, due to the stable site conditions, WDNR has since allowed limited commercial development in these areas. This development is consistent with current site conditions and has not caused storm water management or unauthorized site access problems to develop. This area is served by the Franklin municipal water supply; however, no human health risks would be presented by use of the downgradient groundwater. The area is an active commercial district - development has been occurring around the site and will likely continue.

Geographic Information System (GIS) Registry of Closed Remediation Sites

Consistent with the state statute, if COC concentrations in groundwater exceed NR 140 ESs, the site is placed on an Internet accessible database, the GIS Registry of Closed Remediation Sites (GIS Registry), after a complete closure request is approved by WDNR. Listing a site on the GIS Registry ensures that the public is notified of soil, groundwater, or other contamination at the site

5 The parcels immediately adjacent to the landfill cap were owned by Menards and were part of the original site . property (see Areas A, B, and C in Figure 4). After the RA was completed, the parcels were subsequently purchased by Dr. John Gonis for commercial development. The remaining site property owned by Menards (see Area 2 in Figure 4) extends beyond the edge of the landfill cap, particularly in the southwest comer (see Area 3 in Figure 4), and is defined by a fence.

16

o

that is contained or is being treated by a long-term RA. The GIS Registry mainly contains cases where residual contamination exists in soil, groundwater or other media, sites where a continuing obligation has been applied under s. 292.12, and sites where monitoring wells still need to be properly abandoned. A number of sites on the GIS Registry may also have a deed restriction placed on the property prior to June 3, 2006 or a deed notice recorded for affected properties. As of June 3,2006, under Wisconsin Act 418, the GIS Registry also includes sites closed with land­use limitations or conditions in place of deed restrictions, following an environmental cleanup action. The land-use limitation or condition may extend across property lines. The Registry includes all affected properties, source and otT-source and can be accessed via the following web address: http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site/=brrts2

Variance from State Well Construction Standards

Another institutional control safeguard involves Wisconsin's requirement to obtain a variance from the'state well construction standards for the installation of private wells within 1,200 feet of a landfill. Under this requirement, a licensed Wisconsin well driller must determine if a new well installation is within the 1,200-foot buffer zone. If the proposed area is within this zone, then the driller would require special approval from the WDNR to install a well in this area.

Planned ICs:

After reviewing the ICs for the site, EPA has determined that a Wisconsin Environmental Protection Easement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants ("Restrictive Covenant") should be filed with the Milwaukee County Recorder of Deeds. The Restrictive Covenant would memorialize a requirement on the part of the current owner (or any su,hsequent owner) to notify EPA, and require EPA's approval, before the owner (or any subsequent owner) could sell or develop the site property. Such a covenant would memorialize the right of EPA and WDNR on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, to enforce appropriate restrictions on land and groundwater use. Figure 5 provides information on future land use planning in the area.

As with the existing deed restrictions, the Restrictive Covenant will apply to the same footprint and will seek to prevent interference with the O&M, monitoring, and efficacy of any components or improvements resulting from the RA.

Current Compliance:

In February 2008, EPA issued a Site-wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) determination. The determination concluded that all cleanup goals in the ROD have been achieved for any media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses, so that there are no unacceptable risks, and that all ICs required by the ROD are in place and effective. The site ICs are effectively preventing the use or development of land within the Waste Management Boundary as well as the installation, construction, removal or use of any structures at the portion of the property covered by the landfill cap. The ICs have successfully prevented residential use of the site property and restrictions on groundwater use. There are no drinking water supply

17

wells installed within the impacted groundwater area and all areas and neighborhoods surrounding the site and downgradient of the site are connected to the Franklin Municipal Water Supply (Figure 6). Further, contaminant levels do not exceed any regulatory or health-based criteria which would present a risk to groundwater receptors.

Franklin Municipal Code (Article V, Sect. 190-19) requires that all buildings occupied by people, including residential, commercial, industrial and institutional buildings, constructed or planned tor construction on any land adjacent to or abutting any public right-of-way or easement where a municipal water main is installed or is being installed, must be connected .to the municipal system. In addition, all wells located on premises served by the municipal supply must be abandoned within one year of connection to the city water supply as per Ch. NR 112, WAC, unless a pem1it has been obtained from the citl.

Long-Term Stewardship:

Since compliance with ICs is necessary to assure the protectiveness of the remedy, planning for LTS is required. Long-term stewardship involves assuring that effective ICs are in place, as well as the procedures to properly maintain, monitor, and enforce them so that the remedy continues to remain protective of human health and the environment. To that end, although ICs have been implemented in place in the form of deed restrictions, an updated Restrictive Covenant is being pursued to better assure that the remedy will continue to provide long-term protection to public health and the environment. Additional IC evaluation activities will ensure that no existing encumbrances interfere with the ICs. EPA is also working with the PRP and WDNR to identifY and complete the tasks needed to successfully implement the covenant. The site O&M plan is being revised to include a requirement for an annual certification to EPA and WON R that ICs remain in place and are effective.

System Operations/O&M

The site has been in the O&M phase since August 28, 1995 when the Preliminary Close-out Report was completed. The O&M responsibilities listed in Table 4 and sampling activities in Table 7 are being performed by Menards' subcontractor Environmental Sampling Corporation (ESC) of Muskego, Wisconsin.. All O&M and other requirements previously under EPA's 1993 UAO, which was terminated in October 2006, are now enforced under the state's March 28, 2005 AOC with Menards. WDNR manages the FDD site as a closed landfill under its Solid Waste Program WAC Chapter NR 514.05.9. Attachment 3 provides the monitoring table for the system. The attachment clarifies that every fifth year of sampling includes cyanide and additional metals. Attachment 4 is the field form that is used during the annual groundwater monitoring events. The annual groundwater monitoring report is received in July and provides cumulative monitoring results. Annual monitoring of groundwater and leachate will continue under this arrangement until such time as Menards petitions WDNR for a reduction in frequency.

6The city may grant a permit to a private well owner to operate a well for a period not to exceed five years, provided that the conditions of this section are met (Franklin Municipal Code Article II, Sect. 207-17).

18

Monthly Field Status Reports, including the compliance and discharge reporting for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sanitary District (MMSD) are filed by ESC. ESC also prepares a semi­annual inspection report (see Attachment 5) which is filed at both the ESC office in Muskego and at the Ayres office in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

Annual O&M reports are provided to the agencies each year to document the O&M work conducted over the past year, as well as any problems, corrective actions taken, and changes to the monitoring and reporting requirements. Notable O&M activities performed at the site since the 2008 FYR include incidents that occurred in 2008 and 2011 (discussed below).

TABLE 4 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY INSPECTION FREQUENCY

MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY

SITE FENCING Semi-annually As Required

SITE ACCESS ROAD Semi-annually As Required

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM

Sample Collection Annually Not Applicable

Monitoring Well Inspection Semi-Annually As Required

FINAL COVER SYSTEM

Erosion of Soil Cap Semi-annually As Required

Vegetation Cover Semi-annually As Required

Erosion Control Structures Semi-annually As Required

Stonn water Structures Semi-annually As Required

Mowing and Pruning Semi-annually Semi-Annually

LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

Full Tank Monitoring Annually (c)

Leachate Level Measure Monthly (c)

Leachate Disposal Monthly As Required

Test Cycle Pump monthly As Required

Jet Leachate Collection Line Five-Year Interval As Required

19

Tank Leak Detection AlanTI Monthly As Required

Cathodic Protection Monthly As Required

(b) Mowing of vegetation occurs twice per year during the growing season; usually in early July and late Sept.

(c) None required as direct discharge pemlit to MMSD sewer has been established.

In May 16, 2008, the PRP semi-annual site inspection identified two matters. These concerns were also identified in the FYR site inspection which took place on May 18, 2008 and were the following:

• About 30 tires had been deposited between the wooden privacy fence and the cyclone perimeter fence between April 4 and May 15, 2008.

• There was an area of cap damage located near a drainage grate.

The landfill cap erosion was repaired shortly after the 2008 FYR inspection. The tires were properly disposed of.

In May 2011, the PRP semi-annual site inspection identified the following two matters:

• The locks on the gates and MW-8CO and MW-9D were rusty and in poor condition. • A portion of the wood screening privacy fence had been knocked down

New locks were subsequently installed on the monitoring wells, electrical panel, and access gates and the fence was repaired.

During the October 2012 FYR inspection, the inspection team identified two areas of erosion on the landfill cap. These areas were repaired in November 2012.

In general, the landfill cap, site fencing, signs and leachate collection system have been well­maintained. The grass on the landfill cap is healthy and is maintained at about six to ten inches throughout the year. The gravel access road is typically overgrown with weeds and grass, but this does not pose an access problem.

The MMSD has a key to the site in order to check the manhole and leachate tank, and to collect grab samples on a monthly basis. The Wisconsin Electric Company visits the site quarterly to check the meter.

Over the past five years, from 2008 through 2013, the annual O&M costs were similar to the previous five-year period (2003-2008). On average, annual O&M costs are estimated at $ 20,000 to $25,000 and can vary depending on the required analyses or repair work.

20

v. Progress Since the Last Review

EPA completed the third FYR for the FDI? site in July 2008. The protectiveness detem1ination

is provided in Table 5, below:

TABLE 5 - PROTECTIVENESS DETERMINATION FROM THE 2008 FYR

OU Protectiveness Determination Protectiveness Statement

Site-wide Protective The site-wide remedy at the FDD site is protective of human health and the environment in both the short and the long tenn. All data and observations collected and evaluated during this review indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and is expected to continue in this manner. The FDD site neither poses a threat to human health or the environment, nor is it expected to [do so] in the future.

Because there were no issues identified which affected the protectiveness of the remedy during the 2008 FYR, EPA provided no recommendations or follow-up actions to correct matters. Table 6, below, provides a list of the items identified in the 2008 FYR that warranted further attention and the status of these follow-up actions that needed to be taken as part of routine site

O&M.

TABLE 6 - FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS TO ITEMS WARRANTING FURTHER ATTENTION

Issue Recommendations or

Follow-up Actions Party

Responsible Oversight

Agency

Original Milestone

Date

Current Status

.Completion Date

A small portion of the landfill cover in the northwest portion of the site has cracked or eroded.

Repair hole in landfill cover edge.

PRP (Menards)

EPA and WDNR

9/30/2008 Complete July 31, 2008

Tires need to be removed from the area in front of the site.

Remove and properly dispose of tires fi'om this area.

PRP (Menards)

EPA and WDNR

9/30/2008 Complete July 31, 2008

Based upon the IC evaluation activities, follow-up actions are

The follow-up actions will be incorporated into an IC Plan which will be

PRP (Menards)

EPA and WDNR

3/31/2009 Complete March 2013 Follow-up actions have

required to assure that the developed by EPA within been remedy remains protective. six months ofthe statutory planned and LTS must be assured which FYR date. The Plan initiated. includes maintaining and should assure oversight of monitoring effective rcs. ICs to ensure LTS.

21

Recommendation 1:

During the May 18, 2008 FYR site inspection, the team noted damage to a small portion of the landfill cap (approximately 1.5 square-foot area) near the northwestern edge of the landfill. A portion of the cap had been broken away exposing a lower layer about 6-8 inches down. The cause of the divot was unknown; however, it may have been caused by vehicles accessing the wells or leachate system for O&M purposes, or by erosion. The PRP repaired the damage on July 31, 2008 by filling in the damaged area with clay, re-grading for proper drainage, and then covering the area with stone.

Recommendation 2:

During the 2008 FYR site inspection, the team noted the presence of about 30 used tires on the east side of the site between the wooden outer front privacy fence and the metal perimeter fence. The PRP contractor had noted this a few weeks prior to the site inspection and had filed a police report. The PRP removed the tires and properly recycled them on July 31, 2008.

Recommendation 3:

In order to assure the continued long-term protectiveness of the remedy, compliance with ICs and planning for LTS is necessary. Since the last FYR, EPA evaluated the current ICs and detern1ined that an Institutional Controls Plan was not needed, but that a Covenant should be filed with the Milwaukee County Recorder of Deeds in order to require Menards or any subsequent site owner to notify EPA, and obtain EPA's approval, before selling or developing the site property. The Covenant would memorialize the right of EPA and WDNR on behalf of the State of Wisconsin to enforce such restrictions on land and groundwater use. The current O&M Plan should be revised by Menards to include procedures for maintaining and monitoring the ICs and to include a provision to provide WDNR and EPA with an annual certification that ICs are in place and effective. Also, additional evaluations should occur to ensure that no other encumbrances will interfere with the ICs.

VI. Five Year Review Process

Administrative Components

EPA notified WDNR and Menards of the start of the fourth FYR by letter on May 10, 2012. The . FYR team was led by EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Sheila Sullivan. Other EPA team members included Community Information Coordinator (CIC) Patricia Krause and site attorney Richard Nagle. Project Manager Binyoti Amungwafor represented WDNR. Menards' representatives included Corporate Counsel Paul Mahler, Ayres Project Manager Lori Rosemore, and ESC Director of Operations Frank Perugini.

22

Beginning in May 2012, the RPM established the components of the review, which included:

Community Notification · Document Review · Data Review · Site Inspection/Community Interviews · Five-Year Review Report Development and Review

Community Notification and Involvement

Activities to involve the community in the FYR process were initiated on June 28, 2012 when an EPA notice announcing the initiation of the FYR and soliciting site information and concerns from the community was published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in its My Community NOW publication for the communities of Franklin, Oak Creek, Greendale, and Hale's Comer (see Attachment 6). Since the notice was published, no community members expressed an interest or concern regarding the site itself or the FYR process.

Document Review

The FYR included a review of the relevant documents which included applicable EPA and WDNR guidance, decision, and enforcement documents, as well as post-RA documents. A comprehensive list of documents is included as Attachment 7.

Data Review

Groundwater

The current monitoring network includes nine nested groundwater monitoring wells and the leachate tank. As of this report, 23 rounds of groundwater and leachate monitoring data, twelve rounds of surface water, and seven rounds of sediment monitoring data have been collected. These samples were analyzed for TAL inorganics, TCL organics and water quality parameters. Table 7 (next page) and Attachment 3 provide the parameters and frequencies of the environmental monitoring.

Table 8 (next page) lists the groundwater parameters and monitoring wells where the 1988 NR 140 Public Health Groundwater Quality Standards (PALs, ESs) were exceeded between 2008. and 2012. The groundwater data collected which reflects this infonnation is provided in Attachment 8. Exceedances are based on the 1988 PALs and ESs that were effective at the time of the 1991 ROD, and the ACLs that were developed in 2003. Table 8 also includes the contaminants and wells for which the current (as of January 2012) NR 140 Public Health Groundwater Quality Standards and ACLs approved July 2003 were exceeded. The standards are generally less stringent than those of 1988.

23

TABLE 7 - CURRENT REMEDIAL ACTION MONITORING PROGRAM

MEDIUM and SAMPLING

POINT

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS

SAMPLING FREQUENCY

Groundwater: Field parameters (temp., Quarterly for the first 2 years after RA completion; Nine Monitoring pH, conductivity) Semi-annually for the 3rd

, 4th and 5th years after RA Wells on site TAL, TCL (filtered

inorganics, YOCs) WAC NR 508 indicator parameters (alkalinity, COD, hardness, sodium, dissolved iron, chloride, and fluoride)

completion; Annually for the following 19 years, unless EPA and WDNR determine a more appropriate sampling frequency and time-frame based on statistical studies and other data.

Current sampling frequency is annual

Leachate: Field parameters (temp., Quarterly for the first 2 years after RA completion; Leachate tank pH, conductivity), TAL, Quarterly for the 3rd

, 4th and 5th year following RA TCL (unfiltered completion; inorganics, YOCs), WAC NR 508 indicator parameters (alkalinity,

Current sampling frequency is annual

COD, hardness, sodium, dissolved iron, chloride, and fluoride)

TABLE 8 - GROUNDWATER CONTAMNANTS MEETING OR EXCEEDING 1988 ROD CLEANUP CRITERIA FROM 2008 - 2012

Parameter Location Result (Year Detected) ACL ES 1988/2012

PAL 1988/2012

0.44 (2008) MW-6COR 0.52 (2009)

0.822 (2010) MW-6S 1.82 (2009)

0.76 (2010) 0.982 (2009)

0.65 (2010) 0.992 (2009)

0.73 (2010) 0.922 (2009)

0.92 (2010) , 1.1 2

(2008,2009,2011,2012)

--­2.2/4.0 0.44/0.8

MW-6D

Fluoride, diss., mg/L

MW-7S

MW-8D

MW-9D

MW-9S 1.1 2 (2010) 1.5

24

Iron, diss., mg/L

MW-6S 0.254 (2010) 0.6071.3 (2011)

0.30

0.30 0.15 MW-9D

0.15 (2012) 0.279 (2011)

--­(Public Welfare Standard) MW-6D 0.876 (2011)

MW-8D 0.213 (201 I)

Chloride, mg/L

(Public Welfare Standard) MW-7CO

180 (2008) 270 1,2 (2011 )

--­ 250 125

Beryllium, disso, ug/L MW-8CO 0.45 (2008) --­ --- / 400 --- / 0.4

MW-6COR 108 (2010) 510 50 (public welfare) /

300 (public health)

25 (public welfare) /

60 (public health)

Manganese, diss., (ug/L)

(Public Welfare Standard /

Public Health Standard)

MW-6S 74.1 (2010)

51.0 1,3 (2008) 94.1 1,2,3 (2012)

240

MW-9S 50

MW-6COR 506 (2012)

5.4 (2012)

--­ 10/50 1 / 10Selenium, diss., ug/L

MW-7CO

MW-9S 0.982 (2008)

0.522 (2012)

--­ 500 0.067/0.5Benzene ug/L

MW-8D

MW-6S 0.3622 (2009)

0.322 (2009)

--­ --- / 3.0 --- / 0.3 Chloromethane, ug/L

MW-7S

(Exceeds the 1988 NR 140 Public Health and/or Welfare Groundwater Quality Enforcement Standard (ES) 2 Exceeds the current (as of January 2012) NR 140 Public Health and/or Welfare Groundwater Quality Standards PAL 3 Exceeds the FDDS Calculated Wisconsin Altemate Concentration Levels (WACL)

Inorganic Compounds

The data collected since the last FYR in 2008 indicate that groundwater contaminants fluoride, iron, and manganese have exceeded their respective PALs most frequently; however, these compounds naturally occur in Wisconsin groundwater. An evaluation of the background groundwater quality in Milwaukee County indicated that concentrations of fluoride, iron, and manganese above 1988 Chapter NR 140 PALs were common; hence, the levels of these substances were unlikely to be related to past site waste disposal activities and more probably

25

reflected naturally-occurring groundwater quality. Thus EPA and WDNR approved the use of WACLs for these contaminants in wells exceeding PALs. Other contaminants with PAL exceedances during this FYR period were chloride, beryllium and selenium; however, only chloride exceeded its ES by a slight amount.

The monitoring wells showing the most frequent exceedances of PALs and/or ES of fluoride, iron and manganese are MW-6COR, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-8D, MW-9D and MW-9S. Exceedances of the 1988 fluoride PAL occurred in seven of the nine wells; however the ES and ACL of 1.5 mg/L in MW-9S were not exceeded during this timeframe. Iron PAL exceedances occurred in four of the nine wells and in the case of MW-6S, its ES and ACL ~ere also exceeded in 2011. In the case of manganese, the three wells showing PAL exceedances also exceeded the ES. In addition, the ACL for two wells MW-6COR and MW-9S was exceeded on three occasions (2008, 2010 and 2012).

Organic Compounds

The previous FYR indicated that there were no detections ofVOCs in the monitoring wells exceeding their respective PALs except for benzene, which was found sporadically in concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.47 ppb. Data for this FYR showed the presence of benzene and several other aromatic compounds in MW-9S in 2008. Benzene was found at 0.98 ug/L, exceeding the 1988 and current PALS, but not the ES. Additional benzene detections were in W­7CO in 2009 at a low level (0.16 ug/L) and in MW-9S (0.52 ug/L) in 2012.

The comprehensive pattern of benzene detections indicated that benzene was not the result of on­site waste disposal and was more likely to be the result of field sample collection or laboratory errors.

Other compounds found were trimethylbenzenes, toluenes, and xylenes at levels that were several orders of magnitude below the 1988 and current PALs. These same contaminants were also seen in MW-9D during the 2008 monitoring event at similarly low levels. The only other organic detections of note involved MW-7CO, wherein toluene was seen in 2008-201O~ and naphthalene and trimethylbenzene were also found in 20 IO.

Groundwater Trends

Through natural attenuation, several of the contaminants found in groundwater during the RI such as mercury, manganese, and barium, have declined in concentration at several of the wells. Fluoride levels have either remained stable or have slightly decreased. Naturally-occurring contaminants are not being attenuated to any degree, as would be expected. While these wells show small fluctuations in concentrations, it is difficult to deternline whether they can be solely attributed to actual concentration changes or, in part, to slight differences in sample collection and laboratory analysis methods. The use of standardized procedures, however, acts to minimize variat.ions in the field and laboratory procedures. Attachment 8 provides groundwater trend data for key parameters over the past five years. It is difficult to determine recent trends in

26

contaminant levels (i.e., since the last FYR) as there is an insufficient number of data points. Given the total number of years of monitoring at this site, however, a comprehensive statistical analysis could be performed.

Site Inspection

A site inspection was conducted by members of the FYR team on October 6,2012 and a follow­up visit was made on October 11, 2012. Representatives from the team included EPA RPM Sheila Sullivan, WDNR Project Manager Binyoti Amungwafor, and PRP consultants Lori Rosemore (Ayres), Frank Perugini (RMC) and Tracy Ipabec (RMC). The purpose of the inspection was to gather data to use in the assessment of the protectiveness of the remedy, including the condition of the fencing and posted signs to restrict access, and the condition of the site itself, i.e., the landfill cover, leachate collection system, monitoring wells, the surrounding land, and ICs. A completed site inspection checklist is provided as Attachment 9. Photographs taken during the inspection are in Attachment 10. The representatives walked the site perimeter, noting the condition of the landfill cap, monitoring wells, leachate collection system, fence, signs, and gates.

The landfill cover grasses appeared to be thick and well-maintained. There were no signs of stressed vegetation or dead grass which would indicate that ponding had occurred (see Photos 4­7). The team noted two areas that had been damaged and/or eroded. One of the areas was located northeast of the leachate tank on a 50-degree slope constituting a natural drainage area (see Photos 8-9). In addition, an 18-inch deep divot was noted near the manhole but was located to the north of the access road and cap edge near the northern perimeter fence (see Photo 7). The original gravel access road to the leachate collection area ran along the northern edge of the landfill. This road is no longer visible as it has filled in with grass over the years (see Photo 11). The riprap channel in the southwest portion of the site also appeared to be in good condition, though shrubbery had grown within the channel (see Photos 12-13). The terrestrial and riparian foliage around the site was dense and healthy, capable of supporting numerous animal, bird, and insect species near the site.

The team opened and checked the monitoring wells, which were found to be in good condition with no signs of vandalism or tampering evident. The locks had been replaced on the monitoring wells as previously discussed. There were no physical signs of methane gas present, which might be indicated by the blackening of brass fixtures on the well heads (see Photos 14-16). The leachate collection system lift station, high water alarm system, drains and electrical panels were in good condition and operating. The team noted that locks had been placed on the leachate system electrical panel as was suggested during the previous FYR inspection (see Photo 19).

While inspecting the access controls, the team noted a fence hole the size of about eight square feet midway along the southern perimeter fence line. The hole was only visible from the outside of the fence (see Photo 17). The remaining fencing and barbed wire topping appeared to be in good condition. Both of the gates and security locks appeared to be well-maintained. As per the RA Statement of Work in the 1993 UAO, warning signs are required to be posted in 200-foot

27

intervals. Currently, the signs are posted at approximately 750~foot intervals. Several of the warning signs, including the one posted on the front gate, were faded and the paint had peeled. The condition and spacing of the signs reflect the revised status of the site (from fonner Superfund site to a privately-managed site). Many newer commercial businesses and residential developments were noted in the area since the last FYR, as discussed in the following section.

Interviews

The ESC staff is regularly at the site and indicated that no problems have occurred regarding site security and no concerns have been raised by the local commercial and residential population. Further, no telephone calls have been received regarding the prospective purchase of the property. Regarding concerns about the use of private wells in the area, the maps of the water supply infrastructure indicate that the Franklin municipal water supply is available and utilized by the large commercial establishments and residential developments in the vicinity of the site.

, Since the last FYR, Franklin has extended its water lines to areas not previously served by city water, which included south of Rawson Avenue, such as along Minnesota Avenue and on the west side of 31 st street, and within the first half mile north of Drexel. Figure 6 shows existing water utilities along the South 27th Street Corridor. The water and sewer lines along South 2ih

Street extend south up to Ryan Road, leaving a section of the corridor between South County Line Road and Ryan Road not well-served by utilities at this time; however, contaminant levels do not exceed any regulatory or health-based criteria that would present a risk to potential groundwater receptors.

The Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road, has also served as a site document repository; however, most people are referred to the Franklin Public Library, 9151 W Loomis Road to review the FDD site Administrative Record library for site documents.

VII. Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes--Based on a review of relevant documents, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), risk assumptions, and the results of the FYR site inspection, the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and attendant documents, and it is projected to continue in this manner. The effectiveness and progress of the remedy has been tracked through the monitoring program which encompasses data from 23 monitoring events to date.

According to the assessments of these data, all of the compounds monitored at the FDD site have either met the cleanup criteria, i.e., the PALs set forth in the 1988 WAC Chapter NR 140 Ground Water Quality Standards, or correspond to concentrations that are measured in background samples, thus reflecting the naturally occurring levels of these constituents. Wisconsin Alternative Concentration Limits have been set and met for these naturally occurring

28

constituents. These data indicate that the site neither poses a threat to human health or the enviromnent, nor is it expected to do so in the future, because although PALs were exceeded over the past five years in some cases, the ESs, which are set to protect public health and the environment, were not exceeded.

WDNR manages the site as a closed landfill under its Solid Waste Program WAC Chapter NR 514.05.9 as per its 2005 AOC with Menards. This involves oversight ofO&M, including annual monitoring of groundwater and leachate, which will continue until such time as Menards petitions WDNR for a reduction in sampling frequency. No O&M cost variances would present a problem or jeopardize the remedy's protectiveness. There has been no evidence of vandalism or trespassing activity at the site since the last FYR.

ICs are in place and are effective at presenting exposure and no additional remediation is needed.

Discussions with site O&M personnel indicate that no issues or problems have arisen with respect to enforcing the deed restrictions for the property. However, the agencies are pursuing placement of a Restrictive Covenant on the site to better assure LTS.

Currently there are no opportunities for remedy optimization and no early indicators of potential Issues.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid?

No--There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The items identified for repair during the October 2012 FYR site inspection (i.e., fence hole, the two areas of cap erosion) were repaired on December 28,2012. Additional "No Trespassing" signs have been placed on the fences.

Changes in Standards and TBCs

The FDD site groundwater cleanup goals are 1988 Wisconsin NR 140 groundwater standards, which have been modified over time. Changes by the state have made the standards less conservative; hence, any exceedances of the 1988 cleanup goals do not present adverse risks to human health or the environment.

No new classes of potential chemical-specific ARARs were noted since the ROD. The controlling ARAR categories remain the PALs set forth in the 1988 Wisconsin NR 140 Ground Water Quality Standards code and Chapter 160, Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Ambient Water Quality Criteria under the federal Clean Water Act.

The ROD identified the 1988 Wisconsin NR 140 groundwater standards as the groundwater cleanup goals for the site, which are chemical-specific PALs and ESs for groundwater. Also

29

relevant and appropriate are the federal MCLs, which are less stringent than the PALs. Wisconsin PALs, ESs and ACLs continue to define acceptable groundwater concentrations at the site; however, an exceedance does not necessarily trigger remedial action as long as protectiveness is maintained. In the larger vicinity of the site, groundwater is not widely used because Franklin's municipal water supply cUlTently serves most of the area and anticipates extending the water mains over the next few years to cover the more recently developed areas. As noted, some revisions to the PALs have occun·ed since the 1988 groundwater quality standards were issued by WDNR. These values are provided in Table 8. The chemicals detected at the site through the time of the 1991 ROD remain subject to the ARARs identified at that time.

The calculation of WACLs in 2003 as per 1988 Wisconsin NR 140.28 is also part of that groundwater ARAR. The WDNR AOC with Menards states that if any future new contaminants are discovered at the site that were not originally found during the RIfFS, RDfRA or O&M activities, these contaminants will not be subject to the 1988 PALs, but instead will be subject to the most recent Wisconsin Groundwater Quality Standards under NR 140, WAC.

There have been no changes in Location and Action-Specific ARARs that impact the protectiveness ofthis remedy. There have been no new exposure pathways, toxicity values, or risk assessment methods that would impact the protectiveness of the remedy.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

N0--There is no new information that has come to light that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

Technical Assessment Summary

Based on a review of relevant documents, ARARs, risk assumptions, and the results of the site inspection, the remedy is currently functioning as intended by the ROD, and is projected to continue in this manner. This has been demonstrated via the groundwater and leachate monitoring program that began in November 1995 and now encompasses 23 monitoring events. These data indicate that the FDD site neither poses a threat to human health or the environment, nor is it projected to do so in the future. The FDD site O&M plan addresses long-term maintenance of site fencing, roads, leachate collection system, and final cover system. Post­closure care for the cover is performed in compliance with WAC, Ch NR 500-520. The items identified for repair during the October 2012 FYR site inspection (i.e., fence hole and the two areas of cap erosion) were promptly repaired on December 28,2012. Additional "No Trespassing" signs were also placed on the fences.

The O&M plan also specifies long-term environmental monitoring for the site. Menards had been perfomling these responsibilities pursuant to the 1993 VAO. WDNR has since entered into an AOC with Menards, effective March 28,2005, for the continuation of requirements under the 1993 VAO, such as environnlental monitoring at the site. WDNR now manages the site as a

30

closed landfill under its Solid Waste Program WAC Chapter NR 514.05.9. Under this agreement, Menards must monitor groundwater and leachate annually until WDNR approves any future requests from Menards to reduce the sampling frequency.

The ROD identified the 1988 NR 140 Wisconsin groundwater standards as the cleanup goals for the site. As previously discussed, iron, manganese, and fluoride continue to exceed PALs in the groundwater. A background groundwater evaluation showed that these concentrations of fluoride, iron, and manganese more likely reflected the natural groundwater quality and were more appropriately addressed via the calculation of WACLs for these constituents in specific wells. The approval of these WACLs brought the FDD site into full compliance with the 1988 Wisconsin Groundwater Quality Standards and the RA goals.

The protectiveness of the WACLs is better understood by putting them into perspective with the other health criteria for the three constituents. When the WACLs are compared to EPA primary MCLs established to protect human health from drinking water ingestion, they are of the same magnitude of concentration.7 The PAL for a contaminant is typically one-half of its respective primary MCL and is therefore even more protective of human health. When the WACLs are compared to their respective EPA secondary MCLs (SMCLs), they are either the same or one order of magnitude greater than the SMCL (as in the case of manganese); however, SMCLs are non-enforceable guidelines developed for certain parameters to maintain the aesthetic qualities of drinking water and are not related to health protection. Wisconsin has chosen to adopt the SMCLs as the state ESs for these constituents. Due to the physical/chemical nature of these particular constituents, the SMCLs are typically more stringent values than the primary MCLs or any other health-based limit owing to the low concentrations at which they exhibit nuisance characteristics.

The WACLs calculated for fluoride range from 1.5 to 4.0 mg/L. These values exceed the current PAL (0.8 mg/L) but are slightly below the MCL and the current ES for fluoride of 4.0 mg/L. In addition, EPA has assigned an SMCL of 2.0 mg/L to fluoride.

Because iron is an essential nutrient, EPA has not promulgated a primary MCL. The WACLs calculated for iron range from 0.30 to 0.37 mg/L. While all three WACLs exceed the PAL (0.15 mg/L) and two of the WACLs slightly exceed the SMCL and ES for iron of 0.3 mg/L, no adverse health impacts would be expected at these levels. This SMCL value was set to prevent rusty discoloration, reddish-orange staining of fixtures, and metallic taste.

VIII. Issues

There are no issues which affect the short- or long-term protectiveness of the remedy. The following item (see Table 9, next page) was identified as warranting further attention.

7 This comparison is valid only for fluoride, as it is the only one of the three constituents for which a primary Mel has been promulgated by EPA.

31

TABLE 9 - ITEMS WARRANTING FURTHER ATTENTION

Item No. ITEM

1

Based upon the IC evaluation activities, follow-up actions should be taken to assure that the remedy remains protective. Compliance with ICs must be ensured. Long­term stewardship must be assured, which includes maintaining, monitoring and enforcing effective 1Cs.

IX. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Because there were no issues identified which affect the protectiveness of the remedy, there are no recommendations or follow-up actions that need to be taken in that regard. Table 10, below, identifies an item and follow-up action that warrant further attention.

TABLE 10 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

Item

Recommendations and

Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Oversight Agency

Milestone Date

Based upon IC evaluation activities, follow-up actions are required to assure that the remedy remains protective. Compliance with ICs must be ensured. Long-term stewardship must be assured, which includes maintaining, monitoring and enforcing effective ICs.

EPA and WDNR are working with Menards to identify and complete the tasks needed to implement an updated effective Restrictive Covenant. The site O&M plan is also being revised to include LTS procedures.

PRP (Menards, Inc.)

EPA and WDNR

12/31/2014

X. Protectiveness Statement

EPA has determined that the remedial action at the FDD site is protective of human health and the envirorunent. All data and observations collected and evaluated during this FYR indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD and it is projected to continue in this manner. The FDD site neither poses a threat to human health or the environment, nor is it projected to do so in the future. Operation and maintenance activities have been effective. Groundwater and leachate monitoring will continue until EPA and WDNR determine that it is no longer necessary.

32

Since compliance with effective ICs is necessary to assure the protectiveness of the remedy, effective ICs must be in-place and LTS is required. Long-tenn stewardship involves assuring that effective ICs are in place, as well as the procedures to properly maintain, monitor, and enforce them so that the remedy continues to remain protective of human health and the environment. To that end, although ICs have been implemented in the fonn of deed restrictions, an updated Restrictive Covenant is being pursued to better assure that the remedy will continue to provide long-tenn protection and additional evaluation activities will occur to ensure that no other encumbrances will interfere with the ICs.

XI. Next Review

EPA will complete the next FYR of the FDD site site five years from the completion date of this review.

33

Superfund Site Location U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Milwaukee County, WI WID980901227

Lake Michigan

County

WAUKESHA

WASHINGTON

WALWORTH

SiteIFigure 1 I

+ N

Produced by Julie Schill U.S. EPA Region 5 on July 7, 2008 Image Date: 2007

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Superfund Milwaukee County, WI U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WID980901227

Site Features Map

-en .s=-~,

en

• I

Unnamed Tributary

!:SJ RipRap

-$- Monitoring Wells

@ Wet Ponded Area

D Leachate Lift Station ~ and Storage Tank Area

• Location of Cap Divet

• •• 6" Leachate Collection -- Interception Line

Gravel Driveway

Cyclone Fence

Wood Fence

............. Property Boundary

Existing Storm Sewer + N

Figure 2

RPM: Sheila Sullivan

Produced by JUlie Schilf U.S. EPA Region 5 on July 8, 200B Image Date: 2003

RECENT & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAP .,., :;

College Avenue

Ashley Furniture, co:m;e;rCi;al,;;~~t~I~~~~~i~il1;:l~i Dental OfficeRiverwood Plaza, Commercial Lowe's, Commercial Johnson Bank, commerCl'!f.'a~~~~~~~~ Rawson Avenue Midwest Specialists, Medica

YMCA, Recreational------$ -..l~~ft-

Northwestern Mutual Lire, Office:e:~~~~=l:';I=

"I"'I"l''''I'''i!m#i=t''I1==;::;I~ 0rexeIAvenue

"'i='-ElEFI-F=+ Laurel Woods, Residential L-"--~-Alt -

Pick & Save, Commercial

Business Park, Office -----------I+-I---+_

Hidden Oaks, Residential ------------,I---"""t--'----:~

Covenant Clinic, Medical --f:;::~~~~iJ~~:rfi

Business Park Future Phase, Office ~-d------,~~~::::::;;;1L=::::~,£;:.::L

CJ. Residential

CJ Business

CJ Mixed-Use! Office

CJ Open Space

CJ Agricultural! Vacant

Park

CJ Institutional

CJ Manufacturing/Industrial

CJ Surface Water

CJ Transportation! Utilities

.. Recent & Proposed Developments ffi ~ Franklin TID Area 01-~....l.-.OO_O_2...000__~4~W

27TH STREET CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 3

Superfund Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Fadrowski Drum Disposal WID980901227Milwaukee County, WI

Area 2 - CJ Aevlsed Legal Dese. 01 Deed AestrictJoo • Approx. 11.4 ecres N Landlill Cap - Approx. 11 acres a 300 600

D Deed Aeslrichon releesed on Areas A. e, C - 12/22100 _ ••••••c:::=====:::::J1 Feet Area 1 - OrigJnal srte boundary pnor to land purchase Figure 4 +Area 3· Area between Landfill Cap and Aevised Deed Restriction Boundarv - Approx 0.4 acres

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN

Land Use Plan for the 27th Street Corridor:

• District 1: College Avenue - Ra"wson Avenue Regional Retail

• District 2: Rawson Avenue - Drexel Avenue Mixed-Use/Office/Urban Village

• District 3: Drexel Avenue - Ryan Road Mixed-Use Neighborhood

• District 4: Ryan Road - South County Line Road Mixed-Use Office/Conservation

Existing 1-94 Interchange

Proposed 1-94 Interchange

..... , ( ) Regional Retail Node

........... .-~ Community Retail Node..,

Regional Employment Center

-. Parks and Open Spaces

Corridor Gateways

Root River

Commercial

Mixed Density Residential

mTTT...rf--U~ College Avenue

Oakwood Road

Office .. Mixed Use - Commercial

.. Mixed Use - Office Urban Village

Existing Park ~ Environmental Corridor -- Study Area

OI-~.l'.1.._0,-OO_2...1000 4"",OjOO$

27TH STREET CORRIDOR PLAN Figure 5

UTILITIES MAP

L _

-- - 1Water Main. Caverage Area

- - . Sewer Coverage Area~Sanltary

Stormwater o 1000 20_00---,4~OOm

Study Area ~ W 27TH STREET CORRIDOR PLAN

Figure 6

Attachments for the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review

Attachment 1 - Declaration of Restrictions for the FDDS

Attachment 2 - Petition and Partial Release of Deed Restrictions

Attachment 3 - Environmental Sampling Corp. 2012 Monitoring Activities Summary

Attachment 4 - Groundwater Monitoring Field Form .

Attachment 5 - Semi-Annual Site Inspection Report Form

Attachment 6 - Public Notice Announcing Start of 2013 Five-Year Review

Attachment 7 - List of Documents Reviewed for the Five-Year Review

Attachment 8 - Summary of Selected Indicators for Cumulative Groundwater Data

Attachment 9 - EPA Five-Year Review Inspection Checklist

Attachment 10 - Photograph Log of 20 12 Site Inspection

-----./-_..

Attachment 1

~HL~054~~·AG2643

~ECEIVED .

UUL 26\993

m;CI,ARATIQK OF BESTRicl:IQN 01i USE OF REAt, eBOetR'cr

Menard, Inc.. the re::ord owner hel"eby declares and impo~~3 the following restrict.ions on the real property (also knowll as the Fadrowski Drum Disposal S i'"C.e - '·PODDS'" local.\td IH. 1.11"" ,",ouni;.y of ~ilwaukeer Franklin, W1sconsin. more particularly d~scribed as follows:

A parcel. of la.nd located in toh<=: southe~::J;t on.o- qUc.rtex­of Section 1, T5N r R,21E,Cit.1 of F'r'anklin, MilwaUkee County, wisconsin alSD Leing port of parcel 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 1316 Dn Reel Nu~ber 540. Image 283 285 t DOCUJl~ut Ho. -i5364S0· a~):aDor-ded in Kilwaukee County, Wisconsin. Said Parcel desoribed a& fal.lows;

Beslulling Clot­ th~ ~o"thCQ~t o~~n~r of spirt 11316; thenc~ S thence S t.hence S

a7° 00° 9'7 0

31' 06' 31'

33" 34" 33"

W, 320.00 f~~t; W, 125.00 feet; w.,1056.00 feet;

.-:..~_. -­ 6T71J2TO 16,00

thence N 000 16' 31" E, 545.4Z feet; i;hC:hOC N 9So 4.7' 2&" ~, 1:-\73.39 feet: thence S 00° 06' 34" WI 390.00 feet to the point of bo~inniI1S;

RECITALS

WH£RRAS. the T.Jh i'tpn. States Env il"oIUnental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) hEl.s issued a. Record of Decision a.dopting a remedial .::.,;:..~i':';:-6 :·~c?'1 -;...;h':.,::,7~ 7c'4,ui:L';5- ~c~cdi.d.l .A::.~i~~ toe ba ~i1ccLta.kail C~ the prope~ty ~nd institutional controls to assure that the remedy i& prot~~t~ve or human health and the environment; ..

nHEREA~, the United District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has approved a Consent Decree entered into bet.ween the United states of America and cer.ta.in Settling Defendants (in a. case styled United Sta.tes of Ame-cica v,' Acme !='r;DT.ing Ink. C&.......... et al.) y~ich Consent Decree concerns the ~e~dial actions to be undert~ken at the FDDS p~operty. Section V of the consent Decr~e anQ. Section IItb, of the Stl\tentent of Work t "SOW") attached to the Decree requi~e institutional cont.rols Which are neces~al.-Y to effectuate a.nd pr-otect the Reliledi111 Action pursuant to the Consent Decree at the FDnS and to pI:"otecl. L.ht:: lJY1.Jli~ bea~th. oX' ~elf&re or the environment at.the FDDS site;

6778270 'ASBtUrs OFFICE: } :saMIwauhee CouIUy. WI It£COllD£D AT_..=--'6· ~~~

. ·JUN141993 ~6~.3 T REa. ~SJllU",," _i f_ d I

!--.'

,­ , : ~

)

NOW 1 'l'gEREFORE. by this ins tnullent there are created J

dQclar~r.l R.nd e!':tablished at the property the following institutional controls and requirements that shall, unless' ~mp-nded. run with the land and remain in full force and effect to perpetui t.y froDl the date hereof I irrespective of" any ~ale I conveyance. aliena.tion. or Ilther trlUlsfer of any 1nterest or estate "in such property.

RESTRICTIONS ~PPLICABI!E TO THE PROPERTY

The follo~ing instituticnal controls and restrictions shall a~~ly to the ~~operty described above:

1. There shall be no consumptive or other u~e of the 8round~ater underlyiog the proper~y.

z. There shaLL be no use of, or actiVity at. the property that may interfere with the -Work performed or to be performed under the Con.sent necree at. Lhe p:roper\.)' I V.l."

any activity Yhich may damage any Re~edial Action component contracted tor or' iusta1.1ed purSUtaut to the:; Consent Decree Or otheryise im~air the effectivene9s o£ any Work to be p~rrurmed puxsuunt to the Con~entI· Decree.

I: r . 3. ~! There shall be no installation. ·c?nstruction. removal i· '>~r USl:: of c.n.,.. buildings I ~ollo. p1pae. roa.do) ditchesiI\, lar any otbe~ structures 8~ the Portion of the prope~ty I. ~~ver""d by the. lo.ndf ill co.p eXC''3}>t as . appt-oved bsr thqI:-! U.S. EPA as consistenL ~ith the Consent Decree and SOw.

L ·L There shall be no residential use of the prope~ty.[I

Ii The restrictions specified ab~ve shall;continue in full force and effect in perpetuity, or until such t::i}\le as. th~ u. S. EPA iss.t\f>!'t Fl

detarrnination in writing or the cour~'rules e~ther to modify or r t~rmin~tQ any of th~ rqstric~innR in response to a petition from the owner{s) of the property, as provided belo~.

1

i .QQPI Qj: RESTRI CTI0N..S

\ h COPy of these restrictions shall be Provided by owner( s::} of th~- tlroperty to all Successors, ass{gns

the and

transferees of th oroperty.

PETITION TO HODlEY Pi TRBMIN~TE DEED RESTRICTIONS

Afte:I" all. W01"'k I a.s defined in the CODsent Decree and SOW J

has been completed •. the owne~ls) of the property may pQtition ~e Regional Administrator of the U.S. EPA, Region V. or his delegate, to modify or teminate any of the deed restl"ictions:. Any pe-tition for modification or termination shall state the specific p.t'ovision sought to be modified or t.erlllinated ~nd Any proposed additional uses of the PJ:0lJer-ty. No proposed modiflc~tions or terminations may be inconsistent with the Consent Decree and SOW~

Tne property ownerlsJ sha11 provide to the Sett~ing

Defendants a copy of any petition for modific~tion or termination of deed restrictions subm~tted to the U.S. Ei-'A. Any Sett.ling Defendant may object to the proposed use of the prop.rty on the grounds that such use is not consistent w1'th the COnsent Uecree or the SOW, or may result in exceedllnces of groundwater Cleanup Standards set forth in the Consen~ Decree and SOW. Any S~ttling

Defendant ~o objecting shall notify the owner{s) of the property) "t.he u.s. SPA, and thoe' State or w.isc.;ull;sln iu writing, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the petition. The Regional Adllll.ui:itl.·ato::- or h.is delegate aay allow or deny the petitio)} for modification Qr termination in whole or in p~rt. Any dispute as "t.othe Regional Adlnini:st:.-ator' ~ 0:1: hi8 delet,;at.e:·:'1 dct.~rUlinat.iQn is subject to" Section xx. (Dispute Resolution) of the Consent Decree.

SE'lSRAIU I,TTY

If any provision cf thie Deolar~tion of RQstTietion On Uee of Real Property is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurie::d~.ction, tha in"\,rlil.J idity of Bueh provi~ion ..,h...ll noi: Q.£fec-t the vs.lidity of any ather provisions hereof. All such other p~ovi~ion9 ghn11 continue unimpair~d ip full fnr~~ and effect.

. If any p~ovision of this Declaration of Restriction On Use of Real Property is the subject of any law or regulation established by any federal, state or local ~ove~ent> the more restrictive of the two standards shell prevail.

No pro.... ision of this Decla:t"&tion of Restriction On Use of Real Property shall be const.:r-Jec SC' as to '.. iolate any applicable zoning laws I regulations G~ ordinanc~s. If any such conflict does arise, :~e applicable zoning laws, regulations or ordinances shall pLevail. ~nless they are inconsistent with CERCLA_

. -: ,(.~.,. , • - p"

'~~

..-'-.

Paul H.

The unde1:'"9.igneQ. pCJ:':SQn ~Aecu"t.1.n'it this })ec~aX"ation of Restric~ions On Use of Real Froperty on behalf o~ tne o~Rr(5) of the p~Qperty re~rp.sentg and c~rtitle5,th~~ he is dulT au~ho~ized and has been fully eDlPollered 1:0 execute this Declaratiotl. "

IN WITNESS WHEREOF t the owner of tlUs P~l'ert.y has causp!d tbi.s Declaration of ..le~:t r-i~i:.iono On Us~ o:f Real. Property to be executed on t.his t day of June I 1992.

MENARD, INC.

by; In.f!&V ~~ N~'rY 'E'~QC aska Vice-).>resident

STATE OF WtSCON5IN ) Iss.

COUNTY OF EAU CLAlaE}

On this day of June 1 1993. mQ A Not..u-y Publ:lcr befor~ wtthin Qnd for- this County tlnd S1:ate I personally appeared Marv Prochaska to me personally kn·;>t-,n, ~ho, beil1R' by llUii dulT sworn did say ~h~t he i~ ~he Vice President of Menard, Inc., 'the corporation nSliled in the foregoing instrUJ1lent, and that this instrUJllent l-Ia.£: cigncd and sea.led in behalf' of the corpol"ation;:by' ~_.

authority of ~ ts . Board of Dire~rs ;t )of,lllrv~. ~~ocb~~._~.". _.~.'.: acknowled~ec'l th1 ~ :Ltl:stI"1.:~::-~t -:0 be t_ j~fre e.ct 3.:C~ "'~~r,:d" .:_~ :.L*!. ·f:

Menard, Inc ~ . . J

',:,..,:,:, C'~.. J;' i ~:'l; ... :'. , 1 ,t ;..:. '.1,.~~., '.",•.•• \;.'. .

. ...". \ "," c"~ .. : rj "~r" I ~ t

Note. PUblic:. F:Q. Gl~ive: .~unG:·~:: ; ..... My COlIUnission is perm.iAAnt :1.. i c:. "~':'.'..

/ ~~:~;'.~~; ; ./::-.:re' <, <r •

THIS.INSTRUKENT DR~F7RD BY: A:,{I) ~ RLCORDL"'l"G IS TO BE ~ 'ft;:'·:,RQbert W. Corey, Attorney ~:ii~t:{:::-'<l';~'-' ~ 5136 Old Hill Center ~au Claire, WI 54103

SEP 85 20BB 16: 18 FR TO 2n74S»13128B6074 P.02/03

Attachment 2

PETITION TO MODIFY DEED RESTRICTIONS

The undersigned heRby formally petitions the Regional Administrator Ofthe United State Enviromnental Protection Agency ("EPAj. Region V. or his delegate.. to modify or termioate the deed restrictions described as the "DecJa:ration ofRestriction of Use ofReal Property" (the "Restrictions") recorded against the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incolpOtBted herein (the "Properly") pursuant to the following teJms and conditions:

1. The legal ~ption aUached to the Res1rictioD$ be modified to remove the . Restrictions from eenain portions ofthe undersigned petitioner's property in 1he location . described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incoIporated herein (the "East and West Property").

2. The undersigned petitioner requests that the EPA ccmDrm by letter agreement that certain lands located to the south ofthe petitioner's property and subject to the Restrictions may be used by the petitioner. its successors.. heirs and 8SlIigns fur pmpOses ofdriveway. parking lot, and roadway pmposes, whicl11aDds arc descoDed on Exlnoit C attached hereto md incoIporated herein (the "Additional Lands").

3. The IDldenigned petitioner shall provide acopy ofthis Petition to the Settling Defendants (as described in the Restrictions) for comment and any objection as required by the tenus ofthe Restrictions.

As we have been discussed. and as further outlined in my cover ictters to Robert Beauchamp ofEPA Region Vdated August 31. 1999 and September 21, 1999. we

. understand that no remediation was necessauy or conducted in 1hc Bast West Property or Additional Lands. The undersigned petitioner desires to put this underutilized ''Brownfield'' Propert:,; back in productive use hy developing. leasin& selling and/or financing the East West Property and using the Additional Lands for driwways, roadways or parking lots to assist development ofthe adjoining property. The Rdevelopmem and productive use oftbis property will be beneficial for citin:ns of FDDldin , WISconsin, and Milwaukee County and the Slate ofWISCODSin throngh increased tax base. additioual jobs and additional retail amenities.

SEP BS 2000 16: 18 FR TO 2tr745"131~4 P. 0:Ye:3

Thank you very IIl1ICh for your CODSideration of1his Petition. Please con1aCt me or myattomey, William T. Shroyer at abe Reinhart, Boem«, Van Deureo. Norris .. RieseIbach. s.c.• law firm. directly ifyou bave IDlY questions or comments tegBtdiDg this matter.

RespectfUlly su~

PETITIONER:

BY

Dr. John G. Gonis

MW'OS0139

2

REINHART I BOERNER I VAN DEUREN

NORRIS & RJESELBACH, S.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

August 10,2000

DELIVERED BY COURIER

Thor Ketzback, Esq. US Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Street Chicago, IL 60604

Dear Thor: Re: Dr. Gonis Menard's SitelFadrowski Adjacent Superfund.~ite

Pursuant to your request, we had Dr. Gonis's surveyor, Michael J.. Losik, survey the applicable property and enclose the following drawings:"

1. Exhibit 1(overall site plan showing the Fadrowski site as Outlot 1 and Dr. Gonis's property as Lot 1 to the north);

2. Area A (showing the east end of the overall survey map adjacent to 27th Street and owned by Dr. Gonis);

3. Area B (showing the area on the west end of the survey map, furthest away from South 27th Street, and owned by Dr. Goms)~

4. Area C (a strip of land which appears to in part be located on Dr. Gonis's property to the north); and

5. Area D (representing the area located on the Fadrowski Superfund site where Dr. Gonis would like a letter confirming that ifhe purchases, leases or obtains an easement from Menard's, he would be able to construct driveways and parking areas on this land).

1000 North Waler Street p.o, Box 514000 MilwaUkee, Wisconsin 53203-3400 Telephone (414) 298-1000 facsimile (414) 298,'!097

Denver, CO Madison, WI Milwaukee, WI (303) 831·0909 (60S) 229-2200 (SOD) 553-6215 .

cc

~--_.

'I'h,or Ketzback, Esq. August 10, 2000 Page 2

'./,:, ......

As we have discussed, my client is very anxious to bring this process to conclusion as promptly as possible, thus, your prompt attention to this matter is sincerely appreciate. Please call me at your earliest convenience so we can discuss resolving this matter.

Yours very truly,

/? /v(/(· . , ,LT. Shroyer

MW\645499WfS:ffiM

':,1 f ,,' I." ••

. • ~ J ;. "

j;­':

I f-Ai1f&Ll . I£~~l:~ 1

--------­ r I

3.879 s.r. 0.0891 Ac.

~. , I . I'

"" '·1

,,'

........ ~.I.-Ik.~

UUI •• e:..-oa ­,,--,W1 .... ~ "Y. 0 ,...

_~_E~~I~ ----t-~ I,. ~. . IM"I

NOR.TH " SCAlE:1 =120 -,i-­'IlK_ ~~~ ~ ~ I I: :

~I: 8UR"'~#' ' 0 60 120 240 ~: .'"I//Ii''''''''''' -J I:ci ' -----..-- . ....__-----------AREA "C"-------___

1 -,.I ~!~',

\ .... 1 Wi;:;'Wi ,),'.

I a: 1 .!.

.... i6ienl ,.' ~

.c l ::l -I",\ ..... , ~

,C\l1 ~I

\ :1:' ....::>1' 0 1

\ en: 1 I 1

_I, ~ L --_--: I BO,OO' :

- TOTAL "REMEDIAL ACTION" AREA DESCRIBED IN REEL 3054,PREPARED 'FOR: DR. JOHN GONIS IMAGE 2641. DOC. NO. 6nB269 (EPA) I I

THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY MICHAEL J. LOSIK. PE. LS. (S-1065) DATE: 8-8-00

.. : t ~

Legal description of deed restriction on real property for Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Landfill Cap, Depicted as Area 2 on Sitewide Ready for Reuse Map.

Outlot 1 of Certified Survey Map No. 6543, recorded on August 7, 1998, Images 1756 to 1758 Inclusive, as Document No. 7578744, as corrected by Affadavit of Correction recorded as Document No. 7724864, being a part of Parcel 2 of Certified Survey No. 1316, Part of the Northeast IA of the Southeast IA and part of the Northwest 1/.1 of the Southeast 1/.1 of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 21 East, in the City of Franklin, County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin. Said Parcel described as follows:

Beginning at the southeast comer of said Outlot 1, CSM #6543: thence S 87"31 '50" W, 939.94 feet: thence N 00°06'34" E, 531.63 feet; thence N 8T50'1O" E, 755.48 feet; thence Due East, 187.04 feet; thence S 01 °00'09" E, 394.26 feet; thence S 8T31 '33" W, 10.6 feet; thence S ooo06'34"W, 125.00 feet to the point of beginning:

-- ---

rrin~nla"':com

II ~~N~N!JD~~~ A1TOKN~",', AT lAW

April 4,2008

William Illvie Shroyer, Esq. DirecI Dial: 414-29S-S216 wshruyt:r@rcillhJI1!Jw.cnm

Sent by Email (sullivan.sheila@cpa.gov) (Il1d US Mail

Ms. Sheila Sullivan US EPA Mail Code SR-GJ 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, lL 60604

Dear Sheila: Re: Pm1ial Release of Declaration of Restriction of Usc of Real Property

Pursuant to your request, J enclose the recorded copy of the Partial Release, which I prepared in 2001 to release Dr. Gonis' parcels from the US EPA Super Fund Deed Restrictions.

Please contact me at your convenience if you have any questions or comments regarding the matter.

YOU7i;~

William Invie Shroyer

;,...IW\1515928\vIS:LPK

Ene.

ec Ms. Anne Gonis Mr. George Gialamas Mr. Steve Mayer

r.o. Box 2965. Milwllukec. WI 53201-2965 . 1000 NOrlh Waler Slreet, Suite 2100. Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: 414-298-1000 . Facsimile: 411-298·8097 . Toll Free: 800-553-6215

Mallisnn, WI . Tclephnne: 60R-229·2200 . Toll Free: 800-728-6239 \\';tukesh:l. WI . Telephone: 162·951·4500 • Toll Free: 800-928-5529

Ilockford. IL . Telephone: ~ 15-633-5300 . Toll Free: 800-B-I0-5·;20

ATTACHMENT it

PARTIAL RELEASE OF DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION ON

USE OF REAL PROPERTY

DOCUMENT NUMBER .-'

NAME & RETURN ADDRESS

William T. Shroyer, Esq. Reinhart. Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, s.c. 1000 North Water Street Suite 1100 Milwaukee, WI 53202

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(S)

[Tax Key No(s). ]

THIS PARTIAL RELEASE OF DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF REAL PROPERTY (this "Agreement") is made this __ day' of July, 2001 by and among the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ("U.S. EPA") and DR. JOHN.G. GONIS ("Dr. Gonis").

RECITALS:

U.S. EPA and Dr. Gonis acknowledge the following:

A. U.S. EI-A required Menard, Inc. to record a Declaration of Restriction on Use of Real Property, dated June 2, 1993, recorded June 14, 1993 at Reel 3054, Image 2643 through 2646, and identified as Document Number 6778270 at the Milwaukee County Register of Deeds Office (the "Declaration") against certain real property commonly known as the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site ("FDDS").

B. The Declaration was recorded against the entire FDDS in order to ensure that it covered all potential areas of remediation and contamination related to the FDDS. After significant testing of the FDDS and years of remediation, it was confirmed that certain property within the FDDS was not subject to the Remediation Action or the Statement of Work (both as defined in the Declaration) and did not contain significant contamination.

MW\70735RWTSBl.lI 02fl2/01

C. Dr. Gonis purchased a portion of the FDDS which was not subject to remediation. and desires to have such portions of his property removed from the Declaration. U.S. EPA has agreed that there is no longer a need to subject the property purchased by Dr. Gonis to the Declaration.

D. U.S. EPA and Dr. Gonis have agreed that those lands purchased by Dr. Gonis, and identified on Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein (representing the east and west portions [the "Excluded Parcels"] of Dr. Gonis' property subject to the Declaration) shall no longer be subject to the Declaration as described herein.

AGREEMENTS

In consideration of the Recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and the mutual agreements which follow, the parties agree as follows:

] . The Excluded Parcels are hereby released, removed and excluded from the lands governed by the Declaration, and the Declaration shall be considered null and void with respect to the Excluded Parcels. This release and removal of the Excluded Parcels from the Declaration shall be effective as··orthe date of this Agreement.

2. Except as partially released by this Agreement, the Declaration shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.

3. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors, heirs and assigns, and may not be modified except by written agreement between the parties except as provided in paragraph 4.

4. If the property becomes contaminated with hazardous substances trOin prior existing conditions; practices or contamination located on the FDDS or

MWI707J58WTSBLU 02112/0.1 2

becomes contaminated by the actions or Dr. Gonis or his agents after this release is filed, then both parties reserve all of their rights and defenses under CERCLA, 42 U.S.c. ~~ 960 I to 9675 and SWDA (RC~). 42 U.S.c. ~~ 6901 to 6992k.

~11V\7(i7_i5XWTS:BIIJ 02/12/01 3

...•:..:.'.,,..,..,..••~~..........:...__ •. _-.;.! ... r ..-:-.'I__ .••. __...... I.~-..,. ..........:-.:.r,&.. " _.....:..,;..... __ . . __ .•... :> •• ,...,..\ •._, ........~ •••_.~.J..;.; ......"""'.:~ ..• __...~._._ '. _...• -' •.. ~'. ';'- : "" ..~.'. :-'~I .- .

William E. Muno Director Superfund Division. Region 5 United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Dr. John G. Gonis

STATEOF ILLINorr ) ): SS

COUNTY OF c.ool<. )

This instrument was acknowledged before me this 2..lJT!;j day ofJuly, 2001 by W'~LIA~ E. 1111.41\10 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

OFFICIAL SEAL J-<~.,HN V FAGIOlO Notary PubkS!ate of rLL .No ,$

J;tex.fH.lPU8UC. STATE OF illiNOIS MY COMMISSION EXPIAE&:03f13102 Mycommission cx.PltttS 3/tJloL

STATE OF ) ----~

): SS COUNTYOF __ )

This instrument was acknowledged before me this day ofJuly, 2001 by Dr. John G. Gonis.

[Seal] Notary Public, State of __ My commission _

... . --','" _.

AREA "A" PART OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP NO. 6168

IN THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

All that part of the "Remedial Action" area described in Reel 3054, Image 2641, Document No. 6778269, in the City ofFranklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, now being more particularly bounded as described as follows: .

All of Lots 2 and 3 ofCertified Survey Map No. 6168 being a part of Parcel 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 1316 and a part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 21 East, City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Milwaukee County on November 24, 1995 in Reel 3678; Images 814 to 816 inclusive as Document No. 7154671.

Said area contains 1.7976 Acres of land, more or less.

Date: 7/31/00 -

Michae . _nK._ President -. MICHAEL J. LOSIK & ASSOC., INC. 19275 W. Capitol Drive, Suite L01 Brookfield, WI 53045-2710 Phone: (262)790-1480 Fax:(262)790-1481

L:IlOBBYS\WPDQCS\DOCUMENn048\98017-01 llegaIDesc-Area.A.wpd

•. '. J

EXHIBIT "A" ILOT 1 1£,~U~-.l624l I

80.00'_II

"'" DUE WEST 316.74 ... ' -- Vi

UJ o ~. o o g '--- ­ -

LOT .3 ~~u~-!E5J.6;§

AREA "A" 1.7976 Ac. -- ­ - - -

~

.--LOT 2

£.~t.4~-i61.6:§

-o w a Ii)

IIJ IIJ

IIJ ~

DUE EAST 311 .89

LOT 1 £.~M~-L61.6:§

• I • 1

:1:11 . I

.,m rJ.!1~ N ::>1

('-"

~ --=-~

~

to .,..o It'>

Io

o

-I

... '

'------- _----J. l PARCEl 1 0

£.~...~ 1.1].t&

o

z ~I

~I ... ~ ..... Vi

~ ~

~ .... '-I

~I

Wi Wi a: 1

t- I

(/):

..c: 1 .... 1 ...... 1 C\l1

\ J:I .... 1 :;:)1

0 1

CI.l:

I

,\lIUll

-----,--------'-- - - - - - - -.

~ .NORTH Michael J. Losik a: Assoc .lne.

19275 W. Capitol DrIveSCAL£:l "=100' BnMJkfleld. WI 5304S : : ;

(26f) "...1480 o 50 100 200 FAX. 790-1411

THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY MICHAEL J. LOSIK, PE, LS. (5-1065) DATE: 7-31-00

x

· ,

AREA "B" PART OF LOT 1 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP NO. 6543

IN THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

All that part ofthe "Remedial Action" area described in Reel 3054, Image 2641, Document No. 6778269, in the City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, now being more particularly bounded as described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Certified Survey Map No. 6543, being a part of Parcel 2 of Certified Survey Map No.1316, part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 21 East, City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Milwaukee County on August 7, 1998 in Reel 4367; Images 1756 to 1758 inclusive as Document No. 7578744; Thence South 8]0 33' 06" West, 1260.00 feet to a point; Thence South 00° 06' 34" West, 260.26 feet to a point; Thence South 87 ° 33' 06" West, 548.23 feet to the most Westerly Northwest corner of said Lot 1; Thence South 01 ° 20' 23" East, 661.79 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; Thence North 87° 31' 33" East, 415.42 feet to the place of beginning of lands hereinafter described:

Continuing thence North 87° 31' 33" East, 116.07 feet to the Southwest comer of Outlot 1 of said Certified Survey Map No. 6543; Thence North 00° 06' 34" East, 542.77 feet; Thence South 88° 47' 26" West, 114.40 feet to a point; Thence South 00° 16' 31" West, 545.42 feet to the place of beginning of this description.

Said area qantains 62,658 sq. ft. (or 1.4384 Acres) of land, more or less.

Date: 7/31/00

Michael ~::U)j'11\

President MICHAEL ~. LOSIK & SOC., INC. 19275 W. C'api . e, Suite L01 Brookfield, WI 53045-2710 Phone: (262)790-1480 Fax:(262)790-1481

L:IlOBBYS\WPDOCSIDOCUMENno48\98D17-01IlegaIDesc-Area.B.wpd

N.E. CORNER, LOT 1 C.S.M. #6543EXHIBIT "B"

1260.00

548.23S8733'06"W

P.O.B.

N8T~1'33"E 116.07415.42N8T3,'33"E

N o w o Ul a:J ~ a:J NORTH '., "1 ~ '. Michael J. LOstk a·A8s0c.Jac..

19275 W. CapItol Driv. SCALE: 1"=1 00' BI'OOkfle1d. \VI 53045 ; 4 : (l62) 798-1480

200 fAX '198-1411 o

DATE: 7-31-00~ THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY MICHAEL J. L05IK. PE, L5. (5-1065)

x

nAKCA ..c PART OF LOT 1 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP NO. 6543

IN THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

All that part ofthe "Remedial Action" area described in Reel 3054, Image 2641, Document No. 6778269, . in the City ofFranklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, now being more particularly bounded as described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast comer of Lot 1, Certified Survey Map No. 6543, being a part of Parcel 2 of Certified Survey Map No.1316, part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 21 East, City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Milwaukee County on August 7, 1998 in Reel 4367; Images 1756 to 1758 inclusive as Document No. 7578744; Thence South 00 0 06' 34" West, 406.91 feet to the place of beginning of lands hereinafter descnbed;

Thence continuing South o~o 06' 34" \l'{est, 9.02 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 1; Thence West, 503.78 feet to a point; Thence South 8]050' 10" West, 755.56 feet to a point; Thence North 00 0

06' 34" East, 11.06feetto a point; Thence North 88 0 47'26" East, 1258.99 feet to the place ofbeginning of this description.

Said area contains 3,8~9 sq. ft. (or 0.0891 Acres) of land, more or less.

Date: 7/31/00

Michael . 0 0' LS:, President MiCHAEL LOSIK & ASSOC., INC. 19275 W. CapitOl [kive, Suite L01 Brookfield, WI 53045-2710 Phone: (262)790-1480 Fax:(262)790-1481

L:ILOBBYS\WPDOCS\DOCUMENn048\98017-01\laga1IJesc.Area.C.wpd

EXHIBIT "C"

N.E. CORNE LOT 1 C.S.M.

I

I, I

I I I I I

REA" "----+..- ­ I I

I, I I I Ienl

" LOT 2 ~~;;;...:..-.i6~6§

----

a

1256.99M88"47'26"[

LOT 1 ~.-~U"'--,i6

3.879 S. '-------JO.0891 A •

SSTSO 10 755.56

16543

,., o x w a 10 IX) ~ IX) Michael J. Lostk a Aaoc:-Jac.NORTH~ w 19275 w. CapItol Drive z SCALE=1"=200' BrookfJeW. WI 53045 o : : i (261) 'JW-~I

r-- o m 200 400 f'AX~l"'"

o ((J (jJ

DATE: 7-31-00 ' co;; THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY MICHAEL J. lOSIK, fE. LS. (5-1065)

",

.'. J

AREA "0" PART OF OUTLOT 1 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP NO. 6543

IN THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

All that part of the "Remedial Action" area described in Reel 3054, Image 2641, Document No. 6778269, in the City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, now being more particularfy bounded as described as follows:

Commencing at the Northeast comer of Outlot 1, of Certified Survey Map No. 6543, being a part of Parce/2 of Certified Survey Map No.1316, part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 and part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 North, Range 21 East, City of Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Milwaukee County on August 7. 1998 in Reel 4367; Images 1756 to 1758 inclusive as Document No. 7578744; said point being the place of beginning of lands hereinafter described;

Thence West, 187.04 feet to a point; Thence South 87 0 50' 10" West, 755.56 feet to a point; Thence South 00 0 06' 34" West, 113.00 feet to a point; Thence North 87 0 50' 10" East, 757.83 feet to a point; Thence East, 186.88 feet to a point; Thence North 01 0 00' 09" West, 113.02 feet to the place of beginning of this description.

. Said area contains 106;629 sq. fl (of 2.4479 Acres) of land, more or less.

Date: 7/31/00

Michael J. L: President MICHAEL J. LOSI S ., INC. 19275 W. Capitol Drive, Suite L01 Brookfield, WI 53045-2710 Phone: (262)790-1480 Fax:(2C2)790-1481

LlLOBBYs\WPDOCSIDOCUMENnD48\98017-Q1\LegaIDesc-Area.D.wpd

,. \

EXHIBIT "0"

I

~llu ¥-I 'llIt 1 It I

_ ---...--:.------~:=::::;---~------------r; .t _ [ :J 3;:t:1

~II \I~11

LOT 3 £~.~M..:.-J.6.l~

MidJ.ael I. Loslk a Assoc.Jac:. 1~ W. ~pftol Drhre Brookfi..... WI 53045

400

~ NORTH

SCAlE:l"=200' : :; j= r~

100 200o

DATE: 7-31-00

S8T50'tO"W 755.56

o to m

o

O lOTI ~~M-=--.l614J

1

~I:ll"""1

I

N.E. CORNER. OUTLOT t C.S.M. '654.3

DUE WEST 187M

~ THIS EXHIBIT WAS PREPARED BY MICHAEl J. lOS/K. PE, lS. (S-1055)

Attachment 3 FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL SITE

CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

2013 MONITORING SYSTEM SUMMARY - 02113

GROUNDWATER

TASK MONITORING POINTS PARAMETERS FREQUENCY REPORTING

I. MW-6COR, MW-6D, MW-6S, MW-7CO, MW-7S, MW-8CO, MW-8D, MW-9S, MW-9D, DUP-01, trip blank

(10 sets)

groundwater elevation (ft. MSL) depth to water (ft.) top of casing (ft. MSL) field pH field conductivity field temperature field observations manganese* iron* hardness* alkalinity* chloride * fluoride* COD* VOCs (8260)

May (2013-2016,

2018-2021, etc.)

Annual (Ayres)

II.

E~g.:,~

MW-6COR, MW-6D, MW-6S, MW-7CO, MW-7S, MW-8CO, MW-8D, MW-9S, MW-9D, DUP-01, trip blank

(10 sets)

HI~~:')

groundwater elevation (ft. MSL) depth to water (ft.) top of casing (ft. MSL) field pH field conductivity field temperature field observations manganese* iron* hardness* alkalinity* chloride * f1uoride* COD*

VOCs (8260) 'C": .. : ~C~iS; . .~.-~:.--"'\.. a . '""a ~meta s' (contact Ayres for list of metals)

May (every 5 yrs. 2017, 2022,2027 etc.)

~CYP}~

Annual (Ayres)

t;2i V'.,.... :....

* - Field filtered

LEACHATE

TASK MONITORING POINTS PARAMETERS FREQUENCY REPORTING I. Leachate Panel meter readings Monthly Quarterly

(ESC)

Report 10 MMSD

by Jan-15, Apr-15, JUI-15,Ocl-15

TI-C:IESCIESC GenerallMonitoring Summaries12013 smryIFDDS-13 Page 1 of 2

FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL SITE CITY OF FRANKLIN, WISCONSIN

2013 MONITORING SYSTEM SUMMARY - 02113

LEACHATE (CONT.)

TASK MONITORING POINTS PARAMETERS FREQUENCY REPORTING

II. Leachate Tank, leachate head/flow meter May Annual trip blank field pH (2013-2016, (Ayres)

field conductivity 2018-2021, etc.) field temperature field observations iron hardness alkalinity chloride

(1 set) fluoride COD manganese VOCs (8260)

III. Leachate Tank, leachate head/flow meter May Annual trip blank field pH (every 5 yrs. 2017, (Ayres)

field conductivity 2022, 2027 etc.) field temperature field observations iron hardness alkalinity ...

." . ~... rr ~2DiF'~ff.;,'.···nD·;~':~:.·.·"f) ~],Y' set) >'i :'i'0/ Il£Ib~i (:::,~)i)' ..oJ .... ~~~~a~~s6eO) . .... cyanide

additional metals (contact Ayres for list of metals)

FACILITY MAINTENANCE

TASK MONITORING POINTS PARAMETERS FREQUENCY REPORTING

I. Site perimeter, wells, etc.

site inspection May & November Semi-Annual (ESC)

Report to Ayres

after events are

completed

II Final cover lawn mowing, weed control Annual None

Source: WDNR Consent Order - faxed to ESC by Ayres Associates on May 15, 2005.

Contacts: Pat Letterer - CT Labs: (800) 228-3012 Lori Rosemore - Ayres Assoc.: (800) 666-3103 Sue Piciaula - WI Electric: (800) 300-0100 ext.2163 (meter reading cards)

Reporting: Quarterly compliance and discharge reports due at Milw. Metro. Sewerage Dist. by January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15. (ESC) Ayres Assoc. site inspection form to be completed in May and November. (ESC) Annual groundwater and leachate reporting (Ayres Assoc.)

TI-C:IESCIESC GenerallMonitoring Summaries12013 smry1FDDS-13 Page 2 of2

Attachment 4

ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING CORPORATION GROUNDWATER MONITORING FIELD FORM MONTH: 2008

Puraln Phase Samplinl:! Phase

WolilD Oats (2008)

Tlme 124M,••)

Top of Well Elevation {1t.MSll

Depth to Water

(fl,)

Groundwalelr Elevat.lon (It.MS~)

Total Depth (fl.)

HeIght of Water Col.

(fl.)

fbq. Gil. \0 Purge (4 vol.)

Amount Purged (gal.)

Dote (2008)

Tlma (24M,..) pH (a.u.)

Spec. Condo (25C)

Temp. (deg.Cj Color before Fllte'

Color after Fllte'

Odor Turb before

Fille' Turb atter

Filla'

Humber of Fllto'. Used

MW-5D 787.72 205.7

MW·6S 787.20 105.7

MW·6COR 787.38 52.5

MW·9S 789.71 105.5

MW-9D 790.24 157.5

MW·8D 755.52 134.5

MW·8CO 755.00 22.5

MW·7S 755.50 52.3

MW·7CO 755.17 22.6

MW·DUP ,

Leachate

Casing 1.0. (inches) : Gallons per foot to get one well volume. WEATHER Wind Speed: Direction: Temo.: 1.5" well: 0.092 gal. 2" well: 0.163 gal. 3" well: 0.377 gal. 4" well: 0.653 gal. Date: Overview: NOTES: Date Equipment Used:

pH Meter: pH 7.0: pH 4.0: Slope: Spec. Condo Meter: Standard: Readlna: Temoerature:

Facllltv Name: Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site ENVIRONMENTAL Client: Menards Corp, Paae: of Facllltv Address: Franklin, WI SAMPLING Prolect: ESC Personnel: CORPORATION PrePared by: Date:

414-427-5033 Checked by: Date: CP2631E5CJFOlTTI5JFleid Fomuls

Attachment 5 ...

FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL SITE AYRES SEMI-ANNUAL INSPECTION REPORT ASSOCIATES

GENERAL INFORMATION:

DATE:

INSPECTION BY:

PRESENT AT SITE:

_

_

_

TIME:

WEATHER:

_

_

SITE FENCING:

ENTIRE PERIMETER WALKED? (IF NO, DESCRIBE):

ANY DAMAGE TO SECURITY FENCE? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

NOTE CONDITION OF FENCE LOCKS:

NOTE CONDITION OF WOOD SCREENING FENCE:

NOTE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS TO FENCE:

NOTE ANY PHOTOS TAKEN: _

ACCESS ROAD:

ENTIRE ROAD WALKED? (IF NO, DESCRIBE):

ANY EROSION OF WASHOUTS APPARENT ON ROAD? (IF YES, DESCRIBE): _

NOTE ANY NECESSARY REPAIRS:

NOTE ANY PHOTOS TAKEN:

FINAL COVER SYSTEM:

FINAL COVER SYSTEM WALKED? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

DESCRIBE CONDITION OF COVER SYSTEM, NOTING EROSION/DAMAGE:

c:\documents and settingS\h20 boy\desktop\environmenlal sampling corp\groundwater reports\fadrowski drum - disposal\semireptdoc

I .", ,. .

FINAL COVER SYSTEM (CON'T):

NOTE TYPE, HEIGHT AND COVERAGE OF VEGETATION: _

NOTE CONDITION OF STORMWATER STRUCTURES:

NOTE CONDITION OF EROSION CONTROL FEATURES:

NOTE NECESSARY REPAIRS TO COVER SYSTEM:

NOTE PHOTOS TAKEN:

LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM:

PUMP SEAL FAILURE ALARM TESTED? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

PUMP THERMAL PROTECTION ALARM TESTED? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

UST LEAK DETECTION ALARM TESTED? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

LIFT STATION FLOATS TESTED? (IF YES, DESCRIBE):

LEACHATE FLOW METER CAliBRATED? (IF YES, ATTACH REPORT):

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING NETWORK:

DESCRIBE CONDITION OF MONITORING WELL PROTECTIVE COVERS:

DESCRIBE CONDITION OF MONITORING WELL SURFACE SEALS:

DESCRIBE CONDITION OF SEDIMENT/SURFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT BENCHMARKS:

WERE SEDIMENTlSlJRFACE WATER SAMPLING POINT BENCHMARKS RE-SURVEYED?

LEACHATE FLOW METER CALIBRATED? (IF YES, ATTACH REPORT): _

c:\documents and settingS\h20 boy\desktop\environmental sampling corp\groundwater reports\fadrowski drum disposal\semireptdoc

NOTES:

c:\documents and settingS\h20 boy\desktop\environmental sampling corp\groundwater reports\fadrowski drum disposal\semirept.doc

... o ~

Parkvlew Lane

)f

~~:~:•

-,~~~~:==l~=====~ }:=====;-a4"r=i

M o JD)~TDehling 262-377-3997 o It) I V • voigt PERfORMANCE BY CRAfTSMENo V

ROOFING COMMfRClAURESIDENTIAL • GENERAL REPAIRSISIOING

Want proof??? We'll show you a roof installed 22 years ago and still is going strong. Yes, it's modestly priced.

In our 45 years of experience, we have not found a better roofing membrane for the low slope roof, namely FffiERTITE, with a 25 year warranty.

EPA Begins Review of Fadrowski Drum Disposal Superfund Site

Franklin, Wisconsin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a five-year review of the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Superfund site located on South 27,hStreet in Franklin. The Superfund law requires regular checkups of sites that have been cleaned up - with waste man-aged on-site - to make sure the cleanup continues to protect people and the environment.

EPA's cleanup of hazardous waste consisted of removing buried drums and contaminated soil, closing a pond containing hazardous chemicals, covering waste with a landfill cap, installing a liquid waste collection system, monitoring ground water and fencing the area. The review should be completed by March 2013.

More information is available at the Franklin Public Library, 9151 W. Loomis Road, and at www.ep~.gov/region5/cleanup/fadrowski.The five-year review is an opportunity for you to tell EPA about site conditions and any concerns you have. You may contact:

Patricia Krause Sheila Sullivan Community Involvement Coordinator Remedial Project Manager 312-886-9506 312-886-5251 krause.patricia@epa.gov sullivan.sheiJa@epa.gov

You may call EPA toll-free at 800-621-8431, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., weekdays.

c o

_NEWS

POLICE REPORT

lnfonnation taken from repol1s filed by the Hales Corners Police Department

THEFT

CD AfemaJejuvenilewas arrested for shoplifting

$144 worth ofcosmetics at Pick 'n Save, 5800 S. l08th St, at 2:05 p.m. June 18.

~ Apair ofprescription ~ sunglasses, valued at $550, were stolen from a person's

RESIDENTlAlJtOMMERCIAL.. UASONRY REPAIRS... REPLACEMENT WINDOWS

12 L...:i~-'- __

(;; .0 E

~ ~ .0 c:E 0 :::J tZ Q)

:a:.s

'4' Acast iron sink wasbclongin~ at the HaJes Comers ~ stolen ITom adrivewayPool, 5765 S. New Berlin Road, in the 9600 block ofWest Grange at 7:20 p.m. June 20.

Avenue before 5:52 p.m June 23."3' Alicense plate was ~ Awalletwasstolenout ~ stolen of[a vehicle in ~ ofapurseinanofficeatthe 5600 block ofSouth Kurtz Sun Tan City, 5774 S. l08th St, Road before 9:30 p.m. Junen. shortly after 3:30 p.m. June 24.

DRUNKEN DRMNG

~ A37-year-old Mil­~ waukee man was arrest­ed for drunken driving on Janes­ville Road at Kur12 Road at 11:30 p.m. June 24. The man refused to cooperate with sobriety testing.

ACCIDENTS

"'7' A62-year-old Muskego "--L-/ woman and her pas­senger, a26-year-old Muskego woman, were taken to the hospi­tal for trcatmcntofundetcr-

Attachment 6

_

mined injuries after their canvas make a left tum into Honey Dip struck by another "ehicle at 108th Donuts and struck her car. The Street and Edgerton Avenue at driver ofthestriking vehicle, a 7:15 a.m June 23. The woman 22-year-old Milwdukcc man, was was traveling north when a cited for failure to yield the right southbound vehide attempted to ofway.

Attachment 7

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 2013 Five Year Review

Ayres Associates. September 1995 (revised November 1995). Operation and Maintenance Plan, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

Ayres Associates. November 2000. Ground Water Monitoring Program Two-Year Statistical Evaluation Report, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

Ayres Associates. January 2, 2002. Background Ground Water Quality Evaluation, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

Ayres Associates. June, 2003. Draft Ground Water Monitoring Program Five-Year Statistical Evaluation Report, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA). June 10,1991. Record of Decision for the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA). September 25, 2003. Five-Year Review Report, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US.EPA). July 30, 2008. Five-Year Review Report, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA). 2001. Operation and Maintenance in the Superfund Program. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER 9200.1­37FS, EPA 540-F-01-004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA). 1996d. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. (updated January 2013).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA). June 2001.Comprehensive Five­Year Review Guidance, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA) Region 5. February 22, 2008. Site Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) Determination Document for the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, Franklin, Wisconsin.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA) Region 5. January 2011. Situation Assessment, Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site, prepared by E2 Inc. on behalf of U.S. EPA.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. October 1988. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 140 "Ground Water Quality."

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 140 "Ground Water Quality."

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 140 "Ground Water Quality."

Wisconsin Department ofNatural ResoJ1[ces. December 2011. Guidance on Case Closure and the requirements for Managing Continuing Obligations (PUB-RR-606).

Sample ID Lab Sample Number

Date Sampled

Alkalinity

(mgll)

Aluminum

(ugll)

Antimony

(ug/I)

Arsenic

(ug/I)

Barium

(ug/I)

Beryllium

(ug/I)

Leachatc 161071 05/09/2012 440 34.7 <2 5.4 134 < .1

MW-6COR 161063 05/09/2012 440 <5 <.4 <.8 77.5 < .13 MW-6D 161061 05/09/2012 190 <5 <.4 2.3 46.7 < .13 MW-6S 161062 05/09/2012 260 <5 <.4 <.8 57.5 < .13

MW-7CO 161069 05/09/2012 460 <5 <.4 <.8 61.8 < .13 MW-7S 161068 05/09/2012 190 <5 <.4 <.8 47.8 < .13 MW-8CO 161067 05/09/2012 420 <5 <.4 <.8 30.4 < .13 MW-8CO DUP 161070 05/09/2012 430 13.4 <.4 . <.8 30.6 < .13 MW-8D 161066 05/09/2012 190 11.9 <.4 2.9 48.4 < .13 MW-9D 161065 05/09/2012 130 7.8 <.4 3 32.5 < .13 MW-9S 161064 05/09/2012 120 36.4 <.4 <.8 30 < .13

Selected Indicators - Summary Date: 06/08/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127) ':"", . ,

COD

(mgll)

30

< 15

< 15

< 15

< 15

< 15

< 15

34

< 15

< 15

< 15

Copper Cyanide

(mg/l)

< .008

<.008

<.008

<.008

<.008

<.008

<.008

<.008

< .008

<.008

<.008

Fluoride

(ug/I) (mg/l)

3 .42

<3 .37

<3 .91

<3 .9

<3 .37

<3 .87

<3 .37

<3 .36

<3 . .85

<3 1.1

<3 1.2

Cadmium Calcium

(ug/I) (mgll)

.6 158

< .12 111

< .12 42.6

< .12 84.7

< .12 149

.12 27.6

< .12 139

< .12 138

< .12 46.6

< .12 27.8

< .12 22.1

Sample ID Lab Sample Number

Date Sampled

Chloride

(mgll)

Chromium

(ug/I)

Cobalt

(ug/J)

Color (Field) Conductivity (Field)

(micromho)

Leachate 161071 05/09/2012 360 2 <.7 CLEAR 2780

MW-6COR 161063 05/09/2012 6.4 1.1 <.9 CLEAR 887

MW-6D 161061 05/09/2012 3.6 .99 <.9 CLEAR 536

MW-6S 161062 05/09/2012 73 1.3 <.9 CLEAR 840

MW-7CO 161069 05/09/2012 260 1 <.9 CLEAR 1574

MW-7S 161068 05/09/2012 2.7 .85 <.9 CLEAR 513

MW-8CO 161067 05/09/2012 4.7 .92 <.9 CLEAR 1326

MW-8CO DUr 161070 05/09/2012 4.7 1.1 <.9 CLEAR 1326

MW-8D 161066 05/09/2012 3.9 1.1 <.9 CLEAR 590

MW-9D 161065 05/09/2012 2.9 <.8 <.9 CLEAR 453

MW-9S 161064 05/09/2012 4.2 <.8 <.9 CLEAR 450

GW Elevation (Field)

(feet msl)

750.18

698.42

701.1

751.82

721.35

751

751

698.02

697.64

701.11

Selected Indicators .. Summary Date: 06/08/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

Sol11ple lD Lob Sample Number

Date Sampled

Hardness

(mg/I)

Iron

(mg/I)

Lead

(ug/l)

Magnesium

(mg/l)

Manganese

(ug/l)

M~rcury

(ug/J)

Leachate 161071 05/09/2012 781 <.016 1.4 93.9 . 1120 <.016 MW-6COR 161063 05/09/2012 643 <.005 <1.4

... 88.9 86.4 <.016

MW-6D 161061 05/09/2012 281 .0126 < 1.4 ...

42.4 11.8 <.016 MW·6S 161062 05/09/2012 483 .193 < 1.4

.. 66 74.2 <.016

MW·7CO 161069 05/09/2012 977 <.005 <1.4 ..

147 1.2 <.016 MW-7S 161068 05/09/2012 197 <.005 <1.4 31.2 28.9 <.016 MW-8CO 161067 05/09/2012 854 <.005 <1.4

.. 123 11.7 <.016

MW·8CO our 161070 05/09/2012 855 < .005 <1.4 124 12.1 <.016 MW·8D 161066 05/09/2012 281 .122 <1.4 40.1 22.4 <.016 MW-9D 161065 05/09/f012 166 .15 <1.4

.. 23.5 21.9 <.016

MW·9S 161064 05/09/2012 142 <.005 < 1.4 21.2 64.1 <.016

Nickel

(ug/l)

1.8

<.8

<.S

<.8

1.7

<.8

9.8

.99

<.8

<.8

<.8

Odor (Field) Potassium

(mg/I)

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

NONE

15

1.7

1.6

1.3

2.7

1.5

3.4

3.4

1.6

1.2

.91

pH (Field)

(su)

7.19

7.21

7.65

7.17

7.32

7.89

7.02

7.02

7.53

7.31

7.45

Sample 10 Lab Sample Date Selenium Number Sampled

(ug/l)

Leachate 16107t 05/0'9/2012

MW-6COR 161063 05/09/2012

fvIW-6D 161061 05/09/2012

MW-6S 161062 05/09/2012

MW-7CO 161069 05/09/2012

fvIW-7S 161068 05/09/2012

MW-8CO 161067 05/09/2012

MW-8CO DUr 161070 05/09/2012

MW-8D 161066 05/09/2012

fvIW·90 161065 05/09/2012

fvIW-9S 161064 05/09/2012

Silver

(ug/l)

2.5 <.7

< 1 5.6

<4 <1

<1<4

5.4 <1

<1<4

<1<4

<1<4

<1<4

<1<4

< 1 <4

Sodium

(mg/l)

Temp (Field)

(deg c) ..

Thallium

(ug/l)

Turbidity (Field)

Vanadium

(ugll)

197 10.2 < 2.5 <.8

11.2 ...

11.9 <.29 NONE <.6

30.7 ..

11 <.29 NONE <.6

32.7 11 <.29 NONE <.6 59.1 9.7 <.29 NONE <.6 41.7 10.6 <.29 NONE 1.3

47.1 8.9 <.29 NONE <.6

46.7 ..

8.9 <.29 NONE <.6

33.2 ..

10.1 < .29 NONE <.6 39.3 10.2 <.29 NONE .61

47.5 10 <.29 NONE <.6

NONE

Zinc

(ug/l)

57.3

7.5

15.9

8.2

1:8

1.9

4.1

3.9

6.3

15.8

4.2

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-9S

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mglL 120 130 120 130 120 100 110 110

Aluminum ugiL 36.4 < 60 < 61

Antimony ugiL <.4 <.4 <.8

Arsenic ugiL <.8 <.8 <.5

Barium ugiL 30 28 27.3

Beryllium ugiL < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mglL <15 < 19 25 < 14 < 16 <13 <11 < 13

Cadmium ugiL < .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mglL 22.1 20.4 22.2

Chloride mgiL 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.4

Chromium ugiL <.8 <.6 < 1.7

Cobalt ugiL <".9 <.9 <.8

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 450 469 534 532 472 514 446

Copper ugiL <3 < 1.3 4

Cyanide mglL <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mglL 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1

GW Elevation (Field) 'eet MSL 701.11 701.61 702.04 702.47 702.64 702.41 701.51

Hardness mglL 142 125 129 129 138 112 124 124

Iron mglL <.005 .138 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.01 .0397 <.023

Lead ugiL < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mglL 21.2 14.9 16.7

Manganese ugiL 64.1 55.3 56.4 57.5 51 51.9 58.5 53.1

Mercury ugiL <.016 <.08 <.09 \

Nickel ugiL <.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ugiL <4 <5 <4

Silver ugiL < 1 <1.1 <.8

Sodium mglL 47.5 56.2 48.5

Temp (Field) Deg. C 10 12.4 14.3­ 13.5 12.4 12.9 12.5

Thallium ugiL <.29 <.3 <.7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ugiL <.6 < .5 5.8

Zinc ugiL 4.2 < 1 2.6

pH (Field) S.U. 7.45 7.53 8.23 8.09 7.06 7.61 7.91

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-9D

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mg/L 130 140 130 140 130 120 130 140

Aluminum ug/L 7.8 <60 < 61

Antimony ug/L <.4 .41 <.8

Arsenic ug/L 3 2.8 2

Barium ug/L 32.5 36.9 38:2

Beryllium ug/L < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mg/L < 15 38 70 < 14 23 <13 21 23

Cadmium ug/L < .12 .48 < .4

Calcium mg/L 27.8 30 33.9

Chloride mg/L 2.9 3.5 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9

Chromium ug/L <.8 <.6 < 1.7

Cobalt ug/L <.9 <.9 <.8

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 453 470 551 538 499 529 464

Copper ug/L <3 < 1.3 3.6

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mg/L 1.1 1.1 .92 1.1 1 1.1 1 .95

GW Elevation (Field) '"eet MSL 697.64 698.12 697.94 698.67 699.03 698.74 697.84

Hardness mg/L 166 155 165 164 177 152 178 181

Iron mg/L .15 .279 .175 .13 <.005 .18 .19 .135

Lead ug/L < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mg/L 23.5 18.8 23.3

Manganese ug/L 21.9 18.6 20.4 20 II 20.4 21.7 22.8

Mercury ug/L <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ug/L <.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ug/L <4 <5 4.5

Silver ug/L < 1 <1.1 2.2

Sodium mg/L 39.3 42.2 35.6

Temp (Field) Deg. C 10.2 12.6 15.4 12.7 12.9 14.9 12.6

Thallium ug/L < .29 <.3 < .7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ug/L .61 <.5 < I

Zinc ug/L 15.8 1.6 5.2

pH (Field) S.U. 7.3l 7.46 8.07 8.15 7.54 7.96 7.68

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-8D

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mgIL 190 200 190 200 190 180 200 210

Aluminum ugiL 11.9 < 60 < 61

Antimony ugiL <.4 <.4 <.8

Arsenic ugiL 2.9 3.4 1.4

Barium ugiL 48.4 47.8 47.4

Beryllium ugiL < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mglL < 15 < 19 < 15 < 14 35 <13 <11 13

Cadmium ugiL < .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mglL 46.6 44.6 64.5

Chloride mglL 3.9 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.7

Chromium ugIL 1.1 <.6 <1.7

Cobalt ugiL <.9 <.9 <.8

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 590 627 672 711 615 625 651

Copper ugiL <3 < 1.3 3.3

Cyanide mgIL <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mglL .85 .86 .73 .92 .85 1.1 .77 .71

GW Elevation (Field) ;eel MSL 698.02 698.42 698.32 698.62 699 699.02 698.12

Hardness mglL 281 267 277 310 280 228 313 339

Iron mglL .122 .213 .082 .0667 .073 .0897 .0257 < .023

Lead ugiL < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mglL 40.1 28.3 43.1

Manganese ugIL 22.4 16.1 19.6 21.6 21 27.3 6.8 8.5

Mercury ug/L < .016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ugIL <.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ugiL <4 <5 4.9

Silver ugIL < 1 < 1.1 <.8

Sodium mglL 33.2 35.8 31

Temp (Field) Deg. C 10.1 11.1 13.6 12.3 11.9 14.3 12.8

Thallium ugiL <.29 <.3 <.7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

. Vanadium ugiL <.6 < .5 < 1

Zinc ugiL 6.3 1.1 5.3

pH (Field) S.U. 7.53 7.15 7.93 7.7 8 7.89 6.89

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-SCO

Parameter Units 05~09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/20] O. OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mg/L 420 490 440 490 430 470 370 380

Aluminum ugiL <5 < 60 < 61

Antimony ugiL <A A] < .8

Arsenic ugiL <.8 <.8 <.5

Barium ug/L 3004 42.3 35.2

Beryllium ugiL < .13 AS < .23

COD mglL < 15 <]9 63 16 < 16 <13 20 17

Cadmium ugiL < .]2 <A <A

Calcium . mglL 139 164 163

Chloride mglL 4.7 8.1 6.1 7.5 8 10 7.6 13

Chromium ug/L .92 <.6 < 1.7

Cobalt ug/L < .9 <.9 <.8

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 1326 1509 1240 1555 1439 1117 1072

Copper ug/L <3 2.1 9.6

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 < .012

Fluoride mg/L .37 .35 .31 044 049 046 .36 .32

GW Elevation (Field) 'eetMSL 751 749.75 749.2 749.35 748.26 749.04 749.8

Hardness mglL 854 923 793 995 910 879 747 914

lion mglL <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.01 .0131 < .023

Lead ugiL <104 <.6 <204

Magnesium mglL 123 114 123

Manganese ugiL 11.7 1.6 12.3 18.1 5 66.9 SA 2.5

Mercury ugiL <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ugiL 9.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ugiL <4 <5 1504

Silver ugiL < 1 <1.1 .81

Sodium mglL 47.1 79.6 69.1

Temp (Field) Deg.C 8.9 10.3 12.2 12.1 11.6 13.1 IDA

Thallium ug/L <.29 <.3 <.7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ugiL <.6 <.5 1.9

Zinc ugiL 4.1 3.6 26.8

pH (Field) S.U. 7.02 6.74 7.39 7.11 6.97 7.34 7.05

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-7S

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mg/L 190 180 180 190 180 190 170 180

Aluminum ugIL <5 < 60 < 61

Antimony ug/L <.4 <.4 <.8

Arsenic ugIL <.8 <.8 .62

Barium ugIL 47.8 49.2 51.6

Beryllium ug/L < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mg/L < 15 < 19 < 15 18 < 16 <13 <11 <13

Cadmium ug/L .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mg/L 27.6 27.5 31.5

Chloride mg/L 2.7 3.4 4.1 3.5 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.3

Chromium ug/L .85 <.6 < 1.7

Cobalt ug/L <.9 <.9 1.7

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR NONE CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 513 999 544 687 500 552 480

Copper ug/L <3 < 1.3 2.9

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mg/L .87 .9 .65 .99 .86 .98 .81 .8

GW Elevation (Field) 'eet MSL 721.35 721.6 721.75 722.1 722.26 722.15 721.7

Hardness mg/L 197 173 180 193 190 162 189 193

Iron mgIL <.005 .0197 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.01 .0447 < .023

Lead· ug/L < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mg/L 31.2 22.6 27.7

Manganese ugIL 28.9 16.7 17.7 19 14 19.2 23.9 33.4

Mercury ug/L <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ug/L < .8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ug/L <4 <5 6.3

Silver ug/L < 1 <1.1 <.8

Sodium mg/L 41.7 44.8 37.9

Temp (Field) Deg. C 10.6 11.6 16.4 21 11.7 14.5 14.4

Thallium ug/L < .29 <.3 < .7

.Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium .ug/L 1.3 <.5 2.1

Zinc ug/L 1.9 4 11.3

pH (Field) S.U. 7.89 7.68 8.1 8.04 7.57 7.81 7.63

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

M\¥-7CO

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mg/L 460 520 510 500 540 530 550 510 Aluminum ug/L <5 <60 < 61

Antimony ug/L <A <A <.8 Arsenic ug/L <.8 < .8 <.5

Barium ug/L 61.8 79.7 93.6 Beryllium ug/L < .13 Al <.23

COD mg/L < 15 <19 22 17 < 16 <13 <II 20 Cadmium ug/L < .12 <A .46 Calcium mg/L 149 139 155 Chloride mg/L 260 270 200 210 180 130 120 150 Chromium ug/L I < .6 < 1.7 Cobalt· ug/L <.9 <.9 1.8 Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 1574 1621 1498 1658 1551 1115 1283 Copper ug/L <3 11.8 9.8 Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 <.012 Fluoride mg/L .37 .31 .27 .44 .44 1.4 .32 .31 GW Elevation (Field) ;eel MSL 751.82 721.6 751.37 751.52 752.13 752.17 752.62 Hardness mg/L 977 900 893 1050 935 779 912 910

Iron mg/L <.005 <.005 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.01 .034 <.023

Lead ug/L < 104 <.6 <2.4 Magnesium mg/L 147 105 127

Manganese ug/L 1.2 <.5 < 1.8 1.9 < 1.2 <.4 3.5 13.3

Mercury ug/L < .016 <.08 <.09 Nickel ug/L 1.7 <5 <6 Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ug/L 504 <5 18.3 Silver ug/L < 1 < 1.1 <.8 Sodium mg/L 59.1 70.6 65.6 Temp (Field) Deg. C 9.7 11.7 168 12.7 10.7 12.3 11.3 Thallium ug/L <.29 <.3 <.7 Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ug/L <.6 <.5 1.5

Zinc ug/L 1.8 5.1 61.3 pH (Field) S.U. 7.32 7.27 7.39 7.82 6.99 7.64 7.39

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-6S

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mglL 260 280 260 290 280 290 290 290

Aluminum ugiL <5 <60 < 61

Antimony ugIL <.4 .48 <.8

Arsenic ugIL <.8 <.8 <.5

Barium ugIL 57.5 63.4 72.9

Beryllium ugIL < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mglL < 15 <19 46 < 14 24 <13 <11 <13

Cadmium ugiL < .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mglL 84.7 96.9 111

Chloride mg/L 73 89 89 84 71 54 68 59

Chromium ugiL 1.3 <.6 <1.7

Cobalt ugiL <.9 <.9 2.1

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 840 888 969 1022 916 846 852

Copper ugiL <3 < 1.3 9.1

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 < .012

Fluoride mg/L .9 1.1 ...82 1.8 .88 1.5 .76 .79

GW Elevation (Field) 'eet MSL 701.1 701.7 702.05 702.67 702.58 702.5 701.65

Hardness mglL 483 449 476 512 485 440 516 548

Iron nig/L .193 .607 .254 .556 .074 .682 .488 .601

Lead ug/L < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mglL 66 48.1 65.7

Manganese ug/L 74.2 65 74.1 75.2 74 84.1 93 103

Mercury ugiL <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ug/L <.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ugiL <4 <5 14.8

Silver ugIL < 1 < 1.1 5

Sodium mg/L 32.7 31.4 24.7

Temp (Field) Deg. C 11 12.9 15.7 11.7 12.6 11.9 12

Thallium ug/L <.29 <.3 <.7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ug/L <.6 < .5 < 1

Zinc ugiL 8.2 1.2 < 1.3

pH (Field) S.U. 7.17 7.47 7.56 7.62 7.31 7.44 7.49

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-6D

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/JO/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

AJkalinily mgIL 190 200 190 200 200 200 190 200

Aluminum ugIL <5 < 60 < 61

Antimony ug/L <.4 <.4 <.8

Arsenic ugIL 2.3 3 2.5

Barium ugIL 46.7 47.7 50

Beryllium. ug/L < .13 <.4 <.23

COD mg/L < 15 < 19 48 < 14 <16 <13 <11 20

Cadmium ug/L < .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mgIL 42.6 46.4 49.4

Chloride mg/L 3.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.7

. Chromium ug/L .99 <.6 < 1.7

Cobalt ug/L <.9 <.9 1.1

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 536 590 651 662 560 620 564

Copper ug/L <3 <1.3 3.8

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mg/L .91 .88 .76 .98 .87 1.1 .84 .81

GW Elevation (Field) ;eet MSL 698.42 698.82 698.72 699.12 699.48 699.47 698.62

Hardness mg/L 281 255 265 275 276 247 278 284

Iron mg/L .0126 .876 .0745 .0496 .044 .116 .157 .0902

Lead ug/L <1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mgIL 42.4 31.9 39

Manganese ugIL 11.8 11.7 12.3 11.6 6.3 7.9 14.8 11.9

Mercury ugIL <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ug/L < .8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ug/L <4 <5 7.1

Silver ug/L < I < 1.1 2.1

Sodium mg/L 30.7 32.3 28.5

Temp (Field) Deg. C 11 11.7 4.3 13.2 14.5 12.8 13.4

Thallium ug/L < .29 < .3 < .7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ug/L <.6 <.5 < I

Zinc ug/L 15.9 1.4 <1.3

pH (Field) S.U. 7.65 7.59 7.68 7.88 6.49 7.71 8.05

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-6COR

Parameter Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mgfL 440 470 450 470 460 420 460 450

Aluminum ugiL <5 < 60 < 61

Antimony ugiL <.4 <.4 < .8

Arsenic ugiL <.8 <.8 < .5

Barium ugiL 77.5 102 131

Beryllium ugfL < .13 <.4 < .23

COD mglL < 15 < 19 91 < 14 < 16 <13 <11 <13

Cadmium ugiL < .12 <.4 <.4

Calcium mglL 111 121 120

Chloride mglL 6.4 7.9 7.8 7.3 7.5 7.1 7.2 7.1

Chromium ugfL 1.1 <.6 <1.7

Cobalt ugiL <.9 <.9 .96

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR NONE CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 887 944 1020 1068 1005 867 910

Copper ugiL <3 2.6 9.6

Cyanide mglL <.008 <.006 <.012

Fluoride mgfL .37 .38 .3 .52 .44 .5 .38 .4

GW Elevation (Field) leer MSL 750.18 749.93 750.18 750.4 750.92 750.63 750.13

Hardness mgfL 643 577 620 682 629 586 647 663

Iron mglL <.005 .167 <.01 <.01 <.005 <.01 .0187 <.023

Lead ugiL < 1.4 <.6 <2.4

Magnesium mglL 88.9 68.8· 88.2

Manganese ugiL 86.4 100 108 163 55 156 224 434

Mercury ugiL <.016 <.08 < .09

Nickel ugiL <.8 <5 <6

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ugfL 5.6 <5 16.6

Silver ugiL < 1 <1.1 <.8

Sodium mglL 11.2 10.7 10.7

Temp (Field) Deg.C 11.9 13 14.3 13.1 13.2 13 12.9

Thallium ugiL <.29 <.3 <.7

Turbidity (Field) NONE NONE CLEAR NONE NONE NONE NONE

Vanadium ugiL <.6 <.5 1.4

Zinc ugiL 7.5 3.6 24.8

pH (Field) S.U. 7.21 7.29 7.29 7.23 7.01 6.98 7.44

Date: 06/08/12Selected Indicators - Trends

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

Leachate

Parameler Units 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005

Alkalinity mg/L 440 480 460 480 470 470 420 440

Aluminum ug/L 34.7 < 88 126

Antimony ug/L <'2 <3 <4

Arsenic ug/L 5.4 <8 <8

Barium ug/L 134 115 91.6

Beryllium ug/L < .1 <.4 < .16

COD mg/L 30 50 48 65 45 39 33 46

Cadmium ug/L .6 <.4 < .7

Calcium mg/L 158 173 180

Chloride mg/L 360 850 750 640 630 680 510 580

Chromium ug/L 2 <.7 < .6

Cobalt ug/L <.7 <1.3 < .9

Color (Field) CLEAR CLEAR CLOUDY CLOUDY CLEAR CLEAR

Conductivity (Field) mhos/em 2780 2610 3660 3010 1653 1728

Copper ug/L 3 6.4 7.1

Cyanide mg/L <.008 <.006 < .012

Fluoride mg/L .42 .43 .56 .78 .7 .62 .49 .36

GW Elevation (Field)

Hardness mg/L 781 920 974 1020 927 914 652 940

Iron mg/L <.016 7060 2.44 20 3 2.2 .486 3.01

Lead ug/L 1.4 <1.3 <3

Magnesium mg/L 93.9 117 119

Manganese ug/L 1120 887 518 1400 560 567 335 546

Mercury ug/L <.016 <.08 <.09

Nickel ug/L 1.8 9.8 <4

Odor (Field) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

Selenium ug/L 2.5 <4 <6

Silver ug/L <.7 < .8 < 1.5

Sodium mg/L 197 373 259

Temp (Field) Deg.C 10.2 11 15.2 10.7 11.9 12.2

Thallium ug/L < 2.5 < 2.8 <8

Turbidity (Field) LOW LOW LOW NONE NONE

Vanadium ug/L < .8 6.7 1.6

Zinc ug/L 57.3 51.8 42

pH (Field) S.U. 7.19 7.51 7.59 7.27 7.77 7.66

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-6S

Compound 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005, OS/24/2005

CHLOROMETHANE 0.36

WI Lab Certificatio ID#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-7CO

Compound OS/09/2012 OS/10/2011 OS/2S/2010 OS/21/2009 OS/IS/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/200S, OS/24/200S

1,2,4-TR1METHYLBENZENE 0.41 0.42

BENZENE 0.16

NAPTHALENE 0.71

TOLUENE 0.35 0.2 0.29 0.S6

WI lab Certificatio 10#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-7S

Compound 05/09/2012 05/10/20ll

. OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005,

OS/24/2005

CHLOROMETHANE 0.32

WI Lab Cerlificalio ID#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-SD

Compound 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005, OS/24/2005

BENZENE 0.52

M,P-XYLENE 0.64

TOLUENE 1.1

WI Lab Cerli ficJlio 10#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-9D

Compound 05/09/2012 . 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009· 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005, OS/24/2005

1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.25

M,P-XYLENE 0.77

TOLUENE 2.7 0.58

WI Lab Certificatio 10#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Date: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

MW-9S

Compound 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 OS/21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005, OS/24/2005

1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 1

1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.45

BENZENE 0.98

ETHYLBENZENE 0.5

ISOPROPYLBENZENE 1

M,P-XYLENE 1.8

N-PROPYLBENZENE 0.2

O-XYLENE 0.82

TOLUENE 8.4

WI Lab Cerlificalio ID#: 157066030

Summary of Detected Volatile Compounds Dale: 05/30/12

Fadrowski Drum Site (04127)

TRIP BLANK

Compound 05/09/2012 05/10/2011 OS/25/2010 05!21/2009 05/15/2008 05/09/2007 OS/23/2006 OS/23/2005, OS/24/2005

CHLOROMETHANE 0.43

DlCHLOROMETHANE 3.4 3.4

WI Cab Certific~tio ID#: 157066030

Attachment 9

Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist (Template)

(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation ofsite status. "N/A" refers to "not applicable.")

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Date of inspection: Ic/il'3 CMd /0/11/13l-"adifeli'sl6 "Ovum D,-'" '.~ I0' EPA ill:Location and Region: l=i7.mkijn H;LtbK,-eCc. W:CIYI 80QOt 227LlJ£

Weather/temperature:Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Po.r-;(LJCID;){"t '3S-opreview: (./.$ Ef'A

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) vLandfill cover/containment vM:onitored natural attenuation VAccess controls Groundwater containment

VInstitutional controls Vertical barrier walls Groundwater pump and treatment

I,/Surface water collection and treatment Other

Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached See F~~ ~,.f-'f'tu;ku:Jvd flVJ~

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

1. O&M site manager lvI"'!' (jos.~mo"e !hj,'r5/tS5«:.. frt:recr f(o/¥tY 1/a.n"UJ;, dcl~I

lNarne Title Date Interviewed at office Gy phony Phone no. l/'S""- 83'-1 -3/ (" I~ Problems, suggestions; Report attached

2. O&M staff~£S"c.C.Orp. D'Ved"i tf O~h~ms 172:;IJ.3 arne Title Date

Interviewed at site at office ~ Phone no. tJ /'1-'12 7-£t>33 Problems, suggestions; Report attac e

041$0 ;·ntuv'fe...ued 2 Ms .TV'{{C.v rpl1.bc:c t:SC CI:ll"JI1. Oll~I'te Oil ,J,;/ L3, I ,

i.: ' ..

3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

~

Agency vjDIJR "

Contact BinYDH 8lw~for Site Ha.vtd-let . VlV.L\$ ~i'I-Uif-g6(/1

Name Title' . Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 0 Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 0 Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 0 Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; 0 Report attached

4. Other interviews (optional) 0 Report attached.

m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents

ffi O&M manual )<l Readily available Rl. Up to date DN/AMAs-built drawings . ~ Readily available J&I Up to date DN/A ~ Maintenance logs ~ Readily available JKl Up to date 0 N/A Remarks ~S flV>e. /anr iLl- Pt;/' offre· f/I1.!J(A:'f> vJ r ' Se¥Hl~-lk-u'UlJl.1. Y"eoC'4'i::s k OJJ t al­,

Atj ~~s Itk: 2.ttJ Cia j o'e l'r 4/lJ tJ DaJ f< ef&> f#', ~ '" IA1T 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~. Readily available gr, Up to date DN/A

~ Contingency plan/emergency response plan 8J Readily available Q'3..Up to date DN/A Remarks

6

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records ~ Readily available o Up to date ON/A Remarks kept tti=. ESc. eo...p J M,IS~p" lAIr

4. Permits and Service Agreements o Air discharge permit o Readily available o Up to date ON/A o Effluent discharge o Readily available o Up to date ON/A

J>J Waste disposal, POTW ~Readily available El. Up to date ON/A o Other permits o Readily available o Up to date ON/A

Remarks J..eitck..:te_ d~chal""J to tt,,~ !1etopc1tbs SaJ-tNa.ry D~strit

5. Gas Generation Records o Readily available o Up to date 1!!N/A Remarks

6. Settlement Monument Records D Readily available o Up to date ON/A Remarks ~ tLtfo&Lbl.e

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records MReadily available o Up to date o N/A Remarks

8. Leachate Extraction Records o Readily available .81 Up to date ON/A Remarks

9. Discharge Compliance Records o Air o Readily available o Up to date ON/A ~ Water (effluent) .~Readily available .l&l Up to date ON/A Remarks

10. Daily Access/Security Logs ~. Readily available 0 Up to date 0 N/A Remarks ~I' ifv flJa~ at--e.. j't'ldlldPri et-S PIJJ~t af1 D,..H ~- 'I' ~eOl>r-hno. ~.£'I,:t~

'htLv t."-r. ""N~<;'fr"f.? M.P",.rt;.(,.· dte ~r (', t"M, "~~ .•. ',1 1M ....tt..' v ~ Q I I ()

IV. O&M COSTS

I. O&M Organization o State in-house o Contractor for State o PRP in-house .li1' Contractor for PRP o Federal Facility in-house o Contractor for Federal Facility o Other

7

2. O&M Cost Records o Readily available o Up to date o Funding mechanism/agreement in place .' See tlttacM rep~f"r 'kl- r~t~ Original O&M cost estimate ~ Breakdown attached lH-fI1 es+ihr.J-ed.

Q)sf.5 Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From To o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To o Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons:

V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS lnApplicable DN/A A. Fencing 1. @Fencing damaged )iO Location shown on site map J8I Gates secured DN/A

Remarks

B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures o Location shown on site map DN/A

Remarks $WMS Wue.. -fik:i o.ncl.)l1!/: tUI ,Max. td>eJt.o-e.tiAt/-jr) re«:i . nQ,:\'7t ~l"'1[J Coit .s f»\1.e. S i qrt.$ } I

C. Institutional Controls (lCs) ~

8

1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply rcs not properly implemented Sit~ conditions imply rcs not being fully enforced

DYes ~No D Yes ~ No

ON/A DN/A

7f.5"-'l76 -2tjq 2 Date Phone no.

Type of monitoring..(e.g. , sel~-reporting, cI:ive by) ---o.s~·eI=-l-f_---,-r1'f-'¥-·-".-o/'-.-ti'-'-'"71!J+' _

Frequency DUo"'Y1J Se'''II-a...ll'll{CLJ ''05fd~fiN1S Responsible party/agency t1CfJ~ .LOOt I WP,-\J({ o{'er's;'5ri!J= . Contact PtWl Hctb ler CDl'pC'(l';ie CoRU;]

Name TItle MeJ1ll.t'rls

DN/A DN/A

2.

Reporting is up-to-date Reports are verified by the lead agency

EJ Yes 0 No . j;(l Yes 0 No

~ Yes D No 0 N/A ~ Yes 0 No D N/A

ON/A

D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing ~ocation shown on site map

Remarks rvw'..Jent ltJilece f.enee. "1'1 $()l!'thefrL bY'Utdled. (cuf

D No vandalism evident

, '---­<ode. fen nte,et" I,'ne

2. Land use changes on site ~N/A Remarks------------------------------­

3.

A. Roads

1.

A. Landfill Surface Vll. LANDFILL COVERS A licable 0 N/A

9

l. Areal exte

Remarks

2. Cracks Lengths

Remarks

3. Erosion Areal exteRemarks

4. Holes Areal exteRemarks

nt

nt

nt

5.

Remarks

6. Remarks

7. Bulges Areal exteRemarks

8. o Wet aro Pondino Seeps

Remarks

9. Areal exteRemarks

B. Benches

channel.) l.

Remarks

2. Remarks

eas

nt

g

nt

Settlement (Low spots) o Location shown on site map o Settlement not evident Depth

S~ "'M.inor s.erlIement: t:, "f;slei1t bvt dDr?5 oot £lfRct Ccf;fzJneh(~n . . o'eFled...·~

o Location shown on site map ~ Cracking not evident Widths Depths

J(Location shown on site map o Erosion not evident

2"OS{'lJYl ,'n Depth

Z e:u~~.."':l 'Y c~

m; Location shown on site map o Holes not evident Depth

Vegetative Cover ~ Grass ~ Cover properly established ~. No signs of stress 13 Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)

S01ft} C

Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) ~N/A

o Location shown on site map lX.Bulges not evident Height

Wet AreaslWater Damage JZl Wet areas/water damage not evident o Location shown on site map Areal extent o Location shown on site map Areal extent

o Location shown on site map Areal extent

o Soft subgrade o Location shown on site map Areal extent

Slope Instability o Slides o Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of slope instability

o Applicable )QN/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept andconvey the runoff to a lined

Flows Bypass Bench o Location shown on site map ).ij N/A or okay

Bench Breached o Location shown on site map ~N/Aorokay

10

3. Bench OvertopRemarks

ped

C. Letdown Channels

l. Settlement Areal extent Remarks

2. Material type Remarks

3. Erosion Areal extent Remarks

4. Undercutting Areal extent Remarks

5. Obstructions

Size Remarks

6.

Remarks

D. Cover Penetrations

l. Gas Vents

ilN/A Remarks

2.

Remarks

3.

Remarks

o Location shown on site map ~N/A or okay

Xl. Applicable DN/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)

o Location shown on site map 81.. No evidence of settlement Depth

Material Degradation o Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of degradation Areal extent

o Location shown on site map lKl No evidence of erosion Depth

o Location shown on site map .J)'l No evidence of undercutting Depth

Type Ve-r.:taht>-n o No obstructions szr Location shown on site map Areal extent

Excessive Vegetative Growth Type. SrYl~11 iree~., st;rubs Mt fbll'~ o No evidence of excessive ·growth ~'Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow o Location shown on s!te map ) _ Areal extent

V&~dn (.$Aa. ahN€.;. l.t\ < 6p-n::.y:> cbtMYuf

JRtApplicable DN/A

o Active o Passive o Properly secured/locked o Functioning o Routinely sampled o Good condition o Evidence of leakage at penetration o Needs Maintenance

Gas Monitoring Probes o Properly secured/locked o Functioning o Routinely sampled o Good condition o Evidence of leakage at penetration o Needs Maintenance ~N/A

Monitoring Wells (within surface area oflandfill) ~ Properly secured/locked . )(l Functioning ~ Routinely sampled o Good condition o Evidence of leakage at penetration o Needs Maintenance ON/A

11

~unctioning )Kf Routinely sampled ~Good condition o Needs Maintenance ON/A

4. Leachate Extraction Wells MProperly secured/locked o Evidence of leakage at penetration Remarks fo4!J j\'e.

5. Settlement MonumentsRemarks.

E. Gas Collection and Treatment I. Gas Treatment Facilities

IcacLutb ~o tlechem ~J$je.m o..,YJd S.~l'?:ff? -(tvvI/L

o Located o Routinely surveyed ~:rN/A

/ o Applicable $J.N/A ./"

o Flaring o Thermal destruction D Collection fO'~ o Good condition o Needs Maintenance Remarks

~ G., Collod'on Woll', Manifold, and PiP~ o Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance Remarks

~ G., MOnitO"~'"monito,ing ofadjacent hom" 0' building.) o Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance 0 N/A Remarks . ~

2.

3.

l.

2.

l.

F. Cover Drainage Layer ~ Applicable ON/A ,.Outlet Pipes Inspected o Functioning ON/A

Remarks

Outlet Rock Inspected ~Functioning ON/A Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds o Applicable j2{N/A .,.

Siltation Areal extent Depth DN/o Siltation not evident

Remarks

-7/'

Erosion Areal extent Depth o Erosion not evident Remarks

Outlet Works o Functioning ONlY /" Remarks

/' Dam o Funct70 N/A Remarks

/"

2.

3.

4.

l. H. Retaining Walls )2(Applicable ~N/A

Dofor~ o Location shown on site map o Deformation not evident Horizontal displ ment Vertical displacement Rotational . acement Remar

/ /'

12

-----------------------------------

---l

2. Degradation o Location shown on site map o Degradation not evident Remarks _

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge J&".A:..:::'P<:.J:..:pl::..::ic:..:::ab::..::l:..:::e_-JeJrT,..,.·.c...:N:...c/..:.A-=-­1. Siltation 0 Location shown on site map ~iltation not evident

Arealextent~ Depth~ _ Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth 0 Location shown on site map l<J. N/A !&lVegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type _ Remarks

---------------------~----------

3. Erosion D Location shown on site map )8lErosion not evident Areal extent._----- Depth, _ Remarks

------------------------~~--------

4. Discharge Structure o Functioning )Q N/A Remarks _

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS 0 Applicable ~'N/A ~.

1. Settlement 0 Location shown on site map ~Sett.lement'Q-r-6ident-Areal extent______ Depth'-- _ Remarks ---o~~--------------

2. Performance Monitori~gonitoringType o Perfonnance not monitored Frequency 0 Evidence of breaching Head differenti~ Remar~~·----------

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES XI Applicable 0 N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines o Applicable ~ N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical

o Good condition 0 All required wells properly operating 0 Needs Maintenance~ N/A

Remarks W.0-t2-, CtAQ. Vl of Mtr£.L.c.;h 6Yt t.JJe.I.1a - - 0 h '/ U4£ d for , )y{,lDHfnr/)

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances o Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance Remarks---------------------------,-------- ­

3. Spare Parts and Equipment o Readily available 0 Good condition 0 Requires upgrade 0 Needs to be provided Remarks _

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines ~'Applicable DN/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical

)!Q Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance I .\

Remarks 'T1J.4is·,'L fM-4 /v'e ..(j1~fO~ICL'r?~a.'4g,!,:;:~'+JI!'~"I:L"=-··E;)'-'==';,'f---"=(!...&-i!.=-.::..:'t'-"'e="'cJ,e:L.:...'.:....:t'Yl'--'----=.5...2.==ir1-"'CLIvm~!:..1.___·-

13

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances ~ Good condition o Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Spare Parts and Equipment ~ Readily available o Good condition o Requires upgrade o Needs to be provided Remarks

C. Treatment System o Applicable D(N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)

o Metals removal o Oil/water separation o Bioremediation o Air stripping o Carbon adsorbers o Filters o Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) o Others o Good condition o Needs Maintenance o Sampling ports properly marked and functional o Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date o Equipment properly identified o Quantity ofgroundwater treated annually o Quantity of surface water treat%annually Remarks No (1Jf"CVrti~(~ 'tJjUl'~a. W(c.../eAr ~. ~~,IC/1 ':>\..j.5~ ffir¥n ~dm.1 ·.p.{0}1)5", I~ ftJ/PIk. aA'I,J "4 j m.d·' IYJ A. ",..L yz:~, (/2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) I

ON/A ~ Good condition o Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Tanks, Vaults, Stor.age Vessels ON/A ;R[ Good condition o Proper secondary containment o Needs Maintenance Remarks

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances o N/A ;q Good condition o Needs Maintenance Remarks

5. Treatment Building(s). P(N/A 0 Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) o Needs repair o Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks

.­6. Monitoring Wells- (fl\iHl:fllmd a:g~€m r~medy).-'f\N/.Ir)

o Properly securedllocked 0 Functioning'" ~ Routinely sampled 0 Good condition o All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance ~'N/A Remarks iN e.li. 7-c.1J. k.Ml ~+1f,..J M-tl .JIA.',JJ -hJ /),D ~l£"1 "AI-P)

k~4 C-ttA inq ; o'tttoM r, III OJ Au... c>ttm:/ rlJ,;""'.I •.J. (J {jD. Monitoring Data

1. Monitoring Data . ~ Is routinely submitted on time ~ Is of acceptable quality

2. Monitoring data suggests: r;g. Groundwater plume is effectively contained o Contaminant concentrations are declining

14

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

$1. Properly securedllocked 2l:Functioning .E(Routinely sampled 0-Good condition }(All required wells located~ I8l Needs Maintenance 0 N/A " Remarks /t1.. ill - 7Cl) - t.M '~ ~ 4.R/:;fe4iJ.. /1.M.d "'YlL<!cf,!J "'Il-'U~(

X. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.

XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).

~ ~J: ~~ C't L,.At~ Q'f WIth. MAlA:- a. f', "e c?L~dJ:;-

e~~~$5~ ~~:fii;~~~+d&1 . ~~. &J:J;~Wj a-o<d M~'~'

B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In

P~C~"t~oo~urr.entEec~"5~"::

== =S=;;C~~'!lM£=~hr IC.3 a ~ 01 JOY'-Kt~ I c.wt "

~ ~4-() l'--d>'UJI'd4..N?!~ rel) frl 'c..bw.. c~tiM:t.

lli- C4f _or:LLWki.~ 607lLe~It~ L.'1-L. 2. ~ -Iiii£" tVn d wcw N£4ill..td ~e)~ ",,-hrf~ . tJArkA of' /'eA-Lt~ M.P Mo.vn.J... ",-1

C. Earlv Indicators ofPof~ntialRemedv Problems

15

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, thatsuggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.

~cn1JV-.

2 ~02J1~~ ~d~!f1Jf~~~~ vJ.-I.1 1:J.e..=~fi. ) f--­ d tJXQ ' ~~ ~ - l .... ..,d

--ft- 1.0 d.""-RI i:zRd-~ JN~ LU.tZR~ _

D. Opportunities for Optimization

De'Cri~M:Zle:ppo=-r~:~-ft;~tionof the remedy.

o~fttt.~~=:r::=e a=ic ~;~

16

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Superfund Milwaukee County, WI U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WID980901227

Site Features Map

_ Unnamed Tributary

I.i2ill RipRap

n Leachate Lift Station ~ and Storage TankArea

• location of Cap Dlvet

. ~. 't. .-

Cyclone Fence

~ Wood Fence

0--- Property Boundary

N

+

-en :5 ~I

en

RPM: Sheila Sullivan

Produced by June Schllr U.S. EPA Region 5 on July 8, 2008

Monitoring Wells .u...!.. 6' Leachate Collection Interception Line Existing Stomi Sewer

Gravel Driveway

Image Date: 2003

Attachment 10

Photograph Log of Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site

Five-Year Review Site Inspection

October 2012

. ,

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 1: View of the front gate facing southwest and looking into Photo 2: Space between the wooden privacy fence (visible on the left the Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site (FDDS) side ofPhoto 1) and the site perimeter cyclone fence. Discarded

tires were noted in this space during the previous FYR, but were removed in July 2008.

1

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October Sand 11,2012

Photo 3: View of the wooden privacy fence at the front (east side) Photo 4: View ofthe northern perimeter fence line facing directly of the site, looking northwest. The Ashley Furniture warehouse is west. The Ashley Furniture facility is to the right of the fence line. visible in the background.

2

----- -----------------------------------------------------,

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 5: View of the landfill cap looking east ward from within site. Photo 6: View of the landfill cap looking directly westward.

The Dental Associates dental clinic located on the out lot between Residential development is visible in the far distance.

South 27th Street and the eastern site perimeter fence.

3

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 7: View of the erosion area located near the manhole cover Photo 8: View of other erosion area located just east ofthe landfillalong the existing storm sewer line. The hole is located near the access road and directly east of the leachate collection area. This area northern perimeter fence line gate (see attached figure). This area was subsequently repaired in November 2012..

was subsequently repaired in November 2012..

4

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 10: View of erosion area looking from northwest part of site Photo 11: View from the northeastern comer of landfill looking directly directly eastward. The eroded area is in the middle ground ofthe picture. west toward the leachate collection system in the background. The landfill edge is to the right of the erosion. The Ashley Furniture store is in the top left portion of the photo.

5

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11, 2012

Photo 12: Facing eastward, a view of rip-rap drainage area located in Photo 13: Similar view of rip-rap strip taken from the southwestern southwestem corner of property. The rip-rap strip begins in the left corner of landfill facing eastward. The strip bisects the photo and foreground of the photo and is vegetated with small trees and shrubs. runs eastward. The Goodwill Store is on the top right above the The southern perimeter fence is visible along the upper right side of the terracing. frame.

6

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 14: View of monitoring well nest no. 6. looking eastward toward Photo 15: View of well nest no. 8.containing MW-8CO (left) and MW-8D wooden privacy fence. MW-6S, MW-6CO, and MW- 6D are visible (left facing directly west. The western perimeter fence line is visible in the to right). The commercial development along South 27th Street is visible background separating the site from the residential development. in the background.

A A

" .

7

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 16: Close-up of well nest 7 containing MW-7S (foreground) Photo 17: Photo showing the hole in the southern perimeter fence line and MW-7CO (background). The photo shows that the casing of taken from outside of the site property. The hole is located about one­MW-7CO has settled, but is still secure. third of the distance from the eastern end of the fence (see attached

map.) .This hole was repaired in November 2012 ..

8

Fadrowski Drum Disposal Site Five-Year Review Inspection October 5 and 11,2012

Photo 18: View of EPA Superfund sign located on the northern Photo 19: View of leachate collection and lift station in the perimeter fence line about 150 feet from the eastern end of the fence. northwest corner of the site. The electrical panel and tank are visible

among the bumper posts.

9