Was the site cleaned up before development? No.
******************
In the last three years, low income apartments, an assisted living facility, and several Habitat for Humanity homes have been constructed next to Lake View School on Madison’s north side. Another apartment complex is nearly completed.
More low income and senior housing is desperately needed in Madison. But is this land a safe place for it?
Beginning in the late 1940s, a bizarre conglomeration of scientific research enterprises and businesses that handled an array of hazardous and infectious agents (including viruses) operated on the site.**
A large, international research corporation, American Scientific Laboratories (ASL), manufactured animal vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides there for decades. Chickens raised onsite for vaccine production and testing were buried in pits on the property after they died. Hazleton, which later became Covance—one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world—operated there after ASL left. Vaccine research requires producing and handling viruses, and more than one of the start-up scientific enterprises that did business there handled prions, which can cause chronic deer wasting, sheep scrapie, and mad cow disease.
Research and medical wastes containing radioactive materials and mercury, along with solvents, petroleum compounds, asbestos and other hazardous materials, remained on the site for years after buildings were abandoned (but left there).
The site became a hangout for teens. Buildings were eventually demolished, but a foundation from one building and some debris remain today on the last undeveloped part of the site.
Some sparse testing and remediation were done over the years, but the site never received “closure” from DNR—signifying that it has been adequately cleaned up according to environmental regulations. Buildings where prions and other infectious biological agents were handled were never firmly identified, and there are no records in DNR files of what was done with potentially contaminated building materials. Chicken carcass burial areas were never located or removed, so they presumably remain onsite.
So why is this land nearly fully developed with residential housing, apartments, and assisted living facilities? Will the city and DNR insist on thorough investigation before the remaining undeveloped land there is redeveloped?
**Entities that operated at the site: American Scientific Laboratories (Schering-Plough), Hazleton (became Covance), Prism Analytical Inc., Prion Diagnostics, Wisconsin Radiological Laboratory, Flownamics Analytical Instruments, Molecular Biology Resources industrial organic chemistry, Environmental & Foundation Drilling, Pro-Tech Engineering, Nummelin Soil Testing Service, Clinical Convenience Products, Medical Environmental Supply, Chimerx, Dynamic Mobilities, Fugent Co., Madison Auto & Van Conversion, Whittier Biologics, Madison Incubator Technology, Molecular Chimerics, Work Service rehab services, United Migrant Opportunity Services, Environmental & Foundation Drilling, Professional Carpet Systems, Area 64 Recording Studios, Madison Auto & Van Conversion, BioScience Division of Milk Specialties Co., MS Bioscience Inc.
Photo below: piles of debris next to apartment buildings, March 4, 2020
A good place for an organic farm? Maybe not…
For an unknown number of years after American Scientific Laboratories’ vaccine, pharmaceutical, and other research and business operations were abandoned, people living in adjacent neighborhoods, unaware of the land’s past, grew garden vegetables near the area where the chickens were raised and then buried.
In 2009, a local MD and organic farmer, Dr. Myrtle Wilhite, who was interested in buying the land for an organic farm, reviewed 2005 site environmental consultant reports. See here and here.
Shocked at what she learned, on May 28, 2009, Dr. Wilhite sent a letter to Alder Rhodes-Conway (now Madison’s mayor). In the four years since these reports were written, Wilhite wrote, nothing was done to further assess or remove the most severe types of contamination. “From my perspective,” she continued, “this isn’t just a failed attempt to site my farm: with an elementary school feet away, and a complete lack of fencing of the property, it’s an environmental nightmare.”
Though Wilhite had deemed the site unfit for her urban farm, she was still concerned about public safety and environmental cleanup at the site. “My main concern,” she wrote, “is that this property be contained, responsibly evaluated and cleaned up in a fashion appropriate for all of the divergent types of contamination. From the information I forward to you, there is no way to accurately know how far the contamination extends.”
Over ten years later, based on our investigation of the files for the site, the property was never “contained, responsibly evaluated and cleaned up,” nor did anyone investigate to find out how far the contamination extends before low income and elderly housing was built on it.
Photo below: Completed low income apartment complex on the site, May 2018.
How did this “environmental nightmare” come to pass? Read the long, convoluted history below….
In 1949, a company founded in Illinois in the 1920s, American Scientific Laboratories, purchased the 30-acre Ben A. Anderson farm between N. Sherman Ave. and Packers on Madison’s northside. At the time this was considered the “outskirts” of town, but new single-family residential neighborhoods were encroaching from the south and west, and there was a growing trailer park (at the time referred to as a “trailer camp” and “tourist court”) just east of the farm. [1] [2]
Appearing before city’s zoning board on February 12, 1949, ASL representative A.D. White said, “The company has been trying for many years to locate in Madison…but has had difficulty in finding a suitable site” for their manufacturing facility. The city zoning committee agreed to the siting on the condition that “all animals used in research and laboratory work be confined in enclosures and all buildings be located 150 feet or more from any adjoining lot line.”
On February 26, 1949, the city council approved unique ordinances “placing trailer camps in a zoning classification of their own and permitting biological and pharmaceutical laboratories to locate in residential districts, under special permits by the zoning board of appeals.” When they issued their permit, plan commissioners said “such institutions are of a type that should be encouraged to locate in Madison.”[3][4]
That year, ASL converted a “model dairy barn” on the former farm to a laboratory, and in the next several years built many other facilities to manufacture livestock and poultry vaccines, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, feed additives, “veterinary biologics” and “other serums.” In 1953, the company was manufacturing “automatic cow sprayers” that misted cows with insecticides when they walked through them.
The company thrived and expanded. A 1958 Wisconsin State Journal article said ASL “manufactures 41 veterinary biologicals alone and distributes throughout the nation and 28 foreign countries” and had purchased an Iowa chemical company and started up operations at another Madison location (it’s not clear where).[5]
A photograph with the article depicts ASL workers handling infectious agents for vaccine research, with this caption: “At the left above, Dick Bidgood, a bacteriologist, runs a test on a vaccine in the quality control room of the manufacturing plant, which is separate from the research laboratory. At the right, women, working in a closed and restricted room, fill glass vials with brucellosis vaccine. They are protected by face masks, and only their rubber-glove protected hands enter the glass enclosure in which the vials are filled and sealed.”
In 1959, ASL was acquired by the Schering Corporation of New Jersey (which later became Schering-Plough), but the company kept the ASL name for its Madison business. In 1960, ASL expanded into a new facility in Middleton. Shortly after that, the company sold 10 acres on the western part of its property, along Sherman Avenue, to the Madison School District for Lake View School.
The school was completed by 1962. By that point, new homes had been built directly to the south and west, and the trailer park to the west had expanded significantly.
ASL continued to manufacture vaccines and pharmaceuticals on the remaining 20 acres east of the school. Sometime between 1955 and 1962, many small sheds were built to raise chickens onsite for vaccine research. No fence was built around the site. See the aerial photos of these developments here.
Schering/ASL abandoned the site sometime around 1983, leaving all the buildings there. It’s not clear why. (Perhaps this large corporation, largely unregulated up to this point, saw the writing on the wall, with CERCLA/Superfund regulations (following from RCRA) coming into play, requiring investigation and cleanup of hazardous chemicals and infectious agents?)
In 1985, a Stoughton-based molecular biologist Don Warren and his wife Brenda expressed interest in developing the site as a “technology center.” At the time, Mr. Warren owned several scientific research companies that did contract work for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The next year, the Warrens formed Business Park LLC and purchased the former ASL site with assistance from a City of Madison Community Development Block Grant and Common Wealth Development.
From 1986 through the early 2000s, Business Park LLC leased buildings to a variety of different research entities, including Hazleton Wisconsin (now Covance), Mr. Warren’s research start-ups (Molecular Chimerics and Prion Diagnostics), and numerous other scientific enterprises.
In addition to various scientific start-ups, a strange combination of other small businesses came and went from the site after ASL abandoned it, including carpet cleaning services, auto shops, recording studies, social service agencies, food catering, and more.[6] By 1993, some (though not all) of the chicken sheds were removed, but many of the original ASL buildings were used by these entities.
It’s not clear what happened (presumably Business Park LLC failed financially), but by some time in the early to mid-2000s, Anchor Bank took ownership of the property.
Contamination first reported in 2005
In 2005, Anchor Bank contracted consultants to perform “environmental site assessments” to investigate environmental problems and liabilities for potential buyers/developers. In October 2005, the DNR was notified of contamination encountered during these assessments.[7]
According to the October 31, 2005 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Liesch Companies consultants), chicken carcasses remained buried throughout the site, though locations weren’t specified. Several existing buildings included “bio-containment” areas where researchers had worked with prions and other infectious biological agents.
Consultants observed decrepit abandoned buildings, automobiles, construction materials, HVAC equipment, scrap metal, motors, trailers, tanks, lighting equipment, six 10-gallon pails of magnesium powder, and old chicken sheds that contained “several chemical substances, including but not limited to paints, solvents, adhesives, asphalt, glycol ether, isopropyl alcohol, and latex underlayment liquid.”
“Mercury-containing devices” were found throughout the site, including in thermostats and lab equipment. A container of mercury was “reported but was not located.” Fluorescent lighting ballasts and capacitors possibly containing PCBs were “likely to be contained in innumerable pieces of electronic equipment in many of the buildings,” the report said. Fifteen to twenty pint-sized capacitors were observed in Building 10.[8]
The following “recognized environmental conditions” (RECs) were listed: several former and current underground and above ground storage tanks (which contained fuel oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and unknown contents), hazardous substances stored in various locations, spills of unidentified oily substances in the vicinity of the auto repair shop, a floor drain in the auto shop and a storm grate outside that discharged to the soil surface.
The site was listed in a database for handling radioactive material and suspected asbestos containing materials. Consultants recommended soil and groundwater sampling and an asbestos material survey prior to renovation/demolition, as well as an inventory of hazardous substances for proper handling and disposal. They advised that the property owner contract with experts to “develop a method of managing infectious substances associated with research” including “prion research currently conducted on the property,” and to “determine the nature, history, and status of radioactive materials at the property.”
The second phase of testing, described in the December 13, 2005 Phase II ESA (Liesch), was limited and didn’t address many key gaps described in the first phase. Testing included 13 soil borings and testing for gas range organics (GRO), diesel range organics (DRO), PCBs, petroleum VOCs, and metals.
PCBs were only tested at one boring, metals at three, GRO at three, DRO at eleven. No chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were tested, nor were prions, other infectious agents, and/or radioactive materials. Only one boring was done on the eastern parcel. Groundwater was not tested.
Contaminants (including xylene, DRO, arsenic, BETX, lead) exceeded regulatory standards in four samples. Consultants noted that “elevated contaminant concentrations indicate that further activities are necessary to respond to regulatory requirements.” They recommended further testing, including testing VOCs in groundwater, “to define the extent of groundwater and soil contamination” (as NR 716 regulations require) and repeated their previous recommendation to do asbestos inspections and a hazardous material inventory.
Where did wastewater and stormwater discharges go? It isn’t clear…
Descriptions of the site’s past wastewater handling are sparse. In 2005 reports, consultants wrote that “[f]loor drains were observed in most buildings on the property” and “reportedly are connected to municipal sewers.”
It isn’t clear when the site was connected to city sanitary sewers. This Wisconsin State Journal article suggests that the site was not connected to municipal sewers till some time after 1985, two years after American Scientific Laboratories had abandoned it, when the city secured funding to support potential redevelopment there. If this is the case, where did wastewater from ASL’s research laboratories, vaccine and pharmaceutical production facilities go from 1949 through 1983?
Available evidence suggests that the site wasn’t connected to storm sewers until much more recently (except possibly along Tennyson at the southern edge of the property). The 2005 reports, describing conditions at the time, say “[s]tormwater drainage runs overland to city streets for collection in municipal storm sewers and to the vacant parcel in the eastern portion of the Property for unmanaged infiltration…The Property is located on top of a hill, and off-site drainage does not appear to affect the Property.”
Consultants observed a floor drain in the auto repair shop in Building 3 (formerly one of the laboratories with a biocontainment area) that was connected to a drain tile and a “grit-and-catch-basin” constructed with a 55-gallon drum filled with sand and buried at the site that serves as a filter prior to surface discharge.” The report included a photograph of oily stains and distressed vegetation where this discharged to the ground surface.
If the above is correct, for decades, stormwater runoff from the property that did not seep into the ground went to surrounding city streets and stormdrains, eventually discharging to Starkweather Creek about ¼ mile to the east of the site.
Municipal storm sewers were finally constructed some time before 2014. The September 4, 2014 City of Madison planning commission approval for the site says “Storm sewer to serve this development has been designed and constructed.” Currently, storm sewers–including new ones just constructed while building homes and apartments–discharge to a ditch along Packers that flows north and then eventually connect to a storm sewer pipe that flows east into Starkweather Creek.
Photo below: stormwater detention pond on Tennyson site with new storm drain, March 15, 2020
Prominent Madison realtor purchases site for development
Around 2006, Tom Keller, a prominent Madison realtor, formed Tennyson Terrace LLC and purchased the property redevelopment.[9] Keller hired Pioneer Environmental to review the 2005 reports and propose cost estimates to fill identified gaps in investigations and remediate where needed.
Pioneer’s January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2006 reports identified many significant gaps. Consultants concluded that the Liesch reports didn’t specify the types, quantities and potential releases of the hazardous substances stored in “many locations” at the site, nor did they thoroughly investigate the depth of VOC or petroleum contamination in soils. An oily-stained floor drain that drained to a surface discharge area east of the buildings (where soils were similarly oil-stained) was also not investigated.
Pioneer advised testing for radioactive materials because Wisconsin Radiological Services had operated on the site and used radioactive materials, so “the potential exists that incidental or inappropriate disposal of materials could have happened.”
The Liesch report included some details, dimensions, and even photographs of where the buried chicken carcass pit was thought to be, but didn’t come up with any firm evidence of it.[10] Liesch consultants had also gathered a single soil sample at this location, but only tested for VOCs; Pioneer consultants noted that this wouldn’t identify (or rule out) its presence. The bio-containment area where prions and other infectious agents were used was “not observed” in the 2005 studies “for safety and security reasons.”
Along with filling the above gaps, Pioneer advised that the seller remove all hazardous substances and biological agents in accordance with state regulations and the building that handled prions be appropriately decontaminated. Cost estimates for this and other recommended investigations were included in the report.
In 2009, DNR deemed the site to be a “limited risk to public health”
There is no evidence in DNR files that Pioneer’s above recommendations, or those of previous consultants, were followed in the next three years.
In summer 2009, prompted by Dr. Wilhite’s letter calling the site an “environmental nightmare,” Rhodes-Conway sent the 2005 ESAs to the DNR. DNR then sent Thomas Keller the first official DNR “Spills Law” responsible party letter on August 3, 2009, signed by the site’s project manager, Michael Schmoller.
On August 7, 2009, the DNR, Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Madison Public Health Department, and a representative from the USEPA toured the site. On August 11, 2009, Michael Schmoller wrote to Alder Rhodes-Conway. Stating that he was sharing the “combined thoughts of the agencies involved,” including EPA, he assured her that the site “represents limited risk to public health and the environment since the biological and radiological related activities that occurred were done so in a way that presents very little concern to the public.” Further, he added, “there is low probability of exposure to biological or radiological threats.”
It isn’t clear on what basis Mr. Schmoller drew this conclusion, given that reports in DNR files include very little information about “the biological and radiological related activities that occurred” at the site or how hazardous materials were handled.
Schmoller recommended that the abandoned and decrepit buildings on the site be demolished and that “extra safety precautions” be taken for the former prion laboratory area, which should be decontaminated prior to demolition and final disposal. This would “involve hiring a qualified contractor to do the work according to accepted health protocols,” he said. Also, “the dead animal disposal pit…has not been used for a number of years,” but “it would be appropriate that the pit be found, described, and excavated prior to residential land use.”
Fence around site recommended, but never built
Schmoller noted in his August 11, 2009 letter that “it is clear that access to the property is uncontrolled” because “signs of vandalism are evident” and “the property lies adjacent to an elementary school.” He recommended that “the city should consider requiring fencing or some form of access control to limit the public safety concerns related to the physical hazards on the property. Though the contamination levels at the site do not pose serious concerns there are ample opportunities for someone to be injured by broken glass, discarded machinery, unlit hallways, wet floors, etc.”
In fact, hazardous materials went missing from the site in the past. In 1990 a small article appeared in the Cap Times, saying that Hazleton Laboratories was offering a $500 reward for the return of two small glass vials with a “low level of radiolabeled carbon” that is “an experimental pharmaceutical product used in medical testing.”
In 2001, a former UW scientist, Vladimir Gurevich, operated a biotechnology research company called Fugent on the eastern half of the property (along Packers) that produced a “transvection reagent for high-throughput screening of transiently-expressed proteins.” Mr. Gurevich also ran a one-man (himself) biotech facility called Gemian on North Street across from the Tip–Top Tavern. Neighbors became suspicious about what was going on there after the Sept. 11 attacks, and called the police when they noticed unmarked truck deliveries all hours of the day and night.
Unlike the Fugent facility on Packers, the Gemian facility had an 8-foot electric fence around it. Mr. Gurevich told the State Journal reporter, who asked about the fence, “we have some chemicals in there and we didn’t want to have kids messing with it.”
In contrast, the reporter noted that “any casual visitor could miss” the Fugent facility on Packers, “since it is hidden in a jumble of buildings, many apparently abandoned, at the old site of the American Scientific Laboratories and Hazelton Laboratories.” But unlike the North Street facility, it wasn’t fenced.
Inexplicably, the site was still not fenced off in 2009, following Mr. Schmoller’s advice. As far as we know, the site was never fenced. A plethora of toxic chemicals and hazardous materials remained strewn about the site for years after this.
Fugent still operates at the North Street facility across from the Tip Top Tavern.
Two years later, teens find mercury “laying about” and help themselves to it
On September 26, 2011, Madison police caught teens with a “container of mercury” in their car that they got from an abandoned former research building on the site. The incident report by Public Health Madison Dane County noted that the youths said they “hang out and explore this building” and “there is additional mercury laying (sic) about.”
According to the PHMDC report, after obtaining the mercury from the teens, the Madison Fire Department Hazardous Incident Team (HIT) brought the mercury back to the site (there is no explanation of the rationale for this).
The “tentative plan of action” outlined in the PHMDC report was to “work with owner to secure property and properly dispose of mercury and other chemicals on site,” contact youths who took the mercury and their parents, trace where they may have tracked mercury (in their homes, cars, etc), and “order abatement of any human health hazards identified.”
PHMDC inspected the property on September 27, 2011. Many hazardous chemicals and materials and old chicken coops were still on the site. On September 28, 2011 PHMDC wrote to the property owner. “Our staff found the container with approximately 3 pounds of mercury” and also “a large amount of hazardous chemical materials/waste that may pose a hazard to individuals either legally or illegally accessing the site.” Further, the letter stated, “Repeated illegal access of the facility at this property has shown that this facility is an attractive nuisance to teenagers and young adults. The presence of hazardous materials/wastes in this facility poses a human health hazard to those occupying this facility whether legally or illegally.”
PHMDC ordered the property owner, within 30 days, to “have a complete inspection performed of the facility by a hazardous materials professional, including a full inventory of the hazardous materials/waste in the facility, and to properly dispose of or remove the hazardous materials/waste from the facility.”
On November 18, 2011, after the property owner indicated that hazardous materials were removed, inspectors from PHMDC again visited the site. Though some materials had been removed, they found that many hazardous materials remained outside and/or in open buildings, including: unlabeled chemicals in labs and abandoned refrigerators, several 1-quart and 5-gallon containers of hazardous chemicals, broken and intact mercury containing fluorescent tubes, gallon and quart containers of solvents and cleaning materials, various 1 and 5 gallon containers of hazardous chemicals, 55-gallon plastic drums containing various amounts of unknown liquid chemicals, several lighting ballasts that may contain PCBs, and a 200-gallon above ground storage tank with unknown contents.
Photos below (from Nov. 2011 inspection report):
The PHMDC inspection letter concluded that “the facility needs to be thoroughly inspected by a hazardous materials inspector to identify and inventory all of the hazardous materials on the property. The hazardous materials need to be appropriately packaged and shipped to an appropriate hazardous waste disposal facility. The facility needs to be secured from the general public as soon as possible to protect people and the environment from chemical releases.”
On November 21, 2011, John Hausbeck from PHMDC wrote a letter to the owner notifying them that they were referring the case to the Madison City Attorney’s office for action because their inspection report showed that “no documentation of an inventory has been provided and suspect materials continue to be available on site to those who access the property either legally or illegally.”[11]
Photo below (from Nov 2011 inspection report): Outbuilding PHMDC inspectors were not able to enter on Nov. 18, 2011 because it was filled with demolition debris.
This building was likely building 10; its foundation remains on the site now.
Was the “environmental nightmare” cleaned up before housing was built?
Were the buried chicken carcasses, prions, radioactive materials, and other chemical and biohazards thoroughly and properly cleaned up before low income and elderly housing was built there?
We found no evidence that they were. It appears that the property owner Keller decided to take the “if you don’t measure it, it’s not there” approach.
On July 19, 2013 Keller signed a document to qualify for one of the “Landowner Liability Protection (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001.” Asked if he had any “specialized knowledge or experience related to the site or nearby properties…” he checked “no.” Did he know of “any obvious indications that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the site” based on his “knowledge and experience related to the site”? Keller checked “no.”
Meanwhile, around the same time, a Phase I ESA, finalized on August 6, 2013 (Terracon) was being done for the eastern portion of the site, which Independent Living, Inc. hoped to purchase to build elderly and assisted living facilities.
“The potential exists that the subject site was impacted by the releases at the adjoining property to the west” the ESA noted, but “additional investigation,” including the groundwater sampling recommended by a previous consultant “does not appear to have been conducted.”
The chicken carcass pits were still buried on the parcel, and consultants recommended that “[i]f chicken carcasses are encountered during future site development/construction, they should be characterized and properly disposed.” Some of the chicken sheds remaining on the site were used to store chemicals, including paints, solvents, adhesives, asphalt, glycol ether, isopropyl alcohol, and latex underlayment liquid. [12] It’s not clear what other entities operated on this part of the site after ASL. The report mentions a manufacturing company, an auto repair shop, and laboratories, including Hazleton.[13]
Photo: Area where chicken carcass pit thought to be
A 3,200 square foot vacant building constructed in 1963 (called Building 10) remained at the site in 2013, with a concrete floor “in poor condition with an earth surface exposed.” (A photo above shows this building in 2011).
In 2005, investigators had observed construction materials, automobile engines, electric motors, lighting equipment, 15 to 20 approximately pint-sized capacitors and six 10-gallon pails of magnesium powder in this building. Photos in the 2013 report show a mostly empty building with a few small stacks of panels that appeared to be building materials. In 2011, it was filled with demolition debris and health inspectors couldn’t investigate it.
A “limited” Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) September 13, 2013 (Terracon) for the eastern parcel included 12 soil samples from just six borings on the western edge of the parcel, intended to assess any contamination coming from the west. The majority of the parcel was not tested. Very limited soil analyses included diesel range organics (DRO), lead, and VOCs. Hits of lead were deemed background levels, and a methylene chloride result over soil-to-groundwater standards was assumed to be a lab contaminant, not from the site.
Many other contaminants that could potentially be there were not assessed. No efforts were made to locate the chicken carcasses. No tests were near or under the Building 10 foundation. Temporary shallow groundwater monitoring wells were constructed in the soil borings, but when they “did not immediately produce water,” wells were abandoned. So yet again no groundwater data was obtained.
Public Health Madison Dane County and DNR deem eastern parcel A-OK
In January 2013, the eastern parcel of the site was rezoned from “Limited Manufacturing” to “Suburban Residential.” In April 2013, the Plan Commission approved a demolition permit for the buildings on the property, but it isn’t clear when the buildings were demolished.
In August 2013, Terracon consultants contacted Jeffery Lafferty, environmental epidemiologist for PHMDC, who “indicated that there are no records of environmental concerns for the site.”
On October 14, 2013, based on the Terracon reports, DNR wrote a “liability determination” letter to the developer, Rita Giavannoni of Independent Living, Inc. It outlined the basic DNR “Spills Law” requirements, but then stated that “the Department has determined that further site investigation activities are not required and that no further response action is required under the ch. NR 700, Wis. Adm. Code” because “the information contained in documents submitted to the Department indicates there are minimal to no environmental impacts to soil at the location of the borings.”[14]
However, the letter includes the caveat that it “relates only to those conditions described above, and makes no determination concerning the presence or absence of hazardous substances, other than those identified in the reports listed above.” Further, “in the future, if the Department becomes aware of new information concerning the contaminants referenced above, or the presence of other contaminants on the Property not previously identified, the Department will need to evaluate that data to determine if response actions may be required.” At that point, the letter says, the Department “requires the person who caused the discharge to take the appropriate response actions.” (italics added)
It’s unclear what “new information would become available” or who would be deemed “the person who caused the discharge” for this parcel unless DNR or another entity with authority investigated further. None of the available reports identify what was done in the vacant building constructed in 1963 over the years. Specifics about what American Scientific Laboratories did on the site for decades are completely lacking from reports—as are details about what Hazleton and other businesses did on this parcel in years after ASL abandoned the site.
City’s plans for housing well developed before DNR issued regulatory notices
During the next three years after the DNR approved “no further action” on the eastern parcel, no further investigations or remediation occurred on the western half next to Lake View School.
Again, it isn’t clear when the the decrepit buildings were finally removed, but the city had been planning development on the property well before the demolition permits were issued in 2013. In 2011, community focus groups were held to discuss options for developing the site, and several meetings with neighborhood residents, community organizations and elected officials were held from 2012 through 2014. There are no notes of these meetings in publicly available files.
In 2014, the City of Madison approved developments on the site. Based on city documents, no concerns were raised by residents, city staff, or elected officials during the approval process about the about environmental or public health risks related to contamination on the site. Contamination on the site wasn’t mentioned at all.
On February 26, 2016, County Supervisor Paul Rusk forwarded a notice about the planned developments at the site, including both the eastern and western parcels. Habitat for Humanity homes, a 75-unit apartment building, 250-unit elderly housing building, and a “school forest” for environmental projects were planned. The notice said “construction to begin this spring.”
Around this time, MEJO began asking questions about the planned development, which apparently prompted Woody Myers at DNR to review the files.[15] Mr. Myers then sent a letter on May 6, 2016 to the property owner Tom Keller. The letter, labelled it a “push” letter in the DNR file, said the Department had “recently reviewed the case file for the above named site and determined that the information is not current.”
The letter reminded Mr. Keller that the Department had been notified of the contamination on his property on October 30, 2005, and on August 3, 2009, had notified him of his “responsibilities to investigate the degree and extent of contamination and clean up the site” per the hazardous substances spill law. This law states that “A person who possesses or controls a hazardous substance which is discharged or who causes the discharge of a hazardous substance shall take the actions necessary to restore the environment to the extent practicable and minimize the harmful effects from the discharge to the air, lands, or waters of the state.”
Further, DNR informed Mr. Keller that they had not received any information about investigations or remediation at the site since 2009 (seven years!!) and requested that within 30 days, Mr. Keller “provide a summary of investigative and cleanup work that has been performed on this site to date” including “a proposed timeline for completing any investigative and/or remedial actions that might be needed to bring this case to closure.” If Mr. Keller did not produce this information, the letter said, enforcement actions could be taken.
City approved contract with WEDC to accept a $150,000 site assessment grant for site
On June 13, 2016, we learned that the City of Madison had accepted a Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation grant for $150,000 to fund environmental remediation and demolition at the Tennyson site. The development also had recently received a WHEDA low-income housing tax credit grant.
The city resolution to approve the WEDC funds stated: “Phase I and II environmental assessments of the site, a former poultry research factory, have found the building and grounds to be contaminated. The grounds contain several underground storage tanks and are contaminated with diesel range organics (DRO) and xylene, while the buildings contain asbestos.”
The resolution said nothing about the plethora of other industries, labs, and businesses that operated there since 1949—or the spilled solvents, oils, metals, PCBs, prion research areas and unremediated (or even located) chicken carcass pits.
June 24, 2016, DNR sent “notice of noncompliance” for Tennyson parcel
On June 24, 2016 the 30-day deadline in DNR’s May 6 “push” letter, the agency hadn’t received the requested documents. With citizens (us) asking questions, Mr. Myers sent an official “notice of noncompliance” to Mr. Keller for failure to follow spills law. The letter reminded Mr. Keller that the spills law requires the property owner to “investigate the degree and extent of contamination, take the actions necessary to restore the environment to the extent practicable, minimize the harmful effect from the discharge to the air, lands or waters of the state” and comply with the Wisconsin Administrative Code chapters NR 700 through 749.
Mr. Keller was advised to hire an environmental consultant to meet these requirements, and by August 12, 2016, to “provide the Department with a site investigation workplan which complies with ch. NR 716, Wisconsin Administrative Code.” If he failed to do so, the letter stated, enforcement actions would ensue.
Hazardous materials still onsite, chicken carcass pit still not located
On August 10, 2016, PHMDC’s John Hausbeck wrote to a representative of Astar Capital Management about the Tennyson property: “It is our understanding that various individuals have been on site removing materials but it is unclear if these people are appropriately trained to handle hazardous materials or removed the materials properly or completely. We have had concerns about the facility but have not established sufficient cause to warrant legal action to force a full hazardous materials inventory or require cleanup of the site.”[16]
Along with photos, he attached various documents that “detail some of the reasons we have had concerns about the property.” One of them, he noted, documents the “potential for animal carcasses with biologically infectious material” but he added that “we have no further information on whether these animals were buried on the property and if they were, where they were buried.”
He also attached 2014 photos of the asbestos containing materials and equipment that was removed but that PHMDC thought may have had oils containing PCBs. “From the attached pictures, it appears the oil remaining in the equipment may have been dumped to the ground and burned rather than disposing of the waste properly.” Further, he recommended that “[p]rior to redevelopment of this property, there must be a thorough assessment of the property for hazardous materials and environmental spills. Based on what we observed in the past, we suspect that remediation will be essential to ensuring that the property is safe for future redevelopment.”
On September 23, 2016, Don Warren, former owner of Business Park LLC, which owned the site from 1986 through around 2005, wrote to Dan O’Connell, Vice President of Astar Capital Management. Mr. Warren was also principal investigator at two scientific start-ups that had operated at the site, Prion Diagnostics and Molecular Chimerics, which “provided positive prion containing tissue—all of Ovine (sheep) origin known as scrapie”—that they provided to the Department of Agriculture as control materials.
Warren assured that “scrapie has not been shown to be transmissible to humans and is destroyed by standard prion management protocols” and that “all encounters with the prion material was performed in a biological cabinet with compliant filtration and airflow.” The lab building was decommissioned in accordance with WHO protocols of 1999 (which he included in the letter).
In conclusion, he assured that the lab “was properly decontaminated of TSE (transmissible spongiform encephaly) material prior to vacancy and there are no residual materials resultant from having the space utilized for prion research.” He added that “if additional protocol and documentation is required, please contact me.”
Mr. Warren’s letter, pointing to an old WHO prion decontamination protocol, does not suffice as evidence that even this outdated protocol was followed. Though Mr. Warren told DNR to contact him if the agency wanted additional documentation, there are no further records related this in publicly available DNR files.
Also, old notes by Mike Schmoller in DNR files (date not listed, probably around 2006) list other entities at the site that handled prions, including Molecular Biological Resources and possibly others. Schmoller’s notes also mention other types of prion agents being handled at the site, such as those that cause chronic wasting disease in deer.[17]
Though Schmoller’s notes suggest that prions were only handled in Building 2, 2005 consultant reports clearly indicate that Buildings 3 and 4 also had “biocontainment” areas, which means infectious agents were handled there.
October 2016: “Site Investigation Status report & Remedial Action Plan” quickly approved
Sometime between late June and October 2016, Mr. Schmoller, the site’s former project manager, was reassigned to the site, replacing Mr. Myers.
During this time, Terracon Consultants, Inc., the same company that had done the 2013 “limited site assessments” for the site, was hired with the WEDC funds to do a “Site Investigation Status Report and Remedial Action Plan,” which was published on October 13, 2016.
This report seemed intended to fulfill the Spills Law/NR 700 requirements, but didn’t do so. Consultants briefly skimmed over 2005 and limited 2013 site assessment reports and came up with a “Conceptual Site Model” that consisted of nine short, vague bullet points—which were the basis for the Remedial Action Plan.
The document did not meet the site investigation requirements in Wisconsin law NR 716, which states that at contaminated sites, “The field investigation shall include an evaluation of all of the following items: (a) Potential pathways for migration of the contamination, including drainage improvements, utility corridors, bedrock and permeable material or soil along which vapors, free product or contaminated water may flow. (b) The impacts of the contamination upon receptors” (“receptors” can include waterways, wetlands, etc) (and more). NR 716 also specifies the vertical and horizontal delineation of any groundwater contaminant plume.
After consultants encountered “boring refusal” (hitting bedrock) they concluded that “based on the apparently limited extent of the impacted soil, the depth to groundwater, the availability of municipal water, and the high cost of bedrock drilling, we do not believe further groundwater investigation is required.” (This conclusion is highly questionable, given the array of chemicals and infectious agents used at the site over decades, evidence of dumping and spilling of hazardous chemicals, and the lack of municipal storm and sanitary sewers at the site for decades.)
Consultants summarized contaminants found in past investigations and did some very limited new soil testing (for lead only). They acknowledged that “since the site will be redeveloped with multi-family housing, the known impacts must be managed to mitigate the direct-contact and vapor intrusion pathways.” The property owner had received a DNR vapor intrusion letter on Sept. 9. 2011, but with no groundwater data, it isn’t possible to fully assess the potential for vapor intrusion.
The report included several contradictory statements. For instance, it assured that “potential exposure pathways via soil, groundwater, surface water, and vapor were considered” but admitted that “further investigation is needed.” Surface water migration pathways through the floor drains were not mentioned, nor were other storm and surface water pathways. However, consultants wrote, “with the planned installation of a bio-retention basin in the area of impacted soils…the plan must also address potential impacts to surface water leaving the site.”
Given the sparse contaminant testing, these “potential impacts” to surface water could not be addressed—and they weren’t, except to construct large detection ponds throughout the site, which will funnel runoff downward to groundwater if they work correctly.
As with previous investigations, prions, chicken carcass pits, and radiological materials were not investigated (and weren’t even mentioned).[18]. Groundwater was not tested.
Photos: large detention ponds being excavated on site in summer 2019
Most soils re-buried onsite
Glaring contaminant data gaps notwithstanding, the consultants proposed very minimal testing and developed a “remedial action plan” for the western parcel, dated October 13, 2016.[19]
According to the plan, soil would be “visually observed” during excavation and screened for VOCs with PID (photo-ionization detector) every 200 cubic yards to assess the potential for vapor intrusion. Presumably site construction workers and contractors would be responsible for “visually observing” the soils for contamination. (Prions, infectious agents and most hazardous chemicals, of course, are not visible.)
Only “visually impacted” soils or those with VOCs over 10 ppm would be tested for a few contaminants (VOCs, PAHs, lead). If levels were over residential “residual contaminant level” (RCL) standards, and had “suitable engineering properties” they would be buried four feet deep or under pavement. If not, they would be “relocated on site in a green space area and not within 4 feet of the ground surface.” If soils were tested and levels were below the RCLs, they could be used anywhere on the site.
In sum, the plan was to rebury contaminated soils. Beyond this, the plan said, “natural attenuation will be relied upon to address the remaining impacted soil.” Natural attenuation means doing nothing.
Very large detention ponds–much more than four feet deep–were excavated all over the site to handle stormwater. Did construction workers excavating these ponds check to see if contaminated soils were buried there?
Many of the invisible hazardous chemicals and infectious agents produced and/or handled at the site were not tested in soils at all. So if they were reburied on the site, nobody knows.
Photo: Excavation for large detention pond, with assisted living facility in background. Workers installing new storm drain. March 4, 2020.
DNR approves plan
Eleven days after the consultants submitted the above plan, on October 24, 2016, Michael Schmoller at DNR issued a letter approving the plan. He noted that “remaining environmental issues revolve around prions and petroleum related volatile organic chemicals” but “[t]he Department believes this existing data adequately characterizes the environmental conditions at the site for redevelopment purposes.” Though 2016 investigations only tested for lead, he noted that “No site related metals were detected exceeding any soil direct contact related guidance criteria.” The proposal not to sample groundwater (never tested at the site) was approved, with the caveat that “site soils are sandy and it is possible future site conditions may warrant groundwater sampling.” None was ever done.
Schmoller agreed that soils would be assessed “when the buildings are removed during site redevelopment” and direct contact would be prevented by deeply burying any soils that “looked visually impacted” or capping them with pavement. Nothing in the soil management plan addressed testing for prions. Nevertheless, Schmoller expected that most soils would be “clean material that can be reused on and off site with no restrictions” and they would be “segregated and stockpiled before reuse.”
There is no evidence in DNR files that site construction workers saw any “visually impacted” soils.
Development began not long after this. Large uncovered piles of soils sat on the site for months on end, running off into storm drains in curbs of adjacent streets during rain and snow melts. Piles of soil remain there now.
Photo: large piles of soils on site in 2018
What about the prions and chicken carcass pits?
On December 2, 2016, DNR wrote a letter to Tony Balthazor of Northcentral Construction Co. Inc. saying that since they still had received no documentation that prions were decontaminated, any “demolition debris associated with the prion research laboratory…must be disposed at an operating solid waste disposal facility licensed to take such solid waste materials.”
There’s nothing in the files indicating whether or not this was done. In July 2018, Keller’s consultant submitted an update to the DNR saying: “Remedial actions are ongoing (elements of site redevelopment are being used as an engineered barrier). The RAR will be submitted when the work is complete” (RAR stands for “remedial action report.” The “elements of site redevelopment” being used as an “engineered barrier” refers to presumed “clean” soils and pavement being used as “caps” to cover any suspected contamination.)
On May 4, 2018, after a lot of development had already occurred on the site, I emailed John Hausbeck at Public Health Madison Dane County to ask how the prions had been handled. No prion testing had been done, but he assured that “[t]he work with prions appeared to be limited to within the confines of one of the lab buildings” and “the demolition debris of that building was required to be handled as hazardous waste.” As described earlier, consultant reports indicate that prions and other infectious agents were actually handled and/or stored in at least three buildings on the site—and there are no records of which one was handled as hazardous waste or where it was hauled.
In June 2019, I checked out the developments. By this point, two large apartment buildings (low income housing) and several Habitat for Humanity homes were completed on the western half of the site and people were living there. Children played on play equipment outside.
The assisted living facility was completed on the eastern half of the site. The Building 10 foundation and piles of broken up concrete, old pipes, etc. remained there as well, just west of the facility.
I asked contractors digging a very large detention pond on the property if they had ever heard about the buried chicken carcasses. One said “Yeah, I heard about them, I think they’re still up by that concrete foundation.” I mentioned the mercury incident and that there had been a lot of research on the site. “Maybe that explains the vials and bottles we’re finding,” he responded.
Though nearly fully developed, site never received closure from DNR
On March 4, 2020, I again checked out the site. New apartment buildings were being constructed on the far eastern edge of the site along Packers. The construction site was a sloppy, muddy mess—clearly violating local ordinances and stormwater regulations. Next to a giant pit being excavated north of the apartment buildings (likely a detention pond), workers were installing new storm drains, which will send water to a ditch and then Starkweather Creek.
Many individuals and families are settled into their Habitat for Humanity homes and affordable apartments, and in the assisted living facility.
The Building 10 foundation and debris remain at the western end of the eastern parcel (see photo below). The area where reports and construction workers said the chicken carcasses were buried looks undisturbed compared to previous visits—so presumably (if reports were correct) they are still there.
Final reports on remedial actions have not yet been submitted on DNR’s Bureau of Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS) site—though Keller’s consultants have been making promises for years. In July 2017, after development began, Keller (and/or their consultants) submitted their required update to DNR saying the Remedial Activity Report would be submitted “when the work is complete.”
In early 2018, Keller’s update said “closure request package preparation,” “field work has been completed,” and “case closure packet is being prepared for submittal.” In July 2018 and January 2019, the update again said “closure request package preparation” and “RAR and case closure request will be submitted soon.” In July 2019, the report was “Closure request package preparation” and “RAR and case closure request just about ready.”
Finally, the last BRRTS update at the time this article was written, January 12, 2020, said “Remediation” and “closure request package preparation.”
There are still no remedial activity reports in the files.
The full site file was recently added to the BRRTS with this caveat: “The file below contains permanent records related to the site available at the time the paper Site File was scanned and uploaded. Records withheld by the department due to confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, and other sensitive records, as well as lab data, may not be included. Additional records associated with the site may or may not be accessible through an open records request.”
Maybe this is a standard disclaimer, but I have never seen it attached to a property site file on BRRTS before. Perhaps there are some “sensitive records” and lab data that the DNR and/or the property owner (Keller) don’t want the public to see before the agency grants closure? Or on the other hand, perhaps there have been no other investigations to fill the obvious gaps, and the DNR and/or property owner don’t want the public to know that?
Either way, will DNR issue closure to this site, despite the glaring gaps in investigations? What choices does the agency have at this point? If it doesn’t grant closure, and recommends more investigations and remediation, how can this be done given that homes and apartments are now constructed all over the site?
Will the last undeveloped area, where a building foundation remains, be investigated before further development there?
*****************
[1] My home, built in 1941, is about ½ mile west of this site.
[2] This trailer park grew significantly in subsequent decades and is now called Oak Park Terrace.
[3] Wisconsin State Journal, February 26, 1949. The article also notes that “in recommending the special zoning district for trailer camps and tourist courts it declared no other cities have set such a precedent, but held it will provide Madison with the type of protection it needs.”
[4] The fact that it took the company years to find a suitable site suggests that some neighborhoods (likely wealthier ones) in Madison did not want such a facility nearby—but we found no evidence of this.
[5] Wisconsin State Journal, January 11, 1958
[6] Entities that operated at the site included: American Scientific Laboratories, Hazleton (became Covance in 1996?), Prism Analytical Inc., Prion Diagnostics, Wisconsin Radiological Laboratory, Flownamics Analytical Instruments, Molecular Biology Resources industrial organic chemistry, Environmental & Foundation Drilling, Pro-Tech Engineering, Nummelin Soil Testing Service, Clinical Convenience Products, Medical Environmental Supply, Chimerx, Dynamic Mobilities, Fugent Co., Madison Auto & Van Conversion, Whittier Biologics, Madison Incubator Technology, Molecular Chimerics, Work Service rehab services, United Migrant Opportunity Services, Environmental & Foundation Drilling, Professional Carpet Systems, Area 64 Recording Studios, Madison Auto & Van Conversion
[7] Stated in May 6, 2016 DNR letter
[8] The broken up foundation of this building remains on the site today.
[9] Don Warren, former owner of the site, was included on some of the 2006 correspondences between Keller and Pioneer.
[10] The October 31, 2005 Phase I ESA cites a long-time neighbor of the site, Bruce Raemisch. His comments suggest that what consultants thought was the chicken burial area at the northwestern part of the 3802 parcel was not that but was where soil material was removed to level the hilltop. He said “deceased chickens” were “routinely buried in the 1950s in many small excavations near the sheds formerly located on the eastern portion of the property.
[11] I live near the site, and occasionally walked over there. I never observed a fence there, even in the years after this. I could walk right through the Lakeview Elementary School property, around to the back side of it, and onto the site and then explore the abandoned and decrepit buildings there.
Photos in the Sept. 13, 2013 report indicate that chicken sheds remained on the northeastern corner of western parcel at that time, not on the eastern parcel (see pg. 12).
[12] The locations and dates of Hazleton operations are conflicting in reports. This report says: Hazleton (now Covance), which “generated spent halogenated and non-halogenated solvents” and “has received notices of general RCRA violations,” operated somewhere on this parcel, and other reports locate it on the western parcel. It’s likely that it was both. This document indicates Hazleton was at 3802 Packers, the eastern parcel, in 2000.
[13] With the caveat: “This response letter relates only to those conditions described above, and makes no determination concerning the presence or absence of hazardous substances, other than those identified in the reports listed above.”
[15] Myers must have replaced Schmoller, who signed the 2009 DNR Spills letter.
[16] It’s not clear what Astar Capital Management’s role was in the property at this point.
[17] Schmoller’s notes say that “property history goes back to 1969 with activities of potential concern.” This is incorrect. As described in this article, American Scientific Laboratories began manufacturing vaccines, pesticides, medicines and pharmaceuticals at the site in 1949.
[18] The report included a disclaimer titled “Additional Scope Limitations.” It said: “Certain indicators of the presence of hazardous substances, petroleum products, or other constituents may have been latent, inaccessible, unobservable, non-detectable, or not present during these services, and we cannot represent that the site contains no hazardous substances, toxic materials, petroleum products, or other latent conditions beyond those identified during this investigation.”
[19] One PCB sample near a former transformer, removal of two fuel oil underground storage tanks (USTs) and analysis for VOCs, PAHs, and lead (only in areas around these two USTs).
