final focused feasibility study - minnesota … · · 2015-05-15final focused feasibility study...

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY

Former Brainerd Foundry Site Brainerd, Minnesota

October 9, 2014 Terracon Project No. 41057031A

Prepared for: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 525 South Lake Avenue, Suite 400

Duluth, Minnesota 55802

Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. 3535 Hoffman Road East

White Bear Lake, Minnesota

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ....................................................... 1

1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................... 2

2.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ................. 4

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES .................................... 5

3.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ........................................................................... 5

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION LEVELS ..................................................................... 6

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS 6

4.1 REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES .................................................................................... 6

4.2 CONTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................................... 7

4.3 SCREENING OF IDENTIFIED TECHNOLOGIES...................................................... 9

5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 11

5.1 PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 11

6.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES..................................................... 12

6.1 NO ACTION ............................................................................................................ 12

6.2 EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL .............................................................................. 13

6.3 CLEAN SOIL COVER .............................................................................................. 15

7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 16

7.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ........................... 16

7.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS.................................................................................. 16

7.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................. 16

7.4 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS .......................................................................... 16

7.5 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME ........................................... 17

7.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY .............................................................................................. 17

7.7 COST ...................................................................................................................... 17

8.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................. 17

9.0 PILOT TESTING ..................................................................................................... 18

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 18

11.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 18

Appendix A – Figures Figure 1 – Topographic Map Figure 2 – Site Map Figure 3 – Lead Hot Spots Based on Lab Data Figure 4 – Lead Hot Spots Based on XRF Data Figure 5 – Excavation Cleanup Areas Appendix B – Tables Table 1 – Anticipated Excavation Cleanup Costs Table 2 – Soil Analytical Results (Metals) Table 3 – Soil Analytical Results (SVOCs) Table 4 – Soil Analytical Results (PCBs) Table 5 – Soil Analytical Results (VOCs)

Responsive Resourceful Reliable 1

FINAL FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY SITE

BRAINERD, MINNESOTA Terracon Project No. 41057031A

October 9, 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) of remedial options to address lead impacted soil that presents a risk on-site and at nearby properties to human exposure via shallow lead impacted soil. The FFS was performed in general conformance with services specified in Terracon’s Focused Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment Work Plan dated September 10, 2013 and Remedial Action Planning and Oversight Work Plan dated August 1, 2014. These activities were authorized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Work Orders 3000008829 and 3000011635. This FFS report has been prepared in general accordance with the Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FS Guidance) prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dated October 1988. 1.1 Purpose and Organization of Report This FFS was conducted to evaluate the identified surface soil impacts associated with fugitive emissions from a former foundry located at the site which is addressed to 801 South 10th Street in Brainerd, Minnesota (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site property is currently vacant, except for a chain link fence encompassing a portion of the property. The FFS process is the procedure used to develop, evaluate, and select a remedial action. The FFS report provides documentation for this process. The goals of this FFS include the following:

• Providing a framework for evaluating and selecting technologies and remedial actions. • Satisfying environmental review requirements for a remedial action. • Complying with administrative record requirements for documentation of remedial action

selection. The purpose of the report is to present and evaluate the remedial alternatives that may be used to address the risks posed by the identified soil impacts. In a Proposed Plan, the MPCA will indicate which type of cleanup action it prefers, and seek public input on what types of cleanup actions should take place.

Final Focused Feasibility Study Former Brainerd Foundry Site Brainerd, Minnesota October 9, 2014 Terracon Project No. 41057031A


1.2 Background Information The Former Brainerd Foundry is located at 801 South 10th Street, Brainerd, Minnesota (Figure 1). The foundry began operating at the site in the 1920s and was closed in 1981 when the owners filed for bankruptcy. The Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce took over management of the property and facilitated assessment and remedial activities on the property via the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program. The assessment and remedial activities addressed concerns regarding soil and potential groundwater impacts related to metals (primarily lead) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The remedial activities were limited to the area within the site property boundary, although historical information indicates site activities extended onto the adjacent bike trail which was a former railroad (Figure 2). Limited assessment activities beyond the property boundary identified surface soil with elevated lead concentrations adjacent to the west and south property boundaries (Figure 3 and Figure 4). A summary of environmental assessment phases completed at the site are summarized below. Initial Environmental Assessment – 1983 PCB Impacts In 1983 PCB electrical equipment was reportedly identified as having leaked onto the site property. Cleanup of PCB impacts was conducted during late 1983 for an identified release in the area of storage sheds formerly located on Burlington Northern Railroad property at the southeast side of the site. Environmental Assessment – 1984 through 1986 At the request of MPCA, additional assessment was conducted for PCB and metal impacts on the site where the foundry was located. Assessment was conducted which identified impacts requiring cleanup. In late 1984, the EDA began demolition of the foundry buildings which was reportedly completed in mid-1985. A cleanup plan was prepared to address impacted soil on-site and a limited excavation cleanup was conducted in early 1986. Environmental Assessment – 1994 through 1996 Additional assessment involving residual lead impacts for the site property was conducted to determine if additional soil cleanup was needed. Based on the assessment results, approximately 640 cubic yards of impacted soil was targeted for excavation and removal from the site. The excavation cleanup was conducted during 1996. Environmental Assessment – 1996 Monitoring Wells Three monitoring wells were installed on-site in 1996. One well was installed in a shallow perched water zone and two wells were installed in the apparent water table. Environmental Assessment – 2006 Additional assessment involving the collection of near surface soil samples was conducted to assess for impacted soil located at the former foundry facility property (outside of the security



fence marking the location of the former foundry facility) and on adjacent properties. Based on the assessment results, lead was detected at concentrations greater than its MPCA Tier 1 Soil Reference Value (SRV) of 300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in several locations. In addition to lead, arsenic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) impacted soil was identified at select locations at concentrations greater than their respective MPCA Tier 1 SRVs. Environmental Assessment – 2008 Additional assessment involving the collection of soil samples was conducted to further delineate impacted soil within the areas assessed during 2006. In addition, the assessment areas were expanded in order to delineate the horizontal and vertical impacted soil beyond those assessed during 2006. Based on the 2006 and 2008 environmental assessment results, a total of eight out of the nine study areas were identified as containing lead at concentrations greater than its MPCA Tier 1 SRV. The study areas were located in various directions outside of the limits of the former foundry facility. In addition to lead, the results of the 2006 and 2008 environmental assessment activities indicated that other contaminants were detected above their respective MPCA Tier 1 SRVs (notably arsenic, chromium, mercury, and PAHs). In general, the other contaminants detected at the site correlate to locations in which lead was detected at concentrations greater than its MPCA Tier 1 SRV. Therefore, lead constitutes the primary contaminant of concern for the site. Environmental Assessment – 2012 Because impacted soil greater than its MPCA Tier 1 SRV had not been fully delineated during assessment activities completed during 2006 and 2008, additional assessment was conducted involving the expansion of the study areas farther onto adjacent properties. In addition, a tenth study area (labeled FS) was added to assess for the presence of impacted soil greater than its MPCA Tier 1 SRV within the footprint of the former foundry facility. Environmental Assessment – 2013 At the request of the MPCA, additional environmental assessment was conducted to further delineate impacted soil in areas considered to be data gaps, specifically beneath paved surfaces encompassed within the study areas (City streets and the paved bike trail) and in areas where impacted soil had not been fully delineated. In addition, select soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to characterize the soil for waste disposal purposes.



2.0 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Remedial actions for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants must be selected and carried out in compliance with Federal and State legal requirements. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) represent standards, requirements and criteria limitations under Federal, State or local regulations that may govern remedial activities. ARARs are identified during the FFS to assist in the process of identifying potential remedial actions, evaluation of the identified potential remedial actions and the final selection of a remedy.

ARARs are defined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) as follows:

Applicable Requirements are defined as “those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site.”

Relevant and Appropriate Requirements are defined as “those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that, while not applicable to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site”.

In addition to ARARs, the NCP also recognizes an additional category called “To Be Considered”, or “TBC”. TBCs are defined as non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by Federal or State Government that are not legally binding and do not have the status of ARARs.

ARARs are classified into three types: chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific. The three types of ARARs are defined as follows:

Chemical-specific ARARs “are usually health or risk-based numerical values or methodologies which, when applied to specific site conditions, results in the establishment of an acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment” (EPA 1988). These requirements provide protective site remediation levels for the contaminants of concern in the designated media (i.e., soil, groundwater and air).

Action-specific ARARs “are usually technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with respect to the hazardous wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities that are selected to accomplish the remedy. Action-specific requirements do not themselves determine the cleanup alternative, but define how the chosen cleanup alternative should be achieved” (EPA 1988).

Location-specific ARARs “are restrictions placed on the concentration of the hazardous substances or the conduct of activities solely because they occur in specific locations” (EPA 1988).



Potential ARARs that may apply to the site include the following:

Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 141-146 establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero milligrams per liter (mg/L) for lead. This standard applies to municipal drinking water supplies.

Minnesota Rules, Administrative Rules Chapter 4717 establishes a Health Risk Limit (HRL) for several metals and PAH compounds. This standard establishes contaminant concentrations in drinking water that is likely to pose little or no health risk to humans.

MPCA SRVs, MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil-Human Pathway provides guidance which assists users in applying risk based evaluation of the human health risk posed by exposure to contaminated soil at sites administered by the MPCA.

MPCA Soil Leaching Values (SLVs), MPCA Risk-Based Guidance provides guidance which assists users in evaluating risks posed by leaching of contaminants in soil to groundwater.

CERCLA, 42 USC 103 is Federal Superfund Law requiring response action to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA), 29 USC Section 651-678, 29 CFR 1910, 1926 and 1904 regulates worker health and safety. The law specifies training requirements for workers at hazardous waste operations and the type of safety equipment and procedures to be followed during site remediation.

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7035 establishes regulations for the disposal of solid waste.

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7045 establishes regulations for characterizing, handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

Minnesota Statute 115A.932: Prohibition of disposal of mercury or mercury-containing devices in Minnesota landfills.

Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA), Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115B is State of Minnesota Superfund Law requiring response action to release of hazardous substances.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES

The purpose of this section is to develop Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the remedial action and to present remedial action levels that can be applied to the RAOs to meet the goals. 3.1 Remedial Action Objectives The site-specific RAOs identified for this site have been identified as:

Prevent exposure to the public and environment from impacted soil that has contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA SRVs.



The major components of the selected remedy must include actions that would protect the public from contaminants exceeding established health standards and evaluate emerging technologies to locate and remove, as practical, the sources of the impacted soil.

3.2 Development of Action Levels The RAO for the site is to prevent exposure to the public and environment to lead above its MPCA Tier 1 SRV of 300 mg/kg. Land zoning within the area encompassed by the site consists of mixed residential and commercial/industrial uses. However, the area encompassed by the site is primarily residential. In addition, areas identified as having lead concentrations in excess of the MPCA Tier 1 SRV outside of the former foundry facility fence are largely not secured (i.e., located behind a fence or barrier to prevent entry from the general public to impacted soil areas). Therefore, the MPCA Tier 1 SRV rather than the MPCA Tier 2 SRV should be applied as the cleanup objective for impacted soil at the site.

Other contaminants detected in soil samples collected at the site (arsenic, chromium, mercury and PAHs) at concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA Tier 1 SRVs will also be addressed as part of the selected remedial action to address lead impacted soil.

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONS

The purpose of this section is to identify potential technologies and process options which can be utilized in the completion of remedial actions in order to meet the RAOs identified for the site. 4.1 Removal Technologies Conventional technologies that play a significant role in managing impacted soil areas at metal contaminated sites include excavation. Removal technology (i.e., excavation) completely removes the metal impacted soil from the site. 4.1.1 Excavation and Disposal Excavation is carried out by heavy construction equipment that can dig out the impacted materials and place them into heavy trucks or shipping containers. The containerized material is then shipped to an appropriate site for treatment or disposal, which may include designated on-site locations. Backfilling the excavation is required and assumes available clean backfill material is available, and that the clean backfill is carefully and safely placed so that cross contamination is avoided. These activities require extensive physical access to the impacted soil areas.



Advantages

Quick removal of the contaminant mass in soil. Effective removal of the contaminant mass in soil.

Cost effective for shallow, accessible soil.

Disadvantages

Defining an area to be excavated often requires accurate information detailing the impacted soil area lateral extents, depths and the general distribution of the targeted contaminants to successfully remediate the contamination.

Excavation may be prohibitive within soil saturated zones or at deep depths.

Excavation may be prohibited by the presence of physical limitations such as subsurface

utilities, foundations, buildings or other structures.

4.2 Containment Technologies Conventional technologies that play a significant role in managing impacted soil areas at metal contaminated sites include containment. Containment technology leaves metal impacted soil on-site. 4.2.1 Clean Soil Cover Clean soil cover is carried out by placing clean soil over impacted soil. The clean soil cover acts as a buffer preventing exposure to humans and the environment from the impacted soil. Often, a portion of the impacted soil is excavated for on-site treatment or off-site disposal. The excavation is then backfilled with clean soil cover in order to provide an adequate buffer thickness. Generally, subsurface barriers/markers are also placed at the clean soil/impacted soil interface to delineate the transition for future activities conducted at the property. The typical clean soil buffer thickness considered as being protective of human health and the environment in Minnesota is 4-feet. Advantages

Does not require off-site disposal of impacted soil, but will likely require on-site excavation and backfilling of impacted soil.

Effective in preventing human and environmental exposure to contaminants in most situations.



Disadvantages

Soil containing contaminant concentrations greater than their regulatory criteria is left at the site below the clean soil cover.

Limited use of property in the future due to risk of exposure to the impacted soil if the clean soil cover is removed or disturbed.

Highly site and situation dependent as placement of a clean soil buffer may be limited due to site topography, building construction characteristics and drainage requirements.

4.2.2 Protective Cap A protective cap is carried out by placing an impervious material (i.e., asphalt, concrete, clay, etc.) over the impacted soil. The protective cap acts as a buffer preventing exposure to humans and the environment from the impacted soil. Advantages

Does not require off-site disposal of impacted soil.

Effective in preventing human and environmental exposure to impacted soil. Disadvantages

Soil containing contaminant concentrations greater than their regulatory criteria is left at the site below the protective cap.

Limited use of property in the future due to risk of exposure to the impacted soil if the protective cap is removed or disturbed.

Placement of a protective cap over large areas may be cost-prohibitive.

Future costs associated with maintenance and re-surfacing of the materials used as part of the protective cap.

Highly site and situation dependent as placement of a protective cap over significant portions of the properties may not be acceptable to property owners, may be in violation of local zoning requirements and alters storm water flow and drainage characteristics.



4.2.3 Stabilization Stabilization is carried out with the addition of a chemical binding product (i.e., lime, concrete, etc.) with the impacted soil in order to stabilize the contaminants within the soil matrix and prevent contaminant migration. The stabilization product is either injected into the subsurface or is mixed with the impacted soil using heavy construction equipment to obtain proper dispersal of the binding agent in the soil matrix. The stabilized soil is then placed back into the subsurface of the site. Another form of stabilization is vitrification which involves the glassification of the impacted soil in-situ using electrical current passed through the subsurface by electodes. These activities require extensive physical access to the impacted soil area. Advantages

Does not require off-site disposal of impacted soil.

Effective in preventing migration of the contaminant mass in soil. Disadvantages

Stabilization does not alter the contaminant concentration in soil (i.e., soil containing contaminant concentrations greater than their regulatory criteria are left at the site).

Limited use of properties in future due to risk of exposure if stabilized soil is disturbed.

Requires placement of clean soil buffer or impervious cap above stabilized soil to prevent exposure to the impacted soil.

Certain stabilization techniques (i.e., vitrification) are highly cost-prohibitive. 4.3 Screening of Identified Technologies This section screens the remedial technologies identified in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 for further consideration in developing comprehensive remedial actions to address the impacted soil areas. 4.3.1 Removal Technologies Excavation and Disposal In general, the impacted soil areas at the site are comprised of metal contaminants distributed in the shallow subsurface [i.e., less than 4-feet beneath ground surface (bgs)]. Due to the relatively shallow extent of impacted soil, excavation and disposal is a rapid and effective method of removing the impacted soil from the site. In addition, excavation and disposal of the impacted soil off-site would effectively remove the potential for exposure to the public and environment from the impacted soil that has contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA SRVs. However, excavation at the site would likely require the removal of vegetation, former foundry facility improvements (i.e., the concrete retaining wall along the western side of



the trail), temporary relocation and replacement of public utilities, and restoration of green space areas on several properties. Based on its potential for effectiveness, the excavation and disposal technology will be retained for further consideration.

4.3.2 Containment Technologies Clean Soil Cover In general, the impacted soil areas at the site are comprised of metal contaminants distributed in the shallow subsurface (i.e., less than 4-feet bgs). Primarily, clean soil cover is a method for providing a buffer which prevents exposure to the contaminants. Implementation of this technology is often carried out with limited excavation and disposal activities, allowing for the removal of a portion of the impacted soil needed in order to place an adequate clean soil cover buffer thickness. Impacted soil containing contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA SRVs would remain in-situ below the clean soil buffer at the site, requiring restrictions on future property use in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment with the impacted soil. The placement of clean soil cover may significantly alter the characteristics, and interfere with, the current uses of the properties encompassed within the site. Based on its potential for effectiveness, the clean soil cover technology will be retained for future consideration. Protective Cap In general, the impacted soil areas at the site are comprised of metal contaminants distributed in the shallow subsurface (i.e., less than 4-feet bgs). Primarily, a protective cap is a method for providing a buffer which prevents exposure to the contaminants. Impacted soil containing contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA SRVs would remain in-situ at the site below the protective cap and require restrictions on future property use in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment with the impacted soil. The placement of a protective cap would also require the approval of a number of property owners to have the protective cap placed on their property. In addition, the protective cap utilized would require ongoing maintenance related to resurfacing and damage repair in order to assure the impervious cap remains intact. Based on potential effectiveness and implementability, the protective cap technology will not be retained for further consideration. Stabilization In general, the impacted soil areas at the site are comprised of metal contaminants distributed in the shallow subsurface (i.e., less than 4-feet bgs). Primarily, stabilization is a method for preventing the migration of the contaminant within and out of the soil matrix. Stabilization of the impacted soil would prevent additional migration of the contaminant mass. However stabilization would not alter the contaminant concentration within the soil, leaving soil impacted with contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective MPCA SRVs in-situ at the site and require restrictions on future property use in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment with the impacted soil. In addition, due to the shallow depth at which impacted soil is first encountered at portions of the site (i.e., surficial), the stabilized impacted soil would require the



placement of clean soil cover or a protective cap in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment. Based on potential effectiveness, the stabilization technology will not be retained for further consideration.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

To avoid considering all possible combinations of technologies, criteria are applied to limit the number of alternatives to only the most effective. The criteria for combining technologies into alternatives are:

Alternatives must address RAOs. Alternatives must consist of unified groups of technologies.

Alternatives must represent the full range of possible remedies including no action and

active remediation. The following general technologies identified in Section 4.0 have been retained for consideration in developing the remedial alternatives.

Excavation and Disposal Clean Soil Cover

5.1 Preliminary Remedial Alternatives The following alternatives are based on the applicable technologies identified in Section 4.0 and were developed to most efficiently meet the RAOs and satisfy the ARARs. Also included for comparison is the No Action alternative. 5.1.1 No action The MPCA is required by the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(6) to evaluate the no action alternative. The no action alternative may be appropriate at some sites where a removal action has already occurred that has reduced risks to human health and the environment or present conditions in which the risks to human health and the environment are minimal. The no action alternative would consist of leaving the impacted soil in-situ at the site. 5.1.2 Excavation and Disposal This alternative would consist of the removal of soil impacted with contaminants greater than their respective regulatory criteria from the site. The impacted soil excavated would be placed into heavy trucks or containers for off-site disposal. The excavated areas would then be backfilled with clean soil. The alternative could be implemented in one or more phases to address the lateral extent of impacted soil present at the site.



5.1.3 Clean Soil Cover This alternative would consist of the placement of a clean soil cover buffer over the soil impacted with contaminants greater than their respective regulatory criteria. This alternative could be augmented with limited excavation to remove a portion of the impacted soil necessary to place an adequate clean soil cover buffer thickness.

6.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The detailed analysis of alternatives provides a further assessment of the remedial alternatives to develop a basis for remedy selection. Consistent with CERCLA and NCP, nine evaluation criteria have been determined to be appropriate for a thorough alternative evaluation and are characterized as threshold, balancing, and modifying, as follows:

Threshold Criteria – Protection of Human Health and the Environment and Compliance with ARARs.

Balancing Criteria – Long-Term Effectiveness; Short-Term Effectiveness; Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume; Implementability; and Cost.

Modifying Criteria – State Acceptance and Community Acceptance. The first seven criteria are presented in this report. It is assumed that the State Acceptance and Community acceptance will be factored into the MPCA’s decision regarding remedy selection. 6.1 No action The no action alternative assumes no further action will be taken to address contaminant concentrations in soil at the site which exceed their respective regulatory criteria. This alternative is included for baseline purposes.

(a) 6.1.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment The no action alternative provides a low degree of protection to human health and the environment. Contaminants would remain in-place at concentrations greater than their respective regulatory criteria at the site. Therefore, the not action alternative does not address the current or future exposure risks related to exposure pathways (i.e., contact, bioaccumulation or migration).

(b) 6.1.2 Compliance with ARARS The no action alternative is expected to not comply with the ARARs discussed in Section 2.0.

(c) 6.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness The no action alternative is expected to have low long-term effectiveness regarding the reduction of the contaminant mass over time.



(d) 6.1.4 Short-Term Effectiveness In the short-term, the no action alternative will not significantly affect the current risks and impacts to the public and environment posed by the contaminant mass present at the site.

(e) 6.1.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume The no action alternative would not affect the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contaminant mass present at the site. Several of the identified contaminants (primarily lead, with arsenic, chromium, mercury detected at select locations) do not degrade or lose their toxicity over time. Therefore, natural attenuation is not expected to reduce the toxicity, mobility or the volume of the contaminant mass over time.

(f) 6.1.6 Implementability This alternative is highly implementable. Current site conditions and the presence of the contaminant mass would not be altered.

(g) 6.1.7 Cost It is assumed that there would be no costs associated with the no action alternative. 6.2 Excavation and Disposal

(a) 6.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment The excavation and disposal alternative provides a high degree of protection to human health and the environment provided that the lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil is removed from the site. Contaminant concentrations exceeding their respective regulatory criteria would be permanently removed from the site, thereby reducing or eliminating the risks posed to human health and the environment via existing exposure pathways.

(b) 6.2.2 Compliance with ARARS The excavation and disposal alternative is expected to comply with the ARARs discussed in Section 2.0.

(c) 6.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness The excavation and disposal alternative is expected to have a high long-tern effectiveness because the contaminant mass would be permanently removed from the site.

(d) 6.2.4 Short-Term Effectiveness The excavation and disposal alternative is expected to have a high short-tern effectiveness because the contaminant mass would be permanently removed from the site.

(e) 6.2.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume As stated in 6.1.5 above, the identified contaminants do not degrade or lose their toxicity over time. Therefore, the excavation and disposal alternative would be effective in reducing the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminant mass because it would be permanently removed from the site.



(f) 6.2.6 Implementability

The alternative is moderately to highly implementable based on the shallow and lateral extent of the contaminant mass, the relative ease of the excavation method, availability of experienced contractors, reliability of the method, and the simplicity of performance monitoring. Current site characteristics consist of areas in which access to the contaminant mass could be easily achieved. The primary obstacles to implementation of the excavation portion of the alternative are the presence of structures (i.e., buildings and shallow subsurface utilities), vegetation (i.e., green space and wooded areas) and cultural features (i.e., landscaping, concrete retaining walls, fencing, etc.). Implementation of the excavation portion of the alternative would also require cooperation of property owners in allowing excavation activities to be conducted on their properties. Following excavation and backfilling activities, properties affected by the remedial activities would need to be restored to former conditions. It is assumed that for locations in which impervious surfaces currently exists (i.e., driveways, roadways, trails, etc.) that excavation of impacted soil beneath the surfaces would not be performed as the impervious surfaces prohibit exposure of the contaminants to the public and the environment. Future work associated with utilities or improvements of the impervious structures would need to address impacted soil left in-situ beneath the impervious surfaces. The primary obstacle involved with implementation of the disposal portion of the alternative is the characterization, handling and disposal location of the impacted soil. Based on laboratory analytical and field screening data collected at the site, it is anticipated that a portion of the material excavated from the site may be characterized as hazardous waste (i.e., contaminant concentrations which exceed their TCLP limits). Material excavated from the site containing contaminants below their respective TCLP limits may be disposed of in a local Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D disposal facility, while material excavated from the site containing contaminants which exceed their respective TCLP limits must be handled as hazardous waste and disposed of in a permitted RCRA subtitle C disposal facility. Classification of excavated material as hazardous waste will likely lead to incremental cost increases related to the handling, transport and disposal of the material. Soil characterized as hazardous waste may be treated with a chemical reagent (such as Blastox® produced by The TDJ Group, Inc.) to stabilize the contaminant mass within the soil matrix, thereby allowing the material to be handled and managed as non-hazardous waste. The reliability of the chemical reagent technology is currently assumed and must be evaluated through field-scale pilot testing.

(g) 6.2.7 Cost The anticipated cost for excavating the soil and disposing the soil off-site at a landfill is approximately $600,000. This cost is based on assuming the impacted soil will be accepted at a Class D landfill located near the site. The cost is also based on the assumption that soil exhibiting elevated TCLP concentrations may be treated on-site using Blastox® treatment (or similar technology) at a five percent (%) by weight concentration relative to the total soil weight



and that a total of approximately 3,900 tons of soil will be treated. Once treated, the soil is assumed to be accepted by a Class D landfill located near the site. Lastly, the cost estimate is based on limited mobilizations to the site by an excavation contractor so if the project is divided up into several smaller excavation projects additional costs will likely be incurred. A summary of the alternative costs is provided on Table 1 in Appendix B. 6.3 Clean Soil Cover

(a) 6.3.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment This alternative provides a moderate degree of protection to human health and the environment provided that the lateral extent of impacted soil is covered across the site and an adequate clean soil cover buffer thickness could be placed over the impacted soil. However, soil impacted with contaminant concentrations greater than their regulatory criteria would remain in-situ, requiring restrictions on future property use in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment with the impacted soil which would be caused by the removal or disturbance of the clean soil cover.

(b) 6.3.2 Compliance with ARARS

The clean soil cover alternative is expected to comply with the ARARs discussed in Section 2.0.

(c) 6.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness The clean soil cover alternative is expected to have a low to moderate long-tern effectiveness because the contaminant mass would remain in-situ beneath the clean soil cover buffer. As discussed in 6.3.1 above, restrictions on future property use would be required in order to prevent exposure to the public and the environment with the impacted soil by removal or disturbance of the clean soil cover. In addition, long-term event conditions such as erosion, establishment of vegetation, etc. may create exposure pathways to the contaminant mass.

(d) 6.3.4 Short-Term Effectiveness Short term risks are expected to be low and overall short-term effectiveness is anticipated to be high.

(e) 6.3.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume As stated in 6.1.5 above, the identified contaminants do not degrade or lose their toxicity over time. The clean soil cover alternative would be effective in reducing the current exposure pathways present at the site. However, the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminant mass would not be reduced since the contaminant mass would remain at the site.

(f) 6.3.6 Implementability The implementability of the clean soil buffer alternative is anticipated to be low based on site topography, the presence of structures and the presence of cultural features. A clean soil cover buffer would likely require the placement of 4-feet of clean soil over the impacted soil areas to achieve a reduction in the exposure risks associated with the contaminant mass. Due to the presence of buildings and roadways within the horizontal extent of the impacted soil, placement



of 4-feet of clean soil is not achievable across the vast majority of the site. In addition, placement of a clean soil cover over the site would drastically change site topographic conditions, altering stormwater runoff and drainage characteristics in the area.

(g) 6.3.7 Cost Based on the low implementability, a cost for this alternative was not estimated.

7.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

In this section, the remedial alternatives are compared against each other according to the seven criteria presented in Section 6.0. 7.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment The excavation and disposal alternative provides the highest protection of human health and the environment because the contaminant mass would be permanently removed from the site, thereby reducing or eliminating the existing exposure pathways at the site. The clean soil cover alternative in the short-term would provide high protection of human health and the environment. However, property restrictions would be needed in the long-term to protect human health and the environment as the contaminant mass would remain in-situ beneath the clean soil cover buffer and potential exposure pathways may be created through the removal or disturbance of the clean soil buffer. The no action alternative is not protective of human health and the environment as existing exposure pathways at the site would remain. 7.2 Compliance with ARARS The excavation and disposal alternative and clean soil cover alternative are expected to comply with the ARARs. The no action alternative is not expected to comply with the ARARs. 7.3 Long-Term Effectiveness Based on the current site conditions, the excavation and disposal alternative would provide the greatest long-term effectiveness because the contaminant mass would be permanently removed from the site, thereby reducing or eliminating the existing exposure pathways at the site. The clean soil cover alternative is anticipated to provide low to moderate long-term effectiveness as future circumstances or conditions may disturb or alter the clean soil buffer, creating exposure pathways to the in-situ impacted soil. Property restrictions and monitoring would be needed in order to assure the integrity of the clean soil cover buffer over the long term. The no action alternative would provide low long term effectiveness as the contaminant mass and existing exposure pathways at the site would remain. 7.4 Short-Term Effectiveness The short term effectiveness for the excavation and disposal alternative and for the clean soil cover alternative would be similar as both alternatives reduce or eliminate the current exposure pathways at the site. However, the excavation and disposal alternative would permanently



remove the contaminant mass from the site, while the clean soil cover alternative would require property restrictions to prevent the creation of exposure pathways to the contaminant mass in-situ below the clean soil cover buffer. The no action alternative will not affect the current exposure risks to the public and environment posed by the contaminant mass present at the site. 7.5 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume The identified contaminants (primarily lead, with arsenic, chromium, mercury detected at select locations) do not degrade or lose their toxicity over time. Therefore, natural attenuation is not anticipated to reduce the toxicity or the volume of the contaminant mass over time. Based on this assumption, the excavation and disposal alternative provides the highest reduction in the contaminant mass toxicity, mobility and volume for the site because the contaminant mass would be permanently removed from the site. The clean soil cover and no action alternatives both leave the contaminant mass in-situ, and would therefore not provide a reduction in the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contaminant mass. 7.6 Implementability The no response alternative is considered to be highly implementable as the alternative does not require any action. The excavation and disposal alternative is anticipated to be moderately to highly implementable based on shallow and lateral extent of the contaminant mass, the largely open nature of the site, the ease of the excavation method, availability of experienced contractors, reliability of the method, and the simplicity of performance monitoring. The primary obstacles to implementation of the excavation and disposal alternative portion are anticipated to be: the presence of structures, vegetation and cultural features; cooperation of property owners in allowing excavation activities to be conducted on their properties; and the characterization, handling and disposal of the impacted material. The implementability of the clean soil buffer alternative is anticipated to be low based on site topography, the presence of structures and the presence of cultural features that prohibit the placement of an adequate clean soil buffer across the vast majority of the site. 7.7 Cost The apparent most feasible alternative is the excavation with off-site disposal. The no action alternative is not considered a viable action, while the clean soil cover alternative is not considered to be implementable. Therefore, further cost evaluation was not conducted for the no action and clean soil cover alternatives.

8.0 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

At this time the preferred alternative for the site is excavation and disposal. This alternative is preferred as it provides the highest protectiveness to human health and the environment, is expected to comply with the identified ARARs, provides the highest combined short-term and long-term effectiveness, provides the highest reduction in contaminant toxicity, mobility and



volume, and is anticipated to have moderate to high implementability.

9.0 PILOT TESTING

Pilot testing has not been performed for the action alternatives detailed in this study.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Terracon recommends that the excavation and off-site disposal alternative be selected as the remedial action for the site.

11.0 REFERENCES

WSN 2013. Additional Investigation Report, Former Brainerd Foundry. Widseth Smith Nolting & Associates, Inc. November 18, 2013.

WSN 2012. Limited Investigation Report and Focused Feasibility Study, Former Brainerd

Foundry. Widseth Smith Nolting & Associates, Inc. July 3, 2012. Terracon 2008. Additional Off-Site Surface Soil Investigation, Former Brainerd Foundry.

Terracon Consultants, Inc. March 11, 2009. Terracon 2006. Off-Site Surface Soil Investigation, Former Brainerd Foundry – MPCA / SF.

Terracon Consultants, Inc. October 11, 2006. EPA 2003. Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook. EPA OSWER 9285.7-

50. August, 2003. EPA 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Revisions to

40 CFR Part 300, published as 55FR866 et seq. March 8, 1990. EPA 1989. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet: The Feasibility Study - Development and Screening of Remedial Action Alternatives. EPA Directive 9355.3-01FS3.

November, 1989. EPA 1988. United States Environmental Protection Agency. CERCLA Compliance with Other

Law Manual. EPA /540/G-89/006. August, 1988.

APPENDIX A

Figures

1

1000090008000

1

6000

1000

0

5000 7000

2000

2

4000

0

0

3000

.5

1000

1

1000

0 2000

.5

1000

1

KILOMETERS

METERS

MILES

SCALE 1:24 000

NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists

FIG. No.

3535 HOFFMAN ROAD EAST WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110FAX. (651) 770-1657PH. (651) 770-1500

CONTOUR INTERVAL FEET

BRAINERD QUADRANGLEMINNESOTA - CROW WING COUNTY

1973 REV. 1994

BJS

JLM (41)

BJS

BJS

41057031

AS SHOWN

41057031Asm.03

02/05/09

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

1FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY

MPCACORNER OF S. 10th STREET AND QUINCE STREET

BRAINERD MINNESOTA

10

APPROXIMATESITE LOCATION

xx

xx

xx

x x x x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

xxxxxxxxxx

PP

P

PP

P

P P

M

M

LP

P

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OHE

OHE

OHE

BIK

E TR

AIL

(FO

RM

ER

RA

ILR

OAD

GRA

DE)

WASHINGTON MIDDLESCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELDS

D1-1

D1-8

D1-9

D1-16D1-15

D1-10

D1-7

D1-2D1-3

D1-6

D1-11

D1-14D1-13

D1-12

D1-5

D1-4

PARKING LOT

D1-19

D1-18

D1-17

D1-20

M

QUINCE STREET

S. 1

0th

STR

EET

ROSEWOOD STREET

ROSEWOOD STREET

S 1

0th

STR

EE

T

PINE STREET

D2-1

D2-4

D2-2A

D2-6

D2-3

D2-7

D2-8

D2-5

C-4

C-3

C-5

C-6

C-2

C-1

C-7

B1-66

B1-69

B1-72

B1-70

B1-73

B1-71

B1-68

B1-67

FS-3

FS-2

TREES

B1-56

B1-55

B1-57

B1-74

B1-58

B1-5

B1-47 B1-43

B1-16

B1-4A

B1-3A

B1-60

FS-1

A2-9 A2-2A A2-1A A2-3

A2-8

B1-46 B1-44B1-31

B1-32B1-45

B1-33B2-63

B2-62

B2-54B2-55

B2-53B1-34

B1-30

B1-29

B1-35

B1-42B2-52

B2-61B1-28

B2-56

B2-51

B1-36

B1-27

B1-26

B2-59 B2-50

B2-60

B1-37

B1-25

B1-24

B1-38

B1-23

B2-57

B1-64

B1-2

B1-1

B2-49B1-21B1-62

A2-5

B1-22

B2-64

B1-39 B1-40Q-8Q-7

A2-7

B1-12A

B2-58

A2-6

B1-41

D4-5D4-3

D4-2AD4-1

D4-6

D4-4

Q-11

Q-2

Q-1

Q-10

Q-3Q-4Q-5

D3-23

D3-22

D3-8

D3-7

D3-6

D3-5

D3-20

D3-4A

D3-3A

D3-2A

D3-17D3-19

D3-18

D3-21

D3-16

D3-15

D3-14

D3-13

D3-12

D3-11

D3-10D3-1A

D3-9

A1-19

A1-20

A1-21

A1-14

A1-15

A1-13

A1-18

A1-3

A1-6A

A1-12A1-2A

A1-5A1-4

A1-1

A1-11A1-7 A1-8

A1-16

A1-17

802-15

802-13

802-12802-11

802-8802-7

802-9802-10

802-4

802-6

802-3

802-1802-2

802-5

D2-10

A2-4

B1-18

B1-20

B1-9A

B1-13A

P

B1-19

B1-15

B1-17

B1-14A

B1-48

P

FORMER FOUNDRYBUILDING OUTLINE

A1-22

P-1

P-2

P-3

P-4

P-5

P-6

P-7

P-8

P-18

P-19

P-20

P-13

P-14

P-15

P-16

P-17

P-9

P-10

P-11

P-12

B-2

B-1

CO

NC

RET

E W

ALL

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

E

P

B1-7

B1-6

B1-8

B1-10A

B1-63

B-11

Q-9

802

810

811

HA-20

HA-19

S-12

S-9 S-10 S-11

S-8

HA-13

HA-14

HA-15

HA-16

HA-17

S-21

S-16

S-14

S-18S-13

S-19

S-20

S-15

S-22

S-17

S-38

S-39

S-37S-36

S-40

S-35

S-34

HA-18

HA-12

HA-11 S-29

HA-10

HA-9S-30

S-31

S-26

S-27S-32

S-23

S-24S-33

S-25

S-1HA-1 HA-2 S-2 HA-3 S-3 HA-4

HA-5

S-4

HA-6

S-5

HA-7

S-6

HA-8

S-7

TREES

TREES

TREES

TREES

TREES

S-28

802-14

D2-9

TREES

TREES

TREES

TRE

ES

TREESTREES

RE T

AINI

NG

WAL

L

A1-10

A1-9

xx

xx

x x

N

0 6060

APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 60'

20 40

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

x FENCE LINE

LEGEND

OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

TERRACON SAMPLE LOCATION

WSN SAMPLE LOCATIONS

P POWER POLE

FIRE HYDRANTLP LIGHT POLE

M MANHOLE COVERGME SAMPLE LOCATIONS

GRAVEL

BITUMINOUS

CONCRETE

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. FIG. No.

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

3535 HOFFMAN ROAD E WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110FAX. (651) 770-1657PH. (651) 770-1500

SITE MAPBJS

JLM (41)

BJS

BJS

41057031

AS SHOWN

41057031Asn.03

10/06/20142

FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRYMPCA

CORNER OF S. 10th STREET AND QUINCE STREETBRAINERD MINNESOTA

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:


FIG. No.

N


BJS

JLM (41)

BJS

BJS

41057031

AS SHOWN

41057031Asm.03

10/06/2014

LEAD HOT SPOTS BASED ON LAB DATA



BRAINERD MINNESOTA (FIG3 LAB)DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:


FIG. No.

N


BJS

JLM (41)

BJS

BJS

41057031

AS SHOWN

41057031Asm.03

10/06/2014

LEAD HOT SPOTS BASED ON XRF DATA



BRAINERD MINNESOTA (FIG4 XRF)DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

xx

xx

xx

x x x x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

xxxxxxxxxxx

PP

P

PP

P

P P

M

M

LP

P

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OHE

OHE

OHE

BIK

E TR

AIL

(FO

RM

ER

RA

ILR

OAD

GRA

DE)

WASHINGTON MIDDLESCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELDS

D1-1

D1-8

D1-9

D1-16D1-15

D1-10

D1-7

D1-2D1-3

D1-6

D1-11

D1-14D1-13

D1-12

D1-5

D1-4

PARKING LOT

D1-19

D1-18

D1-17

D1-20

M

QUINCE STREET

S. 1

0 th

STR

EET

ROSEWOOD STREET

ROSEWOOD STREET

S 1

0th

STR

EE

T

PINE STREET

D2-1

D2-4

D2-2A

D2-6

D2-3

D2-7

D2-8

D2-5

C-4

C-3

C-5

C-6

C-2

C-1

C-7

B1-66

B1-69

B1-72

B1-70

B1-73

B1-71

B1-68

B1-67

FS-3

FS-2

TREES

B1-56

B1-55

B1-57

B1-74

B1-58

B1-5

B1-47 B1-43

B1-16

B1-4A

B1-3A

B1-60

FS-1

A2-9 A2-2A A2-1A A2-3

A2-8

B1-46 B1-44B1-31

B1-32B1-45

B1-33B2-63

B2-62

B2-54B2-55

B2-53B1-34

B1-30

B1-29

B1-35

B1-42B2-52

B2-61B1-28

B2-56

B2-51

B1-36

B1-27

B1-26

B2-59 B2-50

B2-60

B1-37

B1-25

B1-24

B1-38

B1-23

B2-57

B1-64

B1-2

B1-1

B2-49B1-21B1-62

A2-5

B1-22

B2-64

B1-39 B1-40Q-8Q-7

A2-7

B1-12A

B2-58

A2-6

B1-41

D4-5D4-3

D4-2AD4-1

D4-6

D4-4

Q-11

Q-2

Q-1

Q-10

Q-3Q-4Q-5

D3-23

D3-22

D3-8

D3-7

D3-6

D3-5

D3-20

D3-4A

D3-3A

D3-2A

D3-17D3-19

D3-18

D3-21

D3-16

D3-15

D3-14

D3-13

D3-12

D3-11

D3-10D3-1A

D3-9

A1-19

A1-20

A1-21

A1-14

A1-15

A1-13

A1-18

A1-3

A1-6A

A1-12A1-2A

A1-5A1-4

A1-1

A1-11A1-7 A1-8

A1-16

A1-17

802-15

802-13

802-12802-11

802-8802-7

802-9802-10

802-4

802-6

802-3

802-1802-2

802-5

D2-10

A2-4

B1-18

B1-20

B1-9A

B1-13A

P

B1-19

B1-15

B1-17

B1-14A

B1-48

P

FORMER FOUNDRYBUILDING OUTLINE

A1-22

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

P-1

P-2

P-3

P-4

P-5

P-6

P-7

P-8

P-18

P-19

P-20

P-13

P-14

P-15

P-16

P-17

P-9

P-10

P-11

P-12

B-2

B-1

CO

NC

RET

E W

ALL

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

EO

HE

OH

E

P

B1-7

B1-6

B1-8

B1-10A

B1-63

B-11

Q-9

802

810

811

HA-20

HA-19

S-12

S-9 S-10 S-11

S-8

HA-13

HA-14

HA-15

HA-16

HA-17

S-21

S-16

S-14

S-18S-13

S-19

S-20

S-15

S-22

S-17

S-38

S-39

S-37S-36

S-40

S-35

S-34

HA-18

HA-12

HA-11 S-29

HA-10

HA-9S-30

S-31

S-26

S-27S-32

S-23

S-24S-33

S-25

S-1HA-1 HA-2 S-2 HA-3 S-3 HA-4

HA-5

S-4

HA-6

S-5

HA-7

S-6

HA-8

S-7

TREES

TREES

TREES

TREES

TREES

S-28

802-14

D2-9

TREES

TREES

TREES

TRE

ES

TREESTREES

RE T

AINI

NG

WAL

L

CLEANUP AREA TABLE

AREA ANTICIPATED DEPTH (FT)

1 0'-0" TO 0'-4"2 0'-6" TO 0'-7"3 1'-0" TO 1'-6"4 1'-0" TO 2'-0"5 0'-0" TO 0'-6"6 0'-6" TO 4'-0"7 0'-6" TO 1'-0"8 1'-0" TO 3'-6"

REMOVE CONCRETEWALL AND FOOTINGIN THEIR ENTIRETY.

A1-10

A1-9

xx

xx

x x

N

0 6060

APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 60'

20 40

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

x FENCE LINE

LEGEND

OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE

TERRACON SAMPLE LOCATIONWSN SAMPLE LOCATION

P POWER POLE

FIRE HYDRANTLP LIGHT POLE

M MANHOLE COVER

CLEANUP AREAS 1 CLEANUP AREA ID NUMBER GRAVEL

BITUMINOUS

CONCRETE

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. FIG. No.

Consulting Engineers and Scientists


EXCAVATION CLEANUP AREASBJS

JLM (41)

BJS

BJS

41057031

AS SHOWN

41057031Asm.03

10/06/20145

FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRYMPCA

CORNER OF S. 10th STREET AND QUINCE STREETBRAINERD MINNESOTA

APPENDIX B

Tables

Terracon

TABLE 1ANTICIPATED EXCAVATION CLEANUP COSTS

FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRYBRAINERD, MINNESOTA

TERRACON PROJECT NO. 41057031

Description Measure Unit Price Quantity Total CommentsGeneral Conditions LS 20,000.00$ 1 20,000.00$ Health and Safety LS 5,000.00$ 1 5,000.00$ Mobilization LS 15,000.00$ 1 15,000.00$ Silt Fence Feet 4.00$ 600 2,400.00$ Construction Fence Feet 4.00$ 1,000 4,000.00$ Clear and Grub LS 500.00$ 10 5,000.00$ Surveying days 1,800.00$ 8 14,400.00$ Temporary Utility Services LS 2,000.00$ 1 2,000.00$ Common Excavation tons 9.00$ 6,800 61,200.00$ Transport and Dispose Soil tons 18.00$ 6,800 122,400.00$ Assumes disposal at a nearby landfill as daily cover.Clean Soil tons 10.00$ 4,900 49,000.00$ Does not include topsoil.Blastox tons 400.00$ 250 100,000.00$ Blastox mixing tons 4.50$ 4,500 20,250.00$ Aggregate Base CY 35.00$ 500 17,500.00$ Material for restoring residential driveways.Bituminous Pavement Sq Yds 45.00$ 0 -$ Assumes driveways will not be restored with pavement.Topsoil CY 40.00$ 1,000 40,000.00$ Sod SY 4.00$ 13,500 54,000.00$

Engineering LS 32,000.00$ 1 32,000.00$ Project Management LS 18,000.00$ 1 18,000.00$ Excavation Oversight LS 16,000.00$ 1 16,000.00$

Total 598,150.00$

LS: Lump sum, CY: cubic yard, SY: Square yard.

FFS Estimates.xlsx\Excavation Page 1 of 1 10/9/2014

Terracon

Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Tin Zincmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

SOIL SAMPLES

P-1 6-12 May-98 4.89 15.1 - <0.721 4.68 - - - 215 - - <0.100 - <0.80 <2.4 - -P-2 6-12 May-98 4.60 62.4 - <0.702 9.74 - - - 724 - - 0.119 - <0.78 <2.3 - -P-3 6-12 May-98 7.64 46.2 - 3.30 42.9 - - - 1,330 - - 0.100 - <0.79 <2.4 - -P-4 6-12 May-98 4.27 46.5 - <0.74 6.91 - - - 429 - - 0.129 - <0.82 <2.5 - -P-4 DUP 6-12 May-98 3.83 42.7 - <0.759 5.29 - - - 186 - - 0.104 - <0.84 <2.5 - -P-5 3-10 May-98 2.49 22.2 - <0.727 5.65 - - - 323 - - <0.094 - <0.81 <2.4 - -P-6 3-10 May-98 2.98 29.5 - <0.823 7.05 - - - 774 - - <0.100 - <0.81 <2.4 - -P-7 3-10 May-98 5.46 34.4 - 1.14 12.8 - - - 2,010 - - 0.112 - <0.80 <2.4 - -P-8 3-10 May-98 8.57 57.2 - 1.14 12.3 - - - 2,880 - - 0.150 - <0.83 <2.5 - -P-9 3-10 May-98 10.7 40.7 - <0.745 8.16 - - - 433 - - 0.167 - <0.83 <2.5 - -P-10 3-10 May-98 13.5 34.8 - <0.733 5.97 - - - 373 - - <0.098 - <0.81 <2.4 - -P-10 DUP 3-10 May-98 15.5 33.8 - <0.746 6.51 - - - 506 - - <0.095 - <0.83 <2.5 - -P-11 3-10 May-98 7.36 37.3 - <0.755 7.94 - - - 408 - - <0.099 - <0.84 <2.5 - -P-12 3-10 May-98 12.9 31.5 - <0.758 7.23 - - - 508 - - <0.103 - <0.84 <2.5 - -

D1-1 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 4.2 - - - - - - - -D1-2 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 5.8 - - - - - - - -D1-3 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 49.6 - - - - - - - -D1-4 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 24.1 - - - - - - - -D1-5 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 19.6 - - - - - - - -D1-6 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 95.8 - - - - - - - -D1-7 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 84.0 - - - - - - - -D1-8 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 78.0 - - - - - - - -D1-9 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 76.4 - - - - - - - -D1-10 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 126 - - - - - - - -D1-11 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 44.7 - - - - - - - -D1-12 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 60.6 - - - - - - - -D1-13 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 35.3 - - - - - - - -D1-14 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 19.1 - - - - - - - -D1-15 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 94.7 - - - - - - - -D1-16 2-6 5/30/06 - - - - - - - - 115 - - - - - - - -D1-17 2-6 4/18/13 3.1 29.9 - <0.18 7.5 - - 32 28.6 - - 0.029 - <0.89 <0.59 - -D1-19 12-18 4/18/13 3.7 27.5 - <0.15 6.6 - - 26 75.8 - - 0.024 - <0.74 <0.49 - -D1-20 0-6 4/18/13 4.9 42.9 - <0.18 9.7 - - 40 105 - - 0.031 - <0.88 <0.59 - -

B1-1 2-6 5/31/06 4.0 74.8 - 2.6 20.9 - - - 1,890 - - - - <0.64 1.6 - -B1-2 2-6 5/31/06 4.6 61.0 - 1.4 15.2 - - - 1,510 - - - - <0.64 1.2 - -B1-3 2-6 5/31/06 5.4 70.1 - 1.5 11.5 - - - 995 - - - - <0.64 1.0 - -B1-3A 6-12 10/1/08 3.4 - - - - - - 40 60.3 - - 0.026 - - - - -

& Depth (Inches BGS)

TABLE 2 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (METALS) FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY - MPCA / SF

BRAINERD, MINNESOTATERRACON PROJECT NO. 41057031

Sample Sample Date

Field Screening

LeadTCLP LeadLocation

031Tables.xlsx Page 1 of 9 10/9/2014

Terracon

Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Tin Zincmg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg (ppm) mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg& Depth (Inches BGS)



Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


B1-4 2-6 5/31/06 9.7 62.7 - 1.9 9.5 - - - 7,150 - - - - <0.64 2.2 - -B1-4A 2-6 10/1/08 5.9 - - - - - - 261 393 - - 0.039 - - - - -B1-4A 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - <14 6.7 - - <0.021 - - - - -B1-5 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 155 - - - - - - - -B1-6 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 148 - - - - - - - -B1-7 2-6 5/31/06 1.5 40.1 - 0.9 18.5 - - - 812 - - - - <0.64 0.8 - -B1-8 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 189 - - - - - - - -B1-9 2-6 5/31/06 8.7 79 - 2.7 34.6 - - - 5,330 - - - - <0.64 3.2 - -B1-9A 12-18 10/1/08 3.2 - - - - - - 54 14.2 - - <0.020 - - - - -B1-10 2-6 5/31/06 15.9 111 - 5.4 16.4 - - - 9,220 - - - - <0.64 6.0 - -B1-10A 2-6 10/1/08 4.1 - - - - - - 121 434 - - 0.039 - - - - -B1-10A 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 95 148 - - - - - - - -B1-11 2-6 5/31/06 0.99 34.5 - 0.47 12.3 - - - 416 - - - - <0.64 <0.41 - -B1-12 2-6 5/31/06 28.6 67.3 - 4.2 77.4 - - - 4,490 - - - - <0.64 3.6 - -B1-12A 6-12 10/1/08 16.1 - - - - - - 1,041 2,470 - - 0.11 - - - - -B1-13 2-6 5/31/06 19.6 54.8 - 3.4 64.8 - - - 8,490 - - - - <0.64 9.1 - -B1-13A 12-18 10/1/08 2.3 - - - - - - <11 8.5 - - <0.020 - - - - -B1-14 2-6 5/31/06 5.6 45.1 - 2.9 9.4 - - - 2,880 - - - - 0.84 3.0 - -B1-14A 2-6 10/1/08 9.3 - - - - - - 995 942 - - <0.020 - - - - -B1-14A 6-12 10/1/08 2.4 - - - - - - 24 9.4 - - <0.020 - - - - -B1-15 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 1,936 1,110 - - - - - - - -B1-15 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 16 9.2 - - - - - - - -B1-16 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 73 554 - - - - - - - -B1-16 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - <15 79.3 - - - - - - - -B1-17 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 55 286 - - - - - - - -B1-18 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 326 250 - - - - - - - -B1-18 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 22 33.4 - - - - - - - -B1-19 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 170 278 - - - - - - - -B1-20 24-30 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 136 111 - - - - - - - -B1-21 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 121 306 - - - - - - - -B1-21 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 182 65.3 - - - - - - - -B1-22 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 226 107 - - - - - - - -B1-23 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 94 21.4 - - - - - - - -B1-24 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 53 62.7 - - - - - - - -B1-25 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 30 33.0 - - - - - - - -B1-26 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - <12 16.4 - - - - - - - -B1-27 24-30 9/30/08 - - - - - - - <12 16.0 - - - - - - - -B1-28 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 120 102 - - - - - - - -B1-29 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 178 243 - - - - - - - -B1-30 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 51 92.2 - - - - - - - -B1-31 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 62 86.7 - - - - - - - -B1-32 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 107 163 - - - - - - - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


B1-33 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 93 83.0 - - - - - - - -B1-34 18-24 10/1/08 13.5 - - - - - - 735 690 - - - - - - - -B1-34 24-30 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 267 120 - - - - - - - -B1-34 24-30 12/5/08 3.2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-35 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 427 341 - - - - - - - -B1-35 12-18 10/1/08 4.0 - - - - - - 110 27.9 - - - - - - - -B1-36 18-24 10/1/08 17.0 - - - - - - 556 413 - - - - - - - -B1-36 24-30 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 79.0 67.8 - - - - - - - -B1-36 24-30 12/5/08 2.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-37 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 86 6.7 - - - - - - - -B1-38 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 163 48.0 - - - - - - - -B1-39 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 200 142 - - - - - - - -B1-40 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 33 26.9 - - - - - - - -B1-41 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 89 215 - - - - - - - -B1-42 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 1,352 2,160 - - - - - - - -B1-42 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 277 99.0 - - - - - - - -B1-43 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 59 30.3 - - - - - - - -B1-44 6-12 10/1/08 2.3 - - - - - - 376 21.4 - - - - - - - -B1-44 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - <11 6.1 - - - - - - - -B1-45 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 99 69.9 - - - - - - - -B1-46 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 219 237 - - - - - - - -B1-47 12-18 10/1/08 11.3 - - - - - - 385 258 - - - - - - - -B1-47 18-24 10/1/08 - - - - - - 32 25 - - - - - - - -B1-47 18-24 12/5/08 1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-48 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - 5,592 83,500 - - - - - - - -B1-48 36-42 10/1/08 - - - - - - 337 521 - - - - - - - -B1-48T 6-12 4/18/13 9.0 81.2 - 1.3 17.2 - - 782 809 4.5 - 0.075 - <4.0 <2.7 - -B1-56 0-6 1/17/12 2.5 84.7 - 0.6 5.2 - - 268 378 - - <0.2 - <0.6 0.1 - -B1-56 6-12 1/17/12 3.1 73.7 - 0.2 4.4 - - 95 166 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -B1-57 0-6 1/17/12 6.4 67.4 - 1.6 6.0 - - 329 594 - - <0.2 - <0.6 0.3 - -B1-57 6-12 1/17/12 0.9 19.9 - <0.1 4.1 - - 11 17 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -B1-57T 6-12 4/18/13 12.1 79.7 - 2.2 9.4 - - 586 355 1.5 - 0.20 - <6.8 <4.5 - -B1-57T 12-18 4/18/13 2.0 24.8 - 0.32 4.7 - - 175 49.7 - - <0.022 - <0.73 <0.49 - -B1-60 12-18 1/17/12 1.5 24.1 - 3.5 5.2 - - 64 230 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.1 - -B1-62 18-24 1/17/12 3.9 38.5 - <0.5 6.1 - - 344 3,410 - - <0.2 - <0.5 2.2 - -B1-62 24-30 1/17/12 3.5 38.4 - 0.2 6.7 - - 157 91.6 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -B1-62T 36-42 4/18/13 9.4 24.3 - 1.3 6.6 - - 7,505 8,430 46.9 - 0.029 - <4.2 3.0 - -B1-63 0-6 1/17/12 3.3 129 - 0.5 6.6 - - 540 300 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -B1-63 6-12 1/17/12 5.0 65.1 - 3.7 8.5 - - 169 517 - - <0.2 - <0.7 0.7 - -B1-63T 12-18 4/17/13 5.2 47.7 - 4.7 38.1 - - 544 311 1.0 - 0.032 - <3.7 <2.4 - -B1-63T 18-24 4/17/13 2.3 32.0 - 3.3 7.7 - - 0 6.6 - - <.021 - <4.1 <2.7 - -B1-65 6-12 1/18/12 2.2 69.3 - 0.4 6.3 - - 362 279 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


B1-65 12-18 1/18/12 2.1 56.0 - 0.1 5.2 - - 136 167 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -B1-66 6-12 1/17/12 3.8 58.7 - 0.4 15.8 - - 787 1,040 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.4 - -B1-66 12-18 1/17/12 2.0 59.5 - <0.1 4.8 - - 35 20.7 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -B1-66T 6-12 4/17/13 7.3 58.8 - <0.78 14.0 - - 929 186 0.66 - 0.24 - <3.9 <2.6 - -B1-67 6-12 1/17/13 3.2 27.3 - 0.1 10.7 - - 665 1,190 - - <0.2 - <0.1 0.1 - -B1-67 12-18 1/17/13 2.0 27.4 - 0.2 8.7 - - 0 74.6 - - <0.2 - <0.6 <0.1 - -B1-69 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 955 - - - - - - - -B1-69 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 947 - - - - - - - -B1-69 12-18 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 24.6 - - - - - - - -B1-69T 12-18 4/17/13 4.0 52.3 - 0.5 6.4 - - 858 545 1.4 - 0.022 - <4.0 <2.7 - -B1-69T 18-24 4/17/13 1.8 19.7 - <0.15 4.2 - - 19 25 - - <0.021 - <3.8 <2.5 - -B1-70 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 16.6 - - - - - - - -B1-70 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 94.1 - - - - - - - -B1-71 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 0.51 - - - - - - - -B1-71 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 82.4 - - - - - - - -B1-72 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 0.12 - - - - - - - -B1-72 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 180 - - - - - - - -B1-73 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 144 - - - - - - - -B1-73 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 11.7 - - - - - - - -B1-74 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 429 - - - - - - - -B1-74 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 5.3 - - - - - - - -B2-52 6-12 1/18/12 - - - - - - - 1,451 1.4 - - - - - - - -B2-52 12-18 1/18/12 1.8 5.3 - 0.2 4.8 - - 0 48.5 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -B2-54 0-6 1/18/12 1.8 46.1 - 0.2 7.0 - - 601 336 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -B2-54 6-12 1/18/12 2.3 49.7 - 0.3 5.9 - - 49 88.8 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -B2-55 0-6 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 8.8 - - - - - - - -B2-55 6-12 5/2/12 - - - - - - - - 2.9 - - - - - - - -B2-56 6-12 4/17/13 9.6 31.1 - <0.63 10.5 - - 850 323 - - <0.019 - 6.9 <2.1 - -B2-56 18-24 4/17/13 14.1 58.5 - <0.81 7.6 - - 344 569 - - <0.019 - <4.0 <2.7 - -B2-57 0-6 4/17/13 10.5 42.9 - <0.78 12.8 - - 158 279 0.66 - 0.17 - <3.9 <2.6 - -B2-59 12-18 4/17/13 6.5 37.5 - <0.78 10.0 - - 290 59 <0.050 - 0.13 - <3.9 <2.6 - -B2-60 0-6 4/17/13 10.7 42.8 - <0.78 16.6 - - 233 114 - - 0.077 - <3.8 <2.5 - -B2-61 6-12 4/17/13 10.9 33.2 - <0.76 7.0 - - 265 182 0.39 - 0.16 - <0.38 <3.5 - -B2-62 6-12 4/17/13 6.1 37.7 - <0.78 6.4 - - 138 44 - - <0.019 - 4.1 <2.6 - -

D3-1 2-6 5/31/06 1.7 62.7 - 0.42 8.0 - - - 300 - - - - <0.64 <0.41 - -D3-1A 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 248 228 - - 0.024 - - - - -D3-2 2-6 5/31/06 1.3 68.4 - 0.38 7.8 - - - 396 - - - - <0.64 <0.41 - -D3-2A 12-18 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 300 281 - - - - - - - -D3-3 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 199 - - - - - - - -D3-3A 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 227 285 - - - - - - - -D3-4 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 113 - - - - - - - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


D3-4A 6-12 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 187 178 - - - - - - - -D3-5 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 97.9 - - - - - - - -D3-6 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 124 - - - - - - - -D3-7 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 134 - - - - - - - -D3-8 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 181 - - - - - - - -D3-9 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 138 146 - - - - - - - -D3-10 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 170 232 - - - - - - - -D3-11 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 137 161 - - - - - - - -D3-12 12-18 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 382 384 - - - - - - - -D3-12 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 262 429 - - - - - - - -D3-13 24-30 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 275 212 - - - - - - - -D3-14 42-48 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 108 57.4 - - - - - - - -D3-15 24-30 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 170 84.0 - - - - - - - -D3-16 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 176 185 - - - - - - - -D3-17 0-6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-20 6-12 4/17/13 10 41.8 - <0.70 11 - - 106 138 - - 0.085 - <3.6 <2.4 - -D3-22 0-6 4/17/13 10.0 67.5 - <0.75 7.8 - - 148 135 - - <0.020 - <3.7 - - -

A-1-1 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 279 - - - - - - - -A-1-2 2-6 5/31/06 1.0 57.8 - 0.56 7.0 - - - 859 - - - - <0.64 0.78 - -A-1-2A 18-24 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 80 223 - - 0.20 - - - - -A-1-3 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 4.6 - - - - - - - -A-1-4 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 160 - - - - - - - -A-1-5 2-6 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 107 - - - - - - - -A-1-6 2-6 5/31/06 <0.48 41.9 - 0.51 12.5 - - - 581 - - - - <0.64 <0.41 - -A-1-6A 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 41 60.1 - - <0.021 - - - - -A-1-7 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 206 131 - - - - - - - -A-1-8 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 62 72.2 - - - - - - - -A-1-9 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 261 338 - - - - - - - -A-1-9 12-18 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 79 800 - - - - - - - -A-1-10 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 190 1,110 - - - - - - - -A-1-10 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 121 169 - - - - - - - -A-1-11 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - <11 4.8 - - - - - - - -A-1-12 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 244 259 - - - - - - - -A1-12A 6-12 1/17/12 6.9 275 - 1.8 13.4 - - 398 422 - - <0.2 - <0.6 0.4 - -A1-12A 12-18 1/17/12 6.3 339 - <0.1 14.6 - - 175 166 - - 0.88 - <0.6 0.2 - -A1-14 12-18 1/17/12 2.2 85.0 - 0.2 7.1 - - 503 242 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.2 - -A1-14 18-24 1/17/12 8.1 637 - 0.3 14.3 - - 169 140 - - <0.2 - <0.6 0.3 - -A1-16 6-12 1/17/12 5.9 565 - 2.9 13.5 - - 1,018 1,250 - - <0.2 - <0.6 0.9 - -A1-16 12-18 1/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-16 18-24 1/17/12 2.4 76.8 - 0.5 5.7 - - 263 164 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -A1-18 12-18 4/18/13 <5.0 118 - <0.75 10.7 - - 230 243 1.7 - <0.021 - <3.8 <2.5 - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


A1-19 0-6 4/18/13 <4.9 36.0 - <0.74 10.2 - - 782 59.7 0.15 - 0.019 - <3.7 <2.5 - -A1-19 12-18 4/18/13 <5.5 70.1 - <0.83 7.6 - - 112 76.8 0.81 - 0.094 - <4.1 <2.8 - -A1-20 18-24 4/18/13 8.9 345 - 1.6 14.5 - - 339 526 0.81 - 0.13 - 8.8 <2.9 - -A1-21 42-48 4/18/13 10.6 59.5 - <0.80 9.7 - - 320 482 3.4 - 0.10 - 8.6 <2.7 - -

A2-1 2-6 6/1/06 1.1 29.9 - 0.50 8.1 - - - 470 - - - - <0.64 0.72 - -A2-1A 6-12 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 799 1,670 - - 0.060 - - - - -A2-1A 12-18 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 244 431 - - - - - - - -A2-1AT 0-6 4/18/13 8.7 123 - 2.0 9.0 - - 1,711 1,430 5.2 - 0.044 - <4.3 <2.9 - -A2-1AT 18-24 4/18/13 4.0 77.9 - <0.14 5.8 - - 97 13.4 0.16 - <0.024 - <0.72 <0.48 - -A2-2 2-6 6/1/06 0.86 52.5 - 0.66 9.7 - - - 748 - - - - 0.93 0.74 - -A2-2A 12-18 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 25 6.9 - - <0.021 - - - - -A2-3 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 290 955 - - - - - - - -A2-3 24-30 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 237 214 - - - - - - - -A2-4 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 27 573 - - - - - - - -A2-4 12-18 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 16 8.7 - - - - - - - -A2-4T 6-12 4/18/13 4.40 25.6 - <0.17 12.2 - - 40 6.5 - - 0.022 - <0.86 <0.57 - -A2-5 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 42 21.5 - - - - - - - -A2-6 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - 118 88.2 - - - - - - - -A2-8 18-24 1/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-8 24-30 1/18/12 7.40 72.8 - 1.40 9.5 - - 339 337 - - <0.2 - <0.5 0.3 - -A2-8 30-36 1/17/12 1.8 50.1 - <0.5 6.2 - - 1,966 2,950 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -A2-8 30-36 1/18/12 0.7 40.0 - <0.1 5.3 - - 29 7.4 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -A2-8T 12-18 4/18/13 15.3 72.1 - 2.50 8.9 - - 1,511 2,460 40.0 - 0.036 - <4.2 <2.8 - -A2-8T 24-30 4/18/13 3.8 79.5 - 0.55 8.1 - - 32 41.5 - - 0.059 - <0.75 <0.5 - -A2-9 6-12 1/17/12 3.8 32.6 - <0.5 6.1 - - 406 875 - - <0.2 - <0.5 1.2 - -A2-9 12-18 1/17/12 1.4 16.7 - <0.1 5.4 - - 12 15.7 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -

C-1 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 36 - - - - - - - -C-2 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 45.7 - - - - - - - -C-3 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 180 - - - - - - - -C-4 6-12 4/18/13 3.1 53.3 - 0.22 5.5 - - 332 300 2.6 - 0.03 - <3.9 <2.6 - -C-7 6-12 4/18/13 4.3 36.4 - <0.16 11.5 - - 132 5.8 - - 0.026 - <0.81 <0.54 - -

D2-1 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 96.0 - - - - - - - -D2-2 2-6 6/1/06 <0.46 51 - 1 11 - - - 380 - - - - <0.70 <0.46 - -D2-2A 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 38 194 - - 0.021 - - - - -D2-3 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 125 - - - - - - - -D2-4 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 138 264 - - - - - - - -D2-5 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 22.0 20.8 - - - - - - - -D2-6 2-6 9/30/08 - - - - - - - 170 310 - - - - - - - -D2-6 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - 56 72.2 - - - - - - - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


D2-8 0-6 4/18/13 4.0 57.5 - 0.29 10.9 - - 115 99.5 - - 0.027 - 0.96 <0.53 - -D2-8 6-12 4/18/13 5.2 51.1 - 0.19 9.9 - - 23 74.4 - - 0.046 - 1.1 <0.56 - -D2-9 6-12 4/18/13 6.1 88.8 - 0.60 15.8 - - 335 378 0.86 - 0.070 - <0.86 <0.57 - -D2-9 12-18 4/18/13 6.2 110 - 0.88 11.9 - - 875 1,220 1.9 - 0.093 - 1.6 0.74 - -D2-9 18-24 4/18/13 5.2 57.1 - 0.24 17.6 - - 0 141 1.9 - 0.054 - <0.73 <0.48 - -

D4-1 2-6 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 203 - - - - - - - -D4-2 2-6 6/1/06 0.78 142 - 0.42 6.4 - - - 360 - - - - 1.2 <0.45 - -D4-2A 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 86 54.2 - - 0.90 - - - - -D4-2A 6-12 12/5/08 - - - - - - - <13 - - - 0.11 - - - - -D4-3 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 63 118 - - - - - - - -D4-4 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 223 230 - - - - - - - -D4-5 2-6 10/2/08 - - - - - - - 185 0.0 - - - - - - - -

FS-1 42-48 1/17/12 11.0 41.5 - <10.3 11.2 - - 400 1,230 - - <0.2 - <0.5 7.6 - -FS-3 30-36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -FS-3 42-48 1/17/12 2.3 24.9 - <0.1 14.9 - - 232 3.7 - - <0.2 - <0.5 <0.1 - -

Q-1 6-12 4/18/13 <5.3 127 - <0.79 7.4 - - 99 46.5 - - <0.021 - <3.9 <2.6 - -Q-3 12-18 4/18/13 13.0 61.7 - <0.79 14.4 - - 376 542 4.9 - <0.020 - <3.9 <2.6 - -Q-3 18-24 4/18/13 <5.4 46.9 - <0.81 6.2 - - 35 45 - - <0.019 - <4.0 <2.7 - -Q-5 18-24 4/18/13 <4.5 63.8 - <0.67 4.5 - - 209 172 0.8 - 0.029 - <3.4 <2.2 - -Q-7 6-12 4/18/13 8.9 86.5 - <0.74 8.8 - - 566 1,090 2.7 - 0.064 - <3.7 <2.5 - -Q-7 24-30 4/18/13 6.3 54.8 - <0.84 7.0 - - 1,933 1,460 25.8 - <0.022 - <4.2 <2.8 - -Q-7 30-36 4/18/13 8.7 68.8 - 0.86 6.3 - - 17 2,170 - - <0.019 - <3.7 2.6 - -Q-8 6-12 4/18/13 7.0 54.3 - <0.83 6.7 - - 478 939 - - <0.020 - <4.1 <2.8 - -Q-8 24-30 4/18/13 <5.1 41.3 - <0.77 5.8 - - 919 187 1.7 - <0.020 - <3.8 <2.6 - -Q-10 12-18 4/18/13 5.6 88.8 - <0.76 11.6 - - 247 156 - - <0.022 - <3.8 <2.5 - -

B-1 0-6 12/31/13 - - <41.0 - - 3,350 16,800 1,165 1,270 - 232 - 25.4 - - 247 487B-2 0-6 12/31/13 - - <40.4 - - 4,030 29,200 587 847 - 495 - 36.0 - - 291 329

HA-9 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 155 207 - - - - - - - -HA-10 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 147 123 - - - - - - - -HA-11 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 255 418 - - - - - - - -HA-12 6-12 8/25/14 - - - - - 1,580 - 248 604 - - - - - - 93.2 214HA-13 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 223 171 - - - - - - - -HA-14 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 251 316 - - - - - - - -HA-15 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 237 153 - - - - - - - -HA-16 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 210 176 - - - - - - - -HA-18 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - 5,650 - 3,314 23,000 9.1 - - - - - 40,100 1,370HA-19 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - 1,380 - 401 493 0.32 - - - - - 78.7 207


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


HA-20 0-6 8/25/14 - - - - - - - 287 219 - - - - - - - -

S-3 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 71.6 - 97 75.5 - - - - - - 7.6 55.4S-8 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - - - 215 252 - - - - - - - -S-14 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - - - 327 312 - - - - - - - -S-17 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 1,030 - 643 788 0.18 - - - - - 113 258S-20 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 428 - 788 796 0.84 - - - - - 29.9 484S-24 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 453 - 422 390 0.40 - - - - - 42.6 144S-26 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - - - 329 312 - - - - - - - -S-27 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 1,080 - 347 636 - - - - - - 132 216S-31 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - - - 233 204 - - - - - - - -S-33 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - - - 285 433 - - - - - - - -S-35 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 1,840 - 1,165 1,130 0.60 - - - - - 138 455S-39 0-2 8/26/14 - - - - - 715 - 509 424 - - - - - - 68.6 175

COMPOSITE SAMPLES

802-1,2,3,4,5 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - 193 - - - - - - - -802-6,7,9 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - 129 - - - - - - - -802-8,10,11,12 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - 362 - - - - - - - -802-13,14,15 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - 159 - - - - - - - -

QA/QC SAMPLES

DUP1 (B1-10) - 5/31/06 16.2 174 - 6.9 22.8 - - - 6,160 - - - - <0.74 5.1 - -DUP2 (B1-14) - 5/31/06 1.7 42.1 - 2.2 7.6 - - - 1,210 - - - - <0.67 0.62 - -DUP3 (D3-1) - 5/31/06 - - - - - - - - 203 - - - - - - - -DUP4 (A-1-1) - 5/31/06 <0.52 34.7 - 0.6 7.4 - - - 323 - - - - <0.78 <0.52 - -DUP5 (D4-2) - 6/1/06 - - - - - - - - 195 - - - - - - - -DUP 1 (B1-12A) 6-12 10/1/08 - - - - - - - - 1,720 - - - - - - - -DUP 2 (B1-18) 18-24 9/30/08 - - - - - - - - 2,850 - - - - - - - -DUP 3 (A2-4) 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - - 16.1 - - - - - - - -DUP 4 (D3-2A) 12-18 10/2/08 - - - - - - - - 391 - - - - - - - -DUP 5 (B1-15) 6-12 9/30/08 - - - - - - - - 1,020 - - - - - - - -DUP 6 (B1-14A) 2-6 10/1/08 11.8 - - - - - - - 1,970 - - - - - - - -DUP 7 (B1-35) 12-18 10/1/08 4.7 - - - - - - - 60.4 - - - - - - - -DUP 8 (B1-4A) 12-18 10/1/08 - - - - - - - - 5.8 - - <0.020 - - - - -DUP 9 (B1-42) 2-6 10/1/08 - - - - - - - - 1,070 - - 0.31 - - - - -

Eq. Blank 6/2/06 - - - - - - - - <3.0 - - - - - - - -Field Blank 10/1/08 <0.0100 - - - - - - - <0.0030 - - 0.0049 - - - - -Field Dip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Terracon




Sample Sample Date

Field Screening


Method Blank 10/2/08 <0.43 - - - - - - - <0.26 - - <0.019 - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 <0.40 - - - - - - - <0.24 - - - - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 <0.50 - - - - - - - <0.30 - - - - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 - - - - - - - - <0.24 - - - - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 - - - - - - - - - - - <0.018 - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 <0.47 - - - - - - - <0.28 - - - - - - - -Method Blank 10/2/08 <0.45 - - - - - - - <0.27 - - - - - - - -Method Blank 12/31/13 - - <7.4 - - <0.49 <2.5 - <0.98 - <0.25 - <0.98 - - <3.7 <0.98Method Blank 8/26/14 - - - - - <0.47 - - <0.94 <0.050 - - - - - <3.5 1.2

SRVs (Tier I) - 9 1,100 6,000 25 87 100 9,000 300 300 NA 3,600 0.5 560 160 160 9,000 8,700SRVs (Tier II) - 20 18,000 47,000 200 650 9,000 75,000 700 700 NA 8,100 1.5 2,500 1,300 1,300 75,000 75,000SLVs - 5.8 1,700 62 8.8 36 700 NE 2,700 2,700 NA 130 3.3 180 2.6 7.9 20,000 3,000Notes:Soil concentrations are in millgrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except field screening lead concentrations are in parts per million (ppm).Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) results in milligrams per liter (µg/L).BGS = beneath ground surface."<" = Not Detected above laboratory reporting limits."-" = Not Analyzed.SRVs (Tier I) = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier I Residential Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SRVs (Tier II) = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier II Industrial Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SLVs = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil Leaching Pathway Soil Leaching Values (04/13 Version).BOLD = Concentration exceeds the respective MPCA Tier I SRV.

Yellow shading denotes TCLP lead result exceeds the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Maximum Concentration of Lead for Toxicity Characteristic (Characteristics Introduction and Regulatory Definitions).NE = Not Established.NA = Not Applicable.


TerraconTABLE 3 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (SVOCs)

FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY - MPCA / SFBRAINERD, MINNESOTA


Sample Depth Sample Acen

apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne

Location (Inches BGS) Date (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

SOIL SAMPLESP-9 6-12 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.220 0.206 < 0.070 < 0.333 0.123 0.18 0.0500 0.140 0.070 0.110 0.100 < 0.100 0.150 < 0.253 < 0.213P-10 6-12 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.220 1.22 < 0.070 < 0.333 0.426 0.67 0.1965 0.559 0.270 0.483 0.250 < 0.100 0.500 0.599 0.223

P-10 DUP 6-12 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.220 1.07 < 0.070 < 0.333 0.749 0.58 0.2731 0.503 0.243 0.406 0.386 < 0.100 0.423 0.373 0.220P-11 6-12 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.220 0.200 < 0.070 < 0.333 0.100 0.19 0.0433 0.133 < 0.057 0.120 0.093 < 0.100 0.216 0.253 < 0.213P-12 6-12 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.220 0.516 < 0.070 < 0.333 0.157 0.24 0.0766 0.206 0.100 0.150 0.147 < 0.100 0.173 < 0.253 < 0.213P-13 3-10 May-98 < 1.33 - < 8.79 < 2.80 2.22 < 1.33 < 3.60 2.40 < 1.732 < 2.40 < 2.26 < 1.33 < 2.00 < 4.00 < 5.73 < 10.1 < 8.52P-14 3-10 May-98 < 0.116 - < 0.110 0.246 < 0.035 < 0.166 0.058 0.25 < 0.0216 0.295 0.110 0.178 < 0.025 < 0.050 0.130 0.213 0.230

P-14 DUP 3-10 May-98 < 0.116 - < 0.110 0.093 < 0.035 < 0.166 < 0.045 0.08 < 0.0216 0.068 0.052 0.053 < 0.025 < 0.050 < 0.072 < 0.127 0.110P-15 3-10 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.022 0.110 < 0.007 0.043 0.029 0.13 0.0536 0.104 0.054 0.100 0.074 < 0.010 0.077 0.064 0.048P-16 3-10 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.022 0.093 0.010 0.066 0.016 0.10 0.0120 0.063 0.037 0.081 0.019 < 0.010 0.059 0.040 0.023P-17 3-10 May-98 < 0.333 - < 0.022 0.163 < 0.007 0.060 0.030 0.16 0.0430 0.124 0.066 0.124 0.110 < 0.010 0.102 0.115 0.056

D1-1 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-2 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-3 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-4 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-5 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-6 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-7 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-8 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-9 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-10 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-11 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-12 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-13 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-14 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-15 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-16 2-6 05/30/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-17 2-6 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-19 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D1-20 0-6 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-1 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-2 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-3 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-3A 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-4 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-4A 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-4A 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


B1-5 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-6 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-7 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-8 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-9 2-6 05/31/06 - - 0.561 4.140 0.377 0.425 4.240 4.42 3.090 4.850 2.220 3.140 5.040 - 2.120 2.240 3.800

B1-9A 12-18 10/01/08 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 11.0 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 14.71 < 11.0 < 11.0 < 11.0 < 11.0 < 11.0 13.4 0.015 14.7 < 0.011B1-10 2-6 05/31/06 - - < 0.349 0.475 < 0.349 0.386 0.601 0.62 0.466 0.835 < 0.349 0.428 0.513 - 0.384 0.505 < 0.349

B1-10A 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-10A 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-11 2-6 05/31/06 - - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 0.25 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349B1-12 2-6 05/31/06 - - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 0.25 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349

B1-12A 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-13 2-6 05/31/06 - - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 0.25 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349

B1-13A 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-14 2-6 05/31/06 - - < 0.342 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 0.24 < 0.342 < 0.342 < 0.349 < 0.342 < 0.349 - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349

B1-14A 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-14A 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-15 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-15 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-16 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-16 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-17 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-18 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-18 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-19 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-20 24-30 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-21 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-21 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-22 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-23 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-24 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-25 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-26 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-27 24-30 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-28 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-29 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-30 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-31 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-32 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


B1-33 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-34 18-24 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-34 24-30 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-34 24-30 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-35 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-35 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-36 18-24 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-36 24-30 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-36 24-30 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-37 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-38 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-39 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-40 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-41 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-42 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-42 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-43 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-44 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-44 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-45 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-46 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-47 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-47 18-24 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-47 18-24 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-48 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-48 36-42 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-48T 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-56 0-6 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-56 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-57 0-6 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-57 6-12 01/17/12 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 0.01 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103 < 0.0103

B1-57T 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-57T 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-60 12-18 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-62 18-24 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-62 24-30 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-62T 36-42 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-63 0-6 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-63 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


B1-63T 12-18 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-63T 18-24 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-65 6-12 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-65 12-18 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-66 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-66 12-18 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-66T 6-12 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-67 6-12 01/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-67 12-18 01/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-69 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-69 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-69 12-18 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B1-69T 12-18 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-69T 18-24 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-70 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-70 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-71 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-71 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-72 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-72 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-73 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-73 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-74 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B1-74 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-52 6-12 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-52 12-18 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-54 0-6 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-54 6-12 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-55 0-6 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-55 6-12 05/02/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-56 6-12 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-56 18-24 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-57 0-6 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-59 12-18 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-60 0-6 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-61 6-12 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B2-62 6-12 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D3-1 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


D3-1A 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-2 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D3-2A 12-18 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-3 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D3-3A 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-4 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D3-4A 6-12 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-5 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-6 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-7 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-8 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-9 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-10 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-11 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-12 12-18 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-12 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-13 24-30 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-14 42-48 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-15 24-30 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-16 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-17 0-6 - < 0.0115 < 0.0115 < 0.0115 0.0304 < 0.0115 < 0.0115 0.0257 0.03 0.016 0.036 < 0.012 0.017 0.019 < 0.012 0.0184 0.0227 0.0125D3-20 6-12 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D3-22 0-6 04/17/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A-1-1 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-2 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A-1-2A 18-24 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-3 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-4 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-5 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-6 2-6 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A-1-6A 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-7 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-8 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-9 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-9 12-18 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-10 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-10 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A-1-11 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


A-1-12 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-12A 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-12A 12-18 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-14 12-18 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-14 18-24 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-16 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-16 12-18 01/17/12 0.174 4.34 3.18 28.3 0.61 < 0.11 26 21.65 19.3 20.4 8 14.2 19.2 2.86 8.91 9.43 6.61A1-16 18-24 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-18 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-19 0-6 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-19 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-20 18-24 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A1-21 42-48 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A2-1 2-6 06/01/06 - - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 0.25 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349 - < 0.349 < 0.349 < 0.349A2-1A 6-12 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-1A 12-18 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A2-1AT 0-6 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-1AT 18-24 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A2-2 2-6 06/01/06 - - < 0.352 < 0.352 < 0.352 < 0.352 0.386 0.25 < 0.352 < 0.352 < 0.352 < 0.352 0.360 - < 0.352 < 0.352 < 0.352A2-2A 12-18 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-3 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-3 24-30 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-4 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-4 12-18 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A2-4T 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-5 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-6 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-8 18-24 01/18/12 < 0.011 < 0.011 0.0183 0.16 < 0.011 0.0244 0.154 0.25 0.154 0.246 0.102 0.158 0.146 0.0496 0.112 0.122 0.073A2-8 24-30 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-8 30-36 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-8 30-36 01/18/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A2-8T 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-8T 24-30 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-9 6-12 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A2-9 12-18 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C-1 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C-2 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


C-3 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C-4 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -C-7 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D2-1 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-2 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D2-2A 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-3 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-4 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-5 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-6 2-6 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-6 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-8 0-6 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-8 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-9 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-9 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D2-9 18-24 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D4-1 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D4-2 2-6 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D4-2A 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D4-2A 6-12 12/05/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D4-3 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D4-4 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -D4-5 2-6 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

FS-1 42-48 01/17/12 < 0.0107 < 0.0107 < 0.0114 0.054 < 0.011 0.013 0.049 0.05 0.035 0.058 0.02 0.036 0.036 < 0.011 0.032 0.041 0.055FS-3 30-36 01/17/12 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 < 0.0106 0.01 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011 < 0.011FS-3 42-48 01/17/12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Q-1 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-3 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-3 18-24 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-5 18-24 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-7 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-7 24-30 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-7 30-36 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-8 6-12 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Q-8 24-30 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


Q-10 12-18 04/18/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B-1 0-6 12/31/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -B-2 0-6 12/31/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMPOSITE SAMPLES

802-1,2,3,4,5 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -802-6,7,9 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

802-8,10,11,12 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -802-13,14,15 0-6 12/13/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

QA/QC SAMPLES

DUP1 (B1-10) - 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP2 (B1-14) - 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP3 (D3-1) - 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP4 (A-1-1) - 05/31/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP5 (D4-2) - 06/01/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DUP 1 (B1-12A) 6-12 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 2 (B1-18) 18-24 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 3 (A2-4) 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DUP 4 (D3-2A) 12-18 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 5 (B1-15) 6-12 09/30/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DUP 6 (B1-14A) 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 7 (B1-35) 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 8 (B1-4A) 12-18 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -DUP 9 (B1-42) 2-6 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Eq. Blank - 06/02/06 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Field Blank - 10/01/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Field Dip - < 0.0107 < 0.0107 < 0.0108 0.043 < 0.0107 0.0256 0.0403 0.1 0.0304 0.0587 0.013 0.0337 0.033 < 0.0107 0.0282 0.0352 0.0407

Method Blank - 10/02/08 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 0.01 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010 < 0.010Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -






apht

hene

Acen

apht

hyle

ne

Anth

race

ne

Fluo

rant

hene

Fluo

rene

Naph

thal

ene

Pyre

ne

BaP

Equi

vale

nt

Benz

o(a)

anth

race

neBe

nzo(

b)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

k)flu

oran

then

eBe

nzo(

a)py

rene

Chry

sene

Dibe

nzo(

a,h)

anth

race

neId

eno(

1,2,

3-cd

)pyr

ene

Benz

o(g,

h,i)p

eryle

nePh

enan

thre

ne


Method Blank - 10/02/08 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Method Blank - 12/31/13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SRVs (Tier I) - - 1,200 NE 7,880 1,080 850 10 890 2 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NESRVs (Tier II) - - 5,260 NE 45,400 6,800 4,120 28 5,800 3 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NESLVs - - 810 NE 1,300 670 110 4.5 440 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE

Notes:Concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).BGS = beneath ground surface."<" = Not Detected above laboratory reporting limits."-" = Not Analyzed.NA = Not Applicable or Not Analyzed.NE = Not Established.SRVs (Tier I) = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier I Residential Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SRVs (Tier II) = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier II Industrial Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SLVs = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil Leaching Pathway Soil Leaching Values (04/13 Version).BaP Equivalent = Benzo(a)pyrene equivalent using benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthacene and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene results.BOLD indicates compound detected above its laboratory reporting limit.

Shading indicates compound detected above its respective MPCA Tier I SRV.


Terracon

ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg

B-1-1 0-6 12/31/13 <36.1 <36.1 <36.1 <36.1 375 <36.1 <36.1 <36.1 <36.1B-1-2 0-6 12/31/13 <37.3 <37.3 <37.3 <37.3 195 <37.3 <37.3 <37.3 <37.3

Method Blank 12/31/13 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0 <33.0

SRVs (Tier I) - 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200SRVs (Tier II) - 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000SLVs - 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130Notes:Polychlorinated biphenol (PCB) concentrations are in micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg).BGS = beneath ground surface."<" = Not Detected above laboratory reporting limits."-" = Not Analyzed.SRVs (Tier I) = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier I Residential Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SRVs (Tier II) = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier II Industrial Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SLVs = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil Leaching Pathway Soil Leaching Values (04/13 Version).BOLD = Concentration exceeds the respective MPCA Tier I SRV.NE = Not Established.NA = Not Applicable.

& Depth (inches BGS)

PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)








TABLE 4 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (PCBs)FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY - MPCA / SF


Sample Sample Date

PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)Location


Terracon

Sample Depth Sample Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Ethy

lben

zene

Tota

l Xyl

enes

Chl

orof

orm

Met

hyl I

sobu

tyl K

eton

e (M

IBK

)

Isop

ropy

lben

zene

(Cum

ene)

1,3,

5-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

tert

-But

ylbe

nzen

e

1,2,

4-Tr

imet

hylb

enze

ne

sec-

But

ylbe

nzen

e

n-B

utyl

benz

ene

n-Pr

opyl

benz

ene

p-Is

opro

pylto

luen

e

2-C

hlor

otol

uene

Nap

htha

lene

Styr

ene

Hex

achl

orob

utad

iene

Location (Inches BGS) Date (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/L)

SOIL SAMPLESP-9 6-12 May-98 0.034 <0.010 0.047 0.319 <0.025 <0.018 0.058 0.042 0.023 0.118 0.039 0.027 <0.020 0.016 <0.008 0.016 <0.013 <0.013P-10 6-12 May-98 0.059 0.120 0.060 0.366 <0.025 0.040 0.092 0.067 0.037 0.179 0.072 0.044 0.107 0.036 <0.008 0.014 <0.013 <0.013P-10 DUP * 6-12 May-98 0.019 0.070 0.169 <0.013 0.119 <0.018 <0.018 0.082 0.074 0.128 0.045 <0.008 1.02 0.114 0.350 0.294 0.124 0.059P-11 6-12 May-98 0.028 0.076 0.034 0.235 <0.025 <0.018 0.050 0.045 0.028 0.115 0.046 0.039 0.017 0.021 <0.008 0.015 <0.013 <0.013P-12 6-12 May-98 0.042 0.014 <0.010 0.229 <0.025 0.031 0.118 0.063 0.206 0.066 0.047 0.071 0.669 0.047 <0.008 0.454 0.222 <0.013P-13 * 3-10 May-98 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 0.825 <0.25 0.388 <0.25 5.66 5.45 <0.25 7.46 17.8 1.15 7.46 <0.25 16.9 0.695 <0.25P-14 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.022 <0.010 <0.013 <0.25 <0.018 <0.018 <0.005 0.051 <0.018 <0.013 <0.008 <0.020 0.020 <0.008 <0.018 0.068 <0.013P-14 DUP * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.016 0.015 0.025 <0.25 <0.018 <0.018 <0.005 0.083 <0.018 0.021 0.019 <0.020 0.025 <0.008 0.196 <0.013 <0.013P-15 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.019 <0.010 <0.013 <0.25 0.028 0.102 0.017 <0.015 0.045 0.058 0.069 <0.020 <0.010 <0.008 0.096 0.085 <0.013P-16 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.033 0.011 <0.013 <0.25 <0.018 <0.018 0.016 <0.015 0.024 0.019 0.024 <0.020 <0.010 <0.008 0.018 0.038 <0.013P-17 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.044 0.018 <0.013 <0.025 <0.018 <0.019 <0.005 <0.015 0.024 0.014 0.013 <0.020 <0.010 <0.008 0.062 0.076 <0.013P-18 * 3-10 May-98 0.015 0.105 0.031 0.146 <0.025 <0.018 <0.020 0.019 <0.015 0.056 0.020 0.029 - 0.020 <0.008 0.090 0.039 <0.013P-19 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.025 <0.010 <0.013 <0.025 <0.018 0.019 <0.005 <0.015 0.054 0.011 <0.008 - <0.010 <0.008 0.138 0.087 <0.013P-20 * 3-10 May-98 <0.013 0.026 <0.010 <0.013 <0.025 0.031 0.026 0.009 <0.015 0.021 0.014 0.038 - <0.010 <0.008 0.137 0.082 <0.013

SRVs (Tier I) - - 6 107 200 45 2.5 1,700 NE 3 30 8 25 30 30 NE 436 10 210 NESRVs (Tier II) - - 10 305 200 130 4 9,000 NE 10 90 25 70 92 93 NE 436 28 600 NESLVs - - 0.017 2.5 1.0 5.4 0.11 NE 9.5 2.7 NE 2.7 NE NE NE NE NE 4.5 2 0.037

Notes:Soil concentrations in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). BGS = beneath ground surface."<" = Not Detected above laboratory reporting limits."-" = Not Analyzed or Not Applicable.SRVs (Tier I) = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier I Residential Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SRVs (Tier II) = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil - Human Pathway Technical Support Document Tier II Industrial Soil Reference Values (6/09 Version).SLVs = MPCA Risk-Based Guidance for the Soil Leaching Pathway Soil Leaching Values (04/13 Version).BOLD = Concentration exceeds the respective MPCA SLV.NE = Not Established.* = One or more results identified as laboratory contamination.

TABLE 5 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (VOCs) FORMER BRAINERD FOUNDRY - MPCA / SF



final focused feasibility study - minnesota … · · 2015-05-15final focused feasibility study...

Documents