FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR OAKDALE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE WASHINGT~N COUNTY, MINNESOTA

MND980609515

Minnesota PoUution Control Agency

US EPA RECORDS CENTER REGION 5

Illllll 111111111111111111111111111111111 480198

Prepared by

Minnesota Pellution Control Agency St. Paul, Minnesota

Kathy S er, DirectOt'. Date Remediation Division MPCA

f?.:+_.e t1 JU- q.11,-1'f R1chard C. Karl, Dh·ectm· Date Superfund Division U.S. EPA Region 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 4

I. INTRODUCTION .. ···············.·································-···························································· 9 II. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW ..................................................................... IO

III. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS .......................................... : ........................................ 14

IV. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................... _. ................................................... 17

V. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ............................... 20

VI. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT .................. , ............................................................. 20

VII. NEXT REVIEW ........................................... _ .................................... _. ............................... 21

TABLES

Table 1. Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR .......................................8 Table. 2. Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR ............................................................. & Table 3: Institutional Control Summary ...................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Issues and Recommendations/Follow-up Actions ........................... ,. .............................. 19

APPENDIX A - Existing Site Information

APPENDIX B - Additional Maps, Data, Figures, and Tables

APPENDIX C - Community Notification

LIST OF ACRONYMS

3M AMR ARAR CERCLA CERCLIS

co 1983 EPA FYR GAC GMP HBV HRL I Cs IPE MCES MCL MDD MDH MERLA MPCA NCP NPL O&M OU PCB PFBA PFBS PF Cs PFOA

·PFOS POTW ppm ppb QAPP PRP RAO RAP ROD SACO SVE UECA µg/L UU/UE voe

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Annual Monitoring Report Applicable or Rei'evant and Appropriate Requirement Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Consent Order signed between MPCA, EPA and 3M, 7/26/83 United States Environmental Protection Agency Five-Year Review · Granular Activated Carbon Groundwater .Monitoring Plari Health Based Value Health Risk Limit Institutional Controls Isopropyl Ether Metropolitan Council Environmental Services . Maximum Contaminant Level Minnesota Decision Document Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Contingency Plan National Priorities List Operation and Maintenance Operable Unit Polychlorinated Biphenyl Perfluorobutanoic acid Perfluorobutane sulfonate Perfluorochemicals Perfluorooctanic acid. Perfluorooctane sulfonate Publicly Owned Treatment Works parts per million parts per billion Quality Assurance Project Plan Potentially Responsible Pc:irty Remedial Action Objectives Remedial Action Plan Record of Decision Settlement Agreement and Consent Order signed by MPCA and 3M, 5/22/07 Soil Vapor Extraction Universal Environmental Covenants Act Micrograms per Liter unlimited use and unrestricted exposure Volatile Organic Compound

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the fifth Five-Year Review (FYR) for the Oakdale Dump Site (Site) (a.k.a. 3M Oakdale Disposal Site, or Oakdale Disposal Sites) located in Oakdale, Washington County, Minnesota. The purpose of this FYR is to review information to deterinine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The triggering action for this policy FYR was the signing of the previous FYR on 911712009.

The Site consists of three separate non-contiguous properties (Abresch, Brockman, and Eberle) that were historically used to dispose of industrial and non-industrial wastes. Initial investigations identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil and groundwater at the Site. The remedy prescribed in a 1983 Consent Order (CO) included identification and removal of buried wastes and contaminated soil, containment of contaminated groundwater through extraction and discharge to the sanitary sewer, identification and sealing of multi-aquifer wells, and long-term groundwater monitoring .. These response actions were initiated in the mid- l 980s, with excavation and removal of buried wastes at the Abresch and Brockman properties, sealing of 39 multi-aquifer wells and installation of a groundwater pump-out system.

No response actions were necessary or required at the Eberle property. VOC investigations and follow-up actions have been completed for the Brockman property based on information presented in previous five year reviews. Response actions are continuing on the Abresch property. See Appendix A for additional background information on the Site.

Groundwater quality monitoring and operation of the groundwater extraction system are currently on-going at the Abresch property. Since 1985, an estimated volume of over 41,000 gallons of voes has been removed by the extraction system which has pumped over 500 million gallons of groundwater during that time as documented in the 2012 Annual Volatile Organic

· Compound (VOC) Groundwater Monitoring Report (Weston, May, 2013). The groundwater extraction system continues to control the horizontal and vertical migration of voe impacted groundwater. Groundwater levels in the shallow and basal alluvium monitoring wells have maintained lower elevations than groundwater elevations in the underlying Platteville bedrock formation consistently since 1985. In general, total VOC concentrations in Site monitoring wells have shown decreasing trends over time as shown by the data included in Appendix B ofthis report.

Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) were identified in soil and groundwater at the Site in 2004. Investigation of the extent and magnitude of the PFC impacts was conducted. 3M and the MPCA signed a Settlement Agreement and Consent Order (SACO) in 2007 to address the PFC contamination atthe Site. Terms and conditions of the SACO to address PFC contamination at the Site, and necessary response actions completed by 3M, were consistent with requirements outlined in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). PFC response actions were only required at the Abresch portion of the Site .. Response actions were unnecessary at the Brockman or Eberle properties. PFC references are presented to summarize activities that have occurred at the Site as they relate to the voe impacts.

The Minnesota Decision Document (MDD) signed by MPCA on November 4, 2008 outlined remedial actions to respond to the PFC impacts to the Site. The selected response actions included the excavation and off-site disposal ofremaining PFC wastes, enhancement of the current groundwater recovery system, long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring, and

4

implementation of institutional controls (I Cs). In addition, 3M has provided funding to the city of Oakdale for the installation and maintenance of a. carbon treatment system to remove PFCs found in two of the city's municipal supply wells. 3M reimburses MPCA's costs for the installation/maintenance of whole house Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) systems at residential homes in Lake Elmo, which have shown PFC contamination impacts from the Site. 3M is also required under the 2007 SACO to treat or replace any public or private drinking water supply well which is impacted by PFCs above Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) drinking water standards. MDH has developed Health Risk Limits (HRLs) for Perfluorooctanic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as well as a HBV for Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA).

Certain components ofthe MPCA approved response action plan (soil vapor extraction and groundwater treatment) will enhance the response actions implemented under the 1983 CO. Over 50,000 tons of PFC and VOC impacted soil was excavated from the north side of the Abresch part of the Site in 2010 and 2011 following the removal of approximately 27 ,000 pounds ofVOCs through a soil vapor extraction.system over a 1.5-year period. Groundwater extraction wells were installed to control the flow of PFC contaminated groul}dwater. These wells also extract VOCs. The 2012 Annual Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Groundwater Monitoring Report (Weston, May, 2013) documents the VOC removal which has occurred on the Site. Extracted groundwater is· treated with a GAC system prior to discharge to a publically owned sanitary sewer system.

The Site is bordered by residential and comm·ercial land uses. Migration of VOCs in soil vapor towards residential and commercial off-site receptors was a potential concern reviewed for this FYR. AECOM completed a Soil Vapor Migration Assessment for the Abresch portion of the Site based on MPCA guidance document Risk-Based Guidance for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, September 2008 (c-s4-06). Using groundwater concentratibns of VOCs in groundwater below the Site, AECOM evaluated groundwater screening values for soil vapor. Based on the calculated screening values, it appears unlikely thatmigration of VOCs in soil vapor has impacted existing off-site residential and commercial buildings. However, isopropyl ether was not evaluated for vapor intrusion because the MPCA has not established an Intrusion Screening Value (ISV)for this compound. Based on the AECOM evaluation, it is recommended that further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in the vicinity of the Site be done to insure long term protectiveness.

This FYR finds the remedy to be protective of human health and the environment in the short term. Exposure pathways to soil and groundwater at the Site are being controlled because source areas of soil contamination have been removed, and groundwater contamination is controlled by the groundwater extraction system and by the abandonment of impacted wells. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long terin, the following actions need to be taken: 1) implementation of I Cs, and 2) further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in the vicinity of the Site. Additional response actions to address PFC contamination in groundwater at the Site will enhance protectiveness as extracted grolindwater will be treated with carbon prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.

5

Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Oakdale Dump

EPA ID: MND980609515

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? Has the site achieved construction completion?

No Yes

REVIEW STATllS

Lead agency: State

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Gerald Stahnke

Author affiliation: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Review period: 9/9/2009- 6/30/2014

Date of site inspection: 11/21/2013

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 5

Triggering action date: 9/17 /2009

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9/17/2014

6

Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

None

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: ICs are not currently in place for the Site.

Recommendation: ICs should be implemented.

Affect Current Affect Future Party Protectiveness Protectiveness Responsible Oversight Party Milestone Date

No Yes 3M State 6/30/2015

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: Potential Vapor Risk to Adjacent Receptors

Recommendation: Soil vapor sampling should be conducted to evaluate the potential vapor intrusion risk to adjacent receptors.

Affect Current Affect Future Party Protectiveness Protectiveness Responsible Oversight Party Milestone Date

No > Yes 3M State 6/30/2015

OU(s): 1 Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: The 1983 CO required 30 years of operation which will be met in 2015.

Recommendation: The 1983 CO requirements should be reviewed relative to current required Site operations and revised as necessary for the Site to remain protective beyond this 30 year period.

Affect Current Affect Future Party Protectiveness Protectiveness Responsible Oversight Party Milestone Date

No Yes 3M State 6/30/2015

7

Oll 1 and Sitewide Protectinness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Short-Term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at the Oakdale Dump Site is currently protective of human health and the environment in the short term. Exposure pathways to soil and groundwater at the Site are being controlled because source areas of soil contamination hav'e been removed, and groundwater contamination is controlled by the groundwater extraction system and by the abandonment of impacted wells. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) implementation of ICs, and 2) further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in the vicinity of the Site. Additional response actions to address PFC contamination in groundwater at the Site will enhance protectiveness as extracted groundwater will be treated with carbon prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.

8

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares FYRs pursuant to Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act {CERCLA) and Part 300.430 of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Section 121 of CERCLA states:

"If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition, ifupon such review it is the judgment ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104} or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to _the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and any actions taken as a result ofsuch .reviews. "

EPA interpreted this requirement further in the NCP at 40 C.F.R.§ 300.430(t)(4)(ii), which stat1es:

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

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) conducted a FYR on the remedy implemented at the Site. The MPCA is the lead agency for developing and implementing the remedy for the Site.

This is the fifth FYR for the Site. The triggering action for this pre-SARA policy review is the completion date of the previous FYR which occurred on September 17, 2009. The FYR is required due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The Site consists of one Operable Unit

· (OU) which is addressed in this FYR.

9

II. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW

Table 1: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2009 FYR

ProtectivenessOU#

Determination

I (Soil) Short-term Protective

I (Groundwater) Short-term Protective

Site wide Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement

The remedy required under the 1983 CO addressing VOC contamination in the soil at the Site is currently protective of human health and the environment because identified source areas of soil contaminants have been removed. Response actions to address PFC contaminants in soils at the Site include additional source area response actions and soil vapor extraction to reduce concentrations ofVOCs in soils prior to excavation and off-site disposal. The remedy required under the 1983 CO addressing VOC contamination in groundwater is currently protective of human health and the environment because exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled by the groundwater extraction system and by the abandonment of impacted wells. Additional response actions to address PFC contamination in groundwater at the Site will enhance this protectiveness as extracted groundwater will be treated with carbon prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The remedy required under the 1983 CO addressing VOC contamination at the Site is protective ofhum~n health and the environment in the short-term because exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled by the selected remedy. However, for the remedy to be protective.in the long-term relative to voe contamination, institutional controls for the Site need to be implemented. The selected remedy under the 2007 SACO requires that appropriate institutional controls be in place at the Site. An Environmental Restrictive Covenant, which meets the State Universal Environmental Covenants Act (UECA) under State Statute l 14E, between 3M and the MPCA is required by the MPCA MDD.

Table 2: Status of Recommendations from the 2009 FYR Original Current Completion

OU Recommendations/ Party OversightIssue Milestone Status Date (if

# Follow-up Actions Responsible farty

I Groundwater Revise the Site and Surface · groundwater and

Water surface water Monitoring for monitoring program to

voes include PFCs. 1 Institutional Institutional controls

Controls are should be implemented not in place for the Site.

I voe Future response action contamination addressing voe

in soil, contamination should groundwater, be consistent with and surface existing decision

water documents.

Date applicable) 3M State 6/30/2010 Completed 11119/2010

3M State 6/30/2010 Under 6130115 Discussion

3M State . Continuous Completed On-going

10

Recommendation 1: The Site groundwater and surface water monitoring program for the Site was revised by 3M and documented in the Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling Plan for Former Oakdale Disposal Site, Oakdale, Minnesota, dated November 19, 2010.

Recommendation 2: Institutional controls are discussed below.

Recommendation 3: Response actions addressing VOC contamination are consistent with the existing decision documents. Annual reports are prepared by 3M documenting the response actions completed at the Site.

Remedy Implementation Activities

Actions completed by 3M at the Site under the 2007 SACO .were documented in the Construction Completion Report (RA Implementation Report), Oakdale Site, dated December 2011 and prepared by Weston for 3M. Actions completed at the Site as it relates to the VOC impacts are discussed below.

A temporary soil vapor extraction system was installed on the northern part of the Abresch property in 2008 and 2009 as an Interim Response Action to address anticipated odors generated by VOCs in soils to be excavated to remediate the Site for PFC contamination. The total approximate amount of VOCs removed was 26,900 pounds during two years operation of the SVE system. After the SVE system was shutdown, the area was excavated down to approximately 16 feet below grade. Approximately 53,000 tons of contaminated soils containing residual VOCs were disposed of at SKB Landfill in Rosemount, Minnesota. The e·xcavated area was restored with clean sand fill that was backhauled from SKB Laridfill. The security fence surrounding the area was removed after the area was restored.

Under terms of the 2007 SACO, 3M installed additional groundwater pump-out wells and completed construction of a groundwater treatment system (carbon filtration) to address PFC contaminated groundwater issues at the Site. This enhanced pump-out and treatment system not only addresses the PFC issues, but also addresses VOC impacted groundwater at the Site. See Appendix A for additional information.

Institutional Controls

IC's in the form of an Environmental Restrictive Covenant are required by the 2007 SACO and the 11/4/08 MDD to restrict property use, maintain the integrity of the remedy, and assure the long-term protectiveness for areas that do riot allow for UU/UE. A summary of the implemented and planned IC's for the Site is listed in Table 3 and is further discussed below. A map depicting the current conditions of the Site and areas which do not allow for UU/UE will be developed as part of the IC evaluation activities discussed below.

ICs have not yet been implemented for VOC/PFC contamination at the Site. ICs when implemented, ·will restrict certain land uses at the Site and control access to the Site. The I Cs will address all contaminated media at the Site. I Cs, in the form of restrictive covenants, have been identified in the previous FYR as the preferred IC for the Site due to their ability to run with the land and help ensure future protectiveness of human health and the environment.

The cleanup for the Abresch property requires that ICs be implemented to ensure that the future use of the area is limited to industrial/commercial purposes. The response action performance standard's for

11

groundwater are the Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs for public water supplies and the MDH RALs for contaminants of concern. Once those levels are met, the Abresch property is expected to_attain UU/UE standards. The cleanup of the Brockman property assuines that the Site can be used for light industrial purposes, and the 3M owned portions of Brockman property will be covered in-the environmental covenant. The Eberle property did not require any response actions because it already met UU/UE standards.

Current Status of Access and Institutional Controls

The portion of the Abresch property south of Highway 7 is fenced. The fence north of Highway 7 was · removed after the soil response action to address PFC impacted soils was completed. A portion of the

Brockman property is under commercial reuse. The remaining vacant portions of the Brockman property are owned by 3M. The Eberle property is currently a city park and never required access restrictions.

The MPCA is responsible for periodic inspections and oversight over 3M's O&M activities. The MPCA notified the surrounding community of the contaminated groundwater and need for limited exposure at the Site by connecting residences to city water supplies. In March 2007, the MDH issued a Special Well Construction Area notice where no nearby residents may construct, maintain, seal or disturb drinking water wells without prior approval by MOH. A copy of the Special Well Construction Area Notic.e is included in Appendix B.

A draft Environmental Restrictive Covenant was completed by 3M and submitted to the MPCA for review. At the time of this FYR, the draft covenant was being reviewed by the MPCA and the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General.

Follow-up Actions

The draft Environmental Restrictive Covenant is presently being reviewed by the MPCA. Once the Environmental Restrictive Covenant is signed by the appropriate parties, it will be recorded at the Washington County Recorder's Office.

Long-Term Stewardship and Land Use Plans

Long-term protectiveness at the. Site requii:-es compliance with effective I Cs to assure the remedy continues to function as intended. Since compliance with ICs is necessary to assure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy, planning for long-term stewardship is required. Long-term stewardship will ensure that effective I Cs are maintained, monitored and enforced, and that the remedy continues to function as intended with regard to ICs. The O&M Plan will be reviewed and revised by 3M, as needed, to ensure long-term stewardship procedures are in place. The O&M Plan will include regular reviews of ICs at the Site and annual certifications to MPCA that ICs are in-place and effective. Additionally, use of a communications plan and use of a one-call system should be explored as part of O&M activities at the Site.

12

T bl 3 Sa e. : ummary of Planned and/or I t d ICmp emen e s Media,

engineered ·controls, and

areas that do not support UU/UE based on current

!Cs Needed

!Cs Called for in the Decision

Documents

Impacted Parcel(s)

IC Objective

Title of IC Instrument Implemented and Date (or planned)

conditions Planned: IC plan will evaluate 2007

Restrict MDH designation; determine if Brockman construction, additional ICs are needed/required.

and maintenance, Implemented: Washington County

Groundwater Yes Yes Abresch

portioris of sealing, or

disturbance of Special Well Construction Area was

established pursuant to MN. Rules Part Site. groundwater 4725.3650; MN. Stat. Section 1031.236

wells. requires sellers to disclose special well construction areas.(under review).

Prohibit

Soil& Groundwater

Yes Yes

Areas A, B,C,D

of Abresch

portion of Site.

construction, excavation, or placement of

any structure or any other item.

Prohibit installation of any drinking

water wells on

Planned: MPCA is creating an IC plan as part of the MDD. The plan will evaluate the effectiveness .of MN.

Statute 114£ (2007 Universal Environmental Covenants Act) that

imposes activities and use restrictions. The plan will determine if additional

I Cs are needed/required.

the property.

Current use is commercial and

Soil & Groundwater

Yes Yes Brockman portion of

Site.

wooded. Prohibit installation of any drinking

Same as Abresch Portion of Site. -water wells on the property.

Soil & Groundwater

No No Eberle

portion of Site.

None None

-Surface Water

Under Review

Under Review

Brockman and

Abresch portions of

Site.

This is under . evaluation to

determine if the use of surface

water should be restricted.

Under Review

13

Media, engineered

ICs Called controls, and

I Cs for in the Impacted IC Title of IC Instrument Implementedareas that do not

Needed Decision Parcel(s) Objective and Date (or planned)support UlJ/UE . Documentsbased on current

conditions

Prohibit' Brockman Inconsistent Uses

Other Response andUnder Under · and protect the

Action Abresch Under Review Review Review integrity of the

Components portions of remedy

Site. components.

System Operation/Operation and Maintenance Activities ·

3M conducts ongoing operation and maintenance of the groundwater extraction system. Maintenance is performed proactively to reduce the. amounts of biological growth and particulate matter that accumulate in the wells. Containment system maintenance includes: 1) cleaning, repairing or replacing pumps and flow meters, 2) chemical well treatment, and 3) cleaning discharge lines. The system is inspected by 3M or their consultant to monitor and maintain the groundwater extraction system. Frequent monitoring and proactive maintenance reduces system down time, increases system life, and optimizes system operation.

No substantial issues with operational practices were identified during this review period.

III. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Administrative Components ';

The PRP was notified of the initiation of the FYR on 10/9/2013. The Oakdale Dump Superfund Site FYR was led by Gerald Stahnke of the MPCA. The 3M Remedial Project Manager for the Site, James Kotsmith, and Erik Hardin of the EPA assisted in the review as the representative for the support · agency.

The review, which began on 10/9/2013, consisted of the following components:

• Community Involvement;

• Document Review;

• Data Review;

• Site Inspection; and

• Five-Year Review Report Development and Review.

Community Notification and Involvement.

On 12118/2013, a notice was published in the local newspaper, the Oakdale - Lake Elmo Review, stating that there was a FYR and inviting the public to submit comments to the MPCA. A copy of the Community Notification is included in Appendix C. The results of the review and the report will be

14

made available at the Site information repository located at the MPCA headquarters, 520 Lafayette Road North in St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194.

Document Review

This FYR consisted of a review of relevant documents including O&M records and monitoring data.

Data Review

The 2009, 2010, 2011and2012 Annual Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Groundwater Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR) for the Site summarize groundwater monitoring data over the previous four years. The 2013 AMR was submitted to the MPCA on May 30, 2014, and was under review at the time of preparation of this FYR. A summary of the 2013 AMR will be provided in the next FYR in 2019. Tables from the 2011 AMR summarize VOC data for years 2006 through 2011. Tables from the 2012 AMR summarize VOC data for the year 2012. The tables from the 2011 AMR and the 2012 AMR that summarize groundwater monitoring data are found in Appendix B.

Groundwater data have demonstrated improvements in water quality with lower VOC concentrations and reduced area of groundwater impacts. In general, total VOC concentrations in monitoring wells at the Site have shown decreasing trends over time indicating horizontal containment of contaminant migration. Since 1985, an estimated volume of over 41,000 gallons of VOCs has been removed by the extraction system, which has pumped <?Ver 500 million gallons of groundwater during that time.· The result of lower V OC groundwater concentrations is consistent with the reduction in the rate of V OC removal. The rate of VOC removal has been declining since approximately 1992. Figure 4-1 in Appendix B shows the volume of VOCs removed versus the volume of groundwater extracted. The slope of the voe removal curve shows the reduction in the rate of voe removal.

The current network of groundwater extraction wells consists of seven pumping wells (PW-1, PW-3, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-10 and PW-11). Originally, eleven wells extracted groundwater. Th.fee of the wells were converted to monitoring wells (PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 in 2003) and one (PW-5) was sealed. The source area is contained by the pumping out contaminated groundwater. Pumping is controlling the horizontal and vertical movement of VOCs in the glacial alluvium. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 from the 2012 AMR are examples of the groundwater contours that result from pumping out the groundwater. Copies of these figures are included in Appendix B.

The Site is bordered by residential and commercial land uses. Migration of VOCs in soil vapor towards residential and commercial off-site receptors is a concern of this FYR. AECOM completed a Soil Vapor Migration Assessment for the Abresch portion of the Site based on MPCA guidance document Risk­Based Guidance for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, September 2008 (c-s4-06). The AECOM Vapor Migration Assessment is documented in the memorandum dated June 3, 2014 and attached as Appendix B to this report. Using concentrations of VOCs in groundwater below the Site, AECOM evaluated groundwater screening values for soil vapor. The Assessment stated:

Summary Dissolved concentrations of benzene detected at seven pump-out wefls and three water table wells during 2012 sampling exceeded generic groundwater screening criteria for the vapor intrusion pathway. Dissolved concentrations of 1,2-DCA detected at one pump-out well and one water table well during 2012 sampling exceeded generic groundwater screening criteria for the

15

vapor intrusion pathway. These wells are located primarily within the northern area of the former disposal site. None of these monitoring points are located within 100 feet of a poteptial ...... . residential or commercial receptor (i.e. residence, building); however, potential receptors are present within approximately 230 to 500 feet of these well locations. The distribution and/or sampling frequency of other intervening and sentinel wells screened at the water table were not sufficient for evaluating the dissolved concentrations of VCOCs closer to potential receptors. Isopropyl ether is the primary contaminate of concern for the site. No ISV presently exists for this compound. Once an ISV is available the potential vapor risk of this compound can be evaluated.

Based on the AECOM evaluation, it appears unlikely that migration ofVOCs in soil vapor has impacted existing off-site residential and co_mmercial buildings.. However, to insure long-term protectiveness, it is recommended that soil vapor sampling be completed to document the vapor concentration near potential receptors. The data collection should include isopropyl ether even though no Intrusion Screening Value presently exists for this compound.

Site Inspection

The inspection of the Abresch portion of the Site was conducted on 11/21/2013. The inspection was limited to the Abresch portion of the Site because the active operations are located on the Abresch portion of the Site. In attendance were Erik Hardin, of the EPA, Gerald Stahnke of the MPCA, James Kotsmith of 3M, and Gary Rathbun and Robert DeGroot of AECOM, contractor for the MPCA. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

Monitoring wells, extraction wells, and piezometers on the Abresch portion of the Site were observed to be in good condition. The groundwater treatment facility appeared to be well maintained and was functioning in general accordance with the operations plan based on discussions with Mr. Kotsmith of 3M.

Fencing on the south portion of the Abresch portion of the Site appeared to be in good condition. Surface debris was noted on part of the southern portion of the property. Mr. Kotsmith related that a hunter had set up a still camera on the Site which 3M confiscated. The hunter had apparently climbed the fence to gain access to the Site. No other human intrusions to the fenced part of the Site are known to have occurred.

Interviews

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted with 3M and the MPCA staff involved in Site activities.· The purpose of the interviews was to document any perceived problems or successes :with the remedy implemented to date. Interviews are summarized below.

The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) was contacted for information regarding discharge ofVOC-containing extracted and treated groundwater to the MCES sanitary sewer system. Ms. Martina Nelson of the MCES responded that "MCES does not have any concerns or issues with the discharge of VOCs from the Oakdale Dump Site, as long as they continue to use and maintain the existing pretreatment system. The discharge of extracted, treated groundwater is meeting the VOCs concentration requirements (i.e. permit limits) established in Industrial Discharge Permit No. 2021." (email dated January 22, 2014).

16

The City of Oakdale was conta~ted via telephone (voicemail message January 14, 2014) regarding any. issues regarding the Site. The City of Oakdale Utility Superintendent, Mr. Shawn Nelson, did not respond to the inquiry within the time frame of this FYR.

Jim Kotsmith of 3M indicated that the groundwater extraction system was operating normally and that system shutdown periods were minimal during the past five years. Review of annual monitoring reports for the past five years indicated that the system was shut down for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and repair approximately 15 to 20 days each year. The extraction system appears to be functioning as designed to contain the migration of voe contaminated groundwater in the horizontal and vertical directions. The groundwater treatment plant is also functioning within design parameters according to Mr. Kotsmith.

IV. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

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

Yes, the remedy is functioning as intended. The selected remedy required removal of concentrated ·areas · of waste, sealing of multi-aquifer wells, operation of a groundwater containment and extraction system, and development of a groundwater monitoring network.

• Identified areas of concentrated wastes were removed in 1983 and 1984.

• A total of 39 privately owned water supply sells were sealed in 1984 to eliminate multi-aquifer migration pathways.

• A shallow groundwater extraction system constructed in 1984 continues to operate on the Site and is functioning as designed. Data reviewed for this FYR as discussed in the Data Review Section indicates that the extraction system is controlling the horizontal and vertical movement ofVOCs in the glacial alluvium. The concentration of VOCs in the extracted groundwater continued to show a downward trend.

No substantial issues with operational practices were identified. during this review period. System maintenance is performed regularly and operational issues have been addressed promptly. Fencing is in place surrounding the active extraction well area of the southern part of the Abresch property. The fencing is effective in minimizing potential for human exposure to wastes in the area. Fencing around the northern part of the Abresch property was removed after soil removal activities in 2011. However,_ I Cs for the Site have yet to be implemented. ­

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

The intent of the remedy is to address VOC contamination through groundwater containment, not aquifer restoration. The remedial action objectives of the 1983 CO remain valid because additional receptors to VOC contaminated groundwater have not been identified at or downgradient of the Site. The concentration of isopropyl ether continues to generally decline in groundwater during the past five years.

17

The Remedial Action Plan attached to the 1983 CO required that the groundwater ~xtraetion system continuously operate "for thirty years unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the MPCA . Commissioner and U.S. EPA with the monitoring well data that the sites Iio longer significantly impacts

. the area ground water and surface water." In 2015, the groundwater extraction system will have operated for thirty years. Concentrations of several VOCs, including isopropyl ether, continue to exceed their respective drinking water standards in 2012. Cessat~on of the groundwater extraction remedial action does not appear warranted at this time based on available information relative to the requirements of the 1983 CO. In addition, 3M is required to operate the enhanced ground water pump-out and treatment system under terms of the 2007 SACO until the Commissioner of the MPCA determines the system is no longer necessary. ·

The exposure pathway at the north part of the Abresch portion of the Site has changed due to excavation of PFC and VOC contaminated wastes to depths up to approximately 16 feet below ground surface .. Clean fill, about 4 feet or more.in thickness, was placed over the entire excavated area~ The ferice surrounding the north part of the property was removed because the removal of the wastes and subsequent backfilling eliminated potential for contact exposure to the waste materials.

The Site is bordered by residential and commercial land uses. Migration of VOCs in soil vapor towards residential and commercial off-site receptors is a concern ofthis FYR. AECOM completed a S0il Vapor Migration Assessment for the Abresch portion of the Site.· Based on the AECOM evaluation, it.appears unlikely that migration of VOCs in soil vapor has impacted existing off-site residential and commercial buildings. However, to insure long term protectiveness, it is recommended that further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in the vicinity of the Site be done. The data collection should include isopropyl ether even though no ISV presently exists for this compound. AnJSV should be developed if sufficient data exist. '

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

PFC contaminants identified at the Site are being addressed utilizing response actions consistent to those already in place at the Site to address VOC contamination.

In 2007, the MPCA and 3M entered into a SACO to address PFC contamination at the Oakdale. Site and two other sites in Washington Couhty, Minnesota:~ The 2007 SACO led to the implementation of the 2008 MDD. The,MDD presents the selected response action for PFC contamination at the Site.

The selected remedy addressing PFC contamination is soil excavation of a portion of the Abresch portion of the Site located north of Highway 5. Prior to the excavation, a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was constructed within the area to be excavated. The SVE. system was installed as an interim response action to reduce VOC.concentrations within the soil to b~ excavated and to control exposure risks to site workers and neighboring properties. voe vapors were identified as a possible issue to neighboring residences during the public comment period for the MDD for the Site. The SVE system was installed during the third qu.arter of 2008 and operated until the fourth quarter of 20 i 0 and· removed approximately 27,000 pounds ofVOCs. Over 50,000 tons of PFC and VOC impacted soil was then excavated from the north side of the Abresch portion of the. Site in 2010 and 2011. The excavation was backfilled with clean soil.

18

\.

PFC contaminated groundwater is also addressed in the MDD. Twelve additional groundwater extraction wells were constructed in the glacial alluvium at the Site. The construction of the additional extraction wells control discharge of PFC contaminated groundwater to on-site surface water and limit vertical and lateral movement of contaminated groundwater. The expanded groundwater extraction system also removes and treats impacted groundwater from the Site. The groundwater extraction system utilizes an air stripper to remove VOCs and a granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system to remove PFCs prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer and Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The existing extraction wells were also connected to the enhanced system for treatment prior to discharge.

Technical Assessment Summary

The remedy is functi.oning as intended. Identified areas of concentrated wastes have been removed. Water supply wells were sealed to eliminate multi-aquifer migration pathways. The shallow groundwater extraction system is controlling the hori.zontal and vertical movement of VOCs in the glacial alluvium.

No substantial issues with operational practices were identified during this review period. System maintenance is performed regularly and operational issues have been addressed promptly.

Fendng surrounding the active extraction well area of the southern part of the Abresch portion of the Site is largely effective in minimizing potential for exposure to wastes in the area. However, a hunter did enter the fenced area as documented by 3M during the Site Inspection. The fence surrounding the north part of the Abresch property was removed because the removal of the wastes and subsequent backfilling minimized potential for contact exposure to the waste materials.

The groundwater extraction system controls the horizontal and vertical movement ofVOC impacted groundwater in accordance with the 1983 CO, In addition, the concentrations of VOCs in groundwater continue to decrease over time but remain at concentrations generally exceeding various drinking water standards. The Remedial Action Plan attached to the 1983 CO required that the groundwater extraction system continuously operate "for thirty years unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the MPCA Director and U.S. EPA with the monitoring well data that the sites no longer significantly impacts the area ground water and surface water." In 2015, the groundwater extraction will have operated for thirty years. Concentrations of several VOCs, including isopropyl ether, continue fo exceed their respective drinking water standards in 2012. Cessation of the groundwater extraction remedial action does not appear warranted at this time based on available information relative to the requirements of the 1983 CO. 3M is required to operate the enhanced ground water pump-out and treatment system under terms of the 2007 SACO until the Commissioner of the MPCA determines that the system is no longer necessary.

The Site is bordered by residential and commercial land uses. Migration of VOCs in soil vapor towards residential and commercial off-site receptors is a concern of this FYR. AECOM completed a Soil Vapor Migration Assessment for the Abresch portion of the Site. Based on the AECOM evaluation, it appears unlikely that migration of VOCs in soil vapor has impacted existing off-site residential and commercial buildings. However, to insure long-term protectiveness, it is recommended that further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in.the vicinity of the Site be done. The data collection should include isopropyl ether even though no ISV presently exists for this compound. An ISV should be developed if sufficient data exist.

19

V. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

a : ow-up At'T bl e 4 I ssues andRecommendaf IODS!Fo11 C IODS

Affects Protectiveness?

OU# Issue Recommendations/ Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Oversight Agency

Milestone Date

(YIN)

Current Future

OUl Institutional controls are Institutional controls 3M MPCA 6/30/2015 No Yes not currently in place for should be implemented. the Site.

OUl Potential vapor intrusion Complete soil vapor 3M MPCA 6/30/2015 No Yes risk to adjacent sampling to evaluate the receptors. potential vapor risks to

adjacent receptors.

OUl The 1983 CO required The 1983 CO 3M MPCA 6/30/2015 No Yes 30 years of operation, requirements should be which will be met in reviewed relative to 2015 . current required Site

operations and revised as necessary for the Site to remain protective beyond this 30 year period.

VI. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Oll I and Site" ide Protecth·eness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at the Oakdale Dump Site is currently protective of human health and the environment in the short term. Exposure pathways to soil and groundwater at the Site are being controlled because source areas of soil contamination have been removed, and groundwater is controlled by the groundwater extraction system and by the abandonment of impacted wells. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long- term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) implementation of I Cs and 2) further evaluation for potential vapor intrusion pathways in the vicinity of the Site. Additional response actions to address PFC contamination in groundwater at the Site will enhance protectiveness as extracted groundwater will be treated with carbon prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.

20

Vil. NEXT REVIEW

The next five-year review report for the Oakdale Dwnp Superfund Site is required five years from the completion date of this review.

21

APPENDIX A - EXISTING SITE INFORMATION

A. SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table 5: Site Chronology

Event Event Investigation performed by MPCA Administrative Order by Consent and Response Order by Consent signed by 3M, EPA, and MPCA Site placed on NPL Removal of buried wastes and contaminated soil Sealing of 39 privately owned water wells Initiation of groundwater containment and monitoring Ongoing operation, maintenance and monitoring of the groundwater remedy First FYR Second FYR MPCA approved updated QAPP with comments and modifications MPCA adopts MDH Health Based Value for isopropyl ether and used for performance criteria for evaluating containment of VOC plume, not as cleanup goal for Site. No cleanup goal identified in Consent Order. ThirdFYR PFCs identified at Site Settlement Agreement and Consent Order addressing PFC waste signed by 3M and MPCA MDD addressing PFCs at Site signed by MPCA Temporary SVE system startup FourthFYR Completion of enhanced groundwater pump-out and carbon treatment system Shutdown of temporary SVE system (north part of Abresch site north of State Highway 5) Completion of excavation activities (north part of Abresch site north of State Highway 5)

B. BACKGROUND

Physical Characteristics

Date 1980

7/26/1983

9/08/1983 1983-1984

1984 8/1985

1985 - present

3/3111993 5/18/1999 1/24/2003

5/2001

5/4/2004 2004

5/22/2007

11/4/2008 10/2008

9/17/2009 8/2010

11/2010

5/2011

The Oakdale Dump Site consists of three former dump sites named the Abresch, Brockman, and Eberle portions of the Site after former property owners. The approximately 55 acre Abresch property is located north and south of Highway 5 and west of Hadley A venue in the City of Oakdale, Minnesota. The approximately 5 acre Brockman property is located southwest of the Abresch property across Granada A venue North. The approximately 2 acre Eberle property is located north of the Abresch property. The properties comprising the Site are depicted on Figure 1 in Appendix B. The properties are

in a gently rolling landscape within a commercial, residential, and light industrial area of Oakdale. The Abresch property is undergoing active groundwater remediation. The Eberle property is a park .. surrounded by residential home sites. The Brockman property is in a commercial development. Portions of the properties contain marsh areas. Raleigh Creek flows through the Abresch property. Investigations and follow-up actions have been completed for the Brockman and Eberle portions of the Site based on information presented in previous FYR reports.

Geology and Hydrogeology

The Site is underlain by unconsolidated soils consisting of an upper (shallow) alluvium composed of · silty sand with interbeds of sandy clay glacial till and a lower (basal) alluvium composed of clean sand to silty sand. The shallow and basal alluvium sands are separated across most of the. Site by a till bed approximately 20 feet in thickness. The alluvium and glacial till together are approximately 65 to 90 feet thick at the Site.

The bedrock underlying the glacial deposits is part of the eastern portion of the Twin City Basin, the sedimentary bedrock formation of which dips to the west. The uppermost bedrock unit is the Decorah Shale which is discontinuous below the Site and is not more than 6 to 8 feet thick. The Platteville . . .

Limestone underlies the Decorah shale and is approximately20 to 35 feet thick in the area of the Site. The Platteville contains fractures and solution channels. The Glenwood Shale underlies the Platteville and acts as a confining unit 3 to 6 feet thick in the area. The St. Peter Sandstone underlies the Glenwood and is an aquifer between 150 and 165 feet thick in the vicinity of the Site. The Prairie du Chien Group dolomite underlies the St. Peter Sandstone, is 125 to 135 feet thick in the area of the Site and is considered to be in the same hydrologic unit as the underlying Jordan Sandstone because no aquitard separates the two bedrock units.

Groundwater flows in the shallow water table alluvium were in three directions prior to pumping of extraction wells. Groundwater flow direction in the north part of the Abresch part of the Site was to the south below Highway 5. Groundwater flow direction in the southeastern part of the Site was to the north toward a wetland and perennial stream: Groundwater flow direction in the eastern part of the Site was to the east. .Vertical gradient was downward between shallow alluvium monitoring wells and basal alluvium monitoring wells in the northern part of the Site north of Highway 5. South of Highway 5 the vertical hydraulic gradient between the shallow and basal alluvium monitoring wells was inconsistent. An upward hydraulic gra9ient was present near surface water features where groundwater may have been discharging under non-pumping conditions.

The groundwater extraction system continues to control the horizontal and vertical migration of VOC impacted groundwater. Groundwater levels in the shallow and basal alluvium monitoring wells have maintained lower elevations than groundwater elevations in the underlying Platteville bedrock formation consistently since 1985.

Land and Resource Use

. The north portion of the Abresch property is open land that was remediated by excavation and is no longer fenced. The south portion of the Abresch property is undergoing groundwater pumpout for plume control with treated groundwater discharged to sanitary sewer. It is projected that the south portion of the Abresch property will be returned to open land upon completion of the remedy.

The current and projected land uses surrounding the Abresch portion of the Site are commercial to.the east and south, commercial and open land to the west and residential to the north.

Groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Site is not used for drinking water purposes. Identified impacted residential wells in the area wer(;! sealed as part of initial site response actions.

History of Contamination

The Site was utilized for the disposal of industrial wastes. The Abresch property was used as a waste burial and drum reclamation site from the mid-1940s until 1961. Scrap materials, plastics, resins and solvents in drums and smaller containers were disposed of in trenches in upland and wetland areas. Similar disposal methods were used at the Brockman property located southwest of the Abresch property across Granada Avenue. The Eberle property, located north of the Abresch property, was used for open burning of combustible materials. Wastes were disposed onto the ground and ignited. The Brockman property has undergone remediation and is now in commercial use. Response actions were not required at the Eberle portion of the Site and is now a residential/recreatiomil area.

The Site was initially investigated by the MPCA in 1980. The primary contamination identified was caused by the release of VOCs. Shallow residential wells in the area were found to be contaminated with hazardous substances, the major contaminant being isopropyl ether. The MPCA sent letters to parties identified as possible generators of waste disposed at the Site. 3M voluntarily proposed to finance a hydrogeologic study of the Site. ·

. Initial Response

In 1983, based on the findings of a hydrogeologic study of the Site, the MPCA, EPA and 3M entered into an Administrative Order by Consent and Response Order by Consent (Consent Order). The three phase study identified that contaminants were confined to soil and grolindwater within the glacial drift and in the Platteville aquifer in and near the sites. The glacial drift and Platteville aquifers are separated by a confining layer of Decorah shale over most of the Site. The hydrogeologic investigation also identified the Platteville aquifer (a fractured limestone formation beneath the glacial drift) as the most likely pathway for contaminant migration. The St. Peter and Jordan sandstone formations are found below the Platteville aquifer and are protected by a layer of Glenwood Shale that underlies the three disposal sites. The studies also identified multi-aquifer wells in the vicinity of the Site as possible contaminant migration pathways to the St. Peter and Jordan aquifers.

The hydrogeologic investigations recommended that a plan be developed for the selective removal of wastes from the Abresch and Brockman portions of the Site, the multi-aquifer wells be properly abandoned, and that a monitoring well network be established for a groundwater monitoring program. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) developed for the Site identified the selected remedy for the Site. The RAP was included as Exhibit A to the 1983 Consent Order. The selected remedy was developed to address VOC contamination of groundwater at the Site. The plan proposed the following:

• Reconstruction or abandonment of the multi-aquifer wells near the site; • Removal of all containers and barrels of hazardous waste that were identified through the

geophysical survey; • Removal and/or treatment of heavily contaminated soils in the Abresch and Brockman sites;

• Construction and operation of a shallow groundwater pump out system to contain contaminated groundwater; and Establishment of a long term monitoring well network that will detect changes in groundwater quality at the Site.

The 1983 Consent Order and RAP have been adopted as decision documents to address VOC contamination at the Site by the MPCA, EPA and 3M. A ROD was not completed for this Site.

Burial trenches and buried drum stockpiles were identified in a September 1982 geophysical investigation report. A report documenting the results of the 1982 investigation is documented as Attachment A to the RAP. 3M commissioned a surface cleanup of wastes at the Abresch property beginning in the winter of 1983. 55 gallon drums and five gallon pails containing residual material were removed from the site and disposed of at the 3M Chemolite incinerator in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. During the excavation activities, a total of 11,500 cubic yards of waste material was removed, including 4,200 empty drums, 8, 700 empty 5 gallon pails, 4,660 cubic yards of contaminated soil and 15 intact containers that were overpacked. Most of the waste, 11,800 tons, was transported to the 3M Chemolite facility in accordance with the 1983 Consent Order. An additional 6,500 tons of excavated waste containing more than 50 parts per million (ppm) of polychlorinated biphenols (PCB) were transported to a hazardous waste landfill for disposal. Excavated soil with low levels of contamination were treated on­site utilizing construction aeration pads. Additionally 173,000 gallons of contaminated water was collected during excavation activities and transported for treatment at the 3M Chemolite facility wastewater treatment system. Abandonment of multi-aquifer wells was completed in 1984. There had previously been 44 multi-aquifer wells identified within the groundwater plume. Of these 44 wells, 39 were abandoned, three were added to the monitoring well network and 2 were found to be single aquifer wells completed within an unaffected aquifer. Wells were abandoned in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Water Well Construction Code.

Construction of a groundwater extraction system was completed in August 1985. The system was initially completed utilizing 12 pumping wells, completed in the glacial drift aquifer, that discharged impacted groundwater to the sanitary sewer for treatment at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility, a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facility operated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES).

A groundwater monitoring well network was established to monitor response action progress at and near the Site. The March 1985, Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GMP) describes the initial monitoring plan and has since been updated for operational improvements. The GMP and groundwater extraction system were updated in 2003 to optimize system performance. Changes were implemented based on previous data collected, previous performance and trend analysis performed for specific monitoring and extraction wells. The 2003 changes to the groundwater extraction system included red~cing the number of extraction wells from 11 to 7. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 were converted from extraction wells to monitoring wells while PW-5 was abandoned. The decision to change the purpose of these wells or abandon them was based on well performance and existing operational redundancy. 3M actively performed a passive soil gas survey and follow-up investigation in 2000 and 2001 to investigate the possibility of additional source areas at the Abresch property. Results of the investigations identified residual contamination in previously defined areas as a suspected source of ongoing groundwater contamination. Upon review of the information provided by the passive soil gas survey and the follow­up investigation the MPCA issued a letter dated July 2, 2002, stating additional soil gas investigation was not necessary.

PFCs were discovered in groundwater below the Site in 2004. Additional groundwater extraction wells were installed.to address the PFC contamination. These additional extraction wells providt;! additional voe removal.

. Basis for Taking Action

The initial discovery of drums and smaller containers containing VOC buried at the Site led to additional investigations. Further assessment of t,he site indicated that there was VOC-impacted soil and groundwater present at the Site.

Compounds detected in soil at the Site during the initial investigation include Isopropyl Ether (IPE), acetone, PCBs~ and heavy metals. Contaminated soil along with debris and drums were removed from burial trenches onsite. The 1983 Consent Order identified treatment or removal of contaminated soil as part of the selected remedy for the Site. Trenches and drum stockpile locations were identified through the geophysical investigation conducted prior to the completion of the RAP. VOC-contaminated soil, drums and containers Identified as source areas contributing to downgradient groundwater impacts were removed and disposed of as described above in the Initial Response portion of this section. Compounds detected in groundwater during the initial investigation of the Site include IPE, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, 2-butyl alcohol, 4-methyl-2­penanol, benzene and xylenes. Initial investigations identified VOC impacts at nearby supply wells. The final reports for the investigations identified contaminated groundwater was present within the glacial drift and Platteville aquifers.

Additionally multi-aquifer wells nearby were identified as potential pathways for contaminants to migrate to the lower St. Peter Sandstone aquifer. Wells constructed partially or completely within the Jordan aquifer were identified as potential receptor pathways. In a May 2001 memorandum, at the· request of the MPCA, the. MDH established a Health Based Value (HBV) for IPE of 80 micrograms per liter (ug/L). HBVs are utilized for advisory purposes only and are not enforceable criteria for groundwater contaminants.

C. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Se_lection

The Consent Order signed on July 26, 1983, stated that 3M shall implement the program designed to protect the public health, welfare and environment from threatened or actual release of hazardous substances associated with the Site. The program identified in the RAP is included as Exhibit A to the 1983 Consent Order. The stated purpose of the RAP is:

"to further define the extent and location ofwastes on the Oakdale disposal sites; to delineate procedures for implementing the selective removal ofwaste; to develop disposal options; to carry out a monitoring program while the work is underway; to implement a system to control contaminated groundwater; and to define a long term monitoring system to ascertain ifall contaminants have been removed or confined to the Site."

The RAP identifies two VOC-contaminated media at the Site: Soil and Groundwater. The RAP documents the selected remedies addressing both soil and groundwater contamination related to the Site.

Soil

The selected remedy identified in the RAP addressing VOC contamination in soil is source removal by excavation with on.,site and off-site treatment. Source areas were identified in a Technos, Inc. report for Barr Engineering and 3M in September 1982. The report is identified as Attachment A to the RAP. Source areas were identified utilizing magnetometry and electromagnetic conductivity techniques and · separated into two classes of buried materials. Class 1 areas consisted of "massive concentrations of steel drums. " Class 2 areas consisted of "areas ofnumerous isolated steel drums. " The areas of the site identified as Class 1 and Class 2 were removed during 1983 and 1984. The RAP also specifically identified site air quality monitoring that was to be conducted during excavation activities and . specifications required to determine soil disposal or treatment methods~ During the excavation activities drums and containers were removed from disposal trenches and disposed of at the 3M Chemolite incinerator in Cottage Grove, Minnesota.

Groundwater

The selected remedy identified in the RAP addressing VOC contamination in groundwater consists of groundwater containment, extraction and treatment, groundwater monitoring, and abandonment of supply wells that could potentially impact human health and the environment.

Groundwater supply wells within a one-mile area identified as multi-aquifer welis 'connecting the Platteville and St. Peter aquifers were to be abandoned or reconstructed. The abandonment or reconstruction of these multi-aquifer wells eliminated suspected pathways for voe impacted groundwater to migrate to the St. Peter aquifer.

Groundwater extraction wells were installed on the northern portion of the Abresch property during the .. excavation activities. Initially, eleven groundwater extraction wells were completed in the glacial drift

aquifer to the south of Highway 5 and one extraction well was completed in the isthmus area 9fthe Site. The extraction wells are identified as PWl through PW12. PW12 was abandoned in 1999 due to insufficient groundwater pumping rates. According to the 2007 AMR, PW5 was abandoned in 2003 when changes to the monitoring plan were implemented. The groundwater extraction system discharges to the sanitary sewer for treatment at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Facility. The purpose of the groundwater extraction system is to contain impacted groundwater movement laterally through the site and to limit the vertical movement of groundwater between the glacial drift and the Platteville aquifers.

A groundwater monitoring well network was installed with the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of the response actions, detect future contaminant migration into deeper aquifers, and prevent any future receptor exposure. Additionally the monitoring well network can be utilized to identify any need for modifications to the groundwater extraction system.

Remedy Implementation

Soil remedy implementation consisted of excavation of V OC contaminated soil at the Site in 1983, A total of 11,800 tons of materials (empty drums, empty pails contaminated soil and overpacked containers) were disposed at the 3M Chemolite facility in accordance with the CO. An additional 6,500 tons of excavated waste containing more than 50 parts per million of polychlorinated biphenyls were transported to a hazardous waste landfill for disposal. Excavated soil with low level contamination was

treated on-site on aeration pads. Contaminated water collected during excavation activities was transported for treatment at the 3M Chemolite facility wastewater_ treatment system.

The groundwater remedy consisted of water well sealing and installation of a groundwater extraction system. A total of 39 privately owned water wells were sealed in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health Water Well Construction Code in 1984. The groundwater extraction system was completed in 1985 and is still active. Groundwater samples for laboratory analysis are obtained from the extraction wells and Site monitoring wells on a quarterly basis to interpret the performance of the implemented groundwater remedy.

The groundwater extraction system has withdrawn VOC contaminated water from the shallow and basal alluvium groundwater system and created an upward vertical gradient relative to the bedrock aquifer; voe concentrations in the withdrawn groundwater have trended downward during the approximately 25 years of operation. The selected remedy appears to be performing to reduce the horizontal and vertical migration ofVOC contaminated groundwater and reduce the VOC concentrations of the groundwater over time. PFCs were discovered in groundwater below the Site in 2004. 3M completed an enhanced groundwater pump-out and carbon treatment system in response to PFC contamination issues. These enhancements will also remove and treat voes.

A temporary soil vapor extraction system was installed on the northern part of the Abresch property in 2008 and 2009 as an Interim Response Action to address anticipated odors generated by VOCs in soils to be excavated to remediate the site for PFC contamination. The total approximate amount of VOCs removed was 26,900 pounds during the tWo years operation of the SVE system. After the SVE system was shutdown, the area was excavated down to approximately 16 feet below grade in some areas. The contaminated soils were disposed at SKB Landfill in Rosemount, Minnesota. The excavated area was restored with clean sand fill backhauled from SKB Landfill. The security fence surrounding the area was removed after the area was restored.

APPENDIX B - Additional Maps, Data, Figures, or Tables for reference

APPENDIX C - Community Notification

APPENDIX B :.. Historic Site Information

• Site Diagram from 1983 Oakdale Consent Order

• 2012 Groundwater VOC Data - "2012 Annual Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Groundwater

Monitoring Report for Former Oakdale Disposal Site, Oakdale, MN" Weston Solutions, Inc.

May 2013.

• Historical VOC Data - "2011 Annual Monitoring Report, Oakdale Disposal Sites" Barr. April

2012.

Site Diagram from 1983 Oakdale Consent Order

._,,.

.•

' ..... ...

, •• 2000"

2012 Groundwater VOC Data

"2012 Annual Volatile Organic Compound {VOC) Groundwater Monitoring Report for Former

Oakdale Disposal Site, Oakdale, MN" Weston Solutions, Inc. May 2013.

o Table 3-2 - 2012 Groundwater VOC Data, VOC Pumpout Wells

• Table 3-4 - Groundwater Quality Data, Water Table Monitoring Wells {Upper Alluvial

Aquifer)

o Table 3-5 - 2012 Groundwater VOC Data, Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring Wells

ca Table 3-6 - 2012 Groundwater VOC Data, Basal .Alluvium. Unit Monitoring Wells

o Table 3-7 - 2012 Groundwater VOC Data, Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells

• Table 3-8 - Historical VOC Concentrations, Active Pumping Wells

~­L..-..:.J

Table 3-2 2012 Groundwater VOC Data

VOC Pumpout Wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location PWOl PW02 PW03 PW04 Sample Date 11/15/2012 11115/2012 11/15/2012 11115/2012

Sample Code 0 0 0 0

----· ­ --- ­List 1 VOCs (µg/L) Acetone ND 5170 7730 3200

Benzene 82.8 32.7­ 367 115

1, 1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND

1,2-Dichloroethane 3.9 ND 3.6 2.1

1, 1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 6.0 ND 2.1 3.9

trans-1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND

Ethyl benzene 39.6 12.2 187 18.7

lsopropyl ether 11300 8300 30500 13300 Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) ND 2500 4820 706 Tetrahydrofuran 30.5 35.9 179 60.2

-_List 2 VOCs (µg/L) ND ND ND ND _lsopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ND 3470J 4260J 1940

~-~utyl alcohol ND 2460 3250 978

Methyl isobutyl alcohol ND 412 1940 140

Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 12.3 781 3390 241 Toluene 124 158 1550 174 Xylenes, total 433 39.4 551 108 Total VOCs (µg/L) 12032 23371 58730 20987

NA= Not Analyzed (Only List I analytes required for this sample)

ND = Not detected

Total 1,,'0Cs: Includes J values; ND treated as 0.0; Original and duplicate results averaged.

DB = Duplicate Sample

PW06 11/15/2012

0

43.3

27.3

1.0

8.1

ND

5.8

ND

30.7

2930

ND

ND

ND__.

449

66.5

ND

ND

5.6

166

54.9

3788

PWIO PWll 11/15/2012 11115/2012

0 DB 0

ND ND ND -

1420 1420 114

1.2 1.3 ND

9.6 12.9 10.3

ND ND ND

25.4 26.9 6.1

ND ND ND "264 363 37

6870 6590 7800

ND ND ND

251 233 26.7

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND 4.6 9.3 --- ­991 1990 243

762 1000 127

11118 8373

Z:IFOLDEKS.0-9\JM-OAKDALE\DATA _llEPOSITOR Y\Wc51on_llcpons\2012;Annwd-Rcpons\2012_ VOC_GW_Rcpon\TABLES\Exccl Filcs\Toblc 3·2 1hur 3-7--Groundwolcr Quolity Dain

Table 3-3 2012 Groundwater VOC Data

VOC Pumpout Wells Converted to Monitor Wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location PW07 PW08 PW09 Sample Date 6/14/2012 11114/2012 6/14/2012 11114/2012 6/14/2012 I 1/13/2012

Sample Code o· DB 0 0 0 0 0

List l VOCs (µg/L)

Acetone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzene 169 174 133 257 851 12.7 1.2 1, 1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 5.9 ND I ,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 60.8 5.0 I, 1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND 32.4 1.8 trans-I ,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Ethyl benzene

·--·

10 I 105 ND 59.8 377 11.4 ND lsopropyl ether 5910 5840 4610 3690 15900 .707 40.4 Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Tetrahydrofuran ND ND ND ND ND· ND ND

List 2 VOCs (µg/L)

Isopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2-Butyl alcohol ND ND ND ND ND . ND ND Methyl isobutyl alcohol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Methylene chloride ND ND ND ND ND 4.5 ND 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND ND ND 79.6 130 36.7 ND Toluene 250 252 30.3 44.5 610 44.7 ND Xylenes, total 2060 2020 1890 115 J180 21.9 ND Total VOCs (µg/L) . 8441 6663 . 4246 19048. 938 48

NA =Not Analyzed (Only List I analytes required ror this sample)

ND =Not detected

Total VOCs: Includes J values: ND treated as 0.0; Original and duplicate resulls averaged.

DB =Dupllcale Sample

Z:IFOLOERS.0-9\JM·OAKDALEIDA TA_REl'OSITOR Y\Wcston_lkJ10rlSl2012·Anntiol-RcJ10rlsl2U I2_VOC_GW_RcponlTADLES\Exccl Filcs\Tublc 3·2 thur 3·7·-Groun~"·otcr Quali.ty Data

Table 3-4 Groundwater Quality Data

Water Table Monitoring Wells (Upper Alluvial Aquifer) Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location W20 W25 W26R W26R W32 W205 W215 Sample Date 11116/2012 11/15/2012 6113/2012 11115/2012 11/15/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012

Sample Code 0 0 0 DB 0 0 DB 0

List 1 voes (µg/L) --- ­

Acetone 3030 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Benzene 45.9 ND 77.2 42.8 37.6 294 3.7 3.8 ND I, 1-Dichloroethane ND ND 3.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND 23.6 20.0 18.3 ND ND ND ND

-I, 1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

cis- J,2~Dichloroethene 36.0 ND 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Ethylbenzen~ 94.2 ND 98.7 42.5 37.8

-­104 ND ND ND

Isopropyl ether 11400 ND 719 400 352 6280 74.6 74.6 ND Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 3240 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Tetrahydrofuran ND ND 25.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND

List 2 voes (µg/L)

~oe_~o~:yl __alcohol (2-Propanol) ND ND ND ND Nb ND ND ND ND 2-Butyl alcohol 1040 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Methyl isobutyl alcohol ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Methxlene chloride ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-M_etl12'!~~-pentanone (MIBK) 2770 ND 4.7 ND ND ND ND ND ND Toluene 1520 ND ND ND ND 19.0 ND ND ND Xylenes, total 329 ND 84.7 25.2

-~·~,"':":"":R,--,,,":""'

.. 21.1: 331 ND ND ND Total voes (µg/L) 23505 0 1038 499 7028 78 0

NA =Nol Analyzed (Only List I analytes required for this sample)

ND =Nol detected

Tola! VOCs: Includes J values; ND treated as 0.0; Original and duplicate resulls averaged.

DB =Duplicate Sample

Z:ll'OLDEKS.0-9\JM-OAKDALEIDATA_KEl'OSITOK Yl\Vcstun_Rcporis\:!012-Aniiuol-Rcports\:!012_VOC.GW -.RcponlTABLESIF.xcel Filcs\Tablc J:2 1hur J~7--Ground\\·a1cr Qualiry Dari

Table 3-5 2012 Groundwater VOC Data

Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring Wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location W2003 Sample Date 11/13/2012 Sample Code 0

List 1 VOCs (µg/L) Acetone ND Benzene ND l, 1-Dichloroethane ND 1,2-Dichloroethane ND i, 1-Dichloroethene ND cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND trans-1,2-Dichloroethane ND' Ethylbenzene ND Isopropyl ether 58.9

Me!.~l'.!_~-~~J_ketone (~Elg_______ -·- ND Tetrahydrofuran ND

--··-------------···--·----·--·--···----- ­

!:-ist ~9Cs _{J!_g/L) _!_sol?ropyl alcohol (2-P_!op~nolJ 2-Butyl alcohol Methyl isobutyl alcohol Methylene chloride· 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) Toluene Xylenes, total Total VOCs (µg/L)

____ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 59

W2007 11/15/2012

0

ND 11.4 1.4

·---·-- ­1.9 ND 4.7 ND 56

964 ND 35.3

-·--·-·· .-----·--- ­

·---------- ­ND ND ND ND ND 10.7 104

1189

NA= Not Analyzed (Only List I analytes required for this sample)

ND =Neil detected

Total VOCs: Includes J values: ND treated as a.a Original and duplicate results averaged.

Z:IFOLDERS.0-9\JM-OAKDAL~\DATA_REroSITOR YI Wcs1on_Rcl'<Jrtsl2012-AnnuUl-R")lOrts\2012_VOC_GW_Rcpon\TABLES\Exccl FilL'SITnblc 3·2 thur J.7--Groun<lwotcr Qtinli1y Dnto

--

Table 3-6 2012 Groundwater VOC Data

Basal Alluvium Unit Monitoring Wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location W2008 Sample Date 11114/2012 Sample Code 0

List 1 voes (µg/L) Acetone ND Benzene ND 1, 1-Dichloroethane ND 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1, 1-Dichloroethene ND cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND trans-1,2-Dichloroethane ND Ethylbenzene ND Isopropyl ether 98.0 Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) ND Tetrahydrofuran ND

List 2 VOes (µg/L) Isopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ND 2-Butyl alcohol ND Methyl isobutyl alcohol ND Methy~_~e chloride ..._.___,_____ ND 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND

-Toluene ND Xylenes, total ND Total VOCs (µg/L) 98

NA= Nol Analyzed (Only List I analytes required for this sample)

ND =Nol detected

Total VOCs: Includes J values: ND treated as 0.0

Original and duplicate results averaged.

l:ll'OLOERS.0-9\JM·OAKDALE\DATA_REPOSITOR Yl\Ycslon_Rcp<iits\20 I 2-Anriuol-Rcports\2012_ VOC_GW_Rcport\TABLES\faccl Files\Table 3-2 lhur 3-7--Gniimdwulcr Quoli1y Dalo

Table 3-7 2012 Groundwater VOC Data

Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

Sample Location W03 W08 W80 Sample Date 11/14/2012 11/13/2012 11/15/2012 Sample Code 0 0 0

..

List 1 voes (µg/L) Acetone ND ND ND Benzene ND ND ND 1, 1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1, 1-Dichloroethene ND ND ND cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND trans-1,2-Dichloroethane ND ND ND Ethylbenzene ND ND ND Isopropyl ether 522 89.8 ND Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) ND ND ND Tetrahydrofuran ND ND ND

List 2 VOCs (µg/L) lsopropyl alcohol (2-Propanol) ND ND NA 2-Butyl alcohol ND ND NA Methyl isobutyl alcohol ND ND NA Methylene chloride ND ND NA 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND ND NA Toluene ND ND NA Xylenes, total ND ND NA Total VOCs (µg/L) 522 90 0

NA =Not Analyzed (Only List I analytes required for this sample)

ND =Not detected

Total VOCs: Includes J values; ND treated as 0.0 .

Original and duplicate results averaged.

W6102 W6104 11/13/2012 11/12/2012

0 0

ND ND ND ND ND ND

---·--· ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ·.·.ND

139 171 ND ND ND ND

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 139 171

Z:IFOLDERS.0-9\JM-OAKDALEIDA TA_REPOSITOR Y\Wci1on_Rcpons\20I2·Annuol-Rcpof1sl21l12_VOC~GIV_RcronlTABLESIExocl Filcs\Toblc 3-2 1hur J.7--Groundw:ucr Quality D•I•

----

---------

----

Table 3-8 Historical VOC Concentrations

_Active Pumping wells Former Oakdale Disposal Site

PW-3 PW-4 PW-6 PW-10 PW-11 TVOCs TVOCs TVOCs TVOCs TVOCs

Year (mg/L) Year (mg/L) Year (mg/L) Year (mg/L) Year (mg/L) 1985 2000 1985 136 1985 31.7 1985 1668.7 1985 15.8 1986 1445 1986 253 1986 84.5 1986 767.7 1986 59.5 1987 2167 1987 - 143 1987 85.6 1987 406.7 1987 60.5 1988 2400 1988 liO -1988 37.3 1988 236.7 1988 31.3 1989 3000 1989 67 1989 21.3 1989 263._3 1989 23.7 1990 2850 1990 62 1990 17.5 1990 295.0 1990 16.0 1991 2967 1991 98 1991 18.7 1991 320.0 1991 17.3 1992 2700 1992 127 1992 ."140.0 1992 373.3 1992 148.7 1993 1825 1993 169 1993 140.0 1993 232.3 1993. 145.3 1994 1633 1994 68 1994 I 1.5 ._, 1994 50.5 1994 15.0 1995 1400 1995 71 1995 -~ 1.0 1995 85.3 1995 13.3 1996 1467 1996 66 1996 9.l 1996 43.0 1996 11.0 1997 1700 1997 39 1997 8.4 1997 31.0 1997 9.4 1998 1303 1998 26 1998 5.7 1998 21.3 1998 6.3 1999 396 1999 30 1999 6.3 1999 17.0 1999 8.7 2000 927 . 2000 48 2000 12.9 2000 21.3 2000 9.0 2001 1053 2001 45 2001 7.1 2001 24.0 2001 8.6 2002 1300 2002 46 2002 7.0 2002 26.0 2002 8.85 2003 730 2003 27 2003 4.2 2003 23.0 2003 8.2 2004 300 2004 35 2004 3.6 2004 21.0 2004 6.0 2005 . 430 2005 34· 2005 1.9 2005. 16.0 2005 6.9 2006 350 2006 33 2006 2.2 2006 15.0 2006 6.9 2007 360 2007 29 2007 2.1 2007 17.0 2007 7.1 2008 240 2008 21 · 2008 1.6 2008 . 22.0 2008 6.2 .. 2009 251 2009 30 2009 2.6 2009 14.2 2009 7.3 2010 48 2010 19 2010 1.4 2010 12.0 2010 7.2 2011 83 2011 21 2011 1.3 2011 8.9 2011 5.9 2012 59 2012 21 2012 3.8 2012 11.1 2012 8.4

PW-1 TVOCs

Year (mg/L) 1985 156.0 1986 318.7 1987 344.0 1988 344.8

-1'989 270.0

. 1990 155.3 1991 121.7 1992 248.0 1993 186.Q 1994 53.3 1995 .85.7 1996 88.0 1997 83.3 1998 58.7 1999 44.0 2000 50.0 2001 36.0 2002 51.0 2003 25.0 2004 27.0 2005 19.0 2006 6.0 2007 5.6 2008 7.4 2009 11.8 2010 7.2 2011 8.5 2012 12.0

PW-2

Year 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ·­

1993 j994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

TVOCs (mg/L) 486.7 211.7 376.7 330.0 433.3 186.7 153.0 282.7 246.7 82.0 82.7 84.0 86.7 77.7 66.T 60.7 50.7 77.5 40.0 38.0 41.0 41.0 49.0 33.0 31.2 50.0 38.0 23.4

Historical VOC Data

"2011 Annual Monitoring Report, Oakdale Disposal Sites" Barr. April 2012.

• Table 4a - Groundwater Quality Data: VOC Pump-Out Wells

• Table 4b - Groundwater Quality Data: VOC Pumpout Wells Converted to Monitoring

Wells

• Table Sa - Groundwater Quality Data: Water Table Monitoring Wells (Upper Alluvial

Unit)

• Table Sb - Groundwater Quality Data: Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring Wells

• Table Sc - Groundwater Quality Data: Basal Alluvium Unit Monitoring Wells

• Table 6 - Groundwater Quality Data: Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells

• Table 7 - Groundwater Quality Data: St. Peter Bedrock Monitoring Well

-----

Table4a Groundwater Quality Data:

VOC Pump-Out Wells 3M Oa'kda'l'e Dlsposal Sites

Chemical Name List 1 voes

Acetone 316 • ugn 57 .4 ugn 118 ug/I "76.4 ugn < 500 ugll < 125 ugJI 12900 • ·ugll 10800 ug/I 9320 i.ign 7520 ugll 13~00 ug/I 12000 ug/I '92900 • ugn

Benzene 2.6.1 ugll 21 .0 ugn 32.4 ugll 47.8 ugll < 50.0 ugll 35.5 •ugll 16.7 ugll 27.1 ug/I 24.1 ugll 21 :9 ug/I < 50.0 ug/I 23.0 ug/I 437 ugll

1, 1 ·0ichloroelhane < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 50.0 ug~ < 5.0 u!!l!.. ~0.0 ugl1 < 1.0 ugJ1 < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJI < 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l. < 10.0 ugJI

1,2-0ichloroelhane < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJ1 < 5.0 ugll < 50.0 ugll < 5.~ ugll < 10.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/1 < 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll

1,1 ·0ichloroelhx1ene < 10.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJ1 < 5.o. ug11 < 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 10.0 -~.{!_,_ c:_ 1.0 ugll < 5.0 ugJI < 5.0 ugJI < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/l

1,2·Dichloroelh~lene, ois < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJI < 5.0 ugJI < 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugJ1 < 5.0 ugJI < 5.0 09'1- < 50.o _ u971 _< 5.0 ugll < 10.0 ugn­~. 2-l?ichloroelh}'.lene, trans < 10.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJI < 5.0 ugJI < 50.0 ugll < 20.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/1 < 5.0' ugll < 50.0 ugll _gJl <.,..._ 0 ugll< 5.0 ug/I < 20.0 u~-r-_ 1 0_._~-i

Ethyl benzene 11.3 ugll 13.9 ugll 8.6 ugll 18.0 ugll < 50.0 ugll · 15,0 ug/I < 10.0 ugJI 10.6 ug/I 8.7 ugll 7.8 ugll < 50.0 ug/I 6.7 ugll 276 ug/I

t sopropyl efher 5320 ug/I 5280 ug/I 7•030 ug/I 11300 ugll 7120 ug/I 8220 ug/I 5890 ug/I 7790 ug/I 6850 ugll 5970 ugll 9850 ugll 7670 ug/l 38300 ug/I

Methyl elhyl k.elone 9 1.4 • ugll 42.9 ugll 36.0 ugll 47 .•1 ugll < 200 ugll 21 ~9 ug/I 6420 • ugll 6900 ug/I 4650 ug/I 4330 ug/I 7670 ugll 59·70 ug/l 69400 • •ugll T~ra'Fydrofuran--------· < 100 ugll ~_s,o .o u_gll < 50.0 ug/J < 50.0 119/1 < 500 ug/l < 50.0 ugJI < 100 ug/l < 10.0 ugll ~i• __.o _~ < 50.o ug_ < 50.0 ugll ---~-+---~-<---~-1----~--+----~-1----~---<-< 50__ugll_...._____~n_+- < 500 ugll < 100 ug/J

1----~

---· I--- --->----- -- -­Usl2V0Cs ;._---- ------- ·-- ­

lsop.ropyl alcohol <3oo·u1111 < 150 ug/I < 200 ugll <200 ugll < 5000 ug/1 < 500 ug/1 9680 • ugll 15000 ug/I 8000 ugll 8060 ugll 12000 ug/I 8460 IUg/I 82200 ugll 2·Bulyl· alcohol < 300 ugll < 150 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 200 ugll < 2000 ugJI _<_ 200_ ugJI 372.0 U'!!l~ 5780 • ug/1 36.20 u_!!'I · 3970 u~ ,_, 5710 ug/I 307·0 IUg/I, 4540() ug/I

: ­Methi}".I isobut.¥1 alcohol <300 • ugll < 150 ugll < 200 09/1 < 200 .ug/I I < 2oooli9/l < 200 ugll 646• ugll1 558 • ugfl <200 ugll 249 ugll < 2000 ug/I .240 ugll 4190 • ugll-Methylene chloride < 10.0 ug/l < .20.0 ug/I < 20.0 ugn < 20.0· ugn1 < 200 ugll < 20.0 ug/1 < 10.0 Og/I < 4.0 ogll <20.0 ug/I < 20.0 ugll < 2.00 ugll < 20.0' llg/l < 10.0 uafl

Methyl isobulyl ketone• 79.5 ug/I 51.5 ug/I 30.5 'ugJ~ 42.4 ugll < 200 ugll 51.2 ugll 11310 ug/li 1870 ug/I 749 1ugll 9,25 ugll 117,0 u~ll 868 ugll 12000 ugll.. Toruene ~.o ugfl 00.6 ugll 40..S ugti 79.4 ugll 71.3 ug/I 38.7 ugll 112 ug/I 142 ug/I 123 1ug/I 117 ugll 142 ugfl 87.7 ug/I 3190 u9n-~~nes. tolal 125 ugfl 93.9 ugll 108 ugll 20,t ug/I < 150 ug/l ~14 ugll < 30.0 ug/I 30.3 ugll 24.4 ugll 21 ;9 ugll < 150 ug/1 20.1 ugll 723 ug/I

Sum Volatile Organics 6000 a ug/I' 5600 ug/I 7400 a ug/I 12000 ug/I 7200 ug/I 8500 UQ/J 41'000 a ugll ,,.9000 a ug/I 33000 ugll. 31000· ug/I 50000 ug/I 38000 ugll 350000 a ug/I

Page 1 of6 41512012 P:,Mols\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\llms Dat.a\2011 Annual\Table 4a Pumoout 011812.xlsx

Table 4a Groundwater Quality Data:

VOC Pump-Out Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

~--~;......_.- - ./.......-.-.r7.-~~~3~~~~~;1Jr.:~...,---· .... - ;,--,--r-r--.r-~;;-,·,..----.·--:i~:-~- ------:;--~---"··---.-· __ .._...------·-·- ----~~.~----·

t'-. · . . · 1 ' 1:.-.· ...-,, 11• . :rTli:·'_.~,~- ~~ '1t-'Jl.Jr:1_;.i_:/. ' dt'Ji~rni.Jll f''l:'."'""·1:d " I '....'.,.· 1;. , · ...... •. .- . , . ~~ .._., -'·'~<~~~ ·--~~G.J ... ~,i~.:-~~~..:~r.j~._:'i',1:~--~:L.2~i~~~-~~t:~·~-il~~-~~--·-~~--:· .... _--~~-- ....~:-~-~.lo ~~.i- ~· ,--l. · ~ -·~'--

0hemlcalName us11 voes I

Acetone 66200 ugfl 70?00 ugll 76000 ugll: 13500 ugll 2740'!_ _ugfl 562G • ugn 2400 ug/I 2570 ugll 3960 ug/l 3620 ug/J 3100 ugfl 6.2•ugfl Benzene: 552 ugn 483 ugfl 542 ugfl < 100 ug/I < 500 ugll 119 ugll 134 ug/I 116 ug/I 116 ugfl < 100 ugll 102 ug/I 12.3 ugtl 1, 1-Dichl1oroethane· ~O.O ug/I < 25.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/1 < 100 ug/I < 500 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < ! 00 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I 1.2-Dichloroelhane < 10.0 ug/I < 25.0 ug/l ': 20.0 ug/l < 100 ug/l < 500 ug/l < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/l < 100 ug/l < ·10.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I 1,1-Dichtoroelhylene < 10.0 ug/I < 25.0 ug/I <20.0 ug/l < 100 ug/J <500~-~~ < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/I < 100 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l 1.2-Dich!oroelhylene, els < 10.0 1ug/I < 25.0 ugll <20.0 ug/l < 100 ug/I < 500_ ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 100 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l ~ ,2-Dichloro~lhylene, tra:ns < 10.0 ug/I < 25.0 ugll <20.0 ugll < 100 ug/J < 2000 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 100 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I Elhy1 benzene 320 ug/I 270 ugfJ 304 1Ug/T < 100 ug/I < 500 ugll 21.2 ug/F 25.0 ugll 19.8 ug/1 20.0 ugll < 100 ug/I 14.1 ug/I 2.3 ug/I lsopropyl ether 43600 ug/1 34100 ugfl 44300 1ug/l 9350 ug/1 29500 ugfl: 17000 ug/I 17400 ug/l 14300 ugll 20900 ug/I 13300 ug/11 12400 ug/I 2130 ug/I Meth~ elh~ ketone 65000 ug/1 50200 ugll 61200 ug/l 8330 ugfl 17800 ug/11 2570 •ug/I 1780 ug/I ·996 ug/I 1160 ugll 1050 ug/I 1040 ugfl < 5.0 • ug/l T etrallyd rofuran 259 ugll < 250 ug/I 219 uglt < 1000. ug/I < 500Q ugll < 100 ug/I < 100 ugll < 100 ug/I < 100 ugll < 1000 ug/l < 100 ug/l < 10.0 ugll

·-- ­Lisl2V0Cs

lsopropyl alcOhol 84100 ugll 43400 ugfl < 800 ug/r 11000 ugll < 50000 ugll sooo • ugn 4260 ugfl 1880 ug/I 2620 ug/l < 10000 ugll 3220 ug/I 44.9 • ugll 2-Buly1 aloohol 702-00 • ug/1 2~0 ug/l 47100 ug/I 4330 ugfl < 20000 ug/I 1620 ugll 167·0•ug/I 497 ugll 1080 ug/I < 4000 ug/I 856 ug/l < 30.0 ugJi-Methyl lsobutyl alcohol 4400 ug/i 1690 ugll 3820 ug/J <4000 ug/I < 20000 ugll1 522 • ugll 571 ug/I <400 uQ/1 < 400 uoJ1 < 4000 u9'1 < 400 ug/l < 30.0 • u9'1 Methylene chloride <40<. 0 ug/I < 100 ug/I < 80.0 ug/1 <400 ugll < 2000 ugll < 10.G ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 ugll <400 ugfl < 40.0 ug/11 < 1.0 ugll -=--­Methyl lsobutyl k.etone 19300 • ug/l 6890 ug/I 12900 u.g/I 1560 ug/I 6370 ug/I 552 ug/I I 568 • ug/l 243 • 1ug/I 305 u~ 599 ug/l 24"6 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I Toluene 3510 ugn 2830 ug/I 3620 ug/I 233 ug/l 2420 u.gll 196 ug/I

I

200 ug/I 1~ u9i1 159 ug/I 136 ug/I 102" ugtl " - 3.2 ug/i Xylenes, total 843 ug/11 749 ugfl 947 ug/J < 300 ug/I < 1500 u9'1 1·01 ugll 89.2 ug/I 74.9 ug/I 92.D ug/l <300 _ugll 80.7 ugn 3.6 ugll

Sum Volalile Organics 360000 a ug/1 240000 ugll 250000 ug/I "80001 UQll 83000 ug/l' 33000 a ugll 29000 a ug/I 21000 a ugll 300001 ugll 19000 ug/1 21000 ug/I 2200 au~r

Page 2 of 6

P:'iMpls\23 MN\82\2382047\Wort<Flles\l.ims Dala\2011Annual\Tabl'e4a Pumpout_011812.xlsx 415/2012

Table4a Groundwater Quality Data:

VOC Pump-Out Wells 3M Oakda1e Disposal Sites

·---- -- .... --- ..: , .. ''~ ' \ . 'r.-·.--------~-~,-.~-~-~"~-;.~~~:~~---~-~;2:~~-L~:0i~;,:~ -.~:::s~j; _ .·;,~:.~:.:.:~,J~.~~·.:~.~·- .· .J~.~-~ :,i·-~~-::·- ..:.·,1~-. :_·;_~-'._:'.·_:--~_~"~·;.:; ,~~~ ~ .·~ ··~· ,-~~~ ~-~~~-~~-" '

List 1 voes

Acetone < 5.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/1 < 100 ug!! < 125 ugll 158 ug/I < 50.0 • ugll < 50.0 ugll < 100 ugll < 100 ug/I 1640 ug/I < 125 ugll 17.9 • ug/I

Benzene i--­1,1-Dichloroethane·

13.4 ugll < 1.0 ug/f

10.9 ugll < 1.0 ug/I

19.0 ugn < 5.0 ugll

< 10.0 uaJI < 10.0 ug'/1

8.7 ugll < 5.0 ug/I

669 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I

546 ug/l: < 10.0 ugll

1240 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I

1010 ug/I < rn.o ugll

1060 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I

423 ug/I < 100 ug/I

1110 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I

70.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1

1.~hioroe!!J~ _ 1, 1-Dichloroethylene 1,2-D~hloroethylene. tis

- -~ ~ ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll

~o ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugil:_

< 5.0 ugJI < 5.0 ugJI

__< 5.0 ugJI

< 10.0 119/1 < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I

< 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 tig/1

< 5.0 ug/l

< 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 Ug/I < 10.0 ugll

< 10.0 ug/I. < 10.0 ug/I 15.7 U!II!_

< 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I 10.3 ·ug/I

< 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 100 ug/I

< 10 .. 0 u_~ < 10 .. 0 ugll- - -...--­~ 100 ug/1. 114 usll < 10.0 ug/I < 100 ug/I

10.3 u.g/I < 5.0 ugll 12.6 ugn

< 1.0 ug!!_ <1 .0 u~ < 1.0 ugll

1,2-Dicl'lloroethylene., trans < 1.0 ugll <1 .0 ugfl < 5.0 ugJI <10.0 ~ < 20.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 101.0 ..Y.~" < 10.0 ug/I < 10 .. 0 ugll < 10.0 og/I < 100 ug/1 < 20.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll Ethyl benzene 2.3 ug/I ·1.2 1ug/I < 5.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll 290 ug/I 257 ug/I 240 ugfl 639 ug/I .248 ug/I 126 ug/I 192 ug/I 2.5 ug/I lsopropyl ether 2040 ugJI 1540 ugll 2610 ug/I 1410 ug/I 1300 ug/I 17400 ug/I 12100 ugn 13300 ugll 13000 ug/l 11200 ug/l 7850 ugll 6420 ug/I 6260 ug/I Methyl elhyl ketone < 5.0 ugn· <4.0 ugll < 20.P ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 20.0 ug/I 290 ug/1 < 50.0 • ugll < 50.0 ug/I <40.0 ugll < 40.0 ugll 1400 ug/I < 20.0 ugll < 5.o·· ug/I Telrahydrofuran < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 50.0 ugll < 100 ug/I < 50.0 ug/I 320 ugll 369 ugll 465 ug/I 321 ug/I 233 ug/I < 1000 ug/I, 203 ugJI 11.4 ug/I

___ ,

Lisi 2VOCs lsopropyl alcohol -­ < 30.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I <200 ugll < 1000 ugll < 500' ug/l < 300 ugll < 300 •ug/I < 300 ugll < 400 ugfl1 ~400 ugll "< 10000ug/1 < 500 ug/l 512 • ug/I 2-'Butyl alcohol

· Melhv1 i5oi>li1y1 a1oo11o1 - ­ -·­< 30.0 u:gh < 30.0 ugll

<40.0 ug'.!_ < 40.0 ugll

< 200 ug/I ,_______ < 400 ugll ----~

< 200 ug/l < 400 ugll < 2001 ugll <2001ugll

- <3-01!__~ <_3-00 ug/I

~~~- _ < 300 ugll · < 300. ug/I 501 ugll

< 400 Ug/1' < 400 ugll

-~

< 400 ugll < 400 ug/J

< 4000 ug/I <4000 ug/I

< 200 ug/l < 200 .ug/I

< 30.0 ugtl < 30.0 • ug/I

~~ylene chloride - ­ _.::..4.0 ug_ll__ ~~~~ _<20.0 u_~ <'.40.0 u II < 20.0 UG/I < 10.0 ugll < 1().0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 •ugfl, < 40.0 ugJI < 400 ug/1 < 20.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll Methyl isobutyl ketone

!Toluene < 5.0 ugll 11.3 ugJI

< 4.0 • ugll 7.4 ugll

< 20.0 ug/1 6.3 ug/I

<40.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/l

< 20.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I

n,4 ug/I 1140 ug/.I

< 50.0 ug/I 1190 ug/l

538 •ug/I

384 u9n < 40.0 ug/I 4540 ug/li

<40.0 ~ 710 ug/I

< 400 ug/I 535 ug/I

• ~5.1 ug,Jl__<5.0 ~ 456 ug/I 4.7 ug/I

Xylenes, total 6.9 ug/I 4.3 ug/I < 15.0 ugll < 30.0 ug/I < 15.0 og/I 989 ug/I 919 ug/I 737 ug/I 1900 ug/I! 731 ug/I 447 ug/I,... __ ·450 ug/I 22.3 .ug/I

:

Sum Volatile Omanics 2100 ug/I 1600 a1 ug/I 2600 ug/I 1400 ug/I 1300 ug/I 21000 ug/I 15000 a ugll 17000 a ug/I 22000 a ug/11 14000 ug/I 12000 ug/I 8900 ug/I 6900 a ugll

Page 3of6 4/512012 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\Lims Data\2011 Annual\Table 4a Pumpou1_01 1812.x.lsx

Table 4a Groundwater Quality Data:

VOC Pump-Out Wells 3M Oakdale·Disposal Sites

['~~~~~~~~:~:~~;,~~~~j~-~~~!~~~:~~~--~:~~::,~· -~~~~~~~~.~~~--,:~'··,-- ~~--~~·~:.~::-~! .: Chemical Name

List 1 voes

Acetone Benz.ene 1, 1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1..1-Dichloroeth~lene

1,2-Dichloroethylene, ds 1,2-Dichloroethylene. lrans Ethyl benzene lsopropyl ether Methyl ethyl l<etone 'Tetrahydrofuran

Usl2 voes ·lsopropyl alc-Ohol 2·Butyl alcohol Methyl isobutyl alcohol

Methylene chi~ Methyl isobutyl ketone Toluene Xylenes, total

Sum Volatile Or9anics

< 5.0 ug/I 74.7 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I

< 1.0 U!i'. < 1..0 ug/I < 1.0 uQ/1

2.8 ug/I 693-0 ugii~ 7.9 ug/I 13.2 ug/1

< 30.0 ug/1 < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I <4.0 ugll < 5 .0 ugll 7.2 ug/1 30.3 u!l!._

7'100 uall

10.6 ugJI 71.7 ugJI < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1..0 ug/I < 1.0 \Jg/I < 1.0 \Jg/I < 1.-0 vgl'l 6030 ugJI < 4.0 \Jg/I 10.6 ug/1

< 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I <4.0 ~/I < 4.0 • ug./I

4.1 ugJI 27.0 ugfl

6200 a ug/I

< 50.0 ug/I 65.6 ug/t < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I 7230 ug/I < 20.0 ugll < 50.0 ugll

< 200 ug/l < 200 ug/1 < 200 ug/1 < 20.0 ug/I <20.0 ugll

8.4. ugii'

17.3 ug/I

7300 ug/l

< 500 vgll < 125 ug/I 69.6 ug/1 74.4 ug/1

< 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugn < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/I < 20.0 ug/1 < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll 72:20 ug/I 5820 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 20.0 ugll < 500 ug/t < 50.0 ugll

< 5000 ug/I <500 ug/l < 2000 ug/I < 200 ug/1 < 2000 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/l < 20.0 ug/1 < 200 ug/l < 20.0 ug/1 <'50.0 ug/I 6.4 Ugll < 150 ug/I < 150 ugll

7300 ug/l 5900 ug/I

Page 4 of6 4151201,2 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382'047\WorkFiles\Ums Dala\2011 Annual\Tabl'e· 4a Pumpoul_011812.xls.x

---

--- ---

----

- ----

--

I Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

•Qualifiler Definition

·- Not analyzedfnol available.

a Estimated value. calwlated using some or all values that are estimates ..

b Potential false positive val~e based ~n blank data validation procedures .

c Coeluting oompound. -Estimated value , exceeded lhe instrument calibration range. ' e

---·---···- ­___________,--- ·- ­·'------·---------------­

- --------·

h EPA recommended sam.e!_~preservation , extraction or analysis holding time was exceeded. -----·­I Indeterminate value based on failure of bli.nd duplicate data. to meet quality assurance criteria.

j Reported val11e is less than the stated laboratory quantilation limit and is <:arnsidered an estimated value.

p Relative percent difference is >40% (25% CLP pesticides} between primary ancl confirmation GC columns.

pp Small peak in chromatogram below method detection li'!Jit. The presence of the oompound is suspect based on the ID criteria of the retention lime and relative retention time obtained from the

r examination of the chromatograms. -

s Potential false positive va'lue based on statistical analysis of blank sample data. ·- ----- - -----­. -­Estimated value, QNQC criteria not met.

---~

n Unusable value, QNOC criteria not met.

N Sample Type: Normal -FD Sample Type: Field Duplicate - ·---- .•

AT Sample chromat~gram is ~oted to be atypical of a petroleum product. ·-----­ --·- ­DLND Not detected, detection limit not determined. -OF Did not flash ..• EMPC Estimated maximum possible concentration. NA-(Not applicable} NA indicates that a fractional portion of the sample is not part of the analytical testing or field colle<:tlon procedures. ·--­ND Not dete<:ted. -TIC Tentatively identified oompound --BOA Barr-applied project specific qualifier: extraction and/or analyses conducted using an alternative method and/or procedure. --·--­BOC Barr-applied project specific qualifier: plant shut down. -BOD Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment malfun~ion. -BOE Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment adjus~enl.

BOM Barr-applied project specific qualifier: ma·nual measurement

BON Bar:r-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampned or measured due to various reasons.

BOP Barr-applied project specific qualifier: atypical chromato~raphic pattern .

Page 5 of·6

P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\Ums Data\2011 Annual\Table 4a Pumpout_011812.xlsx

·­

·----­

- - ;

-- --- --- ._.....,_...___ .,

-- ··- ­~

415/2012

I

----

------

--- --

----- --

Qualifier

BOO I BQR

BOS

BOT

BOU

BOV

BQX

BQZ

Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

O&ftnition

Barr-applied project specifi,c qualifier: some aspect of ONQC was not met.

Barr-applied project specific qua Iffier: .focalion was re-sampled. ·~-·..---· --·

Barr-applied pro~~~~cific qualifier: data is considered suspect:__ . ~--~

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: summed value not displayed due to insufficient ·field length . ---·---­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: hrstorical qualifier - definition unknown.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: estimated value.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: see noles for qualifier definition.

Barr-applied projeot specific qualifier: data is considered unusable.

Page 6 of6

P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\Lims Data\2011 Annual\Table 4a Pumpout_01 1812.xlsx 4/512012

- -- -

Table 4b Groundwater Quality Data:

v;oc Pumpout Wells Converted to Monitoring Wells 3'M Oakdale Disposal Sites

r~-~--- --- - -· - -.--::;;--···1~.7l-:-:----~-~---~-.---r---~· -- .--------------------·· - . -----·---· --------~-----· - -- --- --~..

[: .. ,,,:···, :~~·:,.'~·::~:;;·.::~~~1:~::::c·:·~-:~~-.:~·..~J..':·~~~ .... -.---- -- ~ "- -----·-- ---- -- __ - .. , Chemical Name

List 1 voes Acelone < 50.0 ug/l < 50.0 ug/l < 50.0 ug/l < 50.0 ug/l < 250 ug/I < 125 ug/I < 500 ug/I < 2500 ugll < 50.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 1qo ug/l < 50.0 ugJI < 50.0 ug/I-~-- --Benzene 62.9 ug/I 80.·6 ugll 54.0 •ugll 57.6 ugn 80.0 ug/I 37.4 ug/l 294 ug/I 339 ug/l 300 ug/l 292 ugll 413 ug/I 388 ug/l 178 ug.11. 1, 1•Dichl6roethane < S.O ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 25:0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 2.0.0 ugll < 100 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugJI-1.2-Dichloroethane < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < 5:0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJI < 25.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/l < 100 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll 10.5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5-.0 ug/I u:rnchloroelhYlene < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < .S:O ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 25.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I < 20.0 ugll < 100 ·ugfl · < 5.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0· ugll--1.2-Dlchloroethylene. els < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 U$._IJ < 5.0 ugll <25.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/l < 100 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l ' < 1.0 ugll' < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugfl 1.2-Dichloroethylene. ltans < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 25.0 ug/l < 20.0 ug/l < 80.0 ug/l < 400 u.g/l < 5.0 uQil < 1.0 u.g/l < 10.0 ug/l < 5.0• ug/I < 5.0 ug/I

' Elh~I benzene 9.2 ugll 34.1 •ug/l 6.9 ug/I 6.0 ugll 35.2 ugJI. <5.0 ug/l 775 ugjjl 884 ug/I < 5.0 ugn 2..6 ug/l < 10.0 ug/l 8.7 ug/11 <5.0 ugfl lsopropyl ether 3760 ug/I 4560 ug/I 3590 ug/I 3740' ugJI 3970 ug/I 2380 ug/I 8780 ug/l 9940 ug/I 7570 ug/I 7300 ugll 9680 ug/I 8930 ug/I 3600 ug/I Melllyl ethyl ketone < 20.0 ugn <20.0 ugll <20.0 ug/I < 20.0 ug/I < 100 ugfl -<20..0 ug/l < 80.0 ug/l < 400 ugJI < 20.0 ug/l < 4.0 ugfl < 40.0 ug/I < 20.0 •ug/I < 20.0 ug/l ! etrahydrofuran < 50.0 ugfl < 50.0 ug/l < 50:0 ug/I < 50.0 ug/I < 250 ug/I <50 .~ ug/I < 200 ug/I: < 1000 ug(J < 50.0 ug/I 43.7 ug/l < 100 ug/l 60.0 ugll < 50.0 ugJI

Ust2 voes ~-

lsopropyialoohot <200 ug/I < 200 ugn < 200 ugJl < 200 ug/l < 2500 ug/l < 500 og/I < 2000 ug/l < 10000 ugJI < 200 ugfl <40.0 ug/I <400 ugll < 200 ug/I < 200 ugll 2-Butyl alcohol <200 ug/I < 200 ugfl < 200 ugll < 200 ugll < 1000 ugll < 200 ugJl <800 ugll < 4000 ug/I < 200 ug/l < 40.0 ugfl < .400 ug/l < 200 ug/l < 200 ugll Melhyl isobulyl alcohol ~ugJI < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/l < 200 u~fl < 1000 ugll < 200 ugJ1 < 800 ugll < 4000 ug/l < 200 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l < 400 ugll < 200 ugll < 200 ug/I Methylene clhloride < 20.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/I < 20.0· ug/I < 20.0 ug/l < 100 ug~ <201.0 ug11 < 80.0 ug/l < 400 ug/l < 20.0 ug/l < 4.0 ugfl < 40.0 ug/l < 20.0 ug/l < 20.0 ugfl Melhyl isobutyl ketone < 20.0 ugJ1 <20.0 ugll < 20.0· ug/I <20.0 ugll < 100 ugfl < 20.0 ugJl < 80.0 ugJ1 <400 ugJ1 < 20.0 ug/I <4.0 UQ/I < 40.0 ugJI < 20.0 u~ < 20.0 ug/I-Toluene < 5.0 1.1911 < 5.0 ug/I <5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l 45.0 ug/I < s..o ug/l 1210 ug/l 1360ug/I < 5..0 ugfl < 1.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ugn-Xylenes, total 330 ug/I 831 ug/I 567 ug/I 585 ugfl 1080 •Ugll. 366 ug/I 3150 ug/1 3800 ugll 88.5 ug/l 98.6 ug/I ~59 ug/I 158 ugll 37.9· ug/I

Sum Volatile Organics 4200 ug/I 5500 ugll 4200 ug/I 4400 ug/I 5200 ug/I 2800· ugll 14000 ug/I 16000 ug/I 8000 ugll• noo ug/I 10000 ug/I '9500 ug/I 38-00 ug/I

Page 1 of3

P ·\Mnl""" MN\82\2382047\Worl<File.s\Ums Data\2011Anriual\Table4b oldpmpoul_012212.xlsx 4/512012

Table 4b Groundwater Quality Data:

VOC Pumpout Wells Converted to Monitoring.Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

~~;··;~:~..As-.-.-.':;;:·~::·..~-----,-~--~:~~-::--.. ·~-·- .~~:·.· ~--~

L:.:~-~:~ ·~ -~.:J~~~ )~~~~2:::..~:~..JL~..=:.~.::-_:~=-~:-..~-~~~~ ·__ ;:=.:-~_: ... ·~ -..:__ .· ~ Chemical Name I

List 1 voes --·· Acetone < 250 ugJ1 < 50.0 ug/I <25.0 ug/I < 25.0 ugJ1 402 ug/I Benzene 476 ug/l 436 ug/I 220 ug/I 219 ug/I 428 ug/I t,1-Dichloroelhane < 25.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l 1·,2-Dichloroelhane < 25.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l 1:, 1-Dichloroelhylene < 25.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l <LO uQJ1 < 10.0 ug/l 1.2-Dichloroelhylene, cis < 25.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll t ,2-Dichloroelhylene, trans < 25.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/I < 40.0 ugll Ethyl benzene < 25.0 ugll 13.4 ugll 62.3 ug/I 61 .8 ug/l 158 ug/I lsopropyl ether 9690 ug/J 10300 ugn 4640 ug/I 4890 ugll 8760 ug/I Methyl ethyl ketone < 100 ug/~ < 20.Q_ ug/I < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/I 221 ug/I Te.trahydrofuran < 250 .ug/l 146 ug/l < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 100· ug/I

I 1, :

List 2 voes I

lsoproeyl alcohol <2500 ug./I < 500 ugll < 100 ug/l < 100 ugll < 1000 ug/l 2-Bulyl alcohol < lOOO ugll < 200 ug/I ·< 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ugll < 400 ug/I Methy1 isobuty1 alcohol <moo ugJI < 200 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 ugll < 400· ug/l Methy1ene ·chloride < 100 ugll < 20.0 ug/I <4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I Methyl isobulyl ketone < 100 ug/I < 20.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I 1290 ugll Toluene < 25.0 ug/I < 5.0 tJgll 19.1 ug/I 17.9 ug/l 64.5 ug/I Xylenes. total 194 ug/l .248. ugll 198 ug/l 198 Ug/I• 370 ug/I

Sum Volatile Ocganics 10000 ug/l 11000 ug/I 5100 ug/I 5400 ugfl 12000 ug/I

Page 2 of3

P:\Mpls\23 MN\82.\238·2047\WorkFiles\Lims Oata\2011Annual\Table4b_oldpmpout_012212.xlsx 41512012

Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

Qualifier !Definition ' - Not analyzed/not available.

a Iestimated value, calculated using some or all values that are estimates.

b Potential false positive value based on blank data validation procedures.

c Coeluting compound.

e !Estimated value, exceeded the instrument ca.libration range.

h ' EPA recommended sample preservation, extraction or analysis holding time was exceeded.

I Indeterminate value based on failure of blind duplicate data to meet quality assurance criteria.

I Reported value is less than the stated laboratory quantitation .limlt and is considered an estimated value.

p Relative percent difference is >40% (25% CLP pesticides) between Dlimarv and confirmation GC columns.

pp SmaU peak in chromatogram below method detection limit. The presence of the compound is suspect based on the ID criteria of the retention time and relative retention lime obtained from the

r examination of the chromatograms.

s Potential false positive value based on statistical analysis of blank sample data. . Estimated value, QA/QC criteria not mel .. Unusable value, QA/QC criteria not met.

N Sample Type: Normal

FD !sample Type: Field Duplicate

AT Sample chromatogram is noted to be atvpical of a petroleum product.

DLND Not detected, detection limit not determined.

OF Did not flash

EMPC Estimated maximum possible concentration. NA-(Not applicable) NA indicates that a fractional portion of the sample is nol part of the analytical testing or field collection procedures.

ND Not detected.

TIC Tentatively identified compound

BQA Barr-applied project specific qualifier: extraction and/or analyses conducted using an alternative method and/or procedure.

sac Barr-applied project specific qualifier: plant shut down.

BQD Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment malfunction.

BQE Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment adjustment.

SQM Barr-applied project specific qualifier: manual measurement.

BON ' Barr-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampled or measured due to various reasons.

BQP Barr-applied project specific qualifier: atypical chromatographic pattern.

SQQ Barr-applied project specific qualifier: some aspect of QA/QC was not met.

BQR IBarr-applied project specific qualifier: location was re-sampled.

BOS laarr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered suspect.

BQT Barr-applied project specific qualifier; summed value not displayed due to insufficient field length.

BOU Barr-applied project specific qualifier: historical qualifier · definition unknown.

BQV !Barr-applied project specific qualifier: estimated value. I

sax lBarr-applied project specific qualifier: see notes for qualifier definition.

BQZ Barr-applied project speciftc qualifier: data is considered unusable.

Page 3 of 3 4/512012

• •

- -

--- ---

- -

Tabte 5a Groundwater Quality Data:

Water Table Monitoring.Wells (Upper Alluvial Unit) 3M Oakdale·Disposal Sites

~:-• .,;,.....,.. ~Jg~-::_-~, •"\!.r•~I "·~" -.---~- •·-·-.·~., - -----..,~:_..~--"""~7~T--·~-·~·;., ~:-~'T~~~.----~~~~~~--·-:--·-----r~·~r--- -- ~ .--~~-. . ' " r, ~, · · ' - ' · 1;1.-)..,lr.1 1 . ~r · ' . ')f')Y~.~~' ·1'fr'~11 .... ,~r:r .. 1 ·,.-,(Jr'•'• . ! ,' -· '• 1. • t ' , · ~ . , i' "

'• :,,_,1 .. : . ._..· ,._ :~·.·..·~~· .~~;-~~:'~~;·~)_.;, ·J~jL..::~~iJ~_,~:~.JL.~:~fuL.i..;~\:~~.~;~.~~ ~:L(J _..:~. ~~~~- .J:.~ ~.~~~- ~ -~ .-.l ·_ -~ .. ~: ~- __ .~l, -____ . 11••---~-~ j l.

Chemical Name list 1 voes

Acelone 4400 ug/I 8300 ugll 1300 j ugn 5100 ug/i 5190 ug/I 2no ugll 3010 ug/I < 5.0. ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I _< 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 25.0 ugJl· ­Benzene 66 ugll 66 ugll ...!!.. ~gll 75ugn - 60.8 ug/l 65.•3 ug/l 56.2 ug/l <1 .0ug/l < 1.0 ug/1 < 1-0 ug/l <1 .0ug/l < 1-0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethane 10 ug/l 10 ugll 6.3 ug/I 6.1 ug/11 --~_.~g_!I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0· ug/l ·-<1.o ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l

f---· 1,2-Dichloroelhane 30 ug/l 30 ugll < 4.0· ugll 42 ugll 25.6 ug/l 24.9 ug/l 14.9 ·ug/l < 1.0 ugJl < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ;:,QJi_ _-~ 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/11.1-Dictiloroelhylene < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/1 <5.0- ugll ·- - <5.0 ug/1 - < 1.0 ug,/I < 5.0 ug/l <5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l <1 .0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1.0 ug/I 1 .2-Dichl~roethylene, els 63 iugll 62 ugll 70 u~ -- 12~~9~=9 1-:a-u9n 44.4 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l ·< 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1___.....__ __ --113 ug/l

-1.2-Dictiloroelhylene, lrans < 5:0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugJl < 1.0 u~~ < 5.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/l' < 1.0 ugJl < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l <1 .0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll <4.0 ug/I Ethyl benzene 150 ug/l 150 ug/l 190 ug111 170 ug/1 70.2 ug/I 113 ug/l 133 ug/I ~1 .0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l <1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l

< 5.~ ~a.-. -- ~~~3~

lsopropyl ethe.r 13000 ug/I 1:2000 ug/I 8800 ug/1 9400 u~ 10400-1.~ 13900 ugll 8370 ug/l 1.1 j ug/l < 5.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0• ug/l < 4.0 ug/I <4.0 ug~ Methyl ethyl kelone < 2500 ug/l 2900 ugll 82.0j ugll 3200 ug/l' 5280 ug/l 4900· ugll 2390 ugll < 5.0 • ug/l < 5.0 ug/1 < 4.0• ~g~- - --.;._ 4.0 ugll - _.2. 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/1---- --- ----·­< 50 ugll < 50 ug/I < 50 ugll .as ugll 70•.t ug~ 5-4.5 ugll < 50.0 ugll <10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll <_ 10.0 ug~ < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/1~_0ihydrolu~----- ·-- - ­

---- ... --....,.._-~-.. - ­---· lisl2 voes ~

· iSOpropyi alcoho,------ ·- 3200 ugJI 2900 ugll 1300 ug/l 50 ugll 2090 ug/I 1750 ugll 1640 ugll < 3o.o·ugll < 30.0 t19/l < 40.0 ugll <40:0 ug/l < 100 ug/l < 1.00 ug/l 2~Bu1vl alcohol -- - 2300 ug/l__ 1900 ugll 870 ug/1 3SOO ugfl 2480 ug/l 1750, ug/I 925 ug/I < 30.0 ug/l < 30.0 ug/l < 40·.0 ug/l -~ 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l

1 -·--­Methyl isobutyl alc-01lol 1400 ug/1 1100 ug/I 620 ugll 2300 ugll 1260 ugll 753 ugll '631 ug/l < 30.0 'ugll < 30.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/l

' Methylene chl'Qritle 55 1ug/I 53 ug/l 30 ug/11 43 ugll - 40.2 ug~ 44.8 •ugll 26.2 ugJI < 1.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ugl! <4.0 ~~ Melhyl isobu:lyl ketone 2200 jug/I 5400 ug/l 1500j ugll 4700 u~ 3870 ugll 4520 ug/I 2130 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 LJ!!.11 < 4.0 ugJl < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/l < ~.O ug/I Toluene 5500 ug/l 5300 ug/l 5400 ug/I 4900 ug/l 3170 u.g/.I 4390 ug/I 3520 ug/I ·<1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugn <1 .0 ug/l < 1.o uQn < 1.0 ug/1 ~ylenes. total 490 ug/I 490 ug/I 62Dj ugll 620 j ugll 280 ug[I_ 405 ug/l · 450 ug/l < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/1 < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/l < 3 .0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/l

f-----"­

Sum Volatile Omanics 33000a uQii 41000 ug/l 22000 a ug/l 35000 a ug!I 34000 ug/l 36000 ugfl 23000 ug/l 1.1 a ug/l ND UQ/I ND UQ/l ND IUQ/l ND ugn ND ugll

Page 1 of7 415/2012 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WotkFiles\Lims Uata\2011 Alilnuaf\Table 5a_WTupatl_012412.xlsx

----

---

- Tab·le Sa Groundwater Quality Data:

Water Table Monitoring Wells (Upper Alluvial Unit) 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

,..--._--------· . ­ 1-~7~:---U_T:-:~·-·. ":1·!:'~-~~~:~~-'=-:~· l:1~i~~-.:._ i~~~:~-~:--n'• ~-.· --..---:-·:·-.... r-7-----.---- ~-----~-- ...----..- ----- ----~ -.------.-- -- --;7 -~; - '. .. : :·. ,":_:,~,:;! . :.·~ - /~~· .: f~JrJ~r.(.,l.~l ti~.."...~) j,. !,~t~(,,·~~fJ I: "t::,~IC'.".l'. -~~~·· 1. \ ' l ";'_'. ,'_. J ~; • • r • • _ ~ -~ "- I . .t ~ ••

1

t.~ ......:...... ·,..,,. ·;' - .:.~~... -~"'iJ~~ -~:........~~~~-~L.l_·"·.-~"'h·\··~~~~J~~~t..~·=J~,.. ~2~ ..:..-..-~ 1 ____ ;~--~~- .... ---'-·'>-L-- ~ .•·~ ........ ..#- ... ~••-·--·- •• 'c • _ ,: __ •• : ~ -· Chemical Name

List 1 voes Aoetone < 5.0 ug/l < 10.0 • ug/l 15.5 • ug/I < 50.0 ug/I < 50.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/1 < 1i0.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I <25 ugn < 5.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I 38000.0 b ug/I Benzene 96.3 ugll 63.8 ug/l 443 ug/I 42.4 ugll 192 ug{I 12.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I. < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/11 <1 .0 ug/I 670.0 ug/I 1.1-0ichloroelhane 17.1 ug/l 17.0 ugll t 0.7 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5_0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I 140.0 ugll 1,2-0ichloroelhane < 1.0 ugll 13,4 u~~Ougll < 5.0 ug!l_ ~?..:O ugll_ < 5.0 ugn < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0' ug/1 < 5.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I 1700.0. ug/l,

~~loroethylene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ·ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 5.0 u:gll <5.0 u~ < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugfl < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugn- < 1.0 ug/I < 50.0 ug/I 1,2-Dichloroethylene. cis < 1.0 ·ug/I < 1.0 ug/I: 3.7 u.sn < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I ....___-_ .. - ~~ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I ­1.2-Dichloroelhylene, trans 1.8 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I 3.5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 <5.0 ug/I <5.0 ugll - - - <5:~~~ < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll ­

27.1 ugll 52A ugll 45.4 ugn 16.0 ug/I 35.B ug/I <5.0 ·ugll <5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I 440.0 ug/I ~"~!:1:9 -~ -

lsoproovl ether 343 ugtl 309 ugfl 2260 ugll 533 ug/I 1·240 ug/l 830 ug/I < 10.0 ug/J Uj ugll < 5.0 ·ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I 20000.0 ug/I Melhyl elhyl~- · < 5.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll 11 .1 ug/l < 20.0 ug/I < 20.0 l!IQlli <20.0__u~~< 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I <25 ~£~oli9n < 4.0 ug/I 26000.0 ugJI

< 10.0 ugll 29.1 ugll < 50.0 ugn < 50.0 ugfl < 52.:_0 ug/1 < 20.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugJI < 10:0 u_gll < 50 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 100.0 11gllI_~o~----~~9/1

--,._,...~ ·- ----- - ~·-- - ­us12 voes. ·- --~-

lsoeropyl alcohol _< 30.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ugi'l < 200 ugfl <200 ug/I < 200 ug/l < 50.0 ug/I < '60.0 ug/I < 60.0 ugll < 30 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 100 ugll 4800.0 ugll - : -·­

2-Butyl aloohol < 30.0 ug/I < 40.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 2-00 ug/I < 50.0 ug/11 < 60.0 ugll < 60.0 ug/I < J_O ug/I < 30.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I 5000·:0 ugll Methyl isobutyl alcohol ~~gll < 40.0 ugfl <40.0 ugll < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/I < 20.0 ug/I < 60.0 ug/I < 60.0 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 40 .0 ugl1 3700.0 ug/l Methylene chloride < 4.0 ug/li < 4.0 ug/I 11 :9bug/I < 20.0 ug/I <20.0 u~ < 20.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I <5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I 1700.0 ugll Methyl isobutyl ketone 21A • ugll 40.7 ug/l 77.3 ug/I 23.4 ug/I' <20.0 ugl'.I < 20.0 ug/I < '10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I _< 25 ug/I < 5.0 ugJI < 4.0 ug/I 20000.0 ugll Toluene 19.4 ug/l 112 ugll 36.2. ug/l 11 .8 ugfl < 5.0 ug/1 < S.O ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll. < 1.0 ug/I "6800·.0 ugll

Xylenes, total 131 ugll 172 ug/I 422 ug/I 71.3 ug/I 237 ug/I·- < 15.0 ugfl <5.0 ugll <5.0 _ugll < 5.0 ug/I <15 u~ < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I 1600.0 ug/I - ·-- ­-Sum Volatile Organics · 700 a uafl 780 a ug/1 3400 a ug(I• 700 ug/I 1700 I.Jg/I · 840- ug{I ND 1.8 aug/I NO ua/I ND ug/I ND ugn ND ug/I 93000.0 ugn

Page 2 of7 41512012

-- - Table Sa Groundwater ,Quality Data:

Water Tabl1e Monitoring Wells (Up,per Alluvla'I Unit) 3M ,Oakdale Disposal Sites

Chemical Name I Ust1 voes --­ ------·- ­Acetone 47000.0 ugn

·-27000.0 ug/l 5900"0 ug/I 5500 ug/l < 1000 ~g/1 < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 • ugll_ ~5. 0 u~ < 10.0 ug/1 ~ 10.0 ug.11 < 25.0 ugll < 2500J) ugll 51. 1ug/I

Beru:ene 1200.0 ugti~-· f300Jt ug/l 430.0 ug/I 1700 ugll 1420 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll <1 .0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l 440.0j ug/I 150 ug/I 11,1-0iohloroethane 1,2-0lchloroelhane

--.'.:..~00. 0 ugll 1800.0 ugfl

260.0 ug/I 2300.0 u_~

< 250.0 ug/1 ~200.0 ug/l

300 ·ug/I 1800 ugll

172: ug/l

993 ~¥:11

< 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll

< 1.0 ug/l < 11.0 ug/I

<1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l

< 1.0 ug/I <To 0911

<1 :0 ~g/I < 1.0 ugJI

. < !.:.<!__u.gll < 1.0 L\911

< 500.0 ug/l < 500.0 ug/l

< 5 ug/I 6.0 ug/I

1,1-0lchloroelhylene < 500.0 Ug/I <250.0 u~_~0. 0 ugll < 250 .ugll < 100 Ug/l < ·1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll ~ ug~~Oug/I _ <_rn ugll _ -:_1.0 ug/I < 500.0 ugl1 < 5 ug/l 1,2-0ich'loroelhylene., ds 1,2-DiChloroeihylene., trans

. --

--

--

760 ugfl < 250 ug/!

497 1:19/l < 100 ugll

< 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ug/l

< 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll

< 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 wgn

< 1.0 ugfl < i.Q ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.o ug_fl_ r-:-< t,O ugll_ _'°:.~.:.O ugJI

< 500.0 ug/l < 500.0 ugll

< 5 ug/l < 5 ug/l

~~---· ~lhyl benzene 600.0 ug/l 12.0.0· ugn 160.0 j ug/1 < 250 ug/I 162 ugll <1 .0 ug/l < 1.0' ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll! < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I 450.0j ug/l HO u:gfl lloopropyl elhet Metflyltei'try!t ketone

29000.0 ug/1 38001>.0 ugll

34000.0 ug/l 22000.0 ug/I

1:_9000.0 ugfl 6700.0 ugn

2.8000 ugJI < 1200 ugfl

131'00 ug/I 528 ugll

< 1.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll

< 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 • ugll

< 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l

< 4.0 u9!'.'..._ -~·9 u!Jll < 4.0 u9fl1 < 4.0 ug/I

- <4.0 Og.11

< 4 . 0'....~~

520.0 jug/I < 2500.0 ugll

1600 ugll <.25 ugll

l'etrahydrofuran 1---~·~.

< WOO.O ugll < 500.0 ug/J <500.0 ug~ < 2500 ugll ---~

~~~-ugll < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < ! 0.0 ugll < 5000.0 ug/I < 50 ug.11

- ------­· ·-t-­·· tis12vocs -­ -· · ­lsopropyl alcohol 14000.0 ugll 36000.0 ug/I 4800.0 u9f11 t6000 ug/1 <10000 ug.11 < 30 .0 t.ig/1 < 30.0 • ug/I < 30.0 ugfl < 40.0 ug/1 < 100 ug~I

-~---< 100 ug/l < 5000.0 ug/I < 30 ug/l

2-8utyl alcohdl 8700~0 ugfl 22000..0 ug/I 3700.0 ugllt 8600 ugll < 4000 ug/I < 30.0 'UQII < 30.0 i.Jgll < 30'.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ugll <40.0 ugll < 5000.0 ugl1 < 30 ug/1 Methyl isobu~ alcohol <6000.0 u~~ 7400.0 ug/I < 3000.0 ug/I 6300 ugll. <4000 ugJI < 30.o ug/I < 30.0 • ug.11 < 30.0 ugil < 40.0 ugll <40.0 ug/I ' <40.0 ,ugf1 < 5000.0 ug/l < 30 ug/1 Methrrene chloride Methyl isobutyl k·et.one T,oluene

2300.0 ug/I 25000.0 ug/I -l10000.0 ug/I

2700.0 ugll 16000..0 ug/l 8300.0 ug/I

1000.0 ug/11 8000.0 ug/I 2900.'0 ug/I

900· ugll 1200 ugll 2100 ugll

<400 ug/li 1200 ug/.I 750 ugll

< 1.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugn

< 1:0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l <1 .0 ug/I

<4.0 ug/l < 5.o ug/1 < 1.o ug/1

< 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 ug/I

< ~.:~~

<4.0 l.J~- ~ 4.0 ugfl < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll

~-< 1.0 1ug/l < 1.0 ug/I

< 500.0 ugll

< 2.s90.o . ug/I < 51)0.0 ug/I

<5 ug/I < 25 ugll ·1oo · uQ/1 -

Xylenes, lolal 1900.0 t.ig/I 2600.0 ugll 530.0 ug/1 < 750 ug/I 313 ug/1 < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugl1 <3.0 ug.11 < 3.. 0 ·u,gll < 3.0 U.g/1 < 500.0 ug/l 540 ug/1

Sum Volatile Oraanics -­

180000.0 ug/I 180000.0 ugli 54000 a ug/11 730001ug/I 1900() ug/1 ND ugll NDauQ/I ND 1 u~fl ND ugll. ND ugll - ND ugn 1400 a uQ/t 2600 u.g/I

Page 3of 7 4/512012 .-.. . ... • • ...,_ ......... - .... . .................. ,,~ ,,. • -~ . .- ~ • --•• •- - ""'-"-' """' ..... A- .... . ..-n-:r......, .... C" ..... ' "rr•.-.-u tl4 ").11111'") .... t_,.._

- -- -- - -- - -

---

Tabre Sa Groundwater Quality Data:

Water Table Monitoring Wells (Upper Alluvial Unit). 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

Ff~-~-_:-:--.--:-::-·-.-. ~~-~~,~-~:~~:.~.Li~.~~,~:~:~---:, ;I ,..-~~< /l~~- ,..~.. ~~r~:-~~~-.--~~:---,-----.--....,-,~-:_-.--:--·---;-~~-~I 1

• ' ,., •r')-', ... ,1 1_..., · .. ,/[.:.!)r~·- L-.r! . .11.!12,.tJ•i' 1. 1j1j{.'1'~•i.:.)! 1j ':t!.::.Jr.:" '•"'' ·l ·t---J~,. r~'~ '! ·~ f,•~,..... 1,. ' ·rf-1 .--~,j I "":· ' ' - • .''" ·~ ~ 1... ,r ..... ,I-'.'• . ,.,,..-: .. -,- ......- ,-'-~:1-·'':!'.~-,.r:~-'--~~1;·· ,7:;::~~~;--l~r-;:Ji~'":~· t-:...=.~.~.':;~~1~~ ;(-:,.• ~;.>~.,;f,. ~.....;~--.J ·-, .·· _._f_,_:.J .. ·, •· •·

I< •• , .. 1 .. - • _,. ~·-•H "-"~.L ,:JL._.....~'8.a _w,:;.i ba1 -~-~-•L- ~·---~t~ ... ~---~ ........,..:<.\..-......... _ -. __ ... _ ___ _ •. _.,.,_ --"-~ Chemical Name 1

Usl 1 voes

Acetone 32 ugJI 92.6 ug/l 15.8 • ugfl < 1250 ugll < 25 ugfl < 25 ugll < 50.0 ugll < 50.0 • ug/1 80.6 • ug/l < 2000 ug/1 < .25 ugll < 25 ugll < 25 ug/I-Benzene 410 ugll 313 ugfl 141 ug/l 307 ugfl 260 J ugn 680 ugfl 583 ug/I 1100 ug/I 1360 ug/I 2360 ug/I 4.2j ug/l 13 ug/I ~-8 ugfl __

1, 1-Dichloroelhane < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ·ug/1 < 50.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugn .. ~< 5.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 200 ugll < 5 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ugll 1,2-Dichloroethane < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I <50.0 u9'1 <4.0 ugn --~ 4 .0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/1 < 200 ug/I < 5 ug/1 < 4.0· ugll < 4.0 ug/I

1, 1-Dichloroethylene < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1; < 1.0 ug/1 < 50.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5 .0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 200 ug/I <5 ugfl < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/1-1,2-Dichloroethylene, cis < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 llg/1 <50.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/1 < 5 .0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/1 < 200 ug/I < .5 ugll < 5.0 ug/I ·< 5.0 ugJI

1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 200 ugll < 5.0 ugll ·<5.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 20-0 ug/I <5 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l -Ethyl benzene 310 ug/l 185 ugtl 114 ug/I 159 ugti- '140-Ug/i -- - 4110 ugfl · 95.5 ugll 302 ug/I 163 •Ug/I < 200 ugll < 5 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugJ1 lsopropyl ether 9200 ugll 7040 ugll 2450 ug/I 6510 ug/1 8200 ug/I ·«Ooo-u9tl 12100 ug/I nooo ug/1 23200 ug/I 19100 ug/I 490 ug/l 350 1ug/I 2100 ug/l-Methyl ethyl ketone ., < 25 ug/t < 5.0 ugll <4.0 ug/I < 200 ugll <25Ug{I- < 25- ug/I <50.0_ugn_ < 50.0' ug/I _1~.3 ugfl < 800 ug/I < 25 ugn < 25 ug!I < 25 ug!I-

< 50 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 500 ugll1 1200 ugJI 1400 ug/l _-::::s1~ ~gfl- 799 ug/l < .2000 ugll < 50 ugn < 50 ug/I < 50 ug/I Telrahydrofu~----- - · ~~g~ - - ·

Ust2V0Cs ' lsopropyl alcohal < 30 ug/I 115 ugll 125 ugll < 5000 ugll <30 ugll < 30 ug/I < 300 ug/l! < soo•ug_ll 75.9 ugfl < 20000 ugl1 < 30 ugll < 30 ugfl· <JO· ugn

2-Butyl alcohol <30 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 40.0 ugll <2000-~~ ~~_g ug/1 < 30 ug/l < 300 ugll < 300 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 8000 ugll < 30 ugll < 30 ug/1 < 30 ugll Methyl isobutyf alcohol < 30 ugll < 30.0 ugll < 40.0 ugll < 2000 ug/I <30 ug/1 _ 13(} ugll < 300 ug/I < 300 • u~- < 40.0 ug/I _ < 8000 ugll __ < 30 ugll <30 ugfl < 30 ug/I

! Methylene chloride < 5.0 ugll <1.0 ugll < 4.0 ugfl < 200 ug/l < 5.0 ugll 6.0· ug/1 < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugll 4.1 ugll < 800 ugll_ < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I ' Melhyl isobutyl ketone < 25 ug/I < s.o ugn - ~ 4.0 ugn < 200 ugll <25 ugn 620 ugll < 50.0 ugll < 50.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll < 800 ugfl < 25 ugll < 25 ug/li <25 ug/I Toluene 37 ugll 26.1 ugll 6.0 ug/l < 50·.0 ug/1 32 ug/1 380 ug/I < 10.~$!!._ < 10.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 200 ugll < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugii· < 5.0 ugll

1

· Xylene~.!...total 1100 ugll 584 ug/1 341 ug/1 453 ug/I 480 ugll _, 1800 ug/l 144-0 ug/1 1870 ugll 1630 ug/I __!.570 u~ _ _ ~ 15 ugll < 15 ugll < 15 ug/1

Sum Volallle Organics 11000 ugll 8400 uQ/I 3200 ugll 7400 ug/I 10000 a ug/1 19000 1Ug/I 15000 ug/l 21000 a, ug/l 27000 a ugll 24000 ugll 490 a ug/I 360 ugfl 2100 ugll

·Page4of7 415120 1:2 P:\MDls\23 MN\82\2382047\Workflles\Ums Data\2011 Annua'l\Table 5a_WTupall_012412.xlsx

- -

Tab:le 5a Groundwater Qual.ity Oata:

Water Table Monitoring Wells (Upper Alluvial Unit) 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

; ,-- -- ----- -. ;- .~: ·~:-:.------~{i~- ~.--;~1""""11-:--;-r~,~--.~ - ,.r·-,----~:->":"·-----~~--.-::-~_-,..---....._......,: -.....-.,~"",--:-r:-- - ----,-::--:-~.... -- ............ - - _ _,,_,__ .~-----:--;:---:r

~ ..~. ·1;.,~ ·f'.i~,-r.. >i~. ·\,:j-. 1 1(j~1 ... i~·1r~~~tf~.th~1~ - · ii-;'il1f~;·,::-.:~· : ; .r"~~:,.,~1r . 1 ·'-11li".~ 1 ·~:•.•.. - .- .. -. · 1i . _ .. r;~--, -1.--"-~.t -;-\ · -·:-· ---...~-:~: .. ;[-t:~-;~~-..;~--r--;-,--:-!::':..,.:....~~:-...-,=-.,--!:· -,-.-'--- ---, ..-'' -. ·--­l. - . ·,. ,, ~' .. . 1:..•. .,,~·.: ,, .• ·~'""'5 -..,1~~.;i.~JL..i,.W.:::....:J""""~:~;.,:.:•••.:•.i.~'"--~~-:,i: 11....__.. J...;.,,~ -h __,n~,-- •~-- -'""·- -' -· •· -~'--· . , ·--'·,. ..... '~' ~--•-

Chemical Name List 1 voes

Acetone < 5.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 25.0 ugJI < 5.0. ugn < 5.0 • ugJI < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 25.0 ugJI

Benzene 4.0 ug/I 3.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugi!_ ~ 1.0_ u~ < 1.0 ugil · < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugJI < ·1.0 ugll i-1, 1-Dichloroethane 1.7 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 u.g/I < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 UQlJ !I

1,2-Dichloroelhane < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 u9/I - < 1.0 ugfl: < 1.0 ugn < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I · 1, 1-Dichloroelhylene < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugn <- ,_o -;;gT < 1.o ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll

~· ---

1 ,2-Dichloroethylene. cis < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 u9/I < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugn < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1·.o ugll < 1.0 ugll < 11.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugTI 1,2-Dichloroethylene, irans ~1.0 ugll < 1.0 u~/I < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll <1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 •UQll < 1.0 ugfl <4.0 ugfl~~git Ethyl benzene < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 .u91l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < ~ .0 ug/I < 1.0 ugl'I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I lsopropyl ether 925 ug/I 177 ug/I 31.5 ug/I < 1.0 Ug/l I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 4 .0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugJI Methyl ethyl ketone < 5.0 ugll < 4.0 ,ug/I < 4.0 Og/I < s.o· ugll < 5.0 • uglt < 5.0- ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug~ < 4.0 ugll <4.0 ~II < 4.0 ug/I Tetrahydrofuran < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 \:JQll < 10.. 0 ug/1 < 10.0 ug/11 ·< 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugfl < t0.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll

L_ -~Lisi 2 voes

lsopropyl aloohol < 30.0 ugll <40.0 ug/I < 100 ugll ~O.O'ug/1 < 30.0 .. ugll < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 100 ugJI < 100 ug/l 2-Butyl alcohol < 30.0 ug/I <40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 u9/1- < 30.0 ugll _ _: 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/1 <40.0 ugll < 40.0 ugJI

: -Melhyl isobutyl alcohol < 30.0 ug/I <40.q_ ugll_ < 40.0 ug}l <30.0' ug/I < 30.0 • ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/l <40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ugll Methylene chloride < 1.0 ugJI < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 u9/I <4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 ugll Melhyl isobutyl ketone < 5.0 ugJI < 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugJI < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 ugll Toluene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < .1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI_ <1 .0 uol1 < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ~/( Xylenes, total < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I <3.0 ugfl <3.0 ug/1 < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/l

Sum Volatile Organics 930 ug/I 180 ugll 32 ugll NO a ug/l NO a ug/I NO ug/I NO uall ND ug,11 NO ugll ND ugll ND ug/I

Page 5 of7 4/5n012 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFfles\Lims Data\2011 Annual\Tabte 5a Wfupall 012412.xlsx

-- ----

--

------ ---

-----

- ---

---

Data 1Qualifiers/Footnotes

Qualifier Definition

-- Not analyzed/not available. ----~ ---- ---~-- - - ~------··--- ­

a Estimated value. calculated using some or all values that are estimates. ----------·------ -----·- - -·-- -· b Potential false positive value based on blank dala validation procedures.

-~ ---·---·- - ·-- ­c Coeluting compound. .. e Estimated value, exceeded the inslrumenl calibration range.

h EPA recommended sample preservation, extraction or analysis holding time was exceeded. >-· --·­I Indeterminate value based on failure of blind duplica.le data to meet quality assurance criteria.

:

-·--- . ---· ­I Reported value is less than the stated laboratory quanlita tion limit and is consfdered an estimated value. ----· - --­£_ ____ Rela6ve percent difference is >40% (25%. CLP 1;>~ tl~de~) betwee!l pri~ary ~n~<?Onfirmation GC colu~ __n_;; . '

pp Small peak in chromatogram below method detection limit. 1

The presence of the compound is suspect based on the ID criteria of the reten tion time and rela tive retention time obtained from the - I

r examination of the chromatograms. i---~~ -s Potential false positive value based on statistical analysis of blank sample data. ___ -- l . Estimated value, QA/QC criteria not met.

I

'--·---- . -- ·- - --·-·.. Unusable value. QAJQC criteria not met.

N Sample Type: Normal -- ------ ------ ·-- - --· FD Sample Type: Field Duplicate.

AT Sample· ctiromatogram is :ioted to be atypical of a petroleum pro~_____ --·--·- ­-------~

OLND Not de·tected, detection limit not determined..____ -------· .-~· '·-~---

OF Did not flash - ·----------­-~~-·-

EMPC Estimated maximum possible concen lration. NA- (Not applicable) NA indica:les' that a fractional portion of the sample is not part of the ana l:ytical testing or field collecU:on proced'ures.

ND Not detected. -TIC '!:!:~~~~yely identified compound

BQA Barr-applied project specific qualifier: extraction and/or ~nalyses conducted using an alternative method and/or IPr<;>~edure. _______

BOC Barr-applied project specific qualifier: plant shut down. ___...__ ...- --· BOD Barr•applied project specific quafifier: equipment ma'lfunction.

BQE Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment adjustment---· ­BQM Sarr-applied project specific qualifier: manual measurement

BQN Barr-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampled or measured due to various reasons. - ·-·-- ­BOP Barr-applied project specific qualifier_:~ypi~~ chromal~raphic pattern. ___...

• p --- • ---- ­

Page6of 7 4/5f2012 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\lims Data\2011Asmual\Table5a_WTupall_012412.xlsx

-

Qualifier'

BQQ

BQR

BQS

BOT -~

BQU

BQV

BOX

BQZ

Data Qualifiers/Footn.otes I Definition i

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: some aspect of ~QC was not met

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: rocation was re~sampled. ------­· ­- --­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered suspect. -­ - - ---­--~--

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: summed value not displayed due lo insufficient field tenglh. - -­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: historical ·qualifier - definition unknown.

Barr-applied project specific quafifier: estimated value. - --­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: see notes for qualifier definition.

·--­

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is consklered unusabl'e.

Page7of7 4/5{2012

Table Sb Groundwater Quality Data:

Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Dis,posal Sites

r------~--•·I -··· ,.. ~ ------i--:-::--~--,---~=-- •_: :\_t./"~;~.::·.'~·-----r~~~~-i-~-·~~----:-:~~------~-,· ----~----- • --- -- - -·• -­

: .. .. -~ .__ ·~ ·,-;:~ :- ·:. ';:.· ..k:?:..::··~?T c!.li:E~~-~r,;~~f~~~-~1~~~:~·~··=~~-~~~~j;__ -~JJ~~~'.~';(. -1.:,_ - -~ -'.~ .- . 1.. -- '· Chemical Name

Usl 1 VOCs- ---·-Aoetone < 5.0_ IJgll < 5.0 ugll <5.0 • ugfl < 5.0 • ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugfl < 1.0.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugfl < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ugfl < 2.5.0 ugn < 25 ugll Benzene < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < ~ -0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll_ < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I <LO~ < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI <1 .0ugll <5 ugll.. 1.1-Dichloroethane < 1.0 Ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0ugll < 1.0 ugll <1 .0 ~ < 1.0 ugll <5 ug/I....:..!~ ugJI 1,2-Dichloroethane < 1.0 ug/I 2.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll 1.8 ugll 1.2 ug/I 1.3 ugll 1.1 ugll 1.2 ugll < 1.0 ugll 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI 1.1 ugfl <5 ug/I 1,1-Dichloroethylene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/l < 1 .. 0 ugll <HJ ugll < 1.0 ugll <1.0 ug/l < 1 .. 0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll <5 ugll 1 ,2-Dichloroethxlene. cis - < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1..0 ug/I --~.!.:_0_ ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0- ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugl1 < 1.0 ugl1 <5 ugfl, 1.2-Dichloroethylene, trans < 1'.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug,1 < t .O ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1;0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I Elhyl benzene I < 1.0 uWl < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 usi/i < 1.0 ugll < 1 .:~~- ~< 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1:0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 5 ugJI-· lsopropyl ether 68.3 ugn 69.0 ugn 2.1 • ugn 58.2 • ug/I 44.3 ugll 45.8 ugJI 57.5 ugn 53.2 ugn 57.7 ug/l 63.3 ugn 76.9 ug/I 137 ugn 940 ugll Melhyl elhyl ketone < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I <5.o· ugll < 5.0 • ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < s.o---Ugn- < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I <4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/1' < 25 ugfl Tetrii tiyd"?.furan < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 1~ ~g_ll ~ 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < tO.O ug/I < 50 ugn

,---.- .

~-- ~------ -- ·--· List2 voes

lsopropyl alcohol < 30.0 ugll < 30.0· ug/I < 30.. 0 • ug/l < 30.0 •ug/I < 30.0 ugll < 30.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ugJI < 40.0 ug/I <100~~- < 100 ugll < 30 ug/I 2·Butyl alcohol < 30.0 uglf: < 30.0.2_g/I .2 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ugll < 30.0 ugll < 40"0 ugll < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l ' < 30 ugn Methyl isobutyl alcohol < 30.0 ugll: < 30.0· ug/I < 30.0 ~ ug/I < 30.0' ug/f < 30.0 ugll' < 30.0· ug/I < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/I ~ 40.0 ugn < 40.0 ug/I < 30 ugll Methylene chloride < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugJI _ < 4.0 ugll <4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I Methyl loobutyl ketone <6.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l <5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll <4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll <4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugJI <25 ug/li Toluene < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll -< 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll_ < 1.0 ug/I < :1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll ' < 1.0 ug/I ·-< 5 ugii

Xylenes, lotal < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0_ u11_!!' < 3.0_ ugll < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ugll < 15 ug/f --

Sum Volalile Oroank:s 68 ug/I 71 ug/f 2.7 a ug/I 60 augll 46 ugJJ ,47 ug/f 59 ug/T 54 ug/I 58 ug/l 64 ug/f 77 ug/I 138 ugll 940 ug/f

Page 1' of 4

P·\Mnf,.\:>:\ MN\82\2382047\Workfilesllims Da.ta\2031 AnnU!Bl\Tabre S'b Basesun 01i23.12.xlsx: 41512012

--

Table 5b Gr,oundwater Quality Data:

Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Dis.posa1 Sites

"--·--T'I~· .-...- - --- .. -- -~-- -----~----: -

t :·:-: _:~~:- :_:~~' - ---,-~/-'·i:;_:r:_ '. .. ; .,.:.:;~~~!,; l~ -- -~- _,'.,~~f~~-~~J/ .... !: /;::~;~\ ;'-. ·~~:(':.~~~-,--·; '''-2~.~~ ~,--- :·,:. --,:~ --- '.- --'. i

- --.--.t~ -· . - '· .. '.' • , .~1 .... ;~----:.;~;\ - .~..1--~L ~,J.~·:1'JC,,. 1 r,._j[:2~~-~~L-._~.1.V....._._J~~-·~.:i~t--~l -~~r ..r.- !~ . ~·J ·-··' _...~I··-- ' . - -; ­_ ••·.:1

C e lea a ' List 1 voes

'

' Aoetone--·----· < 25 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 • ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug.11 12 j ug/J < 25 ugfl 13.7 ug/l < 50.0 ugil < 25.0 u.g/l < 25.0 ug/1

Benzene < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <LO ':911 < 1.0 ug/I ~-0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugfl < 1.0_ ug/I: 5..5 ug/I 1.9 ug/I .2.3 ug/l

1.1-0ichloroethane ' < 5,0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugJI < l.O ug/l < 1.0 ug/I_ _..::_ ~ _o u!ln_ _':] :9 ug~- < 5 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 5 .0 _ugll < 1.0ugll < 1.0 ug/I

1,2-Dichloroethane - < 4.0 ug/I ~T:Olign -~ 1.0 ugJI __-: 1.:_P ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 vg/l < 5 ug/I < 4 .0 ug/I < 1.0 ugfl < 5 .0 ugll 1.1 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l ~ -·- ­

1,1-Dichloroethytene <5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I ·- < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1 <Su~- _°'.: 5 .0 ug/I < 1.0 ugfl < .5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/~ < 1.0 ug/I --~----

1.2-0ichloroethylene, cis - <5.0 lign ~gn~ 1:0- ug/1 ~O_ug.!!__ ~1 .:.0 _u~ _ < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I 1.2 ug/I <5.0 ug/l 1.2 ug/I 1.5 ug/I

1.2-0ichloroeth}'.tene, lrans < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l ~ 1.0 ug{I_~.o ugJI < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 5 .0 ug/I <4.0 ug/I <4.0 ugll< ~o ~" - _<...:!.:P-~911-Ethyl benzene < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 <1 .0 ugll _ < 5.0 ug/l _:5.:8 u~- 15.0 ug/I 6.7 ug/I '6.6 ug/I~'11'1-1

910 ug/I 586 ug/I 71.2 ug/I 823 ug/I 835 ug/t 830 ug/l 530 ug/I 200 ugll 2 50 ugtl- 192 ug/I 429- ugll 580 ugll 6-04 ug/I!~ethe~-----M_!!~Y_I_ethyl ketone < 25 ug/I < 5 :0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 • ug/1 < 4 .0 _ugll _ <4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/l < 25 ugll < 25 ugll < 5.0 ugfl < 20.0 ug/I < 4.0 Ii.IQ/I < 4.0 ug/I

:ITe1tah)'.drofuran < 50 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugl1 < 10.0 ugl1 < 10.0 ug~_ < 10.0 ugll ~0.0 ug/l < 50 ugll < 50 ugll < 10.0_ugll ,_<_ ~0~~ ug/l 39.1 ug/I 41.5 ug/I--·---­..t---·--- --------· ­I-· - LiSi 2 voes ----:: ,_______

·- - · '' lsopropy11alcohol ---:::: JO ug/I < 30.0 ugtl < 30.0 ug/l < 30.0 • ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 vg/1 < 100 ugfl < 30 ugll < 30 • ug/l < 30.0 ugll < 2.00 ugll . < 100 ug/l < 100 ugll 2·BUl)'.I alcohol <30 \JQ~ < 30.0 ug/I" < 30.0 ug/l < 30.0 ug/l < 40.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/l < 30 ugll < 30 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 200-:-ugn· < 40.0 ugll < 40..0 ug/I

· Methyl isobutyl alcohol < 30 ugll "<30.0 ugfl < -30.0 ug/I < 30.0 • ugfl < 40.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l < 30 1ugll < 30 ug/I < 30.0 ugll < 200 ug/I < 40.0 vg/I < 40.0 ug/I Methylene chloride <S.0 ugll < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 !1Jl1 < 1.0 ug/l <4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ugJI < 5 ugfl < 5.0 ug/I <1 .0ug/I < 20.0 ug/I < 4..0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/I Melhyl isobutyl ketone < 25 ugtl < 5 .0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug~ < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I < 25 ugll < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 20.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I ·Toluene < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I 2.8 .ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 og/l Xylenes, total < 15 ugll <3.. 0 ugll < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/l <3.0 ug/1 < 3.0 ug/1 < 3.0 ug/l < 15 ugll < 15 ugll 10.7 ug/I 26.0 ugll 16.8 ug/I 16.·0 ug/I

--·- ­Sum Volatile Organics 910 ugll 590 ug/I 710 uQ/l 82·0 a ug/I 840 ug/I 830· ui:i/I 530 uQ/I 210 a uQ.11 250 a ug/I 230 ug/I 480 ug/I 650 ug/l 670 ug/I

Page 2 of 4 4/5'2012 P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\Ums Dala\2011 Annua.l\Table 5b_Basesufl!_012312.Xlsx

--

Table 5b Groundwater Qua'lity Data:

Base of Surficial Alluvium Monitoring,Wells 3M Oakdal'e Disposal Sites

~ . ~~t--~::~::~~~ \A-~'-~ lr~,~~~.,.1J.?7;1~1~~~~.-r_:_· ~::_ -~:r;r;0T~ 1

./ ·.-.· - .:..::.---:: :.. \_.·:~~- ._,1:-1~-;-;:_,,. ·"·:~:.. ,. "-. ~ ...•l.,.. ··~1::;,.Jt~-,~- .~} ~. ·t- .- ::~. ~,... L .~ ,,~ ... - ' [:h'" • '.: ·~' ":..l 1iLl.!.J·: '''U~~ :' ·hl~ 1 ~i..1··Li'l',:.~ .; '•iJ.:;I'•.<.;;_,.,, · l'·l"r,~ ,,,_ t ·, '"! l --'--~.i..l:~ t_. ~~L;..,_,,_~- ... -M •• l}._~t., •• _ !-. ..~

Chemical Name I Lisi 1 voes

Acetone < 25 ugll < 25 ugll __::_~o ugll__ <5.0 •ug/I < 10.0 u[I!_ ~-~~~ Benzene < 5 ug/f < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll 1.7 ugn 1.6 ug/I 1.2 •ug/I 1, 1-Dichloroelhane <5 ug/I ~ llg/I < 1.:9 ugJI-- < 1.0 ugll <1 .0uo/I < 1.0 ug/I 1,2-Dlchloroethane < 5 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 1:.0 ugJl < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 u9/I < 1.0 ug/I 1.~ -Dichloroethylene < s ugn <5.0 ug/1. < 1.0 ug/I < l .O ugll < 1.0 u9/I < 1.0 ugfl 1,2-Dichloroethylene, els < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugfl < 1..0 ug/l <1-.0; ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll -1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans < 5 ugll < 5.0 uQii -~ 1.0 ugfl < 1.0· ug/l < 1.0 4.Jg/I < 1.0 ugn

1 Ethyl benzene < 5 ug/l < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugil < 1:0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <5.0 ~~= lsopropy1 ether 110 ug/l 150 ugll 38.7 ug/I 109 ugll 87.7 ugll 249 ug/I Methyl ethyl ketone <25 ~g[l_ < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ugfl < 5.0 • uoil < 4.0 ug/I 23 ."6 ug/J ,______ Tetrahydrofuran < 50 ug/J < 50_ ug/J < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugfl 11.4 ug/J

Ust2 voes lsopropyl alcohol < 30 ugll < 30 : ug/l <30.0 • ug/I 478 • ugn < 40.0 ug/l - < 100 ugfl 2-BU'lyl alcot)ol < 30 ug/I < 30 ugll < 30.0 • ugfl < 30.0 ug/l <40.0 ug/J <40.0 ugn

· Methyl isobutyl alcohOI <30 ug/l < 30 ug/I <_3_0.0 • ug/I < 30.0 • ug/I <40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/l Methylene chloride < 5 ug/I < 5.0_ ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/J < 4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/l Methyl lsobutyl ketone <25 ugll < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/l <4.0 4.JQ/I 21.9 ug/I Toluene ' < 5 ug/l <5.0_ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0ugll-- . ~~~nes, total < 15 ugll <15.,.;:gll < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I .

SumVoiawe- Q'rgcinics 110 ug/I 150 a ug/I 39 a ug/I 590 a u:Q/I 89 ug/I I 310 uQfl

Page3 of4

P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFiles\llms Oata\2011 Annual\Tabl'e Sb Basesun 0112312.xlsx 4/512012

--

Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

Qualifier !Definition

- Not analyzed/not available.

a !Estimated value, calculated using some or all values that are estimates.

b Potential false positive value based on blank data validation procedures.

c :Coeluling compound.

e !Estimated value, exceeded the instrument calibration range. I

h EPA recommended sample preservation, extraction or analysis holding time was exceeded.

I Indeterminate value based on failure of blind duplicate data to meet quality assurance criteria .

j l Reported value is less than the stated laboratory quantitation limit and is considered an estimated value.

p Relative percent difference is >40% (25% CLP pesticides) between primary and confirmation GC columns.

pp Small peak in chromatogram below method detection limit. JThe presence of the compound is suspect based on the ID criteria of the retention lime and relative retention lime obtained from the

r examination of the chromatograms.

s Potential false positive value based on statistical analysis of biank sample data. . Estimated value, QNQC criteria not met. .. Iunusable value, ONQC criteria not met.

N Sample Type: Normal

FD Sample Type: Field Duplicate

AT Sample chromatogram is noted to be atypical of a petroleum product.

DLND Not detected, detection limit not determined. J

DF Did not flash

1 EMPC Estimated maximum possible concentration. NA-(Not

]

applicable) NA indicates that a fractional portion of the sample is not part of the analytical testing or field collection procedures.

ND (Not detected.

TIC Tentatively identified compound

BOA l Barr-applied project specific qualifier. extraction and/or analyses conducted using an alternative method and/or procedure.

BOC !Barr-applied project specific qualifier. plant shut down.

] BOD Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment malfunction.

J

BOE Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment adjustment.

BQM Barr-applied project specific qualifier: manual measurement.

BON Barr-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampled or measured due to various reasons.

BOP Barr-applied project specific qualifier: atypical chromatographic pattern.

BOO Barr-applied project specific qualifier: some aspect of QA/QC was not met.

J BOR Barr-applied project specific qualifier: location was re-sampled.

j

BOS Barr-applied project specific qualifier: d<ita is considered suspect.

BOT Barr-applied project specific qualifier: summed value not displayed due lo insufficient field length.

BOU Barr-applied project specific qualifier: historical qualifier· definition unknown.

BQV Barr-applied project specific qualifier. estimated value.

BOX Barr-applied project specific qualifier: see notes for qualifier definition.

J BQZ !Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered unusable.

u LI Li Page 4 of 4

4/512012

--

--

--

-

Table Sc Groundwater Quality Data:

Basal Alluvium Unit Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

------,-~-· 7~-~,

- .-~ ~--~~- -~~ :.~-~.. --~~-~-~-:~t,~;-~--~~~;-j:~~:~~;'j~~~~it~~-. 7~-~:~:~~jz~~J~i~~ ;~:;::~~-~l·.L'.~.:·.~~~~----~~-,_--~-.~--~~~--- - ----­ -~ <..! : • :...c.1

ust 1 voes--· ­Acetone < 5.0 • ug/l < 5.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 10-:0 ug~ < 10.0 ug/l < 2~.o ugJl < 25 ug/l < 25 ugJI < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 • ug/I < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ugll Benzene < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll <.1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I < 5·.0 ug/t < 1.0 tug/I < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I

~-..-~ 1,1-0ichloroelhane < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 5 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll 1.2-oichloroethane ~- 1 . 0 ug!l_ < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I --·<1.0 ~-gJl <1 .0 ug/I <5 ugJI < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug.11 < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll

,1;1-Dichloroethylene ' < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 vg/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugn:.__ < 1 .~ ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 1..0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I 1,2-Dichloroethllene, els -- --- <"1.'o ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 v~ < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll· < 1.0 ugll <5 ug/I < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 1.0_ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll 1,2-0ichloroelhylene, trans < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 vg/I < 1.0 ugJI <1 .0ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll < 5 ug/l < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll Ethyl benzene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll <U ugfl < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 5 u_g.11 < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.~ ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l-lsopropyl ether < 1.0 ug/1 102 ugll ~ugll 115 ugll 93.8 ug/I 91.0 ug/J 106 ug/I < 10 ug.11 <5.0 ug/I ·<5.0 _~ 167 ugll 4.6 ug/I 4.4 ug/I Methyi ethyl ketone ,_ < 5.0 ·-ug/I < 5.~ ugll < 4.0 ugJI < 4..0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/1 <4.0 ug/1 < 25 ugll < 25 ug/1 <5.0 ~g/1 < 5.0_• ugll < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I Telrahydrofuran < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l < tO.O ugll < 50 ug/1 < 50 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I ~ 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug_!t < 10.0 ug/Ii----· -- - ~-

-- -~ ~-- ­-Lisl 2 voes lsopropyl alcohol -- < 30.0. ug/l < 30.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l < 100 ug/I < 1-00 ug/I < 100 ug/l < 30 ug/1 < 30 ug/I < 30.01ug/l < 30..0 • ugll < 40.0 ug'! < 40.0 ug/I 2-Bulyt alcohol < ~0.0 ug/1 < 30.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/I < 30 ugfl < 30 ug/I < 30.0 ug/I < 30.0 ug/l <40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ugJI Methyl isobulyl alcohol < 30.0 • ug/I < 30.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/1 <40.0 ug/1 < 30 ug/I < 30 ugn < 30 .0 ug/I < ~o.._o. ug/l <40.0 ugll < 40.0 ·ug/l

· Methylene chtoride < 1 ~0 ugll < .4.0 ugll <4.0 ug/l <4.0 ug/l' <4.0 ug/1 . --2.~·o ug/I < 4.0 ug/1 <5 ugJI < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/I Methyl isobutyl ketone < 5.0 ugll <5.0 ug/I < 4.0 1.J91l <4.0 ug/l < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/I < 25 ·ug/1 < 25 ugll < 5.0 ugll <S.O ug/I < 4.0 ug{I <4.0 ug/I-Toluene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugA < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 1ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 5 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll <1 .0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I Xylenes, total ~1ugll < 3.0 ugll < 3.0 ug.11 <3.0 ugJI < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 15 ug/I < 15 ug/1 < 3..0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 3..0 ug/I Sum VolaOle Organics NO ug/I 100 ua/1 100 ug/I 120 ugll 94 ug/T 91 uall 110 ug/I' ND ugll ND ug/I ND ugll 170 a·ugll 4.6 ug/I 4.4 ug/I

Page 1 of3

P :\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFUes,Ums Data\2011 Annual\Table 5c BasalAU_01 1912.xlsx 41512012

-----

- -----

- --

Table 5c Groundwater Quality Data:

Basal AUuvium Unit Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

------·-_-:-·--:-.-.~~--:-·;--_---~_-:----·-:---· - - - .. ~_,_c_...=· ":,~-,--;, ..---\~-~~~.~:~-::----·---~~-,·----~~--;-· - -- --_ ~-1

: .:--...1 1:... " -· ·:_·. __ .,1_ • l} rr_'.~" 1 _,~ : ,,:_\~.,~:-,::~-~ 1:_:·1•.:.:.--~.:.~ .. · '..i:...:.. ~ ... :.:.· , 1

__ , _ _:_ _ _

1i. . , ~:.:_,, .... ·: J • ._',_.·,;.__,(~---::-~J1-~-~~-:f:.~1.~...-;:---1~~~~;~.. ~~:k __:...~\.'.- ...:_..~:__ .."-1..:1,.~~-·~ ..~ ~_ ..:_,,_.l _,,,___\'.,,.._~_:.~ e a

list 1 voes

Acetone < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/I < 25 ugll < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 • ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 50.0 ug/I3su~--Benzene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I 6.6 u~_!!_ --~-°~ 5.0 ug/I 4.8 ug/I 4.0 ug/1 5..2 ug/I 8.9 ugn 1,1-Dichloroethane <1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I - < 5.o ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0ug/I < 1.0 ug/t __< 5.0 ugll 1.2-Dichloroethane < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 Ug.n < 4.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I,_____ ­1.1-Dichloroethylene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I "<5.0 ug/I 2_5_Jl ~~ < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 uQJI < 1.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll 1.2-Dichloroethylene, cis < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I -;,, S:O ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I 1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I 7i-:OU9/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l Elhyl benzene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I 5.1 ug/I <5.o- uQF < 5.o ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 u~- 33.9 ug/1 34.9 ug/I lsopropyl ether 6.2 ug/I 6.7 ugll 1400 ug/I 1300 ug/I 1200 ug/I 1180 ug/1 582 ug/l - 381 -ug!! 443 ug/I Methyl ethyl.ketone < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 25 ug/I < 25 ug/l < 25 ug/I <5.0 u9/I < 5.0 • ugll < 4.0 ug/I -<2 o.o ·ug/I

Tetrahydrofuran < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/I < 50 ug/I < 50 ug/I < 50 ug/I < 10.0 ugn < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ug/l <50.0 _~

List2V0Cs lsopropyl alcohol · < 100 ug/I < 100 ugll < 30 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30 ug/I <30.0 • ugll < 30.0 • ugJI < 40.0 ug/I < 500 ugll-2-Bulyl alcohol < 40.0 ugll <40.0 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30 ugll < 30 ug/I < 30.0 • ug/I < 30.0 ugfl < 40.0 ugJI < 200 ug/1 Methyl isobutyl alcohol < 40.0 ug/I <40.0 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30 ug/I < 30.0 • ug/l < 30.0 • ug/I < 40.0 ug/I <200 u~ Methylene chloride < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I <5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/I ~0.0 ug/I Methyl isobulyl kelone < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ug/I < 25 ug/I < 25 ug/I < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 4.0 ug/l < 20.0 ug/I Toluene < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 uQn < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll 1.1 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I Xylenes. (olal < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/I < 15 ug/I < 1s 119n < 15 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll 119 ug/1 248 ug/1 Sum Volatile Organics 6.2 ug/I 6.7 ug/I 1400 ug/I 1300 ug/I 1.200 ugfl 1200 a ug/1 590 a ug/I 540 ug/1 730 ugll

Page•2 of 3 415/2012

Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

Qualifier !Definition

- Not analyzed/not available.

a Estimated value, calculated using some or all values that are estimates.

b Potential false positive value based on blank data validation procedures.

c leoeluting compound. ----------· e •Estimated value. exceeded the instrument calibration range.

h EPA recommended sample preservation, extraction or analysis holding lime was exceeded.

I Indeterminate value based on failure of blind duplicate data to meet quality assurance criteria .

j Reported value is less than the staled labOratory quantitalion limit and is considered an estimated value.

IP Relative percent difference is >40% (25% CLP pesticides) between primary and confirmation GC columns.

pp Small peak in chromatogram below method detection limil The presence of the compound is suspect based on the ID criteria of the retention time and relative retention time obtained from the

r examination of the chromatograms.

s Potential false positive value based on statistical analysis of blank sample data. . ,Estimated value, QA/QC criteria not met. .. Iunusable value, QA/QC criteria not met.

N lsamele Type: Normal

FD Sample Type: Field Duplicate

AT Sample chromatogram is noted to be atypical of a petroleum product.

OLND Not detected, detection limit not determined.

DF Did not flash

EMPC Estimated maximum possible concentration. NA-(Not applicable) INA indicates that a fractional portion of the sample is not part of the analytical testing or field collection procedures.

ND !Not detected.

TIC Tentatively identified compound

BOA Barr-applied project specific qualifier: extraction and/or analyses conducted using an alternative method and/or procedure.

BOC Barr-applied project specific qualifier: plant shut down.

BOD Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment malfunction.

BOE Barr-applied project specific qualifier: equipment adjustment.

BQM Barr-applied project specific qualifier: manual measurement.

BQN Barr-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampled or measured due to various reasons.

BQP Barr-applied project specific qualifier: atypical chromatographic pattern.

BQQ Barr-applied project specific qualifier: some aspect of QA/QC was not met.

j BQR Barr-applied project specific qualifier: location was re-sampled .

BQS Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered suspect.

BQT Barr-applied project specific qualifier: summed value not displayed due to insufficient field length.

BOU Barr-applied project specific Qualifier: historical qualifier · definition unknown.

J BQV Barr-applied project specific qualifier: estimated value.

BOX Barr-applied project specific qualifier: see notes for qualifier definition.

j BQZ Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered unusable.

]

J

J Page 3of 3 4/512012

--

----

Table 6 'Groundwater Quality Data:

Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

'.:~. -- --Tl~~~:-~~-;~~~~~,~~~~~~~- - J}:, -:--~-\:,'~~~r-~---;17_---v---.-""-"Tr-,....-.-.. ----·--; ~- - ·; --~--.:;:___~r·------ --~ '-· , : 'rJ' '••1..:'-· lf<_}(j ;}"'.!_.. "i 1

.. ,,...1l;~~ 1 1 't'V.-(l t::~•il '~y.,.1,~ ]I ,l,,1•df\!J:"' 1 fJ.,:..:t'\!,...!J· t~'''f"'·',...J_Al( 1 l•'!tt.'r~<l:.'.'! • ... _. •,, •• '. · • •,

.. · I -\-A r -~-- - •~• ...- ..~tr~ .. If ;..~ .. J(I ,'-['-:: ~:-~~ ~t:·~,~~~- ..__ :,~ ,,-_:>! -~~ ...·~-~ i'"(, ...-'- .. ~~~• ";t-.: :-:.-'!.'I--.;-.:" :~, .-"'" \1-•''Jj i

• A..,.- -' ·' \ ....... ,.. ..........-- .. -........ ~ .... -~t--'·' .L-....-~.c..'...~=--~ .............~_.......J -~.-.Y--ill ,_;JL\,!........,.._ •l~..,.._1A.:...~ , .... _ii;.._ _ ......... ~_,,_ .. ,,_._.~--..J'._,··-- ,_.......... ,_ ....... ._ .... ~~~... __...t__

Chemical Name voes L_

Acetone < 5.0 •ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < 50.0 ug/I < 50.tO ug/1 : < 125- ug/I < 5 :0 • ugll < 5.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 10_0 ugJI < 10.0 ugll < 25.0 ug/1. < 5.0 • ugll-BeiUene 10..0 ug/1 8.7 ug/1 '8.1 ug/1 <5.0 ugll 5.5· ug11 I < 5.o- v gll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/l < 1:0 ugi1 < 1.0 ugn < 1.0 ug/1 1,1-Dichloroelhane <1 .0 ugn < 1-0 ugJ1 < 1.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll I < 5.0 ugil < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/J <HJ. ugll < 1.(J. ugll < 1.0_ ugJl < 1.0 ug/1 1,2-Dlchloroelhane < 1_0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 5 .0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < s~o-U.911 - < 1.:~Y~ < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 u51!1;_ __2_1'.:_1?~11- _ <__1-c_O ugJI < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll 1.1-Dichloroelhylene <1.0 ug/l < 1_0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/l <5.0 ug/I J < 5.o ugn < 11.0 ugn < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 vgi1 < 11.0 ugll < 1.'0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroelhylene, cis < 1,0 ug/l < 1 .~ ug/I < 1.0 ugll' < 5.0 ug/I' < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 11.0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug.ll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.'0 ~911- < 1.0 ugfl < 1.0 ugll

1,2·Dk:hloroe!!)'.lene, trans < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1: <5.0 ug/I < 5.o ~911'<2_o:o- ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I < 11.0· ugll <to ugll < 1 .~0 ugll < 4.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll

Ethyl benz:ene < 1,0 ~!!'I..:_ < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll ....2.5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/11 < 5.0 ug/I < 11.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugfl < 11.0· ugll < To-il9il _2.1..;'.0 ~!t/,I <1 .0 ug!I < 1.10 ug/l lsopropyl ether 875 ugll 800 ug/I 895 ugn ~!ugll 692 ugfl 540, ugll 68..7 ug/l 58.6 ugll 56.•2 ugll 55.7 ugll 60.3 ug/11 9.4 wg/~--~ ugll-- --· ­Methyl ethyl ket.one < 5.0 • ug/1 < 5.0 ugll < 4.0 ugll ~< 20.0 uQ!.1 < 20.0 ugll < 20.0 ugll_ < 5.0 • ug/1 < 5 .0 ugfl < 4.0 ug/1 < 4.0 ug/l ..~o ug/I < 4.0 ugll < 5.0 • ugll retrahydrofuran 39.1 ug/11 31.7 ug/1 20.3 ugll < 50.0 ug/1 < 50,0 u9'1_ < 10.0 ug/I < 10.0 ugll < ·10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugl1 < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/1~~O~g/1-

,______ _ .......... .,...,.... _,_ ·- --·- ·- >-· -~

l sopropyl alcohol - < 30.0 • ug/11 <30.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/I < 200 ug/1 < 500 ug/1 < 500 ug/I < 3~.o • ug/1 < 30.0 ugll < 40_0 ugll < 40.0 ug/1 < 100 ug/I < 100 ug/1 ­2-ButYI alcohol < 30.0 ugll < 30.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/1 <200 ug/I' < 200 ug/I < 200 ugll < ~0..:0.~g~ < 30.0 ug/I < 40·.0 ugll < 40.0 ug/l < 40.0 ug/1 < 40.0 ug/I ­~ i.sObutyl! alcohOI < 30.0 • ugll < 30.0 ugJI ' < 40.0 ugll < 200 ug/I' < 200 ug/I < 200 ug/J < 30.0 • ug/1 < 30.0 ug/I < 40.0 ug/l < 40 .0 1ugll < 4~.0· ugll < 40.0 ug/I ­

' Methylene chloride < 1.0 ugll < 4_0 og/l < 4.0 ugJI < 20.0 ug/1 < 20.0 ug/l < 20.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I <4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I < 4.0 ugil -~ 4 .0 ~ . < 4_0 ug/I ­Me1hyl l.sobutyl ketone -~ug/I < 5 .0 u,g/1 < 4.0 ugll < 20.0 ugn < 20.0 ugn < 20.0 ug/I < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/1 <4.0- ugil < 4.0 ugll < 4.0 ug/I ­Toluene < 11.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll <5.0 ugi1 < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/1- -Xvlenes. total < 3.0 ug/1 < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ugll < 15.0 ug/1 < 15.0 ugll < 15"0 ugll < 3.0 ug/I < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/l < 3.0 ug/I . ~3.01.!911 < 3.0 ug/I ­Sum Volatile Or!lanics 920 a ugn 840 ug/I 920 ug/I 690 'ug/I 700 ugll 540 ugll 69 a ug/I 59 ug/I 56 ug/I 56 ugll 45 ugll 60 ugll 9.4 a ugfl

Page 1, ol 5

P:\Mpfs\23 MN\82\2382.047\Wor11Fi1esllims Dala\2011 .Annual\Table6_platt_012312.xlsx 41512012

----

- - --- ----

Table 6 Groundwater Quality Data:

Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

G~,..~~--.---:_~-~--~.~--,""'~.~--~~~1:~~~~: ·:v~.. t· ~~l':;:: ~~~:~:r9i~,~·-~l:: -,.---~=:-r::-- .. ----~-: --:--:r------ - ~.~_r~~_,_~ r . - I - • •t)"(• ,If· 1 ··•>t1·'Y•I"· ~Jf'Jr.~.I~!(• ·11._tL'.IJ ,".. 1-d' .. l 1•,•f.1-"lt'i'"•'ll (~r;::,.: .....-1:.i,_1 :, ·1r:.r~·'r' •.J.J {.' ~ dl''i'·' ...·~1-~ '"'·"'-'~t."'~l~I." t .{,I'\ • . . ,1 I :- •• •• - -.· : __ , ---- '1 l,.t .. ,,LI-~,-- .. ;_. --·,.-:/ ~.~~· I~ ~J~ ;.~.-~:-: 1---- ..-·1- ~- .: :~-';~---.:~ 1: ~_---,~ .-· ______-: ___ :.. ____ - ,- j ~ ~" ' --- ,.~-. ...(,_ , ..._.,.~..,,-·L...,.o........ o.:.}.l~ ...L Jt. ......... et14.'J.(,.,.•~""-, ....~~.._.jl;,_·Jo..:....d~r. ~~~~\.4..l.~.t......-~.,,:,;__.,.~~ •._.:i:. :."x.... .. __ .: ___ _.,.• ___ • .J

Chemical Name I voes I

Acetone ,I <-5.0uo/1 - < 10.0 ugtl < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugtl < 25.0 ugJI <5.0 ·u~~<5.0 ugll -< 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ugll < 25.0 ug/I < .25.0 ug/1 < 25 ugll

Benzene < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ':'gJI <1 .0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 U'Q/I -< 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/11 <1.0 ugll <5 ugfl-1,1-Dichloroethane < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.Q ug/I <1 .0ug/I < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll < 1.0 ugll <1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0_ ugll < 1.0 ugJI · <5 ug/1-1,2-Dichloroethane - < ro u9n < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ·ugll. <1.0 ug.11 < 5 ugtl

1,1-Dichloroethytene - <T.'ougll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugn _::._1.0 ugtU < 1.0 ug.11 <5 ugll 1,2-Didlloroethylene, cis-- < 1_0 ug/I < 1.0 ug.11 <1 .0 ug/I < 1"0 ugt1 < 1.0 ug/I < 1.·0 ugll < 1.0_ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/l < 1.0 ug/I <1 .0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI <5 u_gll 1,2-Dichloroethylene,. trans < 1_0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 uJ!I!_ < 1.0 ugt1 <4.0 ugJl < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 4.0 ugfl < 4.0 ugJI <5 ugfl

Ethyl benzene < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/l <1 .0 ug/l < 1.0 ugll < 1.0 ugll <1 .0 ug/I <5 ugll

.lsopropyl ether 11.4 ug/l - < 4_0 ugfl <4.0 u!J/1 < 4.0 ugJI < 4.0 UQJ!. __!!~ ugn 161 ug/l 138 ug/I 147 ug/I 38.2 ugll 131 ugfl 134 ug/I 180 ugll-Melhyl ethyl ketone <s-:-o- ugt1 < 4.0 ug/I <4.0 ~~ < 4.0 ugif < 4.0 ugll < 5.0 • ugll. < 5.0 ugll <4.0 ug/l <4.0 ug/1 <4.0 u~- .__-:_~ ugll < 4..o•ugJI < 25 ug/1

-~-~

Telrahydrofuran < 10.0 ugJI < 10.0 ~-~ 10.o _ugn < 10.0 ug/l < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugll < 10.0 ug/1 < 10.0 ugfl < 1_0.~ ug/I < 10.0 ugJI < 50 ug/I"<10.o u~ I~_:_o·o ug~

,__ - -- ·--- ·-­'-

lsopropyl alcohol - -- - - - J__ -- -- - - - - -- <30 ug/I · - ---· - · 2-BU1y1 alcohol - - - - - 1 - -- - - - - - < 30 ug/I Methyl lsobutyl alcohol - - - -- -- L. - -- - - - -~- -- -< 30 ug/I-·--· ­· ­Methylene chloride - -· - - - - -- - - -- -- -- < 5 ug/I

- --- - - · . -· ---- p--- ---- --Melhyl isobutyl ketone - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- < 25 ug/I Toluene - - -- -- -- - - -- - -- - - < 5 ug/I Xylenes, total - - - - - - - - - - - - < 15 ug/1

I- - ­- -- -- - -- -·- ·-· ­Sum Volatile OrQanics 11 ugfl ND ugll ND ug/l ND ug/I ND vofl 110a ug/l 160 ugfl 140 •Ug/I 150 ug/I 38 ug/I 130 ug/l 130 ug/I 180 ug/I

Page 2 of 5

P:\Mpls\23 MN\8212382047\Work.Files\Ums Dala\2011 Annual\Table 6_plalt_Ot 23 tt2.xlsx 415/2012

- -

---

----

-

Table 6 Groundwater Quality Data:

Platteville Bedrock Unit Monitoring Wells 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

Acetone <25 ugn < 25 ug/I < 5.0 ug/l < 20.0 ug/I Benzene ,........<-5-.·o.,-· -u=g-/1-t--<- 5.-0--"ug/I < 1.0 ug)i- '<2.0U9/I _1..:.___~___than_____ ,_< 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ugJI < 1.0 ug/I < 2.0 ug,11­, 1 -0ichloroe ..,..__e

11,2-Dichloroethane < 4·.-o u""'--+-~ 4 .0 ug11 ~~ ug/I- -gt1 <--~""""-- < 2.0 ugJI

1 ,1-Dichlo~thylene < 5.0 ug·/1, < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 2.0 ug/I 1.2-Dichloroethylene, cis < 5.0 ug/1 < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/1 < 2.0 ug/l 1,2-Diciiloroethylene. trans < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ugll < 2.0 ug,i­i~benz_ene ~-~-·-__ < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/I <2.0 ug/I< 5.o ug/I ;~eropylether 73 -ugll - 27 ugll 204 ug/I 170 ugfl · i~.1 ett:Yt ketone < 25 ug/1 < 25 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 6.0 ugn ~trah drofuran _ _____ < 50 ug/1 < 50 ugll < 10.0 ug/I < 20.0 ugif

- ii

lsopropyl alcohol < 30 ug/1 -· - ­2-Butyl alcohol < 30 ug/I - - ­:Methyl i.sobutyl alcohol I < 30 ug/1 - - ­Methyl.ene ohloride <5.~ ugfli .. -- ­Methyl isobutyl k.etone ' < 25 ug/I .. - ­Toluene < 5.0 ug/I - - -Xylenes. total < 15 ug/l - - ­

Sum Volatile Ori:ianics 73 ug/I 27 ugll 200 ugll 17CJ ug/I

Page Joi 5 4/512012

----

---- -

------

--

------

------ ----

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

--

- -

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

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

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

----- ---

--

------ ----

- --------

- - - - ------ -

- l

Data Quali.fiersJFootnotes

Qualifier

-!. b -c

e

n I -··-- ­j

_I) _ _ _._

PP------·­r --· s . •.. N-- .

' FD ~

AT

OLND

OF

EMPC

NA-(Nol applicable)

NO

TIC -· BOA

BOC

BOD

BOE

BQM

BON

' BOP

Definition

Not .analyzedfnot available.

Estimated vafue, calculated using some or ~~I values that are eslim~~

Potential fal,se positi.ve vafue based on blank data~~lidalion procedures.

Coeluting compound . -Estimated value, ex.ceeded the instrument calibration range.

- -- - - --·

EPA recommended sample preservation. extracli~~nalys~s holding :time was exceeded.

Indeterminate value based on failure of blind duplicate data to meet quality assurance criteria.

Reported value is less than the slated laboratory quantitation limit and is ·considered an estimated value.

Relative percent difference is >40% (25% CLP pesticide~) between primary and confirmation GC columns.

Small peak in diromatogram below method detection limit.

•.

-·--· ­:

- ­

- ._ ..___ ~'

-- ­ --- ­ ---­ --·--- ­

The presence of the compound Is suspect based on the 10 enteria of Uie retention lime and relative retention time obtained fromu;-­e·xamination of the chromatograms.

Potential false positive value based on statistical analysis of blank sample data:

Estimated value, ONOC criteria not met

Unusable value, QAIQC oriteria oot meL

Sample Type: Normal

Sample Type: Field Duplicate

Sample chromatogram is noted to be atypical of a petro~eum product.

Not detected, detection limit not determined.

Did not flash ..

EsUmated maximum possible concentration.

' ----·- -----· - ·--·-·-··- --· ­

-

---~---

----~ --- ­

- -------, ·----- ­-----·

NA indicates that a fractionaf portion of the sample~t part of th_e analytical' tesling or field collection procedur·es. --..·-- ­Not detected. -----··- ·--- ­Tentatively identified compound ·---- - ·- ----*- -­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: extraction and/or analyses conducted using,an alternative method and/or pro~ure. __ _ ___ .

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: plant shut down. ------·-~ ­ -

Barr-applied project specific qualifier. equipment malfunction.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: eq.uipment adjustmenL

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: manual measurement.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: unable to be sampled or measur.ed due to various reasons.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: atypical chromatographic pattern.

--·-­-·--­

-

--- ---....- ­Page 4·ot5 4/sno12 P:\Mpts\23 MN\82\2382047\WorkFifes\Llms Data\2011 Annual\Table 6_plalt 012312.xl'sx

-----

--

-- ------

-- --

Qualifier

BQQ

BOR

-BOS

BOT

BOU

I BQV

IBax

BOZ

Data Qualifiers/Footnotes

Definition

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: some aspect of ·QA/QC was not met.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: location was re-sampled.

Barr-applied project specific qualifier: data is considered suspecL

Ba~-applied project specific qualifier: summed value no_t displayed due to insufficient field length. - ·-­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: historical qualifier - definition unknown.

Barr-applled project specific qualifier: estimated value. -··- -­ --·--­

Barr-applied proiecl specific qualifier: see notes for qualifier d~nition. - ------ ---·--------­Barr-applied project specific qualifier: da·ta is considered unusable.

Page 5 of 5

P ·\Mnl...\?:\ MN\A?\?:lR?047\WnrkFlles\lims Data\2011 Annual\Table 6 olatt 012312.xlsx 415/2012

----

Table7 Groundwater Quality Data:

St. Peter Bedrock Monitoring Well 3M Oakdale Disposal Sites

r----~-·---:::-~~... ·.. '..-- r.,7,-;:;-;~· !~~:~~----;~--.~.~---·-.-~0,-""'-- ----.---~-;-1

,, r-.• ::_t::·:·._~: :•I'. l ·....'·'·:. ­' ·------- ·--~:::-- .----.....--- ---:.----_ -;----- ~· ?

-~ _.., ' < ·~""- -- .. _,... ..\J _....._ ......... ~....... • ~.-•..:-- ........... i~ __....~.J ' .I - -:..,·~----. - .................... '.-...-,.:1 ~ ............!.\..•.' _ .. ~ ....~.LA~•• _J'· Chemical Name I

voes Aoelone 30 ug/1' < 25 ugfl < 25 'UQll < 25 ug/I < 25 ug/1 < 25 ug/I < 5.0. ug/1 < 10.0 ug/I Benzene --~ 5 ugJI <5 ug/1 < 5 ugfl < 5.0 uQI! < 5.0 ug,11 < 5.0 ug/I <1 .0ugll < 1.0 u II

< ~ ug/I___1.1-0ichforoelhane ._<S ug/l <5 ugll < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ugjl~ < 1.0 ugll ---- -·- -- ­.!:2-0ichloroelhane 9.9 ug/l < 5 ug/I 2.7 jug/I < 4.0 ugll__::_4 .0 ug/I < 4.0 ugll <1.0ugll < 1.0 ugfl -1, 1-0.ichloroethylene _ <5ug/1 <5 ug/l < ~ ug/I < 5.0 ug/I <5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ug/1 < 1.0 ug/1 - < 1:0 ugfl

·-- -·"'· ­1,2-Dici:lloroethylerne, cis < 5 ugfl < 5 ug/l < 5 ugll: < 5 :0 ug/1 < 5.0 ug/I < 5.0 ugll < L O ug/I < 1.0 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroeth.ytene. trans < 5 ugfl < 5 ug/l < 5 ugfl < 5.0 ua/I < 5.0 ug/l < 5.0 ugll < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/ll Ethyl benzene <5 ug/I <Sug/1 · < 5 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ugll < 5.0 ug/I < 1.0 ug/I < 1.0 ugll

. lsoprop~I ether 360 ug/l 290 ugll 320 ug/1 28() ug/1 260 ug/I < 5.0 ugll 5.5 ug/1 ' 159 ug/t ~

Methyl elh~ ketone < 25 ug/I < 25 ugl'.I < 25 ug/1 < 25 ug/l < 25 ug/I < 25 ug/I < 5.0. ugll < 4.0 ug/I l 'etrahydrofuran < 50 ug/I < 50 ug/l < 50 ug/I ·< 50 uglt < 50 ug/l < 50 ugll < 10.0 ug/1 _<: 1·0.Oug/I

Sum Volatile Organics 400 ug/I 290• ug/l 320 a ugll 280 ug/1 260 ug/1 ND ug/I 5.5 a ug/1 160 ugll

Page 1of1

P:\Mpls\23 MN\82\2382047'WorkFlles\llms Oata\2011 Annual\Table 7 stPet 012312.x.ls 41512012

APPENDIX C - Community Notification

Affidavit::of~·Piiblication. ·. .. '.... '· .. -- ·..' .... ~- .. : ... ·.·.: ... : .·. ,. . .

State of Minnesota ) SS

County of Washington {

_____ANNE_T_H_IL_L_E_N__ _____________, being duly sworn, on oath, says that

he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known

as OAKDAI E-I AKE EI MO REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are

stated below:

(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified

newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended.

(B) The printed OAKDALE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE

which is attached was cut from the coluriiris of saidnewspaper, and was printed and published once each

week, for 2 successive weeks; it was firstj>u.~li~.hed on _WEDNESDAY , the 18TH day of

DECEMBER , 20_Ll_, and was thereafter pri~ted>a~nd published on every WEDNESDAY to and

including WEDNESDAY , the 25TH day;"ofDECEMBER,'., 20-1..l_; and printed below is a copy of

the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusiv-e, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and

kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice:

"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV.WXYZ "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

Subscribed and sworn to before me on .TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR 26TH day of DECEMBER ,

-R.

. .. . ..... : ..... :

(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the abo~e matter .......... '.'. ................................. $25.00 per col. inch

(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter ..... ,. .................................................... $ per col. inch

01/13