Document Moscow_doc_171563d77e

www.terragraphics.com Corporate Office: 121 S. Jackson St., Moscow, Idaho 83843 Ph: (208) 882-7858; Fax: (208) 883-3785 Other Office Locations: Kellogg, Idaho Boise, Idaho Helena, Montana Deer Lodge, Montana Las Vegas, Nevada Richland, Washington M E M O R A N D U M To: Kyle Steele, City of Moscow, Moscow Terri Griffith, EPA, Seattle From: Robin Nimmer, TerraGraphics, Moscow Date: December 15, 2015 Project Code: 15146-01 Subject: Addendum 1 for the Updated Quality Assurance Project Plan: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 1 Introduction The following memorandum details additional sampling activities at the Dumas Seed Facility and is considered Addendum 1 to the existing Updated QAPP (Attachment 1) (TerraGraphics 2013). The purpose of the additional sampling activities is to evaluate dieldrin concentrations in shallow soil beneath the warehouse building since its demolition. The following outlines deviations made to the Updated QAPP; all other QAPP details remain unchanged with the exception of updating for clerical errors. Any additional sampling using the incremental sampling method (ISM) will follow the Updated QAPP and this addendum. 2 Additional Soil Sampling TerraGraphics will collect three 30-point multi-increment soil samples from each of four additional decision units (DUs; DU-7 to DU-10). Each “point” of the 30-point multi-incremental samples is referred to as a sub-sample. Figure 1 shows the DUs and also contains the proposed sub-sample locations. Actual sub-sample locations may differ based upon site conditions, including the presence of debris or existing structures. The field crew will collect an equal volume of soil from the top 6 inches at each sub-sample location and placed in a five-gallon bucket. The soil in the bucket will then be homogenized and a sample collected for submittal to the lab. The remaining soil will be left onsite. One duplicate sample will be collected by splitting a selected incremental sample for quality control (QC) analysis. The field crew will deliver the samples to Anatek Labs, Inc. (Anatek). Table 1 lists the recommended bottle type, number, preservation, holding time, and reporting limit for the ---PAGE BREAK--- Addendum 1 to the Updated QAPP: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 2 samples. Anatek will analyze the soil samples for dieldrin (an organochlorine pesticide) by USEPA method 8081B (USEPA 2007). Analytical results will be compared to USEPA residential regional screening level (RSL) of 0.034 mg/kg (cumulative carcinogenic screening level) (USEPA 2015)1. If concentrations exceed the RSL, they will also be used to evaluate the risk and hazards of the surface soil exposure pathway in IDEQ’s Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) (IDEQ 2004). Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number, Preservation, Holding Time, and Reporting Limit for Samples Source Analyte (USEPA Method) Number of Bottles1 Sample Size/ Container Preservation Analysis Holding Time Reporting Limit (mg/kg)3 Soil Dieldrin (8081B)2 13 4-ounce clear glass jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 14 days 0.01 Notes: 1. Number of bottles includes one QC sample for soil (split sample). 2. USEPA Method 8081B (USEPA 2007). 3. The reporting limits for soil meets the USEPA residential regional screening level (RSL) of 0.034 mg/kg (USEPA 2015). TerraGraphics will request that the laboratory report detection of this compound below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) and, although the method detection limit (MDL) may be above the RSL, any detection of this compound will be utilized to indicate that additional evaluation is warranted. Note that laboratory test results reported between the MDL and PQL will be qualified by the analytical laboratory, and will be considered of acceptable quality for the above compound given the current analytical methods limitations for these chemicals. 3 Reporting TerraGraphics will provide the City of Moscow with the data from the additional sampling event in electronic form. TerraGraphics will prepare a Data Summary Memorandum detailing investigation results and providing recommendations. In the memorandum, TerraGraphics will summarize field and laboratory data from the site investigation and include an assessment of investigation data quality. Table 2 shows a projected timetable of the sampling event and memorandum. Table 2. Projected Timeline of Events Activity Anticipated Date of Initiation Anticipated Date of Completion Sampling Activities December 2015 December 2015 Data Summary Memo January 2015 January 2015 1 The Idaho Initial default target level (IDTL) for dieldrin is 0.00133 mg/kg based on groundwater protection. However, dieldrin was not detected in the groundwater (Tetra Tech 2013). Therefore the USEPA RSL will be used. ---PAGE BREAK--- Addendum 1 to the Updated QAPP: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Page 3 4 References Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2004. Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual [REM]. 1410 North Hilton, Boise, ID 83706. July. TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics), 2013. Updated - Quality Assurance Project Plan [QAPP]: Dumas Seed Facility Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. May 9. Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech), 2013. Final Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Old Dumas Seed Site 103 North Almon Street Moscow, Idaho. April. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. Method 8081B Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography. February 2007: Revision 2. USEPA, 2015. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Resident Soil Table (TR = 1E-06, HQ=1). November. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Addendum 1 for the Updated QAPP: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II ESA Page 6 Attachment 1 Updated - Quality Assurance Project Plan: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (TerraGraphics 2013) ---PAGE BREAK--- Updated - Quality Assurance Project Plan: Dumas Seed Facility, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Prepared for: City of Moscow 206 E. 3rd Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 121 S. Jackson St. Moscow, ID 83843 www.terragraphics.com May 9, 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated iii Table of Contents Section 1.0 Project Management 1 1.1 Project/Task Organization 1 1.2 Problem Definition/Background 3 1.3 Project/Task Description 4 1.3.1 Description of the Project Area 4 1.3.2 Description of Site-Specific Assessment Activities 5 1.3.2.1 Soil Sampling 5 1.3.3 Report Preparation 8 1.3.4 Project Timetable 8 1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria 8 1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives Process 9 1.4.1.1 State the Problem 9 1.4.1.2 Identify the Decision 9 1.4.1.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision 9 1.4.1.4 Define the Study Boundaries 9 1.4.1.5 Develop a Decision Rule 9 1.4.1.6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 10 1.4.2 Data Quality Indicators 11 1.4.2.1 Precision 12 1.4.2.2 Accuracy 12 1.4.2.3 Representativeness 12 1.4.2.4 Completeness 12 1.4.2.5 Comparability 13 1.5 Special Training/Certification 13 1.6 Documentation and Records 13 1.6.1 Field Operation Records 13 1.6.1.1 Sample Collection Records 13 1.6.1.2 Chain-of-Custody 13 1.6.1.3 QA/QC Sample Records 14 1.6.1.4 General Field Procedures 14 1.6.1.5 Corrective Action Reports 14 1.6.2 Laboratory Records 14 1.6.2.1 Sample Data 14 1.6.2.2 Sample Management 14 1.6.2.3 Test Methods 14 1.6.2.4 QA/QC Reports 14 1.6.3 Data Handling Records 15 Section 2.0 Data Generation and Acquisition 16 2.1 Sampling Process 16 2.2 Sampling Methods 16 2.2.1 Soil Sampling 16 2.3 Decontamination 16 2.4 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated iv 2.4.1 Sample Numbering System 17 2.4.2 Sample Custody 17 2.5 Analytical Methods 17 2.6 Quality Control 18 2.6.1 Field Quality Control Checks 18 2.6.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks 19 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 19 2.8 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency 19 2.9 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 19 2.9.1 TerraGraphics 19 2.9.2 Anatek Labs, Inc. 20 2.10 Non-direct Measurements 20 2.11 Data Management 20 2.11.1 Data Validation 20 2.11.2 Data Recording 20 2.11.3 Data Transformation 20 2.11.4 Data Transmittal 21 2.11.5 Data Reduction 21 2.11.6 Data Analysis 21 2.11.7 Data Tracking 22 2.11.8 Data Storage and Retrieval 22 Section 3.0 Assessment and Oversight 23 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions 23 3.2 Reports to Management 23 Section 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 24 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation 24 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods 24 4.3 Reconciliation and User Requirements 24 Section 5.0 References and Resources Used 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated v List of Figures Figure 1. Organization Chart 2 Figure 2. Key Project Personnel and Responsibilities 3 Figure 3. Dumas Seed Elevator Decision Units 6 Figure 4. Dumas Seed Elevator Sample Location Distribution 7 Figure 5. DQO Process Flow Chart 11 Figure 6. Data Management Diagram 21 List of Tables Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples 8 Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements 13 Table 3. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses 18 Table 4. Field Quality Control Checks 18 Table 5. Laboratory Quality Control Checks 19 Table 6. Non-Direct Measurements Secondary Data) 20 Appendices Appendix A Health and Safety Plan A ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ADEC State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Anatek Anatek Labs, Inc. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC constituent of concern DQO Data Quality Objective ESA Environmental Site Assessment IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDTL Initial Default Target Level LCS Laboratory Control Sample MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate MDL method detection limit MURA Moscow Urban Renewal Agency PQL practical quantitation limit QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control REC Recognized Environmental Conditions REM Risk Evaluation Manual RPD relative percent difference TerraGraphics TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated vii DISTRIBUTION LIST Jeffrey B. Jones Economic Development Specialist Administration Department City of Moscow 206 East 3rd Street Moscow, ID 83843 Steve Gill Brownfields Program Specialist IDEQ, Coeur d’Alene Regional Office 2110 Ironwood Parkway Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814 Aaron Scheff Brownfields Program Specialist IDEQ, Boise Regional Office 1445 North Orchard Street Boise, ID 83706 Terri Griffith Brownfields Project Officer Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Bruce Wicherski Brownfields Program Contracting Supervisor IDEQ, Main Office 1410 North Hilton Street Boise, ID 83706 Shawn Ringo STRATA 1428 South Main Street Moscow, ID 83843 Jerry Lee TerraGraphics Environmental Eng. 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, ID 83843 John Coddington Anatek Labs, Inc. 1282 Alturas Drive Moscow, ID 83843 Robin Nimmer TerraGraphics Environmental Eng. 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, ID 83843 Gina Grepo-Grove Regional Quality Assurance Manager Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 OEA-095 Seattle, WA 98101 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 1 Section 1.0 Project Management This sampling effort is being conducted as part of the City of Moscow Brownfields Assessment Project under the Master Quality Assurance Project Plan for the City of Moscow Brownfields Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Moscow, Idaho dated October 31, 2011 (TerraGraphics, 2011). The objective of this Updated Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to guide quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for completion of a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Dumas Seed Facility site located at 103 North Almon Street in Moscow, Idaho. This QAPP is intended to document the type and quality of data needed to support environmental decisions and describe the methods for collecting and assessing data referencing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Requirements for QAPPs (USEPA, 2001). The primary goals will be to characterize potential soil contamination, and to provide data for the potential use in the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) (IDEQ, 2004) in order to determine potential hazards and/or risks associated with found contamination. The following sections list the key project personnel and their responsibilities; explain the problem(s) and site history; and provide project schedules, data quality objectives, sampling, oversight, and data validation and use. 1.1 Project/Task Organization This QAPP provides sampling strategies intended to evaluate the recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified in a Phase I ESA for the Dumas Seed Facility site. The Phase I ESA was prepared by Tetra Tech, entitled Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Old dumas Seed Site, 103 N. Almon, Moscow, Idaho 83843 (Tetra Tech, 2012),hereinafter referred to as the Dumas Seed Phase I ESA. This section presents the project organization and the roles and responsibilities of the project team members. The project team member roles are identified in the organizational chart presented in Figure 1. Figure 2 identifies the City of Moscow, IDEQ, and USEPA personnel with management oversight and the two City of Moscow consultants who will be performing the limited site-specific Phase II ESA work. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 2 Figure 1. Organization Chart IDEQ Project Manager City of Moscow Project Manager TerraGraphics Project Manager Consultant Environmental Scientist & Sampling Support Laboratory Subcontractor Experts Consultant QA Officer USEPA Project Officer Outreach Consultant ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 3 Figure 2. Key Project Personnel and Responsibilities Name Title/Responsibility Jeffrey B. Jones City of Moscow 206 East 3rd Street Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 883-7007 MURA Project Manager: Economic Development Specialist Steve Gill IDEQ Coeur d'Alene Regional Office 2110 Ironwood Parkway Coeur d'Alene ID 83814 (208) 666-4632; (208) 818-5326 (cell) Coeur d’Alene Regional Office Brownfields Program Specialist Eric Traynor IDEQ, Main Office 1410 North Hilton Street Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 373-0420 IDEQ State Brownfields Program Manager Robin Nimmer TerraGraphics 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 (208) 882-7858 TerraGraphics Project Manager, reports to MURA project manager, IDEQ Program Specialist, and TerraGraphics Program Manager, Jon Munkers, is responsible for maintaining approved QAPP, developing amendements, overseeing sampling, and reporting Jon Munkers TerraGraphics 3501 West Elder Street, Suite 301 Boise, ID 83705 (208) 336-7080 TerraGraphics Program Manager Rachel Gibeault TerraGraphics 3501 West Elder Street, Suite 301 Boise, ID 83705 (208) 336-7080 TerraGraphics Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Officer, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer, is responsible for reviewing and approving the project QAPP and amendments, data validation and verification Shawn Ringo STRATA 6 O’Donnell Road Pullman, WA 99163 (509) 339-2000 STRATA Project Manager, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer John Coddington Anatek Labs 1282 Alturas Drive Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-2839 Project Analytical Laboratory, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer, and STRATA Project Manager, Shawn Ringo Terri Griffith U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, ECL-112 Seattle, WA 98101 USEPA Brownfields Project Officer 1.2 Problem Definition/Background The City of Moscow, or the City, was awarded a USEPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant (for hazardous substances contamination and petroleum contamination) in August 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 4 The City of Moscow is part of the Greater Moscow Area Coalition, which also includes the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency (MURA) and Latah County. The City is using the USEPA grant funds to conduct Phase I and II ESAs and Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives for multiple Brownfield properties along a former railroad/industrial corridor, a future industrial park property, and other negatively impacted and/or stigmatized areas. The Dumas Seed Facility (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property,” “target property,” or “site”) was placed on the list of properties to be evaluated under the grant. The site is located at 103 North Almon Street in Moscow, Latah County, Idaho (Figure 1, Appendix The subject property is approximately 1.78-acres and is bounded to the north by West A Street, to the east by North Almon Street, to the west by North Asbury Street, and to the south by residential properties. The site is a former grain, pea, and lentil processing and storage facility that had operated for at least 100 years. The site had several structures associated with the former Dumas Seed operations. The following lists previous environmental assessment work competed for the site:  Phase I ESA completed by TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics) in 2007.  Asbestos Abatement completed in 2007 by IRS Environmental.  Phase I ESA completed by Tetra Tech in 2012  Phase II ESA completed by Tetra Tech in 2012. 1.3 Project/Task Description Sampling activities at the property will be conducted to evaluate potential pesticide and herbicide impacts to site soil in order to evaluate potential hazards and/or risks to human health and the environment. 1.3.1 Description of the Project Area The subject property does not have a uniform topographic gradient. The southeastern portion of the site is elevated with respect to the middle of the site and slopes down-gradient to the northwest and west. The northwestern portion of the site is also elevated with respect to the center of the site and slopes down-gradient to the southeast. In addition, recent building demolition activities have resulted in soil disturbance in various areas of the site. Hogg Creek flows in a southerly direction in a ditch along the western boundary of the site. Hogg Creek emerges from underneath West A Street at the northwestern corner of the site and then proceeds to flow through several culverts before being redirected to the west, underneath North Asbury Street, near the southwestern corner of the site. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 5 1.3.2 Description of Site-Specific Assessment Activities All activities will be in compliance with the site-specific health and safety plan, included in Appendix A. Samples will be collected in accordance with the soil sampling methodologies described in Section 2.2. Sample handling procedures will follow the guidelines described in Section 2.3. The samples collected will be submitted to Anatek Labs, Inc. (Anatek) in Moscow, Idaho, for analysis. The sample container type, preservation technique, and holding time for the chemical analysis are presented in Table 1. Details for collecting QA/QC samples are described in Section 2.5. 1.3.2.1 Soil Sampling Surface soil samples will be collected to evaluate Dieldrin impacts to site soil with the primary exposure pathway being direct contact. Soil sampling will consist of 20 surface soil multi- increment (composite) samples, including 2 QC samples, from 6 decision units based upon site use history and/or building locations (see Figure Up to 20 soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Three 30-point multi-increment samples will be collected from each decision unit so that variability between decision unit incremental samples may be evaluated. Aliquot/increment sample locations will be assigned randomly to a numbered grid superimposed upon each decision unit (Figure Two duplicate samples will be collected by splitting a selected incremental sample for QC analysis. Sample increments will be collected from the top 6 inches of the site surface soil. Each increment will be homogenized and split, saving half the increment back for additional analysis if necessary evaluating whether high concentration increments—“hot spots”—may have skewed incremental sample results). Multi-increment samples will be analyzed for Dieldrin (an organochlorine pesticides) by USEPA method 8081B (USEPA, 2007). Analytical results will be used to evaluate the risk and hazards of the surface soil exposure pathway in IDEQ’s REM (IDEQ, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 8 Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples Source Analytes (USEPA Method) Number of Bottles1 Sample Size/ Container Preservation Analysis Holding Time Soil Dieldrin (8081B)2 20 4-ounce clear glass jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 14 days Notes: 1. Number of bottles includes two QC samples for soil (split sample). 2. USEPA Method 8081B (USEPA, 2007) 1.3.3 Report Preparation TerraGraphics will prepare a report documenting site soil sampling field activities and analytical findings. Analytical test results will be used to evaluate direct contact exposure through IDEQ’s REM. Analyte concentrations detected above reporting limits will be uploaded to the REM (IDEQ, 2004) to evaluate site soil hazard and risk. The report will include the purpose, scope, sampling methods, screening level/target level comparisons, risk assessment, figures, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for necessary additional investigation, if any. TerraGraphics will submit an electronic draft report to the City. After receipt and discussion of comments, TerraGraphics will incorporate comments, finalize, and submit to the City an electronic version of the final report and figures in Adobe® Acrobat format. 1.3.4 Project Timetable The project timetable is as follows:  QAPP and site-specific Health and Safety Plan preparation and approval (May 2013)  Analytical Laboratory coordination (May 2013)  Site utility locates (May 2013)  Field work completion (May 2013)  Laboratory analysis (June 2013)  Risk Evaluation (July 2013)  Report preparation (July/August 2013)  Draft report submission (August 2013)  Report finalization (September 2013) 1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria Consideration of data quality begins with the identification of data uses and data types. The USEPA Data Quality Objective (DQO) process used as a model for this project is described in USEPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process USEPA ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 9 QA/G-4 (USEPA, 2006). This document outlines processes that are general in nature to any environmental investigation. 1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives Process The DQO process results in a set of specifications needed to support the qualitative and quantitative design of a data collection effort. DQOs are used to assess the adequacy of data in relation to their intended use (USEPA, 2002a and 2002b). USEPA’s seven-step process for DQO development is presented below (Figure 5) to communicate the quality objectives for site assessment activities associated with the Dumas Seed Facility site. 1.4.1.1 State the Problem Previous assessment at the Dumas Seed Facility site confirmed Dieldrin concentrations in soil above the initial default target level (IDTL). This assessment will provide Dieldrin data within site surface soils for use in determining potential direct contact exposure through the REM (IDEQ, 2004). 1.4.1.2 Identify the Decision Samples will be collected and analyzed for the analytes identified in Table 1. Analyte concentrations will be compared against the IDTL (IDEQ, 2004). 1.4.1.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision Analytical data are needed to adequately evaluate potential impacts to the project site’s soil. The targeted analyte and regulatory action level (IDTL) needed to provide information for decisions on the potential contaminant of concern (COC) are provided in this QAPP (Table Specifics on those methodologies and relevant measurement characteristics are located in Section 2.0. 1.4.1.4 Define the Study Boundaries The site is located at the south end of Nursery Street and west of Paradise Ridge Road. The site location includes site features targeted during this assessment and proposed decision units (Figure Sampling will be limited to surface soils within these decision units for this assessment. 1.4.1.5 Develop a Decision Rule Site assessments involve collecting environmental data to support cleanup alternatives and/or redevelopment. Cleanup alternatives will likely focus on the removal of or eliminating possible human and/or ecological receptor routes of exposure to contamination. To assess the feasibility of cleanup and/or redevelopment, TerraGraphics will evaluate available data and make decisions based on the following decision statements:  Do portions of the site contain the COC above its cleanup level that would preclude residential, commercial, and/or recreational redevelopment or use?  Does contamination at the site have the potential to affect human health and/or the environment in a negative manner? ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 10  Are there portions of the site that will not require any assessment or cleanup prior to redevelopment, remodeling or demolition, and/or continued use? 1.4.1.6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors The detection limit will meet the DQOs for comparison to REM direct contact exposure limits for Dieldrin. To ensure the data quality is acceptable for use, Section 4.0 outlines all the specified tolerable limits and decision errors for the data obtained during this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 11 Figure 5. DQO Process Flow Chart 1. State the Problem: Determine if the REC has negatively impacted the site. 2. Identify the Decision: Does the REC identified onsite result in concentrations of the COC exceeding its IDTL? 3. Identify Inputs to the Decision: Research and/or sample data collected from the project site including soil data. 4. Define the Study Boundaries: Soil data will be collected from the Dumas Seed Facility site (Figures 3 and 5. Develop a Decision Rule: Concentrations for samples collected will be compared against IDTLs. 6. Specify Limits on Decision Errors: Detection limits will meet the DQOs for comparison to the IDTLs. 7. Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data: Samples will be collected per this site-specific QAPP to provide data for use in the REM. 1.4.2 Data Quality Indicators The purpose of this section is to provide qualitative and quantitative information that defines the goals for data quality at the site. The primary goal of sampling and analysis is to perform a risk assessment using newly acquired and historical defensible data. The data for this project plan must be of known quality. Table 2 lists the required data quality criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 12 1.4.2.1 Precision Precision is a measure of data variation when more than one measurement is taken on the same sample. The precision estimate for duplicate measurements can be expressed as the relative percent difference (RPD): where: RPD = relative percent difference C1 = concentration of QA/QC sample C2 = concentration of associated original Acceptable precision limits are based on past data sets, as defined by USEPA (2002b). Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate measurements will be obtained for each set of samples submitted and analyzed. Data exceeding QAPP precision (RPD) criteria will not necessarily be rejected but will be qualified as estimates by the lab. 1.4.2.2 Accuracy Accuracy of laboratory analysis is assessed by measuring spiked samples. Standard reference materials are used to calibrate laboratory measurement instruments. Accuracy is determined by splitting a sample into two portions, spiking one portion with a known quantity of a constituent of interest, and analyzing both portions determine spike recovery. Spike recovery is expressed as percent recovery: where: %RS = percent recovery of spike SC = spiked sample concentration OC = original concentration TV = true value of the added spike Acceptable spike recovery limits are based on past data sets as defined by USEPA (2002b). Data exceeding QAPP spike percent recovery criteria will not necessarily be rejected but will be qualified as estimates by the lab. 1.4.2.3 Representativeness This term expresses the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent actual conditions or characteristics of the site. Representativeness may be evaluated for this project using background samples collected from areas isolated from, yet similar to, the site and analyzed for the same constituents. Representativeness will most likely not be evaluated for this project. 1.4.2.4 Completeness Completeness is an estimate of the amount of valid data obtained from the analytical measurement system for a given set of data. The percent completeness is defined as the number of samples analyzed that meet the data quality goals divided by the total number of samples analyzed multiplied by 100. The completeness goal for this project is 95%.     % 100 2 2 1 2 1           C C C C RPD % 100 ) ( %    TV OC SC RS ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 13 Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements Data Quality Parameter Acceptable Criteria Precision <50% Accuracy (Bias) 10%-160% Completeness 95% 1.4.2.5 Comparability Using standard USEPA (2002b) accepted procedures, all matrix-specific samples will be collected, processed, and analyzed at sufficient detection limits, precision, and accuracy for correlation with existing available data or with data collected at a later date. 1.5 Special Training/Certification A qualified Environmental Scientist will oversee all sampling activities and serve as the Safety and Health Officer for the site. Personnel performing sampling at the site will have training required by 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120 if necessary (Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations Health and Emergency Response Training). Documentation of necessary training and certifications will be provided upon request. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan is provided in Appendix A. 1.6 Documentation and Records 1.6.1 Field Operation Records 1.6.1.1 Sample Collection Records 1.6.1.1.1 Field Logbook A Rite-in-the-Rain (or similar) field notebook will be used in the field to document the samplers’ names, sample numbers, sample location points, maps and diagrams, equipment/method used for sample collection, weather conditions, and unusual observations. Books will be pre-numbered and will contain the date and signature lines. 1.6.1.1.2 Photographic Records Photographs will be taken of representative sampling locations and the surrounding site to show the area, related site activities, and sampling equipment. 1.6.1.2 Chain-of-Custody Records The chain-of-custody record will be filled out and kept to track samples from collection through delivery to the laboratory following the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guidance Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures (D-4840-99) (ASTM, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 14 1.6.1.3 QA/QC Sample Records QA/QC samples field duplicates) will be documented in the field notebook. This documentation will include custody seals, calibration history, level of standards, and the frequency and type of the QA/QC sample. 1.6.1.4 General Field Procedures The field procedures will be documented in the field notebook and will specify the method of collection shovels and trowels) and location, and will identify potential areas of difficulty in the actual gathering of the specimens. 1.6.1.5 Corrective Action Reports Should the primary method of sample collection fail, the corrective action or alternative method will be documented in the field notebook and reported in the subsequent final Phase II ESA report. 1.6.2 Laboratory Records 1.6.2.1 Sample Data The laboratory will follow the appropriate USEPA guidance, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (USEPA, 2008), which includes recording the times that samples were analyzed to verify holding times were met. The overall number of samples, sample location information, and date will be reported as well as any corrective action procedures for samples violating this site-specific QAPP protocol. 1.6.2.2 Sample Management Records The laboratory will maintain detailed procedures for its recordkeeping in order to support the validity of analytical work. Each data report package submitted to TerraGraphics will contain the analytical laboratory’s written certification that the requested analytical method was run and that QA/QC checks were performed. After a technical data review conducted by the laboratory and the project QA officer, the data will be sent to the City where it will be archived according to State or Federal records retention policies, whichever is more restrictive. 1.6.2.3 Test Methods The test methods used will be those identified in Table 1 as appropriate for sample type. Should an alternative analysis be required, the laboratory will document and describe how the analyses were conducted. This will include sample preparation and analysis, instrument standardization, detection and reporting limits, and test-specific QC criteria. 1.6.2.4 QA/QC Reports Laboratory QA/QC methods will follow the USEPA guidance, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (USEPA, 2008). The report will include laboratory QA/QC data from blanks, laboratory control samples (LCS), matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD), and laboratory duplicates. TerraGraphics will complete internal QA/QC to ensure the quality of the data. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 15 1.6.3 Data Handling Records The laboratory’s QA personnel will perform the data validation. The data validation will convert raw data into reportable quantities and units by properly applying significant figures, recording extreme values, and identifying data qualifiers. The data will then be transmitted electronically and/or in hard copy to TerraGraphics, who will perform an internal QA/QC assessment. The internal QA/QC will document that the data meet the proposed DQOs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 16 Section 2.0 Data Generation and Acquisition 2.1 Sampling Process Design Proposed site soil sampling activities are described in Section 1.3; sampling locations are depicted on Figure 4. The site sampling methods presented in Section 2.2 support the following site activities:  Twenty site surface soil multi-increment samples will be collected to evaluate Dieldrin impacts to the site’s surface soil exposure pathway, including two duplicate/split soil samples for QA/QC purposes. 2.2 Sampling Methods 2.2.1 Soil Sampling Multi-increment surface soil samples will be collected from the upper 6 inches of the soil horizon utilizing a driven macro-core sampler with disposable liners and/or a dedicated stainless steel trowel as described in the guidance document, Draft Guidance on MULTI INCREMENT Soil Sampling (ADEC, 2009). Multi-increment sample aliquots will comprise approximately equal volumetric proportions. Aliquots will be homogenized then split, saving back half the split portion for additional analysis if necessary. The remaining aliquots will be placed in a decontaminated (per the decontamination procedure described below) stainless steel bowl and mixed/homogenized with a single use, stainless steel spoon. The mixed/homogenized sample will then be split to obtain an appropriate sample volume for laboratory analysis. Recommended bottle types and preservatives for the COC is listed in Table 1, although the laboratory generally determines the types and sizes of bottles to be used. All sample containers will be labeled with time, date, borehole identification, depth below ground surface, and sampler’s name, placed in a cooler containing double-bagged ice (refrigerated) immediately after collection, and held under chain-of-custody for delivery. The sampling tools will be decontaminated with a Liqui-Nox®solution (or equivalent), cleaned, and rinsed with potable water after sampling in each decision unit sampling. 2.3 Decontamination Field personnel will wear disposable gloves while decontaminating equipment at the site. Personnel will take precautions to prevent contaminating themselves with the wash water and rinse water used in the decontamination process. After each composite area is sampled, soil sampling tools (shovels and trowels) will be thoroughly decontaminated using the methods described below.  The field technician will visually inspect sampling equipment for soil and use a stiff brush to remove any visible material. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 17  Shovels, trowels, and other sampling tools will be washed with phosphate-free soap and water (Liqui-Nox® or equivalent), rinsed with distilled water, and air dried or wiped with disposable paper towels.  Disposable items such as paper towels, disposable gloves, and washcloths will be deposited into a garbage bag and disposed of in a solid waste landfill. 2.4 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures The following section identifies the sample numbering system and chain-of-custody procedures. To prevent duplication and allow future users of the data to quickly identify general sample locations by site, all sample numbers will start with the site designation of DS. 2.4.1 Sample Numbering System Each soil sample collected will have a unique field sample identification code that will include the site identification name and the date the sample was collected. The field sample identification code will be in the following format: (Site Identification - Decision Unit, - Sample For example, the field sample identification code for the first soil sample collected from Decision Unit 1 on June 15, 2013 would be (DS-U1-1) 051513. The field sample identification code for the collection of soil and water QA/QC samples (field duplicate) will also include a unique QA/QC identifier. After the date “DUP” will be added to the identification code. For example, the field sample identification code for the first soil sample collected from Decision Unit 1 on June 15, 2013 would be (DS-U1-1) 051513-DUP1. 2.4.2 Sample Custody Each sample will be identified on a chain-of-custody record. Information recorded will include at a minimum the site name, sampler name(s), date and time of sample collection, sample identification, number of containers for each sample, analyses requested for each sample, and signature blocks for each individual who has custody of the sample(s). Samples will be submitted to the laboratory and maintained at the laboratory under chain-of-custody. Final reports, which include all original laboratory reports and chains-of-custody, will be maintained in TerraGraphics’ project file system. 2.5 Analytical Methods Samples will be analyzed for the COC using Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (USEPA, 2008) by an off-site analytical laboratory (Anatek). Sample analysis will be in accordance with approved USEPA analytical methods. See Table 3 for techniques, method numbers, and reporting limits for analysis. Reporting limits for soil will meet or be less than the REM direct exposure risk criteria (IDEQ, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 18 Table 3. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses Analyte Method Reporting Limit Soil Dieldrin USEPA 8081B2 0.3 mg/kg1 1 The reporting limits for soil meets the IDEQ REM for direct contact of Dieldrin (IDEQ, 2004). TerraGraphics will request that the laboratory report detection of this compound below the practical quantitation limit (PQL) and, although the method detection limit (MDL) may be above the IDTL, any detection of this compound will be utilized to indicate that additional evaluation is warranted. Note that laboratory test results reported between the MDL and PQL will be qualified by the analytical laboratory, and will be considered of acceptable quality for the above compound given the current analytical methods limitations for these chemicals. 2USEPA Method 8081B (USEPA, 2007) 2.6 Quality Control QC samples will be employed to evaluate data quality. QC samples are controlled samples introduced into the analysis stream whose results are used to review data quality and to calculate the accuracy and precision of the chemical analysis program. The purpose of each type of QC sample, collection and analysis frequency, and evaluation criteria are described in this section. 2.6.1 Field Quality Control Checks Field QC checks are accomplished through the analysis of controlled samples that are introduced to the laboratory from the field. Field duplicate samples (QC samples) indicate the precision of the sampling and analysis program for detectable analytes. Field duplicates will be collected from soil and submitted to the laboratory, to provide a means of assessing the quality of data resulting from the field sampling program. For solids, the field duplicate/split sample is one portion of a double-volume solid, multi- increment sample that is homogenized (mixed) and split before the sample containers are filled and the other portion is the primary sample. Duplicates are prepared by filling a second sample container with the same homogenized soil from the most recent sample area and interval, and marking the soil tag as a duplicate sample. The duplicate water sample is collected immediately after the original sample. The sample bottle is labeled as a duplicate sample. The QC samples, along with the original samples, will be sent to the analytical laboratory. QC samples will be collected at a frequency of 1 per sampling event per site, or 1 per 20 samples, whichever is greater (Table Table 4. Field Quality Control Checks Quality Control Check Frequency Field duplicate (soil split) 1:20 samples ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 19 2.6.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks QC procedures for the laboratory’s analyses will be consistent with the requirements described in the laboratory’s Standard Operating Procedures and QA manuals. The laboratory QC will include appropriate duplicates, LCS, MS and MSD, method blanks, reporting limits, holding times, dilutions, etc., as outlined in the appropriate guidance document. The frequency of each type of sample is shown in Table 5. Table 5. Laboratory Quality Control Checks Quality Control Check Frequency MS/MSD 1:20 samples LCS 1:20 samples Method Blank 1:20 samples Laboratory Duplicate 1:20 samples 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Field measurement equipment used to support sampling will be tested, inspected, and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Testing and maintenance activities will be recorded in the field logbook. The laboratory will be responsible for the maintenance of laboratory instruments and equipment. Instruments, and the measurements made as part of the analytical methodology, will be as specified in the method, without modification. The laboratory’s QA program ensures that only trained personnel perform routine maintenance on all major instruments and that repairs are performed by trained laboratory personnel or service technicians employed by the instrument manufacturer or representative. Instrument maintenance will be appropriately documented through the use of instrument logs, which will be included in the laboratory project file. 2.8 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency Laboratory instrument calibration and frequency will follow the guidance outlined in USEPA methodology and certification requirements. 2.9 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 2.9.1 TerraGraphics TerraGraphics will use adequate quality services and supplies. Supplies and consumables utilized for this project will be selected based on manufacturer recommendations and/or on the standard of practice for the service being accomplished. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 20 2.9.2 Anatek Labs, Inc. Anatek Labs, Inc. will use services and supplies of adequate quality. Anatek maintains a procedure for the purchase, storage, and evaluation of supplies and services. Records of inspections, verifications, and supplies will be maintained by Anatek. 2.10 Non-direct Measurements This project may rely upon secondary data including online IDEQ regulatory data, interviews, and other historical data as shown in Table 6. Table 6. Non-Direct Measurements Secondary Data) Data Sources Intended Use Rationale for Use Acceptance Criteria Previous Investigation Reports Historical background Accepted source of site information Not required; reference information only 2.11 Data Management Figure 6 is a diagram for data management process. 2.11.1 Data Validation TerraGraphics will conduct an internal data validation of the laboratory-supplied data in accordance with the USEPA data validation guidance (USEPA, 2002b). This document contains the details on technical data review criteria such as precision, bias, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness. Specifics on each criterion are discussed in Section 1.4.2. TerraGraphics will conduct an internal data validation and QA/QC review of all data collected in the field and provided from the laboratory. 2.11.2 Data Recording TerraGraphics will receive the data from the laboratory and prepare useful data tables. After TerraGraphics has conducted the internal data validation, the data tables will be updated with relevant data qualifiers. 2.11.3 Data Transformation The raw or validated data will be available for third party data transformation by request. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 21 Figure 6. Data Management Diagram 2.11.4 Data Transmittal Microsoft® Excel© will be used for the transmittal and tracking of data. 2.11.5 Data Reduction No data reduction will be completed as part of this project. Third parties may reduce the data in the future for analysis and modeling. 2.11.6 Data Analysis The data may be subjected to various statistical analysis and/or modeling supporting risk analysis. In general, minimum, maximum, means, standard deviations, etc., may be generated. Field Data: Sample Information Samples Site specifics Chain-of-Custody Laboratory: Samples sent to lab under chain-of-custody to be analyzed Data Entry: Data is entered into spreadsheets or database and stored electronically hardcopies made for files Data Verification: Data in file is compared to field notes and laboratory report Report Generated: Report is generated based on data and field information Senior Review Report Review: The laboratory report is reviewed via internal QA manager Draft Report Prep: Draft report undergoes word processing QA/QC Draft Report the City: Draft sent to the City for review No Revisions Needed: Prepare Final Report Revisions Needed: Report is revised based on the City’s input Final Report Submitted Data Storage: Final Report and supporting data will be maintained by TerraGraphics electronically and in hard copy formats ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 22 2.11.7 Data Tracking This project will use Microsoft® Excel© or Access© to track sample numbers and forms. 2.11.8 Data Storage and Retrieval The data will be stored in electronic form as a Microsoft® Excel© or Access© document. In addition, hard copies will be available upon request. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 23 Section 3.0 Assessment and Oversight 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions Inspections will consist of, as appropriate, an evaluation of QA/QC procedures and the effectiveness of their implementation, an evaluation of work areas and activities, and a review of project documentation, to verify compliance with QAPP requirements. Additional inspection items may be added, as necessary, by the Project Manager, the Environmental Scientist, or the City. Field operations assessments by the Environmental Scientist or designee may include evaluating the availability of appropriate and approved procedures; implementation of sampling procedures; calibration and operation of equipment; labeling, packaging, storage, and delivery of samples; and documentation of deviations from and nonconformance to the QAPP. All inspection findings that are not resolved during the course of the assessment and affect the overall quality of the project will be discussed immediately with the Project Manager, regardless of when they are resolved. The Project Manager will ensure the necessary corrective actions are initiated and completed. 3.2 Reports to Management The data from the sampling events will be made available to the City, IDEQ, and USEPA. An environmental assessment report will be prepared and delivered to the City. The report will describe sampling procedures and provide photographs and figures of sampling locations. The report will discuss analytical precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity, and whether the analytical data meet the project DQOs. If the COC is detected above the reporting limit, a site characterization will be provided in the report. Electronic report copies will be provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 24 Section 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Data deliverables will include a case narrative, analytical results, and laboratory QC sample results. Review of analytical data will be performed by the laboratory under the direction of the laboratory’s technical staff and QA Officer. Laboratory procedures for data review are discussed in the Laboratory QA Plan. The case narrative will identify whether any laboratory QC data are outside of the laboratory’s QC criteria. TerraGraphics will track the status of the data from time of sample collection through analysis and reporting. Once the data are reported by the laboratory, TerraGraphics will review the sample data, case narratives, and lab and field QC data to determine the data quality and assess data usability relative to the project’s DQOs. 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods Data will be verified by reviewing chain-of-custody forms, sample preservation records, analytical holding times, case narratives, sample data as compared to QC sample data, requested turnaround time, and reporting requirements. Problems or questions will be discussed with the laboratory by the data reviewer for resolution and/or documentation. Data will be validated upon reviewing data quality indicators, and data qualifiers will be applied to the data based on USEPA Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation (USEPA, 2002b). 4.3 Reconciliation and User Requirements Data assessment will involve reviewing the data with respect to project DQOs. A data usability assessment summary will be included in the Phase II report. If project DQOs are not satisfied, TerraGraphics’ Project Manager will review the circumstances affecting the data usability and evaluate alternative options or resolutions. This person will notify the City and discuss the available alternatives and the recommended resolution of the issue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated 25 Section 5.0 References and Resources Used 29 CFR 1910.120, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 2009. Draft Guidance on MULTI INCREMENT Soil Sampling. ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response: Contaminated Sites Program. March 2009. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2003. D2487-98. United Soil Classification. ASTM, 2004. D-4840-99, Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of-Custody Procedures. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2004. Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual. Boise, Idaho. April. TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics), 2011. Master Quality Assurance Project Plan for the City of Moscow Brownfields Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Moscow, Idaho. October 31, 2011. Tetra Tech, 2012. Final Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Old dumas Seed Site, 103 N. Almon, Moscow, Idaho 83843. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans. USEPA QA/R-5; March. USEPA, 2002a. Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. USEPA QA/G-5; December. USEPA, 2002b. Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation, USEPA QA/G-8; November. USEPA, 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. USEPA QA/G-4; February. USEPA, 2007. Method 8081B Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography. February 2007: Revision 2. USEPA, 2008. Method 846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. January 2008: Update IV, 3rd Edition. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dumas Seed Facility Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP - Updated A Appendix A Health and Safety Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Health and Safety Plan GENERAL INFORMATION CLIENT: City of Moscow PROJECT MANAGER: Robin Nimmer SITE NAME: Dumas Seed SITE LOCATION: 103 N. Almon St. Moscow, Idaho PURPOSE OF FIELD VISIT(S): ______Collect surface soil samples DATE OF VISIT(S): May/June 2013 Article I. Site Characteristics AREA DESCRIPTION The site is located at 103 North Almon Street in Moscow, Latah County, Idaho. The subject property is approximately 1.78-acres and is bounded to the north by West A Street, to the east by North Almon Street, to the west by North Asbury Street, and to the south by residential properties. The site is a former grain, pea, and lentil processing and storage facility that had operated for at least 100 years. The site had several structures associated with the former Dumas Seed operations. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES The activities to be performed involve collection of surface soil samples from areas where recognized environmental conditions (RECs) have been identified. POSSIBLE CONTAMINANT CHARACTERISTICS a) Waste Type(s) Liquid Solid x Sludge Gas Dust b) Characteristics Corrosive X Ignitable ? Radioactive Volatile Toxic X Reactive _X Unknown _ Other Article II. Hazard Evaluation CHEMICAL HAZARDS Based upon review of the previous assessments, the potential chemical hazard on the site is dieldrin, an insecticide. Site personnel are trained in hazard recognition and will use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to the potential hazards. a) Routes of Exposure Exposure could occur via inhalation or ingestion.  Inhalation sources include windblown dusts during sampling activities. Samplers must ---PAGE BREAK--- take extra care to ensure airborne dust is not generated while sampling soil areas. In order to control inhalation of these contaminated dusts, it will be necessary to control dust levels. Measures to reduce exposure to dust include careful sample handling and strict enforcement of practices such as prohibiting samplers from shaking out dusty clothing or using compressed air to blow off dust.  Ingestion of contaminated soil could occur not only from inhaling dust, but also from hand-to-mouth activities. To reduce the possibility of exposure, personnel must wash their hands and face prior to eating, drinking, using tobacco products, or applying cosmetics. b) Air Monitoring No air monitoring. c) General Safety Hazards Sampling at the proposed sites will be unlikely to pose any unanticipated safety hazard to workers. The proposed scheme involves soil sampling. Site investigators should be 8-hour HAZWOPER trained and can identify site hazards during site investigations. Bending and kneeling will be required. Bending at the waist should be avoided. Knee pads will be provided if needed. Certain operations may create noise levels that exceed the applicable limits. Operations expected to be in excess of 85 dBA steady state or 140 dBA impulse will require either hearing protection and/or isolation of unprotected workers from the noise source. As a rule of thumb, doubling of distance will reduce noise exposure by 6 dBs. Hearing protection will be provided for oversight personnel and will be required when noise levels warrant their use. There is a potential for slipping, tripping, and falling while working. All personnel working on the project will be aware of walking surface conditions and watch for slipping, tripping, and falling hazards. All project personnel will wear appropriate PPE identified below. Meteorological conditions will be watched closely, especially in the spring, summer, and fall when severe thunderstorms are likely to occur. Thunderstorms often occur late in the afternoon on hot spring days, but can occur at any time of the day in any season of the year. All outdoor work shall cease immediately during a thunderstorm or severe thunderstorm warning in the local area. Project personnel will monitor for signs and of heat stroke. Should any of the following occur—a lack of sweating (usually), hot dry skin, an abnormally high body temperature, irrational behavior, loss of consciousness—the affected person is to be immediately removed from the work area and be placed in a shady area and the outer clothing removed. The worker’s skin should be wetted and air movement around the worker should be increased to improve evaporative cooling until professional methods of cooling are initiated and the seriousness of the condition can be assessed. Fluids should be replaced as soon as possible. The medical outcome of an episode of heat stroke depends on the victim's physical fitness and the timing and effectiveness of first aid treatment. Regardless of the worker's protests, no employee ---PAGE BREAK--- suspected of being ill from heat stroke should be sent home or left unattended unless a physician has specifically approved such an order. Heat exhaustion include headache, nausea, vertigo, weakness, thirst, and giddiness. Fortunately, this condition responds readily to prompt treatment. Heat exhaustion should not be dismissed The fainting associated with heat exhaustion can be dangerous because the victim may be operating machinery or controlling an operation when he or she faints. Also, the signs and seen in heat exhaustion are similar to those of heat stroke, which is a medical emergency. Workers suffering from heat exhaustion should be removed from the hot environment and given fluid replacement. They should also be encouraged to get adequate rest. Ventilation, air cooling, fans, shielding, and insulation are the five major types of engineering controls used to reduce heat stress in hot work environments. Heat reduction can also be achieved by using power assists and tools that reduce the physical demands placed on a worker. The worker(s) should also be allowed to take frequent rest breaks in a cooler environment. Cool (50°-60°F) water or any cool liquid (except alcoholic beverages) should be made available to workers to encourage them to drink small amounts frequently one cup every 20 minutes). Ample supplies of liquids should be placed close to the work area. Although some commercial replacement drinks contain salt, this is not necessary for acclimatized individuals because most people add enough salt to their summer diets. Traffic hazards exist for sampling performed along streets, roads, and alleys. When crew members work on or near streets, roadways and alleys, orange safety vests will be worn. Orange cones will be placed for added safety to warn traffic of work in the area. The most likely hazards to be encountered are those commonly encountered on many work-sites (heat stress, working around machinery, etc.). All employees performing field work on this project will comply with the most current Health and Safety Manual and Health and Safety Standard Operating Procedures for their company. Each employee should be provided access to this manual. Article III. Work Practices Workers will comply with all Health and Safety Manual rules. Workers will comply with all state and federal regulations. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT The following Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) may be necessary:  A Class A, B, or C hard hat as appropriate to the site,  Steel-toed, steel shank work boots,  Hearing protection, and  Safety Glasses. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES a) Personnel: Before leaving the sample area, thoroughly wash hands and face with soap and water before eating, drinking, or smoking. If water is not available use pre-moistened towelettes to wash face and hands. ---PAGE BREAK--- Do not track contaminated soils and dust off-site. b) Samples After the sample containers are filled they will be sealed shut, marked with indelible marker, and any excess dirt will be wiped from the outside of the sample containers before they are stored. Sample containers will be transported in suitable sealed containers placed in stable containers that can be securely closed. c) Disposal of Materials Generated On-Site Collect trash and non-hazardous waste and place it in appropriate trash receptacles for municipal trash pick up. Potentially contaminated materials will be separated, sealed in chemically compatible containers, and labeled for appropriate off-site disposal. d) Safety Equipment and Materials Each sampling team will have access to a first aid kit, clean water, paper cups, and pre- moistened towelettes. Site supervisors will ensure appropriate safety gear is available for site operations. The site supervisor will also be equipped with a cell phone in case of an emergency requiring outside assistance. Article IV. Emergency Procedures If an injury occurs, take the following steps:  Prevent further injury and notify the site supervisor.  Initiate first aid and get medical attention for the injured person immediately.  Depending on the type and severity of the injury, call for medical attention.  Prepare an incident report.  The crew chief / site safety officer will assume charge during a medical emergency. a) Local Emergency Phone Numbers Ambulance: 911 Hospital: Gritman Medical Center (208) 882-4511(non-emergency) 700 S. Main Street 911 (emergency department) Moscow, ID 83843 Poison Control Center: [PHONE REDACTED] Sheriff/Police: 911 (208) 882-2677 (City of Moscow Police Dept. non-emergency) Fire Department: 911 (208) 882-2831 (non-emergency) ---PAGE BREAK--- b) Emergency Contacts 8 am to 5 pm: TerraGraphics Moscow office (208) 882-7858 STRATA Pullman office (509) 339-2000 After hours: Jon Munkers (Mobile) (208) 791-3663 Jerry Lee (Mobile) (509) 330-1700 Robin Nimmer (Mobile) (208) 301-2078 Article V. Site Organization Map/Sketch Attached YES Site Secured NA Perimeter Identified TBA EMERGENCY ROUTE Driving directions to 700 S. Main Street, Moscow, Idaho 83843 1. Start out going EAST on W 1ST ST. 0.06 miles 2. Turn RIGHT onto N JACKSON ST. toward S JACKSON ST. 0.3 miles 3. Take the LEFT onto W 7th ST. 0.06 miles Total Travel Estimates: about 1 minute / 0.45 miles