Document Moscow_doc_db8067f365

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1102 South Main Street Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment – Addendum 1 Prepared for: City of Moscow 206 East 3rd Street Moscow, ID 83843 Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, ID 83843 www.terragraphics.com and STRATA 1428 South Main Street Moscow, ID 83843 www.stratageotech.com March 14, 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I ii Title and Approval Sheet Quality Assurance Project Plan for 1102 South Main Street Moscow Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. and STRATA Effective Date: February 2013 Approved by: Date: TERRAGRAPHICS - PROJECT MANAGER Robin Nimmer Date: CITY OF MOSCOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST Jeffrey B. Jones Date: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY – PROJECT MANAGER Terri Griffiths Date: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY – REGIONAL QA MANAGER Gina Grepo-Grove ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I iii Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction 1 Section 2.0 Vapor Sampling 1 2.1 Soil Vapor Wells 1 2.2 Subslab Soil Vapor Sampling Point 2 2.3 Laboratory 3 Section 3.0 Soil Sampling 3 Section 4.0 Groundwater Sampling 3 Section 5.0 Quality Control 5 Section 6.0 Project Timetable 5 Section 7.0 References and Resources Used 5 Appendices Appendix A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1102 South Main Street Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment A Appendix B IDAPA Screening Levels and Reporting Limits for Soil Vapor B List of Figures Figure 1. 1102 S Main Sampling Locations Map 7 List of Tables Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number of Bottles, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ASTM American Standard for Testing Materials COCs Chemicals of Concern EDB ethylene-dibromide EDC ethylene-dichloride ESA Environmental Site Assessment HDPE High Density Polyethylene IDAPA Idaho Department of Administrative Procedures Act IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources mL/min milliters per minute MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether PAH Aromatic Hydrocarbon PID Photo-Ionization Detector PVC polyvinyl chloride QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan REC Recognized Environmental Condition REM Risk Evaluation Manual RUSLs Residential Use Screening Levels TerraGraphics TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 1 Section 1.0 Introduction Based on results from the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted at 1102 S. Main Street, TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics) recommended additional site assessment activities, which include the following: advancing soil borings, collecting soil boring samples, installing three monitoring wells, sampling groundwater from all historical and new wells, and conducting vapor sampling. The purpose of this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) addendum is to update the original QAPP (TerraGraphics and STRATA, 2012) for the additional sampling activities and to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) requirements for QAPPs (USEPA, 2001). This work is being conducted as part of the City of Moscow Brownfields Coalition Assessment Project. The goal is to characterize the extent of the petroleum contamination in the soil and groundwater and to evaluate vapor intrusion. This addendum includes revisions to specific sections of the original QAPP as detailed below. All other sections in the original QAPP (Appendix A) have remained unchanged because either the content or purpose is still applicable to these additional site assessment activities. Section 2.0 Vapor Sampling 2.1 Soil Vapor Wells Up to three soil vapor wells will be installed, one east of the building and two on the north adjacent property. Figure 1 shows the proposed locations. Vapor points installed in the vapor wells will be used to collect information about potential Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations in soil vapors. Soil vapor concentrations will be compared to the Residential Use Screening Levels (RUSLs) defined by the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.24 Standards and Procedures for Application of Risk Based Action at Petroleum Release Sites (IDAPA, 2012). The vapor wells will be constructed using a direct push drill rig or a hand auger depending on accessibility. The drill rig rods equipped with an anchor point will be driven to the target depth of the borehole (3 - 5 feet below ground surface [bgs]). Once the targeted depth is achieved, the rods will be removed leaving the anchor point and attached Teflon® tubing. The well borehole will be backfilled with industrial sand and bentonite chips. An implant funnel with a capped end and sampling tube will be installed. Soil vapor samples will be collected per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D- 5314-92, Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone (ASTM, 2006). Soil vapor samples will be collected in a sorbent tube Tenax TA). A syringe will be used to draw in the air from the sampling point through the sorbent tube at a rate of approximately 200 milliliters per minute (mL/min). Because naphthalene is the constituent of concern for vapor intrusion and has one of the lowest screening levels, it will be used (based on lab provided guidance documents) to determine the sample volume required in order to achieve a detection limit of 7 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). The period of time will depend on the reporting limit for analytical method TO-17 VI (Appendix B) and the expected vapor concentration as determined with a photoionization detector (PID). No more than 25 liters of air will be pumped through each sorbent tube. A field blank will also be collected to trace potential sources of ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 2 artificially introduced contamination due to ambient conditions during sampling and/or laboratory sources. Sorbent tubes will be sent to Air Toxics where they will be analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and ethylene-dichloride (EDC) using USEPA Method TO-17 VI (USEPA, 1999). 2.2 Subslab Soil Vapor Sampling Point Sub-slab soil vapor sampling will follow the protocol as described by USEPA in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Installation of Sub-Slab Vapor Probes and Sampling Using USEPA Method TO-15 to Support Vapor Intrusion Investigations (USEPA, 2004). Analytical methods for soil gas sampling are presented in Table 1. One subslab soil vapor point will be installed north of the building (Figure The vapor point will be used to collect information about potential VOC concentration in subslab soil vapors. Subslab soil vapor screening levels will be established by applying an attenuation factor of 0.1 to the soil vapor screening levels defined by IDAPA 58.01.24 Standards and Procedures for Application of Risk Based Action at Petroleum Release Sites (IDAPA, 2012). The vapor point will be constructed of ¼-inch stainless steel tubing inserted into a ¼-inch hole so that the base of the tubing rests just beneath the concrete slab and the top of the tubing is exposed at ground surface. In addition, a 3-inch countersunk hole will be advanced from the surface so that the top of the stainless steeling tubing (equipped with a protective cap) will sit flush with the surrounding concrete. A ¼-inch stainless steel Swagelok® fitting will be connected to the ¼- inch diameter stainless steel tube by compression; this makes up the vapor well. Portland cement (or similar neat cement) will be applied to anchor and seal the vapor well into the countersink hole. The vapor well will be capped and allowed to dry for more than 24 hours prior to sampling. A leak test will be performed on at least one of the soil vapor sampling points. 2-proponal (isopropyl alcohol) will be soaked into a cloth; the cloth will be placed around the soil vapor port. The port will be covered with a container a bucket) to contain the vapors. The presence of this constituent in the analytical results will indicate a leak at the fitting. A subslab soil vapor sample will be collected by utilizing a calibrated sampling pump and a sorbent tube. The sampling point will be purged and screened for VOCs with a PID prior to sampling. One end of the sorbent tube will be connected directly to the subslab soil vapor sampling tubing and the sampling pump will be connected to the other end. The sampling pump will pull air through the sampling train at a rate of 20 mL/min for 40 minutes resulting in a total sample volume of 800 mL. Because naphthalene is the constituent of concern for vapor intrusion and has one of the lowest screening levels, it is used (based on lab provided guidance documents) to determine the sample volume required in order to achieve a detection limit of 0.7 µg/m3. A field blank will also be collected to trace potential sources of artificially introduced contamination due to ambient conditions during sampling and/or laboratory sources. Sorbent tubes will be sent to Air Toxics Ltd. where they will be analyzed for benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, MTBE, and EDC using USEPA Method TO-17 VI (USEPA, 1999). ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 3 2.3 Laboratory Air Toxics Ltd. will analyze the vapor samples. The laboratory contact will report to Robin Nimmer at TerraGraphics and is: Kelly Buettner, Project Manager Air Toxics Ltd. 180 Blue Ravine Rd. Suite B Folsom, CA 95630 1-[PHONE REDACTED] Ext. 3378 [EMAIL REDACTED] Section 3.0 Soil Sampling Up to 20 additional soil borings will be completed using a direct push drill rig per ASTM) D 6282-98, Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations (ATSM, 2005). Soil borings will be completed at locations where the lateral extent of petroleum-impacted soil has not been fully characterized. Figure 1 shows some of the proposed soil boring locations. TerraGraphics will collect up to 21 soil samples (including one field duplicate) from the borings and analyze for VOCs and aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). VOCs include benzene, toluene, xylenes, MTBE, ethylene-dibromide (EDB), and EDC and will be assessed using USEPA Method 8260B (USEPA, 1996); PAHs will be assessed using USEPA Method 8270C (USEPA, 2007b). Soil samples will also be analyzed for total lead using USEPA Method 6020A (USEPA, 2007a). Soil sample results will be compared to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) Initial Default Target Levels (IDTLs) (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ RUSLs (IDAPA, 2012). Section 4.0 Groundwater Sampling Three 2-inch PVC monitoring wells will be installed on the adjacent property to the north to delineate the downgradient extent of petroleum impacted groundwater. Figure 1 shows the proposed monitoring well locations. The City will secure access on this property. The well screen will be constructed of 0.01-inch machine slot screen PVC; the length will be determined in the field based on the observed depth to water and estimated seasonal fluctuations. In general, the screened interval will be installed so that the top of the screen is at or above the highest groundwater elevation. Two-inch schedule-40 PVC riser will be threaded to the well screen and will extend up into flush surface-mounted monuments. Traffic rated flush mount monuments will be set in concrete. The screened borehole section will be backfilled with Colorado silica sand from total depth to approximately 2 feet above the screen and the remainder of the borehole annulus will be sealed with bentonite chips to the surface in accordance with Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) standards. The top of casing for each monitoring well will be surveyed referencing a site horizontal and vertical datum so the measured depths to static groundwater may be used to establish a site groundwater gradient and flow direction. ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 4 TerraGraphics will collect groundwater samples from the three new monitoring wells and from four existing monitoring wells. Groundwater monitoring wells will be developed and sampled using ASTM D-4448-01, Standard Guide for Sampling Ground-Water Monitoring Wells (ASTM, 2007). One duplicate groundwater sample and one field blank will be collected for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes, for a total of nine groundwater samples. Groundwater samples will be collected for the potential chemicals of concern (COCs) identified in the Phase I ESA as recognized environmental conditions (RECs) (TerraGraphics, 2011). Groundwater samples will be analyzed for VOCs by USEPA Method 8260B (USEPA Method 8011 for EDB) (USEPA, 1996 and 1992, respectively) and for PAHs by USEPA Method 8270C (USEPA, 2007b). Groundwater samples will also be analyzed for total lead using USEPA Method 6020A (USEPA, 2007a). Water sample results will be compared to IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDAPA RUSLs (IDAPA, 2012). Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number of Bottles, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples Source Analytes (USEPA Method) Number of Containers1 Sample Size/ Container Preservation Analysis Holding Time Soil Total lead (6020A)2 21 8-ounce amber wide mouth jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 6 months VOCs (8260B)3 21 5-gram En Core® Sampler Cool to 4°C 14 days PAHs (8270C)4 21 4-ounce clear glass jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 14 days Groundwater Total lead (6020A)2 9 500- millileter(mL) HDPE5 container Nitric Acid (HNO3), Cool to 4°C 6 months VOCs (8260B)3 and EDB (8011)6 27 (9*3) 40-mL glass vials Hydrochloric acid (HCl), no headspace, Cool to 4°C 14 days PAHs (8270C)4 18 (9*2) 1-liter amber jars Cool to 4°C 7 days Subslab Vapor VOCs (TO-17 VI)7 2 sorbent tube (single bed) Cool to 4°C 30 Days Soil Vapor VOCs (TO-17 VI)7 4 sorbent tube (single bed) Cool to 4°C 30 Days Notes: 1. Number of containers includes 1 field blank for, subslab vapor, 1 field blank for soil vapor, 1 field duplicate for soil, and 1 field duplicate and 1 field blank for groundwater. 2. USEPA Method 6020A (USEPA, 2007a) 3. VOCs – Volatile organic compounds; USEPA Method 8260B (USEPA, 1996) 4. PAHs – aromatic hydrocarbons; USEPA Method 8270C (USEPA, 2007b) 5. HDPE – High density polyethylene 6. EDB –Ethylene Dibromide; USEPA Method 8011 (USEPA, 1992) 7. VOCs (Benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, MTBE, EDC, and EDB) (USEPA, 1999) ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 5 Section 5.0 Quality Control TerraGraphics will include results from the field blank in the quality control review. Section 6.0 Project Timetable  QAPP Addendum preparation and approval: (February/March 2013)  Coordination with Analytical Laboratory (March/April 2013)  Site utility locates (April 2013)  Field work (April 2013)  Laboratory Analysis (April/May 2013)  Data Review (May/June 2013)  Report Preparation: (May/June 2013)  Issue Draft Report (June 2013)  Report Finalization (July 2013) Section 7.0 References and Resources Used ASTM. 2005. D-6282-98, Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations. ASTM. 2006. D-5314-92, Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadoze Zone. Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA), 2012, IDAPA 58.01.24. Application of Risk Based Corrective Action at Petroleum Release Sites. March. TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering (TerraGraphics), 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Sharpe Oil. October. TerraGraphics and STRATA, 2012. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1102 S. Main Street Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. February. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Method 8011 1,2-dibromoethane and 1,2- dibromo-3-chloropropane by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography. July. Revision 0. USEPA, 1996. Method 8260B Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2. USEPA. 1999. Method TO-17: Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ambient Air Using Active Sampling onto Sorbent Tubes. USEPA/625/R-96/010b. January. USEPA, 2004. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Installation of Sub-Slab Vapor Probes and Sampling Using EPA Method TO-15 to Support Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Cominic DiGiulio, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory. ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I 6 USEPA, 2007a. Method 6020A Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. February, Revision 1. USEPA, 2007b. Method 8270C Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatorgraphy/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). ---PAGE BREAK--- W LEGEND SITE BOUNDARY EXISTING MONITORING WELL EXISTING WELL & SOIL BORING APRIL 2012 SOIL BORING PROPOSED MONITORING WELL & SOIL BORING W FIGURE 1: DATE: PROJECT NO: 1102 S MAIN SAMPLING LOCATIONS MAP 12003 DRAWN BY: A. HEITMANN N W E S SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 20 2/19/2013 DOMINOS PIZZA COFFEE STAND OLD ASTs CONCRETE PAD SWEET AVENUE BIKE PATH US HWY 95/ SOUTH MAIN MW-1/BH-1 MW-2/BH-3 MW-15 MW-14 BH-2 BH-6 BH-5 BH-4 BH-8 BH-7 BH-9 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I A Appendix A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1102 South Main Street Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1102 South Main Street Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Prepared for: City of Moscow 206 East 3rd Street Moscow, ID 83843 Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, ID 83843 www.terragraphics.com and STRATA 1428 South Main Street Moscow, ID 83843 www.stratageotech.com February 21, 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP iii Table of Contents Section 1.0 Project Management 1 1.1 Project/Task Organization 1 1.2 Problem Definition/Background 4 1.3 Project/Task Description 5 1.3.1 Description of the Project Area 5 1.3.2 Description of Site-Specific Assessment 5 1.3.2.1 Soil Sampling 7 1.3.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 7 1.3.3 Report Preparation 8 1.3.4 Project Timetable 8 1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria 9 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 10 1.4.1.5 Develop a Decision Rule 10 1.4.1.6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 10 1.4.2 Data Quality Indicators 10 1.4.3 Precision 12 1.4.3.1 Accuracy 12 1.4.3.2 Representativeness 12 1.4.3.3 Completeness 12 1.4.3.4 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 Records 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 Design 16 2.2 Sampling Methods 16 2.2.1 Soil Sampling 16 2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP iv 2.3 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures 17 2.3.1 Sample Numbering System 18 2.3.2 Sample Custody 18 2.4 Analytical Methods 18 2.5 Quality Control 19 2.5.1 Field Quality Control Checks 19 2.5.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks 20 2.6 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 20 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency 20 2.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 21 2.8.1 TerraGraphics 21 2.8.2 Anatek 21 2.9 Non-direct Measurements 21 2.10 Data Management 21 2.10.1 Data Validation 21 2.10.2 Data Recording 21 2.10.3 Data Transformation 21 2.10.4 Data Transmittal 22 2.10.5 Data Reduction 22 2.10.6 Data Analysis 22 2.10.7 Data Tracking 23 2.10.8 Data Storage and Retrieval 23 Section 3.0 Assessment and Oversight 24 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions 24 3.2 Reports to Management 24 Section 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 25 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation 25 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods 25 4.3 Reconciliation and User Requirements 25 Section 5.0 Resources Used 26 Appendices Appendix A Site-specific Health and Safety Plan A Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Detection Limits and IDEQ REM Initial Default Target Limits (IDTLs), IDEQ Petroleum Rule Residential Use Screening Levels (RUSLs) B Appendix C Existing Monitoring Well and Site-Use Historical Location Maps by Ted Sharpe C ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP v List of Figures Figure 1. Organization Chart 2 Figure 2. Key Project Personnel and Responsibilities 3 Figure 3. Site Location Map 6 Figure 4. DQO Process Flow Chart 11 Figure 5. Data Management Diagram 22 List of Tables Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number of Bottles, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples 8 Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements 13 Table 3. Stabilization Criteria with References for Water-Quality-Indicator Parameters 17 Table 4. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses 19 Table 5. Field Quality Control 20 Table 6. Laboratory Quality Control Checks 20 Table 7. Non-Direct Measurements Secondary Data) 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ABCA Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives Anatek Anatek Labs, Inc. AST Above-Ground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials bgs below ground surface BTEX Benzene, Toluene, and Total Xylenes CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC Constituent of Concern DQO Data Quality Objective EDB Ethylene Dibromide EDC Ethylene Dichloride ESA Environmental Site Assessment HDPE High-Density Polyethylene IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDTL Initial Default Target Level IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources LCS Laboratory Control Samples MDL Method Detection Limit MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate MTBE Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether PAH Aromatic Hydrocarbon PID Photo-Ionization Detector PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act REC Recognized Environmental Condition REM Risk Evaluation Manual RPD Relative Percent Difference RSL Regional Screening Level RUSL Residential Use Screening Level TerraGraphics TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank VOC Volatile Organic Compound ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 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--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 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, 2011b). The objective of this 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 site located at 1102 South Main Street in Moscow, Idaho. This QAPP is intended to ensure that sampling activities comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) requirements for QAPPs (USEPA, 2001). The primary goals will be to characterize potential soil, groundwater, or air contamination, and to potentially provide data for use in the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s (IDEQ) Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) in order to determine potential hazards and/or risks associated with found contamination. The following sections list the key project personnel and their responsibilities, and explain the problem(s) and site history, 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 for the 1102 South Main Street site in a Phase I ESA prepared by TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics) entitled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report, Sharpe Oil 1102 S. Main Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 and dated October 6, 2011 (TerraGraphics, 2011a). 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 site-specific Phase II ESAs during 2012. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan is provided in Appendix A. The laboratory detection limits and regulatory limits are listed in Appendix B. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 2 Figure 1. Organization Chart IDEQ Project Manager City of Moscow Project Manager Consultant Project Manager Consultant Environmental Scientist & Sampling Support Laboratory Subcontractor Experts Consultant QA Officer USEPA Project Officer Outreach Consultant ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 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 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 Aaron Scheff IDEQ, Main Office 1410 North Hilton Street Boise, ID 83706 (208) 373-0420 IDEQ State Brownfields Program Manager Robin Nimmer TerraGraphics 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-7858 TerraGraphics Project Manager, reports to IDEQ Program Specialist and TerraGraphics Program Manager, Jon Munkers 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 Shawn Ringo STRATA 1428 South Main Street Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-1006 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, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101 USEPA Brownfields Project Officer ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 4 1.2 Problem Definition/Background The City of Moscow was awarded a USEPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant (for hazardous substances contamination and petroleum contamination) in August of 2010. The City of Moscow is part of the Greater Moscow Area Coalition, which also includes the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency and Latah County. The City is using the USEPA grant funds to conduct Phase I and II ESAs, as well as Analyses of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives (ABCAs) for multiple Brownfield properties along a former railroad/industrial corridor, future industrial park property, and other negatively impacted and/or stigmatized areas. The 1102 South Main Street property was placed on the list of properties to be evaluated (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," "target property," or "site"). TerraGraphics completed a Phase I ESA for the City of Moscow on October 6, 2011 (TerraGraphics, 2011a). In the 1950s, Mobil Oil had a bulk petroleum plant, warehouse, and office at the site. In the years to follow, several owners bought and sold the site and used it for the same purpose. In the 1970s, the property owners and operators of the bulk plant were Handel-Langley. There was a Mobil Service Station operating on site; however, the exact years of operation are unknown. In the early 1980s, Ted Sharpe's father bought the property and renamed the site Sharpe Oil. At that time there were four 10,000-gallon above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), a 500-gallon underground storage tank (UST) near the loading dock of the warehouse building, a fuel truck, and a commercial dispensing island (between the service station and warehouse building) with underground piping in operation at the business. When his father bought the property, the service station was no longer in operation, and an office supply/copier service business occupied the current Domino's Pizza building. In 1999 his father sold the business to Busch Distributing. Mr. Sharpe also had the UST, piping, and dispensers removed in 1999 by Kennedy Equipment, and did a Tier 1 remediation with the assistance of IDEQ. Soil samples were collected; there was no evidence of soil contamination, and the area was backfilled. A few years later, the ASTs were removed. All buildings on the north parcel were removed in April 2008 and the former UST site was excavated in early July 2008 to investigate for residual petroleum contamination. Contamination was found in the former UST area where the fuel delivery trucks parked while filling the tanks, and around the former fuel pump mounted on the loading dock. On July 9, 2008, an initial soil sample was collected from a pile of greenish gray silty clay excavated about 2 feet below ground surface (bgs). The sample was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Contamination was detected at approximately 4 feet to 5 feet bgs. Soil was excavated until there was no visible contamination or odor detected in the side walls or bottom of the pit, which was about 30 feet long and 16 feet to 18 feet wide, with a depth of approximately 5 feet to 6 feet bgs. Mr. Sharpe paid to haul the contaminated soil to the Roach landfill near Lewiston, Idaho. Additional soil samples were collected on September 4, 2008, from three locations within the excavated pit, mostly near the bottom. All constituents of concern (COCs) were below REM Initial Default Target Levels (IDTLs) (IDEQ, 2004). Groundwater was not sampled at that time. Shallow groundwater was sampled in 2009 from two monitoring wells located north of the subject property (see Appendix C for location maps drawn by Ted Sharpe). Monitoring well ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 5 MW15 is located north of the former office/warehouse and south of the Latah Trail diversion. Monitoring well MW14 is located north of the former ASTs, just north of the Latah Trail diversion. MW15 was sampled on May 28, 2009, and analyzed for VOCs. It was sampled again on August 11, 2009, and analyzed for PAHs. Monitoring well MW14 was also sampled on August 11, 2009, and analyzed for VOCs and PAHs. Results for MW15 indicated certain VOCs (benzene, toluene) exceeded the IDTLs; PAH concentrations were below the IDTLs. Samples from MW14 did not have concentrations of VOCs or PAHs that exceeded the IDTLs. 1.3 Project/Task Description Sampling activities at the property will be conducted to evaluate the environmental condition of the site in order to determine potential hazards and/or risks to human health and the environment. 1.3.1 Description of the Project Area The site is located at 1102 South Main Street in Moscow, Latah County, Idaho (Figure The lot is flat with the exception of the east side where there is a sunken area approximately 100 feet long by 20 feet wide with four octagonal concrete pads, likely the containment site for the ASTs. This will eventually be turned into a patio area. Currently, two buildings are located on the site. One building, currently used as a Domino's Pizza, was constructed in 1954 and is located on the south side of the property. It is a concrete masonry unit building constructed on a conventional slab on grade foundation with an area of approximately 1,215 square feet. The other building is a trailer being used as an espresso stand; it is located on the north-northeast side of the property. The remainder of the property is covered by asphalt or gravel. The subject property is situated east of the intersection of South Main Street and Sweet Avenue. The site is bordered to the east by a mobile home park; the park is separated from the site by a chain-link fence. An access driveway to a mobile home park borders the site to the south, with a private residence south of the driveway. A diversion of the Latah Trail separates the site to the north from an open field; farther north is the Latah Trail and Paradise Creek. Northwest of and across South Main Street from the site is the University of Idaho, on both sides of Sweet Avenue. Further northwest is the University of Idaho greenbelt area and a parking lot. southwest of the site are University of Idaho buildings. 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 and groundwater 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. Sample container types, preservation techniques, and holding times for the chemical analyses are presented in Table 1. Details for collecting QA/QC samples are described in Section 2.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Key Proposed Soil Boring Proposed New Monitoring Well & Soil Boring Existing Monitoring Well Project No. 12003 Scale: N.T.S. Requestor: REN Drafter: REN City of Moscow Brownfields: 1002 S. Main St Figure 3. Proposed Sample Locations Date: 1/27/12 Main Street Domino’s Pizza MW-15 MW-14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 7 1.3.2.1 Soil Sampling Up to nine soil borings will be completed at the site using a direct push drill rig per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 6282-98, Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations (ATSM, 2005). Up to 13 soil samples plus one QC sample will be collected from the soil borings and analyzed for the potential COCs identified in the Phase I ESA as RECs. Soil samples will be analyzed for the Idaho IDTL analyte list for petroleum-contaminated sites, for PAHs and certain VOCs. VOCs including benzene, toluene, xylenes, methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE), ethylene-dibromide (EDB), and ethylene-dichloride (EDC) will be assessed using USEPA method 8260B, and PAHs will be assessed using USEPA method 8270C. Soil samples will also be analyzed for total lead, using USEPA Method 6020A. Soil sample results will be compared to IDEQ IDTLs and/or IDEQ Residential Use Screening Levels (RUSLs) (IDEQ, 2011). 1.3.2.2 Groundwater Sampling Two groundwater monitoring wells will be installed at the site at two of the soil boring locations. The two proposed monitoring well locations are depicted on Figure 3. The well screen will be constructed of 0.01-inch machine slot screen PVC; the length will be determined in the field. Blank PVC riser will be threaded to the well screen and will extend up into flush surface- mounted monuments. The screened borehole section will be backfilled with Colorado silica sand and the riser portion backfilled with bentonite chips. Monitoring wells will be surveyed referencing a site horizontal and vertical datum so the measured depths to static groundwater may be used to establish a site groundwater gradient. Groundwater samples will be collected from the two new monitoring wells and from two existing monitoring wells (MW-14 and MW-15) using TerraGraphics’ Standard Protocol for Ground Water Sampling (TerraGraphics, 2006). One duplicate groundwater sample will be collected for QA/QC purposes, for a total of five groundwater samples. Groundwater samples will be collected for the potential COCs identified in the Phase I ESA as RECs. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for Idaho IDTL VOCs by USEPA Method 8260B (USEPA Method 8011 for EDB) and for PAHs by USEPA Method 8270C. Groundwater samples will also be analyzed for total lead using USEPA Method 6020A/. Water sample results will be compared to IDTLs and/or IDEQ RUSLs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 8 Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number of Bottles, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples Source Analytes (USEPA Method) Number of Bottles1 Sample Size/ Container Preservation Analysis Holding Time Soil Total lead (6020A)2 14 8-ounce amber wide mouth jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 6 months ID IDTL3 VOCs (8260B)4 14 40-mL amber VOA vial Methanol Cool to 4°C 14 days PAHs (8270C)5 14 4-ounce clear glass jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 14 days Groundwater Total lead (6020A)2 5 500-ml HDPE6 container Nitric Acid (HNO3) 6 months ID IDTL3 VOCs (8260B)4 and EDB (8011)7 15 (5*3) 40-ml glass vials Hydrochloric acid (HCL), no headspace, Cool to 4°C 14 days PAHs (8270C)5 10 (5*2) 1-liter amber jars Cool to 4°C 14 days Notes: 1. Number of bottles includes 1 field duplicate for soil and 1 field duplicate for groundwater. 2. USEPA Method 6020A (USEPA, 2007b) 3. ID IDTL - Idaho Initial Default Target Limit 4. VOCs – Volatile organic compounds; USEPA Method 8260B (USEPA, 1996) 5. PAHs – aromatic hydrocarbons; USEPA Method 8270C (USEPA, 2007a) 6. HDPE – High density polyethylene 7. EDB –Ethylene Dibromide; USEPA Method 8011 (USEPA, 1992) 1.3.3 Report Preparation TerraGraphics will prepare a report documenting site soil and groundwater sampling field activities and analytical findings. Analytical test results will be compared to IDEQ IDTLs and/or RUSLs. Analyte concentrations detected above reporting limits will be input to the IDEQ REM to evaluate site surface soil, groundwater, and vapor exposure pathways. The report will include the purpose, scope, methods, and findings of the sampling, screening level/target level comparisons, risk assessment, figures, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for necessary additional investigation, if any. TerraGraphics will submit to the City an electronic draft report. 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. 1.3.4 Project Timetable  QAPP Health and Safety Plan (Appendix A) preparation and approval: (February 2012)  Coordination with Analytical Laboratory (February/March 2012)  Site utility locates (February/March 2012)  Field work (February/March 2012)  Laboratory Analysis (February/March 2012) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 9  Risk Evaluation (March/April 2012)  Report Preparation: (March/April 2012)  Issue Draft Report (April 2012)  Report Finalization (April 2012) 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 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,b). USEPA’s seven-step process for DQO development is presented below (Figure 4) to communicate the quality objectives for site assessment activities associated with the Moscow Brownfields corridor and other negatively impacted and/or stigmatized areas. 1.4.1.1 State the Problem The 1102 South Main Street site is a historical bulk petroleum plant and Mobil Service Station. It contained four 10,000-gallon ASTs, a 500-gallon UST near the loading dock of the warehouse building, a fuel truck, a 1,000-gallon UST, and a commercial dispensing island (between the service station and warehouse building) with underground piping in operation at the business. The USTs, piping, and dispensers were removed in 1999. The ASTs were removed in the early 2000s. In 2008, the warehouse building was demolished. Petroleum-contaminated soil was discovered when the site warehouse was demolished. Soil and groundwater samples were collected and some constituents were above IDTLs. Contaminated soil was excavated from the subject property and hauled away. This assessment will determine if RECs have negatively impacted the site and will provide data for use in IDEQ’s REM. 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 IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ petroleum rule RUSLs (IDEQ, 2011). 1.4.1.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision Analytical data are needed to adequately evaluate potential impacts to the project site’s soil and groundwater. The targeted analytes and regulatory action levels (IDTLs/RUSLs) needed to adequately provide information for decisions on potential COCs are provided in this QAPP ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 10 (Table 1) and Appendix B. Specifics on those methodologies and relevant measurement characteristics can be found in Section 2.0. 1.4.1.4 Define the Study Boundaries The site is located at 1102 South Main Street, within the City’s former railroad/industrial corridor and Urban Renewal District. The site location is shown on Figure 3, including site features targeted during this assessment and proposed exploration locations for groundwater monitoring wells and soil. 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 cleanup or removal of routes of exposure to contamination by human and ecological receptors. 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 contaminants above cleanup levels that would preclude residential, commercial, and/or recreational redevelopment or use?  Does contamination at the site have the potential to negatively affect human health and/or the environment?  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 Detection limits will meet the DQOs for comparison to the IDTLs and RUSLs or multiples thereof. In order to ensure the quality of data is acceptable for use, Section 4.0 outlines all the specified tolerable limits and decision errors for the data obtained during this project. 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 data quality criteria requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 11 Figure 4. DQO Process Flow Chart 1. State the Problem: Determine if recognized environmental conditions have negatively impacted the site. 2. Identify the Decision: Do the recognized environmental conditions identified on-site result in concentrations of COCs exceeding IDTLs or RUSLs (Residential Use Screening Levels)? 3. Identify Inputs to the Decision: Research and/or sample data collected from the project site, including soil and groundwater data. 4. Define the Study Boundaries: The site is located at 1102 South Main Street in Moscow, Idaho (Figure Soil and groundwater data will be collected. 5. Develop a Decision Rule: Concentrations for samples collected will be compared against IDTLs and/or IDAPA petroleum rule RUSLs. Vapor data (if later collected) will be compared to USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (which may also have a multiplier depending on the sample location). 6. Specify Limits on Decision Errors: Detection limits will meet the DQOs for comparison to the IDTLs/RUSLs/RSLs. 7. Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data: Samples will be collected per this site-specific QAPP to provide data for use in the REM. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 12 1.4.3 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):     % 100 2 2 1 2 1           C C C C RPD where: RPD = relative percent difference C1 = concentration of QA/QC sample C2 = concentration of associated original Acceptable precision limits are based on past databases, as defined by USEPA. Laboratory duplicate measurements will be obtained for each set of samples submitted and analyzed. 1.4.3.1 Accuracy Accuracy of laboratory analysis is assessed by measuring standard reference material and 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 to determine spike recovery. Spike recovery is expressed as percent recovery: % 100 ) ( %    TV OC SC RS 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. 1.4.3.2 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. 1.4.3.3 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%. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 13 Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements Data Quality Parameter Acceptable Criteria Precision ± 20% Accuracy (Bias) 75%-125% Completeness 95% 1.4.3.4 Comparability Using standard USEPA accepted protocols, all matrix-specific samples will be collected, processed, and analyzed at sufficient detection limits, precision, and accuracy for correlation with existing available data. 1.5 Special Training/Certification A qualified Environmental Scientist will oversee all sampling activities and serve as the Site Safety and Health Officer. 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 Manual 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 ASTM guidance Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of- Custody Procedures (D-4840-99) (ASTM, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 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 bailer, low-flow peristaltic pump) 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. For instance, should a low-flow peristaltic pump collection system fail static water is greater than one atmosphere bgs), a well may be sampled using hand bailers. 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 analysis. 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, matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD), and duplicates. TerraGraphics will complete internal QA/QC to ensure the quality of the data. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 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. The internal QA/QC will document the data meets the proposed DQOs. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 16 Section 2.0 Data Generation and Acquisition 2.1 Sampling Process Design Proposed site soil and groundwater sampling activities are described in Section 1.3; sampling locations are depicted on Figure 3. The site sampling methods presented in Section 2.2 support the following site activities:  Nine soil borings will be conducted at this site. Up to 13 soil samples will be collected from the soil borings. One duplicate soil sample will also be collected for QA/QC purposes.  Samples will be screened for VOCs using a photo-ionization detector (PID) throughout the borings and soil samples will be collected based upon information gathered in the field. The samples will be evaluated for VOCs, PAHs, and total lead impacts to site subsurface soil and the soil leaching to groundwater pathway.  Two monitoring wells will be installed at two of the same locations as the soil borings.  Four groundwater samples will be collected, from two of the existing monitoring wells and the two newly installed monitoring wells, to evaluate VOCs, PAHs, and total lead impacts to site groundwater and the groundwater exposure pathway. One duplicate groundwater sample will also be collected for QA/QC purposes. 2.2 Sampling Methods 2.2.1 Soil Sampling Subsurface soil samples will be collected using direct push methods, a stainless steel macro-core barrel, and disposable liners per ASTM D-6282-98 (ASTM, 2005). Using a direct push drill rig, a single tube, 2-inch diameter 5-foot length macro-core barrel will be driven in 5-foot increments (0-5 feet, 5-10 feet, 10-15 feet, etc.) to the target depth of the borehole, which is approximately 15 feet bgs. When necessary (hole collapses, excessive slough, below water table), a piston and point with o-ring will be used to seal the sampler. Once the sampler has been driven to the depth of deployment (beginning of new interval to be sampled), the piston will be released to allow the unconsolidated formation (soil) to enter the sampler, collecting sample from a discrete interval bgs. A new macro-core liner will be used to collect each sample interval. Upon retrieval, liners will be cut to expose the soil and lithology will be entered into the bore log. Soils will be classified referencing the United Soil Classification (ASTM D2487-98) (ASTM, 2003). Soil samples collected for VOC analysis will be screened using a PID and samples collected based on the highest reading. When analyzing for VOCs, the exterior of the soil will be scraped away with a stainless steel knife to expose fresh soil immediately after cutting the liner, and that soil will be collected using an EnCore sampler (or equivalent). The sample will be capped with a Teflon® lid to minimize air space for volatilization. Recommended bottle types and preservatives for each COC are 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 bgs and sampler’s name, placed in ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 17 a cooler containing double-bagged ice immediately after collection, and held under chain-of- custody for delivery. Soil cuttings will be containerized and stored on-site, then disposed of at an appropriate facility once characterized. The macro-core barrel will be decontaminated with an Alconox solution, cleaned, and rinsed with potable water prior to successive trips down the borehole. All tooling will be decontaminated with an Alconox solution then pressure washed with potable water between borings. All borings will be sealed with bentonite chips and/or the placement of bentonite grout via the tremie method as per Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) regulations. Based upon information provided by IDEQ, it is assumed the cuttings will not be considered hazardous waste; however, this will ultimately be determined by sample results. 2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling Groundwater monitoring wells will be developed and sampled referencing ASTM D-4448-01, Standard Guide for Sampling Ground-Water Monitoring Wells (ASTM, 2007). Disposable single-use ⅜-inch high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing will be inserted into the screened interval at each well and positioned opposite the screen. Water samples will be collected with a peristaltic pump at a low flow rate. Prior to collecting groundwater samples, wells will be developed, then purged using a peristaltic pump until water quality parameters have stabilized. Table 3 lists the stabilization criteria for temperature, pH, and specific conductance. Water quality parameters to be measured in the field are temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific electrical conductance (SEC), and oxidation/reduction potential (ORP). Field parameters are primarily used to determine stability of recharge of the well and to ensure a groundwater sample is representative of the formation. Purge water will be containerized and stored on-site, then disposed of at an appropriate facility once characterized. Recommended bottle types and preservatives for each COC are listed in Table 1, although the laboratory generally determines the types and sizes of bottles to be used. Samples will be collected after the water quality parameters stabilize or after 45 minutes. All samples will be placed in a cooler containing double-bagged ice immediately after collection, cooled to ≤ 4°C, and held under chain-of-custody for shipment. Table 3. Stabilization Criteria with References for Water-Quality-Indicator Parameters Parameter Stabilization Criteria Reference temperature ± 0.2°C Wilde, 2008 pH ± 0.1 Puls and Barcelona, 1996; Wilde, 2008 SEC ± 3% Puls and Barcelona, 1996 2.3 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 designations S1, S2, S3, S4, or S5, as applicable. The 1102 South Main Street site will have a designation of S3. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 18 2.3.1 Sample Numbering System Each soil sample collected will have a unique field sample identification code that will include the site identification number and the date the sample was collected. The field sample identification code will be in the following format: (Site Identification Number-Borehole Number For example, the field sample identification code for a soil sample collected from borehole number 5 at a depth of 5 feet on March 3, 2012, would be (S3- BH-05 5ft)030312. Each groundwater sample collected will have a unique field sample identification code that will include the site identification number and the date the sample was collected. The field sample identification code will be in the following format: (Site Identification Number-Monitoring Well For example, the field sample identification code for a groundwater sample collected from monitoring well 3 on March 4, 2012, would be (S3-MW-03)030412. 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 a field duplicate sample collected at borehole number 2 at a depth of 5 feet on March 3, 2012, would be (S3-BH- 02-5ft)030312DUP. 2.3.2 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. 2.4 Analytical Methods Samples will be analyzed for all COCs using Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (USEPA, 2008) by an external analytical laboratory. Sample analysis will be in accordance with approved USEPA analytical methods. See Table 4 for techniques, method numbers, and reporting limits for analysis. Reporting limits for soil, groundwater, and vapor will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ petroleum rule RUSLs (IDEQ, 2011). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 19 Table 4. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses Analyte Method Reporting Limit1 Soil ID IDTL VOCs USEPA 8260B2 See Appendix B PAHs USEPA 8270C3 See Appendix B Total lead USEPA 6020A4 See Appendix B Water ID IDTL VOCs USEPA 8260B2 See Appendix B EDB USEPA 80115 See Appendix B PAHs USEPA 8270C3 See Appendix B Total lead USEPA 6020A4 See Appendix B Notes: 1 Reporting limits for soil and groundwater will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ petroleum rule RUSLs (IDEQ, 2011). These tables can be found in Appendix B; IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in Appendix B tables in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL); IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in red font are below the method detection limit (MDL). TerraGraphics will request that the laboratory report detection of these compounds below the PQL and, although the MDL may be above the IDTL, any detection of these compounds 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 compounds given the current analytical methods limitations for these chemicals. 2USEPA (1996) 3USEPA (2007a) 4USEPA (2007b) 5USEPA (1992) 2.5 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. 2.5.1 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 groundwater 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 sample is one portion of a double-volume solid sample that is homogenized (mixed) before the sample containers are filled and the other portion is the primary sample. Duplicate samples for VOC analysis will be co-located with the primary sample to minimize volatilization. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 20 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 5. Field Quality Control Checks Quality Control Check Frequency Field duplicate (soil) 1:20 samples Field duplicate (groundwater) 1:20 samples 2.5.2 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 (SOPs) and QA manuals. The laboratory QC will include appropriate duplicates, laboratory control samples (LCS), MS/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 6. Table 6. 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 2.6 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. 2.7 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency Laboratory instrument calibration and frequency will follow the guidance outlined in USEPA methodology and certification requirements. Field instruments PID, water quality probe) ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 21 will be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, and the calibration confirmation will be documented in the field notebook. 2.8 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 2.8.1 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. 2.8.2 Anatek Anatek 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. 2.9 Non-direct Measurements This project may rely upon secondary data including online IDEQ regulatory data, interviews, and other historical data as shown in Table 7. Table 7. 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 2.10 Data Management Figure 5 is a diagram for data management process. 2.10.1 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. 2.10.2 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. 2.10.3 Data Transformation The raw or validated data will be available for third party data transformation by request. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 22 Figure 5. Data Management Diagram 2.10.4 Data Transmittal Either Microsoft Excel© or Access© will be used for the transmittal and tracking of data. 2.10.5 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. 2.10.6 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. The specific statistical and/or modeling program used will be determined by the project and a full description will be documented in the final report. 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--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 23 2.10.7 Data Tracking This project will use Microsoft Excel© or Access© to track sample numbers and forms. 2.10.8 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--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 24 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 the QAPP and nonconformance. 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, IDEQ, and USEPA. The report will describe sampling procedures and provide pictures 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 COCs are detected above the reporting limits, a site characterization will be provided in the report. Electronic report copies will be provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 25 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 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 quality review for the water and soil analytical data will be performed according to the 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--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 26 Section 5.0 Resources Used 29 CFR 1910.120, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2003. D2487-98. United Soil Classification. ASTM, 2004. D-4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures. ASTM, 2005. D 6282-98, Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations. ASTM, 2007. D-4448-01, Standard Guide for Sampling Ground-Water Monitoring Wells. ASTM, 2010. D 6724-04, Standard Guide for Direct Push Groundwater Monitoring Wells. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2004. Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual. Boise, Idaho. April. IDEQ, 2011. Draft Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual for Petroleum Releases. Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona, 1996. Ground-Water Issue Paper: Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures; USEPA, EPA/540/S-95/504. TerraGraphics, 2006. Standard Protocol for Ground Water Sampling. July. TerraGraphics, 2011a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Report Sharpe Oil 1102 S. Main Street Moscow, Idaho 83843. October 6, 2011. TerraGraphics, 2011b. Master Quality Assurance Project Plan for the City of Moscow Brownfields Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Moscow, Idaho. October 31, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Method 8011: 1,2-dibromoethane and 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane by Microextraction and Gas Chromotography, Revision 0, July 1992. USEPA, 1996. Method 8260B: Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Revision 2. 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, 2007a. Method 8270C Semivolatile Organic Compound by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). February 2007: Revision 4. USEPA, 2007b. Method 6020/6020A; Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. February 2007: Revision 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 27 USEPA, 2008. Method 846; Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. January 2008: Update IV, 3rd Edition. Wilde, F.D., 2008. Guidelines for Field-Measured Water Quality Properties – Chapter 6. In the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP A Appendix A Site-specific Health and Safety Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Health & Safety Plan Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for 1102 S. Main Street, Moscow General Information: CLIENT: City of Moscow PROJECT MANAGER: Robin Nimmer SITE NAME: Sharpe Oil SITE LOCATION: 1102 S. Main Street, Moscow, Idaho Article I. Site Characteristics PROJECT LOCATION: The site is located at 1102 S. Main Street in Moscow, Idaho on approximately 0.57 acres of land. The subject property is located in the industrial and former railroad corridor of the city of Moscow. The subject property contains a slab on grade building reportedly constructed in 1956 with approximately 1,215 square feet of floor space; the building sits on the south portion of the property and is used as a Domino's Pizza. A trailer that sits on the north-northeastern portion of the property is used as an espresso stand. The lot is flat with the exception of the east side where there is a sunken area approximately 100 feet long by 20 feet wide with four octagon shaped concrete pads, which was likely the former aboveground storage tank (AST) containment area; this will eventually be turned into a patio space. The remainder of the property is covered by asphalt or gravel. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES: The activities to be performed involve collection of soil samples and groundwater samples from areas where recognized environmental conditions (RECs) have been identified. If warranted, soil vapor samples will also be collected. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS: a) Waste Type(s) Liquid X Solid X Sludge Gas X Dust X _ b) Characteristics Corrosive Ignitable Radioactive Volatile X _ Toxic X Reactive Unknown Other_____ Article II. Hazard Evaluation HAZARD EVALUATION: a) Chemical Hazards Based upon review of the previous assessments, potential chemical hazards on the site include ---PAGE BREAK--- volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Site personnel are trained in hazard recognition and will use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate to the potential hazards. b) Routes of Exposure Exposure could occur via inhalation or ingestion.  Inhalation sources include windblown dusts during sampling activities. Samplers must 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. c) Air Monitoring Direct-read air monitoring equipment may be employed to screen for contaminants and toxic or flammable atmospheres prior to collecting samples if the project manager, or site supervisor, deems it appropriate. PHYSICAL HAZARDS: There will be no trenching or confined space hazards. However, 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 cold stress. Should any of the following occur—extreme shivering, disorientation, white or gray color of the skin on ---PAGE BREAK--- the ends of fingers, nose, or ears—the affected person is to immediately leave the work area, drink warm fluids or otherwise warm up, and change into dry clothes, as necessary. If the do not subside after a reasonable rest period, the affected person shall notify their supervisor and Health and Safety Officer (HSO) and seek medical assistance. The HSO will be alert to signs of cold stress in site personnel and increase the frequency of breaks and warm-up schedule as necessary. 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 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. Article III. Work Practices Workers will comply with all TerraGraphics Health and Safety Manual rules. Workers will comply with all state and federal regulations. ---PAGE BREAK--- GENERAL PRACTICES: Sample activities generally involve disturbance of potentially contaminated soil and conducting property measurement activities. In general, lifting objects more than 40 pounds is anticipated, and proper lifting procedures should be followed. If possible, the load to be lifted should be lightened. Where lifting of heavy objects or bending is required, proper techniques include bending at the knees and keeping backs straight, or obtaining assistance from other crew members. Team members need to limit the creation and spread of dust. Practices such as shaking out dusty clothing or using compressed air to blow off dust will be strictly prohibited. All employees are responsible for performing the tasks assigned to them in accordance with the HSP and all applicable occupational safety and health rules and regulations. All employees are responsible for notifying their immediate supervisor or HSO of any unsafe practice or condition. All personnel will read this HSP and sign the acceptance form provided in Attachment I. Daily tailgate safety meetings will be held and documented using the form in Attachment II. PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Section 100.5 of the most current Health and Safety Manual and Health and Safety Standard Operating Procedures for TerraGraphics addresses PPE selection:  A Class A, B, or C hard hat as appropriate to the site,  Steel-toed, steel shank work boots,  Hearing protection,  Latex/nitrile gloves, 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. 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 pickup. Potentially contaminated materials will be separated, sealed in chemically compatible containers, and labeled for appropriate off-site disposal. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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. Please Note: It is the responsibility of the crew chief / HSO to make sure that all equipment coming off site has been properly decontaminated. Documentation of decontamination must be entered in the field log book, which will become part of the permanent project file. 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 / HSO will assume charge during a medical emergency. a) Local Emergency Phone Numbers Ambulance: 911 Hospital: Gritman Medical Center (208) 882-4511 (non-emergency) 700 South Main Street 911 (emergency department) Moscow, ID 83843 Poison Control Center: [PHONE REDACTED] Sheriff/Police: 911 118 E 4th Street (208) 883-7054 Moscow, ID 83843 Fire Department: 911 311 (non-emergency) ---PAGE BREAK--- b) Emergency Contacts 8 am to 5 pm: TerraGraphics Moscow office (208) 882-7858 STRATA Moscow office (208) 882-1006 After hours: Jon Munkers (Mobile) (208) 791-3663 Jerry Lee (Mobile) (509) 330-1700 Karen Helmick (cell) (425) 299-0984 Article V. Site Organization Map/Sketch YES Site Secured NA Perimeter Identified TBD Zone(s) of Contamination Identified YES EMERGENCY ROUTE Driving directions to Gritman Medical Center 1. Start out going NORTH on S MAIN ST/US-95 toward W SWEET AVE. Continue to follow US-95 N. 0.30 miles 2. Turn LEFT onto E 7th ST. 0.07 miles 3. Take the first LEFT onto S MAIN ST. 4. 700 S MAIN ST is on the LEFT. Total Travel Estimates: about 1 minute / 0.40 miles ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 1 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ACCEPTANCE FORM ---PAGE BREAK--- HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ACCEPTANCE FORM PROPERTY SAMPLING ACTIVITIES I, have read, understand, and agree to abide by all requirements of the Site Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for Sharpe Oil Sampling Activities. I understand that my failure to abide by any aspect of the HSP can lead to disciplinary action, including immediate permanent removal from the project. Signature Date ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 2 INCIDENT RESPONSE REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- A. Incident/Near Miss Report This side to be filled out by employee and supervisor/HR/H&S Representative Name of individual(s) involved: Location of incident: (TG office building and room, or address and general description) Description of task being performed, related to what project? (If applicable) Description of incident: (What events occurred, etc.?) Part(s) of body injured: (If applicable) Description of medical care or first aid received: (List health care provider) Potential cause(s) of incident: (Describe equipment or items contributing to incident.) Action(s) taken or proposed to reduce chance of reoccurrence: Incident Category: Injury Non-Injury Near-Miss Property Damage Exposure to Hazardous Substance Incident Severity: First Aid Only Minor medical Serious No lost time Lost Time Hospitalized Employee signature: Supervisor printed name and Today’s Date: Employee: Incident Date: Medical Care provided? Yes No Incident Time: am/ pm Filled out by: ---PAGE BREAK--- Employee: Supervisor: Incident date: Incident time: H&S/HR rep.: Date this form completed: B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION - INTERNAL This side to be completed by H&S or HR representative 1. Is external report required? Yes No Has this report been made? Yes No. If so, to whom was report made? (Name and agency) 2. Were training requirements for the job met? Yes No 3. Was protective equipment used or were protective measures being taken? Yes No Describe: 4. Were safety procedures being followed? Yes No Which ones? 5. Was employee working alone? Yes No If no, who was present? 6. Witness Interviews: (name of witness; date and time; add extra sheet if needed) 7. Hazards Identified: 8. Other Comments: 9. Recommendations: 10. Recommendations Approved: Yes No By: Date: 11. Follow up after days/ weeks. Update provided to client? Yes No New status (if changed): ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 3 TAILGATE MEETING REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- Tailgate Meeting Report Date of Company Names of Attendees: Discussion Items: Problem Areas, Issues, or Concerns: Corrective Actions Taken: Signature: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP B Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Detection Limits and IDEQ REM Initial Default Target Limits (IDTLs), IDEQ Petroleum Rule Residential Use Screening Levels (RUSLs) ---PAGE BREAK--- Soil Method Detection Limits, Practical Quantitation Limits, Idaho Initial Default Target Levels, and Residental Use Screening Level EPA 200.8/6020/7471A metals MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg Arsenic 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 0.3906407 #N/A Barium 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 895.63938 #N/A Cadmium 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 1.3528475 #N/A Chromium 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 2130 #N/A Lead 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 49.618955 #N/A Mercury 200.8/7471A 0.05 0.1 0.0050945 #N/A Selenium 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 2.0341801 #N/A Silver 200.8/6020A 0.1 0.5 0.1885437 #N/A EPA 8270C PAH MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg 0.005 0.1 3.31 #N/A Acenaphthene 0.005 0.1 52.264318 52.3 0.005 0.1 78.016833 #N/A Anthracene 0.005 0.1 1040.1188 1040 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.005 0.1 #N/A #N/A Benzo(a)anthracene 0.005 0.1 0.4216897 0.422 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.005 0.1 0.0421671 0.0422 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.005 0.1 0.4215305 0.422 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.005 0.1 4.2175927 4.22 0.005 0.1 33.366107 33.4 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.005 0.1 #N/A #N/A Fluoranthene 0.005 0.1 363.51173 364 Fluorene 0.005 0.1 54.836079 54.8 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.005 0.1 0.4218704 #N/A Naphthalene 0.005 0.1 1.1440039 #N/A Phenanthrene 0.005 0.1 79.042032 #N/A Pyrene 0.005 0.1 359.21544 359 EPA 8260B IDTL VOC MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg 0.001 0.005 0.1930065 #N/A 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.0001 0.001 0.0001432 0.00014318 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.001 0.005 0.0076713 0.00771 0.001 0.005 0.1452871 #N/A Benzene 0.001 0.005 0.0177853 0.0178 0.001 0.005 10.2 0.071 m+p-Xylene 0.002 0.01 1.67 1.68 methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.001 0.005 0.0363772 0.067 Naphthalene 0.001 0.005 1.1440039 0.078 o-Xylene 0.001 0.005 1.67 1.68 Toluene 0.001 0.005 4.8851556 4.89 Soil Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA 8151A HERBS MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg Dalapon 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A Dicamba 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A Dichloroprop 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A 2,4Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.005 0.01 1.8416771 #N/A Pentachlorophenol 0.005 0.01 0.0090734 #N/A 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.005 0.01 2.37 #N/A 2,4,5-T 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A 2,4-DB 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A (Dinoseb) 0.005 0.01 0.1626183 #N/A Dacthal 0.005 0.01 15.783411 #N/A Picloram 0.005 0.01 2.9513598 #N/A Chloramben 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A EPA 8081A OC PEST MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg alpha-BHC 0.005 0.01 2.10E-04 #N/A gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.005 0.01 8.96E-04 #N/A beta-BHC 0.005 0.01 7.51E-04 #N/A delta-BHC 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A Heptachlor 0.005 0.01 0.0010556 #N/A Aldrin 0.005 0.01 0.0210975 #N/A Heptachlor epoxide 0.005 0.01 0.0260914 #N/A 4,4-DDE 0.005 0.01 1.7221 #N/A Endosulfan I 0.005 0.01 2.4926 #N/A Dieldrin 0.005 0.01 0.001333 #N/A Endrin 0.005 0.01 0.3350926 #N/A 4,4-DDD 0.005 0.01 2.4386 #N/A Endosulfan II 0.005 0.01 2.4926 #N/A 4,4-DDT 0.005 0.01 0.403 #N/A Endrin aldehyde 0.005 0.01 0.3351 #N/A 0.025 0.05 55.20219 #N/A Endosulfan sulfate 0.005 0.01 2.4926 #N/A Endrin ketone 0.005 0.01 0.3351 #N/A Chlordane 0.025 0.05 1.5274851 #N/A Toxaphene 0.025 0.05 0.3257701 #N/A Soil Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA 8270Cmod OP PESTS MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg Azinphos-methyl 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Bolstar 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Carbophenothion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Chlorpyrifos 0.05 0.1 2.8416086 #N/A Coumaphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Demeton 0.05 0.1 0.0012862 #N/A Diazinon 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Dichlorvos 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Dimethoate 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Disulfoton 0.05 0.1 0.0667801 #N/A EPN 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Ethoprop 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Ethyl parathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Fensulfothion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Fenthion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Malathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Merphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Methyl parathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Mevinphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Naled 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Phorate 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Phosmet 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Ronnel 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Stirophos 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Sulfotep 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Tokuthion 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A Trichloronate 0.05 0.1 #N/A #N/A SM4500 NO3 MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg NO3/N+NO2/N 1 5 #N/A #N/A SM4500NH3G MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg Ammonia/N 0.1 0.5 #N/A #N/A SM4500NorgC MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg RUSL mg/Kg TKN 10 25 #N/A #N/A Reporting limits for soil and groundwater will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ petroleum rule IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL). IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in red font are below the method detection limit (MDL). TerraGraphics will request that the laboratory report detection of these compounds below the PQL and, although the MDL may be above the IDTL, any detection of these compounds 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 compounds given the current analytical methods limitations for these chemicals Soil Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Groundwater Method Detection Limits, Practical Quantitation Limits, Idaho Initial Default Target Levels, and Residental Use Screening Level EPA 200.8/6020/7471A metals MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L Arsenic 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.01 #N/A Barium 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 2 #N/A Cadmium 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.005 #N/A Chromium 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.1 #N/A Lead 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.015 #N/A Mercury 200.8/7471A 0.00005 0.0001 0.002 #N/A Selenium 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.05 #N/A Silver 200.8/6020A 0.0001 0.001 0.052142857 #N/A EPA 8270C PAH MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L 0.000005 0.0001 0.0417 #N/A Acenaphthene 0.000005 0.0001 0.625714286 0.626 0.000005 0.0001 0.625714286 #N/A Anthracene 0.000005 0.0001 3.128571429 3.13 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.000005 0.0001 0.312857143 #N/A Benzo(a)anthracene 0.000005 0.0001 7.65255E-05 0.0000765 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.000005 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.000005 0.0001 7.65255E-05 0.0000765 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.000005 0.0001 0.000765255 0.000765 0.000005 0.0001 0.007652554 0.00765 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.000005 0.0001 7.65255E-06 #N/A Fluoranthene 0.000005 0.0001 0.417142857 0.417 Fluorene 0.000005 0.0001 0.417142857 0.417 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.000005 0.0001 7.65255E-05 #N/A Naphthalene 0.000005 0.0001 0.208571429 #N/A Phenanthrene 0.000005 0.0001 0.312857143 #N/A Pyrene 0.000005 0.0001 0.312857143 0.313 EPA 8260B IDTL VOC MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L 0.0000001 0.000001 0.439 #N/A 1,2-Dibromoethane 0.00000005 0.00000005 0.00005 0.00005 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0000001 0.000001 0.005 0.005 0.0000001 0.000001 0.304 #N/A B 0 0000001 0 000001 0 005 0 005 Groundwater Page 1 Benzene 0.0000001 0.000001 0.005 0.005 0.0000001 0.000001 0.7 0.107 m+p-Xylene 0.0000002 0.000002 4.34 4.46 methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.0000001 0.000001 0.016928377 0.031 Naphthalene 0.0000001 0.000001 0.208571429 0.102 o-Xylene 0.0000001 0.000001 4.34 4.46 Toluene 0.0000001 0.000001 1 1 EPA 8151A HERBS MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L Dalapon 0.00005 0.0001 0.2 #N/A Dicamba 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A #N/A Dichloroprop 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A #N/A 2,4-D 0.00005 0.0001 0.104285714 #N/A Pentachlorophenol 0.00005 0.0001 0.001 #N/A 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.00005 0.0001 0.05 #N/A 2,4,5-T 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A #N/A 2,4-DB 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A #N/A Dinoseb 0.00005 0.0001 0.007 #N/A Dacthal 0.00005 0.0001 0.104285714 #N/A Picloram 0.00005 0.0001 0.5 #N/A Chloramben 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A #N/A Groundwater Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA 8081A OC PEST MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L alpha-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 0.00000887 #N/A gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.000001 0.00001 0.000043 #N/A beta-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 0.000031 #N/A delta-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 #N/A #N/A Heptachlor 0.000003 0.00001 0.0004 #N/A Aldrin 0.000005 0.00001 3.2861E-06 #N/A Heptachlor epoxide 0.000008 0.00001 0.0002 #N/A 4,4-DDE 0.000004 0.00001 0.000164305 #N/A Endosulfan I 0.000002 0.00001 0.062571429 #N/A Dieldrin 0.000003 0.00001 3.49148E-06 #N/A Endrin 0.000002 0.00001 0.002 #N/A 4,4-DDD 0.000001 0.00001 0.000232765 #N/A Endosulfan II 0.000003 0.00001 0.062571429 #N/A 4,4-DDT 0.000004 0.00001 0.000164305 #N/A Endrin aldehyde 0.000001 0.00001 0.002 #N/A 0.000005 0.00001 0.04 #N/A Endosulfan sulfate 0.000004 0.00001 0.062571429 #N/A Endrin ketone 0.000004 0.00001 0.002 #N/A Chlordane 0.000025 0.00005 0.002 #N/A Toxaphene 0.000025 0.00005 0.003 #N/A EPA 8270Cmod OP PESTS MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L Azinphos-methyl 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Bolstar 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Carbophenothion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Chlorpyrifos 0.0001 0.0005 0.031285714 #N/A Coumaphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Demeton 0.0001 0.0005 0.000417143 #N/A Diazinon 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Dichlorvos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Dimethoate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Disulfoton 0.0001 0.0005 0.000417143 #N/A EPN 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Ethoprop 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Eth l thi 0 0001 0 0005 #N/A #N/A Groundwater Page 2 Ethyl parathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Fensulfothion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Fenthion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Malathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Merphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Methyl parathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Mevinphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Naled 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Phorate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Phosmet 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Ronnel 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Stirophos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Sulfotep 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Tokuthion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A Trichloronate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A #N/A SM 4500 NO3 MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L NO3/N+NO2/N 0.00001 0.00005 10 #N/A SM 4500 NH3G MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L Ammonia/N 0.00001 0.00005 #N/A #N/A SM 4500 NorgC MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L TKN 0.0001 0.0002 #N/A #N/A SM 4500 PF MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L RUSL mg/L Total Phosphorus 0.005 0.01 #N/A #N/A Groundwater Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Reporting limits for soil and groundwater will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004) and/or IDEQ petroleum rule RUSLs (IDEQ, 2011). TerraGraphics will request that the laboratory report detection of these compounds below the PQL and, although the MDL may be above the IDTL, any detection of these compounds 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 compounds given the current analytical methods limitations for these chemicals IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL). IDTL and/or RUSL concentrations presented in red font are below the method detection limit (MDL). Groundwater Page 3 Groundwater Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1102 South Main Street Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP C Appendix C Existing Monitoring Well and Site-Use Historical Location Maps by Ted Sharpe ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Quality Assurance Project Plan 1102 South Main Street Moscow Phase II ESA Addendum I B Appendix B IDAPA Screening Levels and Reporting Limits for Soil Vapor ---PAGE BREAK--- ARCHIVE IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 58.01.24 - Application of Risk Based Department of Environmental Quality Corrective Action at Petroleum Release Sites Section 800 Page 11 (5-8-09) 02. Table 2. Residential Use Screening Levels. Naphthalene X X X X Pyrene X X X X1 Leaded Regular Only RESIDENTIAL USE SCREENING LEVELS CHEMICALS SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL VAPORe Screening Level [mg/kg] Critical Pathway Screening Level [mg/L] Critical Pathway Basis for Ingestion Screening Leveld Screening Level [ug/m3] Benzene 0.025 GWPa 0.005 Ingestion MCLb 31 Toluene 6.6 GWP 1.0 Ingestion MCL 520,000 0.25 Vapor Intrusion 0.05 Vapor Intrusion N/A 97 Total Xylenes 27 Vapor Intrusion 8.7 Vapor Intrusion N/A 10,000 Naphthalene 0.12 Vapor Intrusion 0.07 Vapor Intrusion N/A 7.2 MTBEc 0.08 GWP 0.04 Ingestion Risk-Based 940 Ethylene dibro- mide(EDB) 0.0001 GWP 0.00005 Ingestion MCL 0.4 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.013 GWP 0.005 Ingestion MCL 9.4 Acenaphthene 200 GWP 2.2 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Anthracene 3200 GWP 11 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Benz(a)anthracene 0.09 GWP 0.00003 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02 Direct Contact 0.0002 Ingestion MCL N/A Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.2 Direct Contact 0.00003 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.9 Direct Contact 0.0003 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A CHEMICALS OF INTEREST FOR VARIOUS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Chemical Gasoline/ JP-4/ AVGas Diesel/ Fuel Oil No. 2/ Kerosene Fuel Oil No.4 Jet Fuels (Jet A, JP-5, JP-8) ARCHIVE 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- ARCHIVE IDAHO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IDAPA 58.01.24 - Application of Risk Based Department of Environmental Quality Corrective Action at Petroleum Release Sites Section 800 Page 12 (3-29-12) 03. Table 3. Default Toxicity Values for Risk Evaluation. 9.5 GWP 0.003 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Fluoranthene 1,400 GWP 1.5 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Fluorene 240 GWP 1.5 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A Pyrene 1,000 GWP 1.1 Ingestion Risk-Based N/A a. Ground Water Protection Via Petroleum Contaminants in Soil Leaching to Ground Water b. Maximum contaminant level c. Methyl tert-butyl ether d. For the ingestion pathway, the source of the target level is indicated (MCL or a risk-based calculation). e. Soil vapor measurements obtained at greater than 3-5 feet below ground surface. DEFAULT TOXICITY VALUES FOR RISK EVALUATION CHEMICALS CAS Numbera Oral Slope Factor (SFo) (kg-day/mg) Inhalation Unit Risk (IUR) (ug/m3) Oral Reference Dose (RfDo) (mg/kg- day) Inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC) (mg/m3) Oral RAb Factor (RAFo) Dermal RA Factor (RAFd) Benzene 71-43-2 0.055 7.8E-06 0.004 0.03 1 0 Toluene 108-88-3 NA NA 0.08 5.0 1 0 100-41-4 0.011 2.5E-06 0.1 1.0 1 0 Total Xylenes 1330-20-7 NA NA 0.2 0.1 1 0 Naphthalene 91-20-3 NA 3.4E-05 0.02 0.003 1 0.13 MTBEc 1634-04-4 0.0018 2.6E-07 NA 3.0 1 0 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.091 2.6E-05 0.006 0.007 1 0 Ethylene Dibromide 106-93-4 2 6.0E-04 0.009 0.009 1 0 Acenaphthene 83-32-9 NA NA 0.06 NA 1 0.13 RESIDENTIAL USE SCREENING LEVELS CHEMICALS SOIL GROUNDWATER SOIL VAPORe Screening Level [mg/kg] Critical Pathway Screening Level [mg/L] Critical Pathway Basis for Ingestion Screening Leveld Screening Level [ug/m3] ARCHIVE 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 of 2 10/29/10 Compounds 1 5 10 20 Freon 114 7.0 1.4 0.70 0.35 Vinyl chloride 2.6 0.52 0.26 1,3-Butadiene 2.2 0.44 0.22 Chloroethane 16 Isopentane 3.0 0.60 0.30 Freon 11 5.6 1.1 0.56 0.28 Isopropyl alcohol 49 1,1-Dichloroethene 4.0 0.80 0.40 Methylene Chloride 21 4.2 2.1 Freon 113 7.7 1.5 0.77 0.38 Carbon Disulfide 3.1 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 4.0 0.80 0.40 0.20 1,1-Dichloroethane 4.0 0.80 0.40 MTBE 22 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 59 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 4.0 0.80 0.40 0.20 Hexane 3.5 0.70 0.35 Chloroform 4.9 0.98 0.49 1,2-Dichloroethane 4.0 0.80 0.40 0.20 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.4 1.1 0.54 0.27 Benzene 3.2 0.64 0.32 0.16 Carbon Tetrachloride 6.3 1.3 0.63 0.32 Cyclohexane 3.4 0.68 0.34 0.17 1,2-Dichloropropane 4.6 0.92 0.46 0.23 Trichloroethene 5.4 1.1 0.54 0.27 1,4-Dioxane 3.6 0.72 0.36 0.18 4.7 0.94 0.47 0.24 Heptane 4.1 0.82 0.41 0.21 4.0 0.80 0.40 0.20 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (MIBK) 4.1 0.82 0.41 0.21 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5.4 1.1 0.54 0.27 Toluene 3.8 0.76 0.38 0.19 2-Hexanone (Methyl Butyl Ketone) 4.1 0.82 0.41 0.21 Tetrachloroethene 6.8 1.4 0.68 0.34 Chlorobenzene 4.6 0.92 0.46 0.23 4.3 0.86 0.43 0.22 m,p-Xylene 4.3 0.86 0.43 0.22 Styrene 4.2 0.84 0.42 0.21 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 6.9 1.4 0.69 0.35 o-Xylene 4.3 0.86 0.43 0.22 Cumene 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 Concentration (µg/m3) Maximum Sample Volume TO-17 VI Sample Collection Volumes and Reporting Limits ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 of 2 10/29/10 n-Propylbenzene 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 6.0 1.2 0.60 0.30 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4.9 0.98 0.49 0.25 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 7.4 1.5 0.74 0.37 Hexachlorobutadiene 11 2.2 1.1 0.55 Naphthalene 0.50 0.10 0.050 0.025 0.50 0.10 0.050 0.025 0.50 0.10 0.050 0.025 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Acenaphthene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Fluorene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Phenanthrene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Anthracene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Fluoranthene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Pyrene 5.0 1.0 0.50 0.25 Low recovery when %RH >70% Compounds evaluated Reason for exclusion Propylene Typically not a compounds of concern, marginal at 1L. Freon 12 Poor peak resolution during calibration Chloromethane Erratic performance - contribution from sorbent tube Butane Requires further evaluation @ 1L Ethanol Requires further evaluation @ 1L Acetone Requires further evaluation @ 1L Bromomethane Poor and erratic recovery 3-Chloropropene low recovery Vinyl Acetate low recovery and poor analytical performance Tetrahydrofuran Reasonable at 1L, but typically not a compound of concern Bromodichloromethane Poor and erratic recovery trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Poor and erratic recovery cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Poor and erratic recovery Dibromochloromethane Poor and erratic recovery 1,2-Dibromomethane Poor and erratic recovery Bromoform Poor and erratic recovery alpha-chlorotoluene Non-linear response on system