Moscow_doc_e0e36e2082 - Public Records Archive

Full Text

Quality Assurance Project Plan: Fountain Property, Moscow, Idaho Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Prepared for: City of Moscow 206 E. 3rd Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. 121 S. Jackson St. Moscow, ID 83843 www.terragraphics.com and STRATA 1428 S. Main St. Moscow, ID 83843 www.stratageotech.com September 5, 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP ii Title and Approval Sheet Quality Assurance Project Plan for Fountain Property, Moscow Prepared by: TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. and STRATA Effective Date: September 2012 Approved by: Date: TERRAGRAPHICS - PROJECT MANAGER Robin Nimmer Date: CITY OF MOSCOW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST Jeffrey 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--- Fountain Property 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 3 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 5 1.3.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 7 1.3.3 Report Preparation 9 1.3.4 Project Timetable 10 1.4 Quality Objectives and Criteria 10 1.4.1 Data Quality Objectives Process 10 1.4.1.1 State the Problem 10 1.4.1.2 Identify the Decision 11 1.4.1.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision 11 1.4.1.4 Define the Study Boundaries 11 1.4.1.5 Develop a Decision Rule 11 1.4.1.6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 11 1.4.2 Data Quality Indicators 12 1.4.2.1 Precision 13 1.4.2.2 Accuracy 13 1.4.2.3 Representativeness 13 1.4.2.4 Completeness 13 1.4.2.5 Comparability 14 1.5 Special Training/Certification 14 1.6 Documentation and Records 14 1.6.1 Field Operation Records 14 1.6.1.1 Sample Collection Records 14 1.6.1.2 Chain-of-Custody 14 1.6.1.3 QA/QC Sample Records 15 1.6.1.4 General Field Procedures 15 1.6.1.5 Corrective Action Reports 15 1.6.2 Laboratory Records 15 1.6.2.1 Sample Data 15 1.6.2.2 Sample Management Records 15 1.6.2.3 Test Methods 15 1.6.2.4 QA/QC Reports 15 1.6.3 Data Handling Records 16 Section 2.0 Data Generation and Acquisition 17 2.1 Sampling Process Design 17 2.2 Sampling Methods 17 2.2.1 Soil Sampling 17 2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP iv 2.3 Investigation-Derived Waste 19 2.4 Decontamination 19 2.5 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures 19 2.5.1 Sample Numbering System 19 2.5.2 Sample Custody 20 2.6 Analytical Methods 20 2.7 Quality Control 21 2.7.1 Field Quality Control Checks 21 2.7.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks 22 2.8 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance 22 2.9 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency 22 2.10 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 23 2.10.1 TerraGraphics 23 2.10.2 Anatek Labs, Inc. 23 2.11 Non-direct Measurements 23 2.12 Data Management 23 2.12.1 Data Validation 23 2.12.2 Data Recording 23 2.12.3 Data Transformation 24 2.12.4 Data Transmittal 24 2.12.5 Data Reduction 24 2.12.6 Data Analysis 25 2.12.7 Data Tracking 25 2.12.8 Data Storage and Retrieval 25 Section 3.0 Assessment and Oversight 26 3.1 Assessments and Response Actions 26 3.2 Reports to Management 26 Section 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 27 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation 27 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods 27 4.3 Reconciliation and User Requirements 27 Section 5.0 References and Resources Used 28 Appendices Appendix A Site-specific Health and Safety Plan A Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Detection Limits and IDEQ REM Initial Default Target Limits (IDTLs) ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property 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. Proposed Sampling Locations and Decision Units 8 Figure 5. DQO Process Flow Chart 12 Figure 6. Data Management Diagram 24 List of Tables Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples 9 Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements 14 Table 3. Stabilization Criteria with References for Water-Quality-Indicator Parameters 18 Table 4. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses 21 Table 5. Field Quality Control Checks 22 Table 6. Laboratory Quality Control Checks 22 Table 7. Non-Direct Measurements Secondary Data) 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP vi Acronyms and Abbreviations ADEC State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Anatek Anatek Labs, Inc. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials bgs below ground surface CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC constituent of concern DQO Data Quality Objective ESA Environmental Site Assessment HDPE High-Density Polyethylene IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IDTL Initial Default Target Level LCS Laboratory Control Sample MS Matrix Spike MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate MDL Method Detection Limit PQL Practical Quantitation Limit PVC Polyvinyl Chloride QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control REC Recognized Environmental Conditions REM Risk Evaluation Manual SEC specific electrical conductance SM Standard Method SM Committee Standard Method Committee TerraGraphics TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. TKN Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property 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--- Fountain Property 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, 2011). 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 Fountain Property site located at the south end of Nursery Street and west of Paradise Ridge Road in Moscow, Idaho. This QAPP is intended to document the type and quality of data needed to support environmental decisions and describe the methods for collecting and assessing data referencing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Requirements for QAPPs (USEPA, 2001). The primary goals will be to characterize potential soil or groundwater contamination, and to potentially provide data for use in the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Risk Evaluation Manual (REM) (IDEQ, 2004) in order to determine potential hazards and/or risks associated with found contamination. The following sections list the key project personnel and their responsibilities; explain the problem(s) and site history; and provide project schedules, data quality objectives, sampling, oversight, and data validation and use. 1.1 Project/Task Organization This QAPP provides sampling strategies intended to evaluate the recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified for the Fountain Property site in a Phase I ESA prepared by TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc. (TerraGraphics), entitled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Fountain Property / Southeast Industrial Park Nursery Street Moscow, Idaho 83843, hereinafter referred to as the Fountain Phase I ESA, and dated May 17, 2012 (TerraGraphics, 2012). This section presents the project organization and the roles and responsibilities of 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property 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--- Fountain Property 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 MURA Project Manager: Economic Development Specialist Steve Gill IDEQ Coeur d'Alene Regional Office 2110 Ironwood Parkway Coeur d'Alene ID 83814 (208) 666-4632; (208) 818-5326 (cell) Coeur d’Alene Regional Office Brownfields Program Specialist Aaron Scheff IDEQ, Main Office 1410 North Hilton Street Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 373-0420 IDEQ State Brownfields Program Manager Robin Nimmer TerraGraphics 121 South Jackson Street Moscow, Idaho 83843 (208) 882-7858 TerraGraphics Project Manager, reports to MURA project manager, IDEQ Program Specialist and TerraGraphics Program Manager, Jon Munkers, responsible for maintaining approved QAPP, developing amendements, overseeing sampling and reporting Jon Munkers TerraGraphics 3501 West Elder Street, Suite 301 Boise, ID 83705 (208) 336-7080 TerraGraphics Program Manager Rachel Gibeault TerraGraphics 3501 West Elder Street, Suite 301 Boise, ID 83705 (208) 336-7080 TerraGraphics Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Officer, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer, responsible for reviewing and approving the project QAPP and amendments, data validation and verification Shawn Ringo STRATA 6 O’Donnell Road Pullman, WA 99163 (509) 339-2000 STRATA Project Manager, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer John Coddington Anatek Labs 1282 Alturas Drive Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-2839 Project Analytical Laboratory, reports to TerraGraphics Project Manager, Robin Nimmer, and STRATA Project Manager, Shawn Ringo Terri Griffith U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, ECL-112 Seattle, WA 98101 USEPA Brownfields Project Officer 1.2 Problem Definition/Background The City of Moscow, or the City, was awarded a USEPA Brownfields Assessment Coalition Grant (for hazardous substances contamination and petroleum contamination) in August of 2010. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 4 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 Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives for multiple Brownfield properties along a former railroad/industrial corridor, a future industrial park property, and other negatively impacted and/or stigmatized areas. The Fountain Property was placed on the list of properties to be evaluated (hereinafter referred to as the “subject property,” “target property,” or “site”). The site is a small piece of a larger property owned by the Fountain family. The Fountain family began purchasing site portions in 1946. The Fountains purchased at least 11 pieces of adjoining property that comprise site portions. Part of the overall property (located at 1975 Paradise Ridge Road; adjoining the subject property to the southeast) has been the location of Fountain Flying Service, Inc. since 1946. The airport has been and currently is used for agricultural spraying (crop dusting) operations. The chemicals that were used historically and are currently used primarily include 2,4-D with an amalgam of 50 different fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides. These chemicals have been and currently are stored at the airport. Three historical and/or current, mainly private runways were identified on-site and described as follows (TerraGraphics, 2012).  Abandoned runway: (1946 to early 1970s) A former 1,600-foot northwest-southeast trending runway with its northwest terminus located at the north end of the property. The runway was later extended southeast to the existing airport location. This runway can be seen extending from the current airport operations (southeast end), through the field, across the existing gravel runway, and along the fence on the north side of the property (northwest end). The Fountains abandoned the runway in the early 1970s, after the current runway was constructed.  Existing gravel runway: (Early 1970s to present) Constructed at its current location on the northern site running east-west. Fountain Flying Service, Inc. (southeast adjoining property located at 1975 Paradise Ridge Road) presently uses this runway.  Grassy runway: (1980s to current) Extends from the current east-west runway toward the northwest. This runway is occasionally used. The following RECs were identified for the site in the Fountain Phase I ESA (TerraGraphics, 2012):  Historical and current use at the spray operation airport, located east of the subject property, includes storage of chemicals, fuel storage tank(s), and the southeast section of the abandoned runway; therefore, this is a recognized environmental condition because the probability is likely that chemical releases may have impacted the airport and migrated onto the subject property.  Spray operation chemical use on the runways traversing the site is a recognized environmental condition. Based on these RECs, TerraGraphics recommended a Phase II ESA to confirm or negate the presence of pesticides, and herbicides (identified contaminants of concern [COCs]) on the subject property. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 5 1.3 Project/Task Description Sampling activities at the property will be conducted to evaluate potential pesticide and herbicide impacts to site soil and groundwater in order to evaluate potential hazards and/or risks to human health and the environment. 1.3.1 Description of the Project Area The site is located south of Nursery Street and west of Paradise Ridge Road in the southeast industrial area of Moscow, Latah County, Idaho (Figure The site can be accessed from a private dirt road connecting to Paradise Ridge Road. The site is approximately 16.78 acres. The remains of an historical runway extend northwest-southwest through the property. South of the north end of this runway is a figure 8 motocross dirt track. There is one building located along the north property boundary just west of the end of Nursery Street; it was constructed in 1960 at the Pullman/Moscow Airport and was moved to the site in the mid 2000s. The building is currently empty and has never been occupied. A gravel runway transects the north portion of the property. The remainder of the property is used for agriculture. The subject property sits south of Nursery Street, which runs north-south; however, the site cannot be accessed from this street (Figure The subject property is bordered to the north, northeast, and west by a number of warehouses for various unmarked businesses. At the south end of Nursery Street is Blue Mountain Agri-Support. A spray operation, Fountain Flying Service, is located near the southeast property border. South of the subject property are agricultural fields and the South Fork of the Palouse River. 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. 1.3.2.1 Soil Sampling Soil samples will be collected to evaluate pesticide and herbicide impacts to site soil based upon site use history and/or prominent site features (see Figure Soil sampling will consist of 13 surface soil multi-increment (composite) samples (including 1 QC sample), and up to 13 soil samples (including 1 QC sample) from 8 soil borings. A total of up to 26 soil samples will be submitted to the laboratory for pesticides and herbicides analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 7 Surface soil samples will be collected to evaluate pesticide/herbicide impacts to site surface soil. The site will be divided into four decision units as follows, based upon site use history and/or prominent site features (see Figure  Current runway  Historic runway  Area north of the current runway (not including the current or historic runways)  Area south of the current runway (not including the current or historic runways) Three, 30-point multi-increment samples will be collected from each decision unit so that variability between decision unit incremental samples may be evaluated. Aliquot/increment sample locations will be assigned randomly, to a numbered grid superimposed upon each decision unit (Figure One duplicate sample will be collected by splitting a selected incremental sample for QC analysis. Sample increments will be collected from the top 6 inches of soil. Each increment will be homogenized and split, saving half the increment back for additional analysis if necessary (e.g. evaluating whether high concentration increments “hot spots” may have skewed incremental sample results). Multi-increment samples will be analyzed for herbicides by USEPA method 8151A (USEPA, 1996a), organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081B (USEPA, 2007), and for organophosphorous pesticides by USEPA method 8141B (USEPA, 2000). Analytical results will be compared to IDEQ REM Initial Default Target Limits (IDTLs) and will be used to evaluate the surface soil exposure pathway in IDEQ’s REM (IDEQ, 2004). Eight borings will be advanced on-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) to a depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Proposed boring locations are depicted on Figure 4. Up to 12 soil samples will be collected. Samples will be analyzed for herbicides by USEPA method 8151A (USEPA, 1996a), organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081B (USEPA, 2007), and organophosphorous pesticides by USEPA method 8270C (USEPA, 1996b). Analytical results will be compared to IDTLs and will be used to evaluate the surface soil exposure pathway in the REM (IDEQ, 2004). 1.3.2.2 Groundwater Sampling Five 1 to 2-inch diameter groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to a depth of approximately 15 feet bgs. Wells that located in the farmed field will be temporary wells. The proposed monitoring well locations are depicted on Figure 4. The well screen will be constructed of 0.01-inch machine slot screen polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe; the length will be determined in the field. Blank PVC risers 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 9 Groundwater samples will be collected from each of the four monitoring wells referencing ASTM D-4448-01, Standard Guide for Sampling Ground-Water Monitoring Wells (ASTM, 2007). One duplicate groundwater sample will be collected for QA/QC purposes, for a total of six groundwater samples. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for herbicides by USEPA method 8151A (USEPA, 1996a); organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081B (USEPA, 2007); organophosphorous pesticides by USEPA method 8270C (USEPA, 1996b); for orthophosphate by USEPA method 300.0 (USEPA, 1993); and for nitrate/nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus, and Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (TKN) by Standard Method (SM) 4500 (SM Committee, 1999). Groundwater analytical data will be compared to IDTLs or input into the REM. Table 1. Recommended Bottle Type, Number, Preservation, and Holding Times for Samples Source Analytes (USEPA Method) Number of Bottles1 Sample Size/ Container Preservation Analysis Holding Time Soil Pesticides (8081B2/8270C3) 13 (ss5) 13 (sb6) 4-ounce clear glass jar with Teflon® lid Cool to 4°C 14 days Herbicides (8151A4) Groundwater Pesticides (8081B2/8270C3) 6 1-liter Amber glass jars Cool to 4°C 7 days Herbicides (8151A4) Orothophosphate (300.0)7 48 hours Nutrients: [nitrate/nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus, TKN] (SM 4500 NO3F/SM 4500 NH3/SM 4500 NORGC/ SM 4500 PF)8 6 500-mL HDPE9 container Sulfuric Acid (SO4) 28 days Notes: 1. Number of bottles includes one QC sample for soil (split sample) and one for water (field duplicate). 2. USEPA Method 8081B (USEPA, 2007c) 3. USEPA Method 2870C (USEPA, 1996b) 4. USEPA Method 8151A (USEPA, 1996a) 5. ss – surface soil 6. sb – soil boring 7. USEPA Method 300.0 (USEPA, 1993) 8. SM 4500 (SM Committee, 1999) 9. HDPE – High density polyethylene 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 IDTLs. Analyte concentrations detected above reporting limits will be input to the REM (IDEQ, 2004) to evaluate site soil and groundwater. The report will include the purpose, scope, sampling methods, and findings, screening level/target level comparisons, risk assessment, figures, ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 10 findings, conclusions, and recommendations for necessary additional investigation, if any. TerraGraphics will submit an electronic draft report to the City. After receipt and discussion of comments, TerraGraphics will incorporate comments, finalize, and submit to the City an electronic version of the final report and figures in Adobe® Acrobat format. 1.3.4 Project Timetable The project timetable is as follows:  QAPP and site-specific Health and Safety Plan preparation and approval (August 2012)  Coordination with Analytical Laboratory (August 2012)  Site utility locates (August 2012)  Field work (August 2012): Drilling and well installation, site soil and groundwater sampling  Laboratory Analysis (August/September 2012)  Risk Evaluation (September/October 2012)  Report Preparation (October/November 2012)  Draft Report Submittal (October/November 2012)  Report Finalization (November/December 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 and 2002b). USEPA’s seven-step process for DQO development is presented below (Figure 5) to communicate the quality objectives for site assessment activities associated with the Fountain Property site. 1.4.1.1 State the Problem The Fountain Property site has runways that pass through the site. These runways were and are connected to a spray operation that has been in operation since 1946. This assessment will determine if RECs have negatively impacted the site and provide data for use in the REM (IDEQ, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 11 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 IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004). 1.4.1.3 Identify Inputs to the Decision Analytical data are needed to adequately evaluate potential impacts to the project site’s soil and groundwater. The targeted analytes and regulatory action levels (IDTLs) needed to adequately provide information for decisions on potential COCs are provided in this QAPP (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 the south end of Nursery Street and west of Paradise Ridge Road. The site location is shown in Figure 3, including site features targeted during this assessment and proposed exploration locations for groundwater monitoring wells and soil borings. 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 removal or eliminating 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 IDTLs. To ensure the data quality is acceptable for use, Section 4.0 outlines all the specified tolerable limits and decision errors for the data obtained during this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 12 Figure 5. DQO Process Flow Chart 1. State the Problem: Determine if recognized environmental conditions have negatively impacted the site. 2. Identify the Decision: Do the RECs identified onsite result in concentrations of COCs exceeding IDTLs? 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: Soil and groundwater data will be collected from the Fountain Property site (Figures 3 and 5. Develop a Decision Rule: Concentrations for samples collected will be compared against IDTLs. 6. Specify Limits on Decision Errors: Detection limits will meet the DQOs for comparison to the IDTLs. 7. Optimize the Design for Obtaining Data: Samples will be collected per this site-specific QAPP to provide data for use in the REM. 1.4.2 Data Quality Indicators The purpose of this section is to provide qualitative and quantitative information that defines the goals for data quality at the site. The primary goal of sampling and analysis is to perform a risk ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 13 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. 1.4.2.1 Precision Precision is a measure of data variation when more than one measurement is taken on the same sample. The precision estimate for duplicate measurements can be expressed as the relative percent difference: 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 (2002b). Laboratory duplicate measurements will be obtained for each set of samples submitted and analyzed. Data exceeding QAPP precision (RPD) criteria will not necessarily be rejected, but qualified as estimates by the lab. 1.4.2.2 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 determine spike recovery. Spike recovery is expressed as percent recovery: where: %RS = percent recovery of spike SC = spiked sample concentration OC = original concentration TV = true value of the added spike Acceptable spike recovery limits are based on past data sets as defined by USEPA (2002b). Data exceeding QAPP spike (percent) recovery criteria will not necessarily be rejected, but qualified as estimates by the lab. 1.4.2.3 Representativeness This term expresses the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent actual conditions or characteristics of the site. Representativeness may be evaluated for this project using background samples collected from areas isolated from, yet similar to, the site and analyzed for the same constituents. Representativeness will most likely not be evaluated for this project. 1.4.2.4 Completeness Completeness is an estimate of the amount of valid data obtained from the analytical measurement system for a given set of data. The percent completeness is defined as the number     % 100 2 2 1 2 1           C C C C RPD % 100 ) ( %    TV OC SC RS ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 14 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%. Table 2. Data Quality Criteria Requirements Data Quality Parameter Acceptable Criteria Precision ± 20% Accuracy (Bias) 75%-125% Completeness 95% 1.4.2.5 Comparability Using standard USEPA (2002b) accepted procedures, all matrix-specific samples will be collected, processed, and analyzed at sufficient detection limits, precision, and accuracy for correlation with existing available data or with data collected at a later date. 1.5 Special Training/Certification A qualified Environmental Scientist will oversee all sampling activities and serve as the Site Safety and Health Officer for the site. Personnel performing sampling at the site will have training required by 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.120 if necessary (Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazardous Waste Operations Health and Emergency Response Training). Documentation of necessary training and certifications will be provided upon request. The site-specific Health and Safety Plan is provided in Appendix A. 1.6 Documentation and Records 1.6.1 Field Operation Records 1.6.1.1 Sample Collection Records 1.6.1.1.1 Field Logbook A Rite-in-the-Rain (or similar) field notebook will be used in the field to document the samplers’ names, sample numbers, sample location points, maps and diagrams, equipment/method used for sample collection, weather conditions, and unusual observations. Books will be pre-numbered and will contain the date and signature lines. 1.6.1.1.2 Photographic Records Photographs will be taken of representative sampling locations and the surrounding site to show the area, related site activities, and sampling equipment. 1.6.1.2 Chain-of-Custody Records The chain-of-custody record will be filled out and kept to track samples from collection through delivery to the laboratory following the ASTM guidance Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of- Custody Procedures (D-4840-99) (ASTM, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 15 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 level is greater than 20 feet 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 type. Should an alternative analysis be required, the laboratory will document and describe how the analyses were conducted. This will include sample preparation and analysis, instrument standardization, detection and reporting limits, and test-specific QC criteria. 1.6.2.4 QA/QC Reports Laboratory QA/QC methods will follow the USEPA guidance, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) (USEPA, 2008). The report will include laboratory QA/QC data from blanks, laboratory control samples (LCS), matrix spikes (MS) and ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 16 matrix spike duplicates (MSD), and laboratory duplicates. TerraGraphics will complete internal QA/QC to ensure the quality of the data. 1.6.3 Data Handling Records The laboratory’s QA personnel will perform the data validation. The data validation will convert raw data into reportable quantities and units by properly applying significant figures, recording extreme values, and identifying data qualifiers. The data will then be transmitted electronically and/or in hard copy to TerraGraphics, who will perform an internal QA/QC assessment. The internal QA/QC will document that the data meet the proposed DQOs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 17 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:  Thirteen site surface soil multi-increment samples will be collected to evaluate pesticide/herbicide impacts to site surface soil and the surface soil exposure pathway, including one duplicate/split soil sample for QA/QC purposes.  Eight soil borings will be advanced.  Up to 13 subsurface soil samples will be collected, including one duplicate/split soil sample for QA/QC purposes, from the soil borings to evaluate herbicide/pesticide impacts to site subsurface soil and the soil leaching to groundwater pathway.  Five monitoring wells will be installed.  Six groundwater samples will be collected from the wells to evaluate nutrients and herbicide/pesticide impacts to site groundwater and the groundwater exposure pathway, including one groundwater QA/QC sample. 2.2 Sampling Methods 2.2.1 Soil Sampling Multi-increment surface soil samples will be collected from the upper 6 inches of the soil horizon utilizing a driven macro-core sampler with disposable liners and/or dedicated stainless steel trowel as described in the guidance document, Draft Guidance on MULTI INCREMENT Soil Sampling (ADEC, 2009). Multi-increment sample aliquots will comprise approximately equal volumetric proportions. Aliquots will be homogenized then split, saving back half the split portion for additional analysis if necessary. The remaining aliquots will be placed in a decontaminated (per the decontamination procedure described below) stainless steel bowl and mixed/homogenized with a single use, stainless steel spoon. The mixed/homogenized sample will then be split to obtain an appropriate sample volume for laboratory analysis. Subsurface soil samples will be collected per ASTM D-6282-98 guidance Standard Guide for Direct Push Soil Sampling for Environmental Site Characterizations (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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 18 Upon retrieval, liners will be cut to expose the soil and lithology will be entered into the bore log. Soil will be classified referencing the United Soil Classification (ASTM D2487-98) (ASTM, 2003). 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 a cooler containing double-bagged ice (refrigerated) 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 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, and 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, specific electrical conductance (SEC), and oxidation/reduction potential. 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 refrigerated 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 19 2.3 Investigation-Derived Waste Investigation-derived waste will consist of purged groundwater and soil cuttings from borings and monitoring wells and soil composite material from test pits. Purged groundwater and soil cuttings will be stored onsite. Samples of the soil cuttings will be analyzed for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure for pesticides and herbicides by USEPA method 1311 (USEPA, 1992) and purge water will be analyzed for the same constituents as the groundwater samples. TerraGraphics will dispose of the waste in accordance with all relevant local, state, and federal regulations. 2.4 Decontamination Field personnel will wear disposable gloves while decontaminating equipment at the site. Personnel will take precautions to prevent contaminating themselves with the wash water and rinse water used in the decontamination process. After each composite area is sampled, soil sampling tools (shovels and trowels) will be thoroughly decontaminated using the methods described below.  The field technician will visually inspect sampling equipment for soil and use a stiff brush to remove any visible material.  Shovels, trowels, and other sampling tools will be washed with phosphate-free soap and water (Liqui-Nox® or equivalent), rinsed with distilled water, and air dried or wiped with disposable paper towels.  Disposable items such as paper towels, disposable gloves, and washcloths will be deposited into a garbage bag and disposed of in a solid waste landfill. 2.5 Sample Handling and Custody Procedures The following section identifies the sample numbering system and chain-of-custody procedures. To prevent duplication and allow future users of the data to quickly identify general sample locations by site, all sample numbers will start with the site designation of F. 2.5.1 Sample Numbering System Each soil sample collected from a borehole will have a unique field sample identification code that will include the site identification name and the date the sample was collected. The field sample identification code will be in the following format: (Site Identification Name-Borehole Number For example, the field sample identification code for a soil sample collected from borehole number 4 at a depth of 5 feet on July 15, 2012 would be (F-BH- 04 5ft)071512. Each groundwater sample collected will have a unique field sample identification code that will include the site identification name and the date the sample was collected. The field sample identification code will be in the following format: (Site Identification Name-Monitoring Well For example, the field sample identification code for a groundwater sample collected from monitoring well 3 on July 15, 2012 would be (F-MW-03)071512. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 20 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 July 15, 2012 would be (S5-BH- 02-5ft)071512DUP. 2.5.2 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. 2.6 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 off-site 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 and groundwater will meet or be less than the IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004). ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 21 Table 4. Techniques, Method Number, and Reporting Limits for Analyses Analyte Method Reporting Limit1 Soil Pesticides/Herbicides USEPA 8081B2/ 8270C3/8151A4 See Appendix B Water Pesticides/Herbicides USEPA 8081B2/ 8270C3/8151A4 See Appendix B Orthophosphate USEPA 300.0 (USEPA, 1993)5 See Appendix B Nutrients (nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorous, and TKN) SM 4500 NO3F/SM 4500 NH3/SM 4500 NORGC/SM 4500 PF6 See Appendix B 1Reporting limits for soil and groundwater will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004). These tables can be found in Appendix B; IDTL concentrations presented in Appendix B tables in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL); IDTL 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 Method 8081B (USEPA, 2007d) 3USEPA Method 8270C (USEPA, 1996b) 4 USEPA Method 8151A (USEPA, 1996a) 5USEPA Method 300.0 (USEPA, 1993) 6SM Committee 4500 (SM, 1999) 2.7 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. 2.7.1 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/split sample is one portion of a double-volume solid, multi- increment sample that is homogenized (mixed) and split before the sample containers are filled and the other portion is the primary sample. Duplicates are prepared by filling a second sample container with the same homogenized soil from the most recent sample area and interval, and marking the soil tag as a duplicate sample. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 22 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 2.7.2 Laboratory Quality Control Checks QC procedures for the laboratory’s analyses will be consistent with the requirements described in the laboratory’s Standard Operating Procedures and QA manuals. The laboratory QC will include appropriate duplicates, LCS, MS and MSD, method blanks, reporting limits, holding times, dilutions, etc., as outlined in the appropriate guidance document. The frequency of each type of sample is shown in Table 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 2.8 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. 2.9 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency Laboratory instrument calibration and frequency will follow the guidance outlined in USEPA methodology and certification requirements. Field instruments water quality probe) will be ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 23 calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, and the calibration confirmation will be documented in the field notebook. 2.10 Inspection/Acceptance of Supplies and Consumables 2.10.1 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. 2.10.2 Anatek Labs, Inc. Anatek Labs, Inc. will use services and supplies of adequate quality. Anatek maintains a procedure for the purchase, storage, and evaluation of supplies and services. Records of inspections, verifications, and supplies will be maintained by Anatek. 2.11 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 2.12 Data Management Figure 6 is a diagram for data management process. 2.12.1 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. 2.12.2 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 24 2.12.3 Data Transformation The raw or validated data will be available for third party data transformation by request. Figure 6. Data Management Diagram 2.12.4 Data Transmittal Microsoft® Excel© will be used for the transmittal and tracking of data. 2.12.5 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. 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--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 25 2.12.6 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. 2.12.7 Data Tracking This project will use Microsoft® Excel© or Access© to track sample numbers and forms. 2.12.8 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--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 26 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. The report will describe sampling procedures and provide photographs and figures of sampling locations. The report will discuss analytical precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness, and sensitivity, and whether the analytical data meet the project DQOs. If COCs are detected above the reporting limits, a site characterization will be provided in the report. Electronic report copies will be provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 27 Section 4.0 Data Validation and Usability 4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Data deliverables will include a case narrative, analytical results, and laboratory QC sample results. Review of analytical data will be performed by the laboratory under the direction of the laboratory’s technical staff and QA Officer. Laboratory procedures for data review are discussed in the Laboratory QA Plan. The case narrative will identify whether any laboratory QC data are outside of the Laboratory’s QC criteria. TerraGraphics will track the status of the data from time of sample collection through analysis and reporting. Once the data are reported by the Laboratory, TerraGraphics will review the sample data, case narratives, and lab and field QC data to determine the data quality and assess data usability relative to the project’s DQOs. 4.2 Verification and Validation Methods Data will be verified by reviewing chain-of-custody forms, sample preservation records, analytical holding times, case narratives, sample data as compared to QC sample data, requested turnaround time, and reporting requirements. Problems or questions will be discussed with the Laboratory by the data reviewer for resolution and/or documentation. Data will be validated upon reviewing data quality indicators, and data qualifiers will be applied to the data based on USEPA Guidance on Environmental Data Verification and Data Validation (USEPA, 2002b). 4.3 Reconciliation and User Requirements Data assessment will involve reviewing the data with respect to project DQOs. A data usability assessment summary will be included in the Phase II report. If project DQOs are not satisfied, TerraGraphics’ Project Manager will review the circumstances affecting the data usability and evaluate alternative options or resolutions. This person will notify the City and discuss the available alternatives and the recommended resolution of the issue. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 28 Section 5.0 References and Resources Used 29 CFR 1910.120, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910. State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 2009. Draft Guidance on MULTI INCREMENT Soil Sampling. ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response: Contaminated Sites Program. March 2009. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 2003. D2487-98. United Soil Classification. ASTM, 2004. D-4840-99, Standard Guide for Sample Chain-of-Custody Procedures. 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. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), 2004. Idaho Risk Evaluation Manual. Boise, Idaho. April. 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. Standard Method Committee (SM Committee), 1999. SM 4500. TerraGraphics, 2011. Master Quality Assurance Project Plan for the City of Moscow Brownfields Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Moscow, Idaho. October 31, 2011. TerraGraphics, 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Fountain Property / Southeast Industrial Park Nursery Street, Moscow, ID 83843. Prepared for the City of Moscow, May 17, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. July 1992: Revision 0. USEPA, 1993. Method 300.0 Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromotography. August: Revision 2.1. USEPA, 1996a. Method 8151A Chlorinated Herbicides by GC Using Methylation or Pentafluorobenzylation Derivatization. December 1996: Revision 1. USEPA, 1996b. Method 8270C Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromotography/Mass Spectromerty (GC/MS). December 1996: Revision 3. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP 29 USEPA, 2007. Method 8081B Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography. February 2007: Revision 2. USEPA, 2008. Method 846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. January 2008: Update IV, 3rd Edition. 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--- Fountain Property 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 Fountain Property General Information: CLIENT: City of Moscow PROJECT MANAGER: Robin Nimmer SITE NAME: Fountain Property SITE LOCATION: South of the end of Nursery Street, Moscow, Idaho Article I. Site Characteristics PROJECT LOCATION: The site is located at the south end of Nursery Street and west of Paradise Ridge Road in Moscow, Idaho on approximately 16.78 acres of land. The subject property is located in the southeast industrial area in the city of Moscow. The remains of an historical runway extend northwest-southwest through the property. South of the north end of this runway is a figure 8 motocross dirt track. There is one building located along the north property boundary just west of the end of Nursery Street; it was constructed in 1960 at the Pullman/Moscow Airport and was moved to the site in the mid 2000s. The building is currently empty and has never been occupied. A gravel runway transects the north portion of the property. The subject property is bordered to the north, northeast, and west by a number of warehouses for various unmarked businesses. At the south end of Nursery Street is Blue Mountain Agri- Support. A spray operation is located near the southeast property border. South of the subject property are agricultural fields and the South Fork of the Palouse River. The property is relatively flat with a gentle slope towards the River. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES: The activities to be performed involve collection of soil samples and groundwater samples from areas where recognized environmental conditions have been identified. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS: a) Waste Type(s) Liquid X Solid X Sludge Gas Dust X _ b) Characteristics Corrosive Ignitable Radioactive Volatile _ Toxic X Reactive Unknown Other_____ ---PAGE BREAK--- Article II. Hazard Evaluation HAZARD EVALUATION: a) Chemical Hazards Based upon review of the previous assessments, potential chemical hazards on the site include pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. 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. Dust control will be most important in areas where metal concentrations are suspected to be the highest. 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 clean equipment.  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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Meteorological conditions will be watched closely, especially in the spring, summer and fall when severe thunderstorms are likely to occur. Thunderstorms often occur late in the afternoon on hot spring days, but can occur at any time of the day in any season of the year. All outdoor work shall cease immediately during a thunderstorm or severe thunderstorm warning in the local area. Project personnel will monitor for signs and of heat stroke. Should any of the following occur—a lack of sweating (usually), hot dry skin, an abnormally high body temperature, irrational behavior, loss of consciousness—the affected person is to immediately leave the work area and 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. Article III. Work Practices Workers will comply with all TerraGraphics Health and Safety Manual rules. Workers will comply with all state and federal regulations. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 clean equipment will be strictly prohibited. All employees are responsible for performing the tasks assigned to them in accordance with the Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and all applicable occupational safety and health rules and regulations. All employees are responsible for notifying their immediate supervisor or Health and Safety Officer (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. 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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) b) Emergency Contacts 8 am to 5 pm: TerraGraphics Kellogg office (208) 786-1206 TerraGraphics Moscow office (208) 882-7858 After hours: Jon Munkers (Mobile) (208) 791-3663 Jerry Lee (Mobile) (509) 330-1700 Karen Helmick (Mobile) (425) 299-0984 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 PARADISE RIDGE ROAD toward EAST PALOUSE RIVER DRIVE. 0.10 miles 2. Turn LEFT onto EAST PALOUSE DRIVE. 0.60 miles 3. Turn RIGHT onto S MAIN ST/US-95. Continue to follow US-95 N. 1.00 mile 4. Turn LEFT onto EAST 7TH STREET. 0.07 miles 5. Take the 1ST LEFT onto SOUTH MAIN STREET 6. 700 SOUTH MAIN STREET is on the LEFT. Total Travel Estimates: about 5 minutes / 1.77 miles ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 1 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN ACCEPTANCE FORM 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 Fountain Property 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 Employee: Supervisor: Today’s Date: Employee: Incident Date: Medical Care provided? Yes No Incident Time: am/ pm Filled out by: ---PAGE BREAK--- 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--- Fountain Property Phase II Environmental Site Assessment QAPP B Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Detection Limits and IDEQ REM Initial Default Target Limits (IDTLs) ---PAGE BREAK--- Soil Method Detection Limits (MDL), Practical Quantitation Limits (PQL), and Idaho Initial Default Target Levels (IDTL) EPA 8151A HERBS MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg Dalapon 0.005 0.01 #N/A Dicamba 0.005 0.01 #N/A Dichloroprop 0.005 0.01 #N/A 2,4Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 0.005 0.01 1.8416771 Pentachlorophenol 0.005 0.01 0.0090734 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.005 0.01 2.37 2,4,5-T 0.005 0.01 #N/A 2,4-DB 0.005 0.01 #N/A (Dinoseb) 0.005 0.01 0.1626183 Dacthal 0.005 0.01 15.783411 Picloram 0.005 0.01 2.9513598 Chloramben 0.005 0.01 #N/A EPA 8081B OC PEST MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg alpha-BHC 0.005 0.01 2.10E-04 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.005 0.01 8.96E-04 beta-BHC 0.005 0.01 7.51E-04 delta-BHC 0.005 0.01 #N/A Heptachlor 0.005 0.01 0.0010556 Aldrin 0.005 0.01 0.0210975 Heptachlor epoxide 0.005 0.01 0.0260914 4,4-DDE 0.005 0.01 1.7221 Endosulfan I 0.005 0.01 2.4926 Dieldrin 0.005 0.01 0.001333 Endrin 0.005 0.01 0.3350926 4,4-DDD 0.005 0.01 2.4386 Endosulfan II 0.005 0.01 2.4926 4,4-DDT 0.005 0.01 0.403 Endrin aldehyde 0.005 0.01 0.3351 0.025 0.05 55.20219 Endosulfan sulfate 0.005 0.01 2.4926 Endrin ketone 0.005 0.01 0.3351 Chlordane 0.025 0.05 1.5274851 Toxaphene 0.025 0.05 0.3257701 Soil Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA 8270Cmod OP PESTS MDL Soil mg/Kg PQL Soil mg/Kg IDTL mg/Kg Azinphos-methyl 0.05 0.1 #N/A Bolstar 0.05 0.1 #N/A Carbophenothion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Chlorpyrifos 0.05 0.1 2.8416086 Coumaphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A Demeton 0.05 0.1 0.0012862 Diazinon 0.05 0.1 #N/A Dichlorvos 0.05 0.1 #N/A Dimethoate 0.05 0.1 #N/A Disulfoton 0.05 0.1 0.0667801 EPN 0.05 0.1 #N/A Ethoprop 0.05 0.1 #N/A Ethyl parathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Fensulfothion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Fenthion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Malathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Merphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A Methyl parathion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Mevinphos 0.05 0.1 #N/A Naled 0.05 0.1 #N/A Phorate 0.05 0.1 #N/A Phosmet 0.05 0.1 #N/A Ronnel 0.05 0.1 #N/A Stirophos 0.05 0.1 #N/A Sulfotep 0.05 0.1 #N/A Tokuthion 0.05 0.1 #N/A Trichloronate 0.05 0.1 #N/A Notes: NA = not applicable mg/Kg = milligrams per kilogram Reporting limits for soil will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004). IDTL concentrations presented in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL). IDTL 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 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Groundwater Method Detection Limits (MDL), Practical Quantitation Limits (PQL), Idaho Initial Default Target Levels (IDTL) EPA 8151A HERBS MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Dalapon 0.00005 0.0001 0.2 Dicamba 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A Dichloroprop 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A 2,4-D 0.00005 0.0001 0.104285714 Pentachlorophenol 0.00005 0.0001 0.001 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.00005 0.0001 0.05 2,4,5-T 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A 2,4-DB 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A Dinoseb 0.00005 0.0001 0.007 Dacthal 0.00005 0.0001 0.104285714 Picloram 0.00005 0.0001 0.5 Chloramben 0.00005 0.0001 #N/A EPA 8081A OC PEST MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L alpha-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 0.00000887 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.000001 0.00001 0.000043 beta-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 0.000031 delta-BHC 0.000002 0.00001 #N/A Heptachlor 0.000003 0.00001 0.0004 Aldrin 0.000005 0.00001 3.2861E-06 Heptachlor epoxide 0.000008 0.00001 0.0002 4,4-DDE 0.000004 0.00001 0.000164305 Endosulfan I 0.000002 0.00001 0.062571429 Dieldrin 0.000003 0.00001 3.49148E-06 Endrin 0.000002 0.00001 0.002 4,4-DDD 0.000001 0.00001 0.000232765 Endosulfan II 0.000003 0.00001 0.062571429 4,4-DDT 0.000004 0.00001 0.000164305 Endrin aldehyde 0.000001 0.00001 0.002 0.000005 0.00001 0.04 Endosulfan sulfate 0.000004 0.00001 0.062571429 Endrin ketone 0.000004 0.00001 0.002 Chlordane 0.000025 0.00005 0.002 T h 0 000025 0 00005 0 003 Groundwater Page 1 Toxaphene 0.000025 0.00005 0.003 Groundwater Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- EPA 8270Cmod OP PESTS MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Azinphos-methyl 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Bolstar 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Carbophenothion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Chlorpyrifos 0.0001 0.0005 0.031285714 Coumaphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Demeton 0.0001 0.0005 0.000417143 Diazinon 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Dichlorvos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Dimethoate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Disulfoton 0.0001 0.0005 0.000417143 EPN 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Ethoprop 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Ethyl parathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Fensulfothion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Fenthion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Malathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Merphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Methyl parathion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Mevinphos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Naled 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Phorate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Phosmet 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Ronnel 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Stirophos 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Sulfotep 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Tokuthion 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A Trichloronate 0.0001 0.0005 #N/A SM 4500 NO3 MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L NO3/N+NO2/N 0.00001 0.00005 10 SM 4500 NH3G MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Ammonia/N 0.00001 0.00005 #N/A SM 4500 N C MDL W /L PQL W /L IDTL /L Groundwater Page 2 SM 4500 NorgC MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 0.0001 0.0002 #N/A SM 4500 PF MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Total Phosphorus 0.005 0.01 #N/A EPA 300.0 MDL Water mg/L PQL Water mg/L IDTL mg/L Orothophosphate 0.010 0.050 #N/A Notes: NA = not applicable mg/L = milligrams per liter Reporting limits for groundwater will meet or be less than the IDEQ REM IDTLs (IDEQ, 2004). 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 concentrations presented in orange font are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL). IDTL concentrations presented in red font are below the method detection limit (MDL). Groundwater Page 2

Document Moscow_doc_e0e36e2082

Full Text