L ecology and environment, inc

f ^ ^ l - O O O O C ^ ]

L_ ecology and environment, inc.

SFUND RECORDS CENTER 88224108 International Specialists in the Environment

11 Golden Shore Drive Long Beach, California 90802 Tel: (562) 435-6188, Fax (562) 435-6687

AR0008

April 18,2000 Ref No.: T190400-002

TDD No.: 09-0001-0001 PAN No.: 09-0497-DVSF-XX

United States Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Response Office 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105

Attention: H. Ficklin, US EPA Task Monitor

Subject: Duck Valley Indian Reservation, Elko County, Nevada

Introduction

The Environmental Protection Office of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe (the tribe) at the Duck Valley Indian Reservation requested United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) assistance in conducting an assessment of an inactive cattle dip near Owyhee, Nevada. As a part of the investigation, the US EPA directed Ecology and Environment, Inc.'s Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) to collect and analyze field samples.

Sampling and assessment of the cattle dip was conducted under the authority of a joint US EPA-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) program to address potential hazardous substances problems on their reservation. The US EPA's Emergency Response Office was the lead agency for the work completed at the site, under the direction of Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) Brad Shipley during the initial site assessment performed on March 8, 2000 and under the direction of FOSC Hedy Ficklin during the removal assessment performed on April 11, 2000.

Background

The site is located on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in Owyhee, Elko County, Nevada. The Duck Valley Indian Reservation consists of approximately 289,819 acres and is home to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. Owyhee is located approximately 82 miles south of Mountain Home, Idaho and 87 miles northwest of Elko, Nevada (Figure 1).

recycled paper

H. Ficklin Ref No.: T190400-002 Page 2

The cattle dip was reportedly operated by the BIA from 1981 to 1984. The cattle dip vat is inside an approximate 20-foot by 40-foot metal shed. Corrals are located on either end of the shed. The dip itself is below ground surface and lined with nine inches of concrete. Vat dimensions are three feet wide, seven feet deep, and 34 feet long. The entrance to the vat is a steeply sloped ramp with a three foot drop-off, followed by a 14-foot section that the cattle wade/swim through, to an inclined ramp lined with wood steps which exits to concrete-lined drip areas outside of the shed. The walls of the vat above ground surface were lined with wood to approximately three feet above ground surface (Figure 2).

The main chemical reportedly used in the vat was coumaphos, an organophosphate pesticide. Information on other pesticides which may have been used at the site was unavailable. . Coumaphos is used for the control of a wide variety of livestock insects including cattle grubs, lice, scabies, flies, and ticks.

March 8, 2000 Site Assessment

Prior to performing site activities, the START prepared an Emergency Response Quality Assurance Sampling Plan (QASP) for Soil and Water Sampling, finalized on February 29, 2000 and approved by FOSC Shipley. This QASP was amended on April 4, 2000 to include removal assessment activities performed on April 11, 2000 and was approved by FOSC Ficklin. A copy of the QASP is provided as Attachment A.

Initial assessment sampling was performed on March 8, 2000. The assessment team consisted of FOSC Shipley, START member T. Colen, and tribe representative Marcie Phillips. Prior to performing any site activities, a brief health and safety meeting was held which involved all members of the site assessment team. A copy of the START Health and Safety Plan is maintained in the project file.

During the assessment, the vat was observed to have approximately 4 feet of product, with the bottom 1 Vi feet consisting of a soft sludge. The liquid portion appeared black and oil-like. At the direction of the FOSC, the START collected a product sample from the liquid phase (sample number DV-Prod). To assess if the vat had been leaking, soil samples were collected from adjacent to the vat on the west side at one foot below ground surface (bgs) and 6 feet 10 inches bgs (samples DV-S-1 and DV-S-2, respectively). Refusal was encountered at seven feet bgs, therefore deeper samples were not collected. The soil consisted of medium brown damp sandy

soil with no apparent contamination.

A composite soil sample was collected from the drip area near the stairs exiting the top of the concrete pad (DV-S-3) and a grab soil sample was collected near the stairs exit at one foot bgs (DV-S-4). DV-S-3 appeared to consist of degraded manure. DV-S-4 consisted of dark brown damp soil.

H. Ficklin RefNo.: T190400-002 Page 3

All soil samples were collected using a hand auger except for DV-S-3 which was collected using a dedicated plastic trowel. After collection, samples were transferred into an 8-ounce glass jar and labeled. The hand auger was dry deconned between sample locations. A more rigorous decontamination plan was not adopted as the objective of this assessment was to determine whether gross contamination existed at the site.

The four soil samples and one liquid product sample from the cattle dip were analyzed for organophosphorus pesticides by EPA Method 8141A and chlorinated pesticides by EPA Method 8081A at a START subcontracted laboratory. Analytical results indicated that all of the samples were below the detection limits except for the product sample which contained 0.28 milligrams per liter (mg/1) coumaphos and the soil sample collected adjacent to the dip vat at one foot below the ground surface (DV-S-1) which contained 0.25 mg/kg coumaphos. Copies of the laboratory reports are contained in Attachment B. Data validation was not requested by the FOSC for any of the samples.

The site action level for coumaphos of 15 mg/kg was established by the risk assessors at US EPA. This level is based on the US EPA 1999 Residential Preliminary Remediation Goal for methyl parathion which has similar toxicological effects as coumaphos. None of the samples exceeded the site action level.

The EPA agreed to further assist the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe by pumping out the cattle dip vat and collecting soil samples from underneath the vat, if it appeared that the vat had leaked. The START activities during this "mini-removal" were to collect and analyze a grab sample from the cattle dip vat after the vat contents had been agitated (the previous sample was from the liquid-phase only), inspect the cattle dip vat for leaks and cracks once empty and cleaned, and possibly collect and analyze soil samples for organophosphorus pesticides by EPA Method 8141A from underneath the vat, if warranted. The Emergency Response and Rapid Removal (ERRS) contractor, CET Environmental, Inc., was tasked to perform the actual pumping and cleaning of the cattle dip vat.

April 11, 2000 Removal

The "mini-removal" was performed on April 11, 2000. The removal team consisted of FOSC Ficklin, START member C. Carlson, three ERRS personnel led by Brian Chernick and tribe representatives John Walker and John Crum. Prior to performing any site activities, a brief health and safety meeting was conducted and involved all members of the removal team.

To facilitate mixing of the vat, a backhoe was brought on-site. For the backhoe to gain access to the vat, the west roll-up

Photo 1: View of cattle dip vat from the exit.

H. Ficklin RefNo.:T 190400-002 Page 4

door of the shed was removed. Later in the day, the north door was also removed. A majority of the wood boards on the west side of the vat were also removed to improve access. These boards were later placed in the vat after all the vat contents were removed and pressure washed to remove any gross contamination.

Once access was established, the backhoe was used to mix the vat contents. After the contents were mixed, the

Photo 2: ERRS removing wooden vat boards START, assisted by ERRS, collected a product sample to facilitate backhoe access. (DV-Prod-4/11) by taping an 8-ounce glass jar to the end

of a metal rod and placing it in the vat. This sample was transferred to a new 8-ounce jar, labeled, bubble-wrapped and placed in an ice chest for delivery to a START subcontracted laboratory for organophosphorus analysis by EPA Method 8141 A. Laboratory analysis revealed 310 mg/kg coumaphos.

Triad Transport, Inc. was contracted to provide vacuum truck services by ERRS. The pressure washer was used during pumping operations to assist in liquefying the sludges at the bottom of the vat. Approximately 1,800-gallons of product, sludge and pressure wash water was removed from the site by Triad and taken to EnviroSafe Services of Idaho, Inc. in Grandview, Idaho for disposal. The material was manifested as Non-RCRA hazardous waste liquid (coumaphos contaminated liquid, <0.001%). Photo 3: ERRS pumping sludges, using the

pressure washer to liquify the material.

Once clean, the vat was observed to be in good condition, with no visual indications of cracks or defects in integrity. Therefore, soil samples were not

collected from beneath the vat, per FOSC Ficklin's instructions. FOSC Ficklin recommended to the tribe that the vat be backfilled with pea gravel and sealed with concrete.

No further US EPA assistance should be required for the cattle dip vat decommissioning. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely* a

Caren Carlson START Member

Photo 4: View of the vat after cleaning. Attachments

copy: project file

DI993 D«LOrt±* fvloflpidj

vnv.

^ Site Location Duck Valleyandian Reservation

-i'3 11\^

7v: 'in

Map Source: DeLORME 1993

2000, ecology & environment, inc. t N

Figure 1 Site Location

Map Duck Valley

Indian Reservation

Owyhee, Nevada

DV-S-3

DV-S-4 ©

Exit

Concrete-lined Corrals

Roll up door

Stairs

© 2000, ecology & environment, inc.

Map Source: April 2000 Site Visit Drawing

DV-S-1 DV-S-2

©

Ramp

Roll-up door

Entrance

Shed

7-feet

Cross section of cattle dip vat

15 scale

30 feet

N~^

Figure 2 Site Plan

Duck Valley Indian

Reservation Owyhee, Nevada

Attachment A QASP

TDD No : 09-0001-0001 PAN No.: 09-0497-DVSF-XX

1

Amendment to Emergency Response Quality Assurance Sampling Plan for Soil and Water Sampling

Duck Valley Indian Reservation Owyhee, Elko County, Nevada

1. Introduction and Background

The following sampling activities described within this document are written as an amendment to the original Emergency Response Quality Assurance Sampling Plan (QASP) for Soil and Water Sampling, finalized on February 29, 2000 for the Duck Valley Indian Reservation Site in Owyhee, Nevada. The original QASP was written in response to the EPA's direction to the START to conduct an assessment of an inactive cattle dip near Owyhee, Nevada.

The sampling activities described in the original QASP were completed on March 8, 2000. Four soil samples from around and one product sample from the cattle dip were collected and analyzed for organophosphorus (8141A) and chlorinated (8081A) pesticides. Analytical results indicated that all of the samples were below the detection limits except for the product sample which indicated 0.28 mg/1 coumaphos and a soil sample collected adjacent to the dip vat at one foot below the ground surface which indicated 0.25 mg/kg coumaphos.

The EPA has further agreed to assist the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe by.pumping out the cattle dip vat and collecting soil samples from underneath the vat, as needed. Proposed START activities during this "mini-removal" are to collect and analyze a.grab sample from the cattle dip vat (previous sample was from the liquid-phase only) for profiling purposes, inspect the cattle dip vat once empty for visual cracks or leaks, and possibly collect and analyze soil samples from underneath the vat, if warranted, for organophosphorus pesticides. These results will be used to determine if a limited soil removal is required at the site. ERRS will perform the pumping and

cleaning of the cattle dip vat.

Unless otherwise stated, the only modifications to the original QASP are as follows:

2. Objectives

The objective of this sampling event is to further, characterize the cattle dip vat product for

profiling purposes and to assess, if any, the extent of coumaphos contamination in the soils

beneath the cattle dip vat.

2.3 Data Categories

Data categories remain the same, however data validation may be required by the FOSC pending

a review of the analytical results.

3.0 Sampling and Analysis Methodologies

Samples will only be analyzed for by organophosphorus pesticides by EPA Method 8141 A. One

sludge (product) and.up to 10 soil samples will be collected. i

3.2.1 Sampjle Locations and Depth

The product sample will be collected from the cattle dip vat after the vat contents are agitated to obtain a more uniform consistency. Soil samples may be collected from beneath the vat from depths of 1 to' 3 feet in areas suspected of contamination. Soil sample locations will be based on

field observations.

3.2.2 Sample Containers and Preservatives I

Table C Modifications - Samples will only be analyzed for by organophosphorus pesticides by

EPA Method required for t

8141 A. One S-ounce jar will be collected per sample. No additional volume is le MS/MSD. If the product sample turns out to be more liquid than sludge, the

sample will be collected in a 1-L amber jar.

3.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Table D Modifications - A background sample, field duplicate and MS/MSD will be collected if soil samples are collected from beneath the cattle dip vat.

4.1 Schedule of Sampling Activities |

Site mobilization will occur on April 10, 2000 Sampling activities and pumping operations will occur on April 11 and 12, 2000

Site demobilization will occur on April 13, 2000

4.2 Laboratories ; '

Sound Analytical Services will again be the laboratory for this project. Samples will only be

analyzed for by organophosphorus pesticides by EPA Method 8141 A.

4.3 Personnel and Responsibilities I

Caren Carlson, START, will perform sampling activities

Hed^fy Ficklin. EPA, is the new FOSC

This amendment was prepared by Caren Carlson on April 4, 2000 and reviewed by Tim Colen,

project manager on April 5. 2000.

Emergency Response Offk and Superfund Technical Assessment

and Response Team (START)

Emergency Response Quality Assurance Sampling Plan

for Soil and Water Sampling

Response Location: Duck Valley Indian Reservation Owyhee, Elko County, Nevada

Date:

Prepared By:

Reviewed By:

February 29, 2000

Tim Colen, START

dfrsi t'A IL J : ^(.[-Id-

Approved By (FOSC, TM or IC): ^

TDD No. 09-0001-0001

PAN # 0497-DVSF-XX

This generic sampling plan has been designed to assist lime-critical" field responders prepare for sample collection and analysis activities. This plan is to be used in the" case of emergency responses or time-critical responses when sampling teams may not have the time to write a more thorough sampling plan. For specific guidance, the sampling teams should always reference appropriate quality assurance and operational policies, protocols, and procedures.

The completion of this generic plan will improve the documentation, communication, planning, and overall quality associated with the sampling and analysis by:

1) Requiring field teams to consider their goals and objectives before collecting their samples,

2) creating a common written plan for multiple field sampling teams possibly from differing agencies or with differing sampling tasks,

3) increasing communication between clean-up contractors and jurisdictional agencies, and

4) detailing expectations before samples are collected.

A:\dvEMQASP.wpd 7/8/99

l

ERO/START: Soil and Water Emergency QASP

1.0 Introduction and Background. What is the problem, what precipitated the response, which agencies and companies are on site, who has taken the iead for the response and for environmental clean-up actions?

The Environmental Protection Office of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe at the Duck Valley Indian Reservation has requested U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistance in conducting an assessment of an inactive cattle dip near Owyhee. The cattle dip was reportedly operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) from 1981 to 1984. Although the suspected contaminant of concern is Coumaphos, an organo-phosphate pesticide, there is currently no information available regarding whether other pesticides were used or the details of the dip's operation.

Sampling and assessment of the cattle dip would be conducted under the authority of a joint EPA-BIA program to address potential hazardous substances problems on the reservation. The EPA's Emergency Response Office (ERO) would be the lead agency for work conducted at the site under the direction of Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC)

Brad Shipley.

The START has completed previous response and removal actions at the Duck Valley Indian Reservation dating to 1994. These include removals of Dinoseb-contaminated soil, electrical transformers containing PCBs, and rolls of asbestos insulation.

2.0 Objectives. Brief statement on the general project objective. What is the overall goal or objective? Specific objectives are summarized in Table A.

The goal of sampling is to document residual pesticide contamination in soils surrounding an inactive cattle dip.


2


2.1 Data Use Objectives. (How will the data be used?)

Check Appropriate Box(es): Data that are generated will be used:

1. X To compare against a background or reference sample(s).

2. • To compare against available detection or quantification limits.

3. X To assist in determining only the presence or absence of hazardous substances at levels above an available detection or quantification limits.

4. X To assist with determining the area of impact due to a hazardous material release, (i.e horizontal and lateral).

5. X To compare with site-specific action levels or risk-based action levels (e.g., EPA PRGs) to determine if a health threats exist.

6. • As definitive confirmatory data for non-definitive (screening) data.

7 • Other objectives:

2.2 Sampling Objectives. (What are you proposing to do?)

1. X Soil sampling to determine only the presence or absence of a hazardous substance over the entire site.

2. X Soil sampling to determine:

X contamination leveis X contaminated area(s)

3. • Areal soil sampling to determine the location of hot spots over entire Osite.

4. X Areal soil sampling to determine the horizontal extent of contamination

X of a source area X over entire site.

5. X Sub-surface soil sampling to determine the lateral extent of contamination

X over a source area • over entire site.

6. • Off-site soil sampling to: :

7. • On-site water sampling to only determine the presence or absence of a hazardous substance.

8. • On-site water sampling to determine:

• contamination levels • contaminated area(s)

9. • Off-site water sampling to:

10. • Perimeter water sampling to: : : —

11. • Other objectives:_ ; ;


3


2.3 Data Categories

In general, the quality of the data should be known and documented prior to use. The U.S. EPA has divided data into two categories: definitive methodology data (generally laboratory data using EPA methods), and non-definitive methodology data with conformation of 10% by definitive methodology.(also referred to as 'screening plus10% data'). An additional category referred to as screening data is usable in emergency situations where definitive data is not available. Note that the data category is not an indicator of precision or accuracy! It is only a practical indicator for QA/QC documentation. Refer to the Emergency Response Quality Assurance Projects Plan (QAPP) for specific DQO parameters.

Reported data can be validated (by a party other than the laboratory) as meeting quality control requirements.

Check appropriate box(es):

1. • Screening category data will be generated. The data by itself may not be verifiable. Due to the time critical situation, the data must be reported and usedifor comparison.

2a.D Screening data with 10% definitive category data will be generated. Data using non-definitive analytical methodologies will be used for comparison to action levels. The data by itself may not be verifiable. Due to the time critical situation, the data must be reported and used for comparison prior to generation of definitive data. Screening data will be evaluated and reported with definitive category data at a later time.

2b.• Screening data with 10% definitive category data will be generated. Data using non-definitive analytical methodologies will be used for comparison to action levels. The data by itself may not be verifiable. Data will not be reported until it is evaluated against definitive category data.

3a. X Definitive category data will be generated. The sampling must be done on an emergency basis. Due to the time critical situation, the data must be reported and used for comparison without validation. Analytical Data Packages will be required; however, the validation will not be performed.

3b.• Definitive category data will be generated. The sampling must be done on an emergency basis. Due to the time critical situation, the data must be preliminarily reported and used for comparison without validation. Documentation will be required. Analytical Data Packages will be reviewed and validated. Qualified data will be reported.

3c.• Definitive category data will be generated. Full documentation will be required. Analytical Data Packages will be reviewed and validated prior to reporting.


4


Table A Data Objectives and Sample Collection

Sample Location

Refer to Section 3.2.1 • and Figure A

Data Use Objective(s) Refer to Section 2.1

Data Category Refer to Section 2.3

Analytical Method Refer to Section 3.3.2

Number of Samples &

Matrix (soil or water)

Cattle Dip area 1, 3, 4, and 5 3a 8081 5 to 10 discrete soil

Cattle Dip Area 1, 3, 4, and 5 3a 8140 5 to 10 discrete soil

Background Location

Background Levels 3a 8081 and 8140 1 discrete soil

j

-


5


3.0 Sampling and Analysis Methodologies Planned sampling and analyses are summarized in Table A.

3.1 Field Sampling Equipment Field equipment requirements are summarized in Table B.

Table B Field Sampling Equipment and Decontamination

Matrix Analyses Sampling Equipment Dedicated or Reusable

Decontamination Solution

Resource/ Contractor

Soil 8081 and 8140

Re-useable hand auger, shovel, slam bar, or dedicated trowels

Both Dry decon START

i i;

' i

3.2 Sample Collection and Handling

3.2.1 Sample Locations and Depths. (Describe the rationale for the sample locations chosen.)

Samples will be collected at random locations, with the intent to obtain biased-high

concentrations of pesticides. Because of the cattle dip's age, no surface soil samples

will be collected. Samples will be taken in the proximity of the cattle dip "dripping"

area, from depths of 1 to 3 feet, depending on field conditions.

Sketch a map of the sampling area in Figure A. Use a scale that is meaningful for the sampling work covered under this plan. Sketch out the areas where the samples will be collected. Attach a local map to this plan if it is available.

No information is currently available regarding the site's layout, sample locations will be determined in the field. The START has abundant previous experience in assessing and sampling cattle dips.


6


Figure A Sample Location Map

Mr a> a*

u-

TSV-^

p \f ~Wizs

*4

ejvfr^Y

r, t

fAST

fh£7^ $mo

==-/T

7' ; -* i

V

f w'V - _•

O Q o C j ' c f

^LPPet

i / Z 5 ^ * < • { ' L W P -

25 * / ' S

L r/ £ f r ,

<-fOO

n Q V \ Q + S L U & 0

ISO ^ />/* "N

A^vEMQASP.vvpd 7/8/99


3.2.2 Sample Containers and Preservatives Containers arid preservation methods are summarized in Table C.

Table C Containers and Preservation Methods

Matrix Analyses Containers (type, number and volume)

Preservation Method

Holding Time

Soil 8081 and 8140

5 to 10 x 8-ounce glass jars

None 14 days to extraction

3.2.3 Sample Labeling and Documentation

Sample Jar Labels

Sample jar labels will clearly identify the particular sample and should include the following: i

>;l

1. Site name and number. 2. Time and date samples were collected. 3. Sample preservation. 4. Analysis requested. 5. Sample location.

Sample labels will be securely affixed to the sample container.

Chain of Custody Record

A Chain of Custody record will be maintained from the time the sample is collected to its final deposition. Every transfer of custody must be noted, signed for and a copy of this record kept by each individual who has sighed. When samples (or groups of samples) are not under direct control of the individual responsible for them, they must


8


be stored in a locked container sealed with a Custody Seal. The Chain of Custody record should include (at minimum) the following:

1. Sample identification number. 2. Sample descriptive information (eg. matrix, method, preservation...). 3. Sample location. 4. Sample date. 5. Names(s) and signature(s) of sampler(s). 6. Signature(s) of any individual(s) with control over samples.

Custody Seals

Custody Seals demonstrate that a sample container has not been tampered with or opened. The individual in possession of the sample(s) will sign and date the seal, affixing it in such a manner that the container cannot be opened without breaking the seal. The name of this individual, along with a description of the samples packaging will be noted in the field logbook.

All sample documents will be completed legibly in ink. Any corrections or revisions will be made by lining through the incorrect entry and by initialing the error. These include the soil and water sampling logbook, the chain of custody forms, this emergency QASP and any other forms.

Field Logbook

The field logbook is a descriptive notebook detailing site activities and observations so that an accurate account of field procedures can be reconstructed in the writer's absence. All entries will be dated and signed by the individuals making the entries, and will include the following:

1. Site name and PAN number. 2. Names of sampling personnel. 3. Dates and times of all entries (military time preferred). 4. Descriptions of all site activities, especially sampling start and ending

times. Include site entry and exit times. 5. Noteworthy events and discussions. 6. Weather conditions. 7. Site observations. 8. Identification and description of samples and locations. 9. Subcontractor information and names of on-site personnel. 10. Date and time of sample collections, along with chain of custody

information. 11. Record of photographs. 12. Site sketches. 13. Meteorological data: Wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity. 14. Times: Exact times of various activities and occurrences related to

sampling.


9


15. Changes from standard procedures or methods: The rational should also be given with the change.

3.3 Analysis Specify analytical procedures. Check the appropriate boxes.

3.3.1 Instruments and Test Kits: N/A • X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Device [for metals] • Hanby Oil Analysis Kit [for oils] • Immunoassay Test Kits [pesticides, oils, chlorinated substances] • Chlor-n-Soil/Chlor-n-oil test kits • Field gas chromatography • pH Meter • Pensky-Martins flash point test • Radiation Meter (such as Victoreen)

for ~, P , y • Other field equipment or test kits, as listed below:

3.3.2 Analyses Procedures:

EPA Methods 8081 and 8140 for 5 to 10 discrete soil samples

• Other soil or water analysis procedures (include matrix):

N/A


10


3.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The analytical methods to be used are presented in Table A. General field QC considerations and requirements are presented in Table D;

• /

Table D Quality Control Samples and data quality indicators

QC Sample Number/Frequency Evaluation Criteria Com merits/Exceptions

: Site specific remarks:

FIELD SPECIFIED QA/QC

Background or reference sample 1 Sample

At least one sample should be collected from an area believed to be unaffected by source contamination.

Source samples should be at least 3 times background.

Surface soil: up-slope. Surface water: upstream. Ground water up-gradient

Field Blanks

N/A

1 per SDG', per matrix, per method Source samples should be at least 3 times the blank.

Water only.

Travel Blanks

N/A

1 per SDG, per matrix, per method Source samples should be at least 3 times the blank.

Volatile analytes, water only.

Equipment Blanks

N/A

1 per SDG, per matrix, per method Source samples should be at least 3 times the blank.

Only when the use of decontaminated non-dedicated equipment is involved.

Field Duplicates or Replicates

1 Sample

1 per SDG, per matrix, per method 50 to 200 RPD2 As needed by sampling objectives. The procedure for collecting duplicate samples can greatly effect the reproducibility.

Performance Standards 1 per project, per matrix, per method 75 -125 %R3 If available..

SELECTED LABORATORY QA/QC

Method Blank 1 per SDG, per matrix, per method Stds and samples should be at least 3 times the blank.

Mandatory.

Matrix Spike 1 per SDG, per matrix, per method on field designated sample.

75 -125 %R Designate sample on COC.

Matrix Spike Duplicate or Replicate: 1 Analysis each

1 per SDG, per matrix, per method on field designated sample.

<50 RPD for organics; <20 RPD for metals

Designate sample on COC.

Reference Standards 1 per SDG, per matrix, per method 75 -125 %R If available.

Internal Standards All samples 50 -200 %R All GC/MS and some GC analyses only.

Laboratory Control Standards 1 per SDG, per matrix, per method 7 5 - 1 2 5 % R Per method for organic analyses.

1 SDG = Sample Delivery Group (Maximum 20 samples) 2 RPD = Relative Percent Difference 3 %R = Percent Recovery


11

i 1 \ ' !


4.0 Project Organization and Responsibilities

4.1 Schedule of Sampling Activities Sampling activities are summarized in Table E. ~

Table E Proposed Schedule of Work For Soil/Water Sampling Activities

Activity Start Date End Date

Site reconnaissance, assessment, and sampling

March 8, 2000 March 9, 2000

4.2 Laboratories

Laboratories used for this project are summarized in Table F.

Table F Laboratories

Lab Name/ Location (Contact/ phorte number)

Methods

Sound Anal)llical Services, Tacoma, WA EPA Methods 8081 and 8140 for soils


12


4.3 Personnel and responsibilities

Project personnel and responsibilities are summarized in Table G.

Table G Sample Team(s) Personnel

Personnel (Agency) Responsibility

Tim Colen, E&E/START Project Manager

Brad Shipley, EPA FOSC


13

Attachment B: Analytical Reports

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Ecology & Environment

DV-S-1 : ~ ~ 88109-01 3/13/00 3/14/00 3/15/00 85.72

10

Organophosphorus Pesticides by USEPA Method 8141 GC/MS Modified

Surrogate % Recovery Flags Tributyl Phosphate 116 Triphenyl Phosphate 96.8

Client Name Client ID: Lab ID:

Date Received Date Prepared Date Analyzed

% Solids Dilution Factor

Recovery Limits Low High

48 122 59 128

Sample results are on a dry weight basis.

Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Dichlorvos ND 48 22 Mevinphos ND 29 13 Demeton.O-S ND 97 92 Ethoprop ND 48 21 Naled ND 48 25 Sulfotepp ND 29 15 Monocrotophos ND 29 16 Phorate ND 29 16 Dimethoate ND - 97 47 Diazinon ND 29 12 Disulfoton ND 48 37 Parathion,methyl ND 48 24 Ronnel ND 48 33 Malathion ND 48 30 Chlorpyrifos ND 48 6.7 Fenthion ND 29 • 11 Parathion ND 48 17 Trichloronate ND 29 15 Tetrachlorvinphos ND 29 15 Fensulfothion ND 48 20 Tokuthion ND 29 12 Merphos ND 48 17 Bolstar ND 29 9.9 EPN ' ND 29 14 Azinphos,methyl .ND 48 14 Coumaphos 250 48 . 15

Date Received: Date Prepared: Date Analyzed:


3/13/00 3/14/00 3/15/00 78.75

10


Surrogate Tributyl Phosphate Triphenyl Phosphate

% Recovery 100 93.3

Recovery Limits Flags Low High

48 122 59 128


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Dichlorvos ND 48 22 Mevinphos ND 29 13 Demeton.O-S ND 97 92 Ethoprop ND 48 21 Naled ND 48 25 Sulfotepp ND 29 15 Monocrotophos ND 29 16 Phorate ND 29 16 Dimethoate ND 97 47 Diazinon ND 29 12 Disulfoton ND 48 37 Parathion,methyl ND 48 24 Ronnel ND 48 33 Malathion ND 48 30 Chlorpyrifos ND 48 6.7 Fenthion ND 29 11 Parathion ND 48 17 Trichloronate ND 29 15 Tetrachlorvinphos ND 29 15 FensulfothiOn ND 48 20 Tokuthion ND 29 12 Merphos j ND 48 18 Bolstar i! ND 29 9.9 EPN ND 29 14 Azinphos,methyl ND 48 14 Coumaphos ND 48 15

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Ecology & Environment

DV-S-3 88109-03 3/13/00 3/14/00 3/15/00 53.73

10


Surrogate Tributyl Phosphate Triphenyl Phosphate

Client Name Client ID: Lab ID:

Date Received: Date Prepared: Date Analyzed:


Recovery Limits

% Recovery Flags Low High 81.5 48 122 90.3 59 128


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Dichlorvos ND 69 32 Mevinphos ND 41 19 Demeton.O-S ND 140 130 Ethoprop ND 69 31 Naled ND 69 36

Sulfotepp ND 41 21 Monocrotophos ND 41 22 Phorate ND 41 23 Dimethoate ND 140 67 Diazinon ND 41 17 Disulfoton ND 69 52 Parathion,methyl ND 69 34 Ronnel ND 69 47 Malathion ND 69 43 Chlorpyrifos ND 69 9.5 Fenthion ND 41 16 Parathion ND 69 24 Trichloronate ND 41 21 Tetrachlorvinphos ND 41 21 Fensulfothion ND 69 29 Tokuthion ND 41 17 Merphos ND _ 69 25 Bolstar ND 41 14 EPN ND -41 20 Azinphos,methyl ND 69 20 Coumaphos ND 69 21

R

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. \ Client Name Ecology & Environment

Client ID: DV-S-4 Lab ID: 88109-04

Date Received: 3/13/00 Date Prepared: 3/14/00 Date Analyzed: 3/15/00

% Solids 79.08 Dilution Factor 10

Organ<|phosphorus Pesticides by USEPA Method 8141 GC/MS Modified

Recovery Limits Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High Tributyl Phosphate 105 48 122 Triphenyl Phosphate 98.1 59 128


Analyte Dichlorvos Mevinphos Demeton.O-S Ethoprop Naled Sulfotepp Monocrotophos Phorate Dimethoate Diazinon Disulfoton Parathion,methyl Ronnel Malathion Chlorpyrifos Fenthion Parathion Trichloronate Tetrachlorvinphos Fensulfothion Tokuthion Merphos Bolstar EPN Azinphos,methyl Coumaphos

Result (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

47 28 93 47 47 28 28 28 93 28 47 47 47 47 47 28 47 28 28 47 28 47 28 28 47 47

21 13 89 21 24 14 15 16 46 12 35 23 32 29

6.4 11

16 14 14 19 11 17

9.6 13 14 14

7

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Client Name • Ecology & Environment

Client ID: DV-S-1 . Lab ID: 88109-01



Organochlorine Pesticides by USEPA Method 8081A

Recovery Limits

Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High TCMX 81.7 57 146 Decachlorobiphenyl 57.2 48 155


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Aldrin ND 1.1 0.081 alpha-BHC ND 1.1 0.083 beta-BHC ND 1.1 0.15 delta-BHC ND 1.1 0.085 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 1.1 0.19 Chlordane (technical) ND 11 2.7 4,4'-DDD ND • 2.2 0.19 4,4'-DDE ND 2.2 0.39 4,4'-DDT ND 2.2 1.4 Dieldrin ND 2.2 0.077 Endosulfan I ND 1.1 0.35 Endosulfan II ND 2.2 0.18 Endosulfan sulfate ND 2.2 0.26 Endrin ND 2.2 0.13 Endrin aldehyde ND 2.2 0.96 Heptachlor ND 1.1 0.11 Heptachlor epoxide ND 1.1 0.18 Methoxychlor ND 11. 2.4, Endrin ketone ND 2.2 0.35 Toxaphene ND 110 '47

•' ....

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Client Name Ecology & EnvJronmfe^Sj^^f^"' ̂ *"

Client lD: ; 7 * DV-S-2 ' Lab ID: 88109-02 * 'V-




Recovery Limits Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High TCMX 67.3 57 146 Decachlorobiphenyl 54.6 48 155


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Aldrin ND 1.2 0.091 alpha-BHC ND 1.2 0.094 beta-BHC ND 1.2 0.17 delta-BHC ND 1.2 0.096 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 1.2 0.21 Chlordane (technical)'1 ND 12 3 4,4'-DDD ND 2.4 0.21 4,4'-DDE ; ND 2.4 0.44 4,4'-DDT ; ND 2.4 1.5 Dieldrin ND 2.4 0.087 Endosulfan I ; ND 1.2 0.4 Endosulfan II • ND 2.4 0.2 Endosulfan sulfate ! ND 2.4 0.3 Endrin • ND 2.4 0.15 Endrin aldehyde ND 2.4 1.1 Heptachlor ND 1.2 0.12 Heptachlor epoxide [ ND 1-2 0.2 Methoxychlor ND 12 2.7 Endrin ketone ND 2.4 0.39 Toxaphene ND 120 54

9

SOUND ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. Client Name Ecology & Environment





Recovery Limits Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High TCMX 31.1 X9 57 146 Decachlorobiphenyl 20.7 X9 - 48 155


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Aldrin ND 1.7 0.13 alpha-BHC ND 1.7 0.13 beta-BHC ND 1.7 0.25 delta-BHC • ND 1.7 0.14 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 1.7 0.3 Chlordane (technical) ND ... - 17 4.3 4,4'-DDD ND 3.5 0.3 4,4'-DDE ND 3:5 0.63 4,4'-DDT ND . 3.5 2.2 Dieldrin ND 3.5 0.12 Endosulfan I ND 1-7 0.56 Endosulfan II •ND 3.5 0.29 Endosulfan sulfate ND 3.5 0.42 Endrin ND 3.5 0.21 Endrin aldehyde ND • 3.5 1.6 Heptachlor ND 1.7 0.18 Heptachlor epoxide ND 1.7 0.29 Methoxychlor - ND 17 3.9 Endrin ketone ND 3.5 0.56 Toxaphene ND • 170 ' 76






Recovery Limits

Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High TCMX 103 57 146 Decachlorobiphenyl 73 48 155


Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL

Aldrin ND 1.2 0.089

alpha-BHC ND 1.2 0.091

beta-BHC ND 1.2 0.17

delta-BHC ND 1.2 0.093

gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 1.2 0.21

Chlordane (technical) ND 12 2.9

4,4'-DDD ND 2.4 0.21

4,4'-DDE ND 2.4 0.43

4,4'-DDT ND 2.4 •1.5

Dieldrin ND 2.4 0.085

Endosulfan I ND 1.2 0.39

Endosulfan II ND 2.4 0.2

Endosulfan sulfate ND 2.4 0.29

Endrin ND 2.4 0.14

Endrin aldehyde ND 2.4 1.1

Heptachlor ND 1.2 0.12

Heptachlor epoxide ND 1.2 0.2

Methoxychlor ND 12 2.6

Endrin ketone ND 2.4 0.38

Toxaphene ND 120 52

MRR-23-2000 13:51 CPLSCIENCE 714 894 7501 P.02/10

^alscience

Environmental

£— aboratories, Inc. ANALYTICAL REPORT

Ecology and Environment. Inc. 350 Sansome Street. Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104

Attn: Tim Colen RE: Duck Valley Removal Assessment

Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Extracted: Date Analyzed: Work Order No. Method: Page 1 of 2

03/08/00 03/16/00 03/21/00

03/21-22/00 00-03-0534 EPA 8141A

All concentrations are reported in mg/L (ppm).

Sample Number: DUCK VALEY-PROD

Analyte

Dichlorvos Mevinphos Ethoprop Phorate Naled Demeton-O Demeton-S Diazinon + Disulfoton Methyl Parathion Ronnel Fenthion Trichloronate Merphos Stirophos Tokuthion Bolstar Fensulfothion Azinphos Methyl Coumaphos Chiorpyrifos

Concentration

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

0.28 ND

Reporting Limit

0.02 0.02 0.02 . 0.02 0.08

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0,02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02

7440 Lincoln Way. Garden Grove. CA 92841-1432 • TEL: (714) 895-5494 FAX:'(714) 894-7501

alscience;

E. nvironmental

aboratories, Inc. ANALYTICAL REPORT

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104

Attn: Tim Colen RE: Duck Valley Removal Assessment

Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Extracted: Date Analyzed: Work Order No. Method: Page 2 of 2

NA NA

03/21/00 03/21-22/00 00-03-0534 EPA 8141A

All concentrations are reported in mg/L (ppm).

Sample Number: Method Blank

Analvte

Dichlorvos Mevinphos Ethoprop Phorate Naled Demeton-0 Demeton-S Diazinon + Disulfoton Methyl Para'thion Ronnel ; Fenthion ;; Trichloronatp Merphos Stirophos ; Tokuthion • Bolstar Fensulfothion Azinphos Methyl Coumaphos Chlorpyrifos

Concentration

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Reporting Limit

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

ND denotes not detected at indicated reportable limit.

Each sample was received by CEL chilled, intact, and with chain-of-custody attached.

7440 Lincoln Way. Garden Grove, CA 92841-1432 • TEL: (714) 895-5494 • FAX: (714) 894-7501

MfiR 23 '00 13:49 714 894 7501 :9GE.03

1 tNLt 714 834 7501 P.05/10

^alscience

Environmental

aboratories, Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104

Project. Duck Valley Removal Assessment

Date Received: Work Order No: Preparation: Method:

03/16/00 00-03-0534 EPA 3510B EPA 8081A

Page 1 of 1

Client Sample Number Lab Sample Date Date Date Number: Collected: Matrix; Prepared: Analyzed: QC Batch ID:

DUCKVALEY-PROD •• t>'-. 1 00-«W»34^1cr.r: *03/06(00- .-SoJIdo 03/17/00 vr; W03174^, - • :;

Parameter Result EL D£ Qua! Units Parameter Result BL DF Qual Units

Alpha-BHC ND 10 100 ug/L Endrln' ND 10 100 ' ug/L Gamma-BHC ND 10 100 ug/L Endrin Aldehyde ND 10 100 ug/l Beta-BHC ND 10 100 ug/L 4,4'-DDD ND 10 ICO ug/L Heptachlor ND 10 100 ug/L Endosulfan II ND 10 1CO . ug/L Deita-BHC ND . 10 100 ug/L 4.4--DDT ND 10 100 ug/L Aldrin ND 10 100 ug/L Endosulfan Sulfate ND 10 100 ug/L Heptachlor Epoxide ND 10 100 ug/L Methoxychlor ND 10 100 ug/L Endosulfan 1 ND 10 100 ug/L Chlordane ND 100 100 ug/L Dield'rin ND 10 100 ug/L Toxaphene ND 100 100 ug/L 4.4'-DDE ND 10 100 ug/L Endrin Ketone ND 10 ICO ug/L

Surrogates: REC <%) Control Qual Surrogates: REC 1%) Control Qual Limits Limits

Qual

Oecachiorobiphenyl 74 50-135 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-Xylene 63 50-135

Method Blank 0«541-41W24- . N/A-- ... Aquboue'V '03/17/00- 03/17/00 t .0003174 - ;

Pa'ameter Result EL EE Qual Units Parameter Result BL QE Qual Units

Alpha-BHC ND 0.10 1 ug/L Endrin ND 0.10 1 ug/L . Gamma-BHC ND 0.10 1 ug/L Endrin Aldehyde ND 0.10 4 1 ug/L Beta-BHC ND 0.10 1 ug/L 4.4'-DDD ND 0.10 - ug/L Heptachlor ND 0.10 1 ug/L Endosulfan II ND 0.10 ug/L Dalta-BHC ND 0.10 1 ug/L 4,4'-DDT ND 0.10 « ug/L Aldrin ND 0.10 1 ug/L Endosulfan Sulfate ND 0.10 - ug/L Heptachlor Epoxide ND 0.10 1 ug/L Methoxychlor ND 0.10 1 ug/L Endosulfan I ND 0.10 1 ug/L Chlordane ND 1.0 1 ug/L Dieldrm ND 0.10 1 ug/L Toxaphene ND 1.0 1 ' ug/L 4,4'-DDE ND 0.10 . 1 ug/L Endrin Ketone ND 0.10 1 ug/L

Surrogates: REC (%1 Control Qual Surrogates: REC <%) Control Qual

Oecachiorobiphenyl Limits Limits

Qual

Oecachiorobiphenyl 100 50-135' 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-Xylene 109 50-135

RL - Reporting Limit DF - Dilution Factor Qual - Qualifiers

il . 7440 Lincoln Way, Garden Grove, CA 92841-1432 • TEL: (714) 895-5494 • FAX: (714) 894-7501

MAR 23 '00 13:50 7,1 d •


Client ID: DV-PROD-4/11 Lab ID: 88903-01


% Solids Dilution Factor 10


Recovery Limits Surrogate % Recovery Flags Low High Tributyl Phosphate 72.2 48 122 Triphenyl Phosphate 74.3 59 128

Sample results are on an as received basis

Result Analyte (ug/kg) PQL MDL Flags Dichlorvos ND 450 200 Mevinphos ND 270 120 Demeton.O-S ND 890 850 Ethoprop ND 450 200 Naled ND 450 230 Sulfotepp ND 270 . 140 Monocrotophos ND " 270 150 Phora'te ND 270 150 Dimethoate ND 890 440 Diazinon ND 270 110 Disulfoton ND 450 340 Parathion,methyl ' ND 450 220 Ronnel ND 450 300 Malathion ND 450 280 Chlorpyrifos ND 450 62 Fenthion ND 270 100 Parathion ND 450 .150 Trichloronate ND 270 140 Tetrachlorvinphos ND 270 140 Fensulfothion ND 450 180 Tokuthion ND 270 110 Merphos . ND 450 160 Bolstar ND 270 91 EP.N ND 270 130 Azinphos, methyl ND 450 130 Coumaphos 31C000 450 140 D20

3

Documents

L ecology and environment, inc