Final

Site Inspection Report 

Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

April 2021

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District

2 Hopkins Plaza

Baltimore, MD 21201

Prepared by:

AECOM

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

aecom.com

Contract Number: W912DR-12-D-0014

Task Order Number: W912DR17F0192
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Authorization .............................................................................................1-1

1.2 SI Purpose ............................................................................................................1-1

2. Site Background ...........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Site Location and Description................................................................................2-1

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting ...............................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Hydrogeology..............................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Hydrology....................................................................................................2-2

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-3

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use......................................................................2-3

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species ................................2-4

2.3 History of AFFF Use..............................................................................................2-4

2.4 Historical PFAS Investigations...............................................................................2-4

3. Summary of Areas of Interest .......................................................................................3-1

3.1 AOI 1.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility.................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.2.1 West and East Ramp Fire Pit Training Areas...............................................3-1

3.2.2 Building 019-101 .........................................................................................3-2

3.2.3 Building 019-101 Ramp...............................................................................3-2

3.2.4 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117) ...........................................................3-2

3.2.5 Crash Site ...................................................................................................3-3

3.2.6 Simulated Emergency Event .......................................................................3-3

3.2.7 Accidental Tank Spill ...................................................................................3-3

3.3 AOI 3.....................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.1 Johnson Trail...............................................................................................3-3

3.4 AOI 4.....................................................................................................................3-4

3.4.1 Fire Pit Area #19 .........................................................................................3-4

3.5 AOI 5.....................................................................................................................3-4

3.5.1 First Street ..................................................................................................3-4

3.6 AOI 6.....................................................................................................................3-4

3.6.1 Biosolid Area ...............................................................................................3-4

4. Project Data Quality Objectives ....................................................................................4-1

4.1 Problem Statement................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Goals of the Study.................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Information Inputs: ................................................................................................4-2

4.4 Study Boundaries..................................................................................................4-2

4.5 Analytical Approach...............................................................................................4-2

4.6 Data Usability Assessment....................................................................................4-3

4.6.1 Precision .....................................................................................................4-3

4.6.2 Accuracy .....................................................................................................4-4

4.6.3 Representativeness ....................................................................................4-5

4.6.4 Comparability ..............................................................................................4-5
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM ii

4.6.5 Completeness .............................................................................................4-5

4.6.6 Sensitivity....................................................................................................4-6

5. Site Inspection Activities ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities.....................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ..........................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Utility Clearance..........................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability .......................5-2

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling .............................................................................5-2

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling...............................5-3

5.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling.................................................................5-4

5.5 Synoptic Water Level Measurements ....................................................................5-4

5.6 Surveying..............................................................................................................5-4

5.7 Investigation Derived Waste..................................................................................5-5

5.8 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-5

5.9 Deviations from QAPP Addendum.........................................................................5-5

6. Site Inspection Results .................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Screening Levels...................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses .............................................................................6-1

6.3 AOI 1.....................................................................................................................6-2

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-2

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-2

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-2

6.4 AOI 2.....................................................................................................................6-2

6.4.1 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area ...............................................................6-3

6.4.2 East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area ................................................................6-3

6.4.3 Building 019-101 .........................................................................................6-3

6.4.4 Building 019-101 Ramp...............................................................................6-4

6.4.5 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117) ...........................................................6-4

6.4.6 Crash Site ...................................................................................................6-5

6.4.7 Simulated Emergency Event .......................................................................6-5

6.4.8 Accidental Tank Spill ...................................................................................6-6

6.4.9 AOI 2 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-6

6.5 AOI 3.....................................................................................................................6-6

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-6

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-6

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-6

6.6 AOI 4.....................................................................................................................6-7

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-7

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-7

6.6.3 AOI 4 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-7

6.7 AOI 5.....................................................................................................................6-7

6.7.1 AOI 5 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-7

6.7.2 AOI 5 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-7

6.7.3 AOI 5 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-7

6.8 AOI 6.....................................................................................................................6-7

6.8.1 AOI 6 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-8

6.8.2 AOI 6 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-8
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM iii

6.8.3 AOI 6 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-8

6.9 Boundary Wells .....................................................................................................6-8

6.9.1 Boundary Wells Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................6-8

6.9.2 Boundary Wells Conclusions.......................................................................6-8

6.10Surface Water and Surface Sediment ...................................................................6-9

6.10.1Indiantown Run ...........................................................................................6-9

6.10.2Vesle Run....................................................................................................6-9

6.10.3Aires Run .................................................................................................. 6-10

7. Exposure Pathways......................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway .........................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-1

7.1.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.5 AOI 5...........................................................................................................7-2

7.1.6 AOI 6...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway...........................................................................7-3

7.2.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-3

7.2.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-4

7.2.5 AOI 5...........................................................................................................7-4

7.2.6 AOI 6...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ..................................................7-4

7.3.1 Indiantown Run ...........................................................................................7-4

7.3.2 Vesle Run....................................................................................................7-4

7.3.3 Aires Run ....................................................................................................7-5

8. Summary and Outcome................................................................................................8-1

8.1 SI Activities............................................................................................................8-1

8.2 SI Goals Evaluation...............................................................................................8-1

8.3 Outcome ...............................................................................................................8-2

9. References...................................................................................................................9-1
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM iv

Figures

Figure 2-1 Site Location and Facility Layout

Figure 2-2 Site Topography and Surface Water Features

Figure 2-3 Regional Surface Water Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-5 Groundwater Contours for Fort Indiantown Gap

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil (AOI 1 - AOI 6)

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil (AOI 1 - AOI 6)

Figure 6-3 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Groundwater (AOI 1 - AOI 6)

Figure 6-4 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Surface Water

Figure 6-5 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Sediment

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East 

Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and Current Fire 

Station (Building 5-117)

Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 Crash Site

Figure 7-4 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 Simulated Emergency Event

Figure 7-5 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 Accidental Tank Spill

Figure 7-6 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3 Johnson Trail

Figure 7-7 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 4 Fire Pit Area #19

Figure 7-8 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 5 First Street

Figure 7-9 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 6 Biosolid Area

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

Table ES-3 Site Inspection Recommendations

Table 5-1 Samples by Medium

Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths

Table 5-3 Groundwater Elevation

Table 5-4 Synoptic Groundwater Gauging Event (June 2019)

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table 6-2 PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Table 6-3 PFAS Detections in Subsurface Soil

Table 6-4 PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Table 6-5 PFAS Detections in Sediment

Table 6-6 PFAS Detections in Surface Water

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

Table 8-2 Site Inspection Recommendations
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM v

Appendices

Appendix A – Data Validation Report

Appendix B – Daily Reports

Appendix C – TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix D – Sampling Forms

Appendix E – Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams

Appendix F – Survey Data

Appendix G – Investigation Derived Waste Polygons

Appendix H – Laboratory Data

Appendix I – Laboratory Reports
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

°F degrees Fahrenheit

% percent

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface

CACTF Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

COC chain-of-custody

CSM conceptual site model

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT Direct-Push Technology

DQI Data Quality Indicator

DQO Data Quality Objective

EIS Extraction Internal Standards

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineering Manual

FTA Fire Training Area

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

HA Health Advisory

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

IDW Investigation Derived Waste

ISC Instrument Sensitivity Check

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LCS laboratory control spike

LCSD laboratory control spike duplicate

LOQ Level of Quantitation

MAAF Muir Army Air Field

MDL method detection limit

MS matrix spike

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

ng/L nanograms per liter

NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM vii

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PAARNG Pennsylvania Army National Guard

PADEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PADMVA Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

PAGS Pennsylvania Geological Survey

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBA Perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFCs Perfluorinated compounds

PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA Perfluorododecanoic acid

PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA Perfluoropentanoic acid

PFTeDA Perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTrDA Perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFUdA Perfluoroundecanoic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC poly-vinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC Quality Control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

RPD relative percent differences

RSL Risk-based Screening Level

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SW/SD Surface Water/Sediment

TOC Total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UCMR3 Unregulated Contaminant Rule 3

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM viii

WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G9 is performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site 

Inspections (SIs) at per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted sites at ARNG facilities 

nationwide. The objective of the SI at each facility is to identify whether there has been a release 

to the environment from the Areas of Interest (AOIs) identified in the PA and determine the 

presence or absence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at or above screening levels (SLs). An SI was completed at 

Fort Indiantown Gap (FTIG; also referred to as the “facility” throughout this document). 

FTIG is located in Lebanon and Dauphin Counties in south-central Pennsylvania, near Annville, 

approximately 26 miles northeast of Harrisburg. FTIG is an active National Guard Training Center 

and serves as headquarters for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs 

(PADMVA) and the Pennsylvania ARNG (PAARNG) in Annville, Pennsylvania. FTIG is located 

within the Appalachian Plateau, at the junction of two sections of the Valley and Ridge 

Physiographic Province: the Appalachian Mountain Section and the Great Valley Section (Ogden, 

2001). The total facility is currently in excess of 18,000 acres and comprises a cantonment area 

that includes the Muir Army Air Field (MAAF), heavy and light vehicle maintenance, army 

helicopter training and maintenance, small arms ranges, and a training corridor that includes 

bombing and strafing ranges and maneuver training. The training corridor lies to the north, 

between the Blue and Second Mountains within the Appalachian Mountain Section, while the 

small arms ranges and the cantonment area lie to the south in the Great Valley Section. During 

the PA for FTIG, 13 potential PFAS release areas were grouped into six AOIs and identified as 

AOI 1 through AOI 6. Each of these areas were investigated during the SI. The SI field activities 

were conducted from 28 May 2019 to 20 June 2019 and included soil, groundwater, surface water, 

and sediment sampling. 

To fulfill the project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) set forth in the approved SI Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2019), samples were collected and analyzed for a 

subset of 18 PFAS via liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) 

compliant with DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 Table B-15. The 18 PFAS analyzed as 

part of the ARNG SI program are specified in Section 5.9 of this report.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process based on riskbased SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 15 October 2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The 

ARNG PFAS SIs follow this DoD policy and, when the maximum site concentration for sampled 

media exceed the SLs, the AOI will proceed to a Remedial Investigation (RI), the next phase 

under CERCLA. The SLs apply to three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, for both soil and 

groundwater, as presented in Table ES-1. All other results presented in this report are considered 

informational in nature and serve as an indication as to whether soil, groundwater, sediment, and 

surface water contain or do not contain the 18 PFAS analyzed within the boundaries of the facility. 

Sample chemical analytical concentrations were compared against the project SLs as described 

in Table ES-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows:

• PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at AOI 1: Combined Arms Collective

Training Facility at concentrations below the SLs. PFBS was not detected in any of the

groundwater samples. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 1 is not

warranted in the RI.

• PFOA and PFOS in groundwater at AOI 2 exceeded the SLs of 40 nanograms per liter

(ng/L), with maximum concentrations of 44 ng/L and 280 ng/L, respectively. No detections

of PFBS exceeded the SL of 40,000 ng/L at AOI 2. Concentrations in groundwater
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM ES-2

exceeded the SLs at AOI 2: West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training 

Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and the Current Fire Station. Based on the results of the 

SI, further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in the RI.

• PFOS was detected in groundwater at AOI 2: Crash Site at concentrations below the SLs. 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 2: Simulated 

Emergency Event. Additionally, no groundwater samples were collected at AOI 2: 

Accidental Tank Spill. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of these source 

areas is not warranted in the RI.

• PFOS was detected in groundwater at AOI 3: Johnson Trail at concentrations below the 

SLs. PFOA and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at this location. Based on the 

results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 3 is not warranted in the RI.

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 4: Fire Pit Area #19 

and AOI 6: Biosolid Area. Groundwater at AOI 5: First Street was not sampled. Based on 

the results of the SI, further evaluation of these AOIs is not warranted in the RI.

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil samples from AOIs 1, 2, 

3, and 6 were below the SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in AOI 5 and 

soil samples were not collected at AOI 4.

Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the conceptual site 

models (CSMs) developed and revised based on SI findings, there are potential pathways for 

exposure to receptors from release sites at AOI 1, AOI 2, AOI 3, and AOI 6.

Table ES-3 summarizes the rationale used to determine if the AOI should be considered for 

further action under CERCLA and undergo an RI. Based on the results of this SI, further 

evaluation is warranted in the RI for AOI 2: the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp 

Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and the Current Fire Station. 

Table ES-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water 

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 130 1,600 40

PFOS 130 1,600 40

PFBS 130,000 1,600,000 40,000

Notes:

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater and Soil using 

United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM ES-3

Table ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release Area Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area

1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

2 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

2 East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

2 Building 019-101 Ramp

2 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117)

2 Crash Site

2 Simulated Emergency Event

2 Accidental Tank Spill N/A

3 Johnson Trail

4 Fire Pit Area #19 N/A

5 First Street N/A

6 Biosolid Area

Legend:

N/A = Not applicable

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM ES-4

Table ES-3: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1

Combined Arms 

Collective Training 

Facility

Detections in groundwater but no exceedances of 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 West Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Areas

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 East Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Area

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Building 019-101 

Ramp

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Current Fire Station 

(Building 5-117)

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Crash Site Detections in groundwater but no exceedances in 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 Simulated 

Emergency Event

No detections in groundwater at the source area. 

No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 Accidental Tank Spill No groundwater samples were collected. No 

detections in soil. No further action

3 Johnson Trail Detections in groundwater but no exceedances in 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

4 Fire Pit Area #19 No detections in groundwater at the source area. 

No soil samples were collected. No further action

5 First Street No groundwater samples were collected. No 

detections in soil. No further action

6 Biosolid Area No detections in groundwater at the source area.

No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G9 is the lead agency in performing Preliminary Assessments 

(PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

acid (PFOA) at Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. This work is supported by the 

United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Baltimore District and their contractor, 

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM), under Contract Number W912DR-12-D-0014, Task 

Order W912DR17F0192, issued 11 August 2017. The ARNG performed this SI at Fort Indiantown 

Gap (FTIG; also referred to as the “facility”) in Pennsylvania.

The SI project elements were performed by AECOM in accordance with the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; US Environmental 

Protection Agency [USEPA], 1980), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; USEPA 1994), and in 

compliance with Department of the Army (DA) requirements and guidance for field investigations,

including specific requirements for sampling for PFOA, PFOS, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS), and the group of related compounds known in the industry as per- and poly-fluoroalkyl 

substances (PFAS). The term PFAS will be used throughout this report to encompass all PFAS 

chemicals being evaluated, including PFOS and PFOA, and PFBS, which are the key components 

of the suspected releases being evaluated, and the other 15 related compounds listed in the task 

order. 

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at FTIG (AECOM, 2018c) that identified thirteen potential PFAS release 

areas at FTIG which were grouped into six Areas of Interest (AOIs). The objective of the SI is to 

identify whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOIs and determine the 

presence or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above screening levels (SLs). 

As stated in the Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide (USEPA, 2005), an 

SI has five goals: 

1) Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because 

it is determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.

2) Determine the potential need for a removal action.

3) Collect or develop data to evaluate potential release.

4) Collect data to better characterize the release for more effective and rapid initiation of a 

Remedial Investigation (RI).

5) Collect data to determine whether the release is more than likely the result of activities 

associated with the Department of Defense (DoD)

In addition to the USEPA-identified goals of an SI, the ARNG SI also identifies whether there are 

potential off-facility PFAS sources. 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 2-1

2. Site Background

2.1 Site Location and Description

FTIG is located in Lebanon and Dauphin Counties in south-central Pennsylvania, near Annville, 

approximately 26 miles northeast of Harrisburg. FTIG is an active National Guard Training Center 

and serves as headquarters for the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs 

(PADMVA) and the Pennsylvania ARNG (PAARNG).

The total facility is currently in excess of 18,000 acres and comprises a cantonment area that

includes the Muir Army Air Field (MAAF), heavy and light vehicle maintenance, army helicopter 

training and maintenance, bombing and strafing ranges, small arms ranges, and maneuver 

training. The facility location and layout are shown on Figure 2-1.

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

FTIG is located within the Appalachian Plateau, at the junction of two sections of the Valley and 

Ridge Physiographic Province: the Appalachian Mountain Section and the Great Valley Section 

(Ogden, 2001). The training corridor (50 caliber munitions and larger) and small arms ranges (50 

caliber munitions or smaller) lie between Blue and Second Mountains within the Appalachian 

Mountain Section, while the cantonment area and the small arms ranges lie to the south in the 

Great Valley Section. The Appalachian Mountain Section is composed of ridges and valleys. The 

mountain ridges reach elevations of 1,200 to 1,440 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The valley 

between the Blue and Second Mountains is approximately 600 to 700 feet amsl, and the 

cantonment area lies at 400 to 500 feet amsl.

The facility topography and surface water features are shown on Figure 2-2. The regional surface 

water features and drainage basins are shown on Figure 2-3. The regional geology and 

groundwater features are shown on Figure 2-4.

2.2.1 Geology

The valley and ridge topography at FTIG are characteristic of folding and faulting of Paleozoic 

sedimentary rocks. The facility is underlain by an arm of one of the folds, resulting in a sequence 

of rock that becomes progressively younger from southeast (in the cantonment area) to northwest 

(in the training corridor) (Berg et al., 1980). 

The cantonment area is primarily underlain by shale and siltstone of the Hamburg and 

Martinsburg sequences. The Tuscarora Formation quartzite and quartzitic sandstone forms the 

Blue Mountain ridgeline, while shales of the Clinton Group, Bloomsburg Formation, and Hamilton 

Group form the northern slope. The valley between Blue and Second Mountains is formed by the 

siltstones and mudstones of the Trimmers Rock Formation and the Irish Valley and Sherman 

Creek members of the Catskill Formation. The backbone of Second Mountain is supported by the 

sandstones in the Catskill Formation (the Clarks Ferry and Duncannon members) as well as the 

Spechty Kopf Formation and the Pocono Formation. 

Soil borings completed during SI activities indicated that the subsurface soil was composed of 

fine-grained sediment, ranging from silt to lean clay. In AOI 1, the sediment is underlain by 

siltstone, whereas at all other AOIs where bedrock was encountered, the sediment is underlain 

by weathered shale.

Bedrock is typically found within 6 feet of the ground surface, although it is often at shallower 

depths (AMEC, 2006). Some of the bedrock units at the facility reportedly contain thin interbeds 

of limestone and other calcareous components (Greyer et al., 1958); however, no karst features 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 2-2

have been identified in the vicinity of FTIG. The regional geologic and groundwater features are 

shown on Figure 2-4.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The US Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a generalized conceptual groundwater model 

based on several assumptions for the facility (USGS, 2010) that indicates shallow groundwater 

flow is in the direction of adjacent surface water bodies. Streams throughout the facility are 

gaining, even during dry periods, indicating that shallow groundwater discharges to surface water 

streams over much of FTIG. Within the training corridor, topography and facility conditions appear 

to also favor localized shallow groundwater flow, with discharge to adjacent streams rather than 

a significant portion of recharge reaching the deeper groundwater flow system. However, due to 

the fractured nature of bedrock at FTIG, a fraction of infiltrating water may enter a deeper 

groundwater flow system, bypass the perennial streams, and continue underground.

Structural deformation has extensively impacted the bedrock formations in the FTIG area. The 

shale and sandstone bedrock formations have low permeability; therefore, the secondary 

permeability resulting from faulting and fracturing provides the conduit for groundwater infiltration 

and migration through these units (Ogden, 2001). Productive aquifers are found in both the 

carbonate and sandstone formations, as evidenced by the number of public and private 

groundwater wells located near the southern facility boundary (Pennsylvania Geological Survey 

[PAGS], 2006). The most productive aquifers are formed primarily in the carbonate rocks of the 

Martinsburg and Hamburg formations; however, there are a number of wells located to the 

northeast and southwest of the facility that are installed in the siltstone and mudstone units that

form the valley between the Blue and Second Mountains. Most drinking water wells in Lebanon 

and Dauphin counties are installed at a depth of 165 to 170 feet, with most wells installed at a 

depth of less than 200 feet (PAGS, 2006). The regional geologic and groundwater features are 

shown on Figure 2-4.

On 19 June 2019, groundwater elevations at FTIG were measured at existing wells and SI 

monitoring wells. Groundwater contours constructed from these elevation measurements indicate 

groundwater flows from the monitoring wells toward downgradient perennial streams and surface 

water bodies. This groundwater flow direction is consistent with previous USGS modeling. A 

groundwater contour map of the cantonment area based on the synoptic groundwater gauging 

event conducted in June 2019 is presented in Figure 2-5.

2.2.3 Hydrology

FTIG is located within the Susquehanna River and Swatara Creek drainage basins and is drained 

by the watersheds of Manada Creek, Bow Creek, Reeds Creek, and Swatara Creek (Ogden, 

2001). Approximately 6.5 stream miles of Manada Creek lie within FTIG boundaries and drain the 

western portion of the facility. Approximately 6 stream miles of Indiantown Run drain the central 

portion of FTIG, emptying first into Marquette Lake before flowing further downstream into 

Memorial Lake. After flowing from Memorial Lake, Indiantown Run is joined by 2 stream miles of 

Vesle Run, which drains the western edge of the cantonment area. Indiantown Run then flows 

approximately 1 mile before its confluence with Swatara Creek. Approximately 2 stream miles of 

Aires Run and Qureg Run drain the eastern portion of FTIG within the Reeds Run watershed, 

including most of the cantonment area. After Aires Run and Qureg Run converge, the stream

continues 0.5 miles as Aires Run to the FTIG boundary. Aires Run confluences with Reeds Creek 

off-facility before joining Swatara Creek approximately 2 miles downstream. Unnamed tributaries 

of Trout Run and Forge Creek, each less than 0.5 miles long, drain small parcels of land at FTIG’s 

easternmost boundaries. The entirety of FTIG drains into Swatara Creek, and a portion of Swatara 

Creek has been designated by the State of Pennsylvania as a Warmwater Fishery stream (AMEC, 

2006). Both Manada Creek and Swatara Creek are stocked trout streams.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 2-3

Surface water resources at FTIG include streams, open water features, and wetlands (PADMVA,

2016). All streams originate on facility property and are perennial, with the exception of the upper 

reaches of some smaller tributaries. Two named springs exist on FTIG: Russian Spring, located 

south of Blue Mountain, flows into Qureg Run, and St. Joseph Spring, located north of Blue 

Mountain, flows into Indiantown Run. Several small, unnamed springs also exist, mostly on steep 

mountainsides. In addition, there are numerous acres of wetlands within the boundaries of FTIG.

There are no natural ponds or lakes on-facility; however, there are two manmade lakes located 

on the non-operational cantonment area of the facility. Marquette Lake is a 15-acre surface water 

impoundment of Indiantown Run located in the south-central portion of the facility, within the

cantonment area. Shuey Lake, a 5.5-acre impoundment of Qureg Run, is located near the 

southeastern facility boundary. 

Another surface water impoundment, Memorial Lake, exists along Indiantown Run and is located 

downstream from Marquette Lake. Memorial Lake is an 80-acre lake that is contained within the 

230-acre Memorial Lake State Park, an inholding at FTIG, and is adjacent to the southern post 

boundary (PADMVA, 2002). Memorial Lake is classified as a Warmwater Fishery by the State of 

Pennsylvania, and the portion of Indiantown Run from and including St. Joseph Springs to 

Memorial Lake is open for public fishing. Trout in Memorial Lake are raised from Pennsylvania 

Fish and Boat Commission-provided fingerlings; therefore, they must be made available to the

public upon release, and any stocked water must be publicly fishable. Shuey and Marquette Lakes 

are also stocked annually. There is no public boating on facility waters, but the FTIG Fish and 

Game Conservation Club is allowed to use some small, un-motorized rowboats on Marquette 

Lake (PADMVA, 2016). 

The potable water supply is provided by the City of Lebanon. Several potable wells are used to 

supply water to isolated, limited-use facilities within FTIG. In 2017, six drinking water sources at 

FTIG were tested for PFAS, and all PFAS results were less than the USEPA Health Advisory (HA) 

of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L). Lebanon Water Company serves approximately 57,000 

customers, including FTIG, and draws water from Swatara Creek, downstream of Forge Creek 

(Ogden, 2001). The Pennsylvania American Water Company also maintains a surface water 

intake located at the confluence of Swatara Creek and Manada Creek, approximately 10 miles 

downstream of the facility. The regional surface water features are presented on Figure 2-3.

Based on the USEPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3) data, PFOS was

detected in a public water system above the HA within 20 miles of the facility near the City of 

Harrisburg (USEPA, 2017a). The HA is 70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA, individually or combined. 

PFAS analyses performed in 2016 had method detection limits that were higher than currently 

achievable. Thus, it is possible that low concentrations of PFAS were not detected during the 

UCMR3 but might be detected if analyzed today.

2.2.4 Climate

The climate in the area of FTIG is moderate, with an average temperature of 53.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F). Seasonally, temperatures vary from average summer highs of 86 °F to average 

winter lows of 23 °F (World Climate, 2019). Precipitation is relatively evenly distributed throughout 

the year, with an average of 42 inches of rain and 35 inches of snow. The prevailing wind is 

typically from the west at 8 miles per hour, but topography influences the wind conditions (Ogden, 

2001).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

FTIG is currently an open facility with public roads; however, ranges have controlled access for 

safety reasons. As previously stated, 17 privately held residential properties exist within the facility 

boundary, some of which have private drinking water wells (Figure 2-4). Based on a 25-year 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 2-4

development strategy, the FTIG Master Plan includes a comprehensive implementation plan to 

meet developing facility and training program needs in alignment with inevitable mission changes 

and growth. New facilities to house several additional Unmanned Aerial Systems platoons with 

expanded runways for the ARNG are being planned (PADMVA, 2016).

The southern, eastern, and western boundaries of FTIG are abutted by primarily conservation, 

rural residential, and agricultural land uses. The lands directly to the north of the facility are owned 

and operated by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and used for public recreation. Future land 

use around the facility is projected to remain conservation, rural residential, and agricultural, with 

some parcels becoming commercial and industrial. A light, industrial park is located to the east of 

the facility, in Union Township. The closest urban environments are located approximately 13 

miles from the facility in Hershey to the southwest and Lebanon to the southeast, and the closest 

major city is Harrisburg, located 26 miles to the southwest (PADMVA, 2016).

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), there are four federally threatened or 

endangered species found in Lebanon County and/or Dauphin County (USFWS, 2019). 

• Mammals: northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened) and

Indiana bat, Myotis sodalist (Endangered)

• Reptiles: bog turtle, Clemmys muhlenbergii (Threatened)

• Plants: Northeastern bulrush, Scirpus ancistrochaetusI (Endangered)

2.3 History of AFFF Use

A common military source of PFAS was the use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting 

agent used by the DoD, to extinguish petroleum fires in response actions and to train firefighters 

to respond to petroleum fires or suppression of fires in uncontained areas. Military use of AFFF 

began in the 1970s and was most widely used at DoD installations with airfields. Thirteen potential 

PFAS release areas where AFFF may have been used or released historically were identified at

FTIG during the PA (AECOM, 2018c). The potential PFAS release areas were grouped into six 

AOIs (AOI 1 through 6) based on proximity to one another and presumed groundwater flow. A 

description of each AOI is presented in Section 3. 

2.4 Historical PFAS Investigations

In 2017, six drinking water well sources for small, inaccessible structures at FTIG were sampled 

for PFOS and PFOA (Tetra Tech, 2017). The drinking water samples were collected from the first 

access point (i.e. sample port, spigot, or faucet) downstream from the functioning supply well 

following a purge of water from each well. Water softening systems were present in the water flow 

path prior to five of the six access points. It is not known whether the systems have affected the 

results. PFOA and PFOS were detected at concentrations greater than the laboratory level of 

detection in one sample and a duplicate sample, at concentrations of 0.717J ng/L and 1.6J ng/L, 

respectively. The J in the numeric result indicates the concentrations are estimated as a result of 

the detections below the laboratory quantification limit. The reported concentrations are less than 

the HA of 70 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS. The locations of the six sampled drinking water well 

sources along with one additional well in the northwestern portion training corridor are shown on 

Figure 2-4. 
FORT INDIANTOWN GAP

Blue Mountain

Training Corridor

Second Mountain

Small Arms Ranges

Cantonment Area

Muir Army Airfield

Legend

Facility Boundary

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

^

Site Location and Facility Layout 

Figure 2-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

8/22/2018 MS

JZ

8/22/2018

8/22/2018

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Site Investigation for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_10-1_Facility_Location.mxd

Base Map: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed PM RH 8/22/2018

1:95,040 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

2-5
Indiantown Run

Qu reg Run

ManadaCreek

Vesle

Run

Aires Run

Swatara Creek

Saint Joseph Spring

Russian Spring

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

0 3,450 6,900 13,800

Feet

Site Topography and Surface Water Features

Figure 2-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

8/22/2018 MS

JZ

8/22/2018

8/22/2018

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Site Investigation for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_10-4_Facility_Surfacewater_Features.mxd

Base Map: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed PM RG 8/22/2018

1:82,800 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Shuey Lake

Marquette Lake

Memorial Lake

2-6
^_

^_

City of 

Lebanon

Middle Swatara Creek

Watershed 26293.81 Acres

Lower Swatara Creek

Watershed 15746.28 Acres

Crosskill 

Creek

Watershed 

12073.58 Acres

Lower Little Swatara Creek

Watershed 25312.37 Acres

Killinger Creek

Watershed 9564.78 Acres

Snitz Creek-Quittapahilla

Creek Watershed 39463.6 Acres

Reeds Run-Swatara Creek

Watershed 21216.91 Acres

Bow Creek-Swatara Creek

Watershed 31151.01 Acres

Manada Creek Watershed

20626.74 Acres

Spring Creek Watershed

15392.27 Acres

Beaver Creek Watershed

17441.75 Acres

Swatara Creek-Susquehanna

River Watershed 23843.28 Acres

Clark Creek Watershed

28948.49 Acres

Stony Creek Watershed

22722.38 Acres

Fishing Creek-Dauphin County

Watershed 11521.53 Acres

Paxton Creek 

Watershed

17534.19 Acres

Powell Creek Watershed

25402.06 Acres

Marquette Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Monroe Creek

South Fork Powells Creek

Litt l e Sw a tara Creek

SnitzCreek

Rausch Creek

Stony Creek

nI d ia ntown Run

Qureg

R un

Oil Creek

Fishing Creek

Cros skill Creek

Red Run

Quittapahilla Creek

Beach

Run

M ana da Creek

Rattling Run

ForgeCreek

Earlakill Run

Deep Run

Reeds Creek

Vesle Run

Gingric h Ru

S

n

pring Cr eek

Eliza beth R un

Aires Ru n

Trout Run

Swatara Cre e k

Be a verCre ek

Powel lsCr eek

DevilsRace Course

North Fork Powel ls Creek

Beck Cr eek

Clark Creek

Saint Joseph Spring

Russian Spring

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Surface Water Flow Direction

River/Stream

^_ Pennsylvania American Water

Company

^_ City of Lebanon Water Intake

0 1.25 2.5 5

Miles

Regional Surface Water Features 

Figure 2-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

2/28/2019 MS

BM

2/28/2019

2/28/2019

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Site Investigation for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_10-3_Regional_Surfacewater_Features.mxd

PM RG 2/28/2019

1:158,400 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

2-7
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P!P!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P 

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P 

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

AA!!!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5 !5

!5

!5

!P!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

! !P P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

&<

&<

A!

A!

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

A!

AA!

AA!!!!

A!

!C(

!C( !C(

!C( !C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!C( !C(!C(

Second Mountain

Small Arms Ranges

Cantonment Area

MonroeCreek

Stony Creek

Indi antown Run

Qureg Run

Oil Creek

Red Run

ManadaCreek

Forge Cre ek

Vesle

Run

Reeds Creek

Swatara Creek

Rausch Creek

Aires Run

TroutRun

LittleSwatara Creek

0 0.625 1.25 2.5

Miles

Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

3/25/2020 MS

JZ

3/25/2020

3/25/2020

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Site Investigation for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_2-4_FTIG_SI_Groundwater_Features.mxd

PM RG 3/25/2020 Base Map: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Well data: PAGWIS, PAARNG

1:79,200 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Legend

Facility Boundary

Wells

A! Monitoring

!P Commercial

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

A! Other

&<

Drinking Water Supply

!C( Public Supply

Groundwater

Inferrred Groundwater Divide

River/Stream

Geology

Siltstone/Mudstone

Quartzite/Sandstone

Andesite

Limestone

Graywacke

Shale

Supply Well locations estimated 

form ORA Phaste II Report; this 

data considered sensitive and

no long avilable from state website

2-8
A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

AOI-2-GW-1

467.79

AOI-2-GW-6

Dry

AOI-2-GW-11

457.14

AOI-5-GW-1

Dry

AOI-4-GW-1

470.46

FTIG Boundary GW-5 

432.27

MW-15W

500.89

MW-3S(FIG 11) 

469.61

MW-2LF

467.55

MW-1LF

511.43

10-A

485.41

10-B

486.16

13-A

498.88

13-B

501.06

8-A

469.61

8-B

472.69

AIR ARM

D 460.40

AIR ARM

S 462.52

AOI-2-GW-10

481.03 AOI-2-GW-2

462.64

AOI-2-GW-3

457.11

AOI-2-GW-4

456.97

AOI-2-GW-5

463.95

AOI-2-GW-7

450.70

AOI-2-GW-8

453.05

AOI-2-GW-9

480.55

AOI-3-GW-1

459.39

First Street A-17D

486.61

First Street A-17S 

486.44

FTIG Boundary GW-1

447.49

FTIG Boundary GW-2 

447.54 FTIG Boundary GW-3

461.56

FTIG Boundary GW-4 

461.16

MW-1(RWAY)

463.92

MW-2(RWAY)

464.38

MW-3(RWAY)

463.88

MW-4(RWAY)

464.32

MW-5LF

447.65

MW-7(FIG 11) 

470.07

T-107D

468.06

T-107S

469.02

T24-01A

458.51

T24-01B

461.87

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Qureg Run

Aires Run

Vesle Run

AOI5

AOI3

AOI2

AOI4

AOI 2

450

460

480

460

480

480

500

480

440

500

490

490

470

480

480

450

460

470

470

450

450

460

440

470

450

440

0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500

Feet

­ Figure 2-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

3/25/2020

3/25/2020

3/25/2020

MS

JH

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,

Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c)

3/25/2020

1:18,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_2-5_FTIG_Groundwater_Contours.mxd

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

A! Monitoring Well/Piezometer

Groundwater Contour

Extrapolated Contour

Groundwater Divide

Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater Contours for

 Fort Indiantown Gap

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Ground Water Contours and Elevations in Feet above Mean Sea Level

AA!!

AOI-1-GW-1

Dry

AOI-1-GW-2

652.79

Indiantown

Run

AOI1

1

2

3

A!

AOI-6-GW-1

449.61

Memorial Lake Memorial Lake

Indiantown Run

AOI6

AOI6

AOI6

1

3

2

2-9
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest 

In the PA, the potential PFAS release areas were grouped into six AOIs based on proximity and 

direction of groundwater flow. A summary of each AOI is presented below. The locations of the 

AOIs are shown on Figure 3-1.

3.1 AOI 1 

3.1.1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

The Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF) is located northeast of the intersection 

of Cold Springs Road and Tomstown Road, in the north-central portion of FTIG. The CACTF is in 

the training corridor, and access to the area is only granted through permission from Range 

Control.

The CACTF is an active, 1-square-kilometer, replicated urban environment with an assortment of 

mock facilities and buildings including residences, office buildings, a church, a gas station, stores, 

streets, and sidewalks. The CACTF was constructed in 2009, and training exercises began in 

2010. Range Facility Management Support System documents fire training activities at the 

CACTF conducted by the PAARNG Fire Department in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016. 

According to the current PAARNG Assistant Fire Chief, only water was used during fire training 

activities at this location, with the exception of the 2012 training event described below. 

In November 2012, AFFF was discharged by the PAARNG Fire Department during fire training 

activities at the mock gas station in the southeast corner of the CACTF. AFFF fire training activities 

were conducted by the PAARNG on 18, 19, 26, and 29 November 2012, and, in total, involved 

the discharge of approximately 20 gallons of 3 percent (%) AFFF concentrate. On the last day of 

the training event, AFFF accumulated at the mock gas station and breached the storm drains, 

which outfall to an earthen, bermed retention pond on the southeast corner of the CACTF lot. 

According to the current PAARNG Fire Chief and PAARNG Assistant Fire Chief, this location was 

used only once for AFFF training activities by the PAARNG. No PFAS remediation activities have 

occurred at this location. 

3.2 AOI 2

3.2.1 West and East Ramp Fire Pit Training Areas

During an interview with the former PAARNG Fire Chief, two additional fire pit training areas, 

reportedly used for coordinated exercises with the PAARNG and US Army Fire Departments, were 

identified on either side of the MAAF ramp (Figure 3-1; east end and west end).

One fire training pit was located at the east end of the MAAF ramp. At this location, a rotarywinged aircraft was ignited using jet fuel and solvents at least once annually from the late 1980s 

to the early 1990s and then extinguished with AFFF by the PAARNG and the US Army Fire 

Departments. The area is currently a paved parking lot adjacent to the nearby Army Aviation 

Brigade Armory (Building-19-119) built in 1995. The terrain around the area was once level with 

the MAAF, but the area was excavated and lowered with an embankment during construction of 

the Brigade Armory parking lot. The soil from the excavation of the area may possibly still be onfacility; however, the exact fate of the soil could not be determined during the facility visit.

A second fire training pit was located at the west end of the MAAF ramp. At this location, a rotarywinged aircraft was ignited using jet fuel during a one-time event in the early 1990s and then 

extinguished with AFFF by the PAARNG and the US Army Fire Departments. This area is colocated with the newly constructed Building 019-177 (EAATS hangar). The soil from the fire 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-2

training pit location was scrapped and hauled away prior to construction of Building 019-177. No 

information was available on the final disposition location of the excavated soil.

3.2.2 Building 019-101

Building 019-101 is the Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) hangar on the MAAF and is 

operated by the PAARNG. The MAAF is bordered on the north by Range Road, on the east by 

Johnson Trail, on the south by Fisher Avenue, and on the west by Utility Road. 

Building 019-101 was constructed in 1973 and began operation in 1974. In 1988, the building was 

retrofitted with an AFFF fire suppression system that is supplied by two 1,000-gallon tanks of 3%

AFFF concentrate. Following installation of the fire suppression system, the west end of the 

hangar was separated from the east end by a temporary curtain and filled with AFFF to test the 

system. Once the test was complete, the majority of the AFFF was squeegeed out of the west 

end of the hangar and onto the MAAF ramp by the PAARNG and allowed to dissipate. A small 

amount of foam was contained in the hangar trench drain that flows to an oil-water separator and 

then to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The former PAARNG Fire Chief and Air Traffic 

Control Tower Chief recall the foam persisting outdoors on the MAAF ramp and adjacent grass 

for about two days. 

The former PAARNG Fire Chief also indicated that from 1988 until 2011, occasional false alarms 

caused the fire suppression system to dispense approximately 5 to 10 gallons of AFFF per 

incident in the hangar. Per the facility maintenance manager, sensor interactions between a beam 

within the holding tank, temperature systems, and heat were the causes of the false alarms. These 

false alarm releases occurred approximately 20 times, and most recently in 2011. Each time AFFF 

was dispensed during a false alarm, the pipes of Building 019-101 were flushed, and the foam 

was squeegeed out on to the ramp, washed into the adjacent grass, and allowed to dissipate 

outdoors. In 2015, the AASF underwent an upgrade to retrofit the building with new sensors, 

lasers, and pipe liners. The existing AFFF was drained from the fire suppression system by Vector 

Fire Technology and disposed by Cycle Chem, Inc. at Modern Landfill in York, Pennsylvania. 

There have been no accidental releases of AFFF since the building was retrofitted in 2015.

3.2.3 Building 019-101 Ramp

The Building 019-101 Ramp lies between Building 019-101 and the runway and serves as an 

area for rotary-winged aircraft pre-flight activities (Figure 3-1). 

According to the former PAARNG Fire Chief, the ramp was “washed” repeatedly from 

approximately 1974 until 2011 with 3% AFFF concentrate by the PAARNG because AFFF acted 

as a detergent for spilled fuels. In addition, 3% AFFF concentrate that was dispensed intentionally 

or accidentally from the Building 019-101 hangar was squeegeed out of the hangar and onto the 

ramp. No remediation activities have occurred at this location.

The Air Traffic Control Tower Chief also recalled a potential PFAS release in the slingload area,

which is just north of the ramp and Building 019-135. No other interviewees recalled this potential 

PFAS release event. 

3.2.4 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117)

The current fire station (Building 5-117) is located at the southwest corner of Fisher Avenue and 

Smathers Road, south of the MAAF (Figure 3-1). Based on historical aerial imagery, the Fire 

Station was built sometime between 1937 and 1948.

Prior to 1998, the current fire station was operated by the US Army Fire Department. Following 

base realignment in 1998, the PAARNG Fire Department and US Army Fire Department were 

combined. The PAARNG now operates the current fire station (Building 5-117) on-facility (the 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-3

former US Army Fire Station) and responds to fires of all types. The current fire staff consists of 

12 state firefighters, three federal status technicians, and the federally employed PAARNG Fire 

Chief. 

AFFF is stored by the PAARNG Fire Department in two 250-gallon totes inside of the current fire 

station and is transferred to the firetrucks, as needed, via a pump. No known spills or leaks of 

AFFF were identified during the PA; however, the National Fire Protection Agency requires annual 

testing of the proportioning valves on the firetrucks, and from 1998 until the present, the PAARNG 

Fire Department has tested the valves by discharging approximately 5 gallons of 3% AFFF 

concentrate onto the ground and testing the mixture using a hand-held refractometer. The valves 

have been tested in two locations: in the field immediately south of the current fire station, behind 

a dumpster, and in the field on the north side of Fisher Avenue, immediately south of MAAF; the 

latter area was recently paved. No remediation activities have occurred at either potential release 

area, and no information was available on the US Army Fire Department’s storage or use of AFFF 

at the current fire station.

3.2.5 Crash Site

In the early 1990s, a rotary-winged aircraft clipped a tree during landing and crashed on the west 

end of MAAF, south of Runway 7 (Figure 3-1). The PAARNG Fire Department responded to the 

crash and extinguished the fire with AFFF. No information was available on the concentration or 

amount of AFFF used during the emergency response. This was the only crash site identified 

during the site visit. 

3.2.6 Simulated Emergency Event

In 1991, the PAARNG Fire Department conducted a simulated emergency event using water at 

the western end of MAAF (Figure 3-1). The US Army Fire Department, which was not aware of 

the scheduled simulated emergency event, responded to the event and dispensed AFFF. No 

information was available on the concentration or amount of AFFF dispensed by the US Army Fire 

Department. The PAARNG Fire Department did not dispense AFFF during this event.

3.2.7 Accidental Tank Spill

In 2019, a firetruck was inadvertently charged with AFFF solution. The unwanted AFFF solution 

was removed from the firetruck and placed into a temporary, above ground, unused storage tank. 

The storage tank was observed to leak AFFF, and the leak was sealed; however, some AFFF 

solution was released to the ground near the tank.

3.3 AOI 3

3.3.1 Johnson Trail

The Johnson Trail Fire Training Area (FTA) is located on the east side of Johnson Trail, to the 

south of Hartranft Road, and just north of the wood chip area at the crest in the road (Figure 3-

1). 

The Johnson Trail FTA is an earthen, bermed stockpile area for soil originating from projects at 

the FTIG facility. AFFF fire training activities were conducted by the PAARNG Fire Department on 

30 and 31 March, and 1 and 6 April, in 2015. In total, the training involved the discharge of 

approximately 20 gallons of 1% AFFF concentrate, which were created by diluting 3% AFFF 

concentrate. According to the current PAARNG Fire Chief and PAARNG Assistant Fire Chief, this 

location was used only once for AFFF training activities by the PAARNG. No remediation activities 

have occurred at this location.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-4

3.4 AOI 4

3.4.1 Fire Pit Area #19

Fire Pit Area #19 is located on the west side of First Street, north of B Street, and south of C 

Street (Figure 3-1).

According to the Base Realignment and Closure 1997 Environmental Baseline Survey Report, 

Fire Pit Area #19 was constructed in 1975 by excavating an area 40 feet in diameter to a depth 

of approximately 1.5 feet and constructing a 1-foot high earthen berm around the perimeter of the 

pit (Woodward-Clyde, 1997). The fire pit was then lined with fire brick. The PAARNG Fire 

Department conducted coordinated fire training exercises with the US Army Fire Department on 

an average of two times annually at this location from 1975 to 1986. According to the former 

PAARNG Fire Chief, fuel was ignited, and the fire was extinguished with AFFF by both the 

PAARNG and the US Army during these training exercises. No information was available on the 

concentration or amount of AFFF used during the training; however, approximately 3,000 gallons 

of used petroleum, oil, and lubricants generated in the AASF were burned in the fire training pit

per year. 

The fire training pit was closed in 1990, and a limited SI was conducted. The results of the SI 

defined an area of soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (Weston, 1992). The PAARNG 

excavated the petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and disposed of it an unknown location 

(Woodward-Clyde, 1997). In 2003, a site-specific RI was completed at Fire Pit Area #19 that

identified contamination of volatile organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds in 

concentrations below the non-residential statewide health standard and the site-specific standard. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued a Relief of Liability 

letter, dated 27 May 2003, to the PAARNG. The Medical Battalion Training facility was constructed 

at this location in 2007.

3.5 AOI 5

3.5.1 First Street

The First Street FTA is located to the east of First Street, between East Tank Trail and Range 

Road (Figure 3-1). 

The First Street FTA consists of an open field with a rotary-winged aircraft encompassed by a 

circular drive. A landing area is isolated from the field by concrete barriers near the center of the 

field. According to the current PAARNG Fire Chief and PAARNG Assistant Fire Chief, this area 

was used once for a fire training activity in March 2014, during which approximately 20 gallons of 

3% AFFF concentrate were dispensed by the PAARNG. No PFAS remediation activities have 

occurred at this location.

3.6 AOI 6

3.6.1 Biosolid Area

The biosolids from the WWTP are applied to a parcel of land on the southeastern boundary of 

Memorial Lake (Figure 3-1). 

Since 2012, FTIG has been permitted to perform land application of biosolids from the WWTP on 

the southeastern boundary of Memorial Lake. Hay is grown in the biosolid land application area, 

harvested, baled, and used for erosion and sediment control on FTIG. There are no known 

potential PFAS releases at AOI 6; however, potential PFAS releases have been documented 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-5

going into the drains at Building 019-101 (AOI 2), which flow to the WWTP. The last known 

potential release of PFAS at Building 019-101 (AOI 2) occurred in 2011, prior to the start of land 

application in 2012; therefore, a potential PFAS release at AOI 6 is unlikely. However, upgrades 

to retrofit the sensors at Building 019-101, which were the cause of accidental AFFF releases, did 

not occur until 2015.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

&<

&<

A!

A!

A!

&<

&<

&<

&<

&<

A!A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!

A!

&<

&<

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

AOI 6

Former 

Landfill

Biosolid 

Area

Current Fire Station

019-101

WWTP

019-177

Former Crash Rescue Fire Station

Accidental

Tank Spill

AOI 1

AOI 5

AOI 3

AOI 2

AOI 4

Memorial Lake

Marquette

Lake

Shuey

Lake

019-101 Ramp

Slingload Area

Fire Pit Area #19

Johnson Trail

First Street

Simulated Event Crash Site

CACTF

East Ramp Fire Pit 

West Ramp Fire Pit

Middle Swatara

Creek Watershed

Lower Swatara

Creek Watershed

Reeds Run-Swatara

Creek Watershed

Bow Creek-Swatara

Creek Watershed

Manada Creek

Watershed

Stony Creek

Watershed

Swatara Creek

Forge Creek

I ndiantown Run

Qureg Run

Reeds Creek

Manada Creek

Ves le

Run

Aires Run

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500

Feet

­ Figure 3-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

2/11/2021

2/11/2021

2/11/2021

MS

JZ

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,

USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

2/11/2021

1:30,000

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_3-1_FTIG_SI_Areas_of_Interest.mxd

Area of Interest

No Suspected Release

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

A! Monitoring

&<

Drinking Water Supply

!P Commercial

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

A! Other

!C( Public Supply

Water Body

Inferrred Groundwater Divide

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Areas of Interest

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

3-7
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 3-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

Project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements that specify 

the quality of data and define the level of certainty required to support project decision-making. 

The specific DQOs established for this facility are described below. These DQOs were developed

in accordance with the USEPA’s seven-step iterative process (USEPA, 2006).

4.1 Problem Statement

The following problem statement was developed during project planning:

The presence of PFAS, which may pose a risk to human health or the environment, in 

environmental media at the facility is currently unknown. PFAS are classified as emerging 

environmental contaminants that are garnering increasing regulatory interest due to their potential 

risks to human health and the environment. The regulatory framework for managing PFAS at both 

the federal and state level continues to evolve. 

The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based 

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) dated 15 October 2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The ARNG 

program under which this SI was performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site 

concentration for sampled media exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the site 

will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA. The SLs established in the OSD memorandum 

apply to three compounds: PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS. The SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of 

this report. 

The following quotes from the DA policy documents form the basis for this project (DA, 2016; DA, 

2018): 

• “The Army will research and identify locations where PFOS and/or PFOA containing 

products, such as AFFF, are known or suspected to have been used. Facilities shall 

coordinate with Facility fire response or training offices to identify AFFF use or storage 

locations. The Army will consider FTAs, AFFF storage locations, hangars/buildings with AFFF 

suppression systems, fire equipment maintenance areas, and areas where emergency 

response operations required AFFF use as possible source areas. In addition, metal plating 

operations, which used certain PFOS-containing mist suppressants, shall be considered 

possible source areas.” 

• “Based on a review of Site records...determine whether a CERCLA PA is appropriate for 

identifying PFOS/PFOA release sites. If the PA determines a PFOS/PFOA release may have 

occurred, a CERCLA SI shall be conducted to determine presence/absence of 

contamination.” 

• “Identify sites where perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are known or suspected to have been 

released, with the priority being those sites within 20 miles of the public systems that tested 

above USEPA Health Advisory Levels” (USEPA, 2016a; USEPA, 2016b).

4.2 Goals of the Study

The following goals were established for this SI:

1) Determine the presence or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above SLs.

2) Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because 

it is determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.

3) Determine the potential need for a removal action. 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-2

4) Collect data to better characterize the release areas for more effective and rapid initiation 

of a RI.

5) Identify within 4 miles of the facility other potential PFAS sources (fire stations, major 

manufacturers, other DoD facilities), and receptors including both groundwater and 

surface water receptors, to determine whether the ARNG is the likely source of PFAS, or 

whether there is an off-facility source of PFAS responsible for facility detections of PFAS 

(USEPA, 2005).

6) Determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and 

potential receptors and whether ARNG is the likely source of the contamination. 

4.3 Information Inputs:

Primary information inputs included:

• PA for FTIG, Pennsylvania (AECOM, 2018c)

• Analytical data collected at facility boundary sample locations (i.e., facility boundary 

groundwater sampling wells, and surface water and sediment samples).

• Groundwater, surface water, sediment, and soil samples collected in accordance with the 

Site Specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

Addendum (AECOM, 2019)

• Field data including groundwater elevation and water quality parameters measured at the 

time of sampling.

4.4 Study Boundaries

The scope of the SI sampling approach was focused on media immediately downgradient of AOI 

release areas and at the property limits of the facility (Figure 3-1). 

4.5 Analytical Approach

All samples were analyzed by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, accredited under 

the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP; Accreditation Number 

001.01), the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate

Number 018), and a Pennsylvania State Certified Laboratory Certificate Number 018. Data were 

compared to applicable SLs and decision rules as defined in the Programmatic UFP-QAPP 

(PQAPP). Decision rules were developed for groundwater/surface water and soil/surface 

sediment, and they applied to all data collected. These rules governed response actions based 

on the results of the SI sampling effort.

The decision rules described in the Worksheet #11 of the QAPP Addendum identify actions based 

on the following:

Groundwater/surface water:

• Is there a human receptor within 4-miles of the Site?

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the potential release areas?

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the facility boundary upgradient 

and downgradient of potential release areas?

• What does the conceptual site model (CSM) suggest in terms of source, pathway and 

receptor? 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-3

Soil/surface sediment:

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in shallow surface soil or sediment

(0 to 2 feet below ground surface [bgs])?

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in deep soil (i.e., capillary fringe

and bedrock interface)?

• What does the CSM suggest in terms of source, pathway, and receptor? 

Soil samples were collected from each of the potential PFAS release areas, with the exception of 

AOI 4. The ground surface in the area of AOI 4 consisted of a gravel parking area overlying 

shallow bedrock. The depth to groundwater was variable but typically encountered at 

approximately 3 to 15 feet bgs, and a sample was collected at each AOI, with the exception of 

AOI 5. The temporary well remained dry during the SI activities, and no groundwater was available 

to sample in the temporary well.

4.6 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment is an evaluation at the conclusion of data collection activities that 

uses the results of both data verification and validation in the context of the overall project 

decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the assessment 

determines whether project execution and the resulting data have met facility-specific DQOs. Both 

sampling and analytical activities are considered to assess whether the collected data are of the 

right type, quality, and quantity to support the decision-making (DoD, 2018a; DoD, 2018b; USEPA, 

2017b).

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) (Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability, 

Completeness and Sensitivity) are important components in assessing data usability. These DQIs 

were evaluated in the subsequent sections and demonstrate that the data presented in this SI 

report are of high quality. Although the SI data are considered reliable, some degree of uncertainty 

can be associated with the data collected. Specific factors that may contribute to the uncertainty 

of the data evaluation are described below. The Data Validation Report (Appendix A) presents 

explanations for all qualified data in greater detail.

4.6.1 Precision

Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic 

on the same sample or on separate samples collected as close as possible in time and place. 

Field sampling precision is measured with the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD); 

laboratory precision is measured with calibration verification, internal standard recoveries, 

laboratory control spike (LCS) and matrix spike (MS) duplicate RPD.

Extraction internal standards (EIS) were added by the laboratory during sample extraction to 

measure relative responses of target analytes and are used to correct for bias associated with 

matrix interferences and sample preparation efficiencies, injection volume variances, mass 

spectrometry ionization efficiencies, and other associated preparation and analytical anomalies. 

The positive field sample results associated with EIS area counts greater than the upper quality 

control (QC) limit were qualified “J-“ and should be considered usable as estimated values with a 

positive bias. The positive field sample results associated with EIS area counts less than the QC 

limit, but results greater than 20% were qualified “J+”, unless qualified due to a source water 

detection, while non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The qualified results should be considered 

usable as estimated values with a positive bias. The remaining field sample results associated 

with percent recoveries less than 20% were qualified “X” for positive and non-detect results. The 

qualified field sample results associated with EIS area counts less than 20%, but greater than 

10%, are recommended for use as estimated values reported with interpreted qualifiers of “J+” 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-4

for the positive associated field sample results, and “UJ” for non-detects. Additionally, the positive 

field sample results associated with EIS area counts less than 10% are recommended for use as 

estimate values with a positive bias and reported with interpreted qualifiers of “J+”. The project 

team determined these non-detect results were usable for project purposes. 

Calibration verifications were performed routinely to ensure that instrument responses for all 

calibrated analytes were within established QC criteria. A limited number of continuing calibration 

verifications displayed percent differences greater than the upper QC limit of 30% for 8:2 

fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2 FTS) and 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS). The 

associated field sample results were non-detect; therefore, no data qualifying action was required. 

The associated field sample results should be considered usable as reported. 

LCS/LCS duplicate (LCSD) pairs were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each 

analyte in a matrix-free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD pairs were analyzed 

for every analytical batch to demonstrate the ability of the laboratory to detect similar 

concentrations of a known quantity in matrix-free media. The LCS/LCSD samples were within the 

project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019).

MS/MSD (MSD) samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported for all preparation batches. 

MS/MSD samples demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix being 

tested. MS/MSD samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis at a rate of 5%. The 

MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI5-SB1-0.5-1.0 displayed an RPD greater than the QC 

limit of 30% for N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) at 52%. The 

associated parent sample result was non-detect; therefore, no data qualifying action was required,

and the associated parent sample result should be considered usable as reported.

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% to assess the overall sampling and 

measurement precision for this sampling effort. The field duplicate samples were analyzed for 

PFAS and general chemistry parameters. The field duplicate samples were within the project 

established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019).

4.6.2 Accuracy

Accuracy is a measure of confidence in a measurement. The smaller the difference between the 

measurement of a parameter and its "true" or expected value, the more accurate the 

measurement. The more precise or reproducible the result, the more reliable or accurate the 

result. Accuracy is measured through percent recoveries in the LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, and 

surrogates.

LCS/LCSD samples were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each analyte in a 

matrix free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD samples were analyzed for 

every analytical batch and demonstrated that the analytical system was in control during sample 

preparation and analysis, with one exception. Several LCS/LCSD pairs displayed percent 

recoveries greater than the upper QC limit of 130% for N-methyl 

perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). The 

positive associated field sample results were qualified “J+”. The qualified field sample results 

should be considered usable as estimated values with a positive bias.

MS/MSD samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported at a rate of 5%. MS/MSD samples 

demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix being tested, with one 

exception. Several MS/MSD pairs displayed percent recoveries outside the QC limits. The 

positive field duplicate result associated with the positive-biased parent sample was qualified “J+” 

and should be considered usable as estimated values with a positive bias. The parent sample 

and field duplicate results associated with the negative biases were non-detect and were qualified 

“UJ” and should be considered usable as estimated values with a negative bias.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-5

4.6.3 Representativeness

Representativeness qualitatively expresses the degree to which data accurately reflect Site

conditions. Factors that affect the representativeness of analytical data include appropriate 

sample population definitions, proper sample collection and preservation techniques, analytical 

holding times, use of standard analytical methods, and determination of matrix or analyte 

interferences. 

Relating to the use of standard analytical methods, the laboratory followed the method as 

established in PFAS by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)

compliant with DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 Table B-15, including the specific 

preparation requirements (i.e. ENVI-Carb or equivalent used), mass calibration, spectra, all the 

ion transitions identified in Table B-15 were monitored, standards that contained both branch and 

linear isomers when available were used, and isotopically labeled standards were used for 

quantitation.

Field QC samples were collected to assess the representativeness of the data collected. Field 

duplicates were collected at a rate of 10% for all field samples, while MS/MSD samples were 

collected at a rate of 5%. All preservation techniques were followed by the field staff, and all 

technical and analytical holding times were met by the laboratory. The laboratory used approved 

standard methods in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019) for all analyses.

Instrument blanks and method blanks were prepared by the laboratory in each batch as a negative 

control. All associated instrument blanks and method blanks were non-detect for all target 

analytes.

Equipment blanks and field blanks were also collected for groundwater and soil samples. All 

equipment blanks and field blanks were non-detect for all target analytes.

A sample of the water used for decontamination of the drill rig was collected in advance of the 

field effort. The drill rig decontamination sample, FTIG-PW-01, displayed detections for PFBA, 

perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), and PFOA. The associated 

field sample results that displayed concentrations less than five times the concentration found in 

the blank were qualified “U”, and the associated numerical result was elevated to the quantitation 

limit. The affected field sample result concentrations initially ranged from 0.32 ng/L to 1.5 ng/L 

prior to the associated data qualifying actions.

Overall, the data are usable for evaluating the presence or absence of PFAS at the facility. 

Sufficient usable data were obtained to meet the objectives of the SI and to complete the risk 

assessment.

4.6.4 Comparability

Comparability is the extent to which data from one study can be compared directly to either past 

data from the current project or data from another study. Using standardized sampling and 

analytical methods, units of reporting, and site selection procedures help ensure comparability. 

Standard field sampling and typical laboratory protocols were used during the SI and are 

considered comparable to ongoing investigations.

4.6.5 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system 

compared to the amount of data expected under normal conditions. The laboratory provided data 

meeting system QC acceptance criteria for all samples tested. Project completeness was 

determined by evaluating the planned versus actual quantities of data. Percent completeness per 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 4-6

parameter is as follows and reflects the exclusion of “X” flagged data, although the project team 

has retained these results in the data set: 

• PFAS in groundwater via LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM Table B-15 at 100%

• PFAS in soil via LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM Table B-15 at 98%

• PFAS in surface water via LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM Table B-15 at 94%

• PFAS in sediment via LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM Table B-15 at 100%

• pH in soil by USEPA Method 9045D at 100%

• Total organic carbon (TOC) by USEPA Method 9060 at 100%

4.6.6 Sensitivity

Sensitivity is the capability of a test method or instrument to discriminate between measurement 

responses representing different levels (e.g., concentrations) of a variable of interest. The primary 

sensitivity metric is the Instrument Sensitivity Check (ISC), which is required in accordance with 

DoD QSM 5.1 Table B-15. All ISCs were performed at the appropriate frequency by the laboratory, 

at concentrations equal to the level of quantitation (LOQ) and displayed percent recoveries within 

the established QC criteria of ±30%. Additional examples of QC measures for determining 

sensitivity include laboratory fortified blanks, a method detection limit (MDL) study, and calibration 

standards at the LOQ. In order to meet the needs of the data users, project data must meet the 

measurement performance criteria for sensitivity and project LOQs specified in the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019). The laboratory provided the requested MDL studies and provided 

applicable calibration standards at the LOQ. In order to achieve the DQOs for sensitivity outlined 

in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019), the laboratory reported all field sample results at the 

lowest possible dilution. Additionally, any analytes detected below the LOQ and above the MDL 

were reported and qualified “J” as estimated values by the laboratory.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

This section describes the environmental investigation and sampling activities that occurred as 

part of the SI. The SI sampling approach was based on the findings of the PA and implemented 

in accordance with the following approved documents.

• Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project 

Plan dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a)

• Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan dated July 2018 (AECOM, 2018b)

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania dated 

September 2018 (AECOM, 2018c)

• Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum, 

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania dated May 2019 (AECOM, 2019)

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania dated May 2019

(AECOM, 2019a)

SI field sampling activities were conducted from 28 May to 19 June 2019. The sampling consisted 

of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment grab sampling. Field activities were conducted

in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019), except as noted in Section 5.9. 

The following samples were collected at FTIG and analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS via 

LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM 5.1 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

• 35 soil grab samples from 28 boring locations;

• 23 groundwater grab samples from 19 temporary well locations and four existing 

permanent monitoring well locations; and

• 12 sediment and 12 surface water samples. 

Figure 5-1 provides the sample locations for all media across the Site. Table 5-1 presents all 

samples collected for each media. Daily reports were completed throughout SI activities, which 

are provided in Appendix B. 

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

In preparation for the SI field activities, project team members participated in Technical Project 

Planning (TPP) meetings, performed utility clearance, and sampled decontamination source 

water, each of which is discussed in more detail below.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The USACE TPP Process, Engineering Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (USACE, 2016) defines four phases 

to project planning: 1.) defining the project phase; 2.) determining data needs; 3.) developing data 

collection strategies; and 4.) finalizing the data collection plan. The process encourages 

stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall project objectives, including 

quantitative and qualitative DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOIs 

identified in the PA. 

TPP meetings 1 and 2 were held concurrently on 20 March 2019, prior to SI field activities. 

Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix C. TPP meetings 1 and 2 were conducted in general 

accordance with EM 200-1-2 (USACE, 2016).
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-2

The stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, PAARNG, USACE, PADEP, FTIG, representatives 

familiar with the facility, the regulations, and the community. Stakeholders were provided the 

opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling approach and methods in the TPP

meeting. The outcome of TPP meetings 1 and 2 were memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum.

Future TPP meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the results and findings, and future 

actions, where warranted.

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

Utility clearance was conducted by PADMVA Bureau of Reservation Maintenance, with input from 

the AECOM field team. AECOM’s drilling subcontractor, Eichelbergers Drilling, contacted 

Pennsylvania one-call utility clearance contractor to notify them of intrusive work. Additionally, the 

first 5 feet of each boring location was advanced using air knife methods to verify utility clearance 

in shallow subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered. Soil borings were slightly 

offset from the air knife boring and soil samples collected using a hand auger or geoprobe 

methods. 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

A sample from a water supply source at FTIG was collected on 7 May 2019, prior to field 

mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM 5.1 Table B-15. The 

water supply source at FTIG is supplied by City of Lebanon. The results of the water supply 

sample are provided in Appendix H. A discussion of the results is presented in Section 4.6.3.

All materials that were used within the sampling zone were confirmed as acceptable for use in 

the PFAS sampling environment. The checklist of acceptable materials for use in the PFAS 

sampling environment is provided in PQAPP Appendix C, Table 1 (AECOM, 2018a). Prior to the 

start of field work each day, a PFAS Sampling Checklist was completed as an additional layer of 

control. The checklist served as a daily reminder to each field team member regarding the 

allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

Soil samples were collected via direct-push technology (DPT), in accordance with the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019). A GeoProbe® dual-tube sampling system was used to collect 

continuous soil cores to the target depth. Up to three discrete soil samples were collected for 

chemical analysis from each soil boring, dependent on the depth to shallow bedrock. A hand auger 

was used to collect surface soil samples from 0 to 2 feet bgs. One subsurface soil sample 

approximately 1 foot above the groundwater table and one subsurface soil sample at the soil and 

shallow bedrock interface were collected at each boring using DPT. Due to the shallow depth to 

bedrock encountered at several borings, soil samples were limited to the surface soil and at the 

shallow soil and bedrock interface.

Soil boring and surface soil locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and depths are provided on Table 

5-2. The soil boring locations were selected based on the AOI information as agreed on through 

TPP and QAPP Addendum review. 

The soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by a field geologist using the 

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A photoionization detector (PID) was used to screen 

the breathing zone during boring activities as part of personal safety requirements. Observations 

and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix D) and in a non-treated field 

logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, 

moisture, relative density, color (using a Munsell soil color chart), and texture (using the USCS) 

were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-3

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 

bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and 

transported via a laboratory courier or Federal Express under standard chain-of-custody (COC) 

procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS (USEPA Method 537 Modified, TOC (USEPA 

Method 9060A) and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the QAPP Addendum

(AECOM, 2019). For cases in which non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, such as a 

stainless-steel hand auger for the 0 to 2 feet bgs soil samples, equipment blank samples were 

collected and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples that were collected.

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters 

as the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the 

same parameters as the accompanying samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler 

to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 4 degrees Celsius during shipment.

DPT borings were converted to temporary wells. Borings were installed in grass areas or gravel 

areas where possible to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® dual-tube sampling system. If refusal was 

encountered on shallow bedrock before the desired depth of sample location, the GeoProbe® 

utilized an air rotary hammer to reach the desired depth in bedrock. Seven shallow bedrock wells 

were designed and installed to be co-located with overburden wells at select AOIs and along the 

facility boundary. A temporary well was constructed of 5-feet to 10-feet sections of 1-inch 

Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) screen with sufficient casing to reach ground surface. One

deep bedrock facility boundary well (FTIG Boundary GW5) was constructed with a 20-feet screen. 

Longer screen lengths were utilized where discreet groundwater bearing zones were not 

apparent, and it was desired to capture potential groundwater recharge from a larger water 

bearing zone. New PVC pipe and screen were used to avoid cross contamination between 

locations. The groundwater levels and screen intervals for all temporary wells are provided in 

Table 5-3. 

Temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and draw down 

prior to sampling. Water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, oxidation–reduction potential) were measured and recorded on the field 

sampling form (Appendix D) before each grab sample was collected. Water quality parameters 

were measured using a water quality meter and flow-through cell. Groundwater samples were 

collected using a peristaltic pump with PFAS-free HDPE tubing. Each sample was collected in 

laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. 

Samples were packaged on ice and transported via laboratory courier or Federal Express under 

standard COC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS USEPA Method 537 Modified 

in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019).

Groundwater grab samples were also obtained from four existing wells, including BW-3, BW-4, 

MW-2 (RWAY), and MW-4 (RWAY). Once the wells were purged and stabilized, the existing wells 

were sampled using the same methodology as temporary wells. Field duplicate samples were 

collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. 

MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the 

accompanying samples. Field reagent blanks were collected in accordance with the PQAPP

(AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were 

preserved at or below 4 degrees Celsius during shipment.

A few of the wells were low-yielding and did not recover after purging and could not be sampled. 

These low-yielding wells include temporary wells AOI1-GW1, AOI2-GW6, and AOI5-GW1.

Suggested considerations for low-yielding wells set forth by PADEP in their Groundwater 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-4

Monitoring Guidance (PADEP, 2019) were evaluated. However, even with these considerations, 

the low-yielding wells did not produce enough water to be sampled. The low-yielding wells were 

periodically revisited during SI field activities but remained too dry to sample.

At the request of PAARNG, temporary wells were not abandoned at the end of sampling activities 

to allow for future groundwater gauging. The wells will be abandoned in accordance with the 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019) by removing the PVC and backfilling the hole with bentonite 

chips. All temporary wells were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt.

Installation of up to 10 permanent wells (Phase 2) based on the results of the temporary well 

sampling (Phase 1) was not required as discussed in Worksheet #17a-h of the FTIG SI UFPQAPP. The temporary well network installed and sampled during Phase 1 of the SI was sufficient 

to meet the project DQOs. 

5.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling

Surface water and sediment samples were collected from Indiantown Run, Vesle Run, and Aires 

Run. Surface water and sediment sampling in streams was initiated at the furthest downstream 

sample location and ended at the furthest upstream sample location. Sediment samples were colocated with surface water samples. The surface water sample was collected prior to the collection 

of the sediment sample. A surface water grab sample was collected from a single point in the 

waterbody using a dip sampler approximately two-thirds up from the bottom of the water body. 

Sampling was performed deliberately and methodically to minimize disturbance of bottom 

sediments, and as quickly as possible to ensure a representative sample was collected. The 

surface water sample was then transferred to appropriate sampling container. A sediment coring 

device was used to collect the sediment sample from the first foot of sediment. The sediment was 

then transferred to a stainless-steel bowl where stones in excess of 1 centimeter was removed. 

Surface water and sediment locations are shown on Figure 5-1.

General water quality parameters were collected at each sampling location (i.e., temperature, pH, 

conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and oxidative reduction potential) with a water quality meter. The 

surface water dipper, sediment coring device, and water quality probe were PFAS-free.

Each surface water and sediment sample were collected into laboratory-supplied bottleware and 

submitted to the laboratory for analysis of selected parameters (EPA Method 537 Modified). The 

sediment samples were also analyzed for TOC (EPA Method 9060A) and pH (EPA Method 

9045D). All sample containers were PFAS-free. Samples were packaged on ice and transported 

daily via overnight commercial carrier under standard chain-of custody procedures to the 

laboratory.

5.5 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A facility wide synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 19 June 2019 during the SI 

field activities. Groundwater elevation measurements were collected from the 22 new temporary 

SI monitoring wells and 37 existing monitoring wells. Water level measurements were taken from 

the northern side of the well casing. A groundwater flow contour map produced from the data is 

provided in Figure 2-5. Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-4.

5.6 Surveying

A survey of the location of 46 SI sampling points that included soil borings, temporary wells, 

existing wells, surface water, and sediment sample locations on FTIG was conducted. The field 

survey work was done by Pennsylvania-Licensed land surveyors on 24, 25, and 26 June 2019. 

The survey data are provided in the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18 projection with World 

Geodetic System 84 datum. The surveyed well data are provided in Appendix F.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-5

5.7 Investigation Derived Waste

As of the date of this report, the disposal of PFAS investigation derived waste (IDW) is not 

regulated. PFAS IDW generated during this project is considered a non-hazardous waste and 

was managed in accordance with the Worksheet #17h of the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019). 

Solid IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during SI activities were left in place at the point of the 

source. The soil cuttings were distributed evenly around the borehole. If a temporary well was not 

installed at the borehole location, cuttings were placed back in the borehole after sample 

collection. Liquid IDW generated during SI activities (e.g., purge water and decontamination 

fluids) were discharged directly to the ground surface slightly downgradient of the source. AECOM 

collected GPS points around (i.e., polygon) the location of the where the IDW was placed. The 

polygons are included in Appendix G.

5.8 Laboratory Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS using USEPA Method 537 Modified at Eurofins 

Lancaster Laboratories Environmental in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a DoD ELAP and NELAP 

certified laboratory. The 18 PFAS analyzed as part of the ARNG SI program include the following: 

• 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS)

• 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (8:2 FTS)

• N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic 

acid (NEtFOSAA)

• N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic 

acid (NMeFOSAA)

• Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA)

• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

• Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)

• Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)

• Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)

• Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)

• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)

• Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

• Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)

• Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)

• Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)

• Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)

• Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)

Soil samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A, and pH by USEPA 

Method 9045D.

5.9 Deviations from QAPP Addendum

Deviations from the QAPP Addendum occurred based on field conditions and discussion between 

AECOM and ARNG. Deviations from the QAPP Addendum are noted below:

• A Site walk conducted prior to field work identified an overflow discharge pipe outfall 

from the WWTP into Aires Run. The surface water/sediment sample (SW/SD) sample 

FTIG-SW/SD11 proposed location in the QAPP Addendum at the FTIG WWTP outfall 

was then relocated to a position upstream of the WWTP overflow pipe. This revised 

SW/SD location defines whether upstream AOIs (AOI 3, AOI 4, and AOI 5) are 

contributing PFAS to Aires Run prior to the WWTP overflow outfall. An SW/SD sample 

FTIG-SW/SD12 was obtained downstream of the overflow pipe outfall at the facility

border as planned. Treated water from the WWTP is discharged through an 

underground pipe to an outfall 5 miles off-facility at Swatara Creek. This modification 

to the sample location was discussed and approved by USACE and documented in 

daily reports. The sample location is shown on Figure 5-1.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-6

• No groundwater was sampled from the shallow temporary well AOI 1-GW1, which

was installed to 20 feet bgs. The well was gauged periodically during SI field activities

and remained dry. A co-located temporary well installed into the bedrock to 35 feet

bgs yielded groundwater and was sampled. This modification to the QAPP sample

collection program was discussed and approved by USACE and documented in daily

reports.

• No groundwater was sampled from the shallow temporary well AOI 5-GW1. The well

was installed into the bedrock interface at 8 feet bgs and gauged periodically during

SI activities but remained dry. This modification to the sample collection program was

discussed and approved by USACE and documented in daily reports.

• No groundwater was sampled from the shallow temporary well AOI 2-GW7 at the

current fire station. During well installation, groundwater was encountered at 7 feet

bgs, just below the bedrock interface. The well was periodically gauged during SI field

activities but did not recharge sufficiently to sample. This modification to the sample

collection program was discussed and approved by USACE and documented in daily

reports.

• No groundwater was observed in borehole soils logged at the proposed shallow

temporary boundary well location FTIG-Boundary-GW6, therefore a shallow well was

not installed. A co-located temporary facility boundary well (FTIG-Boundary-GW5)

was installed into the bedrock to 52 feet bgs, yielded groundwater, and was sampled.

This modification to the sample collection program was discussed and approved by

USACE and documented in daily reports.

• Due to the shallow depth to bedrock encountered at numerous soil borings, two

subsurface soil samples (at the mid-point and bedrock interface) were not collected.

In addition, the soil borehole at AOI 4 was located in a gravel parking lot overlying

bedrock, with no soil available for sampling. This modification to the sample collection

program was discussed during the TPP meeting and approved by USACE and

documented in the TPP minutes.
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS (LC/MS/MS Compliant with DoD QSM 5.1)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0-MS 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x MS/MSD

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0-MSD 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x MS/MSD

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0-DUP 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x Field Duplicate

AOI1-SS2-0.5-1.0 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI1-SS3-0.5-1.0 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI1-SB1-0.5-1.0 5/29/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI1-SB1-9.0-9.5 5/30/2019 9 - 9.5 x x x

AOI1-SB1-19.5-20.0 5/30/2019 19.5 - 20 x x x

AOI2-SB1-0.5-1.0 6/3/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB1-8.0-10 6/4/2019 8 - 10 x x x

AOI2-SB1-14.5-15 6/4/2019 14.5 - 15 x x x

AOI2-SS1-0.5-1.0 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB2-0.5-1.0 6/3/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB2-5.5-6.0 6/4/2019 5.5 - 6 x x x

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0-MS 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x MS/MSD

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0-MSD 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x MS/MSD

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0-DUP 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-SB3-0.5-1.0 6/4/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB3-6.5-7.0 6/4/2019 6.5 - 7 x x x

AOI2-SB3-12.5-13.0 6/4/2019 12.5 - 13 x x x

AOI2-SB5-0.5-1.0 6/3/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB6-0.5-1.0 5/31/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB6-4.0-4.5 5/31/2019 4 - 4.5 x x x

AOI2-SB6-7.5-8.0 5/31/2019 7.5 - 8 x x x

AOI2-SB7-0.5-1.0 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB7-7.5-8.0 6/11/2019 7.5 - 8 x x x

AOI2-SB9-0.5-1.0 6/3/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB9-7.0-7.5 6/5/2019 7 - 7.5 x x x

AOI2-SB9-9.0-9.5 6/5/2019 9 - 9.5 x x x

AOI2-SB11-0.5-1.0 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI2-SB11-7.5-8.0 6/11/2019 7.5 - 8 x x x

AOI2-SB11-7.5-8.0-DUP 6/11/2019 7.5 - 8 x Field Duplicate

AOI3-SB1-0.5-1.0 6/7/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI3-SB1-2.5-3.0 6/10/2019 2.5 - 3 x x x

AOI3-SB1-2.5-3.0-DUP 6/10/2019 2.5 - 3 x Field Duplicate

AOI5-SB1-0.5-1.0 5/31/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI5-SB1-4.0-4.5 5/31/2019 4 - 4.5 x x x

AOI5-SB1-7.0-8.0 6/1/2019 7 - 8 x x x

AOI6-SB1-0.5-1.0 5/28/2019 0.5 - 1 x x x

AOI6-SB1-6.5-7.0 5/28/2019 6.5 - 7 x x x

AOI6-SB1-13.0-13.5 5/28/2019 13 - 13.5 x x x

AOI1-GW2 6/14/2019 35 x

BW-3 6/12/2019 10 x

BW-4 6/12/2019 25 x

AOI2-GW1 6/11/2019 13.5 x

AOI2-GW2 6/17/2019 6 x

Groundwater Samples

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS (LC/MS/MS Compliant with DoD QSM 5.1)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

AOI2-GW3 6/10/2019 11 x

AOI2-GW3-DUP 6/10/2019 11 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-GW4 6/10/2019 30 x

AOI2-GW5 6/18/2019 15 x

AOI2-GW6 6/11/2019 8 x

AOI2-GW8 6/13/2019 25 x

AOI2-GW8-DUP 6/13/2019 25 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-GW9 6/11/2019 10 x

AOI2-GW10 6/11/2019 30 x

AOI2-GW11 6/14/2019 8 x

AOI2-GW11-MS 6/14/2019 8 x MS/MSD

AOI2-GW11-MSD 6/14/2019 8 x MS/MSD

MW-2 (RWAY) 6/17/2019 14.5 x

MW-4 (RWAY) 6/17/2019 14.7 x

AOI3-GW1 6/18/2019 30 x

AOI3-GW1-DUP 6/18/2019 30 x Field Duplicate

AOI4-GW1 6/10/2019 15 x

AOI6-GW1 6/11/2019 13.5 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW1 6/11/2019 12.5 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW2 6/10/2019 30 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW3 6/19/2019 10 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW4 6/19/2019 25 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW5 6/18/2019 52 x

FTIG-Boundary-GW5-MS 6/18/2019 52 x MS/MSD

FTIG-Boundary-GW5-MSD 6/18/2019 52 x MS/MSD

FTIG-SW1 6/14/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW2 6/14/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW3 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW4 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW5 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW6 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW7 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW8 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW8-DUP 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x Field Duplicate

FTIG-SW8-MS 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x MS/MSD

FTIG-SW8-MSD 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x MS/MSD

FTIG-SW9 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW10 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW11 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SW12 6/19/2019 0 - 1 x

FTIG-SD1-0.0-0.5 6/14/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD2-0.0-0.5 6/14/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD3-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD4-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD5-0-0.5 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5-MS 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x MS/MSD

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5-MSD 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x MS/MSD

Surface Water Samples

Surface Sediment Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS (LC/MS/MS Compliant with DoD QSM 5.1)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5-DUP 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x Field Duplicate

FTIG-SD7-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD8-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD9-0-0.5 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD10-0-0.5 6/18/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD11-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-SD12-0-0.5 6/19/2019 0 - 0.5 x x x

FTIG-EB01-05312019 5/31/2019 --- x Equipment Blank

FTIG-EB02 6/11/2019 --- x Equipment Blank

FTIG-EB03 6/12/2019 --- x Equipment Blank

FTIG-EB04 6/13/2019 --- x Equipment Blank

AOI1-RB01 6/12/2019 --- x Rinsate Blank

AOI2-RB01-05312019 5/31/2019 --- x Rinsate Blank

AOI3-RB01 6/11/2019 --- x Rinse Blank

AOI4-RB01 6/11/2019 --- x Rinsate Blank

AOI5-RB01-05312019 5/31/2019 --- x Rinsate Blank

AOI6-RB0-06052019 6/5/2019 --- x Rinsate Blank

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

DUP = duplicate

EB = equipment blank

ft = feet

FTIG = Fort Indiantown Gap

GW = groundwater

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

pH = potential for hydrogen

RB = rinsate blank

SB = soil boring

SD = surface sediment

SS = surface soil

SW = surface water

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Equipment and Rinsate Blanks

AECOM 5-9
Table 5-2

Soil Boring Depths

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Area of 

Interest Soil Boring ID Soil Boring Depth 

(feet bgs)

AOI1-SB1 20

AOI1-SB2 35

AOI1-SS1 1

AOI1-SS2 1

AOI1-SS3 1

AOI2-SB1 15

AOI2-SB2 8

AOI2-SB3 15

AOI2-SB4 30

AOI2-SB5 15

AOI2-SB6 8

AOI2-SB7 8

AOI2-SB8 25

AOI2-SB9 9.5

AOI2-SB10 30

AOI2-SB11 8

AOI2-SS1 1

AOI2-SS2 1

AOI3 AOI3-SB1 30

AOI4 AOI4-SB1 15

AOI5 AOI5-SB1 8

AOI6 AOI6-SB1 13.5

GW-1 12.5

GW-2 30

GW-3 10

GW-4 25

GW-5a 15

GW-6 52

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

bgs = below ground surface

FTIG = Fort Indiantown Gap

ID = identification

GW = groundwater

SB = soil boring

SS = surface soil

AOI1

FTIG 

Boundary

AOI2

a. No groundwater was detected at FTIG Boundary GW-5 and, therefore, no well was installed. Consequently, the

monitoring well at FTIG Boundary GW-6 was renamed FTIG Boundary GW-5.

AECOM 5-10
Table 5-3

Groundwater Elevation

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Monitoring Well ID Top of Casing 

Elevation (ft amsl)

Total Well 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

Screen 

Interval 

(feet bgs)

Depth to Water 

(ft btoc)

Groundwater 

Elevation (ft amsl)

AOI 1 GW-1 682.72 20 15 - 20 Dry Dry

AOI 1 GW-2 682.86 35 25 - 35 30.07 652.79

BW-3 692.88 10 5 - 10 12.38 680.50

BW-4 726.38 25 20 - 25 23.69 702.69

AOI 2 GW-1 476.34 13.5 8.5 - 13.5 8.55 467.79

AOI 2 GW-2 462.74 6 3 - 6 0.10 462.64

AOI 2 GW-3 461.34 11 6 - 11 4.23 457.11

AOI 2 GW-4 461.12 30 25 - 30 4.15 456.97

AOI 2 GW-5 470.21 15 5 - 15 6.26 463.95

AOI 2 GW-6 463.74 8 4 - 8 Dry Dry

AOI 2 GW-7 457.66 8 4 - 8 6.96 450.70

AOI 2 GW-8 458.17 25 15 - 25 5.12 453.05

AOI 2 GW-9 483.97 9.5 4.5 - 9.5 3.42 480.55

AOI 2 GW-10 484.55 30 20 - 30 3.52 481.03

AOI 2 GW-11 460.18 8 4 - 8 3.04 457.14

MW-2(RWAY) 470.23 14.5 4.5 - 14.5 5.85 464.38

MW-4(RWAY) 473.21 14.7 4.7 - 14.7 8.89 464.32

AOI 3 GW-1 467.09 30 20 - 30 7.70 459.39

AOI 4 GW-1 473.22 15 5 - 15 2.76 470.46

AOI 5 GW-1 486.37 8 4 - 8 Dry Dry

AOI 6 GW-1 459.76 13.5 8.5 - 13.5 10.15 449.61

FTIG Boundary GW-1 450.64 12.5 7 - 12 3.15 447.49

FTIG Boundary GW-2 450.44 30 20 - 30 2.90 447.54

FTIG Boundary GW-3 469.98 10 5 - 10 8.42 461.56

FTIG Boundary GW-4 469.27 25 20 - 25 8.11 461.16

FTIG Boundary GW-5 453.72 52 32 - 52 21.45 432.27

Notes:

AOI = area of interest BW = base well GW = groundwater

amsl = above mean sea level ft = feet ID = identification

btoc = below top of casing FTIG = Fort Indiantown Gap RWAY = runway

AECOM 5-11
Table 5-4

Synoptic Groundwater Gauging Event (June 2019) 

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Well ID Area of 

Interest

Elevation - Top 

of PVC

(ft amsl)

Total Well 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

Screen Length (ft) Depth to Bedrock 

(ft bgs)

Depth to 

Groundwater

 (ft btoc)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(ft amsl)

AOI 1 GW-1 AOI 1 682.72 20 5 12 Dry Dry

AOI 1 GW-2 AOI 1 682.86 35 10 13 30.07 652.79

AOI 2 GW-1 AOI 2 476.34 15 5 9.5 8.55 467.79

AOI 2 GW-2 AOI 2 462.74 8 3 5 0.1 462.64

AOI 2 GW-3 AOI 2 461.34 15 5 7 4.23 457.11

AOI 2 GW-4 AOI 2 461.12 30 5 4 4.15 456.97

AOI 2 GW-5 AOI 2 470.21 15 10 4 6.26 463.95

AOI 2 GW-6 AOI 2 463.74 8 4 5 Dry Dry

AOI 2 GW-7 AOI 2 457.66 8 4 4 6.96 450.7

AOI 2 GW-8 AOI 2 458.17 25 10 4 5.12 453.05

AOI 2 GW-9 AOI 2 483.97 9.5 5 4 3.42 480.55

AOI 2 GW-10 AOI 2 484.55 30 10 4 3.52 481.03

AOI 2 GW-11 AOI 2 460.18 8 4 3 3.04 457.14

AOI 3 GW-1 AOI 3 467.09 30 10 2 7.7 459.39

AOI 4 GW-1 AOI 4 473.22 15 10 0.5 2.76 470.46

AOI 5 GW-1 AOI 5 486.37 8 4 3 Dry Dry

AOI 6 GW-1 AOI 6 459.76 13.5 5 --- 10.15 449.61

FTIG Boundary GW-1 --- 450.64 12.5 5 11 3.15 447.49

FTIG Boundary GW-2 --- 450.44 30 10 12.5 2.9 447.54

FTIG Boundary GW-3 --- 469.98 10 5 7 8.42 461.56

FTIG Boundary GW-4 --- 469.27 25 5 4 8.11 461.16

FTIG Boundary GW-5 --- 453.72 52 20 18 21.45 432.27

BW-3 --- 692.88 nm --- --- 12.38 680.5

BW-4 --- 726.38 nm --- --- 23.69 702.69

13-A --- 503.06 30 1 --- 4.18 498.88

13-B --- 503.02 15 10 --- 1.96 501.06

10-A --- 487.76 29 1 --- 2.35 485.41

10-B --- 487.98 14 9 --- 1.82 486.16

FTIG SI Wells

FTIG Other Wells

AECOM 5-12
Table 5-4

Synoptic Groundwater Gauging Event (June 2019) 

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Well ID Area of 

Interest

Elevation - Top 

of PVC

(ft amsl)

Total Well 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

Screen Length (ft) Depth to Bedrock 

(ft bgs)

Depth to 

Groundwater

 (ft btoc)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(ft amsl)

T24-01A --- 467.08 24 1 --- 8.57 458.51

T24-01B --- 466.69 14 9 --- 4.82 461.87

8-A --- 479.6 29 1 --- 9.99 469.61

8-B --- 479.69 14 9 --- *7.00 472.69

First Street A-17D --- 508.73 51 2 --- 22.12 486.61

First Street A-17S --- 507.4 31 8 --- 20.96 486.44

AIR ARM D --- 465.83 26 2 --- 5.43 460.4

AIR ARM S --- 467.08 16 8 --- 4.56 462.52

T-107D --- 482.35 31 2 --- 14.29 468.06

T-107S --- 483.14 21 8 --- 14.12 469.02

MW-15W --- 509.51 46 10 --- 8.62 500.89

MW-1LF --- 516.15 31 25 --- 4.72 511.43

MW-2LF --- 472.98 32 25 --- 5.43 467.55

MW-3LF --- 465.5 32 25 --- nm nm

MW-4LF --- 459.34 32 25 --- nm nm

MW-5LF --- 459.81 32 25 --- 12.16 447.65

MW-6LF --- 458.8 33 20 --- nm nm

MW-8LF --- 452.96 35 30 --- nm nm

MW-1B (FIG 11) --- 479.53 27 10 --- nm nm

MW-1S --- 479.09 10.5 7.5 --- nm nm

MW-2B(FIG 11) --- 470.38 15 9 --- nm nm

MW-2S --- 470.1 4.8 4 --- nm nm

MW-3S(FIG 11) --- 470.44 4.8 3.6 --- 0.83 469.61

MW-4S(FIG 11) --- 473.34 13 11 --- nm nm

MW-5S(FIG 11) --- 470.52 6.1 5 --- nm nm

MW-6s(FIG 11) --- 473.4 15 10 --- nm nm

MW-7(FIG 11) --- 470.64 5.6 4.3 --- 0.57 470.07

MW-1(RWAY) --- 472.14 15.9 10 --- 8.22 463.92

MW-2(RWAY) --- 470.23 14.5 10 --- 5.85 464.38

MW-3(RWAY) --- 470.93 15 10 --- 7.05 463.88

AECOM 5-13
Table 5-4

Synoptic Groundwater Gauging Event (June 2019) 

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Well ID Area of 

Interest

Elevation - Top 

of PVC

(ft amsl)

Total Well 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

Screen Length (ft) Depth to Bedrock 

(ft bgs)

Depth to 

Groundwater

 (ft btoc)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(ft amsl)

MW-4(RWAY) --- 473.21 14.7 10 --- 8.89 464.32

Notes:

Other well coordinates and elevation data provided by PAARNG.

Depth to groundwater gauging conducted by AECOM and PAARNG personnel on June 19, 2019. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

AIR ARM = airfield armory

AOI = area of interest

amsl = above mean sea level

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

BW = base well

ft = feet

FTIG = Fort Indiantown Gap

GW = groundwater

ID = identification

LF = landfill

MW = monitoring well

nm = no measurement

RWAY = runway

1 - FTIG SI Wells and Other wells MW2(RWAY), MW4(RWAY), BW-3, and BW-4 sampled during the SI were surveyed by ARNG in June 2019 in Coordinate 

System WGS 1984 UTM Zone 18N Meters.

AECOM 5-14
"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J "J

"J"JA! "J

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

"J"J

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

&<

&<

WWTP

Biosolid Area

Former

Landfill

Current Fire Station

019-101

NPDES Outfall 3

AOI1

AOI5

AOI3

AOI2

AOI4

AOI6

FTIG-SW/SD 1

FTIG-SW/SD 2

FTIG-SW/SD 3

FTIG-SW/SD 4

FTIG-SW/SD 5

FTIG-SW/SD 6

FTIG-SW/SD 7

FTIG-SW/SD 8

FTIG-SW/SD 9

FTIG-SW/SD 10

FTIG-SW/SD 11

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 11 AOI 5-SB/GW 1 (Dry)

AOI 4-GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

FTIG-Boundary-GW-5 (Deep)

BW-3

BW-4

WWTP Overflow Outflow

MW-4 (RWAY)

MW-2 (RWAY)

FTIG Boundary GW-4 (Deep)

FTIG Boundary GW-3

FTIG Boundary GW-2 (Deep)

FTIG-Boundary GW-1

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SS 2

AOI 2-SS 1

AOI 2-GW 10 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-GW 8 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 7

AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 5

AOI 2-GW 4 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 3

AOI 2-SB/GW 2

AOI 1-SS 1

AOI 1-SS 2

AOI 1-SS 3

AOI 1-GW 2 (Deep)

AOI 1-SB/GW 1 (Dry)

FTIG-SW/SD 12

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey

Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Reeds Creek

Vesle Ru n

Aires Run

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000

Feet

­ Figure 5-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

2/8/2021

2/8/2021

2/8/2021

MS

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,

USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

2/8/2021

1:24,000

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_5-1_FTIG_SI_Sample_Locations.mxd

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

&<

Base Supply Well

A! Monitoring Well

"J Surface Soil Location

"J Surface Water/Sediment Location

Sample Locations

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

5-15
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 5-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results 

This section presents the analytical results of the SI for each AOI. The SLs used in this evaluation 

are presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for each AOI is provided in Section 6.3 

through Section 6.9. Table 6-2 through Table 6-6 present PFAS results for samples with 

detections in soil, sediment, surface water, or groundwater; only constituents detected in one or 

more samples are included. Tables that contain all results are provided in Appendix H, and the 

laboratory reports are provided in Appendix I. 

6.1 Screening Levels

The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based 

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the OSD dated 15 October 

2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The ARNG program under which this SI was 

performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site concentration for sampled media 

exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the site will proceed to a RI, the next phase 

under CERCLA. The SLs apply to three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, for both soil and 

groundwater, as presented in Table 6-1. 

All other results presented in this report are considered informational in nature and serve as an 

indication as to whether soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water contain or do not contain 

PFAS within the boundaries of the facility. 

Table 6-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 130 1,600 40

PFOS 130 1,600 40

PFBS 130,000 1,600,000 40,000

Notes:

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in 

Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening 

Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019.

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

To provide basic soil parameter information, soil samples were analyzed for TOC and pH, which 

are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. Appendix H contains the results 

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

The data collected in this investigation will be used in subsequent investigations, where 

appropriate, to assess fate and transport of PFAS contaminants. According to the Interstate 

Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), several important PFAS partitioning mechanisms include 

hydrophobic and lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At 

relevant environmental pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions and are therefore 

relatively mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but they tend to associate with the organic 

carbon fraction that may be present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo and 

Higgins, 2013). When sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution 

coefficients (Koc values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-2

factors (for example, pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to 

solid phases (ITRC, 2018).

6.3 AOI 1

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for AOI 

1, which includes one PFAS release area: the CACTF. The detected compounds are presented 

in Table 6-2 through Table 6-4. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 present detections for PFOS and PFOA

in soil and groundwater.

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil at the CACTF. Figures 6-1 and 6-2

present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA, respectively. The detected compounds in soil are 

summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. 

At AOI 1, soil was sampled at one boring (AOI1-SB1) and three surface soil borings (0.5 to 1 feet 

bgs). At AOI1-SB1, soil was sampled from shallow (0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (9 to 9.5 feet 

bgs), and deep (19.5 to 20 feet bgs) intervals. PFOA was detected in all four shallow surface soil 

samples at concentrations orders of magnitude below the SL, ranging from 0.31 J to 1.0 

micrograms per kilogram (μg/Kg). PFOS was only detected at AOI1-SS1, at a concentration of 

0.27 J μg/Kg. PFBS was not detected in any surface soil samples. Additionally, PFOA, PFOS, 

and PFBS were not detected in the intermediate and deep soil samples at AOI 1.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at AOI 1. Figure 6-3 presents the ranges of 

detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected PFAS compounds in groundwater 

are summarized in Table 6-4. 

Groundwater was sampled from three locations, including the deep temporary well AOI1-GW2 

and two existing wells (BW-3 and BW-4). The shallow temporary well AOI1-GW1 was installed 

into the bedrock interface but was dry and did not yield sufficient groundwater to sample. PFOS 

was detected in two of the three wells, with concentrations ranging from non-detect at BW-3 to 

1.2 J ng/L at BW-4. PFOA was only detected at AOI1-GW2 with a concentration of 14 ng/L. PFBS 

was not detected in any of the samples.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at AOI 1; however, the 

detected concentrations were several orders of magnitude lower than the soil SLs. PFOA and 

PFOS were also detected in groundwater in concentrations below the groundwater SLs.

Therefore, further evaluation at AOI 1 is not warranted.

6.4 AOI 2

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater at AOI 2, which includes 

seven PFAS release areas: West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area; East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area;

Building 019-101 Ramp; Current Fire Station (Building 5-117); Crash Site; Simulated Emergency 

Event; and Accidental Tank Spill. The detected compounds are presented in Table 6-2 through

Table 6-4. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 present detections for PFOS and PFOA in soil and 

groundwater.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-3

6.4.1 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil at the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area. 

One soil boring (AOI2-SB1) was sampled from shallow (0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (8 to 10 

feet bgs), and deep (14.5 to 15 feet bgs) intervals. PFOA and PFOS were detected in the shallow 

surface soil interval at concentrations of 0.88 and 51 μg/Kg, respectively. In the intermediate 

interval, PFOS was detected at a concentration of 8.2 μg/Kg. PFOA, PFOS and PFBS were not 

detected at the deep interval. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. 

The detected soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA and PFOS exceeded the SLs at the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area. Figure 6-3 presents 

the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4.

One groundwater sample was collected from temporary well AOI2-GW1. PFOA and PFOS 

exceeded the SLs, with concentrations of 44 and 99 ng/L, respectively. PFBS was detected at a 

concentration of 12 ng/L and did not exceed the SL.

6.4.2 East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil at the East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area. 

One soil boring (AOI2-SB11) was sampled from a shallow surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs) and 

intermediate (7.5 to 8 feet bgs) intervals. In the shallow surface soil interval, PFOA and PFOS 

were detected at concentrations of 0.27 J and 5.3 μg/Kg, respectively. In the intermediate

subsurface soil interval only PFOS was detected at a concentration of 0.62 J μg/Kg (the duplicate 

sample had a concentration of 3.1 μg/Kg). No PFBS was detected at the East Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Area. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. The detected 

soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOS exceeded the SL for groundwater at the East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area. Figure 6-3

presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

One groundwater sample was collected from temporary well AOI2-GW11. PFOS exceeded the 

SL, with a concentration of 280 ng/L. PFOA and PFBS were also detected at concentrations of 

28 and 14 ng/L, respectively, but did not exceed the SLs.

6.4.3 Building 019-101 

Samples were not collected on the apron at Building 019-101 due to concerns of undermining the 

apron structure and interfering with base mission activities. Samples were collected downgradient 

at locations associated with the Building 019-101 Ramp.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-4

6.4.4 Building 019-101 Ramp

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the soil SLs at the Building 019-101 Ramp. Two soil 

borings were sampled at the southwest and southeast corners of Building 019-101 Ramp (AOI2-

SB2 and AOI2-SB9, respectively). Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and 

PFOA. The detected soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Soil was sampled at AOI2-SB2 from shallow surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs) and intermediate (5.5 to 

6 feet bgs) intervals. No PFOA, PFOS or PFBS were detected in the surface soil and shallow 

subsurface soil samples collected at AOI2-SB2. 

Soil was sampled at AOI2-SB9 from shallow surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (7 to 7.5 feet 

bgs), and deep (9 to 9.5 feet bgs) intervals. PFOS was detected in the surface and intermediate 

subsurface soil samples at concentrations of 0.98 μg/Kg and 1.5 μg/Kg, respectively. No PFOS 

was detected in the deep subsurface soil sample. No PFOA or PFBS were detected in any 

samples.

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOS exceeded the SL in one of the three samples collected at Building 019-101 Ramp. Samples 

were collected from temporary wells AOI2-GW2, AOI2-GW9, and AOI2-GW10. Figure 6-3

presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

The groundwater sampled at AOI2-GW2 was collected on the southwestern corner of the ramp. 

PFOS was detected at a concentration of 1.7 J ng/L, whereas PFOA and PFBS were not detected. 

AOI2-GW9 and AOI2-GW10 are co-located wells located on the southeastern corner of the ramp. 

AOI2-GW9 is the shallow well and has a depth of 9.5 feet bgs, while AOI2-GW10 is the deep well 

and has a depth of 30 feet bgs. At AOI2-GW9, PFOS exceeded the SL with a concentration of 59

ng/L. PFOA and PFBS were also detected with concentrations of 23 and 4.2 ng/L, respectively. 

PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS were not detected in the deep well at AOI2-GW10.

6.4.5 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117)

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the soil SLs at the Current Fire Station. Samples were 

collected from two soil borings, one on the north side of Fisher Avenue (AOI2-SB6) and one in 

the field south of the Current Fire Station (AOI2-SB7) Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in 

soil for PFOS and PFOA. The detected soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Soil was sampled at AOI2-SB6 from shallow surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (4 to 4.5 feet 

bgs), and deep (7.5 to 8 feet bgs) intervals. In the surface soil sample, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS 

were all detected. PFOS had the highest concentration of 120 μg/Kg, whereas PFOA and PFBS 

had concentrations of 2.1 and 0.75 J μg/Kg, respectively. In the intermediate and deep subsurface 

samples, PFOS was detected at concentrations of 0.29 J and 0.34 J μg/Kg, respectively. No

PFOA or PFBS were detected in either of the two subsurface samples.

Soil was sampled at AOI2-SB7 from shallow surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs) and intermediate (7.5 to 

8 feet bgs) intervals. At AOI2-SB7, PFOA and PFOS were detected in concentrations orders of 

magnitude below the SLs in both intervals. In the shallow surface interval, PFOA and PFOS were 

detected in concentrations of 0.25 J and 1.0 μg/Kg, respectively. The highest concentrations of 

PFOA and PFOS were detected in the intermediate subsurface interval, at 0.38 J and 2.7 μg/Kg, 

respectively.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-5

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOS exceeded the SL in one of the two sample locations at the Current Fire Station. Two 

groundwater samples were collected at temporary wells AOI2-GW6 and AOI2-GW8. Figure 6-3

presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4.

The groundwater sampled at AOI2-GW6 was collected on the north side of Fisher Avenue. PFOS 

was detected at a concentration of 160 ng/L and exceeded the SL. PFOA and PFBS were also 

detected at concentrations of 38 and 26 J- ng/L, respectively.

Temporary wells AOI2-GW7 and AOI2-GW8 are co-located wells in the field south of the Current 

Fire Station. The shallow temporary well AOI2-GW7, which was installed in the bedrock interface, 

was dry and a groundwater sample was not collected. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected 

in the groundwater from the deep temporary well AOI2-GW8. 

6.4.6 Crash Site

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the soil SLs at the Crash Site. One soil boring was 

sampled at the Crash Site (AOI2-SB5). Only one interval (0.5 to 1 feet bgs) was collected because 

bedrock was encountered at 4 feet bgs. PFOA and PFOS were detected at concentrations of 0.40 

J+ and 5.0 μg/Kg, respectively. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and 

PFOA. The detected soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at the three sample locations at the Crash Site. 

Groundwater samples were collected at temporary well AOI2-GW5 and at two existing wells MW2(RWAY) and MW-4(RWAY). Figure 6-3 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for 

PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater compounds are summarized in Table 6-4.

PFOS were detected in two of the three wells, with concentrations ranging from non-detect at 

AOI2-GW5 to 4.4 ng/L at MW-4(RWAY). PFOA and PFBS were not detected in any of the 

samples.

6.4.7 Simulated Emergency Event

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the soil SLs at the Simulated Emergency Event. Soil 

was sampled from one soil boring (AOI2-SB3), which was sampled from shallow surface (0.5 to 

1 feet bgs), intermediate (6.5 to 7 feet bgs), and deep (12.5 to 13 feet bgs) intervals. PFOA and 

PFOS were detected in the shallow surface soil interval at concentrations of 0.33 J and 3.2 μg/Kg, 

respectively. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in the intermediate intervals. PFOA, 

PFOS, and PFBS were detected in the deep interval. PFOS had the highest concentration at 92 

μg/Kg. PFBS was only detected in the deep interval at a concentration of 3.9 μg/Kg. Figures 6-1

and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. The detected soil compounds are 

summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.

Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in either of the two samples collected at the Simulated 

Event. Figure 6-3 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The 

detected groundwater compounds are summarized in Table 6-4.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-6

6.4.8 Accidental Tank Spill

Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in either of the two surface soil samples collected at 

the Accidental Tank Spill area. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. 

The detected soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. 

Groundwater Analytical Results

No groundwater samples were collected at the Accidental Tank Spill.

6.4.9 AOI 2 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in soil at AOI 2 at

concentrations below the soil SLs. The only potential source area that was sampled and did not 

have any detected PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS was the Accidental Tank Spill.

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater at AOI 2. 

PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding the SL of 40 ng/L in four source 

areas: the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, the East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-

101 Ramp, and the Current Fire Station. PFOA was detected in concentrations exceeding the SL 

of 40 ng/L at the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area. PFBS did not exceed the SL at any source 

area. The Simulated Emergency Event was the only source area where PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS 

were not detected. Based on the exceedances of the SLs for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater, 

further evaluation at AOI 2 is warranted.

6.5 AOI 3

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater at AOI 3, which includes one 

potential PFAS release area: the Johnson Trail location. The detected compounds are presented 

in Table 6-2 through Table 6-4. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 present detections for PFOS and PFOA

in soil and groundwater.

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at AOI 3. One boring was sampled from shallow 

surface (0.5 to 1 feet bgs) and intermediate (2.5 to 3 feet bgs) intervals. PFOA and PFOS were 

detected at concentrations orders of magnitude below the SLs in the shallow interval with 

concentrations of 0.33 J and 0.37 J μg/Kg, respectively. PFBS was not detected in either the 

shallow or intermediate intervals. Additionally, PFOA and PFOS were not detected in the 

intermediate interval. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections for PFOA and PFOS. The detected 

soil compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. 

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at AOI 3. One groundwater sample was collected 

at temporary well AOI3-GW1. PFOS was detected at a concentration of 0.85 J ng/L (AOI2-

GW1DUP), whereas PFOA and PFBS were not detected. Figure 6-3 presents detections for 

PFOS and PFOA. The detected compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at AOI 3; however, the 

detected concentrations were orders of magnitude below the soils SLs. PFOS was detected in 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-7

groundwater at concentrations below the groundwater SL; therefore, further evaluation at AOI 3 

is not warranted.

6.6 AOI 4

This section presents the analytical results for groundwater at AOI 4, which includes one potential 

PFAS release area: Fire Pit Area #19. The detected compounds are presented in Table 6-4. 

Figure 6-3 presents detections for PFOS and PFOA in groundwater.

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results

Soil samples were not collected at AOI 4 due to the shallow depth to bedrock (0.5 feet bgs) and 

surface soil, which was identified as gravel fill; therefore, there are no PFAS data to present.

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in the groundwater sample collected at temporary 

well AOI4-GW1; therefore, the SLs were not exceeded at AOI 4. Figure 6-3 present the ranges 

of detections for PFOS and PFOA. The detected compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

6.6.3 AOI 4 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater. 

Additionally, soil was not sampled at this location due to shallow bedrock; therefore, further 

evaluation at AOI 4 is not warranted.

6.7 AOI 5

This section presents the analytical results for soil at AOI 5, which includes one potential PFAS 

release area: the First Street location. The detected compounds are presented in Tables 6-2 and 

6-3. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections for PFOS and PFOA in soil.

6.7.1 AOI 5 Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at AOI 5. Soil was sampled from shallow surface 

(0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (4 to 4.5 feet bgs), and deep (7 to 8 feet bgs) intervals. PFOA, 

PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in the shallow, intermediate, or deep intervals. The detected 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

6.7.2 AOI 5 Groundwater Analytical Results

The overburden was dry at AOI 5 and groundwater was not sampled; therefore, there are no 

PFAS data to present.

6.7.3 AOI 5 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in soil at AOI 5. 

Additionally, groundwater was not sampled at this location; therefore, no further evaluation at AOI 

5 is warranted. 

6.8 AOI 6

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater at AOI 6, which includes one

potential PFAS release area: the Biosolid Area. The detected compounds are presented in Tables 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-8

6-2 through Table 6-4. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 present detections for PFOS and PFOA in soil 

and groundwater.

6.8.1 AOI 6 Soil Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at AOI 6. Soil was sampled from shallow surface 

(0.5 to 1 feet bgs), intermediate (6.5 to 7 feet bgs), and deep (13 to 13.5 feet bgs) intervals.

PFOA and PFOS were detected in the shallow surface soil interval at concentrations of 0.38 J 

and 0.48 J μg/Kg, respectively, which are orders of magnitude below the SLs. PFBS was not 

detected in the shallow, intermediate, or deep intervals. Additionally, PFOA and PFOS were not 

detected in the intermediate or deep intervals. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 present detections for PFOS 

and PFOA. The detected compounds are summarized in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. 

6.8.2 AOI 6 Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in the groundwater sample collected at temporary 

well AOI6-GW1; therefore, the SLs were not exceeded at AOI 6. Figure 6-3 presents the ranges 

of detections for PFOS and PFOA. The detected compounds are summarized in Table 6-4. 

6.8.3 AOI 6 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at AOI 6; however, the 

detected concentrations were orders of magnitude below the soil SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS 

were not detected in groundwater; therefore, no further evaluation is warranted at AOI 6.

6.9 Boundary Wells

This section presents the analytical results for groundwater at the facility boundary. The detected 

compounds are presented in Table 6-4. Figure 6-3 presents the ranges of detections for PFOS 

and PFOA.

6.9.1 Boundary Wells Groundwater Analytical Results

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs at any of the five boundary wells. Figure 6-3

presents the ranges of detections in groundwater for PFOS and PFOA. The detected groundwater 

compounds are summarized in Table 6-4.

Five groundwater samples were collected from the six temporary boundary wells installed during 

the SI. No groundwater was observed in the shallow temporary well co-located with FTIGBoundary-GW5; therefore, no sample was collected.

PFOS was detected at both FTIG-Boundary-GW3 and FTIG-Boundary-GW4, with a maximum 

concentration of 2.9 ng/L. PFOA and PFBS were detected in the shallow well FTIG-BoundaryGW3, with concentrations of 32 and 11 J- ng/L, respectively. No PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS were 

detected in the co-located boundary wells FTIG-Boundary-GW1 and FTIG-Boundary-GW2 or 

FTIG-Boundary-GW5.

6.9.2 Boundary Wells Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater at the 

southern facility boundary, in boundary wells FTIG-Boundary-GW3 and FTIG-Boundary-GW4. No 

exceedances of the SLs were observed.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-9

6.10 Surface Water and Surface Sediment

This section presents the analytical results for surface water and sediment at FTIG. The results 

are reported by the three runs sampled within FTIG during the SI: Indiantown Run, Vesle Run, 

and Aires Run. There are no established SLs for sediment and surface water; therefore, these 

results are presented for informational purposes only. Figures 6-4 and 6-5 present detections for 

PFOS and PFOA in surface water and sediment, respectively. The detected compounds are 

presented in Table 6-5 and Table 6-6. 

6.10.1 Indiantown Run

Surface Water Analytical Results

Surface water sample FTIG-SW1 was collected upstream of AOI 1, and surface water sample 

FTIG-SW2 was collected immediately downstream of AOI 1, in a tributary to Indiantown Run. The 

surface water samples FTIG-SW3 and FTIG-SW4 were taken further downstream in Indiantown 

Run, located upstream of Marquette Lake and upstream Memorial Lake, respectively. Surface 

water sample FTIG-SW7 was taken downstream of the confluence of Indiantown Run and Vesle 

Run at the facility boundary, which is downstream of Memorial Lake, AOI 1, AOI 2, and AOI 6.

PFOS was detected in four of the five samples, with a maximum concentration of 1.5 J+ ng/L 

detected at FTIG-SW7. PFOA and PFBS were not detected in any of the samples.

Sediment Analytical Results

PFOS was detected in one of the five samples, with a concentration of 0.43 J μg/Kg at FTIG-SD4. 

PFOA and PFBS were not detected in any of the samples. 

Indiantown Run Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOS was detected in surface water and sediment within 

Indiantown Run. There are no established SLs for sediment and surface water; therefore, these 

results are presented for informational purposes only.

6.10.2 Vesle Run

Surface Water Analytical Results

Surface water sample FTIG-SW5 was collected upstream of AOI 2, and surface water sample 

FTIG-SW6 was collected downstream of AOI 2.

PFOS was detected in both samples, with concentrations of 1.1 J ng/L at FTIG-SW5 and 10 ng/L 

at FTIG-SW6. PFOA was only detected in FTIG-SW6 at a concentration of 5.4 ng/L. PFBS was 

not detected in either sample.

Sediment Analytical Results

PFOS was detected in one of two samples (FTIG-SD6) at a concentration of 0.50 J μg/Kg. PFOA 

and PFBS were not detected in any of the samples. 

Vesle Run Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in surface water, and PFOS was 

detected in sediment downgradient of AOI 2, prior to the confluence of Indiantown Run and Vesle 

Run. There are no established SLs for sediment and surface water; therefore, these results are 

presented for informational purposes only.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-10

6.10.3 Aires Run

Surface Water Analytical Results

Surface water sample FTIG-SW9 was collected upstream of AOIs 3, 4, and 5. Sample FTIGSW10 was collected downstream of AOIs 3, 4, and 5. Sample FTIG-SW8 was collected just east 

of the East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area in AOI 2, within an unnamed tributary of Aires Run. Sample 

FTIG-SW11 was collected downstream of AOI 2 (East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, eastern 

portion of Building 019-101 Ramp, and the Current Fire Station), AOI 3, AOI 4, and AOI 5. FTIGSW12 was collected at the facility boundary and the confluence of Aires Run and Qureg Run.

PFOS was detected in all five samples and ranged in concentrations from 0.63 J at FTIG-SW9 to 

250 ng/L at FTIG-SW8. PFOA was detected in four of the five samples and ranged in 

concentrations from non-detect at FTIG-SW9 to 37 ng/L at FTIG-SW8. PFBS was only detected 

at FTIG-SW8, at a concentration of 14 ng/L. PFOA and PFOS were detected at the facility 

boundary in FTIG-SW11 and FTIG-SW12. Concentrations for PFOA at FTIG-SW11 and FTIGSW12 were 6.1 and 6.2 ng/L, respectively, whereas concentrations for PFOS were 25 ng/L at 

both sample locations. PFBS was not detected at the facility boundary.

Sediment Analytical Results

PFOS was detected in four of five samples, ranging in concentration from non-detect at FTIGSD9 to 4.1 μg/Kg at FTIG-SD8. PFOA and PFBS were not detected in any of the samples. 

Aires Run Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in surface water, and 

PFOS was detected in sediment. There are no established SLs for sediment and surface water; 

therefore, these results are presented for informational purposes only. 
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

6:2 FTS - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND UJ 3.8

8:2 FTS - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND UJ 15

PFBA - ND UJ ND ND 0.77 J ND 0.93 J+ ND 0.93 J+ 1.1 J+ 0.64 J

PFBS 130000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.75 J

PFDA - ND ND ND 0.98 J 0.47 J 0.43 J ND ND ND UJ 0.69 J

PFHpA - 0.44 J 0.75 J 0.66 J 0.73 J 0.86 J 0.55 J ND ND ND UJ 1.5

PFHxA - 0.52 J+ 0.78 J 0.71 J 0.73 J 1.0 0.76 J ND 0.27 J ND UJ 2.1

PFHxS - ND ND ND ND ND 1.6 ND ND 1.0 18

PFNA - ND UJ 0.62 J 0.77 J 2.9 2.4 1.0 ND ND ND UJ 0.36 J

PFOA 130 0.31 J 0.94 1.0 0.80 J 0.73 J 0.88 J ND 0.33 J 0.40 J+ 2.1

PFOS 130 ND 0.27 J 0.27 J ND ND 51 ND 3.2 5.0 120

PFPeA - 0.60 J+ 0.79 J 0.81 J 1.6 1.5 0.56 J ND ND ND UJ 1.3

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND 0.34 J ND ND ND UJ 0.37 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

ft feet

HA Hand auger

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

SS Surface Soil

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI1-SB1-0.5-1.0

05/29/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0

05/29/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SS1-0.5-1.0 DUP

05/29/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SS2-0.5-1.0

05/29/2019

AOI1-SS3-0.5-1.0

05/29/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

06/03/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2

AOI2-SB6-0.5-1.0

05/31/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI2-SB5-0.5-1.0

06/03/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB2-0.5-1.0

06/03/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB3-0.5-1.0

06/04/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB1-0.5-1.0

0.5 - 1 ft

AECOM

6-11
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

8:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

PFBA - ND ND 0.77 J ND ND ND ND 1.2 J+ ND

PFBS 130000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

PFHpA - ND ND 0.36 J ND ND 0.34 J ND ND UJ ND

PFHxA - ND ND 0.32 J ND 0.40 J 0.68 J ND ND UJ ND

PFHxS - ND ND 0.25 J ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

PFNA - 0.36 J ND 0.36 J ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

PFOA 130 0.25 J ND 0.27 J ND ND ND 0.33 J ND UJ 0.38 J

PFOS 130 1.0 0.98 5.3 ND ND ND 0.37 J ND UJ 0.48 J

PFPeA - 0.24 J ND 0.78 J ND ND 0.47 J+ ND ND UJ ND

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

ft feet

HA Hand auger

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

SS Surface Soil

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

06/03/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI6

AOI6-SB1-0.5-1.0

05/28/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0-DUP

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI3

AOI3-SB1-0.5-1.0

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2

AOI2-SB7-0.5-1.0

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB9-0.5-1.0

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated

soil.

AOI5

AOI5-SB1-0.5-1.0

05/31/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB11-0.5-1.0 AOI2-SS1-0.5-1.0

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SS2-0.5-1.0

06/07/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AECOM

6-12
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

PFBA - 0.75 J+ 0.63 J+ ND ND 0.71 J+ ND ND ND ND 0.72 J+

PFBS 1600000 ND ND ND ND ND 3.9 ND ND ND ND

PFHpA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.38 J ND UJ

PFHxA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND 0.48 J 0.37 J 0.34 J ND UJ

PFHxS - ND 0.24 J ND ND ND 14 ND 0.23 J 0.94 0.33 J

PFNA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.23 J ND UJ

PFOA 1600 ND UJ ND ND ND ND 0.39 J ND ND 0.38 J ND UJ

PFOS 1600 ND 8.2 ND ND ND 92 0.29 J 0.34 J 2.7 1.5

PFPeA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND 0.33 J 0.36 J 0.27 J ND UJ

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

References PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration DUP Duplicate

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high ft feet

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for

incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI2-SB1-8.0-10

06/04/2019

8 - 10 ft

AOI2-SB6-7.5-8.0

05/31/2019

7.5 - 8 ft

06/11/2019

7.5 - 8 ft

AOI2-SB1-14.5-15

06/04/2019

14.5 - 15 ft

AOI2-SB3-12.5-13.0

AOI2

AOI2-SB3-6.5-7.0

06/04/2019

6.5 - 7 ft

AOI2-SB9-7.0-7.5

06/05/2019

7 - 7.5 ft

06/04/2019

12.5 - 13 ft

AOI2-SB6-4.0-4.5

05/31/2019

4 - 4.5 ft

AOI2-SB2-5.5-6.0

06/04/2019

5.5 - 6 ft

AOI2-SB7-7.5-8.0

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI1

AOI1-SB1-9.0-9.5

05/30/2019

9 - 9.5 ft

AECOM

6-13
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

PFBA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ 0.97 J+ 1.1 J+ 0.82 J ND

PFBS 1600000 ND ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND

PFHpA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UJ ND ND

PFHxA - ND ND 0.25 J ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UJ ND ND

PFHxS - ND ND 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFNA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UJ ND ND

PFOA 1600 ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UJ ND ND

PFOS 1600 ND 0.62 J 3.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFPeA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UJ ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

References PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration DUP Duplicate

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high ft feet

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

AOI3 AOI5

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental

ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI6-SB1-6.5-7.0

05/28/2019

6.5 - 7 ft

AOI3-SB1-2.5-3.0

06/10/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

AOI3-SB1-2.5-3.0-DUP

06/10/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

Area of Interest AOI6

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI6-SB1-13.0-13.5

05/28/2019

13 - 13.5 ft

AOI5-SB1-4.0-4.5

05/31/2019

4 - 4.5 ft

AOI5-SB1-7.0-8.0

7 - 8 ft

05/31/2019

Depth

AOI2-SB9-9.0-9.5

06/05/2019

9 - 9.5 ft

AOI2

AOI2-SB11-7.5-8.0

06/11/2019

7.5 - 8 ft

AOI2-SB11-7.5-8.0-DUP

06/11/2019

7.5 - 8 ft

AECOM

6-14
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND 1.1 J- 1.1 J ND ND ND ND

8:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - 45 ND ND 91 J+ ND ND ND ND 28

PFBS 40000 ND ND ND 12 ND ND ND ND ND

PFDA - ND ND ND 1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND

PFDoA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHpA - 32 ND ND 87 ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxA - 68 ND ND 160 ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxS - ND ND 0.40 J 150 0.48 J ND ND ND ND

PFNA - 3.9 ND ND 9.6 ND ND ND ND ND

PFOA 40 14 ND ND 44 ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS 40 0.47 J ND 1.2 J 99 1.7 J ND ND ND ND

PFPeA - 120 ND ND 220 ND ND ND ND ND

PFTeDA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND ND

PFTrDA - ND ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND ND

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J- = Estimated concentration, biased low PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of

groundwater.

AOI2

AOI2-GW5

06/18/2019

AOI2-GW3

06/10/2019

AOI2-GW3-DUP

06/10/2019

BW4

06/12/2019

BW3

06/12/2019

Area of Interest

AOI2-GW4

06/10/2019

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI2-GW2

06/17/2019

AOI1

AOI1-GW2

06/14/2019

Base Well

AOI2-GW1

06/11/2019

AECOM

6-15
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

6:2 FTS - 55 J- ND ND 3.6 ND 11 ND ND ND

8:2 FTS - 38 ND ND 1.4 J ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - 220 J+ 2.8 J+ 3.0 J+ 48 J+ ND 35 2.5 J ND 8.7

PFBS 40000 26 J- ND ND 4.2 ND 14 ND ND ND

PFDA - 14 ND ND 0.51 J ND 0.99 J ND ND ND

PFDoA - 2.9 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHpA - 75 ND ND 51 ND 40 ND ND ND

PFHxA - 370 ND ND 77 ND 77 ND ND ND

PFHxS - 120 ND ND 31 ND 140 2.3 ND ND

PFNA - 7.2 ND ND 4.6 ND 9.5 ND ND ND

PFOA 40 38 ND ND 23 ND 28 ND ND ND

PFOS 40 160 ND ND 59 ND 280 4.4 0.97 J 0.77 J

PFPeA - 490 J- ND ND 110 ND 85 ND ND ND

PFTeDA - 0.69 J ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFTrDA - 0.88 J ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFUnDA - 2.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J- = Estimated concentration, biased low PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

Sample Date

AOI3

AOI3-GW1

06/18/2019

MW-2

06/17/2019

AOI2-GW6

06/11/2019

Runway

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of

groundwater.

AOI2

MW-4

06/17/2019

AOI2-GW11

06/14/2019

AOI2-GW8

06/13/2019

AOI2-GW10

06/11/2019

AOI2-GW9

06/11/2019

AOI2-GW8-DUP

06/13/2019

Area of Interest

Sample ID

AECOM

6-16
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND 1.4 J ND ND ND

8:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - 9.9 9.9 J+ 2.9 J+ 6.7 J+ ND 94 ND 4.3 J

PFBS 40000 ND ND ND ND ND 11 J- ND ND

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFDoA - ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ ND ND

PFHpA - ND ND ND ND ND 27 ND ND

PFHxA - ND 5.3 ND ND ND 56 ND ND

PFHxS - ND 0.58 J ND ND ND 4.7 ND ND

PFNA - ND ND ND ND ND 2.2 J ND ND

PFOA 40 ND ND ND ND ND 32 ND ND

PFOS 40 0.85 J ND ND ND ND 2.9 0.69 J ND

PFPeA - ND 11 ND ND ND 53 J- ND ND

PFTeDA - ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ ND ND UJ

PFTrDA - ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ ND ND UJ

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J- = Estimated concentration, biased low PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI3-GW1-DUP

06/18/2019

AOI3 AOI4

AOI4-GW1

06/10/2019

FTIG-BOUNDARY-GW1

06/11/2019

FTIG Boundary

FTIG-BOUNDARY-GW4

06/19/2019

FTIG-BOUNDARY-GW5

06/18/2019

AOI6

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of

groundwater.

FTIG-BOUNDARY-GW3

06/19/2019

FTIG-BOUNDARY-GW2

06/10/2019

AOI6-GW1

06/11/2019

AECOM

6-17
Table 6-5

PFAS Detections in Sediment

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFHxS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.55 J ND

PFOS ND ND ND 0.43 J ND 0.50 J 0.39 J ND 4.1 ND

PFPeA ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

ft feet

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SD Sediment

ng/g nanogram per gram

Sediment, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/g)

FTIG-SD8-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD9-0-0.5

06/18/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5-DUP

06/18/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD7-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD2-0.0-0.5

06/14/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG Boundary

FTIG-SD3-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD4-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft 0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD5-0-0.5

06/18/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD6-0-0.5

06/18/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD1-0.0-0.5

06/14/2019

AECOM

6-18
Table 6-5

PFAS Detections in Sediment

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFHxS ND ND ND

PFOS 0.78 J 2.2 2.1

PFPeA 0.38 J ND ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

ft feet

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SD Sediment

ng/g nanogram per gram

FTIG Boundary

FTIG-SD12-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

Sediment, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/g)

FTIG-SD10-0-0.5

06/18/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

FTIG-SD11-0-0.5

06/19/2019

0 - 0.5 ft

AECOM

6-19
Table 6-6

PFAS Detections in Surface Water

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ 15 15 ND

8:2 FTS ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ 6.3 5.4 ND

PFBA ND ND ND ND ND 4.0 J ND 39 37 ND

PFBS ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 14 14 ND

PFDA ND ND ND ND UJ ND ND ND UJ 3.2 3.0 ND

PFHpA ND ND ND ND ND 2.9 ND 49 48 ND

PFHxA ND ND ND ND ND 4.7 ND 81 78 ND

PFHxS ND 0.36 J ND 0.38 J ND 6.5 0.37 J 120 120 ND

PFNA ND ND ND ND UJ ND 0.93 J 0.40 J+ 14 13 ND

PFOA ND ND ND ND ND 5.4 ND 37 34 ND

PFOS ND 0.49 J 0.47 J 1.1 J+ 1.1 J 10 1.5 J+ 250 210 0.63 J

PFPeA ND ND ND ND ND 4.7 J ND 92 88 ND

PFUnDA ND ND ND UJ ND UX ND ND ND UX 0.70 J 0.54 J ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

UX/X = The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated. Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion of the data is recommended. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SW Surface water 

ng/L nanogram per liter

FTIG Boundary

FTIG-SW6

06/18/2019

FTIG-SW3

06/19/2019

FTIG-SW4

06/19/2019

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

FTIG-SW8-DUP

06/19/2019

FTIG-SW9

06/18/2019

FTIG-SW7

06/19/2019

FTIG-SW8

06/19/2019

FTIG-SW5

06/18/2019

FTIG-SW1

06/14/2019

FTIG-SW2

06/14/2019

AECOM

6-20
Table 6-6

PFAS Detections in Surface Water

Site Inspection Report, Fort Indiantown Gap

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS 2.9 1.8 J 1.8 J

8:2 FTS ND ND ND

PFBA 6.1 6.9 6.8

PFBS ND ND ND

PFDA ND ND ND

PFHpA 5.5 7.8 7.8

PFHxA 11 12 11

PFHxS 2.8 12 12

PFNA 1.4 J 2.3 2.3

PFOA 3.2 6.1 6.2

PFOS 6.9 25 25

PFPeA 18 16 16

PFUnDA ND ND ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

UX/X = The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated. Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion of the data is recommended. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

FTIG Fort Indiantown Gap

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SW Surface water 

ng/L nanogram per liter

FTIG Boundary

FTIG-SW12

06/19/2019

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

FTIG-SW10

06/18/2019

FTIG-SW11

06/19/2019

AECOM

6-21
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 6-22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 7

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 11

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SS 2

AOI 2-SS 1 AOI 2-SB/GW 5

AOI 2-SB/GW 2

AOI 1 SS-1

AOI 1 SS-2

AOI 1 SS-3

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires Run

AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 7

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 11

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 6 Marquette AOI 2-SB/GW 2

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires Run

AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires Run

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (ng/g)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-1

PFOA Detections in Soil

1/11/2021

1/11/2021

MS 1/11/2021

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

1/11/2021

1:39,600

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_6-1_FTIG_SI_PFOA_Soil_Results.mxd

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, 0 1,650 3,300 6,600

Feet

Deep

Intermediate

Shallow

­

6-23
AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 7

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 11

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SS 2

AOI 2-SS 1 AOI 2-SB/GW 5

AOI 2-SB/GW 2

AOI 1 SS-1

AOI 1 SS-2

AOI 1 SS-3

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires

Run

Forge Creek

AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 7

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 11

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 6 Marquette AOI 2-SB/GW 2

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires Run

AOI 1-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 3 AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 5-SB/GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Ves le Run

Aires Run

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-2

PFOS Detections in Soil

1/11/2021

1/11/2021

MS 1/11/2021

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

1/11/2021

1:39,600

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_6-2_FTIG_SI_PFOS_Soil_Results.mxd

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

Deep

Intermediate

Shallow

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOS Results (ng/g)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

0 1,650 3,300 6,600

­

Feet

6-24
BW-4

BW-3

FTIG-Boundary GW-1

AOI 1-GW 2 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-GW 8 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 11

AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 4-GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

FTIG Boundary GW-2 (Deep)

FTIG-Boundary-GW-5 (Deep)

MW-2 (RWAY) MW-4 (RWAY)

FTIG Boundary GW-4 (Deep)

FTIG Boundary GW-3

AOI 2-GW 10 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 5

AOI 2-GW 4 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 3

Marquette AOI 2-SB/GW 2

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Forge Creek

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Reeds Creek

Ves le Run

Aires Run

0 1,650 3,300 6,600

Feet

BW-4

BW-3

FTIG-Boundary GW-1

AOI 1-GW 2 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 1

AOI 2-GW 8 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 11 AOI 3-SB/GW 1

AOI 4-GW 1

AOI 6-SB/GW 1

FTIG Boundary GW-2 (Deep)

FTIG-Boundary-GW-5 (Deep)

MW-4 (RWAY)

MW-2 (RWAY)

FTIG Boundary GW-4 (Deep)

FTIG Boundary GW-3

AOI 2-GW 10 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 9

AOI 2-SB/GW 6

AOI 2-SB/GW 5

AOI 2-GW 4 (Deep)

AOI 2-SB/GW 3

AOI 2-SB/GW 2

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey Lake

Forge Creek

Indiantown Run

Qureg Run

Reeds Creek

Ves le Run

Aires Run

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-3

PFOA and PFOS Detections 

in Groundwater

2/8/2021

2/8/2021

MS 2/8/2021

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

2/8/2021

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_6-3_FTIG_SI_PFOA-PFOS_GW_Results.mxd

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

PFOS

PFOA

­ 1:39,600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

6-25
FTIG-SW/SD 1

FTIG-SW/SD 2

FTIG-SW/SD 3

FTIG-SW/SD 4

FTIG-SW/SD 5

FTIG-SW/SD 6

FTIG-SW/SD 7

FTIG-SW/SD 8

FTIG-SW/SD 9

FTIG-SW/SD 10

FTIG-SW/SD 11

FTIG-SW/SD 12

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey

Lake

QuregRun

Indiantown Run

Vesle Run

Aires Run

FTIG-SW/SD 1

FTIG-SW/SD 2

FTIG-SW/SD 3

FTIG-SW/SD 4

FTIG-SW/SD 5

FTIG-SW/SD 6

FTIG-SW/SD 7

FTIG-SW/SD 8

FTIG-SW/SD 9

FTIG-SW/SD 10

FTIG-SW/SD 11

FTIG-SW/SD 12

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey

Lake

Qureg Ru

Ind

n

iantown Run

Vesle Run

Aires Run

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-4

PFOA and PFOS Detections 

in Surface Water

2/5/2021

2/5/2021

MS 2/5/2021

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

2/5/2021

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_6-4_FTIG_SI_PFOA-PFOS_Surface_Water_Results.mxd

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

PFOS

PFOA

1:28,800

0 1,200 2,400 4,800

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow

Direction

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 1

>1 - 10

>10 - 100

>100

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 1

>1 - 10

>10 - 100

>100

6-26
FTIG-SW/SD 1

FTIG-SW/SD 2

FTIG-SW/SD 3

FTIG-SW/SD 4

FTIG-SW/SD 5

FTIG-SW/SD 6

FTIG-SW/SD 7

FTIG-SW/SD 8

FTIG-SW/SD 9

FTIG-SW/SD 10

FTIG-SW/SD 11

FTIG-SW/SD 12

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey

Lake

QuregRun

Indiantown Run

Vesle Run

Aires Run

FTIG-SW/SD 1

FTIG-SW/SD 2

FTIG-SW/SD 3

FTIG-SW/SD 4

FTIG-SW/SD 5

FTIG-SW/SD 6

FTIG-SW/SD 7

FTIG-SW/SD 8

FTIG-SW/SD 9

FTIG-SW/SD 10

FTIG-SW/SD 11

FTIG-SW/SD 12

Marquette

Lake

Memorial Lake

Shuey

Lake

Qureg Ru

Ind

n

iantown Run

Vesle Run

Aires Run

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-5

PFOA and PFOS Detections 

in Sediment

2/5/2021

2/5/2021

MS 2/5/2021

BM

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

2/5/2021

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\PA\FTIG\FTIG_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_6-5_FTIG_SI_PFOA-PFOS_Sediment_Results.mxd

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

PFOS

PFOA

1:28,800

0 1,200 2,400 4,800

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (ng/g)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

PFOS Results (ng/g)

ND

>ND - 1

>1 - 10

>10 - 100

>100

6-27
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

6-28
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figure 7-1 through 

Figure 7-9. A CSM presents the current understanding of the site conditions with respect to known 

and suspected sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially 

exposed human receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when 

the following conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figures use an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with an incomplete pathway 

generally warrant no further action; however, the pathway is considered potentially complete if 

PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled circle symbol 

to represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely filled circle symbol 

is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has detections of PFOA, PFOS, 

or PFBS above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway may warrant further 

investigation.

In general, the potential routes of exposure to PFAS are ingestion and inhalation. Human 

exposure via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice suggests it is an 

insignificant pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal pathways are 

sparse and continue to be the subject of PFAS toxicological study. The receptors evaluated are 

consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2018). Receptors at 

the Site include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction workers, fulltime 

and part time residents outside the facility boundary, and recreational users inside and outside of 

the facility boundary. The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on 

Figures 7-1 through 7-9. 

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil were used to determine whether a potentially 

complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the 

aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1

In November 2012, AFFF was discharged by the PAARNG during fire training activities at AOI 1. 

PFOA and PFOS were detected in surface soil in this area and confirm the release of PFAS to 

soil at AOI 1. Based on the results of the SI, ground disturbing activities completed at AOI 1 would 

potentially result in site worker and construction worker exposure to PFOA and PFOS via 

inhalation of dust and ingestion of surface soil. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in the 

subsurface soil; therefore, the subsurface soil ingestion exposure pathway is incomplete. The 

CSM is presented on Figure 7-1.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-2

7.1.2 AOI 2

From the 1970s until the 2010s, AFFF was periodically discharged for various fire training 

activities and emergency response events at release areas. PFOA and PFOS were detected in 

soil in this area and confirm the release of PFAS to soil at AOI 2. The CSMs for AOI 2 are 

presented on Figures 7-2 through 7-5.

Based on the results of the SI, ground disturbing activities to surface soil could potentially result 

in site worker and construction worker exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS via inhalation of dust 

and ingestion of surface soil at AOI 2. Additionally, recreational users watch helicopters hover 

near the ground as close as 100 feet from the fence line and may be potentially exposed to PFOA 

and PFOS via inhalation of dust generated by this activity at the West Ramp Fire Pit Training 

Area; East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area; Building 019-101 Ramp; Current Fire Station (Building 5-

117); Crash Site; and Simulated Emergency Event. The only source area where PFOA, PFOS, 

and PFBS were all not detected was the Accidental Tank Spill area. Consequently, the exposure 

pathways for all receptors via the inhalation and ingestion of surface soil at this location is 

incomplete.

Ground disturbing activities to subsurface soil would potentially result in construction worker 

exposure via ingestion at the West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area; East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area; 

Building 019-101 Ramp; Current Fire Station (Building 5-117); and Simulated Emergency Event. 

Subsurface soil was not collected at the Crash Site area because bedrock was encountered.

Additionally, only surface soil samples were collected at the Accidental Tank Spill area. Therefore, 

the exposure pathway for the construction worker via ingestion to subsurface soil was not 

evaluated at these source areas. 

7.1.3 AOI 3

In March and April 2016, AFFF was discharged during fire training activities conducted by the 

PAARNG. PFOA and PFOS were detected in surface soil in this area, which confirms the release 

of PFAS in soil at AOI 3. Based on the results of the SI, ground disturbing activities would 

potentially result in site worker and construction worker exposure to PFOA and PFOS via 

inhalation of dust and ingestion of surface soil. PFAS were not detected at deeper soil depths 

(2.5-3 feet bgs), suggesting the subsurface soil was not impacted by PAARNG activities. The 

exposure pathway for subsurface soil is therefore incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 

7-6.

7.1.4 AOI 4

From 1975 to 1986, AFFF was biannually discharged at AOI 4 during fire training activities by 

PAARNG and the US Army. Soil samples were not collected due to the shallow depth to bedrock 

(0.5 feet) and because the ground surface was composed of gravel fill; therefore, no surface soil 

or subsurface soil exposure pathways were evaluated for inhalation or ingestion. The CSM is 

presented on Figure 7-7.

7.1.5 AOI 5

In March 2014, AFFF was dispensed by the PAARNG during a fire training activity. PFOA, PFOS, 

and PFBS were not detected in the surface and subsurface soils. Therefore, the exposure 

pathways for surface soil via inhalation and ingestion and the exposure pathway for subsurface 

soil via ingestion are incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 7-8. 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-3

7.1.6 AOI 6

Since 2012, FTIG has been permitted to perform land application of biosolids from the WWTP on 

the southeastern boundary of Memorial Lake. PFOA and PFOS were detected in surface soil in 

this area, which confirms the release of PFAS in AOI 6. Based on the results of the SI, ground 

disturbing activities would potentially result in site worker and construction worker exposure to 

PFOA and PFOS via inhalation of dust and ingestion of surface soil. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS

were not detected at deeper soil depths (6.5-13.5 feet), suggesting the subsurface soil was not 

impacted by PAARNG activities; therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway via ingestion is 

incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 7-9.

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in groundwater were used to determine whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI 

based on the aforementioned criteria.

7.2.1 AOI 1

PFOS and PFOA were detected in groundwater at concentrations that did not exceed the SLs. 

The ingestion exposure pathway is considered potentially complete for construction workers 

during trenching activities deep enough to encounter groundwater. Four potable water supply 

wells exist near AOI 1. Two unused groundwater supply wells, BW-3 and BW-4, were sampled 

during the SI. PFOS was detected in BW-4 but not detected at BW-3. Two wells supplying potable 

water are present downgradient of AOI 1. These two downgradient potable supply wells service 

small and remote buildings. Because PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations below 

the SLs at AOI 1, the groundwater exposure pathway is considered potentially complete for site 

workers. The groundwater at FTIG is not sourced for residential drinking water, and the exposure 

pathway via ingestion of groundwater is therefore incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 

7-1.

7.2.2 AOI 2

PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations that exceeded the SL at the West Ramp 

Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and Current 

Fire Station (Building 5-117). PFOA was detected at concentrations that exceeded the SL at the 

West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway is considered 

potentially complete for construction workers during trenching activities deep enough to encounter 

shallow groundwater at these source areas. PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations 

that did not exceed the SL at the Crash Site area; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway is 

considered potentially complete for construction workers during trenching activities deep enough 

to encounter shallow groundwater. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at 

the Simulated Emergency Event area; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway is considered 

incomplete. No groundwater samples were collected at the Accidental Tank Spill; therefore, the

exposure pathway for groundwater was not evaluated. The groundwater at FTIG is not sourced 

for residential drinking water, and the exposure pathway via ingestion of groundwater is therefore 

incomplete. The CSMs are presented on Figures 7-2 through 7-5.

7.2.3 AOI 3

PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations that did not exceed the SL. The ingestion 

exposure pathway is considered potentially complete for construction workers during trenching 

activities deep enough to encounter groundwater. No wells supplying potable water are present 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-4

within or downgradient of AOI 3 within the facility boundary; therefore, the residential exposure 

pathway via ingestion of groundwater is incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 7-6.

7.2.4 AOI 4

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 4. Consequently, all

groundwater exposure pathways are considered incomplete for human receptors. No wells 

supplying potable water are present within or downgradient of AOI 4 within the facility boundary.

The CSM is presented on Figure 7-7.

7.2.5 AOI 5

Groundwater was not collected at AOI 5 because the overburden was dry; therefore, the

groundwater exposure pathway was not evaluated for ingestion. The CSM is presented on Figure 

7-8.

7.2.6 AOI 6

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater; therefore, the groundwater exposure 

pathway is considered incomplete for all human receptors. No wells supplying potable water are 

present within or downgradient of AOI 6 within the facility boundary. The CSM is presented on 

Figure 7-9.

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in surface water and sediment were used to determine 

whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each 

AOI based on the aforementioned criteria.

The hydrogeologic CSM indicates that the majority of shallow groundwater at the FTIG AOIs flows 

toward and discharges into surface water drainage features within the facility boundaries. 

Eventually, these surface waters converge into water channels and exit the facility boundaries 

through Indiantown Run and Aires Run. These two water channels flow downgradient into two 

separate watersheds, where they eventually flow into the Swatara Creek, approximately 1 mile 

south of the facility boundary, where there are domestic and public supply wells. Approximately 

10 miles downstream, the Pennsylvania American Water Company has a surface water intake 

within the Swatara Creek. The surface water and sediment exposure pathways for each AOI are 

presented on Figures 7-1 through 7-9.

7.3.1 Indiantown Run

PFOS was detected in surface water and sediment in Indiantown Run. PFOS was detected in 

surface water at the boundary of the Site. Based on the SI results, the ingestion pathway for 

surface water and sediment is potentially complete for the construction worker. The Indiantown 

Run is used for boating and fishing, and eventually flows to residential areas off the Site. 

Therefore, the ingestion pathway for surface water is potentially complete for off-site residents 

and recreational users. 

7.3.2 Vesle Run

PFOA and PFOS were detected in surface water and PFOS was detected in surface sediment in 

Vesle Run. Based on the SI results, the ingestion pathway for surface water and sediment is 

potentially complete for the construction worker. Vesle Run is used for recreational purposes, 

including fishing. Vesle Run eventually flows into Indiantown Run before flowing off the facility 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-5

boundary; therefore, the ingestion pathway is potentially complete for off-site residents and 

recreational users. 

7.3.3 Aires Run

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in surface water, and PFOS was detected in surface 

sediment in Aires Run and at the boundary of the facility. Based on the SI results, the ingestion 

pathway for surface water and sediment is potentially complete for the construction worker. The 

Aires Run is used for fishing and eventually flows to residential areas off-facility; therefore, the 

ingestion pathway for surface water is potentially complete for off-site residents and recreational 

users.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged at

Mock Gas

Station into

Storm Drain

and Sewer

Outlet

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

AOI 1

Notes:

1. Surface water/sediment data from the

Indiantown Run.

2. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

3. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

4. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

/ /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1

/ / / /

Subsurface

Soil Ingestion / / / /

7-7
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during Fire

Training

Activities, to

treat

Petroleum

Spills, and

during Valve

Testing

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area,

Building 019-101 Ramp, and Current Fire Station (Building 5-117)

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/

/ /

/ /

/

AOI 2 –

West and

East Ramp

Fire Pit

Training

Areas,

Building

019-101

Ramp,

Current Fire

Station

Notes:

1. Surface water/sediment data from the

Vesle and Aires Runs.

2. The resident receptor refers to an offsite resident.

3. The recreational user receptor refers to

both on-site and off-site users.

4. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/

/ / /

Subsurface

Soil Ingestion / / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1

Ingestion / / / /

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

7-8
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during

Emergency

Response

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-3

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 Crash Site

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/

/ /

/ /

AOI 2 –

Crash Site

Notes:

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/

/ / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 2 / / / /

Subsurface

Soil1 / / / /

1. No subsurface soil was sampled as bedrock

was observed at 4 feet below ground surface.

2. Surface water/sediment data from the Vesle

Run.

3. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

4. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

5. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

7-9
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during Fire

Training

Activities

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-4

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 Simulated Emergency Event

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/

/ /

/ /

AOI 2 –

Simulated

Emergency

Event

Notes:

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/

/ / / /

Subsurface

Soil / / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1 / / / /

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

1. Surface water/sediment data from the Vesle

Run.

2. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

3. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

4. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

7-10
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during

Accidental

Spill

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater 2

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-5

 Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 Accidental Tank Spill

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/

AOI 2 –

Accidental

Tank Spill

Notes:

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

Subsurface

Soil

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1 / / / /

/

/ / /

/ /

/ /

1. Surface water/sediment data from the Vesle

Run.

2. No groundwater was sampled at this location

3. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

4. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

5. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

/ /

Ingestion

/ /

/ /

7-11
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during Fire

Training Event

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-6

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 3 Johnson Trail

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

AOI 3

Notes:

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1

Ingestion / / / /

Subsurface

Soil / / / /

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

1. Surface water/sediment data from the Aires

Run.

2. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

3. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

4. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

/

7-12
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged

during Fire

Training

Exercises

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate1

Surface Soil1

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-7

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 4 Fire Pit Area #19

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/ /

/ /

AOI 4

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG / / /

Subsurface

Soil1

Surface

Water/

Sediment 2

/ / / /

/ /

/ /

/ / / /

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

Notes:

1. Soil was not sampled because the surface soil

was a gravel/fill and bedrock was encountered at

1.5 feet below ground surface.

2. Surface water/sediment data from the Aires

Run.

3. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

4. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

5. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

/

7-13
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Discharged at

Fire Training

Activity

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-8

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 5 First Street

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/ /

/ /

AOI 5

Notes:

1. Surface water/sediment data from the Aires

Run.

2. Well was dry; no groundwater was sampled.

3. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

4. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

5. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/ /

Subsurface

Soil / / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1

/ / / /

/ / / /

Shallow

Groundwater 2

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

Site

Worker 5

Construction

Worker 5 Resident 3, 5 Recreational User 4, 5

7-14
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

AFFF

Concentrate

treated at

WWTP

PFOS/PFOA

in Surface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway with

Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-9

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 6 Biosolid Area

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

AOI 6

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG / / /

Surface

Water/

Sediment 1 / / / /

Subsurface

Soil / / / /

/

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Site

Worker 4

Construction

Worker 4 Resident 2, 4 Recreational User 3, 4

Notes:

1. Surface water/sediment data from the Aires

Run.

2. The resident receptor refers to an off-site

resident.

3. The recreational user receptor refers to both

on-site and off-site users.

4. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

7-15
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 7-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-1

8. Summary and Outcome

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. 

The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs. 

8.1 SI Activities

The SI field sampling was conducted from 28 May 2019 to 20 June 2019. The SI field sampling 

included soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Sampling was conducted in accordance 

with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019), except as previously noted in Section 5.9. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019), samples 

were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS via LC/MS/MS compliant with DoD QSM 

5.1 Table B-15 as follows:

• 35 soil grab samples from 28 boring locations;

• 23 groundwater grab samples from 19 temporary well locations and four existing

permanent monitoring well locations; and

• 12 sediment and 12 surface water samples.

The information gathered during this investigation was used to determine if PFOA, PFOS, and/or 

PFBS were present at or above SLs. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors for potential 

exposure to PFAS at the AOIs, which are described in Section 7. 

8.2 SI Goals Evaluation

As described in Section 4.2, the SI activities were designed to achieve six main goals or DQOs. 

This section describes the SI goals and the conclusions that can be made for each based on the 

data collected during this investigation. 

1) Determine the presence or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above SLs.

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected at the Site in soil, groundwater, and surface water. PFOS 

was detected in the sediment. PFOA and PFOS in groundwater at AOI 2 exceeded the SLs of 40 

ng/L, with maximum concentrations of 44 ng/L and 280 ng/L, respectively. The exceedances of 

the SLs in groundwater at AOI 2 occurred at the following source areas: West Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and the Current Fire 

Station. 

PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at AOI 1: Combined Arms Collective Training 

Facility at concentrations below the SLs. PFOS was detected in groundwater at AOI 2: Crash Site 

and AOI 3 in concentrations below the SLs. Additionally, no groundwater samples were collected 

at AOI 2: Accidental Tank Spill. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 

2: Simulated Emergency Event, AOI 4, and AOI 6. Groundwater at AOI 2: Accidental Tank Spill 

and AOI 5 was not sampled. The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS and PFBS in soil 

samples from all AOIs were below the SLs.

2) Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because it is

determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.

Eight potential release areas were removed from further consideration based on the groundwater 

and soil data collected during the SI. These release areas include: CACTF in AOI 1, Accidental 

Tank Spill, Simulated Emergency Event, and Crash Site in AOI 2, Johnson Trail in AOI 3, Fire Pit 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-2

Area #19 in AOI 4, First Street in AOI 5, and Biosolid Area in AOI 6. PFOA, PFOA, and PFBS 

were not detected in groundwater and/ or soil above the SLs in any of these areas; therefore, 

these areas pose no significant threat to human health or the environment.

3) Determine the potential need for a removal action.

Based on the data collected during this SI, there is a potentially complete pathway between source 

and receptor; however, groundwater at this location is not used as drinking water, and no removal 

action is justified.

4) Collect data to better characterize release areas for more effective and rapid initiation of a RI.

A USGS model and groundwater gauging conducted during the SI in June 2019 (Figure 2-5) 

document that shallow groundwater flow is in the direction of adjacent surface water bodies. 

Streams throughout the facility are gaining, even during dry periods, indicating that shallow 

groundwater primarily discharges to surface water streams over much of FTIG (USGS, 2010).

A north to south groundwater divide was observed running through AOI 2 at the Building 019-101 

Ramp, with groundwater generally flowing either east or west (Figure 2-5). This groundwater 

divide plays a crucial role in the fate and transport of PFAS at FTIG.

No PFOA or PFOS were detected in FTIG boundary wells downgradient of AOI 2 (FTIGBoundary-GW1, FTIG-Boundary-GW2, and FTIG-Boundary-GW5). PFOS and PFOA were 

detected at FTIG-Boundary-GW3 and FTIG-Boundary-GW4 at concentrations below the SLs. 

5) Identify within 4 miles of the facility other potential PFAS sources (fire stations, major 

manufacturers, other DoD facilities) and receptors, including both groundwater and surface 

water receptors, to determine whether the ARNG is the likely source of PFAS, or whether

there is an off-facility source of PFAS responsible for facility detections of PFAS (USEPA, 

2005).

Based upon the qualitative evaluation of soil results in combination with quantitative groundwater 

results and groundwater flow direction analysis, the source of PFAS contamination at FTIG is

likely the result of historical DoD activities. No potential offsite PFAS source areas have been 

identified during the SI.

6) Determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential 

receptors and whether ARNG is the likely source of the contamination. 

Detections of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil, groundwater at source areas, and in surface water 

and sediment downgradient of the source areas indicate there is a potentially complete pathway 

between source and receptor.

8.3 Outcome 

Based on the CSM developed and revised based on SI findings, there is no current exposure to 

residential drinking water receptors from sources at the facility from AFFF releases attributable to 

ARNG activities. Sample chemical analytical concentrations collected during this SI were 

compared against the SLs for PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS in soil and groundwater, as described in 

Table 6-1. The following bullets summarize the SI results:

• PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at AOI 1: Combined Arms Collective 

Training Facility, at concentrations below the SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 1 is not warranted in the RI.

• PFOA and PFOS in groundwater at AOI 2 exceeded the SLs of 40 ng/L, with maximum 

concentrations of 44 ng/L and 280 ng/L, respectively. Concentrations in groundwater 

exceeded the SLs at AOI 2: West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training 
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-3

Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and the Current Fire Station. Based on the results of the 

SI, further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in the RI.

• PFOS was detected in groundwater at AOI 2: Crash Site in concentrations below the SLs. 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 2: Simulated 

Emergency Event. Additionally, no groundwater samples were collected at AOI 2: 

Accidental Tank Spill. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of these source 

areas is not warranted in the RI.

• PFOS was detected in groundwater at AOI 3: Johnson Trail, at concentrations below the 

SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 3 is not warranted in the RI.

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at AOI 4: Fire Pit Area #19 

and AOI 6: Biosolid Area. Groundwater at AOI 5: First Street was not sampled. Based on 

the results of the SI, further evaluation of these AOIs is not warranted in the RI.

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil samples from all AOIs 

were below the SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in AOI 5 and soil samples 

were not collected at AOI 4.

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the CSMs developed 

and revised in light of the SI findings, there is no potential for exposure to residential drinking 

receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the facility.

Table 8-2 summarizes the rationale used to determine if the AOI should be considered for further 

action under CERCLA and undergo an RI. Based on the findings of this SI, it is recommended 

that this facility proceed to an RI and, further evaluation is warranted in the RI for AOI 2: West 

Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area, Building 019-101 Ramp, and 

Current Fire Station.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-4

Table 8-1: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release Area Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area

1 Combined Arms Collective Training Facility

2 West Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

2 East Ramp Fire Pit Training Area

2 Building 019-101 Ramp

2 Current Fire Station (Building 5-117)

2 Crash Site

2 Simulated Emergency Event

2 Accidental Tank Spill N/A

3 Johnson Trail

4 Fire Pit Area #19 N/A

5 First Street N/A

6 Biosolid Area

Legend:

N/A = Not applicable

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-5

Table 8-2: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1

Combined Arms 

Collective Training 

Facility

Detections in groundwater but no exceedances of 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 West Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Areas

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 East Ramp Fire Pit 

Training Area

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Building 019-101 

Ramp

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Current Fire Station 

(Building 5-117)

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater but no 

exceedances of SLs in soil. Proceed to RI 

2 Crash Site Detections in groundwater but no exceedances in 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 Simulated 

Emergency Event

No detections in groundwater at the source area. 

No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

2 Accidental Tank Spill No groundwater samples were collected. No 

detections in soil. No further action

3 Johnson Trail Detections in groundwater but no exceedances in 

SLs. No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action

4 Fire Pit Area #19 No detections in groundwater at the source area. 

No soil samples were collected. No further action

5 First Street No groundwater samples were collected. No 

detections in soil. No further action

6 Biosolid Area No detections in groundwater at the source area. 

No exceedances of SLs in soil. No further action
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 8-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

1
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 9-1

9. References

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal 

Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. 

W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. 9 March 2018.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, 

Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July 

2018.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2018c. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Fort Indiantown 

Gap, Pennsylvania, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

(PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D0014/W912DR17F0192. September 2018.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2019. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality 

Assurance Project Plan Addendum, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, Perfluorooctane 

Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. May 2019.

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2019a. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Fort Indiantown Gap, 

Pennsylvania, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D0014/W912DR17F0192. May 2019.

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Transformation of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard 56th Brigade into a Stryker Brigade 

Combat Team. May 2006.

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2019. Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. 15 October 2019.

Berg, T.M., Edmunds, W.E., Geyer, A.R., et al. 1980. Geologic Map of Pennsylvania (2nd ed.). 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Map 1, scale 1:250,000.

DA. 2016. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid (PFOA) Contamination. August.

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.

4 September.

DoD. 2018a. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 

9 February.

DoD. 2018b. Department of Defense (DoD) Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.1.1. September.

Greyer, A.R., Gray, C., McLaughlin, D.B., and Moseley, J.R. 1958. Geologic Map of the Lebanon 

Quadrangle, Pennsylvania. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. 

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids ad 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites”. Environmental Science and Technology

47(9): 4164-71.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 9-2

Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on 

sediments. Environmental Science and Technology. 40 (23): 7251-7256.

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March 2018.

Ogden. 2001. Final Geologic and Topographic Condition Study, National Guard Training Center 

Fort Indiantown Gap, Annville, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2019. Groundwater Monitoring Guidance. 

January 2019.

Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (PADMVA). 2016. Fort Indiantown Gap 

National Guard Training Center, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pennsylvania, Final 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2016-2021. October 2016.

Pennsylvania Geological Survey (PAGS). 2006. Wells Information System at 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/oilandgas/wis_home.aspx.

Tetra Tech. 2017. Sampling and Analysis for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanic Acid (PFOA), Army National Guard-Owned/Operated Drinking Water 

Systems, Nation Wide. November 2017.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM200-1-2. 26 February 2016.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

USEPA. 2005. Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide. 

USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process. 

February 2006.

USEPA. 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of 

Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. EPA 

Document Number: 822-R-16-005. May 2016. 

USEPA. 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of 

Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. EPA 

Document Number: 822-R-16-004. May 2016.

USEPA. 2017a. UCMR 3 (2013-2015) Occurrence Data by State. Occurrence Data for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. Accessed 9 July 2019 at 

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule. 

January.

USEPA. 2017b. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January.

USEPA. 2018. Regional Screening Levels – Generic Tables (November 2018). Residential –

Direct Contact Soil. https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables.

November 2018.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 9-3

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Endangered Species. 

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed 29 August 2019. 

United States Geological Survey. 2010. Surface-water quantity and quality, aquatic biology, 

stream geomorphology, and groundwater-flow simulation for National Guard Training Center 

at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002-05. Scientific Investigations Series 2010-5155, 

180 p.

Weston, Roy F., Inc. 1992. Preliminary Assessment Report Addendum for Fort Indiantown Gap, 

PA. March 1992. 

Woodward-Clyde. 1997. U.S. Army Base Realignment and Closure 95 Program, Environmental 

Baseline Survey Report, Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania. March 1997.

World Climate. 2019. Average Weather Data for Harrisburg Pennsylvania. Accessed on 11 

November 2019 at http://www.worldclimate.com/climate/us/pennsylvania/harrisburg.

Xiao, F., Simcik, M.F., Halbach, T.R., and Gulliver, J.S. 2015. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research: 72: 64-74.
Site Inspection Report

Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania

AECOM 9-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK