Final

Site Inspection Report 

Camp Minden Training Site

Doyline, LA

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

September 2020

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

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 .................................2-3

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

3.1 AOI 1 - Louisiana State University Fire and Emergency Training Institute .............3-1

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 ..............................................................................................4-6

4.6.5 Completeness .............................................................................................4-6

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 .................................................................5-3

5.5 Investigation Derived Waste ..................................................................................5-4

5.6 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-4

5.7 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 Sediment Analytical Results ..............................................................6-2
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM ii

6.3.4 AOI 1 Surface Water Analytical Results .......................................................6-2

6.3.5 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-3

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

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

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

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway ...........................................................................7-2

7.2.1 AOI 1 ...........................................................................................................7-2

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ..................................................7-2

7.3.1 AOI 1 ...........................................................................................................7-2

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

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM iii

Figures

Figure 2-1 Site Location

Figure 2-2 Site Topography

Figure 2-3 Surface Water Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Features

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Groundwater

Figure 6-4 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Sediment

Figure 6-5 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Surface Water

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model

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 and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table 6-2 PFAS Detections in Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil

Table 6-3 PFAS Detections in Deep 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

Appendices

Appendix A Data Validation Report

Appendix B Daily Reports

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Sampling Forms

Appendix F Boring Logs

Appendix G Investigation Derived Waste Polygons

Appendix H Analytical Results

Appendix I Laboratory Reports
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

bgs below ground surface

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CMTS Camp Minden Training Site

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

DUA Data Usability Assessment

DUP duplicate

DVR Data Validation Report

EIS extraction internal standards

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineers Manual

FTA Fire Training Area

GCAL Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories, LLC

HA Health Advisory

HDPE high-density polyethylene

IDW Investigation Derived Waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LAAP Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant

LAARNG Louisiana Army National Guard

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

LCS laboratory control spike

LCSD laboratory control spike duplicate

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LDH Louisiana Department of Health

LMD Louisiana Military Department

LOD Limit of Detection

LOQ Limit of Quantitation

LSU FETI Louisiana State University Fire and Emergency Training Institute

MDL method detection limit
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM v

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram

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

NPL National Priority List

OSD Office of the Secretary of the Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBA Perfluorobutyrate

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFCs Perfluorinated compounds

PFDA Perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA Perfluoroheptanoic 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 photo ionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC poly-vinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC Quality Control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

ROD Record of Decision

RPD relative percent differences

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

TOC Total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

The Army National Guard (ARNG) 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). A SI was completed at

Camp Minden Training Site (CMTS) in Doyline, Louisiana.

CMTS includes approximately 15,269 acres of land in Webster and Bossier Parishes. The

installation is bounded by U.S. Highway 80 and I-20 to the north, U.S. Highway 164 to the south,

Dorcheat Bayou to the east, and Clarke Bayou to the west. During the PA, one potential PFAS

release area, Louisiana State University (LSU) Fire and Emergency Training Institute (FETI), was

identified and designated as an area of interest (AOI) 1 (AECOM, 2019a). The LSU FETI is a

33.8-acre tenant of CMTS. While the land use agreement was originally dated 15 October 2002

and amended again on 18 October 2005, LSU FETI began operations after the former Louisiana

Army Ammunition Plant property ownership was transferred from the Army to the State of

Louisiana. AOI 1 was investigated during the SI. SI field activities were conducted from

18 to 21 June 2019 and consisted of grab soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment

sampling at LSU FETI (the Site).

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

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

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

compliant with 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 site [under control and jurisdiction of the ARNG] 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 Site.

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, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater; groundwater SLs were

not exceeded.

· PFOS and PFBS were not detected in soil; soil SLs were not exceeded. PFOA was

detected in the intermediate soil sample at CMTS-SB-1 located northeast of the LSU

FETI fire training area (AOI 1) at a concentration of 0.022J micrograms per kilogram,

which is several orders of magnitude below the SL.

Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the LSU FETI history,

fire training operations at the Site began after the CMTS property ownership was transferred to
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM ES-2

the State of Louisiana. The CSM developed during the PA was revised in light of the SI data and

findings discussed herein. These data indicate no complete exposure pathways exist for PFOA,

PFOS, and PFBS in groundwater and soil, with one exception. The exposure pathway for PFOA

in subsurface soil, specifically for construction workers during ground disturbing activities, is

potentially complete. The exposure pathways in surface water and sediment for receptors at the

Site (workers, construction workers, and trespassers and recreational users) is potentially

complete. Exposure pathways in surface water and sediment for offsite receptors (recreational

users) is incomplete. Other PFAS were detected in all media (groundwater, soil, surface water

and sediment) at the Site and CMTS boundary. However, because screening levels are not

established for these other PFAS, such data are included in this report for informational purposes

only. LSU FETI activities are not, and have never been, associated with the DoD or the ARNG; 

therefore, PFAS detections identified during the SI are not attributed to the ARNG.

Table ES-3 summarizes the rationale to determine if AOI 1 should be considered for further

investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. Based on the results of this SI, no PFOA, PFOS,

or PFBS were detected in groundwater; PFOS and PFBS were not detected in soil; PFOA was

detected in soil at a concentration below the SL; and, PFOA, PFOS and PFBS were not detected

in surface water or sediment at the CMTS boundary. LSU FETI is not under the control of ARNG.

Based on the State of Louisiana owner-operator status of LSU FETI and other PFAS detections

in all media at the Site and CMTS boundary, the State may consider the need for future

investigation or follow-up action.

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

Analyte

Industrial/ Commercial

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water (Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 1,600 40

PFOS 1,600 40

PFBS 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.

b.) If only one PFAS is present, a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1 applies and the values presented would

increase by a factor of x10.

Table ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release

Area

Soil - Source

Area

Groundwater –

Source Area

Groundwater -

Near Boundary

1 LSU FETI

Legend:

 = exceedance of the screening levels

 = detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

 = not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM ES-3

Table ES-3: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1 LSU FETI

No detections of PFOA, PFOS and

PFBS in groundwater; no PFOS or 

PFBS detected in soil; PFOA detected 

in soil northeast of AOI 1 at a

concentration several orders of

magnitude below the SL.

LSU FETI is not under the control of

the ARNG. Based on the State of

Louisiana owner-operator status of

LSU FETI and other PFAS detections

in media at the Site and CMTS

boundary, the State may consider the

need for future investigation or followup action.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM ES-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

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 Camp Minden

Training Site (CMTS) in Doyline, Louisiana, more specifically at the Louisiana State University

(LSU) Fire and Emergency Training Institute (FETI) referenced herein as “the Site”.

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA; United States 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 Army 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 evaluated, including PFOA,

PFOS, 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

The PA performed at CMTS identified a single area of interest (AOI) at the LSU FETI, designated

as AOI 1 (AECOM, 2019a). The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release

to the environment from the AOI 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 the following 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 effort will also identify potential

off-facility sources.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-1

2. Site Background

2.1 Site Location and Description

CMTS includes approximately 15,269 acres of land in Webster and Bossier Parishes

(Figure 2-1). The installation is bounded by U.S. Highway 80 and I-20 to the north, U.S. Highway

164 to the south, Dorcheat Bayou to the east, and Clarke Bayou to the west. The cities of

Shreveport and Bossier City are approximately 22 miles west of the installation, and the towns of

Dixie Inn and Minden are approximately 5 and 8 miles to the northeast of the installation,

respectively. Private parcels (off-facility) surround CMTS. The Village of Doyline and surrounding

rural areas border CMTS to the south and the unincorporated community of Goodwill borders

CMTS to the north (URS, 2016).

At CMTS, administrative and residential facilities occupy approximately 154 acres, Louisiana

Military Department (LMD) mission support facilities and CMTS commercial/industrial tenants

(including the LSU FETI) occupy 2,970 acres, and 12,142.8 acres are woodlands. The operational

range area consists of 18 ranges used by the Louisiana ARNG (LAARNG) for tactical training for

Army National Guard troops. Current training includes both non-live-fire and live-fire activities.

The non-operational area is composed of 27 small parcels scattered throughout the west-central

portion of the installation.

The U.S. Government acquired CMTS (formerly the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant [LAAP]) in

1941 for use as a U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command installation. The

primary purpose of LAAP was loading, assembly and packing of ammunition. LAAP operations

began in 1942 with eight ammunition lines and one ammonium nitrate graining plant. In 1996, all

production ceased at LAAP, and the facility was placed in modified caretaker status (LAAP, 2001).

In 1989, LAAP was added to the National Priority List (NPL). In 2004, legislation authorized the

U.S. Army to convey LAAP to the State of Louisiana. In accordance with the Deed of Transfer,

approximately 14,949 acres were transferred to the State of Louisiana by and through the LMD.

As described in the Finding of Suitability for Transfer (LAAP, 2004a) and separate Finding of

Suitability for Early Transfer (LAAP, 2004b), the State is expected to use the majority of the

property for military training activities, with the remaining area used for commercial/industrial

purposes, and the U.S. Army retains the responsibility for ensuring that CERCLA selected

remedies, as established in Records of Decision (RODs), remain protective of human health and

the environment. In 2005, the former LAAP was renamed CMTS.

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

CMTS is located within the Upper West Gulf Coast Plain region. Most of CMTS has flat terrain,

and the major landform is the ancient Red River floodplain. Elevations throughout CMTS range

from 145 feet to 225 feet above mean sea level (Shaw Environmental, 2005). Further information

regarding the environmental setting at CMTS/LSU FETI is described below, with selected

elements presented in Figure 2-2 (Site topography), Figure 2-3 (surface water features in the

vicinity of CMTS), and Figure 2-4 (groundwater features in the vicinity of CMTS).

2.2.1 Geology

The geology of CMTS is characterized by unconsolidated continental and marine sediments

ranging in age from Eocene to Pleistocene. Pleistocene terrace deposits derived from the

ancestral Red River cover the surface and generally grade from clays and silts at the surface to

sand and gravel at depth. The terrace deposits are divided into Upper and Lower Terrace sands.

The Sparta Sand Formation lies directly below the Terrace deposits but is limited to the far eastern

portion of CMTS (i.e., east of Boone Creek). The Sparta Sand Formation origin is fluvial-deltaic,

deposited by the ancestral Mississippi River, and consists of non-marine massive sands, silty
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-2

sands, and occasional lignite shale. The Cane River Formation is a low-permeability marine clay

unit separating the overlying Terrace and Sparta Sands and the underlying Wilcox-Carrizo Sand.

The Cane River Formation varies in thickness from 200 to 300 feet. The Wilcox Group and Carrizo

Sand underlie the Cane River Formation. The Upper Wilcox Group consists of massive

continuous sand beds and subcrops beneath the western quarter of CMTS up to thicknesses as

great as 550 feet (Shaw Environmental, 2005).

At the LSU FETI, boring logs drilled during the SI activities indicate that the top ten feet of soil is

fat and lean clays, which grade downward into silts and sandy silts and, finally, to silty sands

(Appendix F).

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

Three water-bearing units are present at the facility and are listed in order from shallow to deep:

Upper Terrace, Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand, and the Wilcox-Carrizo; one confining unit (Cane 

River Formation) overlies the Wilcox-Carrizo. The shallow groundwater system includes the

Upper Terrace aquifer and the Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand aquifer, while the deep groundwater

system is made up of the Wilcox-Carrizo aquifer. The deep groundwater within the Wilcox-Carrizo

is confined by the overlying beds of the Cane River Formation. On the far west side of CMTS, the

Cane River Formation is absent, and the Lower Terrace sands rest unconformably on the WilcoxCarrizo sands. The Sparta Sand is absent west of Boone Creek (Shaw Environmental, 2005).

The stream erosional valleys truncate the Lower Terrace / Sparta Sand aquifers. Clarke Bayou

on the west and Bayou Dorcheat on the east form effective flow boundaries for the Upper Terrace

aquifer, and to some extent, the Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand aquifer. As shown on Figure 2-4,

groundwater flow within the Terrace units generally follows the topography and discharges to

surface water drainage features (URS, 2016). There is some component of downward

groundwater flow from the Upper Terrace to the Lower Terrace. The deep Wilcox-Carrizo aquifer

is an important drinking water and industrial use aquifer in northwest Louisiana. The aquifer is

recharged from rainfall in the outcrop areas and from the overlying alluvial sediments.

Camp Minden has three installation potable wells, well numbers 4A, 18, and 22 which draw from

the Wilcox aquifer. The total depths of these wells are 420, 691, and 612 feet below ground

surface (bgs), respectively (URS, 2017).

Under the Installation Restoration Program, the ARNG completed an inventory of nearby water

supply wells. In addition to the three installation potable wells, the inventory identified two public

water supply wells north of the installation which draw from the Terrace aquifer (Village water

system); public wells south of the installation (four Doyline water system, one Jenkins water 

system and one Horseshoe Road water system) which draw from the Wilcox-Carrizo aquifer; and 

numerous private residential wells south of the installation which draw from both the WilcoxCarrizo aquifer and from the overlying Terrace aquifer. These well locations and other

groundwater features are shown on Figure 2-4.

Sampling of the three Camp Minden installation potable water wells for PFAS compounds was

conducted by the ARNG in April 2017. With one exception, no detections were reported in the

sample results. The exception was 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (FTS), which was detected in

Well 22 at an estimated concentration of 5.72 nanograms per liter (ng/L). The laboratory qualified

the result with a “J” flag because the detected concentration is less than the method reporting

limit. Due to its unknown toxicity, a screening level has not been developed for this compound.

2.2.3 Hydrology

All surface water runoff from the installation exits along the southern boundary by four natural

streams that originate north of CMTS. Bayou Dorcheat forms the eastern boundary of the

installation, and Clarke Bayou forms the western boundary (Figure 2-3). Boone Creek and its
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-3

tributaries drain the eastern and central portions of the installation and flow into Bayou Dorcheat.

Caney Branch drains the western portions of the installation, and then flows into Clarke Bayou.

Both Clarke Bayou and Bayou Dorcheat flow south into Lake Bistineau. The streams on CMTS

receive both surface runoff as well as groundwater discharge from the Upper and Lower Terrace

aquifers. The installation’s active wastewater treatment plant discharges to Boone Creek, near

the southern installation boundary (URS, 2016).

2.2.4 Climate

Prevailing southerly winds provide a moist, subtropical climate. Climate data are reported for the

nearby city of Minden, where average annual temperatures range from 52.3 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F) to 75.6°F. January is the coldest month, with average temperatures from 33°F to 56°F. The

warmest month tends to be July, with average monthly temperatures from 72°F to 93°F. Average

annual rainfall in Minden is 55.43 inches. The wettest months are November and December, with

the least rainfall during August and September (U.S. Climate Data, 2019).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The LSU FETI is a 33.8-acre tenant of CMTS that operates a fire training academy. While the

land use agreement was originally dated 15 October 2002 and amended again on 18 October

2005, LSU FETI began operations after the former Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant property

ownership was transferred from the Army to the State of Louisiana. Based on the Finding of

Suitability for Early Transfer (LAAP, 2004b), current and future land uses for CMTS are limited to

commercial, industrial, storage, and military activities, with limited residential areas near the north

installation entrance gate. Fishing is permitted on CMTS (LAARNG, 2019). Reasonably

anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the current land use described above.

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species

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

endangered species found in Webster and Bossier Parishes, near CMTS (USFWS, 2019).

· Mammals: Northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened)

· Birds: Red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis (Endangered); Least tern, 

Sterna antillarum (Endangered)

· Fish: Pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus (Endangered)
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

SS

11/7/2019

11/7/2019

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

1:253,440

11/7/2019 ­ Figure 2-1 PM RG 11/7/2019

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-1_Minden_Facility_Location.mxd

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

^_

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

0 2 4 8

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Camp Minden

LSU FETI

AECOM 2-5
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

AOI 1 

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

LSU FETI

Offices

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

21 2

210

198

210

206

196

200

212

206

2 04

192

192

206

210

210

212

210

214

206

214

204

210

194

206

210

208

210

214

212

208

198

198

204

210

210

212

212

212

212

202

210

208

208

210

194

210

212

196

206

210

198

200

212

202

212

210

208

210

210

202

202

202

198

20 0

214

204 212

194

202

206

196

200

198

208

210

202

210

200

216

204

198

210

200

200

210

198

204

204

208

212

204

208

210

204

208

202

210

200

210

212

206

204

210

208

202

210

210

202

204

200

214

206

200

208 212

206 208

202

212

214

206

212

210

210

212

210

214

208

208

208

210

210

2 10

212

204

208

212

2 16

208

2

2

12

12

212

212

210

208

214

210

210

212

210

210

210

212

212

206

208

208

212

212

212

212

214

214

210

212

208

210

210

214

210 212

206 212 212

208

212

206

208

210

210

206

212

210

210

212

210

212

212

208

210

208

210

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure 2-2

Site Topography ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

8/22/2019

8/22/2019

8/22/2019

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2019

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-2_Minden_Topography.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Topographic Contour (2ft contour interval)

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Contourdata distributed by 

"Atlas: The Louisiana Statewide GIS." LSU 

CADGIS Research Laboratory, 

Baton Rouge, LA, 2006. http://atlas.lsu.edu

AECOM 2-7
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 2-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Cooley Branch

Watershed

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Doyline-Lake Bistineau

State Park Watershed

Upper Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Minden-Bayou

Dorcheat Watershed

Foxskin Bayou

Watershed

Boone Creek

Watershed

Brushy Creek

Watershed

Lake Bistineau

Watershed

LSU FETI

r B u

Cyhs

eer k

Foxski nBayou

Mil e

Creek

Boone Creek

Coo el y Bran c h P a mr er Cs re ke

Clarke Bay ou

Ca ne y Branch

Brush Cy reek

Pgi eo n Roost Bayou

Prair ei Bayou

Mi el C

k eer

Caney

Branch

Lake

Bistineau

Lake

Bistineau

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

Canal/Ditch

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow

Direction

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

Surface Water Features

Figure 2-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

11/7/2019 MS

SS

11/7/2019

11/7/2019

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_2-3_Minden_Surface_Water_Features.mxd

PM RG 11/7/2019 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,

USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

1:110,880 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Unnamed Ditch

Dorcheat

Clarke Bayou

Bayou

Boone Creek

AECOM 2-9
!P

!C(

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P !P

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!5

!C(

A!

!P

!C(

!5 !5

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P!P

!P!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P !P!P

!P!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!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!

!P

!5

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P!P

!P

!P

A!

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

A!

!P

!P!P

!P!P!P!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P A!

!P!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P A!

!P

!P

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A! A!A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!P

A!

A!

!5

!5

!P !P

!P !P!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

A!

!P

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!AA!!

A!

!P

!P

!C(

A!

A! A!

!C(

!5

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P!P

!P

!5

!5

!C(

A!

!C(

!C( !C( !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!C(

!5

AAA!!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!5

A!

!P

!P

!5

!P

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

!P

!5

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!!!

!5

!5

!5

!P

!C(

A!

!C(

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!C(

!5

!C(

!5

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

A!A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!P

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!5

A!

A!

!P

!5

!5

!P

A!

!5

!5

!5

!P

!5

A!

!P

!P !P

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P !P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(

A!A!

!P

A!

!P

!5

!P

A! A!

A!

!5

!5

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

A! A!

A!

!5

A!C(!

!5

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!C(

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!5

!5

!P

!5

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

A!!AA!!!

!P

!P

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!AA!

A!!

A!

!5

!P

!P

!5

!P !5

!5

A!

!5

!5

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!5 !5

!5

!P

AA!!A!

!P

!5

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

!5

!P

!P

!P

!5

!5

A!

!

A!!

AA!!

!5

!P

A!A!A!A! !P

A! A!

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

A!

!C(

!P

!5

!P

!P

A!

A!

AAA!!!!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

AA!AA!!!A!!

A!

!5

!P

A!

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

A!

!P

!P

AA!!

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P !5

!5

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

!5

!5

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!5

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!5

!P

!P

A!

A!

A! A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!P

A! !C(

!P

!P

!5

!P

!5

!P!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AAA!A!!!!!

A!

!C(!C(

A!!

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

AA!!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!!!

A!

A!

AA!

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!

A!

A!

A! A! A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

!5

A! !P

!P

A!A!

!P

A!A! A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!!

A!

A!

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5!5!5

!5

!5!5

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

A!!

!P

A!!

!5

AA!!!

A!

A!

AA!!!

AA!!

!5

A!

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!

AAA!!!

!P

A!

A!

AA!!

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C( !C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Brus h yCreek

M il e Creek

P arme rsCreek

Bo one Cr eek

Coo ley Branch

C

al rke Bayo u

Ca n ey Branch

Brushy C ree k

Prair ei Bayou

M ile C re ek

Can ey

Branch

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

Canal/Ditch

River/Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Alluvium

Prairie Terraces

Intermediate Terraces

High Terraces

Cook Mountain Formation

Sparta Formation

Cane River Formation

Wilcox Group

Wells

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

!C( Public Supply

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring

A! Other/Unknown

0 1 2 4

Miles

Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

7/1/2020 SK

SS

7/1/2020

7/1/2020

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Investigation for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

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

PM RG 7/1/2020 Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

1:95,040 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Unnamed Ditch

Lake 

Bistineau

Dorcheat

Bayou

Clarke Bayou

Boone Creek

2-10
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

This section describes the findings of the PA and a description of the potential PFAS release area

identified. One AOI was identified at CMTS (AOI 1).

3.1 AOI 1 - Louisiana State University Fire and Emergency Training

Institute

LSU FETI is a fire training area (FTA) that began operations in 2007 (Figure 3-1). Although fire

training occurs at LSU FETI, emergency responses at CMTS are provided by the Bossier Parish

Fire Department which maintains its own training facility several miles west of CMTS. AOI 1-LSU

FETI is located on the southwest portion of CMTS, within the security-controlled perimeter fence.

LSU FETI occupies one of several large inert storage warehouses (built between 1941 and 1950)

that are located in this area of CMTS. The geographic coordinates are 32°32'18.31"N;

93°26'13.14"W.

The FTA includes a mock petroleum fuel aboveground storage tank (AST) “farm” situated within

an approximate 850 square feet bermed concrete containment area located in an approximate

19-acre clearing. A 0.9-acre surface water impoundment is adjacent to the FTA. LSU FETI offices

and warehouse space are located approximately 0.5 mile west of the training area.

Since 2007, propane is used to simulate fuel fires inside the bermed mock AST farm for the

purpose of industrial brigade training performed approximately 3 to 4 times per year. Currently

such training uses Micro Blaze Out®, a firefighting concentrate, procured from Verde

Environmental. The chemical composition reported on the Micro Blaze Out® excludes PFAS. Prior

to 2013, a different material, Fomtec, was used for training. All current Fomtec formulations are

described as containing fluoroproteins or fluorocarbons with some fluorine free formulations

available that are referred to as 3F. Earlier formulations of Fomtec cannot be confirmed. Fomtec

is manufactured by Dafo Fomtec AB, a privately-owned Swedish company. For training exercises

conducted at the mock AST farm, the firefighting concentrate is diluted in water at a one percent

(1%) concentration.

Fluids generated during training are contained within a concrete-lined bermed area. The bermed

area drains to the nearby surface impoundment through conveyance piping and open ditch, with

the inlet on the northeast side of the impoundment. Construction details for the impoundment and

ditch were not available; therefore, these features are presumed to be unlined. An underground

culvert conveys impoundment overflow north, beneath the roadway to a drainage ditch. During

heavy rain/flooding there is potential for surface water to breach these ditches and the

impoundment and flow in other directions locally. Surface water throughout this portion of CMTS

eventually drains west to Caney Branch, which flows south then east, then discharges to Lake

Bistineau.

Water supplied by the CMTS water supply well network is used for all other training conducted at

the LSU FETI.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

AOI 1 

Unnamed Ditch

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

LSU FETI

Offices

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure 3-1

Area of Interest ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

8/21/2019

8/21/2019

8/21/2019

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/21/2019

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_3-1_Minden_AOI.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

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 SI 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

[under control and jurisdiction of the ARNG] 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 US Department of the Army (DA) policy documents formed 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. Installations shall coordinate with

installation/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 that 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 HAs” (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.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 4-2

3) Determine the potential need for a removal action.

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

of an RI.

5) Identify, within 4 miles of the installation, 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 installation 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 Camp Minden Training Site, LA (AECOM, 2019a)

· Groundwater, soil, surface water and sediment sample data collected in accordance with

the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2019c)

· Field data including groundwater and surface water quality parameters measured at the

time of sampling.

4.4 Study Boundaries

The SI sampling approach was bounded by the property limits of CMTS, specifically, to the south

by the CMTS boundary along Highway 164 and to the west near Caney Branch. Off-facility

sampling was not included in the scope of this SI.

4.5 Analytical Approach

All samples were analyzed by Gulf Coast Analytical Laboratories, LLC (GCAL), accredited under

the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) (Accreditation Number 74960)

and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) (Certificate Number

01955). Data were compared to SLs (discussed further in Section 6) and decision rules as defined

in the QAPP Addendum. Decision rules were developed and 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 identified actionbased answers to the following questions:

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 area?

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

and downgradient of the potential release area?

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

receptor?
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 4-3

Soil/Sediment:

· What is the concentration of PFAS constituents in shallow surface soil or sediment (0 to

2 feet bgs)?

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

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

The resulting decision rules (described in QAPP Addendum Tables WS11-1 and WS11-2) are

summarized as follows:

1. IF PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS concentrations are not detected in media, THEN no further

action is required during the SI Phase.

2. IF PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS are detected in media, THEN the CSM will be revised

accordingly, and the State of Louisiana may consider the need for further investigation or

follow-up action.

As specified in the QAPP Addendum, soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples

were collected at, and downgradient of, the potential PFAS release area to evaluate the Site in

accordance with these decision rules.

4.6 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA) 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 installation-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, 2017).

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 (DVR) (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, and

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

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

measure relative responses of target analytes and were 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.

Several field samples displayed EIS area counts less than the lower Quality Control (QC) limit of

50%. The positive field sample result associated with EIS area counts less than the QC limit, but

greater than 20% was qualified “J+”, while non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The qualified results

should be considered usable as estimated values with a positive bias. The field sample results
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 4-4

associated with area counts less than 20% were non-detect and were qualified “X”. 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 “UJ”. 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. All calibration verifications were within the

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

Laboratory control spike/laboratory control spike duplicate (LCS/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, 2019c).

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/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 samples were within the project established precision limits

presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c).

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 pair performed on parent sample

CMTS-GW-4 displayed an RPD greater than the upper QC limit for PFBA, at 180%. The

associated parent sample result and field duplicate result were positive and were qualified “J”.

This anomaly is considered minor and the qualified field sample results should be considered

usable as estimated values.

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. The LCS/LCSD pairs prepared in batches 662442

and 663009 displayed percent recoveries less than the lower QC limit of 70% for NEtFOSAA and

PFBA. The positive associated field sample results were qualified “J-“, while non-detects were

qualified “UJ”. The qualified field sample results should be considered usable as estimated values

with a negative 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 a limited

number of exceptions. Several MS/MSD pairs displayed percent recoveries outside the QC limits.

The positive parent sample results associated with the positive biases were qualified “J+”. The

qualified field sample results should be considered usable as estimated values with a positive

bias. The parent sample result associated with the percent recovery less than 30% was positive

and was qualified “J-”. The positive parent sample results associated with the remaining negative

biases were qualified “J-”, while non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The qualified field sample results
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 4-5

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

result associated with the combination of high and low percent recoveries was qualified “J”. The

qualified field sample result should be considered usable as an estimated value with an

indeterminate bias.

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.

Several field samples were re-extracted outside the holding time requirement of 14 days due to

internal standard failures in the initial extraction with similar results. The positive associated field

sample results were qualified “J”, while non-detects were qualified “UJ”. The qualified field sample

results should be considered usable as estimated values. For all samples with re-extracted

results, the data reviewer recommended one usable result from either the initial or re-extracted

analysis based on professional judgement of data quality.

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

established in PFAS by LC/MS/MS Compliant with Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1

Table B-15, including the specific preparation requirements (i.e. ENVI-Carb or equivalent used),

mass calibration, spectra. Furthermore, all the ion transitions identified in Table B-15 were

monitored, standards that contained both branched 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, with the exception of the

re-extracted field samples previously discussed. The laboratory used approved standard methods

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

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

control. Several PFAS instrument blanks and method blanks displayed detections greater than

the detection limit for multiple target analytes. In total, 192 field sample results were qualified “U”

during data validation due to associated detections in instrument and/or method blanks. The

reported field sample result values were adjusted to be equal to the limit of detection (LOD); the 

LOD was elevated to the concentration of the blank detection in instances where the blank

concentration was greater than the LOD. The results are usable as qualified but should be

considered false positives and treated as non-detect.

Field blanks were also collected for groundwater and soil samples. Several equipment blanks

displayed detections greater than the detection limit. In total, 20 field sample results were qualified

“U” during data validation due to associated field blank detections. The reported field sample

result values were adjusted to be equal to the LOD, and the LOD was elevated to the

concentration of the blank detections. The results are usable as qualified but should be considered

as false positives and treated as non-detect.

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, WW4, displayed non-detect results for all target

analytes. Based on the sample results, the potable water source was deemed acceptable for use

during the investigation for decontamination of drilling equipment and during well installation.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 4-6

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

usable data were obtained to meet the objectives of the SI and risk screening.

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

parameter is as follows:

· PFAS in groundwater by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%

· PFAS in soil by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%

· PFAS in surface water by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%

· PFAS in sediment LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 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. Examples

of QC measures for determining sensitivity include laboratory fortified blanks, a method detection

limit (MDL) study, and calibration standards at the limit of quantitation (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, 2019c). 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, 2019c), 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

Camp Minden Training Site

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 was

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents.

· Final Preliminary Assessment Report Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana dated

February 2019 (AECOM, 2019a)

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

Plan dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a)

· Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan

Addendum Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana dated June 2019 (AECOM, 2019c)

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

· Final Site Safety and Health Plan Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana dated June

2019 (AECOM, 2019b)

SI field activities were conducted from 18 to 21 June 2019 and consisted of grab soil, groundwater,

surface water, and sediment sampling. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c), except as noted in Section 5.7.

The following summarizes the rationale and samples collected and analyzed for a subset of 18

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

· 18 grab soil samples and 6 grab groundwater samples collected from 6

borings/temporary monitoring wells located in the vicinity of the mock AST farm,

as well as areas presumed upgradient and downgradient, with one at the

installation boundary;

· 6 sediment samples at locations where drainage from the FTA is conveyed (FTA

drainage ditches, surface impoundment inflow and outflow, and Caney Branch

where it exits the southern installation boundary); and,

· 3 surface water samples paired with sediment locations noted above where surface

water was available for sampling.

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

samples collected for each media, including blanks. Daily reports were completed throughout field

activities, which are provided in Appendix B. Additionally, a photographic log of field activities is

provided in Appendix C.

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 decontaminated source

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The USACE TPP Process, EM 200-1-1 (USACE, 2016) defines four phases to project planning:

1.) defining the project phase; 2.) determining the data needs; 3.) developing data collection 

strategies; and 4.) finalizing the data collection plan. The TPP 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.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-2

TPP meetings 1 and 2 were held on 14 March 2019, prior to field activities. Meeting minutes are

provided in Appendix D. TPP meetings 1 and 2 were conducted in general accordance with

Engineers Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (USACE, 2016).

The stakeholders for this SI include ARNG G9, USACE, CMTS, LAARNG, USEPA, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Louisiana Department of Health (LDH), LSU FETI,

and the community. Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments on the

technical sampling approach and methods. 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, findings, and future actions, where warranted.

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

Utility clearance was conducted by LAARNG with input from the AECOM field team. AECOM

contacted “Louisiana 811”, the local-one-call utility location system. AECOM also contacted the

ARNG Environmental Manager and LSU FETI Facility Manager five business days prior to the

start of SI field activities.

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

A sample from a local potable water source at CMTS was collected on 23 May 2019, prior to field

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

results of the potable well sample are provided in Appendix H. As presented in Section 4.6.3,

potable well sample results were non-detect for all target analytes.

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

the PFAS sampling environment and to decontaminate drilling equipment. The checklist of

acceptable materials for use in the PFAS sampling environment is provided in the Programmatic

Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)- QAPP (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 (PQAPP Appendix C, Table 2). 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, 2019c). A GeoProbe® 7720DT dual-tube sampling system was used to

collect continuous soil cores. Three discrete soil samples were collected for chemical analysis

from each soil boring using DPT: one surface soil sample (0.5-1 foot depth), one subsurface soil

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

mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table.

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

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

the breathing zone during boring activities. Observations and measurements were recorded in a

non-treated field logbook. Photographs were also taken of the boring cores. Depth interval,

recovery thickness, PID concentrations, moisture, relative density, color, and texture were

recorded along with any other observations.

Each sample was collected using laboratory-supplied bottleware and submitted to the laboratory

for analysis of selected parameters. All samples were analyzed for PFAS via LC/MS/MS

compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15, pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and TOC (USEPA Method

9060A). All sample containers were provided by the laboratory and PFAS-free. Samples were

packaged on ice and transported daily via overnight commercial carrier under standard chain of
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-3

custody (CoC) procedures to the laboratory in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM,

2019c).

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters

as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicates were collected at the rate

of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. Field Reagent

Blanks accompanied each cooler containing samples for PFAS analysis and were analyzed for

select PFAS. No equipment blanks were prepared or analyzed. A temperature blank was placed

in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 4 degrees Celsius (oC) during

shipment.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7720DT dual-tube sampling system. Once the

borehole was advanced to the desired depth, the temporary well was constructed of a 5-foot

section of 1-inch diameter Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) screen with sufficient casing to

reach ground surface. New PVC pipe was used for each sampling location to avoid crosscontamination. The well depths and screen intervals of each temporary well is provided in

Table 5-2.

The temporary wells were allowed to recharge after installation. The wells were purged at a rate

determined by the estimated recharge rate into the well to reduce turbidity in the groundwater

prior to sampling. Groundwater samples were collected in accordance with low-flow sampling

protocols using a peristaltic pump with tubing that was determined to be PFAS-free. When

possible, water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved

oxygen, oxidation–reduction potential) were measured and recorded in the field notes after the

grab sample was collected in accordance with QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c). However,

wells SB-TW-1, SB-TW-2, SB-TW-3, SB-TW-4, and SB-TW-6 had insufficient volumes of water

to collect field water quality parameter readings. Consequently, groundwater was collected

directly from the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing.

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free bottleware and submitted to the

laboratory for analysis of PFAS via LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15. All sample

containers were PFAS-free. Samples were packaged on ice and transported daily via overnight

commercial carrier under standard CoC procedures to the laboratory. Any non-dedicated

sampling materials were decontaminated between boring locations.

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters

as the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs samples were collected at the rate of 5% and analyzed

for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. Field Reagent Blanks accompanied each

cooler containing samples for PFAS analysis and were analyzed for select PFAS 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 oC during shipment.

Temporary wells were abandoned in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c) by

removing the PVC pipe and backfilling the hole with bentonite chips. All temporary wells were

installed in grassy areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt.

5.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling

Three surface water and six sediment samples were collected from locations at LSU FETI and

Caney Branch at the downstream CMTS boundary. Surface water and sediment sampling was

initiated at the CMTS boundary and then proceeded toward the impoundment. At three locations,
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-4

surface water and sediment samples were co-located. At these locations, the surface water

samples were collected prior to the sediment.

Surface water grab samples were collected from a single point in the waterbody using a dip

sampler at a depth of approximately two-thirds from the bottom. Sampling was performed

deliberately and methodically to minimize the disturbance of the bottom sediments and as quickly

as possible to ensure a representative sample was collected. The surface water samples were

transferred to appropriate sampling containers. A sediment coring device was used to collect the

sediment sample from the first foot of sediment. The sediment was then transferred to a stainlesssteel bowl, where stones larger than 1 centimeter in diameter were removed.

General water quality parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and

oxidation reduction potential) were collected at each surface water sampling location with a water

quality meter (Appendix E). The surface water dipper, sediment coring device, and water quality

probe were ensured to be PFAS-free.

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 the rate of 5% and analyzed for the

same parameters as the accompanying samples. Field Reagent Blanks accompanied each cooler

containing samples for PFAS analysis and were analyzed for select PFAS. A temperature blank

was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 4 oC during

shipment.

All surface water and sediment samples were collected into laboratory-supplied bottleware and

submitted to the laboratory for analysis of PFAS via LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1

Table B-15. The sediment samples were also analyzed for pH (USEPA Method 9045D) and TOC

(USEPA Method 9060A). All sample containers were PFAS-free. Samples were packaged on ice

and transported daily via overnight commercial carrier under standard CoC procedures to the

laboratory

5.5 Investigation Derived Waste

Currently, the disposal of PFAS investigation derived waste (IDW) is not regulated. PFAS IDW is

considered a non-hazardous waste and was managed in accordance with the QAPP Addendum

(AECOM, 2019c).

Non-hazardous solid and liquid IDW generated during SI activities were containerized in properlylabeled 55-gallon drums and stored at LSU FETI until sample results were received. Solid (soil

and sediment) and liquid (groundwater and surface water) PFOA and PFOS concentrations were

below the 23 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (solid) and 0.07 micrograms per liter (liquid)

thresholds, as described in Worksheet 17e of the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c). Therefore,

the solid and liquid IDW was distributed on the ground surface at the Site. AECOM collected

global positioning points at the location where the solid and liquid IDW was placed. The IDW

polygon is displayed in Appendix G.

Other solids, such as spent personal protective equipment, plastic sheeting, tubing, rope, unused

monitor well construction materials, and other environmental media generated during the field

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.6 Laboratory Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1

Table B-15 at GCAL in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP certified laboratory.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-5

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)

· Perfluorobutyrate (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 and sediment samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A, and pH by

USEPA Method 9045D.

5.7 Deviations from QAPP Addendum

Deviations from the QAPP Addendum occurred based on field conditions and are noted below:

· Five of the six wells had insufficient water volumes and, therefore, water quality

parameters were not measured and recorded. Additionally, groundwater samples

were collected directly from the HDPE tubing.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

"J

"J "J

"J

"J

"J

Highway 164

AOI 1 

Caney Branch

Cl ark e

Bayo u

Unnamed Ditch

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Doyline-Lake Bistineau

State Park Watershed

Boone Creek

Watershed

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3 SB_TW5 SB_TW4

SB_TW6

SD6

SW_SD3 SD4

SW_SD2

SW_SD1

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Figure 5-1

Sample Locations ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

8/21/2019

8/21/2019

8/21/2019

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/21/2019

1:12,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_5-1_Minden_SI_Sample_Locations.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

!? Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

"J Surface Water/Sediment

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

"J

"J

"J

"J

"J

Surface Water

Impoundment

AOI 1

Unnamed Ditch

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SD6

SW_SD3

SD4

SW_SD2

SD5

AECOM 5-7
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS (USEPA Method 537 Modified)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

CMTS-SB-1 (0-2) 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-1 (10-12) 6/19/2019 10 - 12 x x x

CMTS-SB-1 (18-19) 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x

CMTS-SB-2 (0-2) 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-2 (10-12) 6/19/2019 10 - 12 x x x

CMTS-SB-2 (18-19) 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x

CMTS-SB-3 (0-2) 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-3 (0-2) MS 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x MS/MSD

CMTS-SB-3 (0-2) MSD 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x MS/MSD

CMTS-SB-3 (10-12) 6/19/2019 10 - 12 x x x

CMTS-SB-3 (18-19) 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x

CMTS-SB-3 (18-19) DUP 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x Field Duplicate

CMTS-SB-4 (0-2) 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-4 (10-12) 6/19/2019 10 - 12 x x x

CMTS-SB-4 (18-19) 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x

CMTS-SB-4 (18-19) DUP 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x Field Duplicate

CMTS-SB-5 (0-2) 6/19/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-5 (10-12) 6/19/2019 10 - 12 x x x

CMTS-SB-5 (18-19) 6/19/2019 18 - 19 x x x

CMTS-SB-6 (0-2) 6/20/2019 0 - 2 x x x

CMTS-SB-6 (7-9) 6/20/2019 7 - 9 x x x

CMTS-SB-6 (12-13) 6/20/2019 12 - 13 x x x

CMTS-IDW-SOIL 6/20/2019 x

CMTS-GW-1 6/20/2019 20.5 x

CMTS-GW-1 MS 6/20/2019 22.5 x MS/MSD

CMTS-GW-1 MSD 6/20/2019 22.5 x MS/MSD

CMTS-GW-2 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-GW-3 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-GW-4 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-GW-4 DUP 6/20/2019 22.5 x Field Duplicate

CMTS-GW-5 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-GW-6 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-IDW-Down Water 6/20/2019 22.5 x

CMTS-SW-1 6/20/2019 0 - 1 x

CMTS-SW-1 MS 6/20/2019 0 - 1 x MS/MSD

CMTS-SW-1 MSD 6/20/2019 0 - 1 x MS/MSD

CMTS-SW-2 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

CMTS-SW-2 DUP 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x Field Duplicate

CMTS-SW-3 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x

Groundwater Samples

Soil Samples

Surface Water Samples

AECOM 5-9
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS (USEPA Method 537 Modified)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

CMTS-SD-1 6/20/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-2 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-3 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-4 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-4 DUP 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x Field Duplicate

CMTS-SD-5 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-5 MS 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x MS/MSD

CMTS-SD-6 6/18/2019 0 - 1 x x x

CMTS-SD-1 FB 6/20/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-SB-4 FB 6/19/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-SB-6 FB 6/20/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-SD-6 FB 6/18/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-SW-1 FB 6/20/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-GW-2 FB 6/20/2019 --- x Field Blank

CMTS-SW-3 FB 6/18/2019 --- x Field Blank

Notes:

ft = feet

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

pH = potential for hydrogen

TOC =total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Field Blanks

Surface Sediment Samples

AECOM 5-10
Table 5-2

Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

SB_TW 1 23 18 - 23

SB_TW 2 25 20 - 25

SB_TW 3 25 20 - 25

SB_TW 4 25 20 - 25

SB_TW 5 25 20 - 25

SB_TW 6 25 20 - 25

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface

* = sample collected using SP16 sampling tool

AOI 1

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results

This section presents the analytical results of the SI for AOI 1. The SLs used in this evaluation

are presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results is provided in Section 6.3. 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, sites [under control and jurisdiction of the

ARNG] would 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 Site.

Table 6-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Industrial/ Commercial

Composite Worker (Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 1,600 40

PFOS 1,600 40

PFBS 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.

b.) If only one PFAS is present, a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1 applies and the values presented would

increase by a factor of x10.

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 may 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 pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions, and are, therefore, relatively

mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but 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 levels of organic carbon are present, organic carbon normalized distribution

coefficients (Koc values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

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, groundwater, surface water, and sediment in

comparison to SLs (if applicable) for AOI 1. The detected compounds are presented in Table 6-2

through Table 6-6. Figures 6-1 through 6-5 present detections for PFOS and PFOA in soil,

groundwater, surface water, and sediment.

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Soil samples were collected from three intervals at each of six boring locations. Samples CMTSSB-1 through CMTS-SB-5 were each sampled from the shallow soil interval (0 to 2 feet bgs), the

intermediate interval (10 to 12 feet bgs), and the deep interval (17 to 19 feet bgs). CMTS-SB-6

was sampled from the shallow interval (0 to 2 feet bgs), intermediate interval (7 to 9 feet bgs),

and deep interval (12-13 feet bgs). PFOA was detected in one intermediate soil sample at CMTSSB-1, which was initially presumed to be upgradient from the FTA. The PFOA concentration

detected was 0.22 J micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), which is several orders of magnitude lower

than the SL. PFOS and PFBS were not detected in any soil samples. Consequently, PFOA,

PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil at AOI 1. Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 present

detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. The detected compounds in soil are summarized on

Table 6-2 and Table 6-3.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

Groundwater was sampled in all six temporary wells. As shown on Figure 6-3, PFOA and PFOS

were not detected in any groundwater samples. PFBS also was not detected in any of the

samples. Therefore, no SLs were exceeded. The detected compounds from the SI are

summarized in Table 6-4.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Sediment Analytical Results

Sediment was sampled from six locations at AOI 1. PFOA was detected in six out of seven

samples (including a duplicate), with concentrations ranging from non-detect to 4.96 μg/kg. The

only sample with no detected PFOA was near the facility boundary in CMTS-SD-1. PFOS was

detected in four of the seven samples, ranging in concentrations from non-detect to 0.363 J μg/kg.

The highest concentrations of PFOA and PFOS were detected in CMTS-SD-4 where the two FTA

drainage ditches converge. PFBS was not detected in any of the samples. The detected

compounds from the SI are summarized in Table 6-5. Figure 6-4 presents the PFOA and PFOS

detections in sediment.

6.3.4 AOI 1 Surface Water Analytical Results

Surface water was sampled from three locations at AOI 1. PFOA was detected in three of the four

samples collected (including a duplicate), with concentrations ranging from 9.55 to 10.5 ng/L. The

highest concentration was detected in CMTS-SW-3, where FTA drainage water enters the

impoundment. The furthest downgradient surface water sample at Caney Branch (CMTS-SW-1)

did not have detected PFOA. PFOS or PFBS in any of the samples. The detected compounds

from the SI are summarized in Table 6-6. Figure 6-5 presents the detections of PFOA and PFOS

in surface water.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 6-3

6.3.5 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil or

groundwater. Only PFOA was detected in one soil sample at a concentration several orders of

magnitude below the SL. PFOS and PFBS were not detected in any soil sample. PFOA, PFOS,

and PFBS were not detected in any groundwater samples. There are no established SLs for

surface water or sediment; therefore, these data are presented for informational purposes only.

Based on knowledge of Site use and sources of PFAS, it is believed that the LSU FETI FTA

represents the source of PFAS in the area.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte

OSD Screening Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result 

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (μg/Kg)6:2 FTS - 0.038 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 8:2 FTS - ND UJ ND 0.019 J ND ND ND 0.015 J 0.018 

NEtFOSAA - ND UJ 0.00684 J ND ND ND ND ND ND NMeFOSAA - ND UJ ND ND 0.025 J ND ND ND ND 

PFBA - ND 0.058 J ND ND ND 0.068 J ND ND 

PFDoA - ND UJ ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.046 

PFHpA - ND UJ ND 0.011 J ND ND ND 0.010 J 0.011 

PFHxA - ND 0.046 J ND ND ND 0.053 J ND ND 

PFHxS - 0.016 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PFNA - ND UJ ND 0.00729 J ND 0.00819 J ND 0.016 J ND 

PFOA 1600 ND 0.022 J ND ND ND ND ND ND 

PFTrDA - ND UJ ND 0.016 J 0.017 J ND ND ND 0.051 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 8:2 FTS NEtFOSAA 

References NMeFOSAA 

PFBA PFDoA PFHpA PFHxA PFHxS PFNA PFOA 

Interpreted Qualifiers PFTrDA J = Estimated concentrationUJ = 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 Abbreviat

AOIDUPftHQLCMSMSLODNDOSDQSMQualSBUSEPAμg/Kg- 

10 

06/1

CMTS-S

AOI1

CMTS-SB-1 (0-2) CMTS-SB-1 (10-12) CMTS-SB-2 (0-2) CMTS-SB-2 (10-12) CMTS-SB-3 (0-2) CMTS-SB-3 (10-12) CMTS-SB-4 (0-2) 

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.

06/19/2019

0 - 2 ft 10 - 12 ft 0 - 2 ft 10 - 12 ft 0 - 2 ft 10 - 12 ft 0 - 2 ft

06/19/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019

AECOM 
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface and Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte

OSD Screening Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (μg/Kg)6:2 FTS - ND ND ND8:2 FTS - 0.018 J 0.013 J 0.011 JNEtFOSAA - ND ND NDNMeFOSAA - ND ND NDPFBA - ND ND NDPFDoA - ND 0.010 J ND

PFHpA - 0.010 J ND NDPFHxA - ND ND NDPFHxS - ND ND NDPFNA - ND 0.051 J NDPFOA 1600 ND ND NDPFTrDA - ND ND 0.012 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviatio

6:2 FTS 8:2 FTS NEtFOSAA 

References NMeFOSAA 

PFBA PFDoA PFHpA PFHxA PFHxS PFNA PFOA 

Interpreted Qualifiers PFTrDA J = Estimated concentrationUJ = 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 Abbre

AOIDUPft

HQLCMSMS

LODND

OSDQSMQualSBUSEPAμg/Kg- 

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.

AOI1

0 - 2 ft 7 - 9 ft 12 - 13 ft

06/20/2019 06/20/2019 06/20/2019

CMTS-SB-6 (0-2) CMTS-SB-6 (7-9) CMTS-SB-6 (12-13)

AECOM 
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Deep Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS 0.00879 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

8:2 FTS ND 0.018 J 0.018 J 0.019 J ND 0.014 J ND

NEtFOSAA ND 0.011 J ND ND ND ND NDPFBA 0.053 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFDoA 0.00653 J ND ND 0.042 J ND ND NDPFNA ND ND 0.029 J 0.00886 J ND ND ND

PFTrDA ND 0.016 J ND 0.045 J 0.00776 J ND NDPFUnDA 0.011 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical AbbreviJ = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTS 

8:2 FTS NEtFOSAA PFBA PFDoA PFNA PFTrDA PFUnDA Acronyms and Ab

AOIDUPftLCMSMSLODNDQualQSMSBμg/Kg

AOI1

CMTS-SB-5 (18-19)

06/19/2019

18 - 19 ft

CMTS-SB-4 (18-19) CMTS-SB-4 (18-19) DUP

06/19/2019 06/19/2019

18 - 19 ft 18 - 19 ft

CMTS-SB-1 (18-19) CMTS-SB-2 (18-19) CMTS-SB-3 (18-19) CMTS-SB-3 (18-19) DUP

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (μg/Kg)

18 - 19 ft 18 - 19 ft 18 - 19 ft

06/19/2019 06/19/2019

18 - 19 ft

06/19/2019 06/19/2019

AECOM 
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qua

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)6:2 FTS - ND ND 5.45 J ND ND ND ND 1.56 JPFBA - 6.49 J ND 16.7 51.1 2.56 J ND ND UJ 7.12 J

PFHpA - 3.18 J ND 4.40 J 3.05 J 1.91 J ND ND 2.47 J

PFHxA - 2.51 J ND 3.23 J ND ND ND ND ND

PFPeA - ND ND 4.95 J ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluoroPFBA perfluoroPFHpA perfluoro

References PFHxA

PFPeAAcronyms and AbbreviationsAOIDUPGWLCMSMSHQ

Interpreted Qualifiers LOD

J = Estimated concentration NDUJ = 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. OSD

QSMQualUSEPAng/L- 

perfluoro

perfluoro

Area of I

Duplicate

GroundwLiquid ChHazard q

Limit of D

Analyte n

Office of Quality S

InterpreteUnited Snanogram 

Not appli

CMTS-GW-4 CMTS-GW-6

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening LeveCalculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

CMTS-GW-3

06/20/2019

CMTS-GW-5

AOI1

06/20/2019 06/20/2019 06/20/2019

CMTS-GW-2 CMTS-GW-4 DUP WW4

06/20/2019 06/20/2019 05/23/2019 06/20/2019

CMTS-GW-1

AECOM 
Table 6-5

PFAS Detections in Sediment

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS 0.027 J 0.047 J 0.177 J 3.83 2.29 2.05 J- 1.568:2 FTS 0.014 J 0.037 J 0.035 J 0.353 J 0.514 J 1.02 J- 0.323 JNMeFOSAA 0.036 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA 0.065 J 0.141 J 0.073 J 0.852 J 0.286 J 0.441 J 1.67PFDA ND ND ND 1.65 1.76 1.53 J+ 2.11

PFDoA ND 0.011 J 0.012 J 0.702 J 0.467 J 0.762 J- 0.315 JPFHpA ND 0.165 J 0.038 J 5.19 1.02 J 1.56 3.74

PFHxA ND ND ND 5.51 1.39 2.68 J- 4.67

PFHxS 0.00394 J ND ND 0.048 J 0.014 J 0.027 J 0.021 JPFNA ND 0.048 J 0.023 J 1.98 0.894 J 0.911 J+ 3.46PFOA ND 0.093 J 0.033 J 4.96 0.907 J 1.70 J+ 3.53PFOS ND ND ND 0.363 J 0.256 J 0.288 J 0.301 JPFPeA 0.030 J 0.351 J 0.151 J 5.75 1.41 3.12 7.96

PFTeDA ND ND 0.024 J 0.356 J 0.178 J 0.337 J 0.257 J

PFTrDA ND 0.021 J 0.039 J 0.865 J 0.234 J 0.301 J 0.269 JPFUnDA 0.00569 J ND ND 0.695 J 0.738 J 0.472 J 0.447 J

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical AbbreviationsJ = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTSJ- = Estimated concentration, biased low 8:2 FTSJ+ = Estimated concentration, biased high NMeFOSAA

PFBAPFDAPFDoAPFHpAPFHxAPFHxSPFNAPFOAPFOSPFPeAPFTeDAPFTrDAPFUnDAAcronyms and Abbreviations

AOIDUPftLCMSMSLODNDQSMQualSDμg/Kg

6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonateN-methyl perfluorooctanesuperfluorobutyrate perfluorodecanoateperfluorododecanoic acidperfluoroheptanoic acidperfluorohexanoic acidperfluorohexanesulfonic aciperfluorononanoic acidperfluorooctanoic acidperfluorooctane sulfonateperfluoropentanoic acidperfluorotetradecanoic acidperfluorotridecanoic acid

perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Area of Interest

DuplicatefeetLiquid Chromatography MasLimit of DetectionAnalyte not detected above 

Quality Systems Manual

Interpreted Qualifier

Sediment

micrograms per Kilogram

AOI1

CMTS-SD-6

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

CMTS-SD-4 DUP

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

CMTS-SD-5

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

CMTS-SD-3

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

CMTS-SD-4

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

CMTS-SD-1

06/20/2019

0 - 1 ft

CMTS-SD-2

06/18/2019

0 - 1 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-6

PFAS Detections in Surface Water

Site Inspection Report, Camp Minden Training Site

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)6:2 FTS ND 13.8 16.1 15.7

8:2 FTS ND ND 1.91 J 3.62 J

PFBA 5.52 J 18.5 16.5 17.5PFDA ND 3.91 J 3.62 J 3.80 J

PFHpA 2.54 J 21.8 20.2 19.9PFHxA 2.41 J 47.1 42.8 44.9PFOA ND 10.2 9.55 10.5PFPeA 4.47 J 72.2 75.4 66.6

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical AbbreviationsJ = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTS 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. 8:2 FTS 

PFBA PFDA PFHpA PFHxA PFOAPFPeAAcronyms and Abbreviatio

AOIDUPLCMSMSLODNDQSMQualSWng/L

AOI1

06/18/2019 06/18/2019

CMTS-SW-2 DUP CMTS-SW-3

06/20/2019 06/18/2019

CMTS-SW-1 CMTS-SW-2

AECOM 
Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

2/7/2020

2/7/2020

2/7/2020

MS

JH

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

2/7/2020

1:3,360

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-1_Minden_SI_PFOS_Soil_Results.mxd

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 0 140 280 560

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

AECOM 6-11
Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

2/7/2020

2/7/2020

2/7/2020

MS

JH

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

2/7/2020

1:3,360

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-2_Minden_SI_PFOA_Soil_Results.mxd

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 0 140 280 560

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

6-12
Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Unnamed Ditch

SB_TW1

SB_TW2

SB_TW3

SB_TW4

SB_TW5

SB_TW6

Figure 6-3

PFOA and PFOS Detections in Groundwater ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

7/22/2020

7/22/2020

7/22/2020

MS

JH

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

7/22/2020

1:3,360

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-3_Minden_SI_PFOA_PFOS_GW_Results.mxd

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 140 280 560

Feet

PFOA PFOS

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

6-13
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 6-14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Highway 164

Caney Branch

Unnamed Ditch

SD6

SW_SD3 SD4

SW_SD2

SW_SD1

SD5

Highway 164

Caney Branch

Unnamed Ditch

SD6

SW_SD3 SD4

SW_SD2

SW_SD1

SD5

PFOA

PFOS

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-4

PFOA and PFOS Detections 

in Surface Sediment 

7/28/2020

7/28/2020

MS 7/28/2020

JH

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

7/28/2020

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-4_Minden_SI_PFOA_PFOS_Sediment_Results.mxd

0 350 700 1,400

Feet

­ 1:8,400

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

> ND - 1,260

> 1,260 - 10,000

> 10,000

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

> ND - 1,260

> 1,260 - 10,000

> 10,000

6-15
Highway 164

Caney Branch

Unnamed Ditch

SW_SD3

SW_SD2

SW_SD1

Highway 164

Caney Branch

Unnamed Ditch

SW_SD3

SW_SD2

SW_SD1

PFOA

PFOS

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-5

PFOS and PFOA Detections 

in Surface Water

7/28/2020

7/28/2020

MS 7/28/2020

JH

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

7/28/2020

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\LA\Camp_Minden_PFAS_Figures\Minden_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-5_Minden_SI_PFOA_PFOS_SW_Results.mxd

0 350 700 1,400

Feet

­ 1:8,400

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

> ND - 100

> 100 - 1,000

> 1,000

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

> ND - 100

> 100 - 1,000

> 1,000

6-16
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSM for AOI 1, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on Figure 7-1. 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 figure uses an empty

circle to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 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 PFAS exposure pathways 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, 2001). Receptors at the Site

include site workers (e.g., LSU FETI staff), visitors, construction workers and trespassers.

Receptors outside the CMTS boundary include residents and recreational users. Potential source

areas were eliminated from further consideration in the CERCLA process if concentrations of

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were below the SLs in soil and groundwater.

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 the AOI based on the

aforementioned criteria.

7.1.1 AOI 1

Beginning in 2007, fire training activities have been performed three to four times a year at AOI-1.

From 2007 to around 2013, a firefighting concentrate called Fomtec was used. From 2013 to

present, Micro Blaze Out® was used and reportedly contains no PFAS. PFOA was detected in

one subsurface soil sample (CMTS-SB-1 from 10-12 feet bgs) at a concentration several orders

of magnitude below the SL, which was presumed to be upgradient of the source area. However,

PFOS and PFBS were not detected in any soil samples. Based on the results of the SI, grounddisturbing activities to subsurface soil could potentially result in future construction worker

exposure to PFOA via ingestion. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS exposure pathways for inhalation of

dust and ingestion of surface soil are considered incomplete for all evaluated receptors. The CSM

is presented on Figure 7-1.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 7-2

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 the AOI based

on the aforementioned criteria.

7.2.1 AOI 1

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in any groundwater samples. Consequently, the

groundwater exposure pathways via ingestion are incomplete for all receptors, including drinking

water receptors and other receptors via incidental ingestion (i.e., construction workers). The CSM

is presented on Figure 7-1.

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 the

AOI based on the aforementioned criteria.

7.3.1 AOI 1

Surface water primarily drains from the FTA to the surface water impoundment. The impoundment

drain system then conveys flow to the north, with the potential for flow in other directions locally

during heavy rain/flooding. Surface water in this portion of CMTS eventually drains west to Caney

Branch, which flows south, crosses the CMTS boundary, and continues south to Clarke Bayou

which then discharges to Lake Bistineau. Caney Branch, Clarke Bayou and Lake Bistineau are

used for recreation.

PFOS and PFOA were detected in sediment and PFOA was detected in surface water at the Site.

PFBS was not detected in sediment or surface water. Therefore, incidental ingestion exposure

pathway for surface water and sediment is considered potentially complete for receptors at the

Site (workers, construction workers, and trespassers and recreational users). No PFOA, PFOS,

or PFBS were detected in surface water or sediment at the CMTS boundary. Therefore, the

exposure pathway in surface water and sediment for offsite receptors (e.g., recreational users) is

incomplete. The CSM is presented on Figure 7-1.
Media

/

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

Louisiana

State

University

(LSU) Fire

Training

Area (FTA)

Training Activities

PFOA and/or

PFOS in

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Human

Activities

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User/Trespasser

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User/Trespasser

LEGEND

/ /

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 – LSU Fire Training Area

Camp Minden Training Site

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/

/ /

/

/ / /

/

/ /

/

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Notes:

1. Recreational users refer to off-site receptors.

2. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

/ /

/

/ /

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

7-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

7-4
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

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

SI field activities were conducted from 18 to 21 June 2019 and consisted of grab soil, groundwater,

surface water, and sediment sampling. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019c), except as noted in Section 5.7.

The following samples were collected and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM

5.1 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

· 18 grab soil samples from 6 boring locations;

· 6 grab groundwater samples from 6 temporary well locations;

· 3 grab surface water samples; and

· 6 grab sediment samples.

The information gathered during this investigation was used to determine if PFOA, PFOS, and/or

PFBS were present at or above the SLs. Additionally, the CSM was refined to assess whether a

complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors for exposure to PFOA,

PFOS, and PFBS at the AOI, which is 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 the SLs.

PFOS and PFBS were not detected in soil. PFOA was detected in soil at a concentration

several orders of magnitude below the SL. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in

groundwater. PFOA and PFOS were detected in sediment and PFOA was detected in

surface water. Consequently, all detected concentrations were below SLs (if applicable).

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.

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater. PFOS and PFBS were not

detected in soil and PFOA was detected in soil at a concentration below the SL. PFOA,

PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in any media (groundwater, soil, surface water or

sediment) at the CMTS boundary.

3) Determine the potential need for a removal action.

Based on the detection of PFOA and PFOS at the Site, the State of Louisiana may

consider the need for further investigation or follow-on action.

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

of a RI.

Geologic data, collected as a part of the SI, indicate the top 10 feet of soil have low

permeability and are dominated by clay that grades into silt and sand-dominated soil. This
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 8-2

data is consistent with deposits associated with the ancient Red River, which is

characteristic of the study area. Depth to water (at time of drilling) at CMTS ranges from

14 to 20 feet bgs. Groundwater on the west side of CMTS generally flows westward toward

Caney Branch

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

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

surface water receptors, to determine the likely source of PFAS or whether there is an offfacility source of PFAS responsible for Site detections of PFAS (USEPA, 2005).

With the exception of LSU FETI, no PFAS sources were identified during the SI within

CMTS or in the vicinity of CMTS.

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

and whether ARNG is the likely source of the contamination.

SI data indicate no complete exposure pathways exist for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in

groundwater and surface soil. The exposure pathway for PFOA in subsurface soil,

specifically for construction workers during ground disturbing activities, is potentially

complete. Exposure pathways for PFOA and PFOS in surface water and sediment for

receptors at the Site (workers, construction workers, trespassers and recreational users)

is potentially complete. Exposure pathways for PFOA and PFOS in surface water and

sediment for offsite receptors (recreational users) is incomplete. Other PFAS were

detected in all media (groundwater, soil, surface water and sediment) at the Site and

CMTS boundary. However, because SLs are not established for these other PFAS, such

data are included in this report for informational purposes only.

LSU FETI activities are not, and have never been, associated with the DoD or the ARNG;

therefore, PFAS detections identified during the SI are not attributed to the ARNG.

Based on the State of Louisiana owner-operator status of LSU FETI and detections of

other PFAS constituents in all media at the Site and CMTS boundary, the State may

consider the need for future investigation or follow-up action.

8.3 Outcome

Sample chemical analytical concentrations measured during this SI were compared against the

SLs for PFOA, PFOS and PFBS in soil and groundwater. The following summarizes the SI results:

· PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater and thus do not exceed

the SLs.

· PFOS and PFBS were not detected in soil. PFOA was detected in soil at a

concentration several orders of magnitude below the SL.

· PFOA and PFOS were detected in site sediment and PFOA was detected in site

surface water. PFBS was not detected in site surface water or sediment.

· PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not detected in any media at the CMTS boundary.

· Other PFAS, for which screening levels have not been established, were detected in

all media (soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment) at the source area and the

CMTS boundary.

· No off-site potential source areas have been identified during SI activities.

Tables 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Table 8-2 summarizes the

rationale used to determine if an AOI [under the control and jurisdiction of the ARNG] should be

considered for further action under CERCLA and undergo an RI. LSU FETI is not under the control
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 8-3

of ARNG. Based on the findings of this SI, the State of Louisiana may consider the need for future

investigation or follow-up action.

Table 8-1: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release

Area

Soil - Source

Area

Groundwater –

Source Area

Groundwater -

Near Boundary

1 LSU FETI

Legend:

 = exceedance of the screening levels

 = detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

 = not detected

Table 8-2: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1 LSU FETI

No detections of PFOA, PFOS and

PFBS in groundwater; no PFOS or 

PFBS detected in soil; PFOA 

detected in soil northeast of AOI 1

at a concentration several orders of

magnitude below the SL.

LSU FETI is not under the control of

the ARNG. Based on the State of

Louisiana owner-operator status of

LSU FETI and other PFAS detections

in media at the Site and CMTS

boundary, the State may consider the

need for future investigation or followup action.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 8-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 9-1

9. References

AECOM. 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-D0014/W912DR17F0192. 9 March 2018.

AECOM. 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. 2019a. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana,

Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192.

February 2019.

AECOM. 2019b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana,

Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. June

2019.

AECOM. 2019c. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan

Addendum, Camp Minden Training Site, Louisiana, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No.

W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. June 2019.

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2019. Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. 15 October 2019.

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.

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), p. 4164-71.

Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on

sediments: Environmental Science and Technology, 40 (23), p. 7251-7256.

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March 2018.

Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP). 2001. Installation Action Plan for Louisiana Army

Ammunition Plant. March 2001.

LAAP. 2004a. Finding of Suitability for Transfer for the Former Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant.

September 2004.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 9-2

LAAP. 2004b. Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer for the Former Louisiana Army Ammunition

Plant. December 2004.

Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG). 2019. Camp Minden Training Site Commander

statement during Test Area 7 Munitions Response Site Proposed Plan public meeting. 8 July.

Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2005. Follow-on Remedial Investigation for Soils and the Site-wide

Ground Water Operable Unit, prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen

Proving Ground, MD. September 2005.

United States Army (US Army). 2016. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate

(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Contamination.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM200-1-2. 26 February 2016.

URS. 2016. Final Five-Year Reviews Camp Minden: Fifth Five-Year Review OU-001, OU-002,

OU-004, OU-005 and OU-007; Third Five-Year Review OU-008; Second Five-Year Review

OU-009 and OU-010; First Five-Year Review OU-0011, prepared for U.S. Army National

Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August 2016.

URS. 2017. Data Summary Report, Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling, Camp Minden,

LA, prepared for U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 2017.

U.S. Climate Data. 2019. Minden, LA, https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/minden/louisiana,

accessed 20 August 2019.

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. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk

Assessments). December.

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. US USEPA

Document Number: 822-R-16-005. May 2016.

USEPA. 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Acid (PFOS). Office

of Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. US USEPA

Document Number: 822-R-16-004. May 2016.

USEPA. 2017. 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.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Endangered Species.

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/. Accessed 29 August 2019.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Minden Training Site

AECOM 9-3

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, p. 64-74.