FINAL

Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification

Repair Activity Depot

Springfield, Missouri

Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

(PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene 

oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS) at ARNG Installations, Nationwide

August 2023

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

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. Facility Background ......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Facility 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....................................................................................................2-3

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-4

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use......................................................................2-4

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

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

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

3.1 AOI 1: Hanger 27 ..................................................................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2: Fire Training Area 1....................................................................................3-1

3.3 AOI 3: Fire Training Area 2....................................................................................3-1

3.4 AOI 4: GSE Building..............................................................................................3-1

3.5 AOI 5: Fire Training Area 3....................................................................................3-2

3.6 Adjacent Sources ..................................................................................................3-2

3.6.1 Springfield-Branson National Airport............................................................3-2

3.6.2 Litton Systems Inc.......................................................................................3-2

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

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

4.2 Information Inputs .................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Study Boundaries..................................................................................................4-1

4.4 Analytical Approach...............................................................................................4-1

4.5 Data Usability Assessment....................................................................................4-1

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

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ..........................................................................5-2

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

5.1.3 Source Water and 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 Permanent Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling.......................................5-4

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

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

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

5.8 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-6

5.9 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum ....................................................................5-6

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

6.1 Screening Levels...................................................................................................6-1
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM ii

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses .............................................................................6-2

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

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

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

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-3

6.4 AOI 2.....................................................................................................................6-3

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-3

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-3

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-4

6.5 AOI 3.....................................................................................................................6-4

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-4

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-4

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-5

6.6 AOI 4.....................................................................................................................6-5

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-5

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results.........................................................6-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.1.5 AOI 5...........................................................................................................7-3

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

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

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

7.2.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-4

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

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

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

7.3.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-4

7.3.2 AOI 2...........................................................................................................7-5

7.3.3 AOI 3...........................................................................................................7-5

7.3.4 AOI 4...........................................................................................................7-5

7.3.5 AOI 5...........................................................................................................7-6

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

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

8.2 Outcome ...............................................................................................................8-1

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

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM iii

Appendices

Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

B3. Monitoring Well Development Forms

B4. Field Change Request Forms

B5. Survey Data

B6. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs and Well Construction Forms

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, March 2022

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-6 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Figure 7-4 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 4

Figure 7-5 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 5

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths, Temporary Well Screen Intervals, and Groundwater 

Elevations

Table 5-3 Permanent Monitoring Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table 6-2 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil

Table 6-3 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurface Soil

Table 6-5 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AVCRAD Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot

bgs below ground surface

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DO dissolved oxygen

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FedEx Federal Express

FTA Fire Training Area

gpm gallons per minute

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems

GPS global positioning system

GSE ground support equipment

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

Koc organic carbon normalized distribution coefficient

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

MOARNG Missouri Army National Guard

MODNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM vi

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TCE trichloroethylene

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOCs volatile organic compounds

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site 

Inspections (SIs) on the current or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

(PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the memorandum from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six 

compounds listed in the OSD memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

(PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

(PFBS). These compounds are collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout the 

document, and the applicable screening levels (SLs) are provided in Table ES-1.

The PA identified four Areas of Interest (AOIs), with an additional AOI (AOI 5) identified during SI 

field activities, where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, disposed, or 

released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI locations) (AECOM, 2020). The objective of the SI 

is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOIs identified in the 

PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to 

address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on SLs for relevant compounds. 

This SI was completed at the Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot (AVCRAD) 

in Springfield, Missouri and determined further investigation is warranted for AOI 1: Hangar 27, 

AOI 3: Fire Training Area 2, and AOI 4: Ground Support Equipment Building; no further evaluation 

is warranted for AOI 2 and AOI 5 at this time. The Springfield AVCRAD will also be referred to as 

the “facility” throughout this document.

The AVCRAD is in Greene County, southwestern Missouri. The AVCRAD is adjacent to the 

Springfield-Branson National Airport. The AVCRAD is accessible from the north via North Farm 

Road 115, then Radar Road or North Lester Jones Avenue. The facility can also be accessed 

from the north via West Farm Road 104, then Radar Road. Currently, the AVCRAD has a total 

land area of approximately 107.18 acres. This land is owned by the City of Springfield and is 

leased to the State of Missouri for the use by the Missouri ARNG. The original lease began in 

1977 for Hangar 1, while the lease for Hangar 27 and the expansion was issued in 2002 and is 

valid for a term of 50 years (AECOM, 2022a) (Springfield-Branson National Airport, 2006).

The PA identified four AOIs for investigation during the SI phase, with an additional AOI (AOI 5) 

identified during SI field activities. SI sampling results from the five AOIs were compared to OSD 

SLs. Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for each AOI. Based on the results of this SI, further 

evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation (RI) for AOI 1: Hangar 27, 

AOI 3: Fire Training Area 2, and AOI 4: Ground Support Equipment Building; no further evaluation 

is warranted for AOI 2 and AOI 5 at this time.

1 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not 

included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based 

on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military 

specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted 

use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an 

individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM ES-2

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. 6 July 2022. 

b.) Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not included 

as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPODA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including 

distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is 

unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. 

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1 Hangar 27 Proceed to RI 

2 FTA 1 No further 

action

3 FTA 2 Proceed to RI

4 GSE Building Proceed to RI

5 FTA 3 N/A No further 

action

Legend:

N/A = not applicable

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is the lead agency in performing Preliminary Assessments 

(PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) on the current or potential historical use of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the 

memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant 

Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum will be referred 

to as “relevant compounds” throughout this document and include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic 

acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic 

acid (PFBS) at ARNG facilities nationwide. The ARNG performed this SI at the Springfield Aviation 

Classification Repair Activity Depot (AVCRAD) in Springfield, Missouri. The Springfield AVCRAD

is also referred to as the “facility” throughout this document.

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; United States [US] Environmental 

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

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

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

investigations.

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at Springfield AVCRAD (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2020) 

that identified four Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically. During SI field activities, based on information 

provided by a facility representative, a fifth AOI was identified. The objective of the SI is to identify 

whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOIs identified in the PA and 

determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address 

immediate threats, or no further action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for the relevant 

compounds.

1 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not 

included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based 

on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military 

specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted 

use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an 

individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

The Springfield AVCRAD is in Greene County, southwestern Missouri (Figure 2-1). The Cities of 

Willard, Ash Grove Strafford, Republic, and Rogersville are within 15 miles of the AVCRAD. The 

AVCRAD is adjacent to the Springfield-Branson National Airport. The AVCRAD is accessible from 

the north via North Farm Road 115, then Radar Road or North Lester Jones Avenue. The facility 

can also be accessed from the north via West Farm Road 104, then Radar Road.

Currently, the AVCRAD has a total land area of approximately 107.18 acres. This land is owned 

by the City of Springfield and is leased to the State of Missouri for the use by the Missouri ARNG

(MOARNG). The original lease began in 1977 for Hangar 1, while the lease for Hangar 27 and 

the expansion was issued in 2002 and is valid for a term of 50 years (Springfield-Branson National 

Airport, 2006).

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Greene County is in southwest Missouri and is located in the Interior Highlands physiographic 

province, a province characterized by a generally high altitude surrounded by lowlands (Figure 

2-2) (Fenneman, 1917). The highlands are separated into the Ozark Plateau, in which the 

Springfield AVCRAD resides, and the Ouachita Plateau to the south (Fenneman, 1928). 

Structurally, the Ozarks are an uplift, reaching a maximum altitude of 1,772 feet with an 

asymmetrical dip about its north-south-trending axis. The AVCRAD lies on the gentler sloping 

western side of the axis, which exhibits a regional dip of 15 to 20 feet per mile to the southsouthwest (Waite & Thomson, 1993).

2.2.1 Geology

The Springfield Plateau, a small section in the southwest of the Ozark Uplift, which encompasses 

the City of Springfield, northern Arkansas, and eastern Kansas and Oklahoma, is composed 

primarily of Lower to Middle Mississippian carbonates of the Osage Group, including the Lower 

Warsaw Formation, Keokuk Limestone, Burlington Limestone, Elsey Formation, Reeds Spring 

Formation, Pierson Limestone, and Fern Glen Formation (Figure 2-3) (Starbuck, 2017). The 

Springfield Plateau Aquifer and all of its formations can be up to 380 feet thick (Waite & Thomson, 

1993).

Underlying the Springfield Plateau is the Ozark Confining Unit, which separates the Springfield 

Plateau Aquifer from the underlying Ozark Aquifer. The Ozark Confining Unit consists of shale, 

siltstone, limestone, and sandstone within the Northview, Compton, and Bachelor Formations. 

The Northview formation consists of siltstone and shale, and it thins to approximately 5 feet in the 

southwest of Greene County. The Compton Limestone, averaging 20 feet thick, is composed of 

greenish to bluish, finely-crystalline limestone and is identifiable by the green shale partings it 

contains. The Bachelor Formation is a very thin (2 inches to 2 feet), poorly sorted, green quartz 

sandstone with rounded black phosphate nodules (Waite & Thomson, 1993).

The Ozark Aquifer comprises the Cotter Dolomite, Jefferson City Formation, Roubidoux 

Formation, Gasconade Dolomite, Eminence Dolomite, and the Potosi Dolomite. These 

formations, known as the Canadian Series, consist of dolostone and sandstone, and were laid 

down in the Lower Ordovician (Miller & Vandike, 1997).

The structural deformation of the carbonate layers in the Uplift introduced prevalent fractures and 

faulting within Greene County. These lineaments generally trend in a northwest-southeast and 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 2-2

northeast-southwest orientation, with major faults trending northwest-southeast; they range in 

size from less than 1 mile to greater than 15 miles across. These fractures allow the infiltration of 

rainwater, giving rise to the karst topography of the region. The bedrock is covered by a thin 

veneer of residuum (Waite & Thomson, 1993). According to the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service, the residuum at the facility is comprised of 

gravelly silt to gravelly silty clay (USDA, 2020).

During the SI, low to medium plasticity fines (silt and clay) were observed as the dominant 

lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the AVCRAD. Below this layer, finely crystalline 

limestone was observed as the dominant bedrock, with first encounter between 7 and 29.9 feet 

below ground surface (bgs). The borings were completed at depths between 15 and 85 feet bgs. 

Varying quantities of sand and gravel were also observed in the borings, in isolated layers of 

sandy lean clay and gravely lean clay with thicknesses ranging from 1 foot to 11 feet. 

Samples for grain size analyses were collected at five locations, SPRNG-MW01, AOI02-01, 

AOI03-01, AOI04-02, and AOI05-01, and analyzed via American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Method D-422. The results indicate that the soil samples are comprised primarily of silt 

(51.82 percent [%] to 75.39%) and clay (18.28% to 26.72%). These results and facility

observations are consistent with the reported depositional environment of the region. Boring logs 

are presented in Appendix E, and grain size results are presented in Appendix F.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The bedrock northwest of Springfield, near the AVCRAD, has one of the highest densities of 

sinkholes in the county. Sinkholes range in diameter from 2x10-3 acres to 180 acres and 10 to 60 

feet deep. The sinkholes and dissolution along structural fractures allow the communication of 

surface water with the groundwater system without the typical filtration of the surface water by 

slow percolation through the soil (Waite & Thomson, 1993). Groundwater recharge is achieved 

through three mechanisms: infiltration through sinkholes, infiltration in areas where dissolution 

has increased permeability, and through losing streambeds (Harvey, 1980).

Of the six US Geological Survey (USGS) groundwater monitoring wells in the Springfield Area, 

one is set within the Osage Group of the Springfield Plateau, and five are set within the Canadian 

Series of the Ozark Aquifer. Regionally, groundwater depth in the Springfield Plateau Aquifer may 

be as shallow 20 feet bgs (USGS, 2019) and as deep as 160 to 170 feet bgs (Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources [MODNR], 2019). At depths greater than this, the wells set within the Ozark 

Aquifer typically reach a drilled depth of 400 to 600 feet, with groundwater levels reaching between 

180 to 360 feet bgs as of 2019. A typical well in the Springfield Plateau Aquifer yields between 5 

and 30 gallons per minute (gpm), while wells set in the Ozark Aquifer can reach yields of 500 to 

1,200 gpm (Miller & Vandike, 1997).

Information available through the MODNR Geosciences Technical Resource Assessment Tool 

indicates that groundwater flow in the general vicinity of Springfield AVCRAD is overall towards 

the northwest but may be slightly radial in nature in the vicinity of the facility, with flow directions 

additionally slightly to the north and west (MODNR, 2019). However, secondary porosity may alter 

localized groundwater flow characteristics.

According to the state well data, a domestic well was installed in the early 1990s in a location 

which is now part of the AVCRAD property. The well was located near the present-day ground 

support equipment (GSE) building. Limited data is available for this well, but after the SI was 

completed, MOARNG determined that the well no longer exists on the property and was likely 

abandoned prior to the construction of the AVCRAD. No other wells exist on the facility property. 

Several domestic wells are located immediately surrounding and/or presumed downgradient of 

the facility (Figure 2-3). Several of these domestic wells are constructed within the uppermost 

water bearing unit, the Springfield Plateau Aquifer, which has been primarily used for agricultural 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 2-3

and industrial purposes since the 1950s, when well regulations became stricter (Watershed 

Committee of the Ozarks, 2019). Static water levels observed following the installation of these 

wells ranged from 165 to 180 feet bgs. There is one public well that is presumed side gradient to 

the AVCRAD. Drinking water for the AVCRAD is supplied by the City of Springfield, which sources 

most of the water from the surface water in surrounding lakes and rivers, and the rest from 

groundwater wells screened in the deeper Ozark Aquifer (Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, 

2019).

Where observed, depths to water measured in March 2022 during the SI ranged from 4.89 to 

28.94 feet bgs in the overlying unconsolidated soils and from 23.38 to 68.18 feet bgs in the 

underlying limestone, suggesting that groundwater within the unconsolidated soils may act as 

perched groundwater. Due to the nature of the underlying karst system across the AVCRAD, 

groundwater flow and transport occurs through the network of interconnected fissures, fractures 

and conduits in the relatively low-permeability rock matrix, while most of the groundwater storage 

occurs in the matrix. As a result of this potential perched groundwater within the unconsolidated 

soils and the highly variable static groundwater level, groundwater contours are difficult to 

formulate. Groundwater elevations from the SI are presented on Figure 2-4.

2.2.3 Hydrology

The AVCRAD is very close to the hydrological divide that splits Greene County and lies within the 

Headwaters Clear Creek watershed (MOARNG, 2019), which drains to Clear Creek, Little Sac 

River, and the Sac River. These rivers eventually flow into the Osage River to the north, and finally 

into the Missouri River (Waite & Thomson, 1993). To the west of the facility is Rainier Branch 

River, which is used for recreational activities. This hydrological framework follows the flow of 

water from the Springfield Plateau of the Ozark Uplift down into the surrounding lowlands.

The ground surface at much of the facility is generally impermeable, with the hangars, buildings, 

aircraft apron, roads, driveways, and parking areas paved with concrete or asphalt. The AVCRAD 

is connected to the City of Springfield municipal sewer system, and all wastewater is conveyed to 

the Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Stormwater runoff on the facility drains to two permitted outfalls, one conveying stormwater from 

the south drainage area (Outfall 001) and another from the north drainage area (Outfall 004). 

Outfall locations are visible on Figure 2-5. Outfall 001 conveys stormwater from the parking lot, 

tarmac, parking pads, and aircraft hangar roof, and is directed to a drainage swale which likely 

enters groundwater via a sinkhole. Outfall 004 conveys stormwater into a retention pond, whereby 

the water exits the facility via a drainage ditch and may discharge either to sinkholes or to Rainier 

Branch River. (MOARNG, 2019). According to MODNR data, springs have not been observed 

within facility boundary itself but are frequently found in the surrounding area. 

Springs, expulsions of shallow groundwater to the surface due to pressure within an underlying 

aquifer, are common within Greene County. Although springs generally have a flow of less than 

20 cubic feet per day, they can discharge a considerable amount of water because they are 

continuously flowing (Waite & Thomson, 1993).

Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Therefore, surface water may migrate to the 

retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial runoff or groundwater discharge. Additionally, 

the Rainier Branch River to the west of the facility may receive surface water runoff and/or 

groundwater discharge from the facility. Surface water features are presented on Figure 2-5.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 2-4

2.2.4 Climate

Climate data were available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

located 1.15 miles to the southwest of the AVCRAD, at Springfield-Branson National Airport. 

Missouri has a temperate continental climate. Precipitation in the form of rainfall was recorded at 

an annual average of 51.6 inches per year, with April being the rainiest month, recording over 7.5 

inches. Snowfall precipitation is mild, with an annual average of 6.6 inches; February is the 

snowiest month, with 2.76 inches. Summer temperatures reach an average temperature of 57.4

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and have an average maximum of 67.6 °F, with July being the hottest 

month. Winter months reach an average temperature of 36.6 °F, slightly above freezing. Winter 

minimum temperatures reach an average low of 26.7 °F, with January being the coldest month

(NOAA, 2020).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

Springfield AVCRAD is a controlled access facility and is adjacent to the Springfield Branson 

National Airport. Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the 

current land use; however, future infrastructure improvements, land acquisitions, and land use 

controls at the Springfield Branson National Airport and surrounding areas are unknown. New 

construction of another hangar at the Springfield AVCRAD is underway. The anticipated 

completion date is unknown.

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

A wildlife survey has not occurred at the facility, and the facility does not have any significant areas 

of habitat. The following species have not been identified at the facility but may be present in the 

surrounding area.

The following fishes, plants, insects, mammals, and reptiles are federally endangered, threatened, 

proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Greene County, Missouri (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2022).

• Fish: Niangua darter, Etheostoma nianguae (Threaten); Ozark cavefish, Amblyopsis 

rosae (Threaten).

• Plants: Geocarpon minimum (Threatened) (No common name); Missouri bladderpod, 

Physaria filiformis (Threatened).

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (Candidate).

• Mammals: Northern Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Threatened); Gray bat, 

Myotis grisescens (Endangered); Indiana bat, Myotis sodalist (Endangered), Tricolored 

bat, Perimyotis subflavus (Proposed Endangered).

• Reptiles: Alligator snapping turtle, Macrochelys temminckii (Proposed Threatened).

2.3 History of PFAS Use

Four AOIs were identified in the PA where AFFF may have been used, stored, disposed, or 

released historically at the AVCRAD. A fifth AOI was identified after issuance of the PA report, due 

to the identification of fire training activities and the resulting potential for a release (AECOM, 

2020). AFFF may have historically been released at the facility during fire training activities and 

storage as early as 2007. The potential release areas were grouped into five AOIs based on 

preliminary data and presumed groundwater flow directions. A description of each AOI is 

presented in Section 3.
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

9/1/2022

9/1/2022

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

1:126,720

9/1/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 9/1/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

^_

Springfield AVCRAD

PROJECT

0 1 2 4

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-5
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

9/1/2022

9/1/2022

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

1:24,000

9/1/2022 ­ Figure 2-2 PM CM 9/1/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

PROJECT

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-6
#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0

#0 #0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

# #0 0

#0# #0 0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P 

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

A! A!

A!

A!A! A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A! !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

A!

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

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

!P

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

!P

A!

A!!

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

AA!

A!!

A!A!

A!

!P

AA!!!

A!!

A

!P

A!

A!A!A!

A

!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A

A!!

A!AA!

A!!!!

A! A!

!P

A!

A! 

AA

!

A!A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

A!

!P

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!

AAA!

A!!A!!!

!P

A!

AA!!

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

AA!!

A!

AA!!

!P

Rainer Branch

Retention

Pond

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

3/31/2023

3/31/2023

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

1:31,680

3/31/2023 ­ Figure 2-3 PM CM 3/31/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

and the GIS User Community

PROJECT

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Inferred Groundwater

Flow Direction

Geology

Carbonates

#0 Sinkhole

Sinkhole Area

Wells

A! Monitoring Well

!P Domestic Well

!C( Public Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

AECOM 2-7
#0

A!

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

A!

?!

?!

?! ?!

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

1147.69

AOI01-02

1137.30

AOI02-01

1144.96

AOI02-02

1129.96

AOI03-01

1143.88

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

1143.66

AOI04-02

1154.61

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B DRY

DRY

Retention

Pond

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

3/16/2023

3/16/2023

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

3/16/2023

1:4,200 ­ Figure 2-4 PM CM 3/16/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevations,

March 2022

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

and the GIS User Community

PROJECT

0 175 350 700

Feet

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temp Monitoring Well

A! Monitoring Well

Facility Boundary

#0 Sinkhole

Sinkhole Area

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

AECOM 2-8
#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0

#0 #0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0#0

#0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

# #0 0

#0# #0 0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

RainerBranch

Retention

Pond

Headwaters

Clear Creek

Watershed

Flint Hill

Branch-Little Sac

River Watershed

Headwaters

Wilsons Creek

Watershed

Springfield-Branson

National Airport

Fire Dept.

Outfall 001

Outfall 004

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

3/20/2023

3/20/2023

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

1:31,680

3/20/2023 ­ Figure 2-5 PM CM 3/20/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

and the GIS User Community

PROJECT

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

#0 Sinkhole

Sinkhole Area

#0

#0

Retention

Pond

Outfall 001

Outfall 004

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

The PA evaluated areas where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, 

disposed, or released historically. Based on the PA findings, four potential release areas were 

identified at Springfield AVCRAD, with one additional potential release area identified during SI 

field activities (AOI 5) and grouped into five AOIs (AECOM, 2020). The potential release areas 

are shown on Figure 3-1.

3.1 AOI 1: Hanger 27

AOI 1 is where Hangar 27 contained a fire suppression system supplied by a 800-gallon tank filled 

with 3% AFFF. Hangar 27 was built in 2011 and upon installation, there was one fire suppression 

system test conducted by a contractor during which the system dispensing nozzles in the hangar 

were bypassed, and the AFFF was captured by a vacuum truck to prevent release of AFFF to the 

environment. Any routine maintenance of the fire suppression system is unknown. In the 

southwest corner of the hangar, there are 26 55-gallon drums of 3% AFFF in storage for fire 

suppression system recharge. It is unknown how long the 55-gallon drums have been stored in 

the hangar. There were no reports of any leaking or spills of AFFF from the 55-gallon drums or 

the AFFF fire suppression tanks.

3.2 AOI 2: Fire Training Area 1

AOI 2 is fire training area (FTA) 1 that is located immediately south of the fuel farm on the concrete 

ramp area. In 2007, a one-time fire training event occurred on the concrete, where one 60-gallon 

Tri-MaxTM fire extinguisher was fully dispensed on the ramp area. The 3% AFFF was then allowed 

to run off the concrete and into the adjacent grass. Every 5 years, the Tri-MaxTM fire extinguishers 

undergo hydrostatic testing off-facility by a contractor. Surface water around FTA 1 flows onto the 

adjacent grass area and then south via a channelized pathway.

3.3 AOI 3: Fire Training Area 2

AOI 3 is FTA 2 located on the grass immediately off the ramp area to the west of Hangar 27. In 

2014, a one-time fire training event occurred with one 60-gallon Tri-MaxTM fire extinguisher in which 

approximately 20 gallons of 3% AFFF were released. The AFFF was then allowed to dissipate in 

the grass. Since 2015, soap and water have been used for fire training that occurs at the AVCRAD. 

No remediation activities have occurred at this location. There is a retention pond on the east side 

of the facility to which all the surface water from north of Hangar 27 and ramp drains. The retention 

pond discharges north off-facility when it overflows.

3.4 AOI 4: GSE Building

AOI 4 is the GSE Building. The ground support equipment building is located immediately off the 

ramp area to the southeast of Hangar 27. To prepare for freezing temperatures in winter, AFFF 

solution in Tri-MaxTM fire extinguishers was exchanged for a 3% AFFF Chemguard Low 

Temperature solution in the GSE building. The removed AFFF solution was containerized in 55-

gallon drums and stored in the GSE building. During the warm months, the 3% AFFF Chemguard 

Low Temperature solution was removed, and the Tri-MaxTM fire extinguishers were replaced with 

the original AFFF solution. It is unknown how many years and how many Tri-MaxTM fire 

extinguishers were exchanged. The GSE building is outfitted with drains that lead to an oil/water 

separator, then to the sanitary WWTP. No spills or leaks while switching the AFFF solutions were 

reported.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 3-2

3.5 AOI 5: Fire Training Area 3

AOI 5 was an historical FTA that was identified by on-facility personnel during SI field activities in 

March 2022. Based on information provided by facility staff involved with previously unknown 

historical fire training activities, fire training previously occurred within the concrete and grass 

immediately off the ramp area at selected locations and the fire suppressant material was allowed 

to dissipate in the grass. It is not confirmed whether AFFF was used during this event; the amount 

and concentration of fire suppressant dispensed are also unknown.

3.6 Adjacent Sources

One off-facility, potential source was identified adjacent to the AVCRAD during the PA and is not 

associated with ARNG activities. An additional off-facility, potential source was identified adjacent 

to the AVCRAD during the SI planning and is not associated with ARNG activities. The adjacent 

potential sources are shown on Figure 3-1 and described in the following sections for 

informational purposes only and will not be investigated as part of this SI.

3.6.1 Springfield-Branson National Airport

The Springfield-Branson National Airport geographic coordinates are 37°14'27.41"N and 

93°23'33.30"W. The current Springfield-Branson Airport was constructed in 1944 and is owned 

and operated by the City of Springfield. The AVCRAD is adjacent to the Springfield-Branson 

National Airport. The airport has a fire department that responds to emergencies at the airport 

and the AVCRAD. Springfield-Branson National Airport Fire Department requires response testing 

and equipment testing by the Federal Aviation Administration. Due to the mandatory 

requirements, the Springfield-Branson National Airport Fire Department has been identified as an 

adjacent potential source to the AVCRAD. Additionally, due to uncertainty regarding the location 

of the Fire Department's equipment testing, the runways at Springfield-Branson National Airport 

have also been identified as an adjacent potential source.

3.6.2 Litton Systems Inc.

The former Litton Systems Inc. site is located on approximately 70 acres, just east of the 

Springfield-Branson National Airport. From the 1960s to 2007, the site was used to manufacture 

printed circuit boards. The facility was demolished in 2008 and now consists of a vacant lot with 

only a concrete building slab remaining. The site is owned by Northop Grumman Corporation, 

which acquired the site from Litton Systems Inc. in 2001 During its operation, the facility produced 

waste materials containing heavy metals, predominantly copper, and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), mainly trichloroethylene (TCE). The contaminated waste materials were placed in 

unlined lagoons, waste piles and pits on the Litton property until the early 1980’s. Releases of 

TCE into the environment during operations resulted in soil and groundwater contamination at the 

site and in the surrounding area. Numerous investigations of onsite soils, onsite and offsite 

shallow and deep groundwater and vapor intrusion have been conducted on the Litton property 

and surrounding area. Investigations by Northop Grumman are ongoing (MODNR, 2022).
#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0 #0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0

#0

!P

A!

!P

!P

A! A!

A!

A! A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!!A!

A!A!A!

A!

AAAA!!!!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

!P

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AAA!!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!A! A!

A!A!

A!

Litton Systems, Inc

Springfield-Branson

National Airport

FTA 1

GSE Building

FTA 2

Hangar 27 Fire

Suppression System

FTA 3 FTA 3

Springfield-Branson

National Airport Runways

Headwaters

Clear Creek

Watershed

Flint Hill

Branch-Little Sac

River Watershed

AOI 2

AOI 3

AOI 1

AOI 4

AOI 5

Retention

Pond

Springfield-Branson

National Airport

Fire Dept.

Outfall 001

Outfall 004

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

3/31/2023

3/31/2023

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

1:18,000

3/31/2023 ­ Figure 3-1 PM CM 3/31/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Areas of Interest

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

and the GIS User Community

PROJECT

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

#0 Sinkhole

Sinkhole Area

A! Monitoring Well

!P Domestic Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

As identified during the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process and outlined in the SI Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), the objective of the SI is to identify 

whether there has been a release to the environment at the AOIs identified in the PA. For each 

AOI, ARNG determines if further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to 

address immediate threats, or whether no further action is warranted. This SI evaluated 

groundwater and soil for presence or absence of relevant compounds at each of the sampled 

AOIs.

4.1 Problem Statement

ARNG will recommend an AOI for Remedial Investigation (RI) if related soil and groundwater 

samples have concentrations of the relevant compounds above the OSD risk-based SLs. The 

SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report.

4.2 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs included:

• The PA for Springfield AVCRAD (AECOM, 2020);

• Analytical data from groundwater and soil samples collected as part of this SI in accordance 

with the site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a); and

• Field data collected during the SI, including groundwater elevation and water quality 

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 Study Boundaries

The scope of the SI was bounded by the property limits of the facility (Figure 2-2). Off-facility sampling 

was not included in the scope of this SI. If future off-facility sampling is required, the proper 

stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be obtained by ARNG with property 

owner(s). Temporal boundaries were limited to the spring season, which was the earliest available 

time field resources were available to complete the study.

4.4 Analytical Approach

Samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Gulf Coast, accredited under the Department of 

Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP; Accreditation Number 

74960) and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate

Number 01955). Data were compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules 

as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA), which is provided in Appendix A, 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 decisionmaking (DoD, 2019a; DoD, 2019b; USEPA, 2017).
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 4-2

Based on the DUA, the environmental data collected during the SI were found to be acceptable 

and usable for this SI evaluation with the qualifications documented in the DUA and its associated 

data validation reports. These data are of sufficient quality to meet the objectives and 

requirements of the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

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

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

in accordance with the following approved documents:

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

(PQAPP) dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a);

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

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity 

Depot, Springfield, Missouri dated March 2020 (AECOM, 2020);

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

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri dated 

February 2021 (AECOM, 2022a); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, 

Springfield, Missouri dated February 2021 (AECOM, 2022b).

The SI field activities were conducted from 14 March to 1 April 2022 and consisted of utility 

clearance, direct push boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, grab 

groundwater sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance 

with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as noted in Section 5.9.

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds

by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) compliant with Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) 5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

• Thirty-eight (38) soil samples from 18 boring locations;

• Seven grab groundwater samples from nine temporary well locations;

• Two groundwater samples from two permanent well locations;

• Twenty-three (23) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples.

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

list of samples collected for each media. Field documentation is provided in Appendix B. A Log 

of Daily Notice of Field Activity was completed throughout the SI field activities, which is provided 

in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, monitoring well development 

forms are provided in Appendix B3, field change request forms are provided in Appendix B4,

land survey data are provided in Appendix B5, and investigation-derived waste (IDW) polygons 

are provided in Appendix B6. 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 decontamination source 

water. Details for each of these activities are presented below.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-2

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) TPP Process, Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 

(USACE, 2016) defines four phases to project planning: 1.) defining the project phase; 2.) 

determining data needs; 3.) developing data collection strategies; and 4.) finalizing the data 

collection plan. The process encourages stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with 

defining overall project objectives, including DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to 

address the AOIs identified in the PA.

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 8 December 2020, prior to SI field activities. The 

combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was conducted in general accordance with EM 200-1-2. The 

stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, MOARNG, MODNR, and USACE. Stakeholders were 

provided the opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling approach and methods at 

the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The outcome of the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was 

memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

A TPP Meeting 3 was held after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes 

for TPP 3 are included in Appendix D of this report. Future TPP meetings will provide an 

opportunity to discuss the results and findings, and future actions, where warranted.

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

Prior to any beginning field activities, AECOM placed a ticket with the USA north 811 “Call Before 

You Dig” Missouri utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work on 14 March 2022.

Additional tickets were placed to extend the duration of this ticket and to extend the coverage 

area based on the addition of a new AOI. Additionally, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating 

Radar Systems (GPRS), a private utility location service, to perform utility clearance. GPRS

performed utility clearance of the proposed boring locations on 14 March 2022 and 22 March 

2022 with input from the AECOM field team and AVCRAD facility staff. General locating services 

and ground-penetrating radar were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet of 

each boring were pre-cleared using a vacuum truck to verify utility clearance in shallow 

subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered.

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

One potable water source at AVCRAD was sampled on 21 October 2021 to assess usability for 

decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the sample collected at the outdoor spigot

(SPRNG-DECON-01) confirmed this source to be acceptable for use in this investigation;

therefore, it was used throughout the field activities. Specifically, the samples were analyzed by 

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the decontamination water sample 

associated with the outdoor spigot source used during the SI are provided in Appendix F. A 

discussion of the results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A).

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

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

was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appendix to the SI QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2022a). Prior to the start of field work each day, a Sampling Checklist was completed 

as an additional layer of control. The checklist served as a daily reminder to each field team 

member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment.

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

Borings were installed in grass areas where applicable, to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt 

surfaces. Soil samples were collected via rotary sonic, in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-3

(AECOM, 2022a). A Boart Longyear® MiniSonic LS250 or Boart Longyear® LS600 continuous

core sampling system was used to collect continuous soil cores to the target depth. Additionally, 

a hand auger was used to collect surface soil samples. The soil boring locations are shown on 

Figure 5-1, and depths are provided Table 5-1. Several boring locations were adjusted within a

50-feet offset for reasons such as drill rig access, utility avoidance, and bias toward sampling 

within observed drainage features.

In general, three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis 

from each soil boring: one surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs), one subsurface soil sample 

approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample at the midpoint between the surface and the groundwater table.

The soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by an AECOM field geologist 

using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A photoionization detector (PID) was used 

to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as part of personal safety requirements. 

Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) and in a nontreated field logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID 

concentrations, moisture, relative density, color (using a Munsell soil color chart), and texture 

(using the USCS) were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E.

Soil borings completed during the SI found low to medium plasticity fines (silt and clay) as the 

dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the AVCRAD. Finely crystalline 

limestone was observed as the dominant bedrock below the AVCRAD, with first encountered 

depths between 7 and 29.9 feet bgs. The borings were completed at depths between 15 and 85 

feet bgs. Varying quantities of sand and gravel were also observed in the borings, specifically, 

isolated layers of sandy lean clay and gravely lean clay with thicknesses ranging from 1 foot to 

11 feet. These observations are consistent with the understood depositional environment of the 

region.

Each soil sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene 

(HDPE) bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice 

and transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard chain of custody (CoC) procedures 

to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15, total organic 

carbon (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A), pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and grain size (ASTM 

Method D-422) in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

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

as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/MS duplicates (MSDs) were collected at a rate 

of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when 

non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the shallow soil samples, 

equipment rinsate blanks were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters 

as the soil samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were 

preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a Boart Longyear® MiniSonic LS250 or Boart Longyear®

LS600 continuous core sampling system. Once the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, 

a temporary well was constructed of a 5-foot section of 1-inch Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride 

(PVC) screen with sufficient casing to reach ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were 

used to avoid cross contamination between locations. The screen intervals for the temporary wells 

are provided in Table 5-2.

Groundwater samples were collected after a period of time following well installation to allow 

groundwater to infiltrate and recharge the temporary well screen intervals. After the recharge 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-4

period, groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump with PFAS-free HDPE 

tubing. The temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and 

draw down prior to sampling. Water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, 

pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], and oxidation-reduction potential [ORP]) were measured using a 

water quality meter and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix B2) before each grab 

sample was collected. Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a 

separate container, and a shaker test was completed to identify if there were any foaming. No 

foaming was noted in any of the groundwater samples.

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using 

a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3

Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

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

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

same parameters as the accompanying samples. One field reagent blank was collected in 

accordance with the PQAPP (AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to 

ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6°C during shipment.

Following well surveying (described below in Section 5.5), temporary wells were abandoned in 

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) by removing the PVC and backfilling 

the hole with bentonite chips. Upon completion of well abandonment, the ground surface at each 

location was patched to match existing surrounding conditions.

5.4 Permanent Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling

During the SI, two permanent monitoring wells were installed within or downgradient of potential 

source areas. The locations of the wells are shown on Figure 5-1.

A Boart Longyear® MiniSonic LS250 and Boart Longyear® LS600 drill rig were used to install two 

2-inch diameter monitoring wells. The monitoring wells were constructed with Schedule 40 PVC, 

flush threaded 20-foot sections of riser, 0.010-inch slotted well screen, and a threaded bottom 

cap. The depth of the permanent wells was determined based on the depth at which groundwater 

was first encountered within the bedrock beneath the facility. A filter pack of 20/40 silica sand was 

installed in the annulus around the well screen to a minimum of 2-feet above the well screen.

A 2-foot thick hydrated bentonite seal was placed above the filter sand. Bentonite grout was 

placed in the well annulus from the top of the bentonite seal to ground surface. The bentonite 

grout was allowed to set for 24 hours prior to well completion in accordance with the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). All monitoring wells were completed with flush-mount well vaults. 

The screen interval of each of the groundwater monitoring wells is provided in Table 5-3.

Development and sampling of wells was completed in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2022a). The newly installed monitoring wells were developed no sooner than 24 hours 

following installation by pumping and surging using a surge block and a variable speed 

submersible pump. Samples were collected no sooner than 24 hours following development via 

low-flow sampling methods using either a PFAS-free disposable bailer or a bladder pump with 

disposable PFAS-free, HDPE tubing. New tubing was used at each well, and the pumps were 

decontaminated between each well. The wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to 

reduce draw down prior to sampling. Water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific 

conductance, pH, DO, and ORP) were measured using a water quality meter and recorded on 

the field sampling form (Appendix B2). Water levels were measured to the nearest 0.01 inch and 

recorded. Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-5

container and a shaker test was completed to identify if there was any foaming. No foaming was 

noted in any of the groundwater samples.

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using 

a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3

Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a).

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

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

same parameters as the accompanying samples. One field reagent blank was collected in 

accordance with the PQAPP (AECOM, 2022a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to 

ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6°C during shipment.

5.5 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 29 March 2022. Groundwater elevation 

measurements were collected from the nine new temporary monitoring wells and two new 

permanent monitoring wells. Water level measurements were taken from the northern side of the 

well casing. A groundwater elevation map is provided in Figure 2-4. Groundwater elevation data 

are provided in Table 5-2.

5.6 Surveying

The northern side of each well casing was surveyed by Missouri-licensed land surveyors following 

guidelines provided in the SOPs provided in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). Survey 

data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 30 March 2022 in the 

applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with Missouri Coordinate System of 

1983 (CCS83) datum (horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). The 

surveyed well data are provided in Appendix B5.

5.7 Investigation-Derived Waste

As of the date of this report, the disposal of IDW is not regulated federally. IDW generated during 

the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and was managed in accordance with the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) and with the DAGuidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 

2018).

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities were left in-place at the point of the 

source. The soil cuttings were distributed on the downgradient side of the borehole. The soil IDW 

was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated soil samples collected from 

that source location.

Liquid IDW generated during SI activities (i.e., purge water, development water, and 

decontamination fluids) were discharged directly to the ground surface slightly downgradient of 

the source. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated 

groundwater samples collected from that source location.

Geographic coordinates were collected using a global positioning system (GPS) around each 

location where IDW was placed. The approximate footprint of IDW discharged to the ground 

surface are displayed on the figure in Appendix B6.

Additionally, rock core generated during drilling were containerized in properly labeled 55-gallon 

drums. These drums were stored at a location designated by Springfield AVCRAD Environmental 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 5-6

Manager and MOARNG. ARNG will coordinate waste profiling, transportation, and disposal of this 

solid IDW.

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

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

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.8 Laboratory Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 at Pace Analytical Gulf 

Coast in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP certified laboratory. Soil samples 

were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A and pH by USEPA Method 9045D.

5.9 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

Five deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum occurred during SI field activities. The deviations 

are noted below and are documented in Field Change Request Forms (Appendix B4):

• Based on visual observations of disturbed/reworked soil from ongoing construction of

nearby addition to facility and proximity to hangar and potential historical release within,

AOI01-02 was moved approximately 165 feet south-southwest. Location was considered

based on nearby utilities and meeting data quality objectives.

• Permanent monitoring well SPRNG-MW01 was moved approximately 125 feet southeast,

closer to an area of historical fire training, as conducted by and reported by on-facility staff

(Richard Lawrence). Location was considered based meeting data quality objectives.

• The original AOI02-01 and AOI02-02 locations were moved approximately 60 feet

southeast, based on historical fire training activities as indicated by on-facility staff involved

with training. Locations were considered based on nearby utilities and meeting data quality

objectives.

• Based on information provided by facility staff involved with previously unknown historical

fire training activities, an additional AOI (AOI 5) and sampling locations were added.

• Based on additional details provided by facility staff involved with historical fire training

activities, additional surface soil sampling was added to the existing AOI 2.
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD, Missouri

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)Grain Size (ASTM D-422)

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-00-02 3/15/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-00-02-D 3/15/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x FD

AOI01-01-SB-00-02-MS 3/15/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x MS

AOI01-01-SB-00-02-MSD 3/15/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x MSD

AOI01-01-SB-08-09 3/16/2022 15:00 8 - 9 x

AOI01-01-SB-13-14 3/16/2022 15:15 13 - 14 x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 3/21/2022 14:55 0 - 2 x x x TOC/pH

AOI01-02-SB-13-15 3/28/2022 11:45 13 - 15 x

AOI01-02-SB-25-27 3/28/2022 11:55 25 - 27 x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02 3/17/2022 13:00 0 - 2 x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02-D 3/17/2022 13:00 0 - 2 x FD

AOI02-01-SB-6.5-7.5 3/17/2022 13:45 6.5 - 7.5 x

AOI02-01-SB-12-12.5 3/17/2022 13:50 12 - 12.5 x x Grain Size

AOI02-02-SB-00-1.5 3/23/2022 14:14 0 - 1.5 x x x TOC/pH

AOI02-02-SB-00-1.5-D 3/23/2022 14:14 0 - 1.5 x FD

AOI02-02-SB-14-15 3/28/2022 14:10 14 - 15 x

AOI02-02-SB-15-16.1 3/28/2022 15:15 15 - 16.1 x

AOI02-03-SB-00-1.8 3/24/2022 10:50 0 - 1.8 x

AOI02-04-SB-00-1.7 3/23/2022 16:30 0 - 1.7 x

AOI02-05-SB-00-1.4 3/22/2022 11:35 0 - 1.4 x

AOI02-06-SB-00-02 3/23/2022 16:55 0 - 2 x

AOI03-01-SB-00-02 3/17/2022 9:30 0 - 2 x

AOI03-01-SB-9.5-10.5 3/17/2022 11:55 9.5 - 10.5 x x x x TOC/pH, Grain Size

AOI03-01-SB-9.5-10.5-D 3/17/2022 11:55 9.5 - 10.5 x FD

AOI03-01-SB-9.5-10.5-MS 3/17/2022 11:55 9.5 - 10.5 x MS

AOI03-01-SB-9.5-10.5-MSD 3/17/2022 11:55 9.5 - 10.5 x MSD

AOI03-01-SB-29-30 3/17/2022 11:45 29 - 30 x

AOI04-01-SB-00-02 3/17/2022 17:25 0 - 2 x

AOI04-01-SB-08-09 3/17/2022 15:30 8 - 9 x

AOI04-01-SB-13.5-14.5 3/17/2022 15:40 13.5 - 14.5 x

AOI04-02-SB-00-02 3/17/2022 17:45 0 - 2 x

AOI04-02-SB-6.5-7.5 3/17/2022 16:30 6.5 - 7.5 x

AOI04-02-SB-09-10 3/17/2022 16:45 9 - 10 x

AOI04-02-SB-11.5-12 3/17/2022 16:45 11.5 - 12 x Grain Size

AOI05-01-SB-00-02 3/23/2022 15:20 0 - 2 x

AOI05-01-SB-08-10 3/28/2022 16:36 8 - 10 x Grain Size

AOI05-01-SB-13-15 3/28/2022 15:50 13 -15 x

AOI05-01-SB-28-30 3/28/2022 16:00 28 - 30 x

AOI05-02-SB-00-02 3/22/2022 16:20 0 - 2 x

AOI05-03-SB-00-01 3/24/2022 15:35 0 - 1 x x x TOC/pH

AOI05-03-SB-05-07 3/28/2022 16:55 5 - 7 x

AOI05-04-SB-00-01 3/24/2022 15:00 0 - 1 x

SPRNG-MW01-00-02 3/14/2022 16:25 0 - 2 x

SPRNG-MW01-11-12 3/15/2022 11:15 11 - 12 x

SPRNG-MW01-17-18 3/15/2022 12:00 17 - 18 x x x x TOC/pH, Grain Size

SPRNG-MW01-17-18-D 3/15/2022 12:00 17 - 18 x x TOC/pH FD

SPRNG-MW01-17-18-MS 3/15/2022 12:00 17 - 18 x x TOC/pH MS

SPRNG-MW01-17-18-MSD 3/15/2022 12:00 17 - 18 x x TOC/pH MSD

SPRNG-MW02-SB-00-02 3/23/2022 12:40 0 - 2 x

SPRNG-MW02-SB-5.5-6.5 3/22/2022 12:15 5.5 - 6.5 x

SPRNG-MW02-SB-08-09 3/22/2022 12:25 8 - 9 x

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD, Missouri

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)Grain Size (ASTM D-422)

Comments

AOI01-01-GW 3/18/2022 13:20 NA x

AOI01-01-GW-D 3/18/2022 13:20 NA x FD

AOI01-02-GW 3/29/2022 11:05 NA x

AOI02-01-GW 3/18/2022 16:45 NA x

AOI02-02-GW 3/29/2022 11:55 NA x

AOI03-01-GW 3/18/2022 14:45 NA x

AOI04-01-GW 3/21/2022 11:10 NA x

AOI04-01-GW-MS 3/21/2022 11:10 NA x MS

AOI04-01-GW-MSD 3/21/2022 11:10 NA x MSD

AOI04-02-GW 3/21/2022 13:10 NA x

SPRNG-MW01-GW 4/1/2022 13:12 NA x

SPRNG-MW02-GW 4/1/2022 12:35 NA x

SPRNG-ERB-01 3/14/2022 15:30 NA x hand auger

SPRNG-ERB-02 3/17/2022 10:15 NA x 4" sonic cutting shoe

SPRNG-ERB-03 3/17/2022 16:00 NA x hand trowel

SPRNG-ERB-04 3/23/2022 13:40 NA x submersible pump

SPRNG-ERB-05 3/26/2022 12:15 NA x stainless steel bailer

SPRNG-ERB-06 3/28/2022 18:06 NA x 4" cutting shoe truck rig

SPRNG-ERB-07 3/29/2022 13:00 NA x pump from drillers

SPRNG-ERB-08 3/29/2022 13:15 NA x stainless steel surge block from drillers

SPRNG-FRB-01 3/14/2022 17:00 NA x field reagent black

SPRNG-DECON-01 10/21/2021 12:00 NA x decon water, outdoor spigot

SPRNG-DECON-02 3/17/2022 16:10 NA x decon water, via drill rig

SPRNG-DECON-03 3/28/2022 17:10 NA x decon water, via drill rig

Notes:

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

AVCRAD = Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot

bgs = below ground surface

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

Soil Boring Depths, Temporary Well Screen Intervals, Groundwater Elevations, and Bedrock Elevations

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD, Missouri

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Stickup 

Height 

(feet)

Depth to 

Water

(feet bgs)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Bedrock 

(feet bgs)

Bedrock 

Surface 

Elevation (feet 

NAVD 88)

AOI01-01 15 10 - 15 1161.68 1160.40 13.99 1.28 12.71 1147.69 14.00 1146.40

AOI01-02 30 20 - 30 1161.99 1161.70 24.69 0.29 24.40 1137.30 29.90 1131.80

AOI02-01 30 19 - 29 1159.41 1158.60 14.45 0.81 13.64 1144.96 NE NE

AOI02-02 30 20 - 30 1159.47 1158.90 29.51 0.57 28.94 1129.96 16.10 1142.80

3 AOI03-01 30 25 - 30 1163.49 1160.20 19.61 3.29 16.32 1143.88 NE NE

AOI04-01 19 14 - 19 1164.14 1159.20 20.48 4.94 15.54 1143.66 NE NE

AOI04-02 16 11 - 16 1162.3 1159.50 7.69 2.80 4.89 1154.61 16.00 1143.50

AOI05-01 30 20 - 30 1164.83 1164.00 DRY 0.83 DRY DRY NE NE

AOI05-03B 30 20 - 30 1163.69 1163.10 DRY 0.59 DRY DRY 7.00 1156.10

SPRNG-MW01 80 1160.0 18.00 1142.00

SPRNG-MW02 85 1157.7 11.00 1146.70

Notes:

AVCRAD = Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

NA = not applicable

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

see Table 5-3

see Table 5-3

see Table 5-3

see Table 5-3

1

2

4

5

FacilityWide

AECOM 5-9
Table 5-3

Permanent Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD, Missouri

Area of Interest

Boring 

Location

Permanent Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Stickup 

Height 

(feet)

Depth to 

Water

(feet bgs)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(feet NAVD88)

SPRNG-MW01 60 - 80 1159.73 1160.0 67.91 -0.27 68.18 1091.82

SPRNG-MW02 62 - 82 1157.41 1157.7 23.09 -0.29 23.38 1134.32

Notes:

AVCRAD = Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

NA = not applicable

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

Facility-Wide

AECOM 5-10
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECOM 5-11
A!

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

A!

?!

?!

"S

"S

"S

"S

?!

"S

?!"S

"S

AOI 2

AOI 3

AOI 1

AOI 4

AOI 5

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01 AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02

AOI05-03A

AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

11/29/2022

11/29/2022

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

11/29/2022

1:4,200 ­ Figure 5-1 PM CM 11/29/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

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

and the GIS User Community

PROJECT

0 175 350 700

Feet

Legend

A! Monitoring Well

?! Soil Boring/Temp Monitoring Well

"S Soil Sample

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

AECOM 5-12
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results

This section presents the analytical results of the SI. The SLs used in this evaluation are 

presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for each AOI is provided in Section 6.3

through Section 6.5. Table 6-2 through Table 6-5 present results in soil or groundwater for the 

relevant compounds. Tables that contain all results are provided in Appendix F, and the 

laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G. 

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 6 July 2022 

(Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). 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 AOI will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA.

The SLs established in the OSD memorandum apply to the five compounds presented on Table 

6-1 below.

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Composite 

Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface; μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. 6 July 2022. 

b.) Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not included 

as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPODA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including 

distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is 

unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. 

The data in the subsequent sections are compared to the SLs presented in Table 6-1. The SLs 

for groundwater are based on direct ingestion. The SLs for soil are based on incidental ingestion 

and are applied to the depth intervals reasonably anticipated to be encountered by the receptors 

identified at the facility: the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 2 feet bgs) 

and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil results (2 to 

15 feet bgs). The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (>15 feet bgs) because 15 

feet is the anticipated limit of construction activities.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

To provide basic soil parameter information, soil samples were analyzed for TOC, pH, and grain 

size, which are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. Appendix F contains 

the results of the TOC, pH, and grain size sampling.

The data collected in this investigation will be used in subsequent investigations, where 

appropriate, to assess fate and transport. According to the Interstate Technology Regulatory 

Council (ITRC), several important partitioning mechanisms include hydrophobic and lipophobic 

effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At relevant environmental pH values, 

certain PFAS are present as organic anions and are therefore relatively mobile in groundwater 

(Xiao et al., 2015), but tend to associate with the organic carbon fraction that may be present in 

soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy, 2006; Guelfo and Higgins, 2013). When sufficient organic 

carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution coefficients (Koc values) can help in 

evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical factors (for example, pH and presence 

of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to solid phases (ITRC, 2018).

6.3 AOI 1

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for 

AOI 1: Hangar 27. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-4 summarize the soil results.

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01, AOI01-02, 

SPRNG-MW01, and SPRNG-MW02. Soil was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil

between (8 to 15 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01, AOI01-02, SPRNG-MW01, and 

SPRNG-MW02 and deep subsurface soil interval (27 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI01-02

and SPRNG-MW01. Detections in soil at AOI 1 are as follows:

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected below their respective SLs in 

surface soil, with maximum concentrations of 0.161 J- micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg), 

0.818 J μg/kg, 0.538 J- μg/kg, 0.075 J μg/kg, and 0.049 J- μg/kg, respectively.

• PFOS and PFHxS were detected in shallow subsurface soil several orders of magnitude 

less than their SLs, with maximum concentrations of 0.517 J μg/kg and 0.143 J μg/kg, 

respectively. PFOA, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in shallow subsurface soil.

• PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in deep subsurface soil at SPRNG-MW01, with 

concentrations of 0.099 J μg/kg, 0.380 J μg/kg, and 0.082 J μg/kg, respectively.

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in deep subsurface soil at 

AOI01-02.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5

summarizes the groundwater results.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-3

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01 and AOI01-02 and 

permanent wells SPRNG-MW01 and SPRNG-MW02. The following exceedances of the SLs were 

measured:

• PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 nanograms per liter (ng/L) at AOI01-01, with a 

concentration of 10.2 ng/L.

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at AOI01-01 and SPRNG-MW01, with 

concentrations of 45.6 ng/L and 7.31 ng/L, respectively.

PFHxS was detected below its SL at AOI01-01 and SPRNG-MW01, with concentrations of 23.7 

ng/L and 20.2, respectively. PFBS was detected at concentrations several orders of magnitude 

less than its SL, with the highest detection occurring at SPRNG-MW02, with a concentration of 

3.84 J ng/L. PFNA was not detected at AOI01-01, AOI01-02, SPRNG-MW01, or SPRNG-MW02.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in soil 

below their SLs. PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at concentrations above their

SLs. Based on the exceedances of the SLs in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 1 is 

warranted.

6.4 AOI 2

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for 

AOI 2: FTA 1. The results in soil and groundwater are summarized on Table 6-2 through Table 6-

5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-

4 summarize the soil results.

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI02-01 through 

AOI02-06, shallow subsurface soil between (6.5 to 15 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI02-01 

and AOI02-02, and deep subsurface soil (15 to 16.1 feet bgs) from boring location AOI02-02.

Detections in soil at AOI 2 are as follows:

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in surface soil, at concentrations 

at least one order of magnitude less than their SLs.

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in shallow subsurface soil.

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in the deep subsurface soil at AOI02-

02, with concentrations ranging from 0.037 J μg/kg to 0.536 J μg/kg. PFBS was not 

detected in deep subsurface soil at AOI 2.

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5

summarizes the groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI2-01 and AOI2-02. PFOA, PFOS, 

PFNA, and PFBS were all detected below their respective SLs in groundwater:
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-4

• PFOA was detected below the SL of 6 ng/L, at concentrations of 4.04 ng/L and 

1.72 J ng/L.

• PFOS was detected below the SL of 4 ng/L, at concentrations of 3.89 J ng/L and 

1.97 J ng/L.

• PFNA was detected below the SL of 6 ng/L at AOI02-01, with a concentration of 

1.16 J ng/L. PFNA was not detected in groundwater at AOI02-02.

• PFBS was detected below the SL of 601 ng/L, at concentrations of 0.891 J ng/L and 

0.864 J ng/L.

• PFHxS was not detected in groundwater at either AOI02-01 or AOI02-02.

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in soil 

below their SLs; PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater. Therefore, 

further evaluation at AOI 2 is not warranted.

6.5 AOI 3

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for 

AOI 3: FTA 2. The results in soil and groundwater are presented in Table 6-2 through Table 6-5. 

Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-

4 summarize the soil results.

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (9.5 to 10.5 feet bgs),

and deep subsurface soil (29 to 30 feet bgs) from boring location AOI03-01. Detections in soil at 

AOI 3 are as follows:

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in the surface soil at AOI03-

01.

• PFOS was detected in shallow subsurface soil, at a concentration several orders of 

magnitude below its SL. PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in shallow 

subsurface soil at AOI03-01.

• PFHxS was detected in the deep subsurface soil at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 

0.048 J μg/kg. PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in deep subsurface 

soil.

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5

summarizes the groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well AOI03-01. The following exceedance 

of the SL was measured:

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 8.04

ng/L.

PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were all detected below their SLs in groundwater:
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-5

• PFOA was detected below the SL of 6 ng/L at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 2.07 J

ng/L.

• PFHxS was detected below the SL of 39 ng/L at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 4.71

ng/L.

• PFBS was detected below the SL of 601 ng/L at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 1.99 

J ng/L.

PFNA was not detected in groundwater at AOI03-01.

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOS was detected in soil at concentrations below the SL; PFHxS 

was detected in deep subsurface soil (>15 feet bgs). PFOS was detected in groundwater at a 

concentration above the SL. Based on the exceedance of this SL in groundwater, further 

evaluation at AOI 3 is warranted.

6.6 AOI 4

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for 

AOI 4: GSE Building. The results in soil and groundwater are presented in Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.6.1 AOI 4 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-

4 summarize the soil results.

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI04-01 and AOI04-

02, and from shallow subsurface soil between (8 to 14.5 feet bgs). Deep subsurface soil was not 

sampled at either AOI04-01 or AOI04-02.

PFOS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in surface soil, at concentrations several orders of 

magnitude below their SLs. PFHxS and PFOA were not detected in surface soil.

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in shallow subsurface soil at 

concentrations several orders of magnitude below their respective SLs.

6.6.2 AOI 4 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5

summarizes the groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI04-01 and AOI04-02. The 

following exceedance of the SLs was measured:

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at AOI04-01, with a concentration of 5.86

ng/L.

PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were all detected below their SLs in groundwater:

• PFOA was detected below the SL of 6 ng/L, with concentrations ranging from 1.04 J ng/L

to 1.88 J ng/L.

• PFHxS was detected below the SL of 39 ng/L at AOI04-02, with a concentration of 1.64

ng/L.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-6

• PFBS was detected below the SL of 601 ng/L, with concentrations ranging from 1.37 J

ng/L to 1.85 J ng/L.

PFNA was not detected in groundwater.

6.6.3 AOI 4 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in soil at 

concentrations below their SLs. PFOS was detected in groundwater at a concentration above its

SL. Based on the exceedance of this SL in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 4 is warranted.

6.7 AOI 5 

This section presents the analytical results for soil in comparison to SLs for AOI 5: FTA 3. The 

results in soil are presented in Table 6-2 and Table 6-4. Soil results are presented on Figure 6-1

through Figure 6-5. 

6.7.1 AOI 5 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Tables 6-2 through 

Table 6-4 summarize the soil results. 

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI05-01 through

AOI05-04, from shallow subsurface soil (between 5 to 15 feet bgs) from AOI05-01 and AOI05-

03B, and from deep subsurface soil (28 to 30 feet bgs) from boring location AOI05-01. Detections 

in soil at AOI 5 are as follows:

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil, at concentrations several

orders of magnitude below their SLs. PFBS was not detected in surface soil at AOI 5.

• PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in shallow subsurface soil

and deep subsurface soil at AOI 5.

6.7.2 AOI 5 Groundwater Analytical Results

Groundwater wells AOI05-01 and AOI05-03B were dry during sampling; therefore, no samples 

were collected.

6.7.3 AOI 5 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil, at 

concentrations below their SLs. Therefore, further evaluation at AOI 5 is not warranted. However, 

groundwater could not be sampled at AOI 5 due to lack of recharge in the two temporary wells 

installed, which represents a data gap that may be reevaluated during the RI. 
Table 6-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

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 Qual 

PFBS 1900 0.049 J- 0.034 J- ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFHxS 130 0.538 J- 0.263 J- 0.095 J 0.099 J ND U ND UJ 0.047 J ND U ND PFNA 19 ND UJ ND UJ 0.023 J 0.050 J 0.075 J 0.153 J 0.140 J 0.258 J 0.1PFOA 19 0.161 J- 0.120 J- ND U ND U 0.154 J 0.160 J 0.168 J 0.374 J 0.3PFOS 13 0.643 J- 0.287 J- 0.240 J 0.818 J 0.308 J 0.203 J 0.186 J 0.240 J 0.2

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviationsJ- = Estimated concentration, biased low AASF Army Aviation Support FacilityU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

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. D duplicate

DL detection limit

Notes ft feet

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. HQ hazard quotient

ID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandeLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LOSD Office of the Secretary of DefensQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringSPRNG SpringfieldUSEPA United States Environmental Proμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

0-2 ft

03/21/2022 03/17/2022

0-2 ft 0-1.5 ft

03/23/2022

AOI02-02-SB-00-1.5

03/15/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01 AOI02

0-2 ft

03/17/2022

SPRNG-MW02-SB-00-02 AOI02-01-SB-00-02

03/23/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-01-SB-00-02-D

03/15/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 

AOI01-01-SB-00-02 AOI02-01-SB-00-02-D AO

0-2 ft

03/14/2022

SPRNG-MW01-00-02

AECOM 
Table 6-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

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 Qual Resu

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.023 J ND U ND U ND PFHxS 130 0.166 J 0.044 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.045 J ND PFNA 19 2.00 1.55 0.076 J ND U ND U 0.032 J 0.338 J 0.148 J 0.395 

PFOA 19 2.03 1.78 0.119 J ND U ND U ND U 0.393 J 0.147 J 0.675 

PFOS 13 1.83 0.338 J 0.206 J ND U 0.067 J 0.135 J 0.220 J 0.801 J 0.439 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviationsJ- = Estimated concentration, biased low AASF Army Aviation Support FacilityU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

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. D duplicate

DL detection limit

Notes ft feet

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. HQ hazard quotient

ID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringSPRNG SpringfieldUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

03/17/2022

0-2 ft

AOI04 AOI05

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

AOI05-02-SB-00-02

03/23/2022

0-2 ft

AOI05

0

AOI05-01-SB-00-02

03/23/2022

0-2 ft 0-2 ft

AOI04-01-SB-00-02 AOI04-02-SB-00-02

AOI03

AOI03-01-SB-00-02

0-2 ft

03/17/2022

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI02

AOI02-04-SB-00-02

03/23/2022

0-1.7 ft 0-1.4 ft

03/24/2022

AOI02-05-SB-00-1.4 AOI02-06-SB-00-02

03/23/2022

0-2 ft

03/17/2022

AECOM 
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

Soil, LCMSMS compliant E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M E537M PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

PFHxS 1600 0.143 J 0.094 J ND U 0.077 J ND U ND U ND U ND 

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

PFOS 160 0.517 J 0.379 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutan

References PFHxS perfluorohexa

PFNA perfluorononaPFOA perfluorooctanPFOS perfluorooctan

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviationsU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AASF Army Aviation 

AOI Area of Interes

Notes D duplicate

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotieID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromat

LOD limit of detectiND analyte not de

OSD Office of the SQSM Quality SystemQual interpreted quSB soil boringSPRNG SpringfieldUSEPA United States μg/kg micrograms pe

SPRNG-MW02-SB-5.5-6.5 SPRNG-MW02-SB-08-09

03/22/2022

5.5-6.5 ft 8-9 ft

03/23/2022

AOI02-01-S

03/17

12-1

AO

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

SPRNG-MW01-11-12

11-12 ft

03/15/2022

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-08-09

03/16/2022

8-9 ft

AOI01

AOI01-01-SB-13-14

03/16/2022

13-14 ft

AOI01-02-SB-13-15 

03/28/2022

13-15 ft

AOI02-01-SB-6.5-7.5

03/17/2022

6.5-7.5 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U 0.039 J 2.34 ND U ND U

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U 0.470 J 10.5 ND U ND U

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.040 J ND U ND U

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.597 J ND U ND UPFOS 160 0.077 J ND U ND U 0.544 J 0.377 J ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS 

References PFHxS 

PFNA PFOA PFOS 

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviatioU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AASF 

AOI 

Notes D 

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. DL 

ft HQ ID LCMSMS LOD ND OSD QSM Qual SB SPRNG USEPA μg/kg 

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI04-02-SB-6.5-7.5

03/17/2022

6.5-7.5 ft

AOI03 AOI04

AOI04-02-SB-09-10

03/17/2022

9-10 ft

AOI04-01-SB-13.5-14.5

03/17/2022

13.5-14.5 ft

AOI05-01-SB-13-15

03/28/2022

13-15 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

AOI05

AOI05-03-SB-05-07

03/28/2022

9.5-10.5 ft 5-7 ft

03/17/2022

AOI03-01-SB-9.5-10.5-D

8-9 ft

03/17/2022

AOI04-01-SB-08-09

AECOM 
Table 6-4

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS ND U 0.082 J ND U ND U ND UPFHxS ND U 0.380 J 0.536 J 0.048 J ND UPFNA ND U ND U 0.037 J ND U ND UPFOA ND U ND U 0.188 J ND U ND UPFOS ND U 0.099 J 0.457 J ND U ND U

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical AbbreviationsJ = Estimated concentration PFBS perfluorobutU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFHxS perfluorohex

PFNA perfluorono

Notes PFOA perfluorooct

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFOS perfluorooct

Acronyms and AbbreviationsAASF Army AviatioAOI Area of InteD duplicateDL detection limft feetID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromLOD limit of deteND analyte not QSM Quality SystQual interpreted qSB soil boringSPRNG Springfieldμg/kg micrograms 

03/28/2022

28-30 ft

AOI01-02-SB-25-27

03/28/2022

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

25-27 ft

AOI02

AOI02-02-SB-15-16.1

03/28/2022

15-16.1 ft

SPRNG-MW01-17-18

03/15/2022

17-18 ft

AOI01 AOI03

AOI03-01-SB-29-30

03/17/2022

29-30 ft

AOI05

AOI05-01-SB-28-30

AECOM 
Table 6-5

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Re

PFBS 601 1.94 J 1.97 J 2.04 J 2.35 J 3.84 J 0.891 J 0.864 J 1.99 PFHxS 39 23.7 22.9 ND U 20.2 ND U ND U ND U 4.71 

PFNA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 1.16 J ND U ND PFOA 6 10.2 9.92 ND U 2.71 J 2.96 J 4.04 1.72 J 2.07 

PFOS 4 45.6 42.0 1.97 J 7.31 3.00 J 3.89 J 1.97 J 8.04 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluo

References PFHxS perfluo

PFNA perfluoPFOA perfluoPFOS perfluo

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviationsU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AASF Army A

AOI Area o

Notes D duplica

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. DL detect

GW groundHQ hazard ID identifiLCMSMS liquid cLOD limit of ND analyte OSD Office QSM Quality Qual interprSPRNG SpringUSEPA United ng/l nanog

A

AOI01-01-GW-D

03/18/2022

AOI01-02-GW

03/29/2022

AOI02

AOI02-01-GW

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)

AOI01

04/01/2022

SPRNG-MW02-GW

04/01/2022

SPRNG-MW01-GW

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

03/18/2022 03/18/2022

AOI02-02-GW

03/29/2022

AECOM 
Table 6-5

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Springfield AVCRAD

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual

PFBS 601 1.85 JPFHxS 39 1.64 JPFNA 6 ND UPFOA 6 1.88 JPFOS 4 3.46 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentration Acronyms and AbbreviationsU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI Area of Interest

Notes D duplicate

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. DL detection limit

GW groundwaterHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSPRNG SpringfieldUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiong/l nanogram per liter

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI04

AOI04-02-GW

03/21/2022

AECOM 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

AECOM 6-14
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02

AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

0 200 400 800

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

AECOM 6-15
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02

AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

0 200 400 800

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-16
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02 AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

0 200 400 800

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

AECOM 6-17
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01 SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02

AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

0 200 400 800

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-18
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AOI02-06

AOI05-01

AOI05-02

AOI05-03B

AOI05-04

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

AOI05-03B

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

AOI05-01

0 200 400 800

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-19
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

0 200 400 800

Feet

PFOA PFOS PFBS

­ Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

10/6/2022

10/6/2022

10/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

10/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

AECOM 6-20
SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

SPRNG-MW02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI03-01

SPRNG-MW01

AOI04-01

AOI04-02

0 200 400 800

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

­ Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Springfield AVCRAD, MO

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

9/6/2022

MS

AP

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

9/6/2022

1:4,800

Legend

Facility Boundary

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

AECOM 6-21
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 6-22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figure 7-1 through 

Figure 7-5. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a receptor may 

be impacted, the decision to move from SI to RI or interim action is determined based upon 

exceedances of the SLs for the relevant compounds and whether the release is more than likely 

attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents the current understanding of the site conditions with 

respect to known and suspected sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration 

pathways, and potentially exposed human receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered 

potentially complete when the following conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figures use an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with an incomplete pathway 

generally warrant no further action. However, the pathway is considered potentially complete if the 

relevant compounds 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 relevant 

compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway that have 

detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further investigation. Although 

the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the 

recommendation for future study in an RI or no action at this time is based on the comparison of 

the SI analytical results for the relevant compounds to the SLs.

In general, the potential routes of exposure to the relevant compounds 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 toxicological study. The receptors 

evaluated are consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2001). 

Receptors at the facility include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction 

workers, trespassers (though unlikely due to restricted access), residents outside the facility 

boundary, and recreational users outside of the facility boundary.

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

The SI results in soil were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors at AOI 1, AOI 2, AOI 3, AOI 4, and AOI 5 based on 

the aforementioned criteria.

7.1.1 AOI 1

AOI 1 is Hangar 27, where a fire suppression system test was conducted by a contractor during 

which the AFFF was captured by a vacuum truck to prevent release to the environment. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in surface soil at AOI 1. Site workers and 

construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-2

inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers and construction 

workers is potentially complete. PFOS and PFHxS were detected in shallow subsurface soil at 

AOI 1. At the time of the SI, construction activities were occurring on and adjacent to the facility. 

Construction workers could contact constituents in shallow subsurface soil via incidental 

ingestion, and therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for current and future construction 

workers is potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1.

7.1.2 AOI 2

AOI 2 is FTA 1. In 2007, a one-time fire training event occurred on the concrete, where one 60-

gallon Tri-MaxTM fire extinguisher was fully dispensed on the ramp area. The 3% AFFF was then 

allowed to run off the concrete and into the adjacent grass. Furthermore, based on details also 

provided from on-facility base personnel for other, previously unknown historical fire training 

activities, additional surface soil sampling was added to at the northwestern end of the ramp 

(nearby AOI02-01 and AOI02-04).

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in surface soil at AOI 2. Site workers and 

construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and 

inhalation of dust. At the time of the SI, construction activities were occurring on and adjacent to 

the facility. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers and current and future 

construction workers is potentially complete. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not 

detected in shallow subsurface soil at AOI 2; therefore, all exposure pathways are considered 

incomplete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2.

7.1.3 AOI 3

AOI 3 is FTA 2. In 2014, a one-time fire training event occurred with one 60-gallon Tri-MaxTM fire 

extinguisher, and approximately 20 gallons of 3% AFFF were released. The AFFF was then 

allowed to dissipate in the grass.

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in surface soil at AOI 3; therefore, all 

exposure pathways are considered incomplete. PFOS was detected in shallow subsurface soil at 

AOI 3. Construction workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via incidental ingestion. 

At the time of the SI, construction activities were occurring on and adjacent to the facility.

Therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for current and future construction workers is 

potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3.

7.1.4 AOI 4

AOI 4 is the GSE Building. In preparation for freezing temperatures in winter, AFFF solution in TriMaxTM fire extinguishers was exchanged for a 3% AFFF Chemguard Low Temperature solution. 

The removed AFFF solution was containerized in 55-gallon drums and stored in the GSE building. 

During the warm months, the 3% AFFF Chemguard Low Temperature solution was removed, and 

the Tri-MaxTM fire extinguishers were replaced with the original AFFF solution.

PFOS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in surface soil at AOI 4. Site workers and construction 

workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. 

Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers and construction workers is

potentially complete. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in shallow 

subsurface soil at AOI 4. Construction workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via 

incidental ingestion. At the time of the SI, construction activities were occurring on and adjacent 

to the facility. Therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for current and future construction 

workers is potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 4 is presented on Figure 7-4.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-3

7.1.5 AOI 5

AOI 5 was an historical FTA that was identified by on-facility base personnel during SI field 

activities. Based on information provided by facility staff involved with previously unknown 

historical fire training activities, AOI 5 was added to the SI field investigation.

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 5. Site workers and 

construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and 

inhalation of dust. At the time of the SI, construction activities were occurring on and adjacent to 

the facility. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers and current and future 

construction workers is potentially complete. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not 

detected in shallow subsurface soil; therefore, all exposure pathways are considered incomplete. 

The CSM for AOI 5 is presented on Figure 7-5.

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

The SI results in groundwater were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors based on the aforementioned criteria.

7.2.1 AOI 1

PFOA and PFOS were detected above their SLs in groundwater samples collected at AOI 1.

Several domestic wells are located immediately surrounding the facility. Several of these domestic 

wells are constructed within the uppermost water bearing unit, the Springfield Plateau Aquifer, 

which has not been a primary source of drinking water for Springfield since the 1950s. There is 

one public well that is presumed cross-gradient to the AVCRAD. Drinking water for the AVCRAD 

is supplied by the City of Springfield, which sources most of the water from the surface water in 

surrounding lakes and rivers, and the rest from groundwater wells screened in the deeper Ozark 

Aquifer.

The City of Springfield sources potable water from surface water sources, which are understood 

to be hydraulically connected to the shallow Springfield Plateau Aquifer due to the presence of 

abundant karst features. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to site workers and off-facility 

residents via ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete. Depths to water 

measured at AOI 1 in March 2022 during the SI ranged from 12.71 to 24.40 feet bgs in the 

overlying unconsolidated soils and 23.38 to 67.91 feet bgs in the underlying limestone. Therefore,

the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered potentially

complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1.

7.2.2 AOI 2

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater samples collected at AOI 

2, at concentrations below their SLs. Drinking water for the AVCRAD is supplied by the City of 

Springfield, which sources most of the water from the surface water in surrounding lakes and 

rivers, and the rest from groundwater wells. As discussed in Section 7.2.1, surface water and 

groundwater at the facility are understood to be hydraulically connected. Therefore, the pathway 

for exposure to site workers and off-facility residents via ingestion of groundwater is considered 

potentially complete. Depths to water measured in March 2022 during the SI ranged from 13.64

to 28.94 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is 

considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-4

7.2.3 AOI 3

PFOS was detected above its SL in groundwater samples collected at AOI 3. Drinking water for 

the AVCRAD is supplied by the City of Springfield, which sources most of the water from the 

surface water in surrounding lakes and rivers, and the rest from groundwater wells. As discussed 

in Section 7.2.1, surface water and groundwater at the facility are understood to be hydraulically 

connected. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to site workers and off-facility residents via 

ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete. Depth to water measured in March 

2022 during the SI was 16.32 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future 

construction workers is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3.

7.2.4 AOI 4

PFOS was detected above the SL in groundwater samples collected at AOI 4. Drinking water for 

the AVCRAD is supplied by the City of Springfield, which sources most of the water from the 

surface water in surrounding lakes and rivers, and the rest from groundwater wells. As discussed 

in Section 7.2.1, surface water and groundwater at the facility are understood to be hydraulically 

connected. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to site workers and off-facility residents via 

ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete.

Depths to water measured in March 2022 during the SI ranged from 4.89 to 15.54 feet bgs. 

Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered 

potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 4 is presented on Figure 7-4.

7.2.5 AOI 5

Groundwater wells AOI05-01 and AOI05-03B were dry during sampling and both wells are 

screened from 20 to 30 feet bgs. However, these wells are not believed to be representative of 

the local groundwater conditions at the site, particularly due to karst features underlying the 

facility, which can cause localized variations in hydrologic conditions. Drinking water for the 

AVCRAD is supplied by the City of Springfield, which sources most of the water from the surface 

water in surrounding lakes and rivers, and the rest from groundwater wells. As discussed in 

Section 7.2.1, surface water and groundwater at the facility are understood to be hydraulically 

connected. Therefore, the pathway for exposure to site workers, future construction workers, and 

off-facility residents via ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete. The CSM for 

AOI 5 is presented on Figure 7-5.

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

The SI results in surface water and sediment were used to determine whether a potentially 

complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the 

aforementioned criteria. At AOIs where surface water and sediment samples were not collected, 

data from downgradient AOIs or the SI results in soil and groundwater, in combination with 

knowledge of the fate and transport properties of PFAS, were used to determine whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1

PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Because PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and 

PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1, it is possible that those compounds may 

have migrated from soil and groundwater to the retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-5

run-off or groundwater discharge. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure 

pathway for future construction workers or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Facility 

workers are unlikely to access the retention pond, so the exposure pathway is considered 

incomplete. Due to potential recreational use of the Rainer Branch River to the west of the facility, 

the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and 

recreational users is also considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on 

Figure 7-1. 

7.3.2 AOI 2 

Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Because PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and 

PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 2, it is possible that those compounds may 

have migrated from soil and groundwater to the retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial 

run-off or groundwater discharge. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure 

pathway for future construction workers or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Facility 

workers are unlikely to access the retention pond, so the exposure pathway is incomplete. Due 

to potential recreational use of the Rainer Branch River to the west of the facility, the surface water 

and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and recreational users is also 

considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

7.3.3 AOI 3 

Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Because PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and 

PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 3, it is possible that those compounds may 

have migrated from soil and groundwater to the retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial 

run-off or groundwater discharge. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure 

pathway for future construction workers or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Facility 

workers are unlikely to access the retention pond, so the exposure pathway is incomplete. Due 

to potential recreational use of the Rainer Branch River to the west of the facility, the surface water 

and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and recreational users is also 

considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3. 

7.3.4 AOI 4 

Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Because PFOS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected 

in soil and groundwater at AOI 4, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from 

soil and groundwater to the retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial run-off or 

groundwater discharge. Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway 

for future construction workers or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Facility workers 

are unlikely to access the retention pond, so the exposure pathway is incomplete. Due to potential 

recreational use of the Rainer Branch River to the west of the facility, the surface water and 

sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and recreational users is also 

considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 4 is presented on Figure 7-4. 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-6

7.3.5 AOI 5 

Groundwater and surface water within Greene County are hydraulically connected due to the 

downward infiltration of surface water into sinkholes and dissolution fractures and the upward 

movement of shallow groundwater from springs. Because PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were 

detected in soil at AOI 5, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil to the 

retention pond northeast of Hangar 27 via surficial run-off. Therefore, the surface water and 

sediment ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers or trespassers is considered 

potentially complete. Facility workers are unlikely to access the retention pond, so the exposure 

pathway is incomplete. Due to potential recreational use of the Rainer Branch River to the west 

of the facility, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents 

and recreational users is also considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 5 is presented 

on Figure 7-5. 
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1

Discharge of 

AFFF to 

surrounding 

surface from fire 

suppression 

system test

Surface soil

Subsurface 

soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

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

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

Site Worker

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, MO

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes: Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

AECOM 7-7
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 2

Discharge of 

AFFF to 

surrounding 

surface from fire 

training activities

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

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

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, MO

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes:

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

AECOM 7-8
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 3

Discharge of 

AFFF to 

surrounding 

surface from fire 

training activities

Subsurface 

soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

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

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-3

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, MO

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes:

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

AECOM 7-9
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 4 Release from 

storage of AFFF

Surface soil

Subsurface 

soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

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

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

Site Worker

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-4

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 4

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, MO

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes: Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

AECOM 7-10
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 5

Discharge of 

AFFF to 

surrounding 

surface from fire 

training activities

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

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

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-5

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 5

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, MO

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes:

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Trespasser/ Recreational User1,2

AECOM 7-11
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 7-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 8-1

8. Summary and Outcome

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. 

The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs.

8.1 SI Activities

The SI field activities were conducted from 14 March to 1 April 2022 and consisted of utility 

clearance, rotary sonic boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation and

grab groundwater sample collection, permanent well installation and groundwater sample 

collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as noted in Section 5.9.

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), samples 

were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 

Table B-15 as follows.

• Thirty-eight (38) soil samples from 18 boring locations;

• Seven grab groundwater samples from nine temporary well locations;

• Two groundwater samples from two permanent well locations;

• Twenty-three (23) QA/QC samples.

An SI is conducted when the PA determines an AOI exists based on probable use, storage, and/or 

disposal of PFAS-containing materials. The SI includes multi-media sampling at AOIs to 

determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is 

warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is 

required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOIs, which are 

described in Section 7.

8.2 Outcome

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation is warranted in an RI for AOI 1: Hangar 27, AOI 

3: FTA 2, and AOI 4: GSE Building; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 2 and AOI 5 at this 

time. However, as groundwater could not be sampled from AOI 5 due to insufficient recharge, a 

data gap exists for this AOI which may be addressed during the RI. Based on the CSMs developed 

and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure to drinking water receptors 

from AOI 1, AOI 3, and AOI 4 from sources on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities.

Sample analytical concentrations collected during the SI were compared to the project SLs in soil 

and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to 

the SLs is as follows:

• At AOI 1:

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS in soil at 

AOI 1 were below their SLs.

• PFOA and PFOS in groundwater exceeded their SLs. PFOA was detected above 

its SL of 6 ng/L at AOI01-01, with a concentration of 10.2 ng/L. PFOS was detected 

above the SL of 4 ng/L at AOI01-01 and SPRNG-MW01, with concentrations of 
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 8-2

45.6 ng/L and 7.31 ng/L, respectively. Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in an RI.

• At AOI 2:

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS in soil at 

AOI 2 were below their SLs.

• Detected concentrations in groundwater were below SLs. Based on the results of the 

SI, no further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted.

• At AOI 3:

• The detected concentrations of PFOS and PFHxS in soil at AOI 3 were below their 

SLs.

• PFOS in groundwater exceeded its SL. PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L 

at AOI03-01, with a concentration of 8.04 ng/L. Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 3 is warranted in an RI.

• At AOI 4:

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS in soil at 

AOI 4 were below their SLs.

• PFOS in groundwater exceeded the respective SL. PFOS was detected above its SL 

of 4 ng/L at AOI04-01, with a concentration of 5.86 ng/L. Based on the results of the 

SI, further evaluation of AOI 4 is warranted in an RI.

• At AOI 5:

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA in soil at AOI 5

were below their respective SLs. Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation 

of AOI 5 is warranted.

• Groundwater was not sampled at AOI 5 due to lack of available groundwater, 

representing a data gap for this AOI.

Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA 

(commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on 

the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA 

is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC 

AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is 

generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX 

would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS.

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should 

be considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 8-3

Table 8-1: Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area Future Action

1 Hangar 27 Proceed to RI

2 FTA 1 No further action

3 FTA 2 Proceed to RI

4 GSE Building Proceed to RI

5 FTA 3 N/A No further action

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 8-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

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-D-0014/

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

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.

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Springfield Aviation Classification Repair 

Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri. March.

AECOM. 2022a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri, 

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. February. 

AECOM. 2022b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Springfield Aviation Classification Repair 

Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. February. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 

6 July. 

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.

4 September.

DoD. 2019a. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. 

DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 

4 November.

Fenneman, N.M. 1917. Physiographic Subdivision of the United States. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 3, No.1 (Jan. 15, 1917), 

pp. 17-22.

Fenneman, N.M. 1928. Physiographic Divisions of the United States. Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec, 1928), pp. 261-353.

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at 

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology 

47(9): 4164-71.

Harvey. E.J. 1980. Ground Water in the Springfield-Salem Plateaus of Southern Missouri and 

Northern Arkansas. USGS Water-Resources Investigations 80-101.

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

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

ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March.

Miller, D.E.; Vandike, J.E. 1997. Groundwater Resources of Missouri. Missouri State Water Plan 

Series Volume II, Water Resources Report Number 46.
Site Inspection Report

Springfield Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot, Springfield, Missouri

AECOM 9-2

Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG). 2019. Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan 

(SWPPP), Aviation Classification and Repair Activity Depot (AVCRAD), 5250 West Depot 

Road, Springfield, Missouri 65803. NPDES Permit #MO-0134627.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MODNR). 2019. Missouri Geological Survey 

Geosciences Technical Resource Assessment Tool (GeoSTRAT) Online. 

https://apps5.mo.gov/geostrat/. Accessed January 2019 and December 2020.

MODNR. 2022. Litton Systems, Inc. https://dnr.mo.gov/document-search/litton-systems-inc-sitejune-2022. Accessed on December 20, 2022.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. Springfield Missouri Normals, 

Means, and Extremes. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Accessed October 2022. 

Springfield-Branson National Airport, 2006. Industrial Airpark Site Lease. June.

Starbuck, E.A. 2017. Geologic Map of Missouri. Missouri Geological Survey.

USACE. 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM-200-1-2. 26 February.

USDA. 2020. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey Online. 

https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 2020.

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. 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.

USFWS. 2022. Species by County Report, County: Greene County, Missouri. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 25 October 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=29077. 

USGS. 2019. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw. Accessed September 2019.

Waite, L.A.; Thomson, K.C. 1993. Development, Description, and Application of a Geographic 

Information System Database for Water Resources in Karst Terrane in Greene County, 

Missouri. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4154.

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks. City Utilities 2016 Water Quality Report. 2019.

Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74.