FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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

February 2023

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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 Soil................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Hydrogeology ...............................................................................................2-2

2.2.4 Hydrology .....................................................................................................2-3

2.2.5 Climate .........................................................................................................2-3

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

2.2.7 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 Retention Pond.............................................................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2 Wash Rack ...................................................................................................3-1

3.3 AOI 3 Firehouse Building 327.................................................................................3-1

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 ...........................................................................5-1

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

5.5 Surveying................................................................................................................5-4

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste ...................................................................................5-4

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods................................................................................5-5

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum .....................................................................5-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions........................................................................................6-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM ii

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

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

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results .........................................................6-4

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 .........................................................6-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway...................................................7-3

7.3.1 AOI 1 ............................................................................................................7-3

7.3.2 AOI 2 ............................................................................................................7-3

7.3.3 AOI 3 ............................................................................................................7-4

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

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

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

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

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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. Field Change Request Forms

B4. Survey Data

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs 

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 Elevation Contours

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, AOI 1

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil, AOI 2

Figure 6-3 PFOA Detections in Soil, AOI 3

Figure 6-4 PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

Figure 6-5 PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

Figure 6-6 PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

Figure 6-7 PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

Figure 6-8 PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

Figure 6-9 PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

Figure 6-10 PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

Figure 6-11 PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

Figure 6-12 PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

Figure 6-13 PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 1

Figure 6-14 PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 2

Figure 6-15 PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 3

Figure 6-16 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 1

Figure 6-17 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 2

Figure 6-18 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 3

Figure 6-19 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 1

Figure 6-20 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 2

Figure 6-21 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 3

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM iv

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths, Temporary 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

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

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

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FTA Fire Training Area

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LAARNG Louisiana Army National Guard

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LNG Louisiana National Guard

LWCR light-weight center rods

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

NGVD 29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OWS oil/water separator

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM vi

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

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USACHPPM United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine

USAEH United States Army Environmental Hygiene Agency

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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 three Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI locations). 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 Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area near Pineville, 

Louisiana and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1: Retention Pond and AOI 2: 

Wash Rack; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 3 at this time, as there are no known 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that are the responsibility of the ARNG or 

Department of Defense (DoD). Camp Beauregard will also be referred to as the “facility” 

throughout this document.

Camp Beauregard occupies 13,618 acres and is separated into two distinct non-contiguous 

areas, the Training Site (locally known as Range Central) (12,889 acres) and the Cantonment 

Area (729 acres) (Louisiana ARNG, 2007). The Cantonment Area is the location of the former 

Camp Beauregard Army Aviation Support Facility, which was relocated to Esler Field in 

2000-2001.

The PA identified three AOIs for investigation during the SI phase. SI sampling results from the 

three 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: Retention Pond and AOI 2: Wash Rack. AOI 3: Firehouse Building 

327 exceeded the SLs; however, at this location, there are no known hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants that are the responsibility of the ARNG or DoD, and no further action 

by the ARNG is recommended at this time. Based on the results of this SI, the State of Louisiana 

or the City of Pineville may consider the need for further evaluation in an RI for AOI 3: Firehouse 

Building 327.

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, as screening values were established after SI planning and execution. However, ARNG 

will add HFPO-DA to the list of constituents sampled during the next phase of CERCLA if warranted.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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.) Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA 

phases will include HFPO-DA if warranted.

Table ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater –

Facility 

Boundary

Future Action

1 Retention Pond Proceed to RI 

2 Wash Rack Proceed to RI

3 Firehouse 

Building 327

No further action by 

the ARNG. The 

Firehouse Building 

327 is not under 

control of the 

ARNG. Based on 

the results of the 

SI, the State of 

Louisiana and/or 

the City of Pineville 

may consider the 

need to proceed to 

RI.

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected

1 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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 Camp Beauregard 

Cantonment Area, Louisiana. Camp Beauregard 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 Camp Beauregard (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2020) that

identified three Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, 

stored, disposed, or released historically. 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, as screening values were established after SI planning and execution. However, ARNG 

will add HFPO-DA to the list of constituents sampled during the next phase of CERCLA if warranted.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

Camp Beauregard is located in north-central Louisiana, northeast of Pineville and Alexandria

(Figure 2-1). Camp Beauregard is approximately 13,618 acres and is separated into two distinct 

non-contiguous areas, the Training Site (locally known as Range Central) (12,889 acres) and the 

Cantonment Area (729 acres) (Louisiana ARNG [LAARNG], 2007). The Cantonment Area and 

most of the Training Site are in the Rapides Parish, although a portion of the Training Site extends 

into Grant Parish. This SI focuses on the Cantonment Area, where the former Camp Beauregard 

Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) helicopter airfield was located before it was moved to Esler 

Field in 2000-2001. The Cantonment Area is bounded to the south and east by Esler Field Road 

(LA 116), by Monroe Highway (US Route 165) to the west, and by Flagon Bayou to the north.

Camp Beauregard was authorized by the War Department on 15 July 1917 for the training of 

troops for World War I, when it was determined that Camp Stafford was too small. After the war, 

the State of Louisiana acquired Camp Beauregard, and it became a training site for the National 

Guard. With the beginning of World War II in 1940, Camp Beauregard was federalized and used 

for the 1940 Louisiana Maneuvers and the Fifth Corps (LAARNG, 2007). Once World War II 

ended, Camp Beauregard came under control of the State of Louisiana for summer National 

Guard training. In 1973, Camp Beauregard was again used as an annual training facility (Malcolm 

Pirnie, Inc., 2003).

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Camp Beauregard is in the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic region (US Army Corps 

of Engineers [USACE], 2014). The Cantonment Area topography ranges from around 100 to 160 

feet above mean sea level (US Geological Survey [USGS], 2003; USGS, 2015) and is bisected 

by Flagon Bayou, which flows southeast across the Cantonment Area (Figure 2-2).

2.2.1 Geology

In general, the geology of central Louisiana is composed of marine sediments deposited by 

changing sea levels, and fluvial sediments deposited by the meandering Mississippi River system. 

These sediments dip less than 5 degrees toward the south-southeast, and their composition 

ranges from clays to sands (US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency [USAEHA], 1994). 

The geology of Camp Beauregard includes Quaternary surficial deposits overlying Oligocene to 

Miocene deposits. The surficial geology consists of the alluvial and fluvial Bentley and Williana 

formations, which have two facies: a clayey and a sandy to gravelly facies (USAEHA, 1994). The 

Oligocene to Miocene deposits at Camp Beauregard consists of two formations, from oldest to 

youngest: the Catahoula Formation and the Fleming Formation, which comprises the Lena, 

Carnahan Bayou, Dough Hills, and Williamson Creek members. The Catahoula Formation 

contains thick beds of sand (fresh water bearing beds range from 10 to 230 feet thick) and thin 

layers of clay (US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine [USACHPPM], 

2004). The Miocene-aged Fleming Formation is characterized by consolidated clays with 

discontinuous silts and sands (USAEHA, 1994).

At the Cantonment Area, the clayey facies of the Bentley and Williana formations are present in 

thicknesses ranging from 30 to over 100 feet. The clayey facies are predominant in the 

Cantonment Area and are underlain by the Williamson Creek, which is only present in the 

southernmost portion of the Cantonment Area, Dough Hills, Carnahan Bayou, and Lena members 

of the Flemings Formation and the Catahoula Formation. The geology at the Training Site differs 

slightly than that found at the Cantonment Area; the Williamson Creek and Dough Hills members 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 2-2

of the Flemings Formation are absent at the Training Site. The Williamson Creek member 

terminates at the southern part of the Cantonment Area, and the Dough Hills member terminates 

just north/northeast of the Cantonment Area and is therefore not present at the Training Site. 

Second, the sandy to gravelly facies of the Bentley and Williana formations predominate in the 

Training Site (USAEHA, 1994). The geology of Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area is shown on 

Figure 2-3.

Soil borings completed during the SI show a geology dominated by clay with or without lenses of 

coarser-material. At all nine boreholes, the top 2 to 5 feet are composed of sand with varying 

amounts of clay and silt. Underlying the surficial sands are clays and silts ranging in thickness 

from 4.5 to 38 feet. The thickest clays were observed in the western part of the Cantonment Area 

(AOI03-01, AOI03-02, and BEAU-01). On the eastern portion of the Cantonment Area, coarsergrained lenses, composed of clayey sand to poorly graded sand to well-graded sand with gravel,

range from 0.5 to over 6 feet. The lenses of sand likely represent paleostreams, whereas thicker 

clay deposits represent isolated channel fill as the paleostreams migrated and abandoned former 

channel flow paths. These facility observations are consistent with the two facies of the Bentley 

and Williana formations.

Samples for grain size analyses were collected at three locations (one from each AOI), AOI01-

02, AOI02-01, and AOI03-02, 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 

(55.11 percent [%] to 70.36%) and clay (24.63% to 44.32%). 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 Soil

Soils at Camp Beauregard consist mostly of Quaternary-aged fine sandy loams and clay loams 

with marine or alluvial origins (US Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1980). Soils present at the 

Cantonment Area include Acadia silt loam, Cahaba fine sandy loam, Gore very fine sandy loams, 

Guyton complex, Kolin silt loam, Lucy loamy fine sand, Malbis fine sandy loam, Rexor-Nugent 

complex, and the Ruston fine sandy loam. The silty loams tend to have relatively low permeability, 

whereas the sandy loam has higher permeability. The pH of these soils ranges from 3.8-5.8 

(USDA, 2019).

2.2.3 Hydrogeology

The hydrogeology at Camp Beauregard is characterized as a multi-layered system composed of 

four aquifers: the Bentley and Williana (often lumped with other surficial aquifers and described 

as the terrace aquifers), Williamson Creek, Carnahan Bayou, and Catahoula aquifers. The Jasper 

aquifer system comprises the Williamson Creek and Carnahan Bayou aquifers in Rapides Parish.

Freshwater from the Bentley and Williana aquifer is sourced in the minor sandy lenses in the 

clayey facies (USAEHA, 1994). Some geotechnical reports and Parish-wide aquifer studies do 

not identify this aquifer, which suggests it is not a major source of freshwater in Rapides Parish. 

Additionally, some sources incorrectly call this aquifer the Red River aquifer (USACHPPM, 2004), 

which terminates at the Red River south-southwest of the facility. 

The Williamson Creek aquifer is situated in the Williamson Creek member of the Fleming 

Formation and is therefore only present in the southern portion of the Cantonment Area. The 

aquifer sits within well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sand interbedded with clay. Average 

thickness of the sand beds is approximately 50 feet. The base of the aquifer ranges from 0 feet 

below National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) in northwestern Rapides Parish to 

2,500 feet below NGVD 29 in the south (Griffith, 2009; Tomaszewski, 2009). Potentiometricsurface maps for the Williamson Creek aquifer show groundwater at the Cantonment Area flowing 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 2-3

southwest, towards the Red River, directly between the cities of Alexandria and Pineville 

(Tomaszewski, 2009). Approximately 270 wells were screened in the Williamson Creek aquifer; 

193 of these wells are domestic, and 44 are public supply wells (Griffith, 2009). The confining unit 

between the Williamson Creek and Carnahan Bayou aquifers is the Dough Hills member of the 

Fleming Formation.

The Carnahan Bayou aquifer is the major aquifer at Camp Beauregard and is located within the 

Carnahan Bayou member, which is composed of well-sorted, fine- to medium-grained sand 

interbedded with clay, which are interpreted to have deltaic and marine origins. The sand beds 

have an average thickness of approximately 38 feet. The base of the aquifer ranges from 0 feet 

below NGVD 29 in northwestern Rapides Parish to 4,000 feet below NGVD 29 in the south 

(Griffith, 2009; Tomaszewski, 2009). Potentiometric-surface maps for the Carnahan Bayou aquifer 

show groundwater at the Cantonment area flowing southwest towards the Red River, directly 

between the cities of Alexandria and Pineville (Tomaszewski, 2009). Approximately 210 wells are 

screened in the Carnahan Bayou aquifer; of these wells, 122 are domestic, and 71 are public 

supply wells (Griffith, 2009).

The Lena member of the Fleming Formation is the confining unit between the Carnahan Bayou 

aquifer and the underlying Catahoula Aquifer. However, at Camp Beauregard, the Catahoula 

aquifer contains saltwater (USACHPPM, 2004).

Water to the facility and surrounding area is supplied by the Water Works District No. 3 of Rapides 

Parish. The District distributes water sourced from seven groundwater wells (40%), with two 

supply wells (number [No.] 2 and No. 7) located within the Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area 

and screened within the Carnahan Bayou aquifer (Figure 2-3). The remaining 60% of the District’s 

water is sourced from a surface water intake on Big Creek in Grant Parish, approximately 8 miles 

north of the facility (French, 2020). Using online resources, such as state and local geographic 

information system databases, wells were researched to a 4-mile radius of the facility. Well depths 

ranged from 15 to 1180 feet below ground surface (bgs). Several wells were noted as owned by 

the Louisiana National Guard (LNG), Camp Beauregard, and the USGS; furthermore, 17 records 

noted plugged/abandoned or destroyed wells (including several LNG wells). Eight wells were 

reported as monitoring wells installed to total depths ranging from 15 to 80 feet bgs. Water levels 

listed for two monitoring wells (E17 and E18 owned by the Louisiana Air National Guard and 

located immediately north of the facility) were reported as shallow as 3 feet bgs. 

Depths to water measured in August 2021 during the SI ranged from 1.58 to 32.50 feet bgs. 

Groundwater elevation contours from the SI are presented on Figure 2-4 and indicate the 

presence of a potential groundwater divide bisecting the Cantonment Area between AOIs 2 and 

3. Groundwater to the west of the divide flows to the southwest toward the Red River, whereas 

groundwater to the east of the divide appears to flow to the northeast towards Flagon Bayou. 

2.2.4 Hydrology

Camp Beauregard is situated in the watershed of Catahoula Lake, where surface water consists 

of intermittent streams, open water bodies, and wetlands (LAARNG, 2007; USACE, 2014). The 

Cantonment Area is in the Upper and Lower Flagon Bayou watersheds (Figure 2-5). The Flagon 

Bayou flows southeast from northwest Rapides Parish through the Cantonment Area and, 

eventually, northeast into Catahoula Lake. Local drainage features include a retention pond in the 

northeastern portion of the Cantonment area, which overflows into Flagon Bayou.

2.2.5 Climate

Camp Beauregard has a sub-tropical climate influenced by its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico 

(LAARNG, 2007). The average temperature near the facility is 66.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). 

Seasonally, temperatures vary from an average monthly high of 78.1 °F to an average monthly 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 2-4

low of 53.9 °F. Average precipitation in Pineville is 57.13 inches (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2021). The mean annual relative humidity is 74% (LAARNG, 2007). 

Thunderstorm activity is most common during hurricane season (1 June–31 October), when 

tropical storms and hurricanes regularly develop in the Gulf of Mexico. The tropical disturbances 

cause high winds and excessive rainfall (LAARNG, 2007).

2.2.6 Current and Future Land Use

Camp Beauregard is primarily used for training LAARNG members but is also used for the 

following (LAARNG, 2007):

• Military training for various reserve and active units;

• Training for the Louisiana Youth Challenge Program;

• Branch headquarters for the Louisiana Office of Emergency Preparedness; and

• Recreational opportunities at the Training Site.

Adjacent land uses include residential, commercial/industrial, and institutional. Reasonably 

anticipated future land uses are not expected to change from the current land uses. Access to the 

facility is restricted and controlled by fencing and gates.

2.2.7 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following birds, clams, insects, fish, mammals, and reptiles are federally endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Rapides Parish and Grant Parish, 

Louisiana (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2022a; 2022b). 

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

• Mammals: Northern Long-Eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (threatened).

• Clams: Louisiana pearlshell, Margaritifera hembili (threatened).

• Fish: Pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus (endangered).

• Birds: Red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis (endangered).

• Reptiles: Louisiana pinesnake, Pituophis ruthveni (threatened); alligator snapping turtle,

Macrochelys temminckii (proposed threatened).

2.3 History of PFAS Use 

Three potential release areas where aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) may have been used or 

released historically were identified at the Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area during the PA 

(AECOM, 2020). Between 2000 and 2003, fire training activities took place at the Wash Rack 

during which AFFF may have been discharged. AFFF potentially released at the Wash Rack may 

have eventually drained into the Retention Pond. At the time of the PA, Firehouse Building 327 

stored five 5-gallon AFFF containers and firetrucks that carried 5-gallon AFFF containers. Spray 

tests were historically conducted without the use of foam. The potential release areas were 

grouped into three AOIs based on proximity to one another and presumed groundwater flow. 

Descriptions of each of the AOIs are presented in Section 3. 
Legend

Facility Boundary

^_

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

CD

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 8/12/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

1:190,080

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Camp Beauregard

Cantonment Area

Camp Beauregard Training Site

AECOM 2-5
Legend

Facility Boundary

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

CD

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

Figure 2-2 PM CM 8/12/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography Map

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

1:27,874

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

­

50 foot contour interval

at current scale.

AECOM 2-6
A!

!C(

A!

A!

!P

!C(

A!

AA!!

A!!P

!C(

!P

!C(

A!

A!

!C( !5!5

!5

A!!P

!P

A!

AA!!!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

A! A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!!P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(!C(

A! !5

A!

A!

!P!5

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

AA!!!C(

A!

!P

!P

!5

A!

!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

A!

A! !P

A!

A!

A! !5A!

AA!!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P A!

!P

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!!

!P

!5 !C(

!C(

!P

AA!!

!C(

A!

!5

A!

A!

!P

!5

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!A!

!C(

AA!!

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!

!5

A!

!C(

!P!P

A!

!P

A!

!C(

A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!

!P !C(

!5

A!

!P!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!!!P

A!

!C(

A! !C(

A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!A!!C(

A! A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!

!P

A! A!

A!!

A!

!P!P!P!P

!P

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!P

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!5

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!5

!5

!C(

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!A!

A! A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!!

!P

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

AA!!

A!

AA!!A!

!C(

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!5

A!

A!

AA!!!

!P

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!!P

A!

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A! !C(

!P

!P

AA!!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!C(

A!

AA!!

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

!5

A!

!P !P

!5

!5

A!

A!A!

AA!!

A! A!

!P

A! !5

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!5

A!

A!A!

A!

!P

A!

!5

!P

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

Kisatchie

Lake

Beaver Lake

Bayou

Maria

Basin

Rock Island

Lake

Buttonwood Lake

Lake Buhlow

Williams Lake

Hynson Bayou

Bayou Rapides

Persim

m

o n Bayou

Bayou Rigolette

Brush y

Fork

Horsepen Creek

Philip

Bay ou

Mi ll

C

er ek

B lack

Bra nch

Clear Cr eek

Spanis h

Bay ou

Huffman Creek

Bac onB ranc h

C linton B ra nc h

Ki ct hen Creek

Fl ago nCreek

Little Ho rse pe n Cre ek

Ho rseshoe Drainage Canal

L itt le Cre ek

Haw Creek

Dys on Cree k

BeaverCreek

DryPron g

Sandy

Creek

Red River

Wiggins Bay ou

Dry

Cree k

Little River

Bayou

Mari a

Ha i

nes Cr e ek

S an dy Bayou

Flagon Bay ou

Legend

4 mile radius

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Groundwater Flow

Direction

Inferred

Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Alluvium

Natural Levees

Prairie Terraces

Intermediate

Terraces

High Terraces

Williamson Creek

Dough Hills

Carnahan Bayou

Wells

!P Commercial Public

Supply

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

!C( Public Supply

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring

A! Unknown

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

Figure 2-3 PM CM 8/12/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

and the GIS User Community

1:126,720

0 1 2 4

Miles

AECOM 

­

2-7
?! ?!

?!?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

AOI03-01

111.33*

AOI03-02

133.20

AOI02-01

110.40

AOI02-02

110.45

AOI01-01

101.59

AOI01-02

96.92

BEAU-01

122.55

BEAU-02

Dry

BEAU-03

129.20

FlagonBayou

125

125

130

110

130

110

100

100

105

105

125

115

130

120

115

120

130

125

­ Figure 2-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community

10/20/2022

1:8,160

Groundwater Elevation Contours

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 340 680 1,360

Feet

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Potential Groundwater Divide

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88. Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

* AOI03-01 was not used in generating contours.

AECOM 2-8
Bayou Bertrand-Bayou

Rapides Watershed

Bayou Robert-Bayou

Boeuf Watershed

Upper Flagon

Bayou

Watershed

Kitterlin

Creek

Watershed

Horsepen

Creek

Watershed

Upper

Wiggins Bayou

Watershed

Lower Big

Creek

Watershed

Haines

Creek-Dyson

Creek Watershed Lower

Red River

Watershed

Bayou

Rigollette-Lake

Buhlow Watershed

Hynson Bayou-Bayou

Rapides Watershed

Gray Creek

Watershed

Middle

Bayou-Bayou

Boeuf Watershed

Williams

Lake-Red River

Watershed

Hudson

Creek

Watershed

Lower Flagon

Bayou Watershed

Hurricane

Creek-Little

River Watershed

Clear Creek

Watershed

Pierson

Lake

Kisatchie

Lake

Beaver Lake

Bayou Maria Basin

Rock

Island

Lake

Lake Buhlow

Williams Lake

Tanyard

Lake

Hynson Bayou

Ba youRigolette

B

ur s

hyFor k

Bayou Robert

H orsepen Cree k

Clear Cree k

Fl ago nBayou

Huffman Creek

BaconB ranch

Mill Creek

K i tchen C

er ek

L i tt l eHo rs e pe n Creek

Haw Cree k

Littl e Cre e k

Beaver Cree k

Dry Prong

Red River

Dry C re ek

Bayou

M aria

Haine s Cr eek

San dyBayou

C linton Branch

Dys onCre ek

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Surface Water Flow

Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

Figure 2-5 PM CM 8/12/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

and the GIS User Community

1:126,720

0 1 2 4

Miles

AECOM 

­

2-9
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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, three potential release areas were 

identified at Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area and grouped into three AOIs (AECOM, 2020). 

The potential release areas are shown on Figure 3-1.

3.1 AOI 1 Retention Pond

The Retention Pond is a former 33-acre large oxidation pond located on the eastern side of the 

Cantonment Area. In 2003, the Retention Pond was closed and converted into a natural wetlands 

area. Prior to 2003, AFFF potentially released at the Wash Rack would have been rinsed and 

drained into an oil/water separator (OWS) that flowed to the Retention Pond. The approximate 

coordinates of the Retention Pond are 31°22'45.2"N; 92°22'46.1"W.

3.2 AOI 2 Wash Rack

LAARNG personnel believe the Wash Rack was constructed sometime after the AASF was 

relocated to Esler Field in 2000-2001. AFFF was possibly discharged at the Wash Rack near 

Building 1338 during fire training activities. The Wash Rack is located on a concrete surface with 

a drain to an OWS. The OWS drained to the retention pond until 2003, when it was closed 

(Section 3.1). Since 2003, wastewater from the Wash Rack has been conveyed to and treated 

by the wastewater treatment plant adjacent to Pinecrest School. There are no documented 

instances of AFFF usage at the Wash Rack. The approximate coordinates of the Wash Rack are 

31°22’32.8”N; 92°23’23.4”W. See the PA Report for photographs (AECOM, 2020).

3.3 AOI 3 Firehouse Building 327

Firehouse Building 327 was opened around 1995-1996 and remains active, with multiple 

firetrucks and response vehicles. The firehouse is operated by the City of Pineville Fire 

Department. At the time of the PA, the Firehouse Building 327 stored Chemguard© 6% AFFF in 

five 5-gallon containers near the emergency response vehicles. Firetrucks carried 5-gallon 

containers up until around 2017. Spray tests were performed with these vehicles; no foam was 

used on site but was used in training off-post. The interviewees had no recollection of any AFFF 

leaks. The geographic coordinates for the Firehouse Building 327 are 31°22'13.90"N; 

92°24'10.89"W.

Tri-MaxTM extinguishers were housed at Camp Beauregard in an unknown location until 2000, 

when they were transferred to Esler Field. Any fire extinguishers at the Cantonment Area may 

have been discharged prior to 1990 but have not been used since. It is unclear where the 

Tri-MaxTM extinguishers were located, but it is possible that they were stored at the Firehouse. 

See the PA Report for photographs (AECOM, 2020).
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A!

A!

!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

!C(

!P

!P

AA!!!!C(

A!

!P

!P

A!

!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

A!

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

A!A!

!C(

AA!!!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!5

A!

!C(

!P!P

A!

!P

A!

!C(

A!

!C(

!P

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P !C(

A!

A!! A!

!C(

!P

A!!

A!!

!P

A!!

A!

!P!P

!P !P

!C(A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!!

A!

A!

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!5

!P

!P

!C(

A! A!

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

!P!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P

!P

A!

A!

A! A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!! A!

A!

AA!!

AA!!A!

!C(

!P

!P

A!!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

A!

A!!

!C(

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!!P

A!

!P

!P

A!!

!P

A!A! !C(

!P

!P

A!A!

!P

!P

!5

!P

!5

!P

!5

!P

!P

A!

!5

!C(

A!

A!

!5

A!

A!A!!

A!

!P

A!

!5

!P

A!!

!C(

!P

!P

A!

Firehouse

Building 327

Retention

Pond

FTA- 35

Purser St.

Station 1

Esler Field

Safety-Kleen

Systems

Procter

and Gamble

Manufacturing

Bayou Maria Basin

Fl agon Bay ou

Brus

hy F o kr

Ba y ou Maria

Little

Hors epe n

C reek

Blac k Branch

Mill Creek

K it chen

Cr eek

Lit tleCr e ek

HawCreek

Beaver Creek

Haines C reek

DryCr eek

Clinton Branch

Dyso nCreek

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Groundwater Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Wells

!P Commercial Public Supply

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

!C( Public Supply

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring

A! Unknown

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

CD

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

Figure 3-1 PM CM 8/15/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Areas of Interest

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

and the GIS User Community

1:90,000

0 3,750 7,500 15,000

Feet

­

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C( AA!!

A!

Wash

Rack

Firehouse

Building 327

Retention

Pond

Flago n

Ba you

AOI 2 AOI 1

AOI 3

0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Feet

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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, 2021a), 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 Camp Beauregard (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, 2021a); 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 2-1). 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 and early summer 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, 2021a).

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

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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, 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana dated July 2020

(AECOM, 2020);

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

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana dated July 2021 (AECOM, 2021a); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana dated July 2021 (AECOM,

2021b).

The SI field activities were conducted from 29 July to 4 August 2021 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, 2021a), except as noted in Section 5.8. 

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-three (33) soil samples from 15 boring locations;

• Eight grab groundwater samples from eight temporary well locations; and

• Sixteen (16) 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, a Field Change Request Form 

is provided in Appendix B3, land survey data are provided in Appendix B4. 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.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The 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. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 5-2

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 26 May 2021, 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, LAARNG, USACE, Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality, and representatives familiar with the facility, the regulations, and the 

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

sampling approach and methods 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, 2021a).

A TPP Meeting 3 was held 18 January 2023 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

AECOM’s drilling subcontractor, Tolunay-Wong Engineers, Inc. placed a ticket on 14 July 2021

with Louisiana 811 utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work. However, because 

Camp Beauregard is a private facility, the participating Louisiana 811 locators did not clear utilities 

at the entire facility. Therefore, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC

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

clearance of the proposed boring locations on 22 July 2021, with input from the AECOM field team 

and Camp Beauregard 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 hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface where utilities would typically be 

encountered.

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

The potable water source used for decontamination of drilling equipment was confirmed to be 

acceptable for use in a PFAS investigation prior to the start of field activities. A sample from a 

potable water source at Camp Beauregard was collected on 17 June 2021, prior to mobilization, 

and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the 

decontamination water sample are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the results is 

presented in Appendix A. Non-drilling sampling equipment that was not dedicated were 

decontaminated with Alconox® and ASTM Type II deionized water. 

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, 2021a). 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

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). A GeoProbe® 7822DT Macro-Core® soil sampling system with 

Light-Weight Center Rods (LWCR) was used to collect continuous soil cores to the target depth.

A hand auger was used to collect soil from the top 5 feet of the boring, in accordance with AECOM 

utility clearance procedures. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1 and depths are 

provided Table 5-1. 

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 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 5-3

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 borings were completed at depths ranging between 15 to 

40 feet bgs (Table 5-2). The boring logs are provided in Appendix E.

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 a courier 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, 2021a).

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. 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.

DPT borings were converted to temporary wells. Borings were installed in grass areas to avoid 

disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7822DT Macro-Core® soil sampling system 

(LWCR) to collect continuous soil cores to the target depth. Once the borehole was advanced to 

the desired depth, wherever conditions allowed, a temporary well was constructed of a 5-foot 

section of 1-inch Schedule 40 polyvinyl 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.

The temporary wells were allowed to recharge after installation before collection of groundwater 

samples. After the recharge period, groundwater samples were collected using either a peristaltic 

pump or a bladder pump, with PFAS-free HDPE tubing and bladders. 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, and oxidationreduction potential) 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 a courier 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, 2021a).
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 5-4

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.

In accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) temporary wells were abandoned

at the completion of sampling/surveying activities by removing the PVC and backfilling the hole 

with bentonite chips. 

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 3 August 2021 and included the nine 

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

the well casing. Depth to water at the time of sampling was used for temporary wells AOI03-01 

and AOI03-02, due to the slow recharge after sampling on 2 and 3 August 2021. Based on survey 

data (Section 5.5), measurements were used to calculate groundwater elevations (Table 5-2) 

which were used to prepare a groundwater flow contour map provided as Figure 2-4. 

5.5 Surveying 

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

following guidelines provided in the SOPs provided in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 

Survey data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 3 August 2021 in the 

applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with North American Datum 1983 

(horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). The surveyed well data are 

provided in Appendix B4. 

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste 

As of the date of this report, the disposal of investigation-derived waste (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, 2021a) and with the DA Guidance for 

Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 2018). 

Solid (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid (i.e., purge water and decontamination fluids) generated during 

SI activities were containerized in properly labeled and covered 5-gallon buckets. The IDW was 

stored at a secure and covered location designated by the Camp Beauregard Environmental 

Manager and LAARNG, pending the receipt of sample results. Solid and liquid IDW will be 

transferred to DOT-approved 55-gallon steel drums prior to disposal. The solid and liquid IDW will 

be disposed of via a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C landfill. The disposal 

contract is being managed under a separate contract (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 

Inc., 2021). Specifics on the disposal of solid and liquid IDW will be addressed in an IDW 

Treatment Memorandum.

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.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 5-5

5.7 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.

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

One deviation from the SI QAPP Addendum has resulted from a change in the soil and 

groundwater SLs for in the OSD Memo (dated 6 July 2022), which was issued after the submittal 

of the Final SI QAPP (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022).

One deviation from the SI QAPP Addendum was identified during review of the field 

documentation. The deviation is noted below and is documented in Field Change Request Forms 

(Appendix B3): 

• Temporary well BEAU-02 was installed to 25 feet bgs on 29 July 2021 but was dry. Based 

on the presence of swelling clays from 25-30 feet bgs, with overlying stiff silt and clay up to 

11 feet bgs, drilling activities did not continue past 30 feet bgs in order to prevent drilling 

through a potential confining unit per the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 

Groundwater was allowed to accumulate in the well over the weekend to allow for sufficient 

groundwater accumulation. The well was checked on 1 August 2021, and no groundwater 

was observed in the well. As a result, a groundwater sample was not collected. A second 

borehole was not attempted because geologic observations at the site suggest small scale 

homogeneity exists within the varying facies (i.e., clay, sand, etc.) of the surficial geologic 

units; this action was documented in a field change request form provided in Appendix B3.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS by 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 8/1/2021 8:03 0 - 2 x x x

AOI01-01-SB-00-02-D 8/1/2021 8:03 0 - 2 x x FD

AOI01-01-SB-6.5-8.5 8/1/2021 8:25 6.5 - 8.5 x

AOI01-01-SB-10-12 8/1/2021 8:45 10 - 12 x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-MS 8/1/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x MS

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-MSD 8/1/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x MSD

AOI01-02-SB-05-07 8/2/2021 13:00 5 - 7 x

AOI01-02-SB-8.5-10.5 8/1/2021 10:17 8.5 - 10.5 x

AOI01-02-SB-16-18 8/1/2021 11:15 16 - 18 x

AOI01-03-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 9:15 0 - 2 x

AOI01-04-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 8:45 0 - 2 x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 13:12 0 - 2 x x x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02-D 8/1/2021 13:12 0 - 2 x FD

AOI02-01-SB-7.75-9.75 8/1/2021 13:32 7.75 - 9.75 x

AOI02-01-SB-08-10 8/2/2021 13:30 8 - 10 x

AOI02-01-SB-14.5-16.5 8/1/2021 13:50 14.5 - 16.5 x

AOI02-02-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 14:13 0 - 2 x

AOI02-02-SB-09-11 8/1/2021 14:45 9 - 11 x

AOI02-02-SB-17-19 8/1/2021 14:52 17 - 19 x

AOI02-03-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 11:53 0 - 2 x

AOI02-03-SB-00-02-D 8/1/2021 11:53 0 - 2 x FD

AOI02-04-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 11:15 0 - 2 x

AOI03-01-SB-00-02 7/30/2021 10:10 0 - 2 x x x

AOI03-01-SB-00-02-MS 7/30/2021 10:10 0 - 2 x x MS

AOI03-01-SB-00-02-MSD 7/30/2021 10:10 0 - 2 x x MSD

AOI03-01-SB-08-10 7/30/2021 10:22 8 - 10 x

AOI03-01-SB-24.5-26.5 7/30/2021 16:08 24.5 - 26.5 x

AOI03-02-SB-00-02 7/30/2021 12:50 0 - 2 x

AOI03-02-SB-00-02-D 7/30/2021 12:50 0 - 2 x FD

AOI03-02-SB-13-15 7/30/2021 13:10 13 - 15 x

AOI03-02-SB-25-27 8/2/2021 13:20 25 - 27 x

AOI03-02-SB-26-28 7/30/2021 14:40 26 - 28 x

AOI03-03-SB-00-02 8/1/2021 10:20 0 - 2 x

AOI03-04-SB-00-01 7/30/2021 16:45 0 - 1 x

BEAU-01-SB-00-02 7/29/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x

BEAU-01-SB-00-02-MS 7/29/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x MS

BEAU-01-SB-00-02-MSD 7/29/2021 10:07 0 - 2 x MSD

BEAU-01-SB-13-15 7/29/2021 10:30 13 - 15 x

BEAU-01-SB-38-40 7/29/2021 11:50 38 - 40 x

BEAU-02-SB-00-02 7/29/2021 15:25 0 - 2 x

BEAU-02-SB-13-15 7/29/2021 15:43 13 - 15 x

BEAU-02-SB-24-26 7/30/2021 7:50 24 - 26 x

BEAU-03-SB-00-02 7/29/2021 13:05 0 - 2 x

BEAU-03-SB-00-02-D 7/29/2021 13:05 0 - 2 x FD

BEAU-03-SB-07-09 7/29/2021 13:23 7 - 9 x

BEAU-03-SB-13-15 7/29/2021 13:30 13 - 15 x

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS by 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 8/1/2021 15:00 NA x

AOI01-01-GW-D 8/1/2021 15:00 NA x FD

AOI01-02-GW 8/1/2021 17:20 NA x

AOI02-01-GW 8/2/2021 13:05 NA x

AOI02-02-GW 8/2/2021 11:40 NA x

AOI03-01-GW 8/3/2021 7:10 NA x

AOI03-02-GW 8/2/2021 10:00 NA x

BEAU-01-GW 7/30/2021 9:13 NA x

BEAU-03-GW 7/30/2021 11:26 NA x

BEAU-03-GW-MS 7/30/2021 11:26 NA x MS

BEAU-03-GW-MSD 7/30/2021 11:26 NA x MSD

BEAU-FRB-01 8/1/2021 16:00 NA x

BEAU-ERB-01 7/29/2021 15:15 NA x from DPT shoe

BEAU-ERB-02 7/30/2021 12:40 NA x from hand auger

BEAU-ERB-03 8/1/2021 15:45 NA x from pump

BEAU DECON WATER 6/17/2021 8:10 NA x Decontamination 

water

Notes:

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

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

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

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, and Groundwater Elevations

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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)2

Depth to 

Water

(feet bgs)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(feet NAVD88)

AOI01-01 15 10 -15 107.91 107.20 6.32 5.61 101.59

AOI01-02 25 20 - 25 111.17 110.87 14.25 13.95 96.92

AOI01-03 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

AOI01-04 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

AOI02-01 20 15 - 20 127.51 126.84 17.11 16.43 110.40

AOI02-02 25 20 - 25 126.97 126.27 16.52 15.82 110.45

AOI02-03 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

AOI02-04 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

AOI03-01 40 28.5 - 33.51 145.53 143.83 34.20 32.50 111.33

AOI03-02 40 30 - 351 145.68 144.88 12.48 11.67 133.20

AOI03-03 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

AOI03-04 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

BEAU-01 40 24 - 341 142.99 140.91 20.44 18.36 122.55

BEAU-02 30 21 - 26 119.33 117.29 dry dry ---

BEAU-03 25 13 - 18 132.77 130.78 3.57 1.58 129.20

Notes:

1

 Borehole collapsed. Well set shallower than total depth.

2

 Depth to water during time of sampling was used for AOI03-01 and AOI03-02 due to slow recharge between sampling and synoptic gauging.

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

NA = not applicable

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

Sitewide

1

2

3

AECOM 5-9
AECOM 5-10

Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI 3

?! ?! "S

"S

?!

AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-02

AOI 3

"S"S!

!

!

!

??

?

?

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

?!

"S

"S

?!

Flagon Bayo u

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

­ Figure 5-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/15/2022

1:2,400

Site Inspection Sample Locations

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

"S Surface Soil Sample

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

0 100 200 400

Feet

0 185 370 740

Feet

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

AECOM 5-11
AECOM 5-12

Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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.) Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA 

phases will include HFPO-DA if warranted.

The data in the subsequent sections are compared against 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.

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. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 6-2

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: Retention Pond. 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 6-21. 

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-15 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 through 

AOI01-04. Soil was also sampled from AOI01-01 in shallow subsurface soil (6.5 to 8.5 feet bgs

and 10 to 12 feet bgs). Soil from AOI01-02 was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (8.5 to 

10.5 feet bgs) and deep subsurface soil intervals (16 to 18 feet bgs). PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS

were detected in surface soil at concentrations below their respective SLs. PFOA was detected 

in one location, with a concentration of 0.112 J micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at AOI01-02. 

PFOS was detected in three of four locations, with concentrations ranging from 0.058 J μg/kg at 

AOI01-01 to 0.419 J μg/kg at AOI01-02. PFHxS was detected in one location, with a concentration 

of 0.034 J μg/kg at AOI01-02. PFBS and PFNA were not detected in surface soil at AOI 1. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected in any of the three shallow subsurface 

soil samples. Similarly, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected in the deep 

subsurface soil sample collected at AOI01-02. 

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-16 through Figure 6-21 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well locations AOI01-01 and AOI01-02. 

PFOA was detected in both well locations, with one sample exceeding the SL of 6 nanograms per 

liter (ng/L). Concentrations of PFOA were 5.68 ng/L at AOI01-01 and 27.3 ng/L at AOI01-02. 

PFOS was detected below the SL of 4 ng/L at both locations, with concentrations of 2.46 J ng/L 

at AOI01-01 and 1.83 J ng/L at AOI01-02. PFHxS was detected below the SL of 39 ng/L at both 

locations, with concentrations of 1.89 J ng/L at AOI01-01 and 2.55 J ng/L at AOI01-02. PFBS was 

detected below the SL of 601 ng/L at both locations, with concentrations of 4.44 ng/L at AOI01-

01 and 3.09 J ng/L at AOI01-02. PFNA was not detected at either well location.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 6-3

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in soil below their 

respective SLs. PFOA was detected in groundwater with concentrations exceeding the SL. 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: Wash Rack. 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 6-21.

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-15 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 

AOI02-04. Soil was also sampled from the shallow subsurface (7.75 to 9.75 feet bgs and 14.5 to 

16.5 feet bgs) at AOI02-01. Lastly, AOI02-02 was sampled for shallow subsurface soil (9 to 11 

feet bgs) and deep subsurface soil (17 to 19 feet bgs). PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were 

detected in surface soil at concentrations below their respective SLs. All detections were observed 

in two borings (AOI02-01 and AOI02-03). PFOA was detected at concentrations of 1.29 μg/kg at 

AOI02-01 and 0.893 J μg/kg at AOI02-03. PFOS was detected at concentrations of 0.481 J μg/kg

at AOI02-01 and 0.743 J μg/kg at AOI02-03. PFHxS was only detected in surface soil at AOI02-01, 

with a concentration of 0.039 J μg/kg. PFNA was detected in two borings, with concentrations of 

0.255 J μg/kg at AOI02-01 and 0.228 J μg/kg at AOI02-03. PFBS was not detected in surface soil 

at any of the four borings.

In shallow subsurface soil, PFOA and PFNA were detected in one of three samples at 

concentrations below their SLs. PFOA and PFNA were both detected at AOI02-01 (14.5 to 16.5 

feet bgs) at concentrations of 0.245 J μg/kg and 0.027 J μg/kg, respectively. PFOS, PFBS, and 

PFHxS were not detected in the shallow subsurface soil. PFOS and PFHxS were detected in the 

deep subsurface soil sample at AOI02-02, with concentrations of 0.153 J μg/kg and 0.045 J μg/kg, 

respectively. PFOA, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected in the deep subsurface soil sample.

Soil was also sampled at the side-gradient boring BEAU-02 and the upgradient/side-gradient 

boring BEAU-03. Soil was sampled from the surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) and shallow subsurface 

soil (13 to 15 feet bgs) in both borings. Another shallow subsurface soil (7 to 9 feet bgs) was 

collected at BEAU-03, whereas a deep subsurface soil (24 to 26 feet bgs) was collected at 

BEAU-02. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at 

concentrations below their respective SLs in boring BEAU-03. There were no detections in 

surface soil at BEAU-02. PFOA and PFOS were detected at concentrations of 0.122 J μg/kg and 

0.305 J μg/kg, respectively. PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were detected at concentrations of 0.100 

J μg/kg, 0.030 J μg/kg, and 0.031 J μg/kg, respectively.

PFOS was detected below the SL in one of three subsurface soil samples, with a concentration 

of 0.523 J μg/kg at BEAU-03 (7 to 9 feet bgs). PFOA, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected 

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

in the one deep subsurface soil sample at BEAU-02. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 6-4

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-16 through Figure 6-21 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well locations AOI2-01 and AOI2-02. 

PFHxS was detected above the SL of 39 ng/L in one of two well locations, with a concentration of 

65.4 ng/L at AOI02-02. PFHxS was not detected in AOI02-01. PFBS was detected below the SL 

in both well locations, with concentrations of 0.714 J ng/L at AOI02-01 and 47.5 ng/L at AOI02-02.

PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA were not detected in either well location.

Samples were also collected at the upgradient/side-gradient BEAU-03 facility boundary location.

PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were all detected below their respective SLs with concentrations of 

0.884 J ng/L, 6.53 ng/L, and 4.31 ng/L, respectively. PFOA and PFNA were not detected at 

BEAU-03.

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions

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

concentrations below their respective SLs. PFHxS was detected in groundwater at concentrations 

greater than the SL. Based on the exceedance of the PFHxS SL in groundwater, further evaluation 

at AOI 2 is warranted.

6.5 AOI 3 

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

AOI 3: Firehouse Building 327. 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 6-21. 

6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-15 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 AOI03-01 through 

AOI03-03. AOI03-04 was sampled for surface soil from 0 to 1 feet bgs. Soil was also sampled 

from shallow subsurface soil (8 to 10 feet bgs) and deep subsurface soil (24.5 to 26.5 feet bgs) 

from boring location AOI3-01. Additionally, soil was sampled from shallow subsurface soil (13 to 

15 feet bgs) and deep subsurface soil (26 to 28 feet bgs) at AOI03-02. 

In surface soil, PFOS was detected in all four borings, with concentrations exceeding the SL at 

two locations. PFOS detections ranged from 2.76 μg/kg to 47.5 μg/kg. The exceedances of the 

surface soil PFOS SL (13 μg/kg) occurred at AOI03-03 and AOI03-04, with concentrations of 18.1 

μg/kg and 47.5 μg/kg, respectively. PFOA, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were also detected in 

surface soil in all four borings but at concentrations below their respective SLs. PFOA was 

detected at concentrations ranging from 1.02 J μg/kg at AOI03-02 to 4.94 μg/kg at AOI03-03. 

PFHxS was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.772 J μg/kg at AOI03-02 to 10.9 μg/kg at 

AOI03-01. PFBS was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.059 J μg/kg at AOI03-02 to 0.215 

J μg/kg at AOI03-03. Lastly, PFNA was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.503 J μg/kg at 

AOI03-01 to 11.9 μg/kg at AOI03-03. 

PFHxS was detected below the SL in shallow subsurface soil at one of two boring locations, with 

a concentration of 0.097 J μg/kg at AOI03-01. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected 

in shallow subsurface soil at either boring location. PFOS and PFHxS were detected in one of 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 6-5

two deep subsurface soil samples collected at AOI 3, with concentrations of 0.074 J μg/kg and 

0.078 J+ μg/kg, respectively. Both detections occurred at AOI03-02. PFOA, PFBS, and PFNA 

were not detected in deep subsurface soil.

Soil was also collected from the inferred downgradient BEAU-01 boring location from surface (0 

to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface (13 to 15 feet bgs) and deep subsurface (38 to 40 feet bgs) 

soil. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were not detected in any of the three soil samples 

collected at BEAU-01.

6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-16 through Figure 6-21 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5

summarizes the groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well locations AOI03-01 and AOI03-02. 

PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L in both well locations, with concentrations of 8.05 ng/L 

at AOI03-01 and 37.5 ng/L at AOI03-02. PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at both well 

locations, with concentrations of 54.1 ng/L at AOI03-01 and 896 ng/L at AOI03-02. PFHxS was 

detected above the SL of 39 ng/L at one well location, with a concentration of 587 ng/L at 

AOI03-02. PFHxS was detected at AOI03-01 with a concentration of 33.6 ng/L. PFBS was 

detected below the SL at both well locations, with concentrations of 2.91 J ng/L at AOI03-01 and 

84.0 ng/L at AOI03-02. PFNA was detected below the SL at both well locations, with 

concentrations of 2.37 J ng/L at AOI03-01 and 2.16 J ng/L at AOI03-02.

Groundwater was also sampled from the inferred downgradient temporary well BEAU-01. PFOS 

was detected below the SL, with a concentration of 1.93 J ng/L. PFOA, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA 

were not detected at BEAU-01. 

6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOS was detected in soil above the SL. PFOA, PFOS, and 

PFHxS were detected in groundwater at concentrations above their respective SLs. Based on the 

exceedances of the SLs in soil and groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 3 is warranted.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 6-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 130 ND U 0.034 J ND U ND U 0.039 J 0.034 J ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 19 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.255 J 0.120 J ND U 0.028 J 0.228 J ND U

PFOA 19 ND U 0.112 J ND U ND U 1.07 J 1.29 ND U 0.386 J 0.893 J ND U

PFOS 13 0.058 J 0.419 J 0.114 J ND U 0.481 J 0.225 J ND U 0.096 J 0.743 J ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL BEAU Beauregard

D duplicate

DL detection limit

ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/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.

AOI01 AOI02

AOI02-04-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

AOI02-03-SB-00-02 (RE)

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI02-03-SB-00-02-D

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI02-01-SB-00-02-D

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI02-02-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI02-01-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-03-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AECOM 6-7
Table 6-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 0.118 J 0.059 J 0.081 J 0.215 J 0.079 J ND U ND U 0.030 J 0.028 J

PFHxS 130 10.9 0.772 J 0.981 J 2.53 1.64 ND U ND U 0.100 J 0.091 J

PFNA 19 0.503 J 1.37 3.93 11.9 2.24 ND U ND U 0.023 J 0.031 J

PFOA 19 1.62 1.02 J 1.37 4.94 1.11 J ND U ND U 0.105 J 0.122 J

PFOS 13 12.9 2.76 4.16 18.1 47.5 ND U ND U 0.305 J 0.299 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL BEAU Beauregard

D duplicate

DL detection limit

ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (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 residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI03 Sitewide

BEAU-03-SB-00-02

07/29/2021

0-2 ft

BEAU-03-SB-00-02-D

07/29/2021

0-2 ft

BEAU-01-SB-00-02

07/29/2021

0-2 ft

BEAU-02-SB-00-02

07/29/2021

0-2 ft

AOI03-03-SB-00-02

08/01/2021

0-2 ft

AOI03-04-SB-00-01

07/30/2021

0-1 ft

AOI03-02-SB-00-02

07/30/2021

0-2 ft

AOI03-02-SB-00-02-D

07/30/2021

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI03-01-SB-00-02

07/30/2021

0-2 ft

AECOM 6-8
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.097 J ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.027 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.245 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 160 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL BEAU Beauregard

D duplicate

DL detection limit

ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-6.5-8.5

08/01/2021

6.5-8.5 ft

AOI01-01-SB-10-12

08/01/2021

10-12 ft

AOI01-02-SB-8.5-10.5

08/01/2021

8.5-10.5 ft

AOI02-01-SB-7.75-9.75

08/01/2021

7.75-9.75 ft

AOI02-01-SB-14.5-16.5

08/01/2021

14.5-16.5 ft

08/01/2021

9-11 ft

AOI03-01-SB-08-10

07/30/2021

8-10 ft

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.

AOI01 AOI02 AOI03 Sitewide

BEAU-02-SB-13-15

07/29/2021

13-15 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

AOI03-02-SB-13-15

07/30/2021

13-15 ft

BEAU-01-SB-13-15

07/29/2021

13-15 ft

AOI02-02-SB-09-11

AECOM 6-9
Table 6-3

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U

PFNA 250 ND U ND U

PFOA 250 ND U ND U

PFOS 160 0.523 J ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL BEAU Beauregard

D duplicate

DL detection limit

ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/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 industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of 

contaminated soil.

Sitewide

BEAU-03-SB-13-15

07/29/2021

13-15 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

BEAU-03-SB-07-09

07/29/2021

7-9 ft

AECOM 6-10
Table 6-4

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

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

PFBS ND U ND U ND U ND UJ ND U ND U

PFHxS ND U 0.045 J ND U 0.078 J+ ND U ND U

PFNA ND U ND U ND U ND UJ ND U ND U

PFOA ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS ND U 0.153 J ND U 0.074 J ND U ND U

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

BEAU Beauregard

DL detection limit

ft feet

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AOI01-02-SB-16-18

08/01/2021

16-18 ft

AOI02

AOI02-02-SB-17-19

08/01/2021

17-19 ft

Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)

AOI03 Sitewide

BEAU-01-SB-38-40

07/29/2021

38-40 ft

BEAU-02-SB-24-26

07/30/2021

24-26 ft

AOI03-01-SB-24.5-26.5

07/30/2021

24.5-26.5 ft

AOI03-02-SB-26-28

07/30/2021

26-28 ft

AOI01

AECOM 6-11
Table 6-5

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Camp Beauregard

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 601 4.44 3.87 J 3.09 J 0.714 J 47.5 2.91 J 84.0 ND U 4.31

PFHxS 39 1.89 J 1.83 J 2.55 J ND U 65.4 33.6 587 ND U 6.53

PFNA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 2.37 J 2.16 J ND U ND U

PFOA 6 5.68 5.21 27.3 ND U ND U 8.05 37.5 ND U ND U

PFOS 4 2.41 J 2.46 J 1.83 J ND U ND U 54.1 896 1.93 J 0.884 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL BEAU Beauregard

D duplicate

DL detection limit

GW groundwater

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/l nanogram per liter

Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)

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.

AOI01 AOI02 AOI03 Sitewide

BEAU-01-GW

07/30/2021

BEAU-03-GW

07/30/2021

AOI03-01-GW

08/03/2021

AOI03-02-GW

08/02/2021

AOI02-01-GW

08/02/2021

AOI02-02-GW

08/02/2021

AOI01-01-GW-D

08/01/2021

AOI01-02-GW

08/01/2021

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

08/01/2021

AECOM 6-12
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:6,000

PFOA Detections in Soil, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-13
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:4,320

PFOA Results in Soil, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 180 360 720

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-14
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:2,400

PFOA Detections in Soil, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 100 200 400

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.

Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location.

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-15
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/12/2022

1:6,000

PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/12/2022

1:4,320

PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 180 360 720

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-17
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/12/2022

1:2,400

PFOS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 100 200 400

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Facility Boundary

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 6-18
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/12/2022

1:6,000

PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-19
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-8

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:4,320

PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 180 360 720

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-20
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-9

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

8/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/12/2022

1:2,400

PFBS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 100 200 400

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

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 6-21
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-10

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/15/2022

1:6,000

PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-22
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-11

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:4,320

PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 180 360 720

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-23
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-12

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/15/2022

1:2,400

PFHxS Detections in Soil, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 100 200 400

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

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 6-24
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-13

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/15/2022

1:6,000

PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-25
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-14

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

8/22/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/22/2022

1:4,320

PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 180 360 720

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

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 6-26
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

BEAU-01

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-15

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

8/15/2022

1:2,400

PFNA Detections in Soil, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

0 100 200 400

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

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 6-27
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-16

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:6,000

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

AECOM 6-28
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-17

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:4,320

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

0 180 360 720

Feet

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

AECOM 6-29
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-18

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:2,400

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

0 100 200 400

Feet

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

AECOM 6-30
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

­ Figure 6-19

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:6,000

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 1

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

AECOM 6-31
AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-03

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

BEAU-03

­ Figure 6-20

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:4,320

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 2

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

0 180 360 720

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

AECOM 6-32
AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

AOI 3

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

BEAU-01

­ Figure 6-21

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp Beauregard, LA

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

10/12/2022

MS

CD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

10/12/2022

1:2,400

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater, AOI 3

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

0 100 200 400

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

Facility Boundary

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

AECOM 6-33
AECOM 6-34

Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The conceptual site models (CSMs) for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented 

on Figure 7-1 through Figure 7-3. 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 a 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, and AOI 3 based on the 

aforementioned criteria.

7.1.1 AOI 1

Between 2000/2001 and 2003, AFFF potentially released at AOI 2 during fire training activities 

would have been conveyed to the OWS and then drained to the Retention Pond. During wet 

seasons, water may have overflowed onto nearby surface soil, resulting in an impact to surface 

soil. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 7-2

PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in surface soil at AOI 1. Site workers, construction 

workers and trespassers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and 

inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers, construction 

workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were 

not detected in shallow subsurface soil at AOI 1; therefore, all subsurface soil exposure pathways 

are considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.1.2 AOI 2

As early as 2000, it is possible AFFF were discharged at the Wash Rack during fire training 

activities. AFFF discharged at the Wash Rack may have migrated off the paved surface and onto 

surface soil.

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 2. Site workers, 

construction workers, and trespassers could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental 

ingestion and inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathway for site workers, 

construction workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. PFOA and PFNA were detected 

in shallow subsurface soil at AOI 2; therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway is potentially 

complete for construction workers. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

7.1.3 AOI 3

Firehouse Building 327 houses 5-gallon AFFF containers and firetrucks that historically carried 

AFFF. Spray tests were performed with the firetrucks; however, no foam was reportedly used on 

site. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 3, with PFOS 

exceeding the SL. Site workers, construction workers, and trespassers could contact constituents 

in surface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface soil exposure 

pathway for site workers, construction workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. PFHxS 

was detected in shallow subsurface soil at AOI 3; therefore, the construction worker exposure 

pathway is potentially complete for subsurface soil. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-

3.

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 was detected above the SL in groundwater samples collected at AOI 1. PFOS, PFHxS, and 

PFBS were also detected. There are multiple downgradient domestic wells screened within the 

surficial aquifer less than 2 miles northeast from the Retention Pond; therefore, the ingestion 

pathway for off-facility residents is considered potentially complete. The Camp Beauregard 

Cantonment Area receives its potable water from the confined Carnahan Bayou aquifer, which is 

supplied by the Water Works District No. 3 of Rapides Parish. Therefore, the ingestion exposure 

pathway for site workers is considered incomplete. Depths to water measured at AOI 1 in August

2021 during the SI ranged from 5.61 to 13.95 feet bgs. Therefore, the incidental ingestion 

exposure pathway for construction workers is considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 

1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 7-3

7.2.2 AOI 2

PFHxS was detected in groundwater at concentrations above the SL at AOI 2. PFBS was also 

detected, but at concentrations below the SL. There are multiple downgradient domestic wells 

around 2 to 2.5 miles northeast of the Wash Rack that are screened within the surficial aquifer. 

Consequently, the ingestion pathway for off-facility residents is considered potentially complete. 

The Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area receives its potable water from the confined Carnahan 

Bayou aquifer; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for site workers is considered 

incomplete. Depth to groundwater at AOI 2 in August 2021 ranged from 15.82 to 16.43 feet bgs. 

While this depth is too deep to be encountered during construction activities, the groundwater 

may rise in wet season. Therefore, the incidental ingestion exposure pathway is potentially 

complete for construction workers during trenching activities deep enough to encounter 

groundwater. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

7.2.3 AOI 3

PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected above their respective SLs in groundwater samples 

collected at AOI 3. PFBS and PFNA were also detected at concentrations below their SLs. AOI 3 

is upgradient to multiple domestic and public supply wells, some of which are screened within the 

shallow unconfined aquifer. Thus, the ingestion pathway is potentially complete for residents 

sourcing their drinking water from downgradient wells screened within the shallow aquifer. Potable 

water at the facility is supplied by the Water Works District No. 3 of Rapides Parish, which sources 

its water from the confined Carnahan Bayou aquifer; therefore, the drinking water exposure 

pathway for site workers is incomplete. Depths to water measured in August 2021 during the SI 

ranged from 11.67 to 32.50 feet bgs. Therefore, ingestion pathway is potentially complete for 

construction workers during trenching activities deep enough to encounter groundwater. The CSM

for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3.

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

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

Releases at the Retention Pond would have been directly released to the surface water and 

sediment. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1, and 

as a result, it is possible that those compounds originated from the Retention Pond via pond 

overflow, leaching, and infiltration; therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure 

pathway for site workers, construction workers, and trespassers is considered potentially 

complete. During wet seasons, the Retention Pond may overflow, resulting in surface water from 

the Retention Pond being conveyed into Flagon Bayou. Flagon Bayou flows east/northeast 

towards Catahoula Lake. Consequently, recreational users of the bayou and offsite residents 

living on Flagon Bayou may be potentially exposed via the ingestion pathway. The CSM for AOI 

1 is presented on Figure 7-1.

7.3.2 AOI 2

The Wash Rack drains to an OWS, which subsequently drained into the Retention Pond until 

2003. Any AFFF releases prior to 2003 may have been conveyed to the Retention Pond and, 

therefore, the surface water and sediment pathway for AOI 2 is evaluated as part of AOI 1. The 

CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 7-4

7.3.3 AOI 3 

Overland flow could result in the release migrating from the Firehouse Building 327 to the 

downgradient Retention Pond and Flagon Bayou, which is approximately 1.25 miles to the 

northeast. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and PFNA were detected at AOI 3 and as a result, it is 

possible they migrated to the Retention Pond or Flagon Bayou. Consequently, site workers, 

construction workers, trespassers, offsite residents, and recreational users using Flagon Bayou 

may be potentially exposed to contamination in surface water and sediment via ingestion. The 

CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3. 
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 2

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOIs

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Shallow

Groundwater

Subsurface

Soil

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

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

SL

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident2

Trespasser/

Recreational

User2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident2

Trespasser/

Recreational

User2

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area, LA

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/ /

/

Ingestion

/

/

/ / /

Notes:

1. AOI 2 drains to the oil/water separator,

which flowed to AOI 1 until 2003.

2. The resident and recreational user

receptors refer to an off-site resident and

recreational user.

/

/ /

Leaching/

Infiltration

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Human

Activities

Surface

Water and

Sediment

AOI 1

/

/

Stormwater

Conveyance1

AFFF

Discharged

During Fire

Training

/

/

/

/

/ /

7-5
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 2

AFFF Discharged

During Fire

Training

Surface Soil

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOIs

Surface

Water/

Sediment1

Shallow

Groundwater

Subsurface

Soil

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

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

SL

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident2

Trespasser/

Recreational

User2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident2

Trespasser/

Recreational

User2

LEGEND

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area, LA

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/ /

/

Ingestion

/

/

/ / /

Notes:

1. Surface water and sediment pathways are

assessed as part of AOI 1.

2. The resident and recreational user

receptors refer to an off-site resident and

recreational user.

/

/ /

Leaching/

Infiltration

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Human

Activities

/

/

/

/

/

/ /

/

7-6
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 3 Incidental Spills Surface Soil

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOIs

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Shallow

Groundwater

Subsurface

Soil

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

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

SL

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident1

Trespasser/

Recreational

User1

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Facility

Resident1

Trespasser/

Recreational

User1

LEGEND

Figure 7-3

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3

Camp Beauregard Cantonment Area, LA

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/

Ingestion

/ / /

Notes:

1. The resident and recreational user

receptors refer to an off-site resident and

recreational user.

/

/ /

Leaching/

Infiltration

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Human

Activities

/

/ / /

/

/

/ / /

/ / /

7-7
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 7-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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 29 July to 4 August 2021 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, 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), 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-three (33) soil samples from 15 boring locations;

• Eight grab groundwater samples from eight temporary well locations; and

• Sixteen (16) 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 a Remedial Investigation (RI) for 

AOI 1: Retention Pond and AOI 2: Wash Rack. 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 and 

AOI 2 from sources on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities. AOI 3: Firehouse Building 

327 also exceeded the soil and groundwater SLs. However, at this location there are no known 

hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that are the responsibility of the ARNG or DoD

and no further action by the ARNG is recommended at this time. Based on the results of this SI, 

the State of Louisiana or the City of Pineville may consider the need for further evaluation in an 

RI for AOI 3: Firehouse Building 327 (see Table 8-1). Sample analytical concentrations collected 

during the SI were compared against 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:

• PFOA in groundwater exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of

27.3 ng/L at location AOI01-02. The detected concentrations of PFOS, PFHxS, and

PFNA were below their respective SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further

evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI.

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS in soil at AOI 1 were below

their respective SLs.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 8-2

• At AOI 2:

• PFHxS in groundwater exceeded the SL of 39 ng/L, with a maximum concentration 

of 65.4 ng/L at AOI02-02. Detected concentrations of PFBS in groundwater were 

below the SL. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted

in the RI.

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA in soil at AOI 2 

were below their respective SLs. 

• At AOI 3:

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS in groundwater exceeded their respective SLs. PFOA 

exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 37.5 ng/L at location 

AOI03-02. PFOS exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 896

ng/L at AOI03-02. PFHxS exceeded the SL of 39 ng/L, with a maximum 

concentration of 587 ng/L at location AOI03-02. Detections of PFBS and PFNA in 

groundwater were below their respective SLs. AOI 3: Firehouse Building 327 was 

not removed from consideration based on exceedances of SLs. However, the ARNG 

and DoD are not responsible for the use or storage of AFFF at the AOI (the site is 

not under the control of the ARNG or DoD). Therefore, the State of Louisiana and/or

the City of Pineville may consider the need to further evaluate any potential releases 

within their property.

• PFOS in surface soil exceeded the SL of 13 μg/kg, with a maximum concentration 

of 47.5 μg/kg AOI03-04. Detected concentrations of PFOA, PFHxS, PFBS, and 

PFNA in soil were below their respective SLs.

Due to the large difference in groundwater levels obtained at AOI 3, there is uncertainty regarding 

groundwater flow in the southwestern portion of the facility. There appears to be a groundwater 

divide in the middle of the Cantonment Area and it is most likely that groundwater in the 

southwestern portion of the facility flows towards the Red River.

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, as screening 

values were established after SI planning and execution. However, ARNG will add HFPO-DA to 

the list of constituents sampled during the next phase of CERCLA if warranted.

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

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 8-3

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater –

Facility 

Boundary

Future Action

1 Retention Pond Proceed to RI 

2 Wash Rack Proceed to RI

3 Firehouse 

Building 327

No further action by 

the ARNG. The 

Firehouse Building 

327 is not under 

control of the 

ARNG. Based on 

the results of the 

SI, the State of 

Louisiana and/or 

the City of Pineville 

may consider the 

need to proceed to 

RI.

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 8-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

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, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana. July. 

AECOM. 2021a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. July.

AECOM. 2021b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, 

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. July.

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.

EA Engineering Science and Technology, 2021. SOP No. 042A for Treating Liquid InvestigationDerived Material (Purge water, drilling water, and decontamination fluids).

French, James. 2020. Telephone communication. 10 January.

Griffith, J.M. 2009. Water Resources of Rapides Parish. No. 2009-3056. United States Geological 

Survey. 6 p.

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.

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 ant Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

LAARNG. 2007. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, Louisiana Army National 

Guard, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, Fiscal Years 2006–2010. February.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2003. Closed, Transferring, and Transferred Range/Military Munitions 

Response Program Site Inventory Report, State of Louisiana. May.
Site Inspection Report

Camp Beauregard, Louisiana

AECOM 9-2

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021. Monthly Climate Normals (1991 – 2020) 

– Alexandria Esler Field, LA. https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=lch (Accessed 22 

September 2021). 

Tomaszewski, D.J. 2009. Ground-water Resources in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, 2005: Louisiana 

Department of Transportation and Development Water Resources Technical Report no. 78. 

54 p.

USACE. 2014. Operational Range Assessment, Phase II Report, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana. 

July.

USACE. 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM-200-1-2. 26 February.

USACHPPM, Army Operational Range Assessment Team. 2004. Range Condition Assessment 

No. 38-EH-02RN-04, Louisiana Army National Guard, Major Training Area Camp Beauregard, 

Louisiana. 16-19 March. 

USAEHA. 1994. Site Assessment Survey No. 38-26-1333-94, Camp Beauregard, Louisiana Army 

National Guard. 18–22 July.

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.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022a. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in Rapides, 

Louisiana. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Accessed 8 August 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=22079. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022b. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in Grant, 

Louisiana. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Accessed 6 September 2022 

at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=22043. 

USGS. 2003. Ball 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Louisiana.

USGS. 2015. Alexandria 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Louisiana.

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.