FINAL 

Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site 

Bridgeport, West Virginia 

Site Inspections for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS), 

Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene 

oxide dimer Acid (HFPO-DA) and Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS) 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

September 2023 

Prepared for: 

Army National Guard Headquarters 

111 S. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION ............................................................... 1-1

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE .............................................................. 1-1

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................... 2-1

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .......................................... 2-1

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

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

2.2.3 Hydrology ................................................................................. 2-3

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

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

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

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE ....................................................................... 2-4

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST ........................................................... 3-1

3.1 AOI 1 – HAZMAT ROOM ..................................................................... 3-1

3.2 AOI 2 – Flammable Liquids Shed and Soap and Water FTA ................. 3-1

3.2.1 Flammable Liquids Shed .......................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Soap and Water FTA ................................................................ 3-1

3.3 ADJACENT SOURCES .......................................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Aviation Industries .................................................................... 3-2

3.3.2 North Central West Virginia Airport ........................................ 3-2

3.3.2.1 Former Nozzle Check Area ......................................... 3-2

3.3.2.2 Old Fire House ............................................................ 3-2

3.3.2.3 Current Firetruck and AFFF Storage .......................... 3-3
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ii 

3.3.2.4 Current Nozzle Check Area ........................................ 3-3

3.3.3 Meadowfill Landfill .................................................................. 3-3

3.3.4 Bridgeport Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................... 3-3

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 ...................................................... 4-2

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 5-3

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ................................................... 5-4

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ....................................................... 5-4

5.1.2 Utility Clearance ....................................................................... 5-4

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability .. 5-4

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING ............................................. 5-5

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER 

GRAB SAMPLING ................................................................................. 5-6

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ............................... 5-7

5.5 SURVEYING .......................................................................................... 5-7

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE ................................................. 5-7

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................... 5-7

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SITE INVESTIGATION UFP-QAPP 

ADDENDUM .......................................................................................... 5-8

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS .......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS ........................................................................... 6-1

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES ............................................ 6-2

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

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

6.3.2 AOI 1– Groundwater Analytical Results .................................. 6-3

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

6.4 Aoi 2......................................................................................................... 6-3

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

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

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

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS .................................................................................. 7-1
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC iii 

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY .............................................................. 7-1

7.1.1 AOI 1 ........................................................................................ 7-2

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

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY........................................ 7-2

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

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

7.3 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURE PATHWAY ....... 7-3

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME .......................................................................... 8-1

8.1 SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES .......................................................... 8-1

8.2 OUTCOME .............................................................................................. 8-1

9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 9-1

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Data Usability Assessment and Data Validation Reports 

Appendix B. Field Documentation 

 B1. Logs of Daily Notice of Field Activities 

 B2. Sampling Forms 

 B3. Survey Data 

 B4. Field Change Request Forms 

Appendix C. Photographic Log 

Appendix D. Technical Project Planning Meeting Minutes 

Appendix E. Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams 

Appendix F. Analytical Results 

Appendix G. Laboratory Reports
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC iv 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1. Facility Location 

Figure 2-2. Topography 

Figure 2-3. Groundwater Features 

Figure 2-4. Surface Water Features 

Figure 2-5. Groundwater Elevations, March 2022

Figure 3-1. Areas of Interest 

Figure 5-1. Site Inspection Sample Locations 

Figure 6-1. PFOS Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-2. PFOA Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-3. PFBS Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-4. PFHxS Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-5. PFNA Detections in Soil 

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

Figure 6.7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater 

Figure 7-1. Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 and AOI 2 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC v 

LIST OF TABLES 

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

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

Table 5-1. Samples by Medium, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia, 

Site Inspection Report 

Table 5-2. Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals, Fixed Wing Army 

Aviation Training Site, West Virginia, Site Inspection Report 

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West 

Virginia, Site Inspection Report 

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

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

Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

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

Site Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

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

Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

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

Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

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

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC vi 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

°C Degrees Celsius 

oF Degrees Farhenheit 

μg/kg Microgram(s) per kilogram 

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

AFFF Aqueous film forming foam 

amsl Above mean sea level 

AOI Area of interest 

ARNG Army National Guard 

BAA Benedum Airport Authority 

bgs Below ground surface 

btoc Below top of casing 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC Chain-of-custody 

CSM Conceptual site model 

DoD Department of Defense 

DQO Data quality objective 

DUA Data Usability Assessment 

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

EB Equipment blank 

EIS Extraction internal standard 

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

EM Engineer Manual 

FB Field Blank 

FedEx Federal Express 

FTA Fire Training Area 

ft Foot (feet) 

FWAATS Fixed Wing Army National Guard Aviation Training Site 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HAZMAT Hazardous material 

HDPE High-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 

ID Identification 

IDW Investigation-derived waste 

in. Inch(es) 

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC vii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) 

LC/MS/MS Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry 

MS Matrix spike 

MSD Matrix spike duplicate 

ng/L Nanogram(s) per liter 

No. Number 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment 

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 

PID Photoionization detector 

PVC Polyvinyl chloride 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

QSM Quality Systems Manual 

RI Remedial investigation 

SI Site inspection 

SL Screening level 

TOC Total organic carbon 

TPP Technical Project Planning 

UCMR 3 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 

UFP Uniform Federal Policy 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

WVARNG West Virginia Army National Guard 

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC viii 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

Inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based 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) (Assistant Secretary of 

Defense) dated 6 July 2022. The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum include 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic 

acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1. 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 two Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

stored, disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI descriptions). 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 a comparison of SI results 

to screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the Fixed Wing 

Army Aviation Training Site (FWAATS) in Bridgeport, West Virginia and determined further 

evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2. FWAATS will be referred to as the “Facility” 

throughout this document. 

The Facility, operated by West Virginia ARNG (WVARNG), encompasses approximately 6.87 

acres in Bridgeport, West Virginia. The Facility is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of 

the North Central West Virginia Airport. Construction for the facility was completed in 1996 and 

is currently and has historically been used for fixed wing training instruction for Active Duty, 

Reserve, and National Guard Aviators. FWAATS is located on part of the Western Allegheny 

Plateau, a section of the Appalachian Plateau characterized by steep hills and narrow ravines and 

is located approximately 1,020 feet above mean seal level (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

2020). 

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

AOIs were compared to OSD SLs. Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for the AOIs. Based 

on the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a remedial 

investigation (RI) is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2. 

1

 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as 

GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed 

during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because 

HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) 

and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component 

of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern 

in the absence of other PFAS. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ES-2 

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

Analyte2

Residential 

(Soil) 

(μg/kg)1 

0 to 2 ft bgs 

Industrial/Commercial 

Composite Worker 

(Soil) 

(μg/kg) 1 

0 to 15 ft bgs 

Tap Water 

(Groundwater) 

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39 

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes: 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil 

using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regional SL Calculator. Hazard Quotient=0.1. 

May 2022. 

2. Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA 

(commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based 

on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of 

HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of 

MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use 

of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is 

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

 g/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram 

ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter

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

AOI 

Potential Release 

Area

Soil 

Source Area

Groundwater 

Source Area1 Future Action 

1 HAZMAT Room

 

 1 Proceed to RI 

2 

Flammable Liquids 

Shed and Soap and 

Water Fire Training 

Area 

 

Proceed to RI 

Legend: 

 = Detected; exceedance of SLs 

 = Detected; no exceedance of SLs 

 = Not detected 

1No wells installed within the source area, but exceedances of PFOA detected 200 feet downgradient of 

AOI 1. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 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) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current 

or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on 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 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorobutanesulfonic 

acid (PFBS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), and 

hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA)2 at ARNG facilities nationwide. The ARNG 

performed this SI at the Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site (FWAATS) in Bridgeport, 

West Virginia. FWAATS will be referred to as the “Facility” throughout this report. 

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

[USEPA] 1980), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300) (USEPA 1994), and in compliance with Army 

requirements and guidance for field investigations. 

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE 

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

identified two Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials were 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.

2

 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as 

GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed 

during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because 

HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) 

and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component 

of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern 

in the absence of other PFAS. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 1-2

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-1

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND 

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 

The FWAATS occupies 6.87 acres in Bridgeport, West Virginia, within Harrison County 

(Figure 2-1). The facility is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the North Central West 

Virginia Airport. Land to the north, south, and east of the Facility is primarily forested. To the 

west of the Facility is the City of Bridgeport, which is more densely populated with homes and 

businesses (AECOM 2020). 

The Facility is operated by the West Virginia ARNG (WVARNG). FWAATS sits on land leased 

from the Benedum Airport Authority (BAA), which owns the North Central West Virginia 

Airport. Terms of the lease are for 50 years beginning 12 July 1994. FWAATS has operated as a 

military facility since 1996, following the completion of construction. Prior to the facility’s 

construction, the WVARNG in Bridgeport operated out of the adjacent airport’s former firetruck 

hangar (AECOM 2020). 

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

FWAATS is located on part of the Western Allegheny Plateau. The Western Allegheny Plateau 

is a section of the Appalachian Plateau, characterized by steep hills with narrow ravines (Figure 

2-2). The facility is approximately 1,020 feet (ft) above mean sea level. The land on which 

FWAATS was constructed was formerly the far end of North Central West Virginia Airport’s 

Runway 13 (AECOM 2020) that was presumably graded to achieve a relatively flat runway 

surface. The land surrounding the Facility to the north, east, and south (i.e., all directions except 

adjacent airport runways) slope steeply down from the facility elevation. 

2.2.1 Geology 

The Facility is located within Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateau 

physiographic province (BAA 2014). On the eastern side of Harrison County, the geology is 

primarily of the Paleozoic era and Pennsylvanian period (West Virginia Geologic and Economic 

Survey 2011). The Facility is underlain by Pennsylvanian sedimentary units. The youngest and 

stratigraphically uppermost unit is the Conemaugh Group, which is composed of cyclic 

sequences of red and gray shale, siltstone, and sandstone with thin limestones and shales. The 

Conemaugh Group is underlain by the Allegheny Formation, which comprises cyclic sequences 

of sandstone, siltstone, shale, limestone, and coal (Cardwell et al. 1968). 

Surficial soils at the Facility were classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resource Conservation Service as Urban Land, generally defined as areas where the 

soils have been altered or obscured by urban works and structures. Nearby surrounding surficial 

geology includes Clarksburg silt loam, Westmoreland silt loam, and Gilpin-Upshur complex 

(mix of silt loam, rock, and silty clay) (USDA 2022). 

Soils observed during the SI included silty clays with small fractions of sand or gravel. 

Weathered rock including shale fragments was encountered frequently at varying discontinuous 

depths and competencies. The observations from the SI supported the documented geology of the 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-2

area, and the hypothesis that the area had been reworked during its development as an 

airport/runway. Boring logs are presented in Appendix E and grain size results are presented in 

Appendix F. 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology 

The Pennsylvanian-aged Conemaugh Group and Allegheny Formation form the uppermost 

aquifers underlying the facility. In Harrison County, two wells screened in the Conemaugh 

Group aquifer had depths of 50 and 86 ft with well yields of 6.7 and 3 gallons (gal) per minute, 

respectively (Kozar and Mathes 2001). 

Groundwater regionally is inferred to follow topography flow to the northwest, as elevation 

decreases from east to west, and shallow groundwater likely follows the same path as surface 

water (Figure 2-3). Immediately around the Facility, groundwater is inferred to follow 

topography southwest, towards a low-lying off-site retention basin, before joining regional 

surface water flow to the northwest. This is roughly corroborated by groundwater elevation data 

collected during the SI, though a perched groundwater table was observed at two locations and 

skewed results. Water was encountered at depths ranging from 8-31 ft below ground surface 

(bgs) (Figure 2-5). 

The Facility is served by the public water supply. Harrison County does not use groundwater for 

public water supply. The public water supply for the City of Bridgeport is purchased from the 

Clarksburg Water Board, which uses surface water from the West Fork River (City of Bridgeport 

2017). 

As stated in the EDRTM Report, a well search was conducted for a 1-mile radius surrounding the 

facility during the PA. Using additional online resources, such as state and local geographic 

information system (GIS) databases, the PA also identified groundwater wells within a 4-mile 

radius of the facility. Based on the EDRTM Report, there are no private or public potable water 

wells within 1 mile of the facility. There are 10 inactive USGS monitoring wells within a 4-mile 

radius of the Facility, 4 to the east and 6 to the west. Additional GIS data for wells located within 

a 4-mile radius of the Facility was unavailable at the city, county, state, and national levels. 

Therefore, it is possible that additional unidentified public or private wells may be located within 

4 miles of the facility (AECOM 2020). 

In 2021, the City of Bridgeport, as the drinking water purveyor for FWAATS, collected a potable 

water sample as part of Department of Defense’s (DoD) PFAS strategy to ensure drinking water 

provided to installation consumers does not contain PFOA/PFOS above ppt for either compound 

or combined total. PFOA was detected at 2.95 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and PFOS was 

detected at 1.81 ng/L,3 below the USEPA Health Advisory at that time. 

3

 At the time of the study, the Health Advisory was 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA, individually or 

combined. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-3

2.2.3 Hydrology 

The Facility is located within the Headwaters Simpson Creek Watershed (Figure 2-4), which is 

part of the larger West Fork Watershed. The two closest tributaries to the Facility are Peddler 

Run and Simpson Creek, located to the east and south. Surface water from the facility drains 

downhill to the southeast towards the off-site retention basin or southwest to Simpson Creek, 

then continues with the regional flow direction northwest to the West Fork River and the 

Monongahela River. 

The West Fork Watershed is composed of 73 percent forested land, 15 percent cultivated/planted 

land, 15 percent developed land, and 3.6 percent impervious surface. The West Fork Watershed 

and the area surrounding the Facility, including parts of West Virginia, Maryland, and 

Pennsylvania, are part of the larger Monongahela River basin. The Monongahela River is used 

for recreational activities. In Harrison County, 100 percent of the drinking water comes from 

surface water. There are currently three public water supply facilities within the West Fork 

Watershed: the Clarksburg Water Board (approximately 7 miles southwest of the Facility), 

Lumberport Water (approximately 9 miles northwest of the Facility), and West Virginia 

American Water – Weston (approximately 23 miles southwest of the Facility) (West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 2013). The exact locations of the surface water intakes 

for each public water supply facility were not available. 

Sanitary effluent from the Facility is to the City of Bridgeport's sanitary sewer system. FWAATS 

has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit in place that allows the facility to 

discharge pollutants to the Bridgeport Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located 

2.6 miles west of the Facility. The wastewater approved for acceptance from FWAATS is runoff 

from engine washing, exterior plane washing, and plane and equipment de-icing. Runoff is first 

treated by an oil-water separator before continuing to the Bridgeport WWTP (AECOM 2020). 

2.2.4 Climate 

FWAATS is located in an area of West Virginia where precipitation is generally evenly 

distributed throughout the year, with somewhat higher amounts in the spring and summer (Herb 

et al. 1981). The average annual rainfall is 45.9 inches (in.), with varying amounts of the 

precipitation seen as snow based on elevation (U.S. Climate Data 2019). Bridgeport has a 

temperate climate with four distinct seasons (City of Bridgeport 2020). The annual average high 

temperature for Bridgeport is 63.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the average low temperature is 

42.1°F. Elevation is a significant influence on climatic variations and temperature in West 

Virginia (U.S. Climate Data 2019). The region including Bridgeport, West Virginia is generally a 

few degrees cooler than the western side of West Virginia due to higher elevation (AECOM 

2020). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use 

FWAATS currently resides on a portion of land leased from the BAA under the terms of a 

50-year lease, which started on 12 July 1994. The Facility is currently and has historically been 

used for fixed wing training instruction for Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard Aviators. 

Future land use is not anticipated to change (AECOM 2020). The Facility boundary is fenced 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-4

and secured, either by the FWAATS fence or within the fence line and restricted runway access 

areas of the North Central West Virginia Airport. 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species 

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

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

in the surrounding area. The following species are listed as federally endangered, threatened, 

proposed, and/or candidate species in Harrison County, West Virginia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2022): 

 Clams: Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) – Federally Endangered; Snuffbox Mussel 

(Epioblasma triquetra) – Federally Endangered 

 Insects: Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) – Federal Candidate 

Mammal: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) – Federally Endangered; and Northern Longeared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – Federally Threatened. 

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE 

Three potential PFAS release areas were identified at the Facility during the PA (AECOM 2020). 

The AOIs include areas where aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) may have been used, stored, 

disposed, or released historically at the FWAATS. Interviews and records obtained during the 

PA indicate that AFFF was stored within the HAZMAT Room from 1996 until 2019. 

Additionally, 5-gal buckets of AFFF were also stored within the Flammable Liquids Shed. 

Training was conducted on-site with a Tri-MaxTM fire extinguisher; however, the extinguisher 

was reportedly filled with soap and water prior to the training activities. To interviewee 

recollection or knowledge, AFFF has not been released on-site at FWAATS; however, there is 

potential for incidental or residual release of AFFF on-site. The potential PFAS release areas 

were grouped into two AOIs based on preliminary data and presumed groundwater flow 

directions. A description of each AOI is presented in Section 3. 
^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

3

0 1

Miles

Date:.....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-1

Site Location

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

FWAATS
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-6

This page intentionally left blank
^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

3

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-2

Topography

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

FWAATS

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

*Contour interval = 20 ft.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-8

This page intentionally left blank
<!<!

<!<! <!

<!

<!<!<!

<!

Davisson Run

Corbin Branch

SimpsonCreek

Smith Run

Coplin Run

Douglas Run

Jerry Run

BarnettRun

Ann Run

Ann Moore Run

Peddler

Run

Smith Run

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Well Type

<!

USGS Inactive

Monitoring Well

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

3

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-3

Groundwater Features

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-10

This page intentionally left blank
Davisson Run

Corbin Branch

SimpsonCreek

Smith Run

Coplin Run

Douglas Run

Jerry Run

BarnettRun

Ann Run

Ann Moore Run

Peddler

Run

Smith Run

Brushy Fork

Watershed

Outlet

Elk Creek

Watershed

Headwaters

Simpson Creek

Watershed

Outlet Simpson

Creek Watershed

Limestone

Run-West Fork

River Watershed

Booths Creek

Watershed

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

Watershed Boundary

3

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-4

Surface Water Features

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Date:....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-12

This page intentionally left blank
AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

1,150

1,148

1,152

1,150

Storm Water Drain

AOI02-01

1,150.39

FWAATS-01*

1,168.46

FWAATS-03

1,146.85

FWAATS-04*

1,166.81

AOI02-02

1,149.92

FWAATS-02-OFF

1,152.5

Peddler Run

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Storm Water Drain

Drop Inlet

Oil-water Separator

Sample Location

Sample Location

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater Elevation

Contour Interval (2 foot)

Perennial Creek/Stream

3

0 100

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-5

Groundwater Elevations, March 2022

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

AOI02-01 = Sample ID

1,150.39= Groundwater Elevation (in feet

above mean sea level)

* FWAATS-01 and FWAATS-04 were excluded

from groundwater contour due to suspected

perched water table.

Date:....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-14

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 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 

FWAATS and grouped into two AOIs identified as: AOI 1 HAZMAT Room and AOI 2 

Flammable Liquids Shed and Water Fire Training Area (FTA). The potential AOIs are shown on 

Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 – HAZMAT ROOM 

AOI 1 consists of the HAZMAT Room, a room located on the southern edge of the FWAATS 

hangar building with a main door that opens to the south. During interviews with FWAATS 

personnel, the HAZMAT Room was identified as a location where AFFF was known to be stored 

from 1996 until 2019. Two 5-gal containers of AFFF were discovered in the HAZMAT Room in 

2019, which were subsequently disposed of by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office. 

Disposal documentation was provided in the PA. Interviewees had no recollection of spills or 

releases of AFFF at this location. However, due to gaps in knowledge regarding AFFF storage, 

the HAZMAT Room is considered a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). 

3.2 AOI 2 – FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS SHED AND SOAP AND WATER FTA 

AOI 2 consists of the Flammable Liquids Shed and the Soap and Water FTA. These two 

potential release areas were grouped into one AOI based on proximity along the northern facility 

boundary. 

3.2.1 Flammable Liquids Shed 

The Flammable Liquids Shed is located on the northern side of the property. While AFFF was 

kept at FWAATS (beginning in 1996), 5-gal buckets were stored in the Flammable Liquids 

Shed. One 5-gal bucket of AFFF was found in the Flammable Liquids Shed in 2019, which was 

subsequently disposed of by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office. There are no 

known spill or releases of AFFF at this location. However, due to gaps in knowledge regarding 

AFFF storage at the facility, the Flammable Liquids Shed is considered a potential PFAS-release 

area (AECOM 2020). 

3.2.2 Soap and Water FTA 

The Soap and Water FTA is located in the parking lot in the northeastern corner of the Facility. 

According to interviewees, the training consisted of filling an empty Tri-MaxTM extinguisher 

with a soap and water solution to demonstrate the use of a Tri-MaxTM extinguisher. It is unknown 

if the Tri-MaxTM extinguisher unit(s) contained AFFF before being used with soap and water for 

training in this area. Due to the potential for residual PFAS in the Tri-MaxTM extinguishers and 

lack of documentation, the FTA is considered a potential PFAS release area (AECOM 2020). 

There were no live fire training events at the Facility. To interviewee recollection, which dates 

back to 1996, there have never been off-facility fire training events conducted by FWAATS 

personnel, nor have any outside entities come on-facility for fire training (AECOM 2020). 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-2

3.3 ADJACENT SOURCES 

Four potential off-facility sources of PFAS are adjacent to the Facility and are not under the 

control of the WVARNG. A description of each off-facility source is presented below and shown 

on Figure 3-1. 

3.3.1 Aviation Industries 

Northrop Grumman and Pratt & Whitney aerospace companies are located directly north of 

FWAATS. Pratt & Whitney is an aircraft engine repair company and Northrop Grumman is an 

aircraft manufacturer. It is unknown if PFAS-containing substances are used at these facilities, 

and personnel of these companies were not interviewed as part of the PA. However, because 

PFAS are common in substances used in the aviation industry, this location is considered a 

potential adjacent PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). This area is located upgradient of 

FWAATS. 

3.3.2 North Central West Virginia Airport 

The North Central West Virginia Airport is located adjacent to the Facility to the west and north 

(Figure 3-1). Four potential adjacent sources within the airport were determined in the PA to 

have potentially released PFAS based on interviews with airport staff. 

3.3.2.1 Former Nozzle Check Area 

The airport currently has two firetrucks: one equipped with AFFF, which replaced the former 

AFFF firetruck, and one equipped to handle only water. Airport personnel are required to 

perform nozzle checks once per month to ensure the AFFF firetruck is in working order, should 

there be an event requiring emergency response with AFFF. Nozzle checks formerly took place 

on the pavement in the rear of the Old Fire House. Nozzle checks were performed at this location 

until 2006. Following the nozzle check, during which a small amount of AFFF was released, the 

AFFF was left to sit on pavement and dissipate; therefore, this area is considered a potential 

adjacent PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). This area is located cross-gradient of FWAATS. 

3.3.2.2 Old Fire House 

The airport’s former AFFF firetruck was kept in the Old Fire House from 1992 to 1996. It is 

unknown what year the former firetruck was removed. The AFFF was stored in 55-gal drums in 

the rear of the firetruck. The airport purchased 3 percent AFFF from Oshkosh and initially had 

four drums to refill the AFFF firetrucks with, which have been reduced to two with use in nozzle 

checks and off-specification AFFF removal over time by J.T. Martin Fire & Safety. The firetruck 

had a pour-fill system to refill the AFFF tank. While airport personnel do not recall any spills or 

releases of AFFF, there is a possibility that unintended releases occurred during refilling while 

the previous firetruck was in service. Therefore, the Old Fire House is considered a potential 

adjacent PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). This area is located cross-gradient of FWAATS. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-3

3.3.2.3 Current Firetruck and AFFF Storage 

The current AFFF firetruck has been stored in a building directly south of the Old Fire House 

since it was acquired in 2006. The current firetruck has a pump filling system for the AFFF to 

prevent spills while filling with AFFF. The AFFF is currently stored behind the AFFF firetruck 

in 55-gal drums labeled as Oshkosh 3 percent AFFF. It is unknown whether the truck is 

decontaminated following nozzle checks. Due to the potential for unintended spills or releases of 

AFFF, this area is considered a potential adjacent PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). This area 

is located cross gradient of FWAATS. 

3.3.2.4 Current Nozzle Check Area 

After 2006, the Airport began conducting nozzle checks at a new location south of the current 

firetruck and AFFF storage area and east of the main airport building. Nozzle checks have been 

conducted monthly in this location since 2006. The AFFF released during the nozzle checks is 

not rinsed away and is left on the tarmac to dissipate. AFFF in surface runoff from this area may 

enter the drain running along the tarmac to the east of the nozzle check area, and from there, it 

would be directed to the public sanitary sewer system. This location is considered a potential 

adjacent PFAS release area (AECOM 2020). This area is located cross-gradient of FWAATS. 

3.3.3 Meadowfill Landfill 

The Meadowfill Landfill is located approximately 3 miles north-northwest of the Facility. 

Details of the landfill provided by the Waste Management Solutions operator indicate the landfill 

accepts waste including industrial waste and municipal solid waste, both of which may include 

PFAS-containing refuse. Though the landfill does not accept hazardous waste, PFAS were not 

historically considered hazardous. Therefore, there is a potential for PFAS-containing products 

to be included in materials within the landfill. As such, the Meadowfill Landfill is considered 

a potential adjacent, off-facility PFAS release area (AECOM 2020). This area is located 

cross-gradient to the FWAATS and is hydraulically separated by at least three streams: Ann Run, 

Stouts Run, and Barnett Run. 

3.3.4 Bridgeport Wastewater Treatment Plant 

The Bridgeport WWTP is located 2.6 miles west of the Facility, on a parcel of land owned by the 

City of Bridgeport. The WWTP is owned and operated by the City of Bridgeport and is 

considered a potential adjacent source of PFAS. The WWTP treats wastewater for the City of 

Bridgeport’s 25,000 residents before releasing it via an outfall to Simpson Creek. Surface water 

from Simpson Creek flows to the West Fork River where it is collected by the Clarksburg Water 

Board for public supply. The Clarksburg Water Board provides water for the City of Bridgeport. 

Wastewater treatment facilities are not usually considered primary potential release areas of 

PFAS, but sludges and liquids treated at WWTPs may create a secondary source of 

contamination if they receive PFAS-impacted waste from other release areas, personal care 

products, and other household waste. PFAS releases that may have occurred within the City of 

Bridgeport could have resulted in the migration of PFAS in water to the Bridgeport WWTP. 

Sludge generated at wastewater treatment facilities is typically removed and disposed of at an 

off-site location; the location of sludge disposal for the Bridgeport WWTP is unknown. Due to 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-4

the potential for PFAS releases to have occurred elsewhere in the City of Bridgeport sanitary 

sewer system, the WWTP is considered a potential adjacent, off-facility PFAS release area 

(AECOM 2020). This area is located downgradient and downstream of FWAATS. 
Soap and

Water FTA

Current

Nozzle

Check Area

Former Nozzle

Check Area

Old Fire House

Current Fire

Truck and

AFFF Storage

Aviation

Industries

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT Room

AOI 1

AOI 2

Peddler Run

^_

WV

Text

Text

Ann Run

Meadowfill

Landfill

Bridgeport

WWTP Ann Run

Barnett Run

SimpsonCreek

SmithRun

Stouts Run

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

3

0 500

US Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 3-1

Areas of Interest

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

0 0.5

Miles

3

Date:....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: DRAFT FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-6 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 4-1 

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 

As identified during the data quality objective (DQO) process and outlined in the SI Uniform 

Federal Policy (UFP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (EA Engineering, 

Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC [EA] 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 AOIs for remedial investigation (RI) if site-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 for the SI include the following: 

 The PA Report for FWAATS (AECOM 2020) 

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

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a) 

 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 horizontally by the property limits of the Facility (Figure 2-2). 

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

required, the proper stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be obtained 

by ARNG with property owner(s). Temporal boundaries were limited to the earliest available 

time field resources were available to complete the study. 

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 

Samples were analyzed by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Env, LLC, accredited under the 

Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP); 

Accreditation No. 1.01). PFAS data underwent 100 percent Stage 2B validation in accordance 

with the DoD General Data Validation Guidelines (2019a) and DoD Data Validation Guidelines 

Module 3: Data Validation Procedure of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by 

Quality Systems Manual (QSM) Table B-15 (2020). 

PFAS data were compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules as defined 

in the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 4-2 

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 

decision-making (DoD 2019a, 2019b; USEPA 2017). 

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 UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-3 

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 

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

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

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents: 

 Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, 

Bridgeport, West Virginia, dated August 2020 (AECOM 2020)

 Final Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, 

Site Inspections for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG 

Installations, Nationwide, dated December 2020 (EA 2020a)

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

Addendum, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, Bridgeport, West Virginia,

dated December 2021 (EA 2021a)

 Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1, dated November 2020 

(EA 2020b)

 Final Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum, Fixed 

Wing Army Aviation Training Site, Bridgeport, West Virginia, dated October 2021 

(EA 2021b). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 22 February to 3 March 2022 and consisted of 

hollow stem auger and hand auger borings and soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well 

installation and grab groundwater sample collection. Two preparatory facility visits without 

intrusive work were also conducted on 16 November 2021 (source water sampling) and 11 

February 2022 (utility location). Field activities were conducted in accordance with the 

UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), except as noted in Section 5.9. 

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for a subset of 24 PFAS via 

liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) compliant with QSM Version 

5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs: 

 Twenty two (22) soil samples from eight primary locations and two offset locations (soil 

borings locations) 

 Six (6) grab groundwater samples from six temporary well locations 

 Thirteen (13) samples quality assurance/quality control 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 medium. 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 and land survey 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-4 

data is provided in Appendix B3. Field change request forms 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 of these activities are presented below. 

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) TPP Process, Engineers Manual (EM) 200-1-2 

(Department of the Army 2016) defines four phases to project planning: (1) defining the project 

phase; (2) determining data needs; (3) developing data collection strategies; and (4) finalizing the 

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

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

address the AOIs identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 19 November 2021, prior to SI field activities. 

Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix D. The combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was 

conducted in general accordance with EM 200-1-2. The stakeholders for this SI include ARNG, 

USACE, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 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 UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

A TPP Meeting 3 was held [date TBD] after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. 

Meeting minutes for TPP 3 are included in Appendix D of this report. Future TPP meetings will 

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance 

EA contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems (GPRS) Inc., a private utility location service, 

to perform utility clearance at the facility. Utility clearance was performed at each of the 

proposed boring locations on 11 February 2022 with input from the EA field team. General 

locating services and ground-penetrating radar were used to complete the clearance. 

Additionally, the first 5 ft of boring location AOI02-02 was pre-cleared by EA’s drilling 

subcontractor, Triad Engineering, Inc., using a hand auger to verify utility clearance due to the 

presence of an unknown line noted by GPRS Inc. Hand auger clearance of the remaining boring 

locations was unsuccessful as outlined in Section 5.9. 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability 

The potable water source used for decontamination of drilling equipment was sampled prior to 

the start of field activities. A sample from a potable water source within the main hangar was 

collected on 16 November 2021, prior to mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-5 

compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results indicated that the potable water source 

contained trace levels of PFAS, with all relevant compound concentrations below the SLs. 

PFHxS and PFNA were not detected, while PFBS was detected at a concentration less than onetenth of the SL of 600 ng/L. PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations less than one-third 

of the SLs of 4 and 6 ng/L, respectively. Based on these low-level detections, the water was 

deemed acceptable for use in decontamination, although does introduce limited uncertainty in 

environmental media samples below the SLs. Further discussion is provided in the DUA 

(Appendix A). Analytical results for this sample can be found in Appendix F. 

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

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

environment was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures appendix to the Programmatic 

UFP-QAPP (EA 2020a). 

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING 

One boring was completed exclusively by hand auger due to time limitations and addition of an 

additional surface soil sample (AOI 01-02, see Section 5.9). No borings beyond AOI 02-02 were 

advanced exclusively by hand auger based on terminal depth. All soil sample locations are 

shown on Figure 5-1 and described in the subsequent section. Non-dedicated sampling 

equipment (i.e., hand auger) was decontaminated between sampling locations. 

Beyond 5 ft depth, soil samples were collected via hollow stem auger drilling method in 

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). A CME-550 drill rig with a split spoon 

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

outlined in Section 5.2, a decontaminated hand auger was used to collect a surface soil sample 

from the top 5 ft of the boring in compliance with utility clearance procedures. 

Three discrete soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from each soil boring (except as 

noted in Section 5.9): one sample at the surface (0 to 2 ft bgs) and two subsurface soil samples. 

One subsurface soil sample was collected approximately 1 ft above the groundwater table, and 

one collected at the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table (not to exceed 15 ft 

bgs). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 8-31 ft during drilling. Total boring 

completion depths, to accommodate temporary well installation, ranged from 13 to 46 ft bgs. 

All soil sample locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and boring sample depths are provided in 

Table 5-1. The soil boring locations were selected based on the AOI information provided in 

the PA (AECOM 2020) and as agreed upon by stakeholders during the TPP and review of the 

UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). Several boring locations were adjusted within a 50-ft offset 

for reasons including drill rig access, utility avoidance, and drill equipment refusal. 

During the mobilization, the soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by 

a field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. A photoionization detector (PID) 

was used to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as a part of personal safety 

requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) 

and in a non-treated field logbook. Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-6 

moisture, relative density, Munsell color, and Unified Soil Classification System texture were 

recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

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

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

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with 

QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15), total organic carbon (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A), pH 

(USEPA Method 9045D), and grain size (ASTM International D422) in accordance with the 

UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicates (MSDs) 

were collected at a rate of 5 percent 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, one equipment blank (EB) was collected per day 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. 

Hollow stem auger borings were converted to temporary wells, which were subsequently 

abandoned after sampling and surveying in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 

2021a). After removal of the casings, boreholes were abandoned using bentonite chips. Borings 

were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces. Restoration of the 

drilling areas was completed per the FWAATS request including leveling and the placement of 

several yards of soil and spreading of grass seed in denuded areas. 

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING 

Temporary wells were installed using the CME-550 hollow stem auger drill rig. Once the 

borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well was constructed of a 10-ft section 

of 1-inch (in.) Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen with sufficient casing to reach the 

ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used at each location to avoid cross 

contamination between locations. The screen intervals for the temporary wells are provided in 

Table 5-2. 

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

groundwater to infiltrate and recharge the temporary well intervals, using a peristaltic or bladder 

pump, depending on depth to groundwater, with PFAS-free HDPE tubing. Each sample was 

collected in laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker 

or pen. 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 oxidation-reduction potential) were measured using a water quality 

meter and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix B2) before each grab sample was 

collected in a separate container. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant 

with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-7 

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5 percent and 

analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. Two FBs were collected in 

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). In instances when non-dedicated 

sampling equipment was used, such as a bladder pump, one EB was collected a day and analyzed 

for the same parameters as the groundwater samples. A temperature blank was placed in each 

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

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 

Groundwater levels were used to monitor sitewide groundwater elevations and assess 

groundwater flow. Synoptic water level elevation measurements were collected from the newly 

installed temporary monitoring wells (Figure 2-5), taken from the survey mark on the northern 

side of the well casing. Groundwater elevation data is provided in Table 5-3. 

5.5 SURVEYING 

The northern side of each new temporary well casing was surveyed using a GEOMAX Zoom 90 

Robotic total station by EA’s West Virginia licensed professional surveyor subcontractor, Bell 

Land Surveying. Positions were collected in the applicable datum as referenced on the survey 

report. Surveying data were collected on 3 March 2022 and are provided in Appendix B3. 

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE 

As of the date of this report, the disposal of PFAS investigation-derived waste (IDW) is not 

regulated federally. PFAS IDW generated during the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and 

was managed in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid IDW (i.e., purge water) generated during the SI activities 

were containerized in fifteen properly labeled 55-gal drums and staged in an approved, climatecontrolled room located within the Annex Building. The groundwater drum remains inside the 

Annex Hangar on secondary containment. The fourteen soil drums have been moved outside the 

annex hangar because of space issues. The soil and liquid IDW will be disposed of in a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C landfill. Specifics on the disposal of solid and liquid 

IDW will be summarized in a IDW Technical Memorandum. 

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

unused monitoring well construction materials generated during the field activities were disposed 

of at a licensed solid waste landfill. 

 

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS 

Samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 at Eurofins 

Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a DoD ELAP- and 

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified laboratory. Soil samples 

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

grain size by ASTM International D422. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-8 

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SITE INVESTIGATION UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM 

Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum occurred based on field conditions. These deviations 

were discussed between EA, ARNG, and USACE. Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum 

are noted below and are documented in the field change requests forms in Appendix B4: 

 Due to the rocky subsurface encountered on-site, a hand auger was not used to clear 5 ft 

of the boring locations, with the exception of boring location AOI02-02. 

 Groundwater and refusal/bedrock was encountered at variable depths across the Facility. 

As such, the third sample outlined in the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a) was not 

collected from boring locations AOI01-01, FWAATS-02, FWAATS-02-OFF (the offset 

location), and FWAATS-04 due to unanticipated shallow depths to groundwater and/or 

weathered bedrock. Additionally, only one sample (surface soil) was collected at 

FWAATS-01 due to weathered bedrock encountered at 4 ft below grade (i.e., no granular 

media for laboratory analysis). 

 During utility clearance, soil boring/temporary monitoring well location AOI02-01 was 

relocated approximately 15 ft northwest of the original proposed location due to issues 

accessing the location with a drill rig. This relocation was submitted in a Field Change 

Request (see Appendix B4). 

 During drilling, auger refusal occurred at boring locations FWAATS-02 and AOI01-01 

due to the rocky subsurface. Boring location FWAATS-02 was relocated east of the 

original proposed location as outlined in a Field Change Request Form (Appendix B4) 

and a temporary well was able to be installed at the offset location. A temporary well was 

not installed to assess AOI 1 due to auger refusal. Several attempts to relocate the boring 

(up to six) were made. Per the Field Change Request, an additional hand auger sample 

location was added to the sampling scope in order to assess the soil directly adjacent to 

the Hazmat Room (AOI 1) door, called AOI01-02. 

Temporary well AOI02-02 was removed on 25 February 2022 prior to sampling and 

survey due to a construction issue discovered when attempting to remove the bladder 

pump from down-well. Portions of the PVC were not able to be removed from the 

borehole. In order to obtain a groundwater sample, boring AOI02-02 was redrilled on 

28 February 2022 at an offset location 5 ft away. A surface soil associated with the offset 

was collected and called AOI02-02-OFF. The replacement temporary well was sampled 

on 3 March 2022. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-9 

Table 5-1. Site Inspection Samples by Medium 

FWAATS, Bridgeport, West Virginia 

Site Inspection Report 

Sample Identification 

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table 

B-15 TOC pH Grain Size Comments 

 Soil Samples 

AOI01-01-SB-[0-2] 2/24/2022 0-2 X X X 

AOI01-01-SB-[10-12] 2/24/2022 10-12 X 

AOI01-02-SB-[0-2] 2/28/2022 0-2 X 

AOI02-01-SB-[0-2] 2/22/2022 0-2 X 

AOI02-01-SB-[8-9] 2/22/2022 8-9 X 

AOI02-01-SB-[13-14] 2/22/2022 13-14 X 

AOI02-01-SB-[34-36] 2/23/2022 34-36 X 

AOI02-02-SB-[0-2] 2/25/2022 0-2 X MS/MSD 

AOI02-02-OFF-SB-[0-2] 2/28/2022 0-2 X 

AOI02-02-SB-[3-4] 2/25/2022 3-4 X X pH and TOC only, not 

validated 

AOI02-02-SB-[14-15] 2/25/2022 14-15 X 

AOI02-02-SB-[42-43] 2/25/2022 42-43 X 

FWAATS-01-SB-[0-2] 2/22/2022 0-2 X 

FWAATS-02-SB-[0-2] 2/22/2022 0-2 X 

FWAATS-02-OFF-[0-2] 3/1/2022 0-2 X 

FWAATS-02-SB-[3-4] 2/22/2022 3-4 X 

FWAATS-02-OFF-SB-[14-15] 3/1/2022 14-15 X 

FWAATS-03-SB-[0-2] 2/23/2022 0-2 X 

FWAATS-03-SB-[13-15] 2/23/2022 13-15 X 

FWAATS-03-SB-[32-33] 2/23/2022 32-33 X 

FWAATS-04-SB-[0-2] 2/24/2022 0-2 X 

FWAATS-04-SB-[13-14] 2/24/2022 13-14 X 

FWAATS-DUP-SB-01 2/23/2022 34-36 X Field duplicate of 

AOI02-01-SB-[34-36] 

FWAATS-DUP-SB-02 2/24/2022 0-2 X Field duplicate of 

FWAATS-04-SB-[0-2] 

FWAATS-DUP-SB-03 2/25/2022 0-2 X Field duplicate of 

AOI02-02-SB-[0-2] 

Groundwater Samples

AOI02-01-GW 3/2/2022 X 

AOI02-02-GW 3/3/2022 X 

FWAATS-01-GW 3/2/2022 X 

FWAATS-02-GW 3/3/2022 X 

FWAATS-03-GW 3/2/2022 X 

FWAATS-04-GW 3/2/2022 X 

FWAATS-DUP-GW-01 3/2/2022 X Field duplicate of 

AOI02-01-GW 

Blank Samples

FWAATS-FB-01 3/2/2022 X Field Blank 

FWAATS-FB-02 3/3/2022 X Field Blank 

FWAATS-EB-GW-01 3/2/2022 X Equipment Blank

FWAATS-EB-GW-02 3/3/2022 X Equipment Blank

FWAATS-EB-01 2/22/2022 X Equipment Blank

FWAATS-EB-02 2/23/2022 X Equipment Blank

FWAATS-EB-SB-03 2/24/2022 X Equipment Blank

FWAATS-EB-04 2/24/2022 X Equipment Blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-10 

Sample Identification 

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table 

B-15 TOC pH Grain Size Comments 

FWAATS-EB-SB-05 3/1/2022 X Equipment Blank

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

FWAATS, Bridgeport, West Virginia 

Site Inspection Report 

Area of Interest Boring ID

Ground Surface 

Elevation ft amsl 

Soil Boring Depth 

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(ft bgs) 

AOI 1 AOI01-01 - 23 N/A

AOI01-02 - 2 N/A 

AOI 2 AOI02-01 1,175.94 40 35-40 

AOI02-02 1,175.47 46 41-46 

Site Wide 

FWAATS-01 1,177.41 13 8-13 

FWAATS-02 1,176.38 43.5 38.5-43.5 

FWAATS-03 1,177.95 40 35-40 

FWAATS-04 1,174.81 18 13-18 

Notes: 

Only terminal/final depths associated at locations at AOI02-02, FWAATS-02, and AOI01-01 are tabulated herein, though 

intermediate/additional/original locations may have had various shallower depths prior to offsets. 

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation 

FWAATS, Bridgeport, West Virginia 

Site Inspection Report 

Temporary 

Well ID

Top of Casing 

Elevation (ft amsl) 

Depth to Water 

(ft btoc) 

Depth to Water 

(ft bgs) 

Groundwater Elevation 

(ft amsl) 

AOI02-01 1175.94 25.55 25.23 1150.39 

AOI02-02 1175.47 25.55 25.25 1149.92 

FWAATS-01 1177.41 8.95 6.9 1168.46 

FWAATS-02 1177.35 24.85 23.88 1152.5 

FWAATS-03 1177.95 31.1 31.05 1146.85 

FWAATS-04 1174.81 8.0 7.97 1166.81 

Notes: 

Amsl = Above mean sea level 

btoc = Below top of casing
AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-01

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-04

AOI02-02-OFF

FWAATS-02-OFF

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

Storm Water Drain

Peddler Run

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Storm Water Drain

Drop Inlet

Oil-water Separator

Sample Locations

Sample Location

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

3

0 100

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 5-1

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Date:.....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-12 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 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 the AOIs is provided in Sections 6.3 

through 6.5. Tables 6-2 through 6-5 present results for 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) 

Analyte2

Residential 

(Soil) 

(μg/kg)1 

0 to 2 ft bgs

Industrial/Commercial 

Composite Worker 

(Soil) 

(μg/kg) 1 

2 to 15 ft bgs

Tap Water 

(Groundwater) 

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39 

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes: 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using USEPA’s 

Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient=0.1. May 2022. 

2. Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred 

to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA 

and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPODA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including distribution 

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

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

The data in the subsequent sections are compared 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 ft bgs) and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil 

results (2 to 15 ft bgs). The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (greater than 15 ft 

bgs) because 15 ft is the anticipated limit of construction activities. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-2 

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At relevant environmental 

pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions; and are therefore, relatively mobile in 

groundwater (Xiao et al. 2015) but 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 (e.g., pH and presence of 

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

Soil pH and TOC was analyzed in soil samples AOI01-01-SB-[0-2] and AOI02-02-SB-[3-4]. 

Results were similar, with pH results of 7.2 and 7.1, respectively, and TOC results of 6,300 and 

13,000 milligrams per kilogram, respectively. The grain size analysis conducted on sample 

AOI02-01-SB-[8-9] consisted of approximately 30 percent sand and gravel and 70 percent fines 

(silt and clay). This result corresponds to a soil texture of “clay loam.” 

6.3 AOI 1 

This section presents the analytical results for soil in comparison to SLs for AOI 1, which 

includes the HAZMAT Room. The soil results are summarized on Tables 6-2 through 6-4. Soil 

results are presented on Figures 6-1 through 6-5. Due to shallow refusal depths above the water 

table, no groundwater samples were able to be collected in AOI 1. However, boundary location 

FWAATS-04 is located downgradient from AOI 1 based on the groundwater elevations observed 

in this SI. Location FWAATS-03 is located cross gradient of AOI 1. 

6.3.1 AOI 1 – Soil Analytical Results 

Tables 6-2 through 6-4 summarize the detected compounds in soil. Figures 6-1 through 6-5

present the ranges of detections in soil. 

Soil was sampled in two boring locations associated with the potential release areas at AOI 1 and 

two borings located cross gradient and downgradient of the release areas. Soil was sampled from 

one surface interval at location AOI01-02 (0-2 ft bgs), two intervals (surface [0-2 ft bgs] and 

shallow subsurface [10-14 ft bgs]) at locations AOI01-01and FWAATS-04, and three intervals at 

FWAATS-03 (Surface [0-2 ft bgs], shallow subsurface [13-15 ft bgs], and deep subsurface [32-

33 ft bgs]). The only detections of relevant compounds occurred in the surface soil samples at 

borings AOI01-02, FWAATS-03, and FWAATS-04 (sample FWAATS-04-SB-DUP). PFNA 

was detected at AOI01-02 at a concentration of 0.41 J μg/kg, which is below the associated SL 

of 19 μg/kg. PFOA was detected at concentrations of 0.51 μg/kg, 0.6 μg/kg, and 0.28 μg/kg, at 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-3 

locations AOI01-02, FWAATS-03, and FWAATS-04, respectively. All detections of PFOA 

were well below the SL of 19 μg/kg. 

6.3.2 AOI 1– Groundwater Analytical Results 

Although no groundwater samples were collected directly from AOI 1, samples were collected 

from four temporary wells at the facility boundary during the SI, including FWAATS-03 and 

FWAATS-04, which are cross-gradient and downgradient of AOI 1, respectively. At location 

FWAATS-04, PFOA was detected at a concentration of 110 ng/L, which exceeded the SL of 6 

ng/L. Additionally, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected at FWAATS-04 at 

concentrations of 3.4 ng/L, 1.5 ng/L, 2.1 ng/L, and 2.1 ng/L, respectively. These concentrations 

were below associated SLs of 4 ng/L, 601 ng/L, 39 ng/L, and 6 ng/L. At FWAATS-03, PFBS 

and PFOA were detected at concentrations of 0.68 J ng/L and 5.8 J ng/L, which is below 

associated SLs of 601 and 6, respectively. 

PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were all detected at concentrations below their associated SLs. 

6.3.3 AOI 1 – Conclusions 

Based on the results of the SI, no relevant compounds were detected in soil above their 

respective SLs. Although groundwater samples were not collected from AOI 1, detections of 

PFOA approximately 200 ft downgradient of the AOI exceeded SLs. Therefore, 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, which includes the Flammable Liquids Shed and Soap and Water FTA. The soil and 

groundwater results are summarized on Tables 6-2 through 6-5. Soil and groundwater results 

are presented on Figures 6-1 through 6-7. 

6.4.1 AOI 2 – Soil Analytical Results 

Tables 6-2 through 6-4 summarize the detected compounds in soil. Figures 6-1 through 6-5

present the ranges of detections in soil. 

Soil was sampled in three boring locations associated with the potential release areas at AOI 2 

and two borings along the facility’s upgradient boundary. Soil was sampled from three intervals 

(Surface [0-2 ft bgs], shallow subsurface [13-15 ft bgs], and deep subsurface [34-43 ft bgs]) at 

locations AOI02-01 and AOI02-02, two intervals at location FWAATS-02 (Surface [0-2 ft bgs], 

and shallow subsurface [14-15 ft bgs]), and one interval at FWAATS-01 (Surface [0-2 ft bgs]). 

The only detections of relevant compounds occurred in the surface soil samples at borings 

AOI02-01, FWAATS-01, and FWAATS-02 at concentrations below respective SLs. PFNA was 

detected at concentrations of 0.58 J μg/kg (FWAATS-02) and 1 μg/kg (FWAATS-01), which are 

below the SL of 19 μg/kg. PFOS was detected at FWAATS-01 at a concentration of 0.29 J 

μg/kg, which is below the SL of 13 μg/kg. PFOA was detected at concentrations of 0.43 J μg/kg 

(FWAATS-01), 0.39 J μg/kg (FWAATS-02), 0.58 J μg/kg (FWAATS-02-OFF), and 2 μg/kg 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-4 

(AOI02-01), which are below the SL of 19 μg/kg. There were no other detections of relevant 

compounds in soil at AOI 2. 

6.4.2 AOI 2 – Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

 

Groundwater samples were collected from two temporary wells at AOI 2 and two temporary 

wells along the facility’s upgradient boundary during the SI. Relevant compounds were detected 

in groundwater at concentrations both above and below the SLs. PFOA concentrations at three 

temporary well locations (AOI02-01, AOI02-02, AOI02-01-GW DUP, and FWAATS-01) of 32 

ng/L, 12 ng/L, 31 ng/L, and 9.9 ng/L exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L. PFNA was detected at 

FWAATS-01 at a concentration of 31 ng/L, which exceeds the SL of 6 ng/L. Each of the three 

other relevant compounds were detected in one or more samples at concentrations below their 

respective SLs. PFBS concentrations ranged from non-detect to 0.79 J ng/L, below the SL of 601 

ng/L. PFHxS concentrations ranged from non-detect to 1.1 J ng/L. PFOS concentrations ranged 

from non-detect to 3 J+ ng/L. 

6.4.3 AOI 2 – Conclusions 

Based on the results of the SI, none of the relevant compounds were detected in soil above their 

respective SLs. PFOA was detected in groundwater at concentrations above the SL; and PFBS, 

PFHxS, PFNA, and PFOS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective 

SLs. Based on the exceedances of the SLs in groundwater further evaluation at AOI 2 is 

warranted. 
Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

Analyte Screening Level1,2 Unit Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual R

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (g/kg)

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U NPerfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U NPerfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19 μg/kg ND U 0.41 J ND U NPerfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U NPerfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 μg/kg ND U 0.51 J 2 N

Notes:J = Estimated concentration.

AO

AOI0

2/24/2022 2/25/2022 2/22/2022 

Location ID AOI01-01-SB AOI01-02-SB

AOI01-01-SB-[0-2] AOI01-02-SB-[0-2] AOI02-01-SB-[0-2]

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

Site Inspection Report, FWAATS

Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.AOI = Area of InterestDUP = Duplicateft bgs = Foot (feet) below ground surfaceLCMSMS = Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometryND = Analyte not detected above the limit of detection.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramQSM = Quality Systems Manual

Qual = Qualifier

Sample Name

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit. 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator.Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. July 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for directingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI02-01-SB

Depth (ft bgs) 0-2 0-2 0-2

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

Analyte Screening Level1,2 Unit

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (g/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900 μg/kgPerfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130 μg/kg

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19 μg/kgPerfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 μg/kgPerfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 μg/kgNotes:J = Estimated concentration.

Location ID

Sample Name

Depth (ft bgs)

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Res

ND U ND U ND U ND ND U ND U ND U ND 

1 ND U 0.58 J ND 

0.29 J ND U ND U ND 0.43 J 0.58 J 0.39 J 0.

0-2 0-2 0-2 

2/22/2022 3/1/2022 2/22/2022 

FWAATS-02-SB

FW

FWAATS-02-SB-[0-2] FWAA

FWAATS-01-SB FWAATS-02-OFF

FWAATS-01-SB-[0-2] FWAATS-02-OFF-[0-2]

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

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

Site Inspection Report, FWAATS

Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.AOI = Area of InterestDUP = Duplicateft bgs = Foot (feet) below ground surfaceLCMSMS = Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometryND = Analyte not detected above the limit of detection.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramQSM = Quality Systems Manual

Qual = Qualifier

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit. 1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator.Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. July 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for directingestion of contaminated soil.
Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

Analyte Screening Level1,2 Unit Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result 

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25000 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U ND Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1600 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U ND 

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 250 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U ND 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U ND Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250 μg/kg ND U ND U ND U ND 

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

Site Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

AOI01-01-SB-[10-12] AOI02-01-SB-[13-14] AOI02-02-SB-[14-15] FWAATS-02-OFF

AOI01-01-SB AOI02-01-SB AOI02-02-SB FWAATS-02-

13-14 14-15 14-15

2/24/2022 2/22/2022 2/25/2022 3/1/202

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Location ID

Depth (ft bgs) 10-12

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (g/kg)

Sample Date

Notes:J = Estimated concentration.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.AOI = Area of InterestDUP = Duplicateft bgs = Foot (feet) below ground surfaceLCMSMS = Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry

ND = Analyte not detected above the limit of detection.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramQSM = Quality Systems Manual

Qual = Qualifier

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit. 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. July 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for directingestion of contaminated soil.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1122 This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

Analyte Unit Result Qual Result Qual R

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) μg/kg ND U ND U Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) μg/kg ND U ND U Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) μg/kg ND U ND U Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) μg/kg ND U ND U Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) μg/kg ND U ND U 

Table 6-4. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurfac

Site Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virg

Notes:

2/23/2022 2/23/2022 

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (g/kg)

AOI02-01-SB-[34-36] FWAATS-DUP-SB-01 AO

Location ID AOI02-01-SB AOI02-01-SB

Sample Name

Depth (ft bgs) 34-36 34-36

Parent Sample ID AOI02-01-SB-[34-36]

Sample Date

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.AOI = Area of InterestDUP = Duplicateft bgs = Foot (feet) below ground surfaceLCMSMS = Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry

ND = Analyte not detected above the limit of detection.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramQSM = Quality Systems Manual

Qual = Qualifier

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit. 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. July 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for directingestion of contaminated soil.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1124 This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia 

Analyte Screening Level1 Unit Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result 

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/L)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 601 ng/L 0.64 J 0.79 J 0.63 J ND 

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 39 ng/L 1.1 J ND U ND U ND 

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 6 ng/L 3.1 J+ 3.3 J+ 0.99 J 31 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 4 ng/L 3 J+ ND U ND U 2.1 

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 6 ng/L 32 31 12 9.9 

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

Site Inspection Report, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

AOI02-02-GWAOI02-02-GW

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Location ID AOI02-01-GW AOI02-01-GW

Sample Name AOI02-01-GW FWAATS-DUP-GW-01

3/2/2022 3/2/2022

AOI02-01-GW

3/3/2022

FWAAFWAA

3/2

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC

Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.AOI = Area of InterestDUP = Duplicateft bgs = Foot (feet) below ground surfaceLCMSMS = Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry

ND = Analyte not detected above the limit of detection.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramQSM = Quality Systems Manual

Qual = Qualifier

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit. 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. July 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for directingestion of contaminated soil.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1126 This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-01

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-03

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

Date:........................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFOS = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1129 This page intentionally left blank
Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-01

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-03

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2,500

> 250- 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2,500

> 250- 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1132 This page intentionally left blank
Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-01

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-03

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFBS = Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1135 This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-01

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-03

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

Date:.....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1138 This page intentionally left blank 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Figure 6-5

AOI 1

PFNA Detections in Soil

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

FWAATS-01

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI01-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-03

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2 ,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2 ,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1141 This page intentionally left blank 
Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-02

Peddler Run

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-02

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

PFOA PFOS

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-02

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

Peddler Run

0 250

Feet

PFBS

Note:

PFOA = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOS = Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFBS = Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream

Date:....................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 6 - 40

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (ng/L)

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 4 - 40

> ND - 4

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 600 - 1,000

> 100 - 600

> ND - 100

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (ng/L)
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1144 This page intentionally left blank 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia

Figure 6-7

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-02

AOI02-01

FWAATS-04

FWAATS-03

FWAATS-01

AOI02-02

FWAATS-02

AOI 1

AOI 2

Soap and

Water FTA

Flammable

Liquids Shed

HAZMAT

Room

Peddler Run 3

0 250

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Hydrology

Perennial Creek/Stream

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\FWAATS\FWAATS_SI.aprx

0 250

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

Notes:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 39 - 100

> ND - 39

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 6 - 100

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (ng/L)

Date:......................September 2023

Prepared By:.............................EA

Prepared For:....................USACE

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 17N
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

1147 This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-1

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The conceptual site model (CSM) for the AOI, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on 

Figure 7-1. 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

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 no identified complete 

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., staff and visiting soldiers), construction 

workers, trespassers (though unlikely due to restricted access), off-facility recreational users, and 

residents. The CSMs for AOI 1 and AOI 2, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on 

Figure 7-1. 

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

The SI results for soil were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the aforementioned criteria. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-2 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

During interviews with FWAATS personnel, the HAZMAT Room was identified as a location 

where AFFF was known to be stored from 1996 until 2019. The HAZMAT Room is on the 

southern side of the FWAATS hangar adjacent to the Ground Support Room. Two 5-gal 

containers of AFFF were discovered in the HAZMAT Room in 2019, which were subsequently 

disposed of. It should be noted that the two buckets were stored on a secondary containment spill 

pallet. Interviewees had no recollection of spills or releases of AFFF at this location. 

PFOA and PFNA were detected in surface soils at AOI 1 and at the boundary downgradient of 

the AOI, at concentrations below the respective SLs. Although there are no current construction 

activities occurring, future site workers, construction workers, and trespassers could contact 

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

soil exposure pathways for future site workers, construction workers, and trespassers are 

potentially complete. There were no detections of the relevant compounds in subsurface soil at 

AOI 1 or the associated boundary sample locations. Therefore, the exposure pathways for 

subsurface soil is incomplete. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.1.2 AOI 2 

AFFF was kept at FWAATS (beginning in 1996); 5-gal buckets were stored in the Flammable 

Liquids Shed. One 5-gal bucket of AFFF was found in the Flammable Liquids Shed in 2019, 

which was subsequently disposed of. There are no known spill or releases of AFFF at this 

location. The Soap and Water FTA is located in the parking lot in the northeast corner of the 

Facility. According to interviewees, the training consisted of filling an empty Tri-MaxTM

extinguisher with a soap and water solution to demonstrate use of a Tri-MaxTM extinguisher. It is 

unknown of extinguishers had ever held PFAS-containing substances such as AFFF, or if the 

extinguishers were cleaned between uses. 

Relevant compounds were detected in surface soil at AOI 2 and the upgradient boundary at 

concentrations below associated SLs. Although there are no current construction activities 

occurring, future site workers, construction workers, and trespassers could contact constituents in 

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

pathways for future site workers, construction workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. 

There were no detections of the relevant compounds in subsurface soil at AOI 2 or the associated 

boundary sample locations. Therefore, the exposure pathways for subsurface soil is incomplete. 

The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

The SI results for 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 

There were no groundwater samples collected from AOI 1 due to shallow refusal depths above 

the water table elevation. However, boundary location FWAATS-04 is located in a downgradient 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-3 

direction from AOI 1 based on the groundwater elevations observed in this SI. PFOA was 

detected in groundwater at FWAATS-04 at a concentration which exceeded the associated SL. 

Additionally, each of the other four relevant compounds were detected in groundwater at 

FWAATS-04 at concentrations below their respective SLs. 

The Facility receives drinking water from the municipal water system, and there were no 

identified private drinking water wells located immediately downgradient of the Facility. As 

such, the ingestion exposure pathway of groundwater for off-facility residents that are located 

downgradient of AOI 1 is incomplete. The pathway for off-facility recreational users of surface 

water bodies is also potentially complete due to the potential for groundwater recharge of surface 

water. Additionally, the depth to groundwater at FWAATS-04 was less than 10 ft below grade, 

so trenching activities could result in future construction worker exposure via accidental 

ingestion; therefore, this pathway is considered potentially complete. The CSM is presented in 

Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2 

PFOA was detected in groundwater at AOI 2 at concentrations which exceeded the associated 

SL. Additionally, each of the other four relevant compounds were detected in groundwater at 

AOI 2 at concentrations below their respective SLs. 

The Facility receives drinking water from the municipal water system, and there were no 

identified private drinking water wells located immediately downgradient of the Facility. As 

such, the ingestion exposure pathway of groundwater for off-facility residents that are located 

downgradient of AOI 2 is incomplete. The pathway for off-facility recreational users of surface 

water bodies is also potentially complete due to the potential for groundwater recharge of surface 

water. Additionally, the depth to groundwater observed in the two temporary wells in AOI 2 was 

greater than 15 ft bgs; however, a perched shallow groundwater table was present elsewhere 

on-facility and could be present in AOI 2, so trenching activities could result in future 

construction worker exposure via accidental ingestion; therefore, this pathway is considered 

potentially complete. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.3 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

Off-facility surface water and sediment were not sampled as part of this SI, as the scope of 

sampling was limited to the presence or absence of the relevant compounds in soil and 

groundwater within the facility boundary. Although no surface water features flow through the 

AOI, the Facility is within close proximity to adjacent streams and the potential exists for 

groundwater to discharge to the streams. The nearest stream to the southwest is Simpson Creek, 

which continues with the regional flow direction northwest to the West Fork River and the 

Monongahela River. The Monongahela River is popular for recreational use, including fishing, 

swimming, and boating. Based on the groundwater concentrations which exceeded SLs at AOI 2 

and at the facility boundaries, the ingestion exposure pathway for surface water and sediment is 

considered potentially complete for recreational users of the downgradient water bodies. The 

CSM is presented in Figure 7-1.
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-4 

This page intentionally left blank 
SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

RECEPTOR

Human 

Activities

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

PATHWAY

Transport 

and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of

Dust

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Site

Worker

Site

Worker

Construction Resident1

Worker

/ /

/ /

Construction Resident1

Worker2

/ / /

/ /

Figure 7-1 - Conceptual Site Model AOI 1 and AOI 2 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, WV

/ /

/

/

AOI 1 & 2

Precipitation/ 

Run-Off

Ingestion

Trespasser/

Recreational User1

Trespasser/

Recreational User1

/ / /

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

/

NOTES

1. The resident and recreational users

refer to off-site receptors

2. Construction activities are not

currently taking place at the facility

Surface 

Water 

Flow

Surface 

Soil

Subsurface 

Soil

HAZMAT 

Room,

Flammable

Liquids Shed,

and Soap and

Water FTA

Surface 

Water

Shallow 

Groundwater

Potential

Off-Facility

Sources Not

Under

Control of

ARNG

/ / / /

/
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 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 SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 

The SI field activities at the facility were conducted from 22 February to 3 March 2022. The SI 

field activities included soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, grab 

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

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 

5.9. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), 

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 

Version 5.3 Table B-15 as follows: 

 Twenty one (21) soil samples from eight primary locations and two offset locations (soil 

borings locations) 

 Six (6) grab groundwater samples from six temporary well locations 

 Thirteen (13) samples quality assurance/quality control samples. 

An SI is conducted when the PA determines an AOI exists based on probable use, storage, and/or 

disposal of PFAS-containing materials. The SI includes multi-media sampling at AOIs to 

determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is 

warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is 

required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOIs, which are 

described in Section 7. 

8.2 OUTCOME 

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation is warranted in an RI for AOI 1: HAZMAT 

Room and AOI 2: Flammable Liquids Shed and Soap and Water FTA. Based on the CSM 

developed there is potential for exposure to receptors from AOI 1 and AOI 2 from sources on the 

facility resulting from historical DoD activities. Sample chemical analytical concentrations 

collected during this SI were compared against the project SLs in soil and groundwater, as 

described in Table 6-1. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-2 

A summary of the results of the SI data relative to SLs is as follows: 

 AOI 1: 

 No groundwater samples were collected in AOI 1 due to shallow boring refusal above 

the water table depth. However, relevant compounds were detected in groundwater at 

FWAATS-04 and FWAATS-03, boundary locations located downgradient of AOI01. PFOA exceeded the SL in groundwater at FWAATS-04, with a concentration of 

110 ng/L. Uncertainties exist as to whether AOI 1 is the source of the detections at 

FWAATS-04 as the water table sampled at FWAATS-04 was shallow (less than 10 ft 

below grade) and likely perched. This perched water table may not be subject to the 

same local/regional flow regime as the deeper wells from which the groundwater 

contours were developed (Figure 2-5). Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI. 

 PFNA and PFOA were detected in surface soil at AOI 1 at low concentrations below 

the SLs. 

 AOI 2: 

 PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at AOI 2. 

PFOA exceeded the SL in groundwater in both of AOI 2 temporary wells with a 

maximum concentration of 32 ng/L at AOI02-01. Additionally, PFNA, PFOS, and 

PFOA were detected at concentrations below SLs at upgradient boundary locations 

FWAATS-01 and FWAATS-02. The source area at AOI 2 is located on the northern 

property boundary, and it is uncertain from the data collected if detections are from 

DoD activities at the Facility or off-site sources. 

 PFOA was detected in soil at AOI 2 at low concentrations below the SL. 

Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA 

(commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on 

the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA 

is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC 

AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is 

generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that 

GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. Table 8-1

summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should be 

considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-3 

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

AOI 

Potential Release 

Area

Soil 

Source Area

Groundwater 

Source Area1 Future Action 

1 HAZMAT Room

 

 1 Proceed to RI 

2 

Flammable Liquids 

Shed and Soap and 

Water Fire Training 

Area 

 

Proceed to RI 

Legend: 

 = Detected; exceedance of SLs 

 = Detected; no exceedance of SLs 

 = Not detected 

1

No wells installed within the source area, but exceedances of PFOA detected 200 feet downgradient of AOI 1. 

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-1 

9. REFERENCES 

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Fixed 

Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia. August. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

The Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 6 

July. 

Benedum Airport Authority (BAA). 2014. Benedum Airport Authority Groundwater Protection 

Plan. May. 

Cardwell, D. H., Erwin, R. B., and Woodward, H.P. 1968. Geologic Map of West Virginia. West 

Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey. 

City of Bridgeport. 2017. Annual Drinking Water Quality Report 2016. 3 March 2017. 

———. 2020. Climate. Accessed 15 January 2020 at http://www.bridgeportwv.com/ 

index.cfm/departments/economic-development-304-842-8209/communityprofile/climate/. 

Department of the Army. 2016a. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February. 

Department of Defense (DoD). 2019a. General Data Validation Guidelines. November. 

———. 2019b. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated 

Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. May. 

. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data Validation Procedure for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. May. 

EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC (EA). 2020a. Final Programmatic Uniform 

Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. December. 

.2020b. Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1, November 2020. 

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

(UFP-QAPP) Addendum, Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia, Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. 

December. 

.2021b. Final Accident Prevention Plan Site Safety and Health Plan, Fixed Wing Army 

Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Revision 0, October 2021. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-2 

Guelfo, J.L. and C.P. Higgins. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids and 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and 

Technology 47(9):4164-71. 

Herb, W.J., Shaw, L.C., and Brown, D.E.. 1981. Hydrology of Area 5, Eastern Coal Province, 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. United States Geological Survey. Open-File 

Report 81-538. 

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

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

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport for 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

Kozar, M. D., and Mathes, M. V. 2001. Aquifer-Characteristics Data for West Virginia. United 

States Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4036. 

U.S. Climate Data. 2019. Climate Bridgeport – West Virginia. Accessed 22 October 2019 at 

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/parkersburg/west-virginia/unitedstates/ 

uswv0572. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web 

Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

 Accessed 24 October 2022. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 11 December. 

. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule).

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September. 

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

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

Assessments). December. 

. 2017. UCMR 3 (2013-2015) Occurrence Data by State. Occurrence Data for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. Accessed 9 July 2019 at 

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule. 

January. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed 

28 October. 
Site Inspection Report 

Fixed Wing Army Aviation Training Site, West Virginia Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-3 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. West Virginia Water Resources 

Management Plan. Accessed 22 October 2019 at 

http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Documents/WV_WRMP.pdf. 

22 November. 

WVGES. 2011. Geologic Map of West Virginia: Map 25A. Accessed 22 October 2019 at 

http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/maps/Geologic_Map_of_West_Virgini-Map25A_lowres.pdf. 

March. 

Xiao, F., M. F. Simcik, T.R. Halbach, and J.S Gulliver. 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