Final

Site Inspection Report 

Army Aviation Support Facility #1

Salem, Oregon

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

February 2021 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED

 UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas.......................................................................3-1

3.1.1 FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond ............................................................3-1

3.1.2 FTA 02 Open Field ......................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area..................................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas ...........................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Hangar 2 .....................................................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Former Chrome Plating Facility ...................................................................3-2

3.2.3 Wash Pad ...................................................................................................3-3

3.2.4 Former Wash Pad .......................................................................................3-3

3.3 Adjacent Sources ..................................................................................................3-3

3.3.1 Salem Fire Department #6 ..........................................................................3-3

3.3.2 Salem Airport Joint Training Area ................................................................3-3

3.3.3 Garmin AT...................................................................................................3-4

3.3.4 MOCON Construction .................................................................................3-4

3.3.5 West Coast Washers, Inc. ...........................................................................3-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.6.4 Comparability ..............................................................................................4-6

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

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

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

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities.....................................................................................5-1
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.7 Deviations from QAPP Addendum.........................................................................5-5

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas.......................................................................6-2

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

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

6.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results ........................................................................6-3

6.3.4 Surface Water Analytical Results.................................................................6-3

6.3.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................6-3

6.4 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas ...........................................................................6-3

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

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

6.4.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................6-4

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas.............................................................7-1

7.1.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas .................................................................7-2

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

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas.............................................................7-2

7.2.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas .................................................................7-2

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

7.3.1 AOI 1 – Fire Training Areas .........................................................................7-3

7.3.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas .................................................................7-3

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

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

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

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

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

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM iii

Figures

Figure 2-1 Site Location...........................................................................................................2-6

Figure 2-2 Site Parcels.......................................................................................................2-7

Figure 2-3 Site Topography ......................................................................................................2-8

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Features ............................................................................................2-9

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features ........................................................................................ 2-10

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest......................................................................................................3-5

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations ......................................................................... 5-11

Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil........................................................................................ 6-14

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil........................................................................................ 6-15

Figure 6-3 PFOS and PFOA Detections in Groundwater........................................................ 6-16

Figure 6-4 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Sediment ............................................................. 6-17

Figure 6-5 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Surface Water...................................................... 6-18

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

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)...........................................................ES-3 

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings..................................................................ES-3 

Table ES-3 Site Inspection Recommendations......................................................................ES-3

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium.........................................................................5-7

Table 5-2 Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals................................................5-9

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

Table 6-2 PFAS Detections in Surface Soil...............................................................................6-5

Table 6-3 PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil............................................................6-7

Table 6-4 PFAS Detections in Groundwater ........................................................................... 6-10

Table 6-5 PFAS Detections in Sediment................................................................................. 6-12

Table 6-6 PFAS Detections in Surface Water ......................................................................... 6-13

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings........................................................................8-4

Table 8-2 Site Inspection Recommendations ...........................................................................8-4

Appendices

Appendix A Data Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs

Appendix F Analytical Results 

Appendix G Laboratory Reports 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

6:2 FTS 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface

Cascade Cascade Technical Services, LLC 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DL detection limit

DO Dissolved oxygen

DoD Department of Defense

DOT Department of Transportation

DQI data quality indicator

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

DVR data validation report 

EIS Extraction internal standards

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Approval Program

EM Engineers Manual

ERB equipment rinsate blank

FedEx Federal Express

FRB field reagent blank

FTA Fire Training Area

ft/day feet per day

GPR ground-penetrating radar

HA Health Advisory 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HSA hollow-stem auger

I-5 Interstate 5

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

LCS laboratory control sample
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM v

LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate

LOQ limit of quantitation

m meters

MS matrix spike 

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

ng/L nanograms per liter

NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OMD Oregon Military Department

ORARNG Oregon Army National Guard

ORDEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

Pace Pace Gulf Coast

PAL Project Action Level

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBA perfluorobutyrate

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFCs perfluorinated compounds

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFUdA perfluoroundecanoic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QL quantitation limit

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

ROD Record of Decision
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM vi

RPD relative percent differences

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPT standard penetration test

TCRA Time Critical Removal Action

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

US United States

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCHPPM United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at or above screening levels (SLs). A SI was performed by 

the Army National Guard (ARNG) at the Army Aviation Support Facility #1 (Salem AASF) in Salem, 

Oregon. Salem AASF will be referred to as the “Site” throughout this document.

The Site, operated by the Oregon ARNG (ORARNG), is an approximately 81.5-acre facility in 

Salem, Oregon, along the northeast end of Runway 16/34 of the McNary Field Salem Municipal 

Airport in Marion County. The Site lies approximately 3.1 miles southwest of downtown Salem. 

The facility consists of parcels of land that are owned by the State of Oregon for ORARNG use 

and are leased from the City of Salem. Originally occupied by the Salem Airport from 1930 to 

1940, the property was purchased and owned by the US Navy until 1971, when the Oregon 

Military Department (OMD) purchased the property (OMD, 2008). Construction of the three 

hangars lasted from 1971 to 1973. Another parcel was purchased from the City of Salem in 1985. 

In 2012, ORARNG acquired a former carnival equipment production facility, previously owned and 

operated by Eyerly Aircraft Company, directly east of Hangar 2 and south of Hangar 1. This 

acquisition consisted of 4.56 acres where the previous Eyerly property was located and expanded 

the property boundary of the Site. From the 1980s to 2009, multiple parcels of land leased from 

the City of Salem and are still under term.

The PA Report identified seven potential PFAS release areas at the Site: Fire Training Area (FTA) 

01 Stormwater Detention Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area, Hangar 2, 

Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash Pad, and Former Wash Pad (AECOM, 2019a). The release 

areas were grouped into two Areas of Interest (AOIs): AOI 1, which includes FTA 01 Stormwater 

Detention Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area; and AOI 2, which includes 

non-FTA areas Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash Pad, and Former Wash Pad. The 

SI field activities were conducted from 12 to 15 November 2019 and included the collection of 

soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process based on risk-based 

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

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

SIs follow this DoD policy and, when the maximum site concentration for sampled media exceed 

the SLs, the site will proceed to a Remedial Investigation (RI), the next phase under CERCLA. The 

SLs apply to three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, for both soil and groundwater, as 

presented in Table ES-1. All other results presented in this report are considered informational in 

nature and serve as an indication as to whether soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water 

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

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

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

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM ES-2

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater in the source areas and near the 

upgradient and downgradient facility boundaries at AOI 1. PFOS exceeded the SL in 

groundwater in four of the nine temporary wells with a maximum concentration of 149 

nanograms per liter (ng/L). PFOA and PFBS did not exceed the SLs. Based on the results 

of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI. 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater in the source areas and near the

upgradient facility boundary at AOI 2. PFOS exceeded the SL in groundwater in all six 

temporary wells with a maximum concentration of 144 ng/L at AOI2-GW05. PFOA only 

exceeded the SL at AOI2-GW06 with a concentration of 58.9 ng/L. however, AOI2-GW06 

is considered upgradient of AOI 2 based on groundwater flow. PFBS did not exceed the SL 

in any sample.

• PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at both AOI 1 and 2 at low concentrations, several 

orders of magnitude below the SLs. The concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS do not 

identify any specific historic surface release points. 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater upgradient of AOI 1 and AOI 2 in 

samples AOI1-GW01, AOI2-GW05, and AOI2-GW06, which suggests potential 

contributions from off-facility sources. Samples AOI2-GW05 and AOI2-GW06 exceeded the 

SLs and were located at the eastern and southeastern facility boundaries.

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

models (CSMs) developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure 

to residential drinking water receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the facility. 

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

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

is warranted in the RI for AOI 1 and AOI 2. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM ES-3

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 1,600 40

PFOS 1,600 40

PFBS 1,600,000 40,000

Notes:

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, 

PFBS in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s)

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. 

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

increase by a factor of x10.

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility

Boundary

1 FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond, FTA 02 

Open Field, FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area

2 Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash 

Pad, Former Wash Pad 

Legend:

 = detected; exceedance of screening levels

 = detected; no exceedance of screening levels

 = not detected

Table ES-3 Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1 

FTA 01 Stormwater Detention 

Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, FTA 

03 Helicopter Training Area 

Exceedances of the SLs in 

groundwater at source area. No 

exceedances of SLs in soil. 

Proceed to RI

2

Hangar 2, Former Chrome 

Plating Facility, Wash Pad, 

Former Wash Pad

Exceedances of the SLs in 

groundwater at source area. No 

exceedances of SLs in soil.

Proceed to RI
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM ES-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

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

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

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

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

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

Order W912DR17F0192, issued 11 August 2017. The ARNG performed this Site Inspection (SI) 

at the Army Aviation Support Facility #1 (Salem AASF) in Salem, Oregon. The Salem AASF will 

be referred to as the “Site” throughout this report.

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

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

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

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

in compliance with Army Requirements and Guidance for field investigations, including specific 

requirements for sampling for PFOA, PFOS, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), and the 

group of related compounds known in the industry as per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

The term PFAS will be used throughout this report to encompass all PFAS chemicals being 

evaluated, including PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, which are the key components of the suspected 

releases being evaluated, and the other 15 related compounds listed in the task order. 

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at the Site (AECOM, 2019a) that identified seven potential PFAS release 

areas, which were grouped into two Areas of Interest (AOIs). The SI was performed as the next 

step in the CERCLA process. The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a 

release to the environment from the AOIs and determine the presence or absence of PFOA, 

PFOS, and PFBS at or above screening levels (SLs). 

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

SI has five goals: 

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

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

2. Determine the potential need for a removal action;

3. Collect or develop data to evaluate potential release;

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

Remedial Investigation (RI), if determined necessary; and

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

associated with the Department of Defense (DoD). 

In addition to the USEPA identified goals of an SI, the ARNG SI effort will also identify potential 

off-facility sources. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-1

2.0 Site Background

2.1 Site Location and Description

The Site is an approximately 81.5-acre facility in Marion County in Salem, Oregon, (Figure 2-1) 

along the northeast end of Runway 16/34 of the McNary Field Salem Municipal Airport. The Site

lies approximately 3.1 miles southwest of downtown Salem, 48 miles southeast of Portland, and 

60 miles northeast of Eugene. Interstate 5 (I-5), traveling in a north-south direction, is 0.5 miles 

east, and state Highway 22, traveling east-west, is 0.5 miles to the north. 

The facility consists of several parcels of land that are owned either by the State of Oregon or the 

City of Salem. The Oregon ARNG (ORANG) operates on land parcels owned by the state or

leased from the City of Salem. The current configuration and ownership of the different parcels 

making up the facility are shown on Figure 2-2. One of these parcels was originally occupied by 

the Salem Airport from 1930 to 1940, the property was purchased and owned by the US Navy 

until 1971, when the Oregon Military Department purchased the property (Oregon Military 

Department [OMD], 2008). Construction of the three hangars lasted from 1971 until 1973. Another 

parcel was purchased from the City of Salem in 1985. The last purchased parcel was bought in

2012. ORARNG acquired a former carnival equipment production facility, previously owned and 

operated by Eyerly Aircraft Company, directly east of Hangar 2 and south of Hangar 1. This 

acquisition consisted of 4.56 acres where the previous Eyerly property was located and expanded 

the property boundary of the Site. From the 1980s to 2009, multiple parcels of land were leased 

from the City of Salem and are still under term. These leases and deeds are shown in Appendix 

A of the PA report (AECOM, 2019a).

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Marion County is a predominantly urban area in the Willamette Valley physiographic province, an 

area that holds nearly 70 percent (%) of Oregon’s population. The region extends northward to

Washington State and is bound by the Coast Range to the west, the Western Cascade Range to 

the east, and the Calapooya Mountains to the south. The county has an approximate total area 

of 1,193 square miles of which only 10 square miles are water. 

The closest residence to the Site is 1 mile away, and a shopping center exists a few hundred feet 

to the east. Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge lies 3 miles to the southeast of the facility. Portions 

of the Willamette and Mount Hood National Forests are contained within Marion County, 

approximately 30 miles east of the Site. Wildlife in this area and in the vicinity of the Site includes 

black tail deer, squirrels, raccoons, and numerous species of birds (Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife [ODFW], 2019). The terrain within the valley and flood plain is of low to moderate 

relief, ranging from 150 to 1000 feet of elevation. The Site topography is shown on Figure 2-3. 

The Site geology and groundwater features are presented on Figure 2-4 and surface water 

features are presented on Figure 2-5. 

2.2.1 Geology

The City of Salem and the Site lie in the Willamette Valley physiographic province, a drainage 

basin that is roughly 170 miles long from north to south and encompasses nearly 12,000 square 

miles. The Willamette River basin has considerable diversity in its landforms and may be 

subdivided further into three coextensive physiographic sections with respect to major surface 

features: (1) The Oregon Coast Range section, (2), Puget Trough Section, and (3), the Middle 

Cascade Mountains lowlands section. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-2

The Middle Cascade Mountains lowlands section includes about 60% of the basin (Piper, 1942)

and is where the Site is located. This area belongs to the main valley plain and is characterized 

by gently rolling topography traversed by steep-walled, flat-floored stream valleys. The Willamette 

valley has been a topographic low for at least 15 million years and was prone to frequent flooding 

(the Missoula Flood), due to the extensive braided channel systems of this area, which deposited 

Miocene and Pliocene sediments in the basin bottoms to Quaternary and late Tertiary-age 

sediments in the upper 0 to 328 feet that are primarily coarse-grained sediment and gravel 

(Woodward, Gannett & Vaccaro, 1998). 

Due to this flooding, change of river flow direction, erosion, and deposition from surrounding 

tributaries of the mountain ranges, the thicknesses and age of these deposits can vary widely 

along the valley floor. The Site is an area of coalesced alluvial fans underlain by 14 meters (m) of 

12.7 to 15 thousand year old unconsolidated Holocene flood deposits, 200 to 300 m of Pleistocene 

age sand and gravel, a 40 m thick Willamette Silt layer (fine-grained Missoula Flood Deposits and 

clay) which thins towards the south, and another 100 to 200 m of Pleistocene age coarse sand 

and gravel of roughly 28 thousand years of age (Woodward, Gannett & Vaccaro, 1998). Below 

this, basalt flows from the Columbia River Group, ranging from 3 to 300 m thick sloping westward, 

and overlies marine rocks and the Little Butte Volcanic Series (Hampton, 1972).

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

Regional and local groundwater flow follows a relatively simple drainage pattern, facilitated by the 

topographic and structural trough of the Willamette Valley, which lies between the Coast Range 

and Cascade Range. Groundwater flows from divides of high elevation to the lowland Valley and 

discharges into the larger streams and rivers. The direction of regional groundwater flow is 

generally west/northwest towards Mission Ditch and Mill Creek, tributaries of the Willamette River, 

and several surrounding lakes (Figure 2-4). Unconsolidated, highly permeable soils create a 

shallow groundwater subsystem with a good hydraulic connection between the aquifers and 

streams (Woodward, Gannett & Vaccaro, 1998). Depth to the groundwater in the vicinity 

surrounding the facility typically ranges from 12 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Oregon 

Water Resources Department [ORWRD], 2018). This provides a system of high infiltration for 

recharge of groundwater. Groundwater discharges to the smaller streams, which usually flow on 

the less permeable Willamette Silt unit. Most groundwater discharge is derived from runoff and 

snow melt (Hampton, 1972; Woodward, Gannett & Vaccaro, 1998). A subsurface investigation 

conducted at the Site in 2008 indicates that depth to groundwater on the facility occurs between

2.5 to 7 feet bgs, and that shallow groundwater flow is primarily to the west/northwest (AMEC 

2008). 

The geological data collected as part of the SI indicate a highly permeable and conductive 

environment with soils dominated by poorly graded sand, gravel, and cobbles with occasional 

interbedded clayey sand. These site observations are consistent with sedimentary deposition, 

originated from outburst flood deposits left by the Missoula and Bonneville floods, that comprise 

the upper Willamette Aquifer within the central Willamette Basin.

The observed depth to groundwater observed during the SI ranged from approximately 2.6 to 7.5 

feet bgs. Due to the highly permeable and conductive nature of the subsurface in this area, 

groundwater flow velocity is fast. Data from other studies indicate a mean hydraulic conductivity 

of 600 feet per day (ft/day) and hydraulic gradients ranging from 20 to 40 feet per mile in the 

Upper Willamette Aquifer within this portion of the Willamette Basin (Woodward, Gannett & 

Vaccaro, 1998). Using these parameters, in conjunction with a common range of effective 

porosities of 10 to 25% (Sterrett, 2008) for the subsurface materials encountered during this SI, 

an estimated groundwater velocity range can be calculated using Darcy’s Equation: 

V=Kl/n
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-3

where: 

V = groundwater velocity

K = hydraulic conductivity

l = hydraulic gradient

n = effective porosity

Using the above parameters, groundwater velocities at the Site are estimated to range from 9 to 

45 ft/day. 

The majority of recharge to the aquifers occurs in the winter months, where precipitation and 

snowmelt are high, and evapotranspiration is low. The summer months are characterized by low 

precipitation, high runoff due to urbanization, and high evapotranspiration (Woodward, Gannett & 

Vaccaro, 1998). This recharge supplies the major aquifers of the Willamette Basin. The Willamette 

Valley comprises two major aquifers, and 3 confining units, created by the unique topographic 

and stratigraphic lowland plain resting between two mountain ranges. The City of Salem is 

underlain by parts of all five hydrogeological units (Hampton, 1972; Woodward, Gannett & 

Vaccaro, 1998). The majority of the Site lies on the Willamette aquifer, which is the principal 

aquifer for the Willamette Valley and lowland area (Conlon, 2005). Large diameter wells in the 

area, one 0.25 miles to the east-southeast and one 1.8 miles northeast of the Site, can generate 

upwards of 10,000 gallons of groundwater per minute. 

Approximately 2 miles southwest of the Site are several aquifer storage and recovery wells 

located 350 feet bgs at Woodmansee Park (City of Salem, 2018). Treated drinking water from the 

North Santiam River, approximately 20 miles east of the Site, is injected into a fractured basalt 

aquifer. Treated drinking water is pumped into this aquifer during the winter months and withdrawn 

during summer months as needed (US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine [USCHPPM], 2002).

2.2.3 Hydrology 

The Site is within the Middle Willamette Watershed. In general, surface water in the area 

surrounding the facility flows in the same west/northwest direction as groundwater, towards Mill 

Creek, a tributary of the Willamette River (Figure 2-5). Surface water within the Site flows towards 

a grated storm drain system, which is located on the paved western edge of the facility. 

Stormwater and surface water runoff are directed into two stormwater detention ponds, which 

discharge to Mission Ditch, outside the northwest boundary of the facility. Mission Ditch then flows 

west-northwest and discharges into Pringle Creek, a tributary of the Willamette River (USCHPPM, 

2002). 

Wastewater in and around the Site is collected through a series of sanitary sewers, which then 

transfer wastewater to the Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP, 11 

miles north of the Site, treats approximately 30 million gallons of wastewater per day. 

Approximately one million gallons of treated water are used daily for irrigation and internal plant 

operations, while the remaining treated wastewater is routed to a stormwater outfall, which 

discharges to the Willamette River.

Drinking water at the Site is supplied by the City of Salem. The North Santiam River provides 

drinking water to the City of Salem as well as the nearby City of Turner. Due to the lack of 

development and high regulation of land within the North Santiam Watershed, water quality within 

this watershed is extremely high, with little treatment necessary to provide clean drinking water. 

Slow Sand Filtration processes are utilized at the Geren Island Water Treatment Facility, 

approximately 18 miles southeast of the Site (USCHPPM, 2002). Water is then transferred to the 

City of Salem and stored within 17 reservoirs around the City. No surface water intakes are located 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-4

within 15 miles of the Site; however, several private, residential wells are located within 1 mile 

downgradient of the Site. 

2.2.4 Climate 

The Site is situated in the Willamette Valley physiographic province. Temperatures are moderated 

year-round winds by and rains that come up and over the Coast Ranges to the east from the 

Pacific Ocean. Annual rainfall is high, with 80% falling from October through March and less than 

5% falling in June and August, the peak growing season (Conlon et al., 2005). The average rainfall 

is around 40 inches near the Site, with some localized areas slightly north getting upwards of 70 

inches.

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

Presently, the Site includes 58 acres of dedicated-use military taxiway, with the remaining 23.5 

acres comprising the three active hangars, aviation fueling facilities, a hazardous material storage 

facility, vehicle and aircraft parking aprons, and grass-covered areas (AMEC, 2006; OMD, 2008). 

The Site supports the Medical Evacuation Battalion and the Theatre Aviation Battalion with 

associated companies, whose purpose is to provide aircraft movement to support medical 

evacuation; provide command, control and communications; provide organic airlift; and partake 

in counter drug operations and organizational support aircraft operations (OMD, 2008). 

Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the current land use 

described above.

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species 

The following species are listed as federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate 

species in Marion County, Oregon (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020):

• Birds: Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus (threatened), Northern spotted owl, 

Strix occidentalis caurina (threatened), Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus

(threatened), and Streaked Horned lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata (threatened) 

• Conifers and Cycads: Whitebark pine, Pinus albicaulis (candidate)

• Fishes: Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus (threatened), and Oregon chub, Oregonichthys 

crameri (recovery)

• Flowering Plants: Bradshaw's desert-parsley, Lomatium bradshawii (endangered), 

Nelson's checker-mallow, Sidalcea nelsoniana (threatened), golden paintbrush, Castilleja 

levisecta (threatened), Water howellia, Howellia aquatilis (threatened), Willamette daisy, 

Erigeron decumbens (endangered), and Kincaid's Lupine, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii

(threatened) 

• Insects: Fender's blue butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi (endangered)

• Mammal: Fisher, Pekania pennanti (proposed threatened) 

2.3 History of PFAS Use

Seven potential PFAS release areas were identified at the Site during the PA (AECOM, 2019a).

Interviews and records (covering from 1974 to present) obtained during the PA indicate that 

aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) was used in numerous fire training exercises on the Site. From 

approximately 1997 to 2017, fire training exercises resulted in the release of AFFF to soil at one

or more of the three potential release areas associated with AOI1: FTA 01 Stormwater Detention 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-5

Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, and FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area. AOI 2 encompasses four nonFTAs: Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash Pad, and Former Wash Pad. Activities at 

AOI 2 include potential washing of firetrucks following fire training activities with AFFF, potential 

historic presence of PFAS-containing mist suppressants at the former chrome plating facility, 

known and potential washing of aircraft at two concrete wash pads, and other potential releases 

within the paved ramp area. A description of each AOI is presented in Section 3. 
McNary Field Salem AASF

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

TK

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:63,360

4/10/2020 ­ Figure 2-1 PM RG 4/10/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-1_Salem_Facility_Location.mxd

^_

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AP

9/24/2020

9/24/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:6,960

9/24/2020 ­ Figure 2-2 PM RG 9/24/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Parcels

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

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-2_Salem_Parcels.mxd

Legend

Facility Boundary

Parcel Ownership

Leased from City of Salem

South Entry Airport Lease

State Own by OMD

State Own w/Reverter to City

State Owned Eyerly Property

0 290 580 1,160

Feet
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

TK

9/24/2020

9/24/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:18,000

9/24/2020 ­ Figure 2-3 PM RG 9/24/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-3_Salem_Site_Topography.mxd

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary
!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P !P5

!P

5

!5 !5

!5

!P

!5

!P !5

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P !P !5

!P

!P !P5 !P

!P

5

!P

!5P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !5P

!P !P !P5

!P !P

!5P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !5

!P !5

!P

!P

!5

!P !P

!P5

!P !5 !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5

!P !P !5!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P !P !P

!P

!P5

!P

5

!P

5

!P !P !P

!P

!P5 !5 !5!P

!5 !5P !P

!P

!5

!5P !5

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

5

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P!P

!P

!P!P !P

!P

!P !P!P!5

!P !5P

!P !P

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

5 !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!5P !P!P !P

!P !P !P

!P !P

!P !P

!5 !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5 !5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!P !5 5 !5 !5 !P

!5

!P

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P!P !P !P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

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

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P5

!P

!P !P !5 !P

!P

!5

!P

P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P!P

!5

!P

!5

!5

!P !P !P

!P !P !P

!P!P

!P

!P!P !P !P

!P!P !P!P5

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P !P 5

!P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !5

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P!P !P

!P

!5P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5P

!P !P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !5

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!5

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P!5

!P !P

!5 !5P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !5 !P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P !P !P

!P !P!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P!P

!P !P !P

!P !P

!P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P

!5!5

!5

!5P

!5

!5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P !P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5 !P5

!5!PP !P

!P

!5

!P !P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!5

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!5

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P !P !P

!P !P

!P

!5 !P !5

!P

!P

!P!5

!5

!P!P !5 !P

!5

!P

!P

!5 !P

!P

!P !P

!P !P !P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!5 !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5 !P !P !P

!P

!P

!5

!P!P !P !5

!P !P

!P

!5

!P

!5

!5

!P

!5 !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P !P

!5

!P

!P P

!P !P

!P !P !P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!5

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!5

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!5P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!5!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!5 !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!5

!P

!5

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P !P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!5

!5

!P

!P

Powell C

er ek

Croisan Creek

L ittl eP u ddi ng River

Petti jo hn Creek

Higgins Creek

Shelton Ditch

C larkCree k

Fruitland Creek

B losso mCreek

Willamette Slough

Cl agget tCreek

RodgersCreek

Cha tnic kaCreek

P ringle Creek

Battle Creek

Waln Creek

Willamette River

Glenn Creek

W es tFo rk Lit tl ePudding

R vi er

Mill Creek

Jory Creek

Wirth

Lake

Sexton

Reservoir

Franzen

Reservoir

Stone

Quarry

Lake

Nelsons

Pond

McDonald

Pond

Nelsons

Pond

Berger

Lake

Mission Lake

Willamette

Slough

Willamette Slough

Willamette

Slough

Waldo

Lake

Willa

Lake

Davidson

Reservoir

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

2/9/2021

2/9/2021

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:95,040

2/9/2021 ­ Figure 2-4 PM RG 2/9/2021

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-4_Salem_Groundwater.mxd

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Inferred Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Alluvial deposits

Landslide and debris-flow

deposits

Lacustrine and fluvial

sedimentary rocks

Terrace, pediment, and lag

gravels

Continental sedimentary

rocks

Columbia River Basalt

Group

Wanapum Basalt

Grande Ronde Basalt

Marine sedimentary rocks

Well

!P Domestic

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring Well

A! Other Well
Upper Little

Pudding River

Watershed

Lower Mill

Creek

Watershed

Croisan

Creek-Willamette

River Watershed

Glenn

Creek-Willamette

River Watershed

Mill Creek

Shelton Ditch

Pringle Creek

Mission Ditch

Clark Creek

Wirth Lake

Blue

Gill

Lake Stone

Quarry

Lake

Mission

Lake

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

TK

9/24/2020

9/24/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:31,680

9/24/2020 ­ Figure 2-5 PM RG 9/24/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_2-5_Salem_Surface_Water.mxd

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Surface Water Flow

Direction
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 2-11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 3-1

3.0 Summary of Areas of Interest 

Based on the PA findings, two AOIs were identified at Site: AOI 1 Former Fire Training Areas

(FTAs) and AOI 2 Non-Fire training areas. Additionally, five adjacent potential sources have been 

identified. (Figure 3-1). A summary of the AOIs and the adjacent potential sources is presented 

below.

3.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas

AOI 1 encompasses three FTAs: FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, and 

FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area. 

3.1.1 FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond 

FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond is one of two stormwater retention ponds located west of 

Hangar 2, across the paved aircraft parking area. It was designated for annual fire training 

activities, including the release of approximately one gallon of 3% AFFF concentrate from each 

of the six Tri-MaxTM 30 fire extinguishers. Additionally, facility personnel, along with the City of 

Salem Fire Department, would conduct controlled barrel burns annually from approximately 1997 

to 2017. This involved burning wood and other organic debris in 55-gallon drums and extinguished 

using non-PFAS containing portable fire extinguishers (either Class A or Class ABC fire 

extinguishers).

The detention pond is unlined and contains overflow grates that route to the stormwater system, 

which ultimately leads to Mission Ditch. Any water that remains below the grate elevation is either 

evaporated or infiltrates the ground. 

3.1.2 FTA 02 Open Field

FTA 02 Open Field is west of Hangar 1. From approximately 1974 until 1988, annual fire training 

activities, including burning of wood and other organic debris, occurred in this open field. Multiple 

ORARNG facilities would participate in this training by bringing their own firetrucks pre-filled with 

AFFF and using the open field for fire training activities. A firetruck at Salem with an AFFF 

concentrate tank capacity of approximately 50 gallons was used during these annual training 

events; however, the exact quantities and concentrations of AFFF used during each event are 

unknown. Following these trainings, the trucks were transported to the nearby Salem Fire 

Department #6 where purging of the AFFF from the trucks would occur. One firetruck was at the 

Salem AASF from approximately 1989 through 1994. It is unknown if there was a designated 

storage location for the firetruck between annual trainings. 

Several stormwater catch basins are located along the east perimeter of the grassy FTA. These 

catch basins collect stormwater that is then discharged into Mission Ditch, just outside the 

northeast boundary of the facility. 

3.1.3 FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area 

FTA 03 is located southwest of the FTA 01 stormwater detention pond. The ORARNG conducted 

annual AFFF helicopter training events at several ARNG facilities throughout the State of Oregon

from approximately 1998 until 2014. During training, the helicopter would take 5 to 20 flights 

around the AASF and the nearby Creek Falls training area, just west of Salem, and release a 

combination of water and AFFF for fire training purposes. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 3-2

The helicopter was equipped with a 1,000-gallon water tank and a 35-gallon AFFF concentrate 

tank were used; however, it is estimated that only approximately 5 gallons of AFFF concentrate 

were used during each of the training events. The foam was added to the helicopter at the AASF 

and stored in 5-gallon buckets; however, the location where the helicopter was filled with AFFF or 

where the AFFF buckets were stored is unknown. A designated area to drop the AFFF solution

was not established during training activities; however, it was estimated the AFFF solution was

commonly released west of the flight line at FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area. 

3.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas

AOI 2 encompasses four non-FTAs: Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash Pad, and 

Former Wash Pad. Activities at AOI 2 include potential washing of firetrucks following fire training 

activities with AFFF, historic chrome plating with the potential presence of PFAS-containing mist 

suppressants, known and potential washing of aircraft at two concrete wash pads, and other 

potential releases within the paved ramp area. 

3.2.1 Hangar 2 

Hangar 2 is located directly across from FTA. Hangar 2 historically stored a firetruck with an AFFF 

tank within a designated bay at the Site. The truck routinely participated in fire training activities 

involving AFFF from approximately 1974 until 1988. A designated area for the washing of this 

truck following fire training activities could not be confirmed; however, washing likely occurred at 

the storage location within Hangar 2. The storage bay area of Hangar 2 does not have floor drains; 

therefore, residual AFFF rinsed from the truck during washing would have likely flowed onto the 

nearby paved asphalt area outside the bay door. No spills or releases were reported from this 

firetruck during its duration of storage and the exact storage location of the previous firetruck 

within the hangar does not contain any floor drains. With the exception of the area mentioned 

above within Hangar 2, all drains within hangars at the AASF are routed to the local sanitary sewer 

and then treated at Willow Lake WWTP, approximately 11 miles north of the AASF. 

Additionally, Hangar 2 currently stores six empty Tri-MaxTM 30 tanks inside the bay doors. These 

tanks were previously filled with concentrate 3% AFFF and were removed from the flight line and 

emptied in the stormwater detention pond across from Hangar 2 during the last fire training event 

in December 2017. 

3.2.2 Former Chrome Plating Facility 

The Former Chrome Plating Facility is located between Hangar 2 and Hangar 3. From the 1940s 

to 2008, a former carnival equipment ride production plant, previously owned and operated by 

Eyerly Aircraft Company, was located in the area directly behind Hangar 2. Previous operations 

at this facility included chrome and metal plating activities, which commonly involve the use of 

PFAS-containing mist suppressants. The ORARNG acquired this land in 2012, following 

extensive remedial investigations and feasibility studies for various heavy metals and hexavalent 

chromium. The remedial actions were completed in accordance with the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the site, as documented in the No Further Action Determination Certificate of 

Completion issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ) in April 

2013.The facility and associated debris were removed following demolition of the plant under 

ORARNG. 

While there is no knowledge of any AFFF-related activities at this previous plant, given the 

timeframe of use, previous chrome plating activities, and historic presence of hexavalent 

chromium at this location, it is possible that PFAS-containing materials were used or stored at 

some point during the operational history of the plant. Portions of the former facility boundary now 

consist of paved asphalt areas and small grass patches.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 3-3

3.2.3 Wash Pad

The Wash Pad was installed in 2002 and is designated for aircraft washing. Following annual 

helicopter training events at the Site, the AFFF tanks from the helicopter were rinsed and washed 

at the Wash Pad. This area contains drains that collect residual (i.e., wash water, and sediments) 

and control flow based on a demand valve. When the valve is not actuated, residual wash water 

flows to the stormwater system. The stormwater outfall discharges to Mission Ditch, which then 

flows into Pringle Creek, a tributary of the Willamette River. When the valve is actuated, residual 

flows through an oil/water separator (OWS) and eventually to an evaporator. The evaporator 

collects and stores any solid residual, while liquid residual is evaporated. Any remaining sludge 

is retained and turned in as part of the hazardous waste management program.

3.2.4 Former Wash Pad

The Former Wash Pad was located approximately 100 yards north of hangar 2 and was used for 

aircraft washing prior to the installation of the current wash pad; however, the date of installation 

of this former wash pad is unknown. The current Wash Pad was not installed until 2002; therefore, 

it is likely that the washing of aircraft following AFFF-related training activities occurred at the 

previous concrete wash pad area and the surrounding paved vicinity of the ramp area.

3.3 Adjacent Sources

Five potential off-facility sources of PFAS are adjacent to the AASF and are not under the control 

of the ORARNG. A description of each off-facility source is presented below and shown on Figure 

3-1. 

3.3.1 Salem Fire Department #6 

Salem Fire Department #6 is located directly west of Salem AASF. As mentioned in Section 3.1.2, 

multiple training activities occurred from 1989 through 1991 at the Salem AASF involving the use 

of AFFF. Following these trainings, firetrucks were transported to the nearby Salem Fire 

Department #6 where purging of the AFFF from the trucks would occur. According to interviews, 

at least two fire trucks are currently located at the Salem Fire Department #6, with AFFF holding 

tanks on each of these trucks. A number of AFFF releases occurred from these tanks within the 

last several years, as well as regular nozzle testing occurring within the fire department boundary. 

Exact dates or timeframe of these releases and nozzle tests are unknown. Additionally, quantity 

and concentration of AFFF used during each release are also unknown. 

3.3.2 Salem Airport Joint Training Area

ORARNG personnel would conduct joint annual off-site fire training activities with the Salem Fire 

Department at the nearby Salem Municipal Airport. The Salem Fire Department is believed to be 

the only entity other than ORARNG that would participate in these trainings. 

Trainings would occur with firetrucks equipped with AFFF dispensing systems in which personnel 

would practice operating the nozzles. These fire training activities would occur just southwest of 

the facility, near the south end approach of Runway 34. While it is unsure what year these trainings 

began, the last time this training occurred was in approximately 2017. The type, quantity, and 

concentration of AFFF used during these training events are unknown. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 3-4

3.3.3 Garmin AT

Garmin AT is located approximately 0.1 miles southeast of the facility. Garmin AT carries out 

product development, including mass production, for Garmin’s aviation division. PFAS 

compounds may be used in various ways at this facility, including in electronics, semiconductors, 

photographic coatings, adhesives, surface coatings, Teflon-containing materials, and flame 

retardants. 

3.3.4 MOCON Construction

MOCON Construction is directly adjacent to the facility and is across Turner Road SE to the west.

According to an ORDEQ site summary report, MOCON Construction has been operating since 

1981 and stores petroleum-based materials, paints, and possibly solvents. In the 1990s, ORDEQ 

reported more than 50 drums filled with what appeared to be unspecified hazardous material. 

These drums were observed to be leaking, swollen and rusted. There was evidence of vegetation 

kill in some areas surrounding the drums. Additionally, drums stored in trailers and storage sheds 

were also swollen. There was a 10,000-gallon tank without a secondary containment. In June 

1991, a chemical spill of 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of glue spilled on the ground. Lastly, fires involving 

construction materials and chemicals have occurred (ORDEQ, 2020). It is unclear how the fires 

were put out and if AFFF was used.

3.3.5 West Coast Washers, Inc. 

West Coast Washers, Inc. is located approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the facility. West 

Coast Washers, Inc. is a plant that produces washers from start to finish. PFAS is known to be 

used in metal plating; however, it is unclear if West Coast Washers, Inc. employ metal plating at 

their facility.
A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

Former Wash Pad

Salem Airport Joint Training Area

Salem FD #6

MOCON Construction

Garmin AT

West Coast 

Washers, Inc.

FTA 01 

Stormwater 

Detention Pond

FTA 02 Open Field

Wash Pad

FTA 03 

Helicopter 

Training Area

Former 

Chrome Plating 

Facility

Hangar 2

AOI 2

AOI 1

Lower

Mill Creek

Watershed

Croisan

Creek-Willamette

River Watershed

Mill Creek

Wirth Lake

Blue

Gill Lake

Stone

Quarry

Lake

Mission Lake

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

TK

10/13/2020

10/13/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

10/13/2020

1:11,400 ­ Figure 3-1 PM RG 10/13/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Areas of Interest

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

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_3-1_Salem_AOIs.mxd

0 475 950 1,900

Feet

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS

Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Surface Water Flow

Direction

Inferred Groundwater

Flow Direction

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring Well

A! Other Well
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 3-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-1

4.0 Project Data Quality Objectives

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

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

process. The specific DQOs established for this Site are described below. These DQOs were 

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

4.1 Problem Statement

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

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

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

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

the federal and state level continues to evolve. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this Report. 

The following quotes from the US Department of the Army (DA) policy documents form the basis

for this project (DA, 2016b; DA, 2018): 

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

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

coordinate with installation/facility fire response or training offices to identify AFFF use or 

storage locations. The Army will consider fire training areas, AFFF storage locations, 

hangars/buildings with AFFF suppression systems, fire equipment maintenance areas, and 

areas where emergency response operations required AFFF use as possible source areas. 

In addition, metal plating operations, which used certain PFOS-containing mist 

suppressants, shall be considered possible source areas.” 

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

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

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

contamination.” 

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

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

above USEPA HA [health advisory] levels” (USEPA, 2016a; USEPA, 2016b).

4.2 Goals of the Study

The goals of this SI are to: 

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

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

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

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-2

3. Determine the potential need for a Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA). The primary 

actions that will be considered include provision of alternative water supplies or wellhead 

treatment. 

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

of a RI.

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

manufacturers, other Department of Defense facilities), and receptors including both 

groundwater and surface water receptors, in order to determine whether the ARNG is the 

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

installation detections of PFAS (USEPA, 2005).

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

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

4.3 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs for the SI include the following: 

• The PA for the Site (AECOM, 2019a);

• Analytical data from groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment samples collected as 

part of this SI in accordance with the site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM. 2019b); and

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.4 Study Boundaries

The scope of the SI was bounded horizontally by the property limits of the Site (Figure 2-2). Off-site

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

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

owner(s). The scope of the SI was vertically bounded as follows: groundwater (13 feet bgs), soil from 

hollow stem auger borings (2 to 13 feet bgs), surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), surface water (midpoint of 

the water column), and sediment (0 to 1 foot bgs).

4.5 Analytical Approach

Samples were analyzed by Pace Gulf Coast (formerly known as Gulf Coast Analytical 

Laboratories) (Pace), accredited under the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(DoD ELAP; Accreditation Number 74960) and the National Environmental Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate Number 01955). Data were compared to applicable 

SLs and decision rules as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). Decision rules 

were developed for groundwater and soil, and they applied to all data collected. These rules

governed response actions based on the results of the SI sampling effort.

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

on the following:

Groundwater:

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

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-3

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

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

and downgradient of the potential release areas? 

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

receptor? 

Soil:

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in shallow surface soil (0 to 2 feet 

bgs)?

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

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

4.6 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA) is an evaluation at the conclusion of data collection 

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

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

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

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

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

USEPA, 2017). 

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

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

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

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

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

uncertainty of the data evaluation are described below. The Data Validation Report (DVR) 

(Appendix A) presents explanations for all qualified data in greater detail.

4.6.1 Precision 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ionization efficiencies, and other associated preparation and analytical anomalies. Several field 

samples displayed EIS area counts less than the lower quality control (QC) limit of 50%. The 

positive field sample results associated with EIS area counts less than the QC limit, but greater 

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

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

with area counts less than 20% were qualified “X” for positive field sample results and “UX” for 

non-detect field sample results. The qualified field sample results associated with EIS area counts 

less than 20%, but greater than 10%, are recommended for use as estimated values with a 

positive bias and are reported with interpreted qualifiers of “J+” for the positive associated field 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-4

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

positive field sample results associated with EIS area counts less than 10% are recommended 

for use as estimated values with a positive bias and are reported with interpreted qualifiers of “J+.” 

The project team determined these qualified results were usable for project purposes. The nondetect field sample results associated with the remaining EIS area counts less than 10% were 

qualified “UX.” 

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

calibrated analytes were within established QC criteria. All calibration verifications were within the 

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

exception of N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) in analytical batch 

673397. NEtFOSSA displayed a detection above the upper QC limit of 130%D at 137%D. 

Associated sample results were non-detect and no qualifying action was required.

Laboratory control spike/laboratory control spike duplicate (LCS/LCSD) pairs were prepared by 

addition of known concentrations of each analyte in a matrix-free media known to be free of target 

analytes. LCS/LCSD pairs were analyzed for every analytical batch to demonstrate the ability of 

the laboratory to detect similar concentrations of a known quantity in matrix-free media. The 

LCS/LCSD samples were within the project established precision limits presented in the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019b) except for some RPDs for N-methylperfluorooctane 

sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) and Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA). NMeFOSSA 

displayed RPD greater than the QC limit of 30% at 31% and 36%, respectively. PFTrDA displayed 

RPD greater than the QC limit of 30%, at 47% and 91%, respectively. Positive field sample results 

associated with RPDs above QC limits were qualified as “J”. 

Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported 

for all preparation batches. MS/MSD samples demonstrated that the analytical system was in 

control for the matrix being tested. MS/MSD samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis 

at a rate of 5%. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-GW05 displayed RPD greater 

than the QC limit of 30% for PFTrDA, at 88%. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-

SB08-[2-3] displayed RPD greater than the QC limit of 30% for PFOS, at 36% and PFTrDA, at 

66%. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-SB03-3-4 displayed RPD greater than the 

QC limit of 30% for PFTrDA, at 52%. The positive parent sample results associated with RPDs 

greater than the upper QC limit were qualified “J”.

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

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

PFAS. The field duplicate samples were within the project established precision limits presented 

in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b), with the exception of some analytes for duplicate pairs 

AOI2-GW03/DUP#5 and SW01/DUP#6. The difference between the parent and duplicate results 

for AOI2-GW03/DUP#5 was greater than twice the LOQ value of 16.7 nanograms per liter (ng/L) 

for PFOS and Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS). The RPD for SW01/DUP#6 were greater 

than the QC limit of 30% for PFOS, at 70.6%, and Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), at 54.2%. 

The difference between the parent and duplicate results for SW01/DUP#6 was greater than twice 

the LOQ value of 16.7 ng/L for Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). Associated results for the parent 

and duplicate samples were qualified as “J”.

4.6.2 Accuracy 

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

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

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

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

surrogates.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-5

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

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

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

preparation and analysis, with the following exceptions. NMeFOSSA displayed an LCSD recovery 

outside the QC limits of 70-130%, at 66% for batch 671749. PFTrDA displayed LCS/LCSD 

recoveries outside the QC limits of 70-130% at 203% (batch 674443) and 253% (batch 671749). 

The field sample results associated with negative biases were non-detect and qualified “UJ”. The 

field sample results associated with positive biases were non-detect and no data qualifying action 

was required.

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

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

following exceptions. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-GW05 displayed 

recoveries outside the QC limits of 70-130% for PFTrDA, at 337% and NEtFOSAA, at 55%. The 

MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-SB08-[2-3] displayed a recovery outside the QC 

limits of 70-130% for PFTrDA, at 204%. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI1-SB03-

[3-4] displayed a recovery outside the QC limits of 70-130% for PFTrDA, at 170%. The parent 

sample results associated with positive biases were non-detect; no data qualifying action was 

required. The non-detect parent sample results associated with negative biases were qualified 

“UJ”.

4.6.3 Representativeness

Representativeness qualitatively expresses the degree to which data accurately reflect site 

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

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

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

interferences. 

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

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

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

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

identified in Table B-15 were monitored, standards that contained both branch and linear isomers 

when available were used, and isotopically labeled standards were used for quantitation. The 

laboratory used approved standard methods in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 

2019b) for all analyses.

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

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

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

technical and analytical holding times were met by the laboratory except for samples AOI1-GW05, 

DUP#7, and SD01, which required re-extraction outside of the 14-day holding time criteria due to 

internal standard failures in the initial extraction. Positive samples results were qualified as “J”, 

non-detect field results were qualified as “UJ”, and non-detect results exceeding holding time 

criteria by a factor greater than 2 were qualified as “X”. Additionally, the holding time for pH 

analysis is ‘immediate’ and all field samples analyzed for pH were qualified as “J.” The qualified 

field sample results should be considered usable as estimated values.

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

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

analytes with the following exceptions. 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTS), PFOS, 

perfluorobutyrate (PFBA) and PFHxA were above the detection limit in some method blanks. The 

positive associated field sample results less than five times the concentration found in the blanks 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-6

were qualified as U, and where appropriate, lab limits were elevated to the detected 

concentrations. The results are usable as qualified but should be considered false positives and 

treated as non-detect.

Equipment reagent blanks (ERBs) and field reagent blanks (FRBs) were also collected for 

groundwater and soil samples. All equipment blanks were non-detect for target analytes. PFBA 

was above the detection limit in a field blank. The positive associated field sample results less 

than five times the concentration found in the blanks were qualified as U, and where appropriate, 

lab limits were elevated to detected concentrations. The results are usable as qualified but should 

be considered a false positive and treated as non-detect.

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

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

4.6.4 Comparability 

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

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

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

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

considered comparable to ongoing investigations.

4.6.5 Completeness

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

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

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

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

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

has retained these results in the data set:

• PFAS in groundwater by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 98%; 

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

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

• PFAS in sediment by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%; 

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

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

4.6.6 Sensitivity 

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

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

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

(DL) study, and calibration standards at the limit of quantitation (LOQ). In order to meet the needs 

of the data users, project data must meet the measurement performance criteria for sensitivity 

and project LOQs specified in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). The laboratory provided 

the requested DL studies and provided applicable calibration standards at the LOQ. In order to 

achieve the DQOs for sensitivity outlined in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b), the 

laboratory reported all field sample results at the lowest possible dilution. Additionally, any 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 4-7

analytes detected below the LOQ and above the DL were reported and qualified “J” as estimated 

values by the laboratory.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-1

5.0 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, Army Aviation Support Facility #1 Salem, Oregon, 

dated August 2019 (AECOM, 2019a); 

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

dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a); 

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

Army Aviation Support Facility #1 Salem, Oregon dated November 2019 (AECOM, 2019b); 

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

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility #1 Salem, Oregon, dated 

October 2019 (AECOM, 2019c). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 12 to 15 November 2019 and consisted of hollow stem 

auger (HSA) boring and soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, grab 

groundwater sample collection, and surface water and sediment sample collection. Field activities 

were conducted in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b), except as noted in 

Section 5.9. 

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

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

• Thirty-three (33) soil samples from 15 locations (soil borings locations); 

• Fifteen (15) grab groundwater samples from temporary well locations; 

• Three (3) sediment samples; and

• Two (2) surface water samples, which were co-located with sediment samples. 

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

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

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

Appendix B1. 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 USACE TPP Process, EM 200-1-2 (DA, 2016a) defines four phases to project planning: 1) 

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

and 4) finalizing the data collection plan. The process encourages stakeholder involvement in the 

SI, beginning with defining overall project objectives, including quantitative and qualitative DQOs, 

and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOIs identified in the PA. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-2

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 24 September 2019, 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 Engineers Manual (EM) 200-1-2. 

The stakeholders for this SI include ARNG, OMD, and ORDEQ representatives familiar with the 

Site, the regulations, and the community. Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make 

comments on the technical sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 

2. The outcome of the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). Future TPP meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the 

results and findings, and future actions, where warranted. 

5.1.2 Utility Clearance 

AECOM contacted the Oregon Utility Notification Center to notify them of intrusive work at the 

Site. AECOM contracted Utilities Down Under, a private utility location service, to perform utility 

clearance at the Site. Utility clearance was performed at each of the proposed boring locations

on 12 November 2019 with input from the AECOM field team. General locating services and 

ground-penetrating radar (GPR) were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet 

of each boring were pre-cleared by AECOM’s drilling subcontractor, Cascade Technical Services, 

LLC (Cascade), using a hand auger and/or air knife to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface

where utilities would typically be encountered. 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability 

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

PFAS-free prior to the start of field activities. A sample from a potable water source at Cascade’s

office located in Clackamas, Oregon, was collected on 4 October 2019, prior to mobilization, and 

analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15. A discussion of the results 

is presented in Section 4.6.3. 

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 (SOPs) appendix to the 

Programmatic UFP-QAPP (PQAPP) (AECOM, 2018a). Prior to the start of field work each day, a

PFAS Sampling Checklist was completed as an additional layer of control. The checklist served 

as a daily reminder to each field team member regarding the allowable materials within the 

sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

Soil samples were collected via hollow-stem auger drilling methods in accordance with the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). Each boring was advanced with a CME 75 drill rig using 8-inch 

diameter augers. A hand auger was used to collect soil from the top five feet of the boring to be 

compliant with utility clearance procedures. Soil samples deeper than five feet were collected at 

roughly 2-foot intervals using a standard penetration test (SPT) split spoon sampler driven by a 

140-pound autohammer. 

Two or three discrete soil samples were collected, depending on the depth that groundwater was 

encountered and drilling conditions, for chemical analysis from each soil boring. Groundwater was 

encountered at depths ranging from 2.6 to 7.5 feet bgs during drilling. Total boring completion 

depths, to accommodate temporary well installation, ranged from 8 to 13 feet bgs. One surface 

soil sample (0 to 1 feet bgs) was collected at each boring location. Best efforts were made to 

collect subsurface soil samples at the depths (e.g. one approximately 1 foot above the 

groundwater table and one at the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table) 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-3

prescribed by the QAPP Addendum. However, due to shallow occurrence of groundwater and 

split spoon samples not being collected continuously through the entire boring, augers were 

inadvertently advanced below groundwater at some boring locations without the collection of 

samples that conform to the specifications prescribed in the QAPP Addendum. Refer to Section 

5.7 for details on soil sampling deviations from the QAPP Addendum. The soil boring locations 

are shown on Figure 5-1, and boring and sample depths are provided Table 5-1. The soil boring 

locations were selected based on the AOI information as agreed on through TPP and QAPP 

Addendum review. 

The split spoon soil samples were logged for lithological descriptions by a field geologist using 

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

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

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

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

(using the USCS) were recorded. Clay layers with a thickness in excess of 3 feet were not 

observed at any of the boring locations. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 

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

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

the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15, TOC 

(USEPA Method 9060A), and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). 

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

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

same parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when non-dedicated sampling 

equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the 0 to 1 feet bgs soil samples, ERBs were 

collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. A temperature 

blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 4 degrees 

Celsius (°C) during shipment.

HSA borings were converted to temporary wells, which were subsequently abandoned in 

accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b) using bentonite chips at completion of 

sampling activities. Borings were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt 

surfaces. 

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells, which were constructed inside the augers, were installed at fifteen boring 

locations (Figure 5.1). Once the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well 

was constructed of a 5-foot section of 2-inch Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) screen with 

sufficient casing to reach ground surface. The screen intervals for the temporary wells are 

provided on Table 5-2. New PVC pipe and screen were used at each location to avoid cross 

contamination between locations. 

Groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump with PFAS-free HDPE tubing. Each 

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

PFAS-free marker or pen. The temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to 

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

specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], and oxidation-reduction potential [ORP]) were 

measured using a water quality meter and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix B2) 

after each grab sample was collected. Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-4

collected in a separate container and a shaker test was completed to identify if there were any 

foaming. No foaming was noted on any of the groundwater samples. 

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

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

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

QSM 5.1 Table B-15 in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b).

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

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

same parameters as the accompanying samples. One FRB was collected in accordance with the 

PQAPP (AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples 

were preserved at or below 4°C during shipment.

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

removing the PVC and backfilling the hole with bentonite chips. Temporary wells were installed in 

grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt. 

5.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling

Two co-located surface water and sediment samples (SD/SW01 and SD/SW02) were collected 

from a stormwater detention associated with AOI 1 (FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond). One

stand-alone sediment sample was collected from a secondary stormwater detention pond, which 

was observed to be dry during the field investigation, located downgradient of the FTA 01 

Stormwater Detention Pond. SD/SW04, which is a catch basin that discharges off-facility to 

Mission Ditch, was observed to be dry and free of sediment during the field investigation. A 

suitable replacement for this sample location was not identified. Refer to Section 5.7 for details 

on surface water and sediment sampling deviations from the QAPP Addendum. 

Surface water samples were collected from a single point in the waterbody by dipping the 

laboratory-supplied bottle into the water, approximately two-thirds up from the bottom of the water 

body. For the co-located surface water and sediment samples, the surface water sample was 

collected before the co-located sediment sample. Sampling was performed deliberately and 

methodically to minimize disturbance of bottom sediments and as quickly as possible to ensure a 

representative sample was collected. Additionally, a subsample of each surface water sample 

was collected in a separate container, and a shaker test was completed to identify if there were

any foaming. No foaming was noted on any of the surface water samples.

After collection of the surface water sample, the sediment sample was collected from the first 1 

foot of sediment using a hand auger or stainless-steel spoon. The sediment was transferred to a 

Ziploc bag, where the sample was homogenized and stones in excess of 1 centimeter were 

removed. An ERB was collected from the Ziploc bag to ensure the material was PFAS-free. After

collection of the surface water and sediment samples from each location, general water quality 

parameters (i.e., temperature, pH, conductivity, DO, and ORP) were collected with a water quality 

meter and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix B2). The surface water and sediment 

sample locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and sample depths are provided Table 5-1. 

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

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

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory for analysis of PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 

5.1 Table B-15). Sediment samples were also analyzed for TOC (USEPA Method 9060A) and pH 

(USEPA Method 9045D), in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b). 

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

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

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-5

same parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when non-dedicated sampling 

equipment was used, ERB samples were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same 

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

samples were preserved at or below 4 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment.

5.5 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 QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b).

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid IDW (i.e., purge water, development water, and 

decontamination fluids) generated during the SI activities were containerized in Department of 

Transportation (DOT)-approved 55-gallon steel drums, per ORDEQ instruction. Soil and liquid

IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the associated 

soil/groundwater/surface water samples collected from that source location. A total of eight soil 

and six aqueous (water/slurry) drums were generated during the SI field event. Each drum was 

labelled with its contents (e.g. investigation location, media, depth, and date) and staged in a 

located designated by OMD.

Other solids such as spent PPE, plastic sheeting, tubing, rope, unused monitoring well 

construction materials, and other environmental media generated during the field activities were 

disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.6 Laboratory Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B15 at Pace in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP-certified laboratory. The 18 PFAS 

compounds analyzed as part of the ARNG SI program include the following: 

• 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS)

• 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (8:2 FTS)

• N-ethyl 

perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid 

(NEtFOSAA)

• N-methyl 

perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid 

(NMeFOSAA)

• Perfluorobutyrate (PFBA)

• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

• Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)

• Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)

• Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)

• Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)

• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)

• Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

• Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)

• Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)

• Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)

• Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)

• Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)

Soil samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A and pH by USEPA Method 

9045D. 

5.7 Deviations from QAPP Addendum

Deviations from the QAPP Addendum occurred based on field conditions and discussion between 

AECOM, ARNG, USACE, and ORDEQ. Two deviations from the QAPP Addendum are noted 

below: 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-6

• A co-located surface water and sediment sample was proposed in the SI QAPP at location 

SD/SW04, a catch basin located on the northeast portion of the Site, which ultimately 

drains off-facility into Mission Ditch. However, the catch basin was observed to be dry and 

free of sediment during the SI sampling event. A suitable replacement for this sample 

location was not able to be identified during the SI field event. The potential for this 

deviation was discussed during 24 September 2019 TPP meeting.

• Only two soil samples, rather than the three prescribed in the QAPP Addendum, were 

collected at the following boring locations: AOI1-SB01, AOI1-SB02 , AOI1-SB03, AOI1-

SB04 , AOI1-SB05, AOI1-SB06, AOI1-SB09, AOI2-SB01, AOI2-SB02, AOI2-SB03, AOI2-

SB05, and AOI2-SB06. Due to shallow occurrence of groundwater and split spoon 

samples not being collected continuously through the entire boring, augers were 

inadvertently advanced below groundwater at some boring locations without the collection 

of all three samples. The potential for this deviation was discussed during 24 September 

2019 TPP meeting.
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Salem AASF #1, Salem, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI1-SB01-[0.5-1] 11/14/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB01-[2-3] 11/14/2019 2 - 3 x

AOI1-SB02-[0.5-1] 11/14/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB02-[3-4] 11/14/2019 3 - 4 x

DUP#3 11/14/2019 3 - 4 x Field Duplicate

AOI1-SB03-[0.5-1] 11/14/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB03-[3-4] 11/14/2019 3 - 4 x x x

AOI1-SB04-[0.5-1] 11/14/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB04-[3-4] 11/14/2019 3 - 4 x

AOI1-SB05-[0.5-1] 11/14/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB05-[3-3.5] 11/14/2019 3 - 3.5 x

AOI1-SB06-[0.5-1] 11/13/2019 0.5 - 1 x

DUP#2 11/13/2019 0.5 - 1 x Field Duplicate

AOI1-SB06-[4-4.5] 11/13/2019 4 - 4.5 x

AOI1-SB07-[0.5-1] 11/13/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB07-[2.5-3] 11/13/2019 2.5 - 3 x

AOI1-SB07-[5-5.5] 11/13/2019 5 - 5.5 x

AOI1-SB08-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB08-[2-3] 11/15/2019 2 - 3 x

AOI1-SB08-[4-4.5] 11/15/2019 4 - 4.5 x

AOI1-SB09-[0.5-1] 11/13/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI1-SB09-[5-5.5] 11/13/2019 5 - 5.5 x

AOI2-SB01-[0.5-1] 11/12/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB01-[2-2.5] 11/12/2019 2 - 2.5 x x x

AOI2-SB02-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB02-[2-3] 11/15/2019 2 - 3 x

AOI2-SB03-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB03-[2.5-3] 11/15/2019 2.5 - 3 x

DUP#4 11/15/2019 2.5 - 3 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-SB04-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB04-[2.5-3] 11/15/2019 2.5 - 3 x x x

AOI2-SB04-[4-5] 11/15/2019 4 - 5 x x x

AOI2-SB05-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB05-[3] 11/15/2019 3 x

DUP#7 11/15/2019 3 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-SB06-[0.5-1] 11/15/2019 0.5 - 1 x

AOI2-SB06-[2.5-3.5] 11/15/2019 2.5 - 3.5 x

Soil Samples

Page 1 of 2
Table 5-1

Samples by Medium

Salem AASF #1, Salem, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI1-GW01 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW02 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW03 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW04 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW05 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW06 11/14/2019 5.5 x

AOI1-GW07 11/14/2019 5.5 x

DUP#1 11/14/2019 5.5 x Field Duplicate

AOI1-GW08 11/15/2019 7.5 x

AOI1-GW09 11/13/2019 5.5 x

AOI2-GW01 11/12/2019 5.5 x

AOI2-GW02 11/15/2019 5.5 x

AOI2-GW03 11/15/2019 5.5 x

DUP#1 11/15/2019 5.5 x Field Duplicate

AOI2-GW04 11/15/2019 7.5 x

AOI2-GW05 11/15/2019 10.5 x

AOI2-GW06 11/15/2019 7.5 x

SD01 11/15/2019 0 - 1 x

SD02 11/15/2019 0 - 1 x

SD03 11/15/2019 0 - 1 x

SW01 11/15/2019 0.5 x

DUP#6 11/15/2019 0.5 x Field Duplicate

SW03 11/15/2019 0.5 x

CASCADE OR-WATER 10/4/2019 na x Drillers Water

Equipment Blank#1 11/15/2019 na x Rinsate Blank

Equipment Blank#2 11/15/2019 na x Rinsate Blank

Notes:

ft = feet

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

na = not applicable

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

TOC =total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sediment Samples

Groundwater Samples

Blank Samples

Surface Water Samples

Page 2 of 2
Table 5-2

Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Salem AASF #1, Salem, Oregon

Site Inspection Report

Area of

Interest

Boring

Location

Soil Boring Depth

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well

Screen Interval

(feet bgs)

AOI1-SB01 8 3-8

AOI1-SB02 8 3-8

AOI1-SB03 8 3-8

AOI1-SB04 8 3-8

AOI1-SB05 8 3-8

AOI1-SB06 10 5-10

AOI1-SB07 8 3-8

AOI1-SB08 10 5-10

AOI1-SB09 11.5 4.5-9.5

AOI2-SB01 8 3-8

AOI2-SB02 8 3-8

AOI2-SB03 8 3-8

AOI2-SB04 10 5-10

AOI2-SB05 13 8-13

AOI2-SB06 8 3-8

Notes:

bgs = below ground surface

2

1

AECOM Page 1 of 1
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

"J

"J

!?

!? !?

!?

!?

!?

!?

"J

Former Wash Pad

FTA 01 Stormwater 

Detention Pond

FTA 02 Open Field

Wash Pad

FTA 03 Helicopter 

Training Area

Former Chrome 

Plating Facility

Hangar 2

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

SD/SW02

SD/SW01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07

AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

SD03

Mill Creek

Blue

Gill

Lake

Mission Lake

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

SI

8/14/2020

8/14/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

1:6,960

8/14/2020 ­ Figure 5-1 PM RG 8/14/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

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

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_5-1_Salem_SI_Sample_Locations.mxd

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Legend

!? Hollow Stem Auger Boring/Temporary Well

"J Surface Water/Sediment Sample Location

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 6-1

6.0 Site Inspection Results 

This section presents the analytical results of the SI for each AOI. The analytical results are

reported and evaluated in the subsequent sections. The SLs used in this evaluation are presented 

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

6.4. Table 6-2 through Table 6-6 present PFAS results for samples with detections in soil, 

sediment, surface water, or groundwater; only constituents detected in one or more samples are 

included. Tables that contain all results are provided in Appendix 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 15 October 

2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The ARNG program under which this SI was 

performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site concentration for sampled media 

exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the site will proceed to a RI, the next phase 

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

groundwater, as presented in Table 6-1. 

All other results presented in this report are considered informational in nature and serve as an 

indication as to whether soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water contain or do not contain 

PFAS within the boundaries of the facility. 

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 130 1,600 40

PFOS 130 1,600 40

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

Notes:

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, 

PFBS in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s)

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. 

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

increase by a factor of x10.

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

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

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

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

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

appropriate, to assess fate and transport of PFAS contaminants. According to the Interstate 

Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), several important PFAS partitioning mechanisms include 

hydrophobic and lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At 

relevant environmental pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions, and are therefore 

relatively mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but 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 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 6-2

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

factors (for example, pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to 

solid phases (ITRC, 2018).

6.3 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas

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

1, which includes three potential PFAS release areas: FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond, FTA 

02 Open Field, and FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area, and the results for surface water and 

sediment. There are no established SLs for surface water and sediment; therefore, these results 

are presented for informational purposes only. The detected compounds are summarized in Table

6-2 through Table 6-6 and on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5. 

6.3.1 Soil Analytical Results 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil, when detected, did not exceed the SLs at AOI 1. Tables 6-2 and 

Table 6-3 summarize the detected compounds in soil. Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 present the 

ranges of detections for PFOS and PFOA in soil.

Soil was sampled in nine boring locations associated with three potential release areas at AOI 1. 

Soil was sampled from three intervals at locations AOI1-SB07 and AOI1-SB08; two intervals at 

AOI1-SB01, AOI1-SB02, AOI1-SB03, AOI1-SB04, AOI1-SB05, AOI1-SB06, and AOI1-SB09. 

PFOS was detected in two borings (AOI1-SB05 and AOI1-SB08), with a maximum concentration 

of 1.13 μg/kg at AOI1-SB08 from 0.5 to 1 feet bgs. PFOA was detected in one sample at boring 

AOI1-SB08 from 0.5 to 1 feet bgs with a concentration of 0.212 J μg/kg. PFBS was not detected 

in any samples within the nine borings. All detections were several orders of magnitude below the 

applicable soil SLs. AOI1-SB08 is the only boring where PFOS and PFOA were detected. AOI1-

SB08 is located northwest of FTA 02 Open Field at the facility boundary near Mission Lake. Soil 

samples collected from borings AOI1-01, AOI1-02, AOI1-03, AOI1-04 and AOI1-SB06 at FTA 03 

Helicopter Training Area had no detections of PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS above the laboratory 

reporting limits, indicating that the release of AFFF to surface soil may have occurred within the 

middle of the potential release area, near AOI1-SB05. Additionally, soil samples collected from 

boring AOI1-07, located north of FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area, also did not detect PFOA, 

PFOS, or PFBS above the laboratory reporting limits. No soil samples were collected within FTA 

01 Stormwater Detention Pond.

6.3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results 

Groundwater samples were collected from nine temporary wells at AOI 1 during the SI (AOI1-

GW01 through AOI1-GW09). PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding

the SLs at four of the temporary wells: AOI1-GW06, AOI1-GW07, AOI1-GW08, and AOI1-GW09, 

all of which are adjacent to the facility boundaries. PFOA and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in 

any sample location. Table 6-4 summarizes the detected compounds in groundwater. Figure 6-3 

presents the ranges of detections for PFOS and PFOA. 

PFOS was detected in six of temporary wells, ranging in concentration from 1.99 J ng/L at AOI1-

GW04 to 149 ng/L at AOI1-GW08. PFOA was detected in seven locations, ranging in 

concentration from 1.66 J ng/L at AOI1-GW04 to 17.7 ng/L at AOI1-GW08. PFBS was detected 

at five locations, ranging in concentration from 1.60 J ng/L at AOI1-GW01 to 6.05 J ng/L at AOI1-

GW08. AOI1-GW08 is located northeast of FTA 02 Open Field at the facility boundary near 

Mission Lake. No PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS were detected at AOI1-GW03, which is located at FTA 

03 Helicopter Training Area. PFOA and PFBS were detected upgradient of AOI 1 at AOI1-GW01 

at concentrations of 8.58 ng/L and 1.60 ng/L, respectively.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 6-3

6.3.3 Sediment Analytical Results

Three sediment samples were collected from two stormwater detention ponds within AOI 1. PFOS 

was detected in all three samples with a maximum detection of 35.1 μg/kg at SD02, which is 

located on the effluent end of FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond. The only detection of PFOA, 

at a concentration of 0.295 J μg/kg, was observed at location SD03, which is located in the 

secondary stormwater detention pond downgradient of FTA01 Stormwater Detention Pond. PFBS 

was not detected in any of the samples. Table 6-5 summarizes the detected compounds in 

sediment. Figure 6-4 presents the ranges of detections for PFOS and PFOA in sediment. 

6.3.4 Surface Water Analytical Results 

Surface water samples co-located with sediment samples were collected from the two locations 

associated with FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in 

both surface water samples collected at AOI 1. The maximum concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, 

and PFBS were 15.9 ng/L, 91.4 ng/L, and 2.99 ng/L, respectively. Table 6-6 summarizes the 

detected compounds in surface water. Figure 6-5 presents the ranges of detections for PFOS 

and PFOA in surface water.

6.3.5 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at AOI 1; however, the 

detected concentrations were two orders of magnitude lower than the applicable soil SLs. PFBS 

was not detected in any of the soil samples. PFOS was detected in groundwater at concentrations 

above the SLs at four locations, including AOI1-GW06, AOI1-GW07, AOI1-GW08 and AOI1-

GW09, all of which are adjacent to an inferred downgradient facility boundary. PFOA and PFBS 

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

sediment, whereas PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in surface water. There are no 

established SLs for sediment and surface water; therefore, these results are presented for 

informational purposes only. 

6.4 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas

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

2, which includes four potential PFAS release areas: Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, 

Wash Pad, and Former Wash Pad. The detected compounds are summarized in Table 6-2 

through Table 6-4 and on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-3. 

6.4.1 Soil Analytical Results 

PFOS and PFOA in soil did not exceed the SLs at AOI 2. PFBS was not detected in any samples

above the laboratory reporting limits. Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 summarizes the detected 

compounds in soil. Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 present the ranges of detections for PFOS and 

PFOA in soil.

Soil was sampled in six boring locations associated with the four potential release areas at AOI 

2. Soil was sampled from three intervals at locations AOI2-SB04 and two intervals at AOI2-SB01, 

AOI2-SB02, AOI2-SB03, AOI1-SB05, and AOI1-SB06. PFOS was detected in four borings, 

including locations AOI2-SB03, AOI2-SB04, AOI2-SB05, and AOI2-SB06, with a maximum 

concentration of 7.64 J μg/kg at location AOI2-SB05 from 3 feet bgs. PFOA was detected in three 

borings, including locations AOI2-SB03, AOI2-SB05, and AOI2-SB06, with a maximum 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 6-4

concentration of 0.599 J μg/kg at location AOI2-SB05 from 3 feet bgs. Concentrations of PFOA 

and PFOS were many orders of magnitude below the SLs for soil. PFBS was not detected in any 

samples. 

The highest detections of PFOA and PFOS were both at AOI2-SB05, which is located east of the 

Former Chrome Plating Facility, adjacent to the Site boundary. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were not 

detected at AOI2-SB01 and AOI2-SB02. AOI2-SB01 is located at the southern corner of the 

Former Chrome Plating Facility, whereas AOI2-SB02 is located at the secondary stormwater 

detention pond. No borings were collected directly at the Former Wash Pad, the Wash Rack, and 

Hangar 2. PFOA and PFOS were detected at AOI2-SB05 and AOI2-SB06, which are located near 

the facility boundary and are interpreted to be upgradient of AOI 2 and AOI 1.

6.4.2 Groundwater Analytical Results 

Groundwater samples were collected from six temporary wells at AOI 2 during the SI (AOI2-GW01 

through AOI2-GW06). PFOS exceeded the SLs at every location, whereas PFOA only exceeded 

at AOI2-GW06. PFBS was detected at each location, but at estimated concentrations well below 

the SL. Table 6-4 summarizes the detected compounds in groundwater. Figure 6-3 presents the 

ranges of detections for PFOS and PFOA.

PFOA was detected in all six temporary wells, ranging in concentration from 2.42 J ng/L at AOI2-

GW01 to 58.9 ng/L at AOI2-GW06. PFOS ranged in concentration from 40.1 J ng/L at AOI2-GW03 

to 144 ng/L at AOI2-GW05. PFBS was detected in all six temporary wells, ranging in concentration 

from 3.20 J ng/L at AOI2-GW04 to 12.4 ng/L at AOI2-GW02. Therefore, groundwater samples 

from every temporary well exceeded at least one of the SLs. Samples AOI2-GW05 and AOI2-

GW06, which are located at the eastern and southeastern property boundaries and are 

interpreted to be upgradient from AOI 2, both exceeded the SLs. 

6.4.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil at AOI 2; however, the 

detected concentrations were well below the soil SLs. PFBS was not detected in any of the soil 

samples. PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater at concentrations above the SLs. PFBS 

was detected at concentrations below the groundwater SL.
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

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

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND 0.457 J ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - 0.152 J 0.192 J 0.212 J 0.150 J 0.228 J 0.167 J 0.269 J 0.172 J 0.291 J 0.225 J

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFNA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOA 130 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.212 J ND

PFOS 130 ND ND ND ND 0.287 J ND ND ND 1.13 ND

PFPeA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

References PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration DUP Duplicate

ft feet

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI1

AOI1-SB09-[0.5-1]

11/13/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

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

AOI1-SB07-[0.5-1]

11/13/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB08-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB06-[0.5-1]

11/13/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

DUP#2

11/13/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB04-[0.5-1]

11/14/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB05-[0.5-1]

11/14/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB02-[0.5-1]

11/14/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI1-SB03-[0.5-1]

11/14/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI1-SB01-[0.5-1]

11/14/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AECOM
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

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

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - 0.272 J 0.267 J 0.267 J ND 0.174 J 0.273 J

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND 0.347 J

PFHxA - ND ND 0.233 J ND ND ND

PFHxS - ND ND 0.180 J ND ND ND

PFNA - ND ND 0.191 J ND ND 0.098 J

PFOA 130 ND ND 0.254 J ND ND 0.276 J

PFOS 130 ND ND 2.71 ND ND 2.87

PFPeA - ND ND 0.219 J ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

References PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration DUP Duplicate

ft feet

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated

soil.

AOI2

AOI2-SB06-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

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

AOI2-SB04-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB05-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB02-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AOI2-SB03-[0.5-1]

11/15/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI2-SB01-[0.5-1]

11/12/2019

0.5 - 1 ft

AECOM
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

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

PFBA - ND 0.358 J 0.628 J ND 0.159 J 0.158 J ND ND ND 0.281 J

PFHpA - ND 0.377 J 0.600 J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxA - ND 1.28 1.61 ND ND ND 0.216 J ND ND 0.181 J

PFHxS - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOA 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.249 J

PFPeA - ND 1.95 2.39 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

Interpreted Qualifiers ft feet

J = Estimated concentration HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

AOI1-SB06-[4-4.5]

11/13/2019

4 - 4.5 ft

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental

ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI1-SB08-[2-3]

11/15/2019

2 - 3 ft

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

AOI1-SB07-[2.5-3]

11/13/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

AOI1-SB07-[5-5.5]

11/13/2019

5 - 5.5 ft

AOI1-SB05-[3-3.5]

3 - 4 ft

AOI1-SB04-[3-4]

11/14/2019

3 - 4 ft

11/14/2019

3 - 3.5 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI1-SB01-[2-3]

11/14/2019

2 - 3 ft

AOI1

AOI1-SB02-[3-4]

11/14/2019

3 - 4 ft

DUP#3

11/14/2019

3 - 4 ft

AOI1-SB03-3-4

11/14/2019

AECOM
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

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

PFBA - 0.238 J 0.163 J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.515 J 0.605 J

PFHpA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.180 J

PFHxA - 0.202 J 0.176 J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.718 J 1.02 J

PFHxS - ND ND ND ND 0.322 J ND ND 0.541 J 0.517 J 0.643 J

PFOA 1600 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.430 J 0.599 J

PFOS 1600 0.299 J ND ND ND ND 0.567 J ND 1.63 5.60 7.64 J

PFPeA - ND 0.250 J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.455 J 0.674 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

Interpreted Qualifiers ft feet

J = Estimated concentration HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for

incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

DUP#7

11/15/2019

3 - 3 ft

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

AOI2-SB04-4-5

11/15/2019

4 - 5 ft

AOI2-SB05-[3]

11/15/2019

3 - 3 ft

AOI2-SB01-[2-2.5] DUP#4

11/12/2019

2 - 2.5 ft

AOI2

AOI2-SB02-[2-3]

11/15/2019

2 - 3 ft

AOI2-SB03-[2.5-3]

11/15/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

11/15/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

AOI2-SB04-2.5-3

11/15/2019

2.5 - 3 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI1-SB08-[4-4.5]

11/15/2019

4 - 4.5 ft

AOI1

AOI1-SB09-[5-5.5]

11/13/2019

5 - 5.5 ft

AECOM
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening

Level a

Result Qual

PFBA - 0.165 J

PFHpA - ND

PFHxA - ND

PFHxS - ND

PFOA 1600 ND

PFOS 1600 0.212 J

PFPeA - ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

Interpreted Qualifiers ft feet

J = Estimated concentration HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

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

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of

contaminated soil.

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI2

AOI2-SB06-[2.5-3.5]

11/15/2019

2.5 - 3.5 ft

AECOM
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

6:2 FTS - ND 3.17 J ND ND ND UX ND ND ND 2.88 J

PFBA - ND 22.9 ND ND ND UX 11.4 ND ND 10.6

PFBS 40000 1.60 J ND ND ND ND UX 3.63 J 2.36 J 2.65 J 6.05 J

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND UX ND ND ND ND

PFHpA - 12.6 22.0 ND 3.01 J ND UX 4.22 J 6.94 J 4.54 J 10.6

PFHxA - 36.7 64.7 ND 7.27 J ND UX 11.9 18.2 11.1 32.6

PFHxS - 19.8 ND ND ND 7.42 J 42.6 22.1 22.7 76.4

PFNA - 1.52 J ND ND ND ND UX ND 1.58 J ND 2.69 J

PFOA 40 8.58 5.17 J ND 1.66 J ND UX 4.49 J 6.37 J 4.13 J 17.7

PFOS 40 ND ND ND 1.99 J 22.1 J 101 77.8 59.0 149

PFPeA - 61.1 122 ND 9.72 ND UX 8.05 J 23.3 12.3 20.4

PFTrDA - ND ND ND UJ ND UJ ND UX ND UJ ND UJ ND ND UJ

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND UX ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high

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

UX/X = The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated. Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion of the data is recommended. AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

11/14/2019

AOI1-GW03

11/14/2019

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI1-GW01

11/14/2019

Water, PFAS via PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

AOI1

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s 

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of 

groundwater.

DUP#1

11/13/2019

AOI1-GW08

11/15/2019

AOI1-GW06

11/13/2019

AOI1-GW07

11/13/2019

AOI1-GW04

11/14/2019

AOI1-GW05

11/14/2019

AOI1-GW02

AECOM
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND 2.28 J ND ND ND

PFBA - 10.7 ND 18.3 16.9 12.9 ND ND 31.3

PFBS 40000 5.03 J 3.33 J 12.4 5.21 J 9.64 3.20 J 6.30 J 3.40 J

PFDA - ND ND UJ 1.51 J ND ND ND ND 1.78 J

PFHpA - 5.06 J ND 19.1 4.41 J 7.30 J 3.00 J 1.80 J 27.2

PFHxA - 12.5 5.21 J 37.1 12.0 18.9 10.2 13.6 106

PFHxS - 35.8 40.1 97.8 39.7 J 67.2 J 72.4 95.5 27.1

PFNA - 1.58 J ND 3.20 J ND ND ND ND 5.79 J

PFOA 40 7.34 J 2.42 J 13.5 5.66 J 7.53 J 4.47 J 4.04 J 58.9

PFOS 40 128 76.8 103 40.1 J 91.9 J 140 144 82.8

PFPeA - 12.5 ND 35.1 10.8 20.4 5.54 J 3.71 J 101

PFTrDA - ND UJ 31.6 J+ ND ND ND 8.75 J+ ND ND

PFUnDA - ND 1.96 J+ ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

J = Estimated concentration PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high

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

UX/X = The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be substantiated. Acceptance or rejection of the data should be decided by the project team, but exclusion of the data is recommended. AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

11/15/2019

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI1

AOI1-GW09

11/13/2019

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s 

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of 

groundwater.

AOI2-GW06

11/15/2019

Water, PFAS via PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

AOI2

AOI2-GW04

11/15/2019

AOI2-GW05

11/15/2019

AOI2-GW03

11/15/2019

DUP#5

11/15/2019

AOI2-GW01

11/12/2019

AOI2-GW02

AECOM
Table 6-5

PFAS Detections in Sediment

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBA 0.212 J 1.75 J 0.498 J

PFHxA ND UJ ND 0.263 J

PFHxS ND UJ 3.00 J 0.741 J

PFNA ND UJ ND 0.157 J

PFOA ND UJ ND 0.295 J

PFOS 0.771 J 35.1 5.90

PFPeA ND UJ ND 0.280 J

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFBA perfluorobutyrate 

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

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctane sulfonate

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

ft feet

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SD Sediment

μg/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

AOI 1

SD03

11/15/2019

0 - 1 ft

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

SD01

11/15/2019

0 - 1 ft

SD02

11/15/2019

0 - 1 ft

AECOM
Table 6-6

PFAS Detections in Surface Water

Site Inspection Report, Salem AASF #1

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

Water, PFAS via PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

PFBA 13.7 20.8 ND

PFBS 1.52 J 2.99 J 2.41 J

PFDA 2.23 J 2.16 J ND

PFHpA 16.1 25.3 2.12 J

PFHxA 32.9 J 51.7 J 6.88 J

PFHxS 13.1 22.0 21.0

PFNA 3.14 J 5.90 J ND

PFOA 10.2 15.9 3.39 J

PFOS 43.7 J 91.4 J 43.1

PFPeA 46.8 J 81.6 J 6.41 J

PFUnDA ND 7.46 J ND

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

DUP Duplicate

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SW Surface water 

ng/L nanogram per liter

SW01

11/15/2019

AOI 1

SW02

11/15/2019

DUP#6

11/15/2019

AECOM
AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

Shallow Intermediate Deep

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

MS

AP

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-1_Salem_SI_PFOS_Soil_Results.mxd

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

4/10/2020

1:6,960

>1,600 ­
AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

Shallow Intermediate Deep

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

MS

AP

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-2_Salem_SI_PFOA_Soil_Results.mxd

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

4/10/2020

1:6,960

>1,600 ­
AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05 AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

AOI 2

AOI 1

AOI2-SB06

AOI1-SB03

AOI1-SB05

AOI2-SB03

AOI1-SB06

AOI1-SB09

AOI2-SB02

AOI2-SB01

AOI1-SB08

AOI1-SB07 AOI2-SB04

AOI2-SB05

AOI1-SB04

AOI1-SB02

AOI1-SB01

PFOA PFOS

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

8/14/2020

8/14/2020

8/14/2020

MS

AP

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-3_Salem_SI_PFOA_PFOS_Combined_GW_Results.mxd

PFOA & PFOS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

8/14/2020

1:6,960 Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction ­

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400
AOI 2

AOI 1

SD/SW02

SD/SW01

SD03

AOI 2

AOI 1

SD/SW02

SD/SW01

SD03

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

MS

AP

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-5_Salem_SI_PFOA+PFOS_Sediment_Results.mxd

PFOA and PFOS Detections in Sediment

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

4/10/2020

1:6,960

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000
AOI 2

AOI 1

SD/SW02

SD/SW01

AOI 2

AOI 1

SD/SW02

SD/SW01

0 290 580 1,160

Feet

Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at McNary Field Salem AASF, OR

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

4/10/2020

MS

AP

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\OR\Salem_Figures\Salem_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_6-4_Salem_SI_PFOA+PFOS_SW_Results.mxd

PFOA and PFOS Detections in Surface Water

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

4/10/2020

1:6,960

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 7-1

7.0 Exposure Pathways

The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings are presented on Figure 7-1. A CSM 

presents the current understanding of the site conditions with respect to known and suspected 

sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially exposed human 

receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when the following 

conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source; 

2. Environmental fate and transport; 

3. Exposure point; 

4. Exposure route; and 

5. Potentially exposed populations. 

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM 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 PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

circle symbol to represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely filled 

circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has detections of 

PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway may 

warrant further investigation.

In general, the potential PFAS exposure pathways are ingestion and inhalation. Human exposure 

via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice suggests it is an insignificant 

pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal pathways are sparse and 

continue to be the subject of PFAS toxicological study. The receptors evaluated are consistent with 

those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2001). Receptors at the Site include 

site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction workers, recreational users, and 

nearby off-facility residents. The CSM for AOIs 1 and 2, revised based on the SI findings, is

presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil were used to determine whether a potentially 

complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the 

aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas 

From approximately 1997 to 2017, fire training exercises resulted in the release of AFFF to soil at

one or more of the three potential release areas associated with AOI 1: FTA 01 Stormwater 

Detention Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, and FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area. PFOA and PFOS were 

detected in soil at low levels at two boring locations completed at AOI 1. Based on the results of 

the SI in AOI 1, ground-disturbing activities to surface soil could result in site worker and 

construction worker exposure to PFOA and PFOS via inhalation of dust. Ground-disturbing 

activities to subsurface soil could result in construction worker exposure to PFOS via ingestion. 

Therefore, the exposure pathways for inhalation and ingestion are potentially complete for these 

receptors. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 7-2

7.1.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas 

AOI 2 encompasses four non-FTAs: Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash Pad, and 

Former Wash Pad. Activities at AOI 2, documented as having occurred as early as 1974, include 

potential washing of firetrucks following fire training activities with AFFF, potential historic 

presence of PFAS-containing mist suppressants used in chrome plating, and known and potential 

washing of aircraft at two concrete wash pads, and other potential AFFF releases within the paved 

ramp area. PFOA and PFOS were detected in four boring locations at AOI 2 at low levels within 

the surface and shallow subsurface soil. Based on the results of the SI in AOI 2, ground-disturbing 

activities to surface soil could result in site worker and construction worker exposure to PFOA and 

PFOS via inhalation of dust. Ground-disturbing activities to subsurface soil could result in 

construction worker exposure to PFOA and PFOS via ingestion. Therefore, the exposure 

pathways for inhalation and ingestion are potentially complete for these receptors. The CSM is 

presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in groundwater were used to determine whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI 

based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Former Fire Training Areas 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from temporary wells at the AOI 1 source 

areas and facility boundary with PFOS exceeding the SLs for groundwater. While the surface 

water intakes for the City of Salem drinking water are all located upgradient of the Site, private 

drinking water wells, ranging from approximately 30 to 100 feet deep, are located less than a mile 

downgradient from the Site. Based on the SI results, the drinking water pathway via ingestion is 

potentially complete for nearby off-site residents. Additionally, the ingestion exposure pathway is 

also considered potentially complete for construction workers during trenching activities deep 

enough to encounter shallow groundwater. 

Based on groundwater flow directions and the analytical results reported for sample AOI1-GW01, 

potential upgradient, off-facility sources may be impacting the Site. Although the groundwater 

sampled at AOI1-GW01 was below the SLs (Section 6.3.1), the presence of PFOA and PFBS 

indicate a potential off-facility source. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater at the AOI 2 source areas and facility 

boundary at concentrations exceeding the SLs for PFOA and PFOS in groundwater. The 

pathways and receptors for AOI 2 are the same as described in Section 7.2.1. The CSM is 

presented in Figure 7-1. Based on groundwater flow directions, two temporary wells identified as 

being upgradient of AOI 2 at the facility boundary exceeded SLs. Groundwater sample AOI2-

GW05 exceeded the SL for PFOS and sample AOI2-GW06 exceeded the SLs for PFOA and 

PFOS. Consequently, potential off-facility sources may be impacting the Site.

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in surface water and sediment were used to determine 

whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each 

AOI based on the aforementioned criteria.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 7-3

7.3.1 AOI 1 – Fire Training Areas 

Surface water within the Site flows towards a grated storm drain system, which is located on the 

paved western edge of the facility. Stormwater and surface water runoff are directed into two 

stormwater detention ponds, which discharge to Mission Ditch, outside the northwest boundary 

of the facility. Mission Ditch then flows west-northwest and discharges into Pringle Creek, a 

tributary of the Willamette River. Two co-located surface water/sediment samples were collected 

from within the FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond, and one sediment sample was collected from 

a secondary stormwater detention pond located downgradient of the FTA 01 Stormwater 

Detention Pond. 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in surface water at AOI 1, whereas PFOA and PFOS 

were detected in sediment. Therefore, the incidental ingestion exposure pathways in surface 

water and sediment are considered potentially complete for receptors at the site (workers, 

construction workers) and recreational users. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.3.2 AOI 2 – Non-Fire Training Areas 

Surface water and sediment sampling was planned for AOI 2 during this SI, but the proposed 

sampling location (SD/SW04) was observed to be dry and free of sediment, and a suitable 

replacement location was unable to be identified. This resulted in the surface water and sediment 

exposure pathway not being fully evaluated for AOI 2. However, given that surface water collected 

within AOI 2 discharges to Mission ditch, as it does for AOI 1, the receptors are the same for both 

AOIs. Therefore, the incidental ingestion exposure pathways in surface water and sediment are 

considered potentially complete at AOI 2 for receptors at the site (workers, construction workers), 

and recreational users. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1

AOI 2

Fire training

activities, firetruck

washing,

potential historic

presence of

PFAS-containing

mist

suppressants

used in chrome

plating, and

aircraft washing

PFAS in

Surface Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOIs

Surface

Water/

Sediment2

Shallow

Groundwater

Subsurface

Soil

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Complete Pathway

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker Resident1 RecreationalUser1

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker Resident1 Recreational

User1

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 Fire Training Areas and AOI 2 Non-Fire Training Areas.

/ /

/ / /

Ingestion

/ / / /

Notes:

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. Surface water/sediment exposure routes fully

evaluated for AOI 1 only. However, given that

surface water collected within AOI 2 discharges to

Mission Ditch, as it does for AOI 1, the receptors

are the same for both AOIs.

3. Dermal contact exposure pathway is incomplete

for PFAS.

/

/ /

/ /

Ingestion

Ingestion

/

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/ /

PFAS in

Subsurface

Soil

/ /
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 7-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 8-1

8.0 Summary and Outcome

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. 

The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs. 

8.1 SI Activities Summary

The SI field activities at the Site were conducted from 12 to 15 November 2019. The SI field 

activities included soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling. Field activities were 

conducted in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b), except as previously noted 

in Section 5.7. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2019b),

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of PFAS by LC/MS/MS complaint with QSM 

5.1 Table B-15 as follows. The 18 PFAS analyzed as part of the ARNG SI program are specified 

in Section 5.6 of this Report

• 33 soil grab samples from 15 boring locations;

• 15 grab groundwater samples from 15 temporary well locations; 

• 3 sediment samples; and

• 2 surface water samples, which were co-located with sediment samples. 

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

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

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors for potential 

exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the AOIs, which are described in Section 7. 

8.2 SI Goals Evaluation

As described in Section 4.2, the SI activities were designed to achieve six main goals or DQOs. 

This section describes the SI goals and the conclusions that can be made for each based on the 

data collected during this investigation. 

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

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected at the Site in groundwater and surface water, 

whereas PFOA and PFOS were detected in soil and sediment. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS 

were detected both at source areas as well as near the facility boundary between source 

areas and potential drinking water receptors. Detections in groundwater exceeded the SLs 

for PFOA and PFOS. 

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

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

All potential release areas were soil samples were collected detected PFOA or PFOS at 

concentrations several orders of magnitude below the SLs. Additionally, PFOA, PFOS, 

and PFBS were detected in groundwater samples associated with both AOIs, with 

detections in 14 out of 15 temporary wells. The only groundwater sample that did not have 

any detections of PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS was AOI1-GW03, which is located at the FTA 03 

Helicopter Training Area; however, other samples in the release area had detections. Ten 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 8-2

of the 15 groundwater samples collected during the SI exceeded the SLs. Therefore, none 

of the release areas have been eliminated from further consideration.

3. Determine the potential need for a removal action. 

Based on the data collected during this SI, no need for a removal action was identified. 

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

of a RI, if determined necessary.

The collected geological data indicate a highly permeable and conductive environment 

with soils dominated by poorly graded sand, gravel, and cobbles with occasional

interbedded clayey sand. The observed depth to groundwater observed during the SI 

ranged from approximately 2.6 to 7.5 feet bgs. Groundwater velocities calculated in 

Section 2.2.3 range from 9 to 45 ft/day. These geologic and hydrogeologic observations 

can be used in development of technical approach for the RI.

Out of the five soil borings collected across FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area, only AOI1-

SB05 had detections of PFOS. Though these detections were low, this may indicate that 

fire training activities occurred mostly toward the middle of this area. Similarly, AOI2-SB01 

did not have any PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS in soil but AOI2-SB04 did at 4-5 feet bgs. This 

may suggest that PFAS was used to the northern areas of the Former Chrome Plating 

Facility.

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

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

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

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

PFAS (USEPA, 2005).

Based upon the qualitative evaluation of soil results in combination with quantitative 

groundwater results and groundwater flow direction analysis, the source of detected 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the Site is likely the result of historical DoD activities; however,

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in temporary wells installed upgradient of AOIs 1 

and 2, including two temporary wells that exceeded the SLs in groundwater, suggesting 

an off-facility source may be impacting the facility. 

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

potential receptors and whether the contamination is attributable to ARNG activities. 

Detections of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil and groundwater at source areas and near

the facility boundary indicate there are potentially complete pathways between source and 

on and off-facility receptors. 

8.3 Outcome 

Based on the CSMs developed and revised based on the SI findings, there is potential for 

exposure to residential drinking water receptors from releases during historical DoD activities at 

the Site, and potentially from off-facility sources. 

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

project SLs for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. The 

following bullets summarize the SI results: 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater in the source areas and near the 

facility boundary at AOI 1. PFOS exceeded the SL in groundwater in four of the nine 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 8-3

temporary wells with a maximum concentration of 149 ng/L. PFOA and PFBS did not exceed 

the SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI. 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater in the source areas and near the 

facility boundary at AOI 2. PFOS exceeded the SL in groundwater in all six temporary wells 

with a maximum concentration of 144 ng/L at AOI2-GW05. PFOA only exceeded the SL at 

AOI2-GW06 with a concentration of 58.9 ng/L; however, AOI2-GW06 is considered 

upgradient of AOI 2 based on groundwater flow. PFBS did not exceed the SL in any sample.

• PFOA and PFOS was detected in soil at both AOI 1 and 2 at low concentrations, several 

orders of magnitude below the SLs. 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater upgradient of AOI 1 and AOI 2 in 

samples AOI1-GW01, AOI2-GW05, and AOI2-GW06, which suggests potential 

contributions from off-facility sources. Samples AOI2-GW05 and AOI2-GW06 exceeded the 

SLs and were located at the eastern and southeastern facility boundaries.

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the CSMs developed 

and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure to residential drinking water 

receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the facility. 

Table 8-2 summarizes the rationale used to determine if an AOI should be considered for further 

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

is warranted in the RI for AOI 1: Former Fire Training Areas and AOI 2: Non-Fire Training Areas. 
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 8-4

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility 

Boundary

1 FTA 01 Stormwater Detention Pond, FTA 02 

Open Field, FTA 03 Helicopter Training Area

2 Hangar 2, Former Chrome Plating Facility, Wash 

Pad, Former Wash Pad

Legend:

 = detected; exceedance of screening levels

 = detected; no exceedance of screening levels

 = not detected

Table 8-2 Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future Action

1 

FTA 01 Stormwater Detention 

Pond, FTA 02 Open Field, FTA 

03 Helicopter Training Area 

Exceedances of the SLs in 

groundwater at source area. No 

exceedances of SLs in soil. 

Proceed to RI

2

Hangar 2, Former Chrome 

Plating Facility, Wash Pad, 

Former Wash Pad

Exceedances of the SLs in 

groundwater at source area. No 

exceedances of SLs in soil.

Proceed to RI
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 8-5

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 9-1

9.0 References 

AECOM. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance 

Project Plan, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. Contract No. W912DR-12-D0014/W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

AECOM. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid 

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

Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July.

AECOM. 2019a. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Salem, 

Oregon, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted 

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

August. 

AECOM. 2019b. Final Site Inspection Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum, Army Aviation 

Support Facility #1, Salem, Oregon, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

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

AECOM. 2019c. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Salem, 

Oregon, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted 

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

October. 

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2006. Phase II Environmental Baseline Study: Army Aviation 

Support Facility No. 1 Turner Road SE Salem, Oregon.

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 2008. Focused Subsurface Investigation: Army Aviation 

Support Facility No. 1 Turner Road SE Salem, Oregon. 9 January.

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

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 

15 October.

City of Salem Public Works Department. 2018. 2018 Annual Water Quality Report. Retrieved 

October 2018 from https://www.cityofsalem.net/citydocuments/water-quality-reportenglish.pdf. 

Conlon, T.D., Wozniak, K.C., Woodcock, D., Herrera, N.B., Fisher, B.J., Morgan, D.S., Lee, K.K., 

and Hinkle, S.R. 2005. Ground-Water Hydrology of the Willamette Basin, Oregon. United 

States Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5168.

DA. 2016a. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project Planning Process. 29 February. 

DA. 2016b. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid (PFOA) Contamination. August.

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. 4 

September. 

DoD. 2018a. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 9 

February.

DoD. 2018b. Department of Defense (DoD) Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.1.1. September.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 9-2

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids ad 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and Technology 

47(9): 4164-71.

Hampton, E.R. 1972. Geology and Ground Water of the Molalla-Salem Slope area, Northern 

Willamette Valley, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1997, 83 p.

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

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

ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2019. Big Game Hunting, Species, Black Deer. 

Retrieved July 2019 from https://myodfw.com/big-game-hunting/species/black-tailed-deer.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ). 2020. Environmental Cleanup Site 

Information (ECSI) Database Site Summary Report – Details for Site ID 1241, MOCON 

Construction. Retrieved 14 August 2020 from

https://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ECSI/ecsidetail.asp?seqnbr=1241. 

Oregon Military Department (OMD). 2008. Site Development Plan: Oregon Military Department 

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) #1 Master Plan.

Oregon Water Resources Department (ORWRD). 2018. Groundwater Hydrographs. Retrieved 

October 2018 from https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/gw_info/gw_map/Default.aspx.

Piper, A. 1942. Groundwater Resources of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. United States 

Geological Survey.

Sterret, Robert. 2008. Groundwater and Wells, Third Edition.

United States Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM). 2002. 

Site Assessment Survey No. 38-EH-5049A-02 Oregon Army National Guard Army Aviation 

Support Facility No. 1 Salem, Oregon.

USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

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

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

Assessments). December.

USEPA. 2005. Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide. 

USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process. 

February.

USEPA. 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of 

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

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

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

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

USEPA Document Number: 822-R-16-004. May.
Site Inspection Report

Salem Army Aviation Support Facility #1, Oregon

AECOM 9-3

USEPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Environmental Conservation Online System. Threatened 

and Endangered Species by County Report. Retrieved on 2 March 2020 from

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=41047.

Woodward, D., Gannett, M., and Vaccaro, J. 1998. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Willamette 

Lowland Aquifer System, Oregon and Washington. United States Geological Survey. 

Professional Paper 1424-B.

Xiao, F., M. F. Simcik, T. R. Halbach, and Gulliver, J. S. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74.