FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Roseville Armory,

California

Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic 

acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), 

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and 

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide

November 2023

 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
The seal appearing on this document was authorized by Katharine Carr, P.G. 9315 on November 3, 2023, 

for the information contained herein for Roseville Armory. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... ES-1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species.............................2-3

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

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

3.1 AOI 1 Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard.............................................................3-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1...........................................................................................................7-1
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM iii

Appendices

Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

B3. Survey Data

B4. Nonconformance Report

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, July 2021

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

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

Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

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

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

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface 

BPE Black Point Environmental, Inc

CAARNG California Army National Guard

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DO dissolved oxygen

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FedEx Federal Express

FTA Fire Training Area

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS matrix spike 

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM v

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

Sellens Sellens Consulting LLC

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UCMR3 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

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

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

The PA identified one Area of Interest (AOI) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI location). The objective 

of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOI identified 

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

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

compounds. This SI was completed at the Roseville Armory in Roseville, California and 

determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1: Firetruck Parking and Storage 

Yard. The Roseville Armory will also be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document.

Roseville Armory is situated in the Sacramento metropolitan area and Sacramento Valley, about 

16 miles northeast of Sacramento and 8 miles west of Folsom Lake. The facility contains an 

armory and has an associated maintenance site. Three buildings are located within the facility 

including two readiness centers and one storage building, which is home to the California ARNG 

233rd Engineer Detachment (Firefighting). Impervious surfaces, primarily concrete pavements and 

parking lots, make up most of the 5.6-acre facility.

The PA identified one AOI for investigation during the SI phase. SI sampling results from the AOI 

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

results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation (RI)

for AOI 1: Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM ES-2

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater –

Facility 

Boundary

Future 

Action

1

Firetruck 

Parking and 

Storage Yard

Proceed to RI 

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic 

acid (PFBS) at ARNG facilities nationwide. The ARNG performed this SI at the Roseville Armory 

in Roseville, California. The Roseville Armory is also referred to as the “facility” throughout this 

document. 

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

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

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

investigations. 

1.2 SI Purpose

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

identified one Area of Interest (AOI) where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, 

stored, disposed, or released historically. The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has 

been a release to the environment from the AOI identified in the PA and determine whether further 

investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further 

action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

The Roseville Amory is located at 850 All America City Boulevard, Roseville, California 95678. It 

is situated in the Sacramento metropolitan area and Sacramento Valley (Figure 2-1). The facility 

is about 16 miles northeast of Sacramento and 8 miles west of Folsom Lake. The ground surface 

is flat to gently sloping to the north. The facility contains an armory and has an associated 

maintenance site. Three buildings are located within the facility, including two readiness centers 

and one storage building, which is home to the California ARNG (CAARNG) 233rd Engineer 

Detachment (Firefighting). Building construction dates are unknown. Impervious surfaces, 

primarily concrete pavements and parking lots, make up most of the 5.6-acre facility. The facility 

is entirely fenced and accessible by one eastern facility gate. The Roseville Armory has been 

leased from the Placer County Fairgrounds since 1961 (AECOM, 2020). 

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

The Roseville Armory is located in a highly developed suburb northeast of Sacramento, California.

The facility is bounded by residential development to the south, by Placer County Fairgrounds

and residential development to the west and south, the Roseville Police Department to the north,

and the All American Speedway to the east. The topography of the area gently slopes to the north

(Figure 2-2). 

2.2.1 Geology

The Roseville Armory is located in a transitional area between the Great Valley and the Sierra 

Nevada physiographic provinces within the US Geological Survey (USGS) Roseville 7.5-minute 

Quadrangle (USGS, 2012). The Great Valley province is an elongated sedimentary trough 

comprising the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Valleys, and it is filled with a succession of 

Mesozoic to Cenozoic-aged continental and marine sediments. The Sierra Nevada province is 

generalized as a belt of metamorphic and igneous rock that has been sheared, deformed, and 

intruded upon during tectonic and volcanic activity during the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras.

The subsurface consists of Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments deposited nonconformably over

fractured volcanic crystalline bedrock characteristic of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range (City

of Roseville, 2004). The geologic units underlying the facility, from oldest to youngest, are the 

Mehrten Formation, Turlock Lake Formation, undifferentiated Modesto-Riverbank formations, 

Modesto Formation, and undifferentiated recent alluvium (Figure 2-3).

At the facility, the Mehrten and Turlock Lake formations are observed only in the subsurface. The

Mehrten Formation is a Tertiary-aged assemblage of silt, sand, gravel, and cobble of volcanic

origin deposited in fluvial deposits and mudflows over which lie the Quaternary-aged deposits.

The Pliocene/Pleistocene-aged Turlock Lake Formation consists of interbedded silty sands,

clayey sands, and igneous and metamorphic gravel beds deposited in an alluvial fan environment

(Arkley, 1962; Shlemon et al., 2000). In Roseville, sands and silts overlying the Turlock Formation

are identified as fluvial deposits of either the Middle Pleistocene-aged Riverbank Formation or the

Late Pleistocene Modesto Formation, but display little to no differentiable features. (Arkley, 1962). 

Subsequent erosion and fluvial activity have continued through the present day, depositing clay, 

silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles within active ephemeral or perennial river channels.

Soil borings completed during the SI found silty sand and sandy silt as the dominant lithology of 

the unconsolidated sediments below Roseville Armory. The borings were completed at depths 

between 16 and 34 feet bgs. Isolated layers of clay were also observed in the boring logs at 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-2

thicknesses ranging from 2 to 6 feet. These facility observations are consistent with the alluvial 

and fluvial depositional environment. Boring logs are presented in Appendix E. 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

Ten wells are located within a one-mile radius of the Roseville Armory (Environmental Data 

Resources, Inc.TM [EDRTM], 2019). Four of the ten (10) wells were listed as federal USGS wells, 

one well was listed as an active public water supply well, and the remaining wells are listed in the 

California wells database (California Department of Water Resources, 2019). Of the five 

remaining wells, two are inactive with unknown former uses, one is active with an unknown use, 

and the final well is an active irrigation well (EDRTM). The public water supply well serves a 

population of 95 people and is located approximately 0.6 miles to the southeast of the facility. 

Another active water supply well is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the facility (Black 

Point Environmental, Inc. [BPE], 2011). The depths of both water supply wells are unknown.

Numerous monitoring wells are also located on the Placer County Fairgrounds and Placer County 

Roseville Corporation Yard, bordering the Roseville Armory directly to the north, where 

groundwater has been monitored in multiple events, and various subsurface investigations have 

taken place. These investigations were conducted on behalf of the Placer County Fair Association 

and associated with leaking gasoline and diesel fuel underground storage tanks reportedly 

removed from the County Fairgrounds maintenance yard in 1993 (Sellens Consulting LLC 

[Sellens], 2016). Two aquifers, one shallow and one deeper, were identified to exist at 

approximately 18 and 50 feet below ground surface (bgs), respectively. The shallow aquifer is 

suspected to be perched with depth to water measured at approximately 10 feet bgs, although 

minimal water is said to be present (Sellens, 2016; Applied Engineering and Geology, Inc., 2009). 

The deeper aquifer appears to be non-continuous due to varying recharge rates, with depths to 

groundwater ranging from 53 to 62 feet bgs. Based on the USEPA Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3) data, it was indicated that PFOA and PFOS were detected in a public 

water system between 10 to 20 miles of the facility at maximum concentrations of 31 nanograms 

per liter (ng/L) and 156 ng/L, respectively (USEPA, 2017a). The groundwater flow direction is not 

well defined and may vary over short distances, but it is inferred to flow generally north (Sellens, 

2016; BPE, 2011). Groundwater features at the facility are shown on Figure 2-3. 

Depths to water measured in July 2021 during the SI ranged from 8.06 to 31.64 feet bgs. 

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

groundwater flow direction is generally to the northeast. 

2.2.3 Hydrology 

The Roseville Armory is located in the Pleasant Grove Creek Watershed, and as shown on 

Figure 2-5, all surface water from the facility eventually drains north and west to the South Branch 

Pleasant Grove Creek. There are no wetland areas or 100-year flood zones identified within the 

Roseville Armory (EDRTM, 2019). Storm water is diverted to storm water drains located in and 

around the facility property. The closest surface water bodies are a retention pond about 0.5 miles 

northeast of the facility, at the Sierra View Country Club, and an unnamed tributary of the South 

Branch Pleasant Grove Creek, located approximately 0.3 miles to the north. Folsom Lake is 

8 miles east of the facility and is the primary source of potable water for the City of Roseville, 

including the Roseville Armory (BPE, 2011). 

2.2.4 Climate 

The Roseville Armory is in a semi-arid, Mediterranean climate zone. The winter “rainy season” 

extends from November to February, and the summer season extends from June to August and 

is characterized by warm, dry days and mild nights. The average annual rainfall is approximately 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-3

20 inches. Summer temperatures peak in July with an average high of 94 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) and an average low of 61 °F. Winter temperatures are lowest in December, with an average 

high of 55 °F and an average low of 40 °F. Prevailing wind speeds are southerly year-round due 

to the orientation of the Sacramento Valley and influence of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. 

Snowfall is extremely rare, but frost occasionally occurs (Cline et al., 2010). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The Roseville Armory has been home to the 233rd Engineer Detachment (Firefighting) since their 

operations began in the late 1990s. The mission of the 233rd Engineer Detachment is to “perform 

fire protection and prevention activities for structure, wildland and aircraft crash rescue incidents, 

administer emergency medical care, execute technical rescue operations and mitigate hazardous 

material incidents for state and federal missions.” (FireDepartment.net, n.d.).

The facility contains an armory and has an associated maintenance site. There are three buildings 

at the facility, including two readiness centers and one storage building where the firefighting unit 

is stationed. The Roseville Armory has been leased from the Placer County Fairgrounds since 

1961 (White, 2019). Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the 

current land use described above. 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following amphibians, crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals, plants, and reptiles are 

federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Placer 

County, California (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2021). 

• Amphibians: California tiger Salamander, Ambystoma californiense (endangered); Sierra

Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Rana sierrae (endangered); California red-legged frog, Rana

draytonii (threatened)

• Conifers and Cyads: Whitebark pine, Pinus albicaulis (proposed threatened)

• Crustaceans: Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus packardi (endangered); Conservancy

fairy shrimp, Branchinecta conservation (endangered); Vernal pool fairy shrimp,

Branchinecta lynchi (endangered)

• Fishes: Lahontan cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi (threatened); longfin

smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (candidate); Cui-ui, Chasmistes cujus (endangered)

• Flowering Plants: Sacramento Orcutt grass, Orcuttia viscida (endangered); Pine Hill

flannelbush, Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens (endangered); Stebbins'

morning-glory, Calystegia stebbinsii (endangered); Layne's butterweed, Senecio layneae

(threatened); Pine Hill ceanothus, Ceanothus roderickii (endangered); Tahoe yellow cress,

Rorippa subumbellata (resolved taxon); El Dorado bedstraw, Galium californicum ssp.

sierrae (endangered)

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate); Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (threatened)

• Mammals: North American wolverine, Gulo gulo luscus (resolved taxon)

• Reptiles: Giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (threatened)
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-4

2.3 History of PFAS Use

One potential release area where AFFF may have been used or released historically at Roseville 

Armory was identified during the PA (AECOM, 2020). Roseville Armory includes an area 

containing firetruck parking, a storage building, and a yard. AFFF may have been released due 

to the historical storage of AFFF and parking of an AFFF-containing firetruck. The potential 

release area is referred to as AOI 1, and it is discussed further in Section 3. 
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

CM

8/26/2022

8/26/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

1:63,360

8/26/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 8/26/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

^_

Legend

Facility Boundary

Roseville Armory

AECOM 2-5
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

MB

8/26/2022

8/26/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

1:6,000

8/26/2022 ­ Figure 2-2 PM CM 8/26/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-6
A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C( !C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

! !C( A

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A! A! A!

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

South Branc h Plea sa nt G r ove C reek

Cu rry Cr ee k

Cl over

Val ley

Cree k

Cirby Creek

A ntelope CreekPleasant Gro ve Creek

Ar cad eC reek

Cr i ppleCreek

Dry Creek

Antelope

Canal

B oardmanCanal

Lin daCreek

Ka seb erg Cr ee k

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Groundwater Flow Direction

Fault

Geology

Marine and nonmarine (continental)

sedimentary rocks

Pliocene-pleistocene sandstone, shale, and

gravel deposits

Eocene Sandstone, shale, conglomerate;

moderately to well consolidated

Tertiary pyroclastic and volicanic mudflow

deposits

Mesozoic granite, quartz, monzonite,

granodiorite, and quartz diorite

Wells

A! Other/Unknown Well

!C( Municipal Well

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

MB

8/26/2022

8/26/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

1:95,040

8/26/2022 ­ Figure 2-3 PM CM 8/26/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

AECOM 2-7
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
?!

?!

?!

?!

AOI01-01

150.95

AOI01-04

150.22

AOI01-02

150.36

AOI01-03

128.99*

151

151

150.5

150.5

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 75 150 300

Feet

Groundwater Elevations - July 2021

Figure 2-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

10/20/2022 MS

MB

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

PM CM 10/20/2022

1:1,800 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

*data not included in contours

AECOM 2-9
AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

OM 2-10
Linda

Creek-Cirby

Creek Watershed

Gibson Lake-Dry

Creek Watershed

Pleasant

Grove Creek

Watershed

S o u thBr anch P leasant Grove C reek

Cirby Creek

Linda Creek

Kaseberg Creek

Dry Creek

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

MB

8/26/2022

8/26/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

1:31,680

8/26/2022 ­ Figure 2-5 PM CM 8/26/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

AECOM 2-11
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 2-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

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

disposed, or released historically. This may include fire training areas (FTAs), buildings with fire 

suppression systems, paint booths, AFFF storage areas, and areas of compliance 

demonstrations. Based on the PA findings, one potential release area was identified at Roseville 

Armory and is referred to as AOI 1 (AECOM, 2020). The potential release area is shown on 

Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard

AOI 1 consists of one potential release area that contains firetruck parking, a storage building, 

and a yard. Potential AFFF releases are possible due to the historical storage of AFFF and parking 

of an AFFF-containing firetruck within AOI 1. The area west of the paved lot within AOI 1 is 

unpaved soil. Potential AFFF releases could have migrated to the unpaved area and infiltrated 

soil. Additionally, AOI 1 lies within the Pleasant Grove Creek Watershed, and all surface water 

drains via storm water outlets to the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek. PFAS are water-soluble 

and can migrate readily from soil to groundwater or surface water via leaching and run-off. If AFFF

releases to surface and subsurface soil occurred, migration from surface soil at AOI 1 to 

groundwater and surface waters of the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek is possible. 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

Gibson Lake-Dry

Creek Watershed

Pleasant

Grove Creek

Watershed

Kaseberg Creek

Dry Creek

Sou th Branch Grove Pleasant

Cr e e k

Firetruck Parking

and Storage Yard

AOI 1 All American Speedway

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

!C( Municipal Well

0 750 1,500 3,000

Feet

Area of Interest

Figure 3-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

10/20/2022 MS

MB

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

PM CM 10/20/2022

1:18,000 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

AECOM 3-3
AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

OM 3-4
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), the objective of the SI is to identify 

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

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

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

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

4.1 Problem Statement

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

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

SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs included:

• The PA for Roseville Armory (AECOM, 2020);

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

with the site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a); and

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 Study Boundaries

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

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

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

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

time field resources were available to complete the study. 

4.4 Analytical Approach

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

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

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

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

as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA), which is provided in Appendix A, is an evaluation at the 

conclusion of data collection activities that uses the results of both data verification and validation 

in the context of the overall project decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative and qualitative 

methods, the assessment determines whether project execution and the resulting data have met 

installation-specific DQOs. Both sampling and analytical activities are considered to assess 

whether the collected data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the decisionmaking (DoD, 2019a; DoD, 2019b; USEPA, 2017b). 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 4-2

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

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

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

requirements of the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

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

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

in accordance with the following approved documents: 

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

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

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

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Roseville Armory, California, dated January 2020

(AECOM, 2020);

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

Roseville Armory, California dated June 2021 (AECOM, 2021a); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan Roseville Armory, California dated June 2021 (AECOM,

2021b).

The SI field activities were conducted from 12 to 15 July 2021 and consisted of utility clearance,

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

sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), except as noted in Section 5.8. 

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

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

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

• Twelve (12) soil samples from four soil borings;

• Four grab groundwater samples from four temporary wells;

• Fourteen (14) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples.

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

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

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

in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, and land survey data are

provided in Appendix B3. Additionally, a photographic log of field activities is provided in 

Appendix C. 

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

In preparation for the SI field activities, project team members participated in Technical Project 

Planning (TPP) meetings, performed utility clearance, and sampled decontamination source 

water. Details for each of these activities are presented below.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

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

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

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

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

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

address the AOIs identified in the PA. 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 5-2

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 24 February 2021, prior to SI field activities. The 

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

stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, CAARNG, USACE, and California Regional Water 

Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments 

on the technical sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The 

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

(AECOM, 2021a). 

A TPP Meeting 3 was held on 27 June 2023 to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes for 

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance 

AECOM’s drilling subcontractor, Cascade Technical Services, LLC. placed a ticket with the 

California 811 utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work on 6 July 2021. Additionally, 

AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems (GPRS), a private utility location service, 

to perform utility clearance. GPRS performed utility clearance of the proposed boring locations on 

12 July 2021 with input from the AECOM field team and Roseville Armory facility staff. General 

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

the first 5 feet of each boring were pre-cleared using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in 

shallow subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered. 

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

A potable water source at Roseville Armory was sampled on 25 May 2021 to assess usability for 

decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the sample collected confirmed the source to 

be acceptable for use in this investigation; therefore, it was used throughout the field activities.

Specifically, the samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The 

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

results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A).

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

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

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

(AECOM, 2021a). Prior to the start of field work each day, a Sampling Checklist was completed 

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

member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). A GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system was used to 

collect continuous soil cores to the target depth. A hand auger was used to collect soil from the 

top 5 feet of the boring, in accordance with AECOM utility clearance procedures. The soil boring 

locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and depths are provided Table 5-1. 

Three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis from each 

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

1 foot above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample at the mid-point between the 

surface and the groundwater table. 

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

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

Roseville Armory, California 

AECOM 5-3 

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

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

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

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

Soil borings completed during the SI found silty sand and sandy silt as the dominant lithology of 

the unconsolidated sediments below Roseville Armory. The borings were completed at depths 

between 16 and 34 feet bgs. Isolated layers of clay were also observed in the boring logs, at 

thicknesses ranging from 2 to 6 feet. These facility observations are consistent with the alluvial 

and fluvial depositional environment. Each soil sample was collected into a laboratory-supplied 

PFAS-free high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. 

Samples were packaged on ice and transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard 

chain of custody (CoC) procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with 

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

Method 9045D) in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS) and MS duplicates (MSDs) were 

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

In instances when non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the 

shallow soil samples, equipment rinsate blanks were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for 

the same parameters as the soil samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to 

ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment. 

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

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) and with concurrence from the Placer 

County inspector by removing the well casing and backfilling the hole with cement grout. Upon 

completion of well abandonment, the ground surface at each location was patched with material 

similar to the surrounding pavement. 

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling 

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system. Once 

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

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

ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used to avoid cross contamination between 

locations. The screen intervals for the temporary wells are provided in Table 5-2. 

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

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

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

tubing. With the exception of AOI01-03, the temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in 

the field to reduce turbidity and draw down prior to sampling. AOI01-03 had limited groundwater 

in the well to allow sufficient purging to reduce turbidity before sampling. Water quality parameters 

(e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction 

potential) were measured using a water quality meter and recorded on the field sampling form 

(Appendix B2) before each grab sample was collected. Additionally, a subsample of each 

groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and a shaker test was completed to 

identify if there were any foaming. No foaming was noted in any of the groundwater samples. 

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

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

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

Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 5-4

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary wells were abandoned in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) 

and with concurrence from the Placer County inspector by removing the PVC and backfilling the 

hole with cement grout. Upon completion of well abandonment, the ground surface at each 

location was patched with material similar to the surrounding pavement.

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 13 July to 15 July 2021. Groundwater 

level measurements were collected from the four new temporary monitoring wells. Water level 

measurements were taken from the northern side of the well casing. A groundwater flow contour 

map is provided in Figure 2-4. Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-2. The 

groundwater level measured in AOI01-03 was anomalously lower (20 feet lower) than the levels 

measured in all three other temporary wells. Therefore, AOI01-03 gauging data were not used to 

estimate the northeast groundwater flow direction as presented herein.

5.5 Surveying

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

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

Survey data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 15 July 2021 in the 

applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with World Geodetic System 84 datum 

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

provided in Appendix B3.

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

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

federally. IDW generated during the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and was managed in 

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) and with the DA Guidance for 

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

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities were contained in labeled, 55-gallon 

Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved steel drums and left onsite at a location designated 

by the CAARNG. The soil IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the 

associated soil samples collected from that source location. 

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

decontamination fluids) were contained in labeled, 55-gallon DOT-approved steel drums, and left 

onsite at a location designated by CAARNG. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the 

characteristics of the associated groundwater samples collected from that source location

Management and disposal of containerized IDW is being handled by Engineering, Science, and 

Technology, Inc. (EA) under a separate contract with USACE in accordance with SOP No. 042A 

(EA, 2021). 

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

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

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 5-5

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods

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

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

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

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

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

documentation. The deviation is noted below:

• The approved SI QAPP Addendum states that mid-point subsurface soil samples would be

collected from 13 to 15 feet bgs if total boring depth exceeded 30 feet bgs. During DPT

drilling activities, a subsurface soil sample was collected from the mid-point of boring AOI01-

03 below 15 feet bgs based on the total boring depth. However, the mid-point soil samples

for AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and AOI01-04 were collected from 5 to 12 feet bgs. As a result,

the comparison of PFAS concentrations in the midpoint subsurface soil samples collected

from AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and AOI01-04 were used to evaluate the industrial/commercial

worker scenario. This action was documented in a nonconformance report dated October

2022 and is provided in Appendix B4.

• The Approved SI QAPP Addendum states that soil cores will be continuously logged for

lithological descriptions by a field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System

(USCS) per SOP 3-16. The shallow soil (0-5 feet bgs) was inadvertently not logged during

the hand clearing of locations AOI01-02 and AOI01-03.
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory, California

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-0-2 7/13/2021 11:50 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-11-12 7/13/2021 14:25 11-12 x

AOI01-01-SB-21-22 7/13/2021 14:15 21-22 x

AOI01-02-SB-0-2 7/14/2021 10:15 0-2 x

AOI01-02-SB-0-2-D 7/14/2021 10:15 0-2 x FD

AOI01-02-SB-0-2-MS 7/14/2021 10:15 0-2 x MS/MSD

AOI01-02-SB-0-2-MSD 7/14/2021 10:15 0-2 x MS/MSD

AOI01-02-SB-5-6 7/14/2021 11:20 5-6 x

AOI01-02-SB-8-9 7/14/2021 11:25 8-9 x

AOI01-03-SB-0-2 7/14/2021 13:55 0-2 x

AOI01-03-SB-16-17 7/14/2021 15:55 16-17 x

AOI01-03-SB-33-34 7/14/2021 16:05 33-34 x

AOI01-04-SB-0-2 7/14/2021 7:45 0-2 x x x

AOI01-04-SB-0-2-D 7/14/2021 7:45 0-2 x x x FD

AOI01-04-SB-0-2-MS 7/14/2021 7:45 0-2 x x MS/MSD

AOI01-04-SB-0-2-MSD 7/14/2021 7:45 0-2 x x x MS/MSD

AOI01-04-SB-8-10 7/14/2021 9:20 8-10 x

AOI01-04-SB-31-32 7/14/2021 9:30 31-32 x

AOI01‐01‐GW 7/13/2021 15:40 NA x

AOI01‐02‐GW 7/14/2021 13:10 NA x

AOI01‐02‐GW‐D 7/14/2021 13:10 NA x FD

AOI01‐02‐GW‐MS 7/14/2021 13:10 NA x MS/MSD

AOI01‐02‐GW‐MSD 7/14/2021 13:10 NA x MS/MSD

AOI01‐03‐GW 7/15/2021 10:45 NA x

AOI01‐04‐GW 7/15/2021 9:05 NA x

Soil Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory, California

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

R‐DECON 5/25/2021 10:15 NA x

Decontamination 

Source Water

ROSEV‐FRB‐01 7/15/2021 10:25 NA x

ROSEV‐ERB‐01 7/13/2021 12:55 NA x

Drillers' Poly Tank 

and Hose

ROSEV‐ERB‐02 7/15/2021 10:35 NA x DPT Cutting Shoe

ROSEV‐ERB‐03 7/15/2021 10:40 NA x

Water Level 

Sounder

Notes:

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

GW = ground water

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

SB = soil boring

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory, California

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Dept

Wa

(feet 

AOI01-01 25 19 - 24 1 161.10 160.20 10.15 9.2

AOI01-02 16 5 - 15 1 159.61 159.84 9.25 9.4

AOI01-03 34 24 - 34 161.72 160.63 32.73 31

AOI01-04 32 5 - 30 1 158.07 158.28 7.85 8.0

Notes:

1 Temporary well screen set above total depth to capture groundwater interface

bgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingNA = not applicableNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

1

AECOM 
AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

OM 5-10
?!

?!

?!

?!

Firetruck Parking

and Storage Yard

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

Legend

?! Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 75 150 300

Feet

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 5-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

8/29/2022 MS

MB

8/29/2022

8/29/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

PM CM 8/29/2022

1:1,800 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

AECOM 5-11
AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

OM 5-12
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results

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

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

Table 6-2 through Table 6-5 present results in soil or groundwater for the relevant compounds. 

Tables that contain all results are provided in Appendix F, and the laboratory reports are provided 

in Appendix G. 

6.1 Screening Levels

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

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the OSD dated 6 July 2022 

(Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The ARNG program under which this SI was performed 

follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site concentration for sampled media exceed the 

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

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

6-1 below.

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Composite 

Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 6-2

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. According to the Interstate Technology Regulatory 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1 

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

AOI 1: Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on 

Table 6-2 through Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through 

Figure 6-7. 

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (5 to 12 feet bgs), 

and deep subsurface soil (16 to 34 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-04. 

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

6-4 summarize the soil results.

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil at concentrations below their SLs. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil at concentrations less than 1.91 

μg/kg; all detected concentrations were below the SLs in surface soil. 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in shallow subsurface soil at concentrations below their 

SLs. PFOA was detected at AOI01-02, with a maximum concentration of 0.225 J μg/kg. PFOS 

was detected at AOI01-02, with a maximum concentration of 0.199 J μg/kg. PFHxS was detected 

at AOI01-02, with a concentration of 0.068 J μg/kg. PFBS and PFNA were not detected in shallow 

subsurface soil. 

PFOS was detected in deep surface soil at AOI01-03 only, at a concentration of 0.074 J ug/kg,

below the SL. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in deep subsurface soil.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01 through AOI01-04. The 

following exceedances of the SLs were measured: 

• PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L in all four wells, with concentrations

ranging from 25.9 ng/L to 538 ng/L.
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 6-3

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at two of the four wells, with 

concentrations ranging from of 13.1 ng/L to 22.4 ng/L. 

• PFNA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L at two of the four wells, with 

concentrations ranging from 6.12 ng/L to 21.9 ng/L. 

PFHxS and PFBS were detected below their respective SLs. 

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

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

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

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

warranted.
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory

Analyte OSD 

Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U 0.042 J ND U ND UPFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U 0.245 J ND U ND UPFNA 19 0.412 J 0.032 J 0.036 J 0.045 J 0.025 J 0.032 JPFOA 19 1.74 J ND U ND U 0.137 J ND U ND UPFOS 13 0.676 J 0.125 J 0.144 J 1.91 0.352 J 0.463 JGrey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutane

References PFHxS perfluorohexan

PFNA perfluorononanPFOA perfluorooctanoPFOS perfluorooctaneAcronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of InterestD duplicateDL detection limitft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatoLOD limit of detectioND analyte not deteOSD Office of the SeQSM Quality SystemQual interpreted quaSB soil boringUSEPA United States Eμg/kg micrograms pe

07/14/2021

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-0-2

07/13/2021

0-2 ft

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

Interpreted Qualifiers

J = Estimated concentrationU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL

AOI01

AOI01-04-SB-0-2-D

07/14/2021

0-2 ft

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

AOI01-03-SB-0-2

07/14/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-0-2

07/14/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-0-2

07/14/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-0-2-D

AECOM 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory

Analyte OSD 

Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND UPFHxS 1600 ND U ND U 0.068 J ND UPFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOA 250 ND U 0.156 J 0.225 J ND UPFOS 160 ND U 0.199 J 0.171 J ND UGrey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutane

References PFHxS perfluorohexan

PFNA perfluorononanPFOA perfluorooctanoPFOS perfluorooctane

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatoLOD limit of detectioND analyte not deteOSD Office of the SeQSM Quality SystemQual interpreted quaSB soil boringUSEPA United States Eμg/kg micrograms pe

AOI01-01-SB-11-12

07/13/2021

11-12 ft

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-04-SB-8-10

07/14/2021

8-10 ft

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

AOI01-02-SB-5-6

07/14/2021

5-6 ft

AOI01-02-SB-8-9

07/14/2021

8-9 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AECOM 
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS ND U ND U ND U ND UPFHxS ND U ND U ND U ND UPFNA ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOA ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOS ND U 0.074 J ND U ND UInterpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration PFBS perfluorobutanesU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFHxS perfluorohexanes

PFNA perfluorononanoiPFOA perfluorooctanoic PFOS perfluorooctanesuAcronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of InterestDL detection limitft feetID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatogrLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detecQSM Quality Systems Qual interpreted qualifiSB soil boringμg/kg micrograms per k

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

AOI01

AOI01-03-SB-33-34

07/14/2021

33-34 ft

AOI01-04-SB-31-32

07/14/2021

31-32 ft

AOI01-01-SB-21-22

07/13/2021

21-22 ft

AOI01-03-SB-16-17

07/14/2021

16-17 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-5

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

Site Inspection Report, Roseville Armory

Analyte OSD 

Screening

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 601 9.66 34.3 J- 25.1 J- 13.7 10.8PFHxS 39 9.72 22.2 22.9 3.65 J 19.1PFNA 6 ND U 20.4 21.9 1.16 J 6.12PFOA 6 47.5 528 538 25.9 319PFOS 4 1.46 J 19.0 22.4 ND U 13.1Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutane

References PFHxS perfluorohexan

PFNA perfluorononanPFOA perfluorooctanoPFOS perfluorooctane

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation SJ- = Estimated concentration, biased low AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate

DL detection limitGW groundwaterHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatoLOD limit of detectioND analyte not deteOSD Office of the SeQSM Quality SystemQual interpreted quaUSEPA United States Eng/l nanogram per l

Sample Date

AOI01

AOI01-01-GW

07/13/2021

Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

AOI01

AOI01-03-GW

07/15/2021

AOI01

AOI01-04-GW

07/15/2021

AOI01

AOI01-02-GW

07/14/2021

AOI01

AOI01-02-GW-D

07/14/2021

Area of Interest

Sample ID

AECOM 
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-1

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/17/2022

8/17/2022

8/17/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/17/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

Depth Intervals*

Shallow = 0-2 ft bgs

Intermediate = 5-12 ft bgs

Deep = 16-34 ft bgs

AECOM 6-9
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-2

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/15/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

Depth Intervals*

Shallow = 0-2 ft bgs

Intermediate = 5-12 ft bgs

Deep = 16-34 ft bgs

AECOM 6-10
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/15/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

Depth Intervals*

Shallow = 0-2 ft bgs

Intermediate = 5-12 ft bgs

Deep = 16-34 ft bgs

AECOM 6-11
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/15/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

Depth Intervals*

Shallow = 0-2 ft bgs

Intermediate = 5-12 ft bgs

Deep = 16-34 ft bgs

AECOM 6-12
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/15/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

Depth Intervals*

Shallow = 0-2 ft bgs

Intermediate = 5-12 ft bgs

Deep = 16-34 ft bgs

AECOM 6-13
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

10/5/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

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

AECOM 6-14
AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PROJECT

0 25 50 100

Feet

Figure 6-7

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

Site Inspection at Roseville Armory, CA

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

8/15/2022

MS

MB

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/15/2022

1:600

Legend

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFHxS PFNA

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

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

AECOM 6-15
6-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSM for AOI 1: Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard, revised based on the SI findings, is

presented on Figure 7-1. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a 

receptor may be impacted, the decision to move from SI to RI or interim action is determined 

based upon exceedances of the SLs for the relevant compounds and whether the release is more 

than likely attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents the current understanding of the site conditions 

with respect to known and suspected sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration 

pathways, and potentially exposed human receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered 

potentially complete when the following conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figures use an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with an incomplete pathway 

generally warrant no further action. However, the pathway is considered potentially complete if the 

relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled circle symbol to 

represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely filled circle symbol is 

used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has detections of relevant 

compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway that have 

detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further investigation. Although 

the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the 

recommendation for future study in an RI or no action at this time is based on the comparison of 

the SI analytical results for the relevant compounds to the SLs.

In general, the potential routes of exposure to the relevant compounds are ingestion and 

inhalation. Human exposure via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice 

suggests it is an insignificant pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal 

pathways are sparse and continue to be the subject of toxicological study. The receptors 

evaluated are consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2001). 

Receptors at the facility include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction 

workers, trespassers, residents outside the facility boundary, and recreational users outside of 

the facility boundary. 

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

The SI results in soil were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors at AOI 1 based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

AFFF may have been released at AOI 1 due to storage of AFFF and a parked firetruck that 

contained AFFF. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 1. 

Site workers, future construction workers, and trespassers could contact constituents in surface 

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

for site workers future construction workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. 

Additionally, off-facility residential and recreational users may potentially be exposed to 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 7-2

constituents in surface soil via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility ground disturbing activities. 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in subsurface soil at AOI 1. Potential future construction 

workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via incidental ingestion; therefore, the 

subsurface soil exposure pathway for construction workers is potentially complete. The CSM for 

AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

The SI results in groundwater were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors based on the aforementioned criteria.

7.2.1 AOI 1 

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

collected at AOI 1; PFBS and PFHxS were detected below their SLs. Due to the unknown depths 

of water supply wells reported within 1 mile of the facility, and the unknown interaction between 

impacted shallow groundwater and the water supply aquifer(s), to be conservative, the 

groundwater exposure pathway for site workers, off-facility residents, and recreational users is 

considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured in July 2021 during the SI ranged 

from 8.06 to 31.64 feet bgs. Therefore, groundwater may be encountered during potential future 

construction activities, and the ingestion exposure pathway for construction workers is considered 

potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

The SI results in soil and groundwater, in combination with knowledge of the fate and transport 

properties of PFAS, were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists 

between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1 

PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. Because PFOA, PFBS, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil and groundwater at 

AOI 1 (with PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA exceeding SLs in groundwater), it is possible for those 

compounds to migrate from soil and groundwater to nearby wetlands via groundwater discharge 

or stormwater conveyance. All surface water from the facility eventually drains north and west to 

the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek. The closest surface water bodies are a retention pond 

about 0.5 miles northeast of the facility, at the Sierra View Country Club, and an unnamed tributary 

of the South Branch Pleasant Grove Creek, located approximately 0.3 miles to the north. 

Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for recreational users of 

the nearby water bodies is considered potentially complete. There are no wetland areas located 

on the facility. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1 Potential

AFFF Release

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

particulate

Surface Soil

Surface

Water/

sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

/ / / /

/ / /

/ / / /

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Roseville Armory

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Surface Soil

Surface

Water Flow

NOTES

1. The resident and recreational users

refer to off-site receptors.

2. No current active construction at the

facility.

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker2 Resident1

Recreational 

User/ Trespasser1

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker2 Resident1 Recreational 

User/ Trespasser1

/

AECOM 7-3
AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

OM 7-4
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 8-1

8. Summary and Outcome

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. 

The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs. 

8.1 SI Activities

The SI field activities were conducted from 12 to 15 July 2021 and consisted of utility clearance, 

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

sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), samples 

were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 

Table B-15 as follows. 

• Twelve (12) soil samples from four soil borings;

• Four grab groundwater samples from four temporary wells;

• Fourteen (14) QA/QC samples.

An SI is conducted when the PA determines an AOI exists based on probable use, storage, and/or 

disposal of PFAS-containing materials. The SI includes multi-media sampling at the AOI to 

determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is 

warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is 

required. Additionally, the CSM was refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOI, which are 

described in Section 7. 

8.2 Outcome 

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in an RI for AOI 1: 

Firetruck Parking and Storage Yard (see Table 8-1). Based on the CSM developed and revised 

in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure to drinking water receptors from AOI 1 

from sources on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities. Sample analytical 

concentrations collected during the SI were compared to the project SLs in soil and groundwater, 

as described in Table 6-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows:

• At AOI 1:

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

AOI 1 were below their respective SLs.

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

exceed the SL of 6 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 538 ng/L at location

AOI01-02 (Duplicate). PFOS exceed the SL of 4 ng/L, with a maximum concentration

of 22.4 ng/L at location AOI01-02. PFNA exceed the SL of 6 ng/L, with a maximum

concentration of 21.9 ng/L at location AOI01-02. Based on the results of the SI,

further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in an RI.

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

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

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 8-2

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

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

AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is 

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

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

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should 

be considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. 

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility Boundary

Future 

Action

1

Firetruck 

Parking and 

Storage Yard

Proceed 

to RI 

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 9-1

9. References

AECOM. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance 

Project Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

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

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

AECOM. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid 

(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July.

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Roseville Armory, California. January. 

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

Addendum, Roseville Armory, California, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

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

AECOM. 2021b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Roseville Armory, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic 

Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide. June.

Applied Engineering and Geology, Inc. 2009. Quarterly Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2008, 

Placer County, Roseville Corporation Yard, 200 Corporation Yard Road, Roseville, Placer 

County, California 95678. January 23, 2009.

Arkley, R. J. 1962. The Geology, Geomorphology, and Soils of the San Joaquin Valley in the 

Vicinity of the Merced River, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin, no.

182.

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 

6 July. 

Black Point Environmental, Inc. 2011. No Further Action Request, 510 Washington Boulevard, 

Roseville, California. September 16, 2011.

California Department of Water Resources. 2019. Well Completion Reports Database. 

https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells/Well-Completion-Reports. 

(Accessed May 2019)

City of Roseville. 2004. City of Roseville 2020 General Plan, adopted February 4, 2004, 

https://www.roseville.ca.us/government/departments/development_services/planning/specifi

c_plans_planning_areas/downtown_specific_plan. (Accessed April 2019).

Cline, G., Neigher, A., and Bellinder, A. 2010. Climate of Sacramento, California. National 

Weather Service Office, Sacramento, California. August.

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.

4 September.

DoD. 2019a. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. 

DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 

4 November.
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 9-2

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2021. Standard Operating Procedure No. 042A 

for Treating Liquid Investigation-Derived Material (Purge water, drilling water, and 

decontamination fluids). Revision 1. March.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)TM. 2019. Geocheck Report for Roseville Armory, CA.

FireDepartment.net. n.d. 233rd Engineer Det Army Firefighting Team. 

https://www.firedepartment.net/directory/california/placer-county/roseville/233rdengineerdet-army-firefighting-team. (Accessed May 2019).

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at 

Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology 

47(9): 4164-71.

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

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

ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

Sellens Consulting LLC. 2016. No Further Action Report (Low Threat Underground Storage Tank 

Case Closure Policy), Placer County Fairgrounds, 800 All American City Boulevard, Roseville, 

California 95678, Case #310258. January 29, 2016.

Shlemon, R. J., Horner, T., Florsheim, J. 2000. Quaternary Geology of the Sacramento Area, 

Association of Engineering Geologist, Sacramento Section, Guidebook for Field Trip. March.

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

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. 2017a. UCMR 3 (2013-2015) Occurrence Data by State. Occurrence Data for the 

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. Accessed 9 July 2019 at https://www.epa.gov/

dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule. January.

USEPA. 2017b. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January.

USFWS. 2021. Species by County Report, County: Placer, California. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 30 November 2021 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=06061. 

USGS. 2012. USGS US Topo 7.5-minute map for Roseville, CA. USGS – National Geospatial 

Technical Operations Center.

White, Thomas (CAARNG Real Estate Manager). Re: CAARNG Leasing Documents. Message 

to Stephanie Tjan (AECOM). 2019. E-mail. 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 9-3

Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74. 
Site Inspection Report

Roseville Armory, California

AECOM 9-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK