FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Camp McCain

Grenada, Mississippi

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

September 2023 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 AOI 1.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Release Area A ...........................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Release Area B...........................................................................................3-1

3.2 AOI 2 Release Area C...........................................................................................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
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

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. Nonconformance and Corrective Action Reports

B4. Survey Data

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs 

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, April 2022

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs below ground surface 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT direct push technology

DPW Department of Public Works

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FedEx Federal Express

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC.

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS matrix spike

MSARNG Mississippi Army National Guard

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

NPL National Priority List

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM vi

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WWTP wastewater treatment plant
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

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 Tables ES-1. 

The PA identified two Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically (see Tables ES-2). The objective of the SI is to 

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

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

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

was completed at the Camp McCain in Grenada, Mississippi and determined further evaluation 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2. Camp McCain will also be referred to as the “facility” throughout 

this document. 

Camp McCain occupies 13,027 acres in Grenada, Mississippi and is primarily in Grenada County; 

however, a small portion is located south of the county line, in Montgomery County. The facility is 

used for weekend training area for Mississippi ARNG units located in northern Mississippi and 

other National Guard and Reserve units from Mississippi and adjacent states. Camp McCain 

currently accommodates training activities at small arms ranges and non-firing tactical maneuver 

areas for armor, armored cavalry, infantry, mechanized infantry, artillery, engineer, medical, 

aviation, and other troop units. Numerous support facilities are also present within the 

cantonment, including maintenance shops, dining halls, barracks, paint shop, fuel point, and 

recycling center (AECOM Technical Services, Inc., 2020). 

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

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

the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation

for AOI 1 and AOI 2. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM ES-2

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1

Release Area A 

Proceed to RI 

Release Area B NA

2 Release Area C Proceed to RI

Legend:

NA = not applicable

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

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 Camp McCain in 

Grenada, Mississippi. Camp McCain is also referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. 

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

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

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

investigations. 

1.2 SI Purpose

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

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

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

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

further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or 

no further action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. 

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

included as an analyte at the time of this SI. 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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background 

2.1 Facility Location and Description

Camp McCain is located in Grenada, Mississippi and is approximately 13 miles north of the City 

of Winona (Figure 2-1). The facility is primarily in Grenada County; however, a small portion is 

located south of the county line, in Montgomery County. Approximately 8 miles to the northwest 

of the facility is the county seat of Grenada, and Interstate 55 is approximately 6 miles directly 

west of the facility. The latitude, longitude, and surface elevation at the main entrance of the facility 

are 33°41’29.9” N, 89°42’35.81” W, and 221 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

In the early 1940s, the War Department acquired 42,073 acres for the Army to establish a 

Triangular Division Camp. Once the camp was established, the name was changed from the 

provisional Grenada Triangular Division Camp to Camp McCain in honor of Major General Henry 

P. McCain from neighboring Carroll County, Mississippi. In December 1944, Camp McCain was 

designated an inactive facility. On 25 January 1946, the Army reported the 42,073 acres in fee 

surplus to the War Assets Administration. On 3 December 1946, 3,005.69 acres were withdrawn 

from surplus and licensed to the State of Mississippi for year-round use in support of the National 

Guard. In 1969, tracked vehicle training was added to Camp McCain, and in 1971 a maintenance 

facility was built. On 12 August 1986, an additional 4,600 adjoining acres were added to the Camp 

McCain property and increased the tactical training area. In 1987 and 1988, eight modern small 

arms ranges were constructed. All of the newly acquired land falls within the original borders of 

the facility, dating back to the 1940s. Through this expansion, Camp McCain has grown to its 

current size of approximately 13,027 acres. 

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Camp McCain is located in the North-Central Hill Section of the Coastal Plain physiographic 

province. Long-term erosion and a well-developed drainage system are the two main factors in 

producing the slightly rolling surface landscape on the facility (Brown and Adams, 1943). 

Topography tends to slope to the southwest, toward the Batupan Bogue Valley. Five stream 

valleys cut across Camp McCain in the northeast-southwest direction, and these connect to the 

larger Batupan Bogue Valley along the southern boundaries. Elevations at the ground surface 

range from 460 feet amsl in the center of the Camp to 200 feet amsl along the southwestern 

portions of the Little Bogue Valley (United States Geological Survey [USGS], 1983) (Figure 2-2). 

2.2.1 Geology

Camp McCain lies within the Mississippi embayment, a regional geologic feature whose 

sedimentary strata range in age from Jurassic to Quaternary and encompass a large area within 

the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic region, stretching from southern Illinois in the north to 

Alabama and Texas in the east and west. Structurally, the embayment is a southward plunging 

syncline. The embayment thickens down plunge, with the deepest Jurassic strata lying 

approximately 18,000 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the southern part of the region. Parts of 

the embayment have been subjected to regional metamorphism (Cushing et al., 1964). Near the 

facility, outcrops generally date to the Eocene Epoch with underlying Paleocene and Upper 

Cretaceous strata. The thickness of the Eocene and Paleocene deposits reaches a maximum 

thickness of 7,000 feet in the southern part of the region, with the Paleocene strata accounting 

for the lower 1,000 feet. The Eocene strata present within the area are the Claiborne Group and 

the Wilcox Formation. These outcrops in the Camp McCain area consist, in stratigraphic order, of 

the Kosciusko Formation, the Zilpha Shale, the Winona Sand, and the Neshoba Sand member of 

the Tallahatta Formation; the Wilcox Formation underlies these strata. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-2

The Kosciusko Formation, the Zilpha Shale, and the Winona Sand terminate southwest of the 

facility and the Tallahatta Formation directly underlies the facility (Thompson, 2010). The 

Tallahatta Formation consists of the Neshoba Sand, the Basic City Shale and the Meridian Sand

(Cushing et al., 1964). The Neshoba Sand is typically a fine, micaceous quartz sand with a 

thickness of about 50 feet. Underlying the Neshoba Sand is the Basic City Shale, a clay formation 

reaching up to 150 feet thick below Camp McCain (Mississippi ARNG [MSARNG], 2003). The 

Basic City Shale is composed of light-colored, sparsely fossiliferous clay- and siltstone with sand 

lenses. The unit ranges up to 150 feet in thickness (MSARNG, 2003). The basal member of the 

Tallahatta Formation (and Claiborne Group) is the Meridian Sand, a characteristically crossbedded, fine to very coarse quartz sand formation that averages 100 feet in thickness but reaches

up to 500 feet thick. The Meridian Sand’s contact with the underlying Wilcox Formation is 

determined by the presence of lignitic clay or other carbonaceous material characteristic of the 

Wilcox (Cushing et al., 1964).

The Wilcox Formation is undifferentiated in this section of Mississippi but does consist of two 

identifiable units: an upper shale and a lower sand unit. The shale unit is the differentiating marker 

between the Meridian-Upper Wilcox and the Middle Wilcox aquifers. These aquifers are the 

principal aquifers in the region. 

The unconsolidated deposits throughout the Camp McCain area consist of channel and floodplain 

deposits in the eroded stream valleys and terrace and weathered loess deposits in the uplands. 

The channel and floodplain deposits are classified as loose sand, clay, and vegetal debris up to 

20 feet thick. The terrace and loess deposits are described as loose sand, clay, and loam up to 

15 feet thick (Brown and Adams, 1943).

During the SI, soil borings were completed at depths between 10 and 40 feet bgs. Sand with clays 

and silts were predominantly identified in the top 5 to 10 feet of the borings. Underlying the surficial 

sands were primarily clays with varying amounts of sand. Boring AOI01-02 was an exception to 

these general observations. From 5 to 20 feet bgs, lenses of poorly graded sand alternated with 

lenses of silts with clay. Thickness of the lenses ranged from 0.5 to 5.5 feet. A sample for grain 

size analysis was collected at boring AOI01-02 from one of the silt and clay lens from 8 to 8.5 feet 

bgs (sample AOI01-02-SB-06-08) and analyzed via American Society for Testing and Materials 

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

(70.79 percent [%]) and clay (26.20%), with trace amounts of sand (3.01%). These results and 

facility observations are consistent with the reported depositional environment of the region.

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

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The Mississippi embayment aquifer system is the system of water-bearing units that underlie the 

Mississippi embayment, comprising a hydraulically connected system of various sand and clay 

units that encompass an area of more than 160,000 square miles. This system serves Mississippi 

as well as areas of Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Tennessee, and Louisiana. The most 

widely used aquifers in the embayment are those of the Wilcox Group, namely the Meridian-Upper 

Wilcox and Middle Wilcox aquifers (Darden, 1986a). The Meridian Sand and the upper part of the 

Wilcox Group comprises the Meridian-Upper Wilcox Aquifer.

Depth to groundwater varies throughout the region, but within the boundaries of Camp McCain 

historically ranges from below 1 feet bgs to greater than 50 feet bgs (Brown and Adams, 1943). 

Groundwater levels in the southeast section of Camp McCain ranged from 2 to 9 feet bgs and 

were determined by shallow (under 10 feet bgs) monitoring well installation completed in the 

shallow floodplain deposits. The soil gathered during the shallow monitoring well installation was 

characterized as sand, sandy loam, and clay with low total organic carbon content (USGS, 2004).
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-3

The local and regional groundwater flow in the Meridian-Upper Wilcox aquifer is to the southwest 

(Darden, 1986a; US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2009), and is shown in Figure 2-3. 

Groundwater data reported by Brown and Adams (1943) and in the USGS lysimeter study (2004) 

suggest shallow groundwater underlying Camp McCain is controlled predominately by the local 

topography, resulting in localized variations in the shallow groundwater gradient. 

Surface infiltration is the primary manner of recharge to the groundwater aquifer system in the 

Camp McCain area. Recharge to the Meridian-Upper Wilcox aquifer occurs on the ground within 

Camp McCain. Recharge to the Middle and Lower Wilcox aquifers occurs east of Camp McCain 

(Darden, 1986a; Darden, 1986b). Groundwater flows from high elevations and discharges to 

numerous wetlands and surface water bodies at and near Camp McCain, including Crowder 

Creek, Epison Branch, Campbell Creek, Little Bogue, and Batupan Bogue. 

Domestic and public water supply wells located downgradient of Camp McCain (i.e., west and 

southwest of the facility) are primarily completed in the Meridian-Upper Wilcox, Middle Wilcox, 

and Lower Wilcox aquifers (USGS, 1992). According to facility personnel, three wells are located 

at Camp McCain. Well #1 is located adjacent to and services the tank wash located northeast of 

the cantonment area. This 525-foot deep well draws water from the Middle Wilcox aquifer; water 

from Well #1 is solely used for the tank wash facility, not potable water. Well #2 was installed in 

2015, according to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality permit application 

(AECOM, 2020), to a depth of 390 feet, within the Middle Wilcox aquifer, for potable water use; it 

is located just south of the tank washing facility. Lastly, Well #3 is a potable well located near the 

fuel point. The depth of Well #3 is 429 feet (Mississippi Automated Resource Information System, 

2022) and is therefore likely located within the Middle Wilcox aquifer. The majority of Camp 

McCain now obtains its potable water entirely from on-site groundwater wells; interviewees noted 

that a small southeast portion of the facility is served by Hays Creek public water system. In 2017, 

National Guard Bureau conducted drinking water sampling at Camp McCain. Pre-treatment 

samples were collected from Well #2 and Well #3, and a post-treatment sample of finished 

drinking water was also collected and analyzed. The only analyte detected above reporting limits 

among samples was perfluorotetradecanoic acid, which was also detected in the field reagent 

blank. 

Depths to water measured in April 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.61 to 34.00 feet bgs. 

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

groundwater flow direction at Camp McCain is to the southwest. 

2.2.3 Hydrology 

Surface water from Camp McCain drains into several watersheds. In order of greatest areal 

coverage, Camp McCain drains to the Crowder Creek-Little Bogue, Sykes Creek-Batupan Bogue, 

Redgrass Creek, Mouse Creek-Little Bogue, and Grenada Lake-Yalobusha River drainage 

basins. These watersheds all lie within the Yalobusha River basin. 

Various sections of the facility lie within these watersheds (Figure 2-5). Drainage from 

approximately 67% of the facility, including the cantonment area, is collected into the Crowder 

Creek-Little Bogue watershed, drained mostly by Crowder Creek, Epison Branch, and tributaries 

of Campbell Creek. The Sykes Creek-Batupan Bogue watershed drains approximately 28% of 

the facility in the northwest. The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) falls on the divide between 

these two watersheds, with the majority of its footprint located within the latter. Both watersheds 

eventually drain to the Batupan Bogue. Approximately 5% of the northeast section of the facility 

drains north into the Redgrass Creek watershed, and Redgrass Creek empties directly to 

Grenada Lake, a reservoir approximately 3 miles north of Camp McCain that was formed by 

damming of the Yalobusha River. Trace percentages of the facility drain to the Mouse Creek-Little 

Bogue watershed in the east and the Grenada Lake-Yalobusha River watershed in the north. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-4

Other surface water features within the facility include 30 ponds, 116 acres of wetlands, and Hunt 

Lake. Hunt Lake is used for occasional training exercises, and recreational fishing is permitted in 

the lake. Hunt Lake is directly north of the WWTP on a tributary of the Batupan Bogue. Camp 

McCain does not use reclaimed water for irrigation or biosolids/biosolid derived fertilizer at the 

facility.

2.2.4 Climate 

The climate of the area surrounding Camp McCain is characterized by generally mild 

temperatures year-round, but with a noticeable change of seasons. Temperatures vary from 

average highs of 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to average lows of 30°F. The average annual 

temperature is 61.25°F. Average precipitation is 59.22 inches of rain (World Climate, 2022). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

Camp McCain’s current land use includes serving as a weekend training area for MSARNG units 

located in northern Mississippi and other National Guard and Reserve units from Mississippi and 

adjacent states. Camp McCain currently accommodates training activities at small arms ranges 

and non-firing tactical maneuver areas for armor, armored cavalry, infantry, mechanized infantry, 

artillery, engineer, medical, aviation, and other troop units. Numerous support facilities are also 

present within the cantonment, including maintenance shops, dining halls, barracks, paint shop, 

fuel point, and recycling center. Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change 

from the current land use.

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles are federally threatened, proposed, and/ or

are listed as candidate species in Grenada County, Mississippi (US Fish and Wildlife Service

[USFWS], 2022). 

• Birds: Wood stork, Mycteria americana (threatened)

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate)

• Mammals: Northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (threatened); Tricolored bat,

Perimyotis subflavus (proposed endangered)

• Reptiles: Alligator snapping turtle, Macrochelys temminckii (proposed threatened)

2.3 History of PFAS Use

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

released historically at Camp McCain (AECOM, 2020). AFFF may have historically been released 

at the facility during disposal and/ or storage as early as 2005. The potential release areas were 

grouped into two AOIs based on preliminary data and presumed groundwater flow directions. A 

description of each AOI is presented in Section 3. 
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JH

9/20/2022

9/20/2022

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

1:443,520

9/20/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 9/20/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

^_

Camp McCain

PROJECT

0 3.5 7 14

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-5
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
0 0.5

12

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Facility Topography

Figure 2-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

9/20/2022 MS

JH

9/20/2022

9/20/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

PM CM 9/20/2022

1:63,360

­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation

Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset,

AECOM 2-7
!C(!C(!C(!C(

!C(!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

!5

!5

!5

A!C(!C(

A!

!C(

A!

A!

!5

!5A!!5

!5

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

A!

A!

!5

A!

A!

!5

!C(

!5A!

!C(

!P

!P

!5 A!

!P

A!P!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!P

!C(

A

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A! AA!!A!

A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

&<

&<

Hunt Lake

Wilk in s

Creek

K n gi ht Creek

Jack Cr e ek

Bolton Branch

R ed Hi ll Branc h

Little Bogu e

Bu t putter Cr eek

P err y

Creek

Powell Creek

E pis onB ran ch

Coffe

Branch

Redgrass

Creek

Crowder Cree k

Sykes Creek

B a tupanBo gue

Big

Bogue

Campb ell C r eek

0 0.625 1.25 2.5

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Kosciusko Formation

Zilpha and Winona

Formation

Tallahatta Formation &

Neshoba Sand

Wilcox Formation

Wells

!P Domestic Well

!5 Industrial Well

!5 Irrigation Well

!C( Public/Municipal Supply

Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

&<

Water Supply Well

Groundwater Features

Figure 2-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

9/29/2022 MS

JH

9/29/2022

9/29/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

PM CM 9/29/2022

1:95,040 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

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

A!

A!

!5 A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

&<

&<

CrowdeCr

r e ek

Cantonment

Cantonment

1

1

PROJECT

AECOM 2-8
­ Figure 2-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

12/22/2022

12/22/2022

12/22/2022

MS

VG

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

12/22/2022

1:4,200

Groundwater Elevations, April 2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

?!

AOI01-01

208.87*

AOI01-02

244.25

AOI01-03

227.05

AOI02-01

230.93

AOI02-02

231.20

AOI02-03

230.97

240

235

230

230

235

240

245

225

225

245

?! Soil Boring

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groudnwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 175 350 700

Feet

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

* Elevation from AOI01-01 not used to construct groundwater map.

?!?!

?! ?!

Cantonment

A O I 0 1 - 0 1

2 0 8 .8 7 * A O I 0 1 - 0 2

2 4 4 .2 5

A O I 0 1 - 0 3

2 2 7 .0 5

A O I 0 2 - 0 1

2 3 0 .9 3 A O I 0 2 - 0 2

2 3 1 .2 0

A O I 0 2 - 0 3

2 3 0 .9 7

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Little Bogue

Dem e n

C

t reek

J ac kC er ek

B olton

B

ar n ch

Martin Cre ek

Brown Creek

Hurricane Branch

Red Hi ll Br anch

Coffe

Branch

Gibbs

Cree k

Kni g h

Ct er ek

Bu pt u t et

rCr e

e

k

Perr yCre ek

Powell Creek

Little Horse Pen Creek

Riv erdael Creek

E pis on

Bran ch

Red grass Creek

Cr owderCreek

Syk es Cre ek

Bat upanB ogue

B

gi B

go

u e

Camp b ell Creek

Crowder Creek-Little

Bogue

Watershed

Sykes

Creek-Batupan

Bogue Watershed

Perry

Creek-Batupan

Bogue Watershed

Horse Pen Creek-Sabougla

Creek Canal Watershed

Coles

Creek-Yalobusha

River Watershed

Butputter

Creek-Yalobusha River

Watershed

Redgrass

Creek Watershed

Grenada Lake-Yalobusha

River Watershed

Mouse Creek-Little

Bogue Watershed

McSwine

Creek-Yalobusha River

Watershed

0 1 2 4

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Surface Water Flow Direction

Surface Water Features

Figure 2-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

9/29/2022 MS

JH

9/29/2022

9/29/2022

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PROJECT Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

PM CM 9/29/2022

1:126,720 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

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

AECOM 2-11
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 2-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

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

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

identified at Camp McCain and grouped into two AOIs (AECOM, 2020). Additionally, the PA 

identified one potential off-site facility source, the Rockwell Grenada National Priority List (NPL) 

site, which is located approximately 8 miles northwest of Camp McCain. This NPL site historically 

had chrome plating operations, which commonly uses PFAS-containing mist suppressants. The 

potential release areas are shown on Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1

AOI 1 encompasses Release Areas A and B, which are located at the Camp McCain WWTP. The 

WWTP was constructed in 2005 and consists of three connected stabilization lagoons, three 

spray-irrigation fields, and a discharge treatment facility. The lagoon system is connected in series 

with spray-irrigation fields and a treatment facility. The spray-irrigation fields are located to the 

north and east of the lagoons on hills approximately 20 to 30 feet higher in elevation than the 

lagoons themselves. The treatment facility collects overland flow from the irrigation fields for 

treatment by chlorination, dechlorination, and aeration prior to discharging to a dry drainage ditch

that runs the southern length of the lagoons and connects to tributaries of the Batupan Bouge 

River. The WWTP system (lagoons, irrigation fields, and wastewater ponds) is unlined; however, 

dense clay soils are believed to restrict percolation of wastewater through soils (MSARNG, 2003). 

Sludge/biosolids have never been removed from the WWTP. Release Areas A and B are further 

discussed below.

3.1.1 Release Area A

Release Area A is the eastern lagoon. Between 2009 and 2011, approximately 3 to 5 gallons of 

AFFF were disposed of in the WWTP’s eastern lagoon over a period of 3 to 5 months. The lagoons 

are approximately 8 feet deep and unlined, as noted above.

3.1.2 Release Area B

Release Area B is the dry drainage ditch. In 2010, the WWTP was forced to discharge no more 

than 10 gallons of post-treatment effluent to the dry drainage ditch to collect compliance samples.

The dry drainage ditch is cobble-lined and approximately 300 feet in length before emptying into 

a grassy area south of the eastern lagoon. During the PA, interviewees reported that water flows 

through the ditch during heavy rainfall and travels west towards an unnamed tributary of the 

Batupan Bouge River. Because of the potential overlap in AFFF disposal to the eastern lagoon, 

Release Area B is also evaluated as part of the SI.

3.2 AOI 2 Release Area C 

AOI 2 encompasses Release Area C, the current Camp McCain Fire Station (previously identified 

as Release Area A in the SI QAPP Addendum), which is a small two-bay building that contains 

one water-capable firetruck and a 1.5-gallon foam-capable Gator utility vehicle that had not been 

reported as being used with foam. A separate foam-capable truck was at the facility between 

2007-2008 and 2009-2011; the truck was never reportedly loaded with foam. One 5-gallon 

container of AFFF was reportedly stored at Camp McCain prior its disposal into the eastern lagoon 

of the WWTP. It is assumed that the container was stored at the Camp McCain Fire Station; 

therefore, the fire station is considered Release Area C and identified as AOI 2.
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
­ Figure 3-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

9/29/2022

9/29/2022

9/29/2022

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

9/29/2022

1:16,800

Areas of Interest

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

!C(

A!

!5

!C(

A!

!5

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

Release Area B &<

&<

Release Area A

Release Area C

Lit tle Bogue

Epison Branch

Big Bogue

CrowderCreek

AOI 1

AOI 2

Crowder

Creek-Little

Bogue Watershed

Sykes Creek-Batupan

Bogue Watershed

Sykes Creek-Batupan

Bogue Watershed

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

A! Other/Unknown Well

&<

Water Supply Well

Rockwell Grenada NPL Site

0 700 1,400 2,800

Feet

1

1

0 1 2 4

Miles

Cantonment

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOIs.

4.1 Problem Statement

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

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

SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs included:

• The PA for Camp McCain (AECOM, 2020); 

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

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

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling. 

4.3 Study Boundaries

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

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

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

owner(s). 

4.4 Analytical Approach

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 4-2

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

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

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

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

 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

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

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

in accordance with the following approved documents: 

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

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

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

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp McCain, Grenada, MS dated September 2020 

(AECOM, 2020); 

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

Camp McCain, Grenada, Mississippi dated March 2022 (AECOM, 2022a); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp McCain, Grenada, Mississippi dated April 2022 

(AECOM, 2022b). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 19 to 25 April 2022 and consisted of utility clearance,

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

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

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as noted in Section 5.8. 

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:

• Twenty-two (22) soil samples from 13 boring locations; 

• Six grab groundwater samples from six temporary wells; 

• Seventeen (17) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples.

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

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

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

in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, a Nonconformance and 

Corrective Action Report is provided in Appendix B3, and land survey data are provided in 

Appendix B4. Additionally, a photographic log of field activities is provided in Appendix C. 

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

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

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

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The USACE TPP Process, Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (USACE, 2016) defines four phases 

to project planning: 1.) defining the project phase; 2.) determining data needs; 3.) developing data 

collection strategies; and 4.) finalizing the data collection plan. The process encourages 

stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall project objectives, including 

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-2

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 10 March 2022, 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, MSARNG, USACE, Mississippi Department of 

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

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

sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The outcome of the 

combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). 

A TPP Meeting 3 will be held in March after the Draft Final Report is submitted to the regulators. 

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 

Mississippi 811 utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work on 11 April 2022. 

Additionally, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems, LLC. (GPRS), a private 

utility location service, to perform utility clearance. GPRS performed utility clearance of the 

proposed boring locations on 19 April 2022 with input from the AECOM field team and Camp 

McCain 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

Two potable water sources at Camp McCain were sampled on 22 February 2022 to assess 

usability for decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the sample collected at a spigot on 

the side of the Department of Public Works (DPW) building (CMC-DECON-02) confirmed this 

source to be acceptable for use in this investigation; therefore, the spigot was used throughout 

the field activities. Specifically, the samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3

Table B-15. The second sample was collected from the Firehouse spigot (CMC-DECON-01) but 

this water source was not used during the SI because PFOS exceeded the criteria (1/5 the SL) 

as stipulated in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). The results of both decontamination 

water samples are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the results is presented in the DUA 

(Appendix A).

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

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

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

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

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

member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

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

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

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a). A GeoProbe® 7730DT macrocore 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. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-3

At AOI 1, three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis 

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

soil sample approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample 

at the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table. At AOI 2, shallow groundwater 

was encountered and only two soil samples were collected from each borehole accordance with

the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a): one surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs) and one 

subsurface soil sample (2 to 4 feet bgs) collected above groundwater. Additionally, seven surface 

soil samples were collected from the top 2 feet of soil using a hand auger.

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

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

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

Observations and measurements were recorded on 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. 

During the SI, soil borings were completed at depths between 10 and 40 feet bgs. Sand with clays 

and silts were predominantly identified in the top 5 to 10 feet of the borings. Underlying the surficial 

sands were primarily clays with varying amounts of sand; boring AOI01-02 was an exception to 

these general observations. From 5 to 20 feet bgs, lenses of poorly graded sand alternated with 

lenses of silts with clay. Thicknesses of the lenses ranged from 0.5 to 5.5 feet. These observations 

are consistent with the understood depositional environment of the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) and Mississippi State guidelines. 

Wells were abandoned either using bentonite chips for wells with a depth of less than 25 feet bgs 

and bentonite via tremie pipe for wells deeper than 25 feet bgs. All wells were installed in grass 

areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7730DT macrocore sampling system. Once 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-4

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

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

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

pH, dissolved oxygen, 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, 2022a).

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

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

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

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

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

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

described above in Section 5.2. 

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 22 April 2022. Groundwater elevation 

measurements were collected from the six 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. The groundwater level at temporary well AOI01-01 was not used 

to produce the contours as the groundwater level was anomalously low. The low groundwater 

level was likely due to the high relief (up to 30 feet) from the hills directly upgradient of the well. 

Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-2. 

5.5 Surveying

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

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

Survey data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 25 April 2022 in 

Mississippi State Plane-West North American Datum of 1983 (horizontal) and North American 

Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). The surveyed well data are provided in Appendix B4. 

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

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

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

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a) and with the DA Guidance for 

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

Solid IDW (i.e., drill cuttings) generated during SI activities were containerized in properly labeled 

55-gallon drums. The containerized IDW were left in a covered structure onsite near the DPW 

building, which was designated by the Camp McCain Environmental Manager and MSARNG. 

This IDW was not sampled and assume the characteristics of the associated soil samples 

collected from that source location. Based on laboratory results, containerized soil cuttings will be 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-5

managed and disposed by ARNG. ARNG will coordinate waste profiling, transportation, and 

disposal of the solid IDW under a separate contract.

Liquid IDW generated during SI activities (i.e., purge water and decontamination fluids) were

containerized in properly labeled 55-gallon drums (see SOP 3-05). The containerized IDW will be 

temporarily stored onsite at a location designated by the Camp McCain Environmental Manager 

and MSARNG. This IDW will not be sampled and will assume the characteristics of the associated 

groundwater samples collected from the source locations. Based on laboratory results, 

containerized liquid IDW will be managed and disposed by ARNG (either by offsite disposal or 

onsite disposal, with treatment as appropriate) under a separate contract.

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

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

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 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 and is documented in a Nonconformance and 

Corrective Action Report (Appendix B3): 

• During DPT drilling activities, a subsurface soil sample was collected from 15 to 17 feet bgs 

at boring AOI01-01. 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. The total boring depth of AOI01-01 was 40 feet, and the mid-point samples were 

inadvertently collected at depths greater than 15 feet bgs. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain, Mississippi

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 11:45 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-15-17 4/21/2022 12:05 15 - 17 x

AOI01-01-SB-15-17-D 4/21/2022 12:05 15 - 17 x Duplicate

AOI01-01-SB-33-35 4/21/2022 13:15 33 - 35 x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 8:15 0 - 2 x

AOI01-02-SB-06-08 4/21/2022 8:40 6 - 8 x x Grain size collected from 

8 to 8.5 feet bgs

AOI01-02-SB-12-14 4/21/2022 8:48 12 - 14 x

AOI01-03-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 9:50 0 - 2 x

AOI01-03-SB-10-12 4/21/2022 10:10 10 - 12 x x x

AOI01-03-SB-10-12-MS 4/21/2022 10:10 10 -12 x x MS/MSD

AOI01-03-SB-10-12-MSD 4/21/2022 10:10 10 - 12 x x MS/MSD

AOI01-03-SB-18-20 4/21/2022 10:15 18 - 20 x

AOI01-04-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 10:30 0 - 2 x

AOI01-05-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 10:05 0 - 2 x

AOI01-05-SB-00-02-D 4/21/2022 10:05 0 - 2 x Duplicate

AOI01-06-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 9:25 0 - 2 x

AOI01-07-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x

AOI01-07-SB-00-02-MS 4/21/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x MS/MSD

AOI01-07-SB-00-02-MSD 4/21/2022 8:50 0 - 2 x MS/MSD

AOI01-08-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 11:10 0 - 2 x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 7:50 0 - 2 x

AOI02-01-SB-00-02-MS 4/21/2022 7:50 0 - 2 x MS/MSD

AOI02-01-SB-00-02-MSD 4/21/2022 7:50 0 - 2 x MS/MSD

AOI02-01-SB-02-04 4/21/2022 7:55 2 - 4 x

AOI02-02-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 8:00 0 - 2 x

AOI02-02-SB-02-04 4/21/2022 8:10 2 - 4 x

AOI02-03-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 15:15 0 - 2 x

AOI02-03-SB-00-02-D 4/21/2022 15:15 0 - 2 x Duplicate

AOI02-03-SB-02-04 4/21/2022 15:20 2 - 4 x x x

AOI02-03-SB-02-04-D 4/21/2022 15:20 2 - 4 x x Duplicate

AOI02-04-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 14:00 0 - 2 x

AOI02-05-SB-00-02 4/21/2022 13:45 0 - 2 x

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain, Mississippi

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI01-01-GW 4/21/2022 16:50 NA x

AOI01-02-GW 4/21/2022 16:20 NA x

AOI01-03-GW 4/21/2022 17:45 NA x

AOI02-01-GW 4/22/2022 11:15 NA x

AOI02-02-GW 4/22/2022 10:45 NA x

AOI02-02-GW-D 4/22/2022 10:45 NA x Duplicate

AOI02-03-GW 4/22/2022 11:00 NA x

AOI02-03-GW-MS 4/22/2022 11:00 NA x MS/MSD

AOI02-03-GW-MSD 4/22/2022 11:00 NA x MS/MSD

CMC-FRB-01 4/22/2022 8:40 NA x FRB

CMC-ERB-01 4/21/2022 13:45 NA x Off drill rig shoe

CMC-ERB-02 4/22/2022 9:15 NA x Off AECOM hand auger

CMC-ERB-03 4/22/2022 8:35 NA x Off driller hand auger

CMC-DECON-01 2/22/2022 12:30 NA x From Firehouse

CMC-DECON-02 2/22/2022 12:55 NA x From DPW building

CMC-DECON-03 4/21/2022 12:00 NA x From driller decon system

Notes:

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

DPW = Department of Public Works

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FRB = field reagent blank

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain, Mississippi

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 40 35 - 40 243.49 242.87 34.62 34AOI01-02 20 14.5 - 19.5 258.51 257.93 14.26 13AOI01-03 25 19 - 24 230.84 230.00 3.79 2.9AOI02-01 10 5 - 10 235.02 234.57 4.09 3.6AOI02-02 10 5 - 10 235.15 234.81 3.95 3.6AOI02-03 10 5 - 10 234.25 233.58 3.28 2.6

Notes:bgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

12

AECOM 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
­ Figure 5-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

4/5/2023

1:4,800

Site Inspection Sample Locations

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

?!

?!

?!

"S

"S

"S

"S

"S

?!

?!

?!

"S"S

Release Area C

Release Area B

Release Area A

Crowder Creek

AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Legend

?! Soil Boring

"S Surface Soil Sample

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 175 350 700

Feet

?!

?!

?!

"S

"S

Release Area C

AOI 2

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results 

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

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

through Section 6.4. 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

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1 

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

AOI 1: Release Areas A and B. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Table 6-2

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

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results 

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

6-4 summarize the soil results. 

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

AOI01-08. Soil was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (between 6 and 14 feet bgs) and 

deep subsurface soil intervals (between 15 to 35 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01 through 

AOI01-03. 

In surface soil, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected at concentrations below 

their SLs. PFOA was detected in two borings at a concentration of 0.099 J micrograms per 

kilogram (μg/kg). PFOS was detected in six borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.077 J 

μg/kg to 2.53 μg/kg. PFHxS was detected in five borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.261 

J μg/kg to 3.72 μg/kg. PFNA was detected in one boring at a concentration of 0.034 J μg/kg. PFBS 

was detected in four borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.044 J μg/kg to 0.332 J μg/kg. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in the shallow or 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 AOI01-03. 

Exceedances of the SLs were only observed at AOI01-02, which are described below: 

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

9.63 ng/L. 

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L, at a concentration of 60.6 ng/L. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-3

• PFHxS was detected above the SL of 39 ng/L, at a concentration of 62.3 ng/L.

PFBS was detected below the SL in all three wells, at concentrations ranging from 0.858 J ng/L 

to 16.6 ng/L. PFNA was not detected in any of the three wells. 

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

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

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

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

warranted. 

6.4 AOI 2 

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

AOI 2: Release Area C. The results in soil and groundwater are summarized on Table 6-2 through 

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

6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results

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

6-4 summarize the soil results.

Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) from boring locations AOI02-01 to AOI02-05. 

Additionally, shallow subsurface soil (2 to 4 feet bgs) was sampled from boring locations AOI02-

01 to AOI02-03. 

In surface soil, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected at concentrations below

their SLs. PFOA was detected in three borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.113 J μg/kg to 

0.290 J μg/kg. PFOS was detected in all five borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.087 J

μg/kg to 0.471 J μg/kg. PFHxS was only detected at AOI02-05, at a concentration of 0.045 J 

μg/kg. PFNA was detected in four borings, with concentrations ranging from 0.043 J μg/kg to 

0.325 J μg/kg. PFBS was only detected at AOI02-01 at a concentration of 0.048 J μg/kg. 

In shallow subsurface soil, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected at concentrations 

below their SLs, ranging from 0.036 μg/kg J to 0.252 J μg/kg. All detections occurred at boring

AOI02-03. PFBS was not detected in any of the three boring locations.

6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI2-01 through AOI2-03. 

Exceedances of the SLs were only observed at AOI02-03, which are described below

• PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L, at a concentration of 56.1 ng/L.

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L, at a concentration of 62.6 ng/L.

• PFNA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L, at a concentration of 10.1 ng/L. PFNA was

not detected in any other temporary well.

PFHxS was detected at well AOI02-03, at a concentration of 16.7 ng/L. PFBS was detected in all 

three wells, at concentrations below their SLs, ranging from 1.05 J ng/L to 5.74 ng/L. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-4

6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, 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 2 is warranted.
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U 0.332 J 0.051 J 0.055 J ND U 0.074 J 0.044 J 0.048 J

PFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U 3.72 1.06 J 1.12 0.347 J 0.445 J 0.261 J ND U

PFNA 19 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.034 J 0.031 J ND U ND U ND U 0.043 J

PFOA 19 ND U ND U ND U 0.099 J 0.099 J ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 13 0.122 J ND U ND U 0.527 J 2.53 0.921 J 0.077 J 0.981 J 0.206 J 0.087 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

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

DL detection limit

Notes ft feet

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LOD limit of detection

PFBS: 0.051-0.062 μg/kg ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFHxS: 0.101-0.123 μg/kg OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFNA: 0.051-0.062 μg/kg QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOA: 0.202-0.247 μg/kg Qual interpreted qualifier

PFOS: 0.202-0.247 μg/kg SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01 AOI02

AOI02-01-SB-00-02

04/22/2022

0-2 ft

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

AOI01-07-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-08-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-05-SB-00-02-D

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-06-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-05-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-03-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AECOM 6-5
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

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

PFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.045 J

PFNA 19 0.050 J 0.073 J 0.063 J ND U 0.325 J

PFOA 19 0.113 J 0.131 J 0.137 J ND U 0.290 J

PFOS 13 0.147 J 0.471 J 0.405 J 0.091 J 0.386 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

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

DL detection limit

Notes ft feet

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LOD limit of detection

PFBS: 0.051-0.062 μg/kg ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFHxS: 0.101-0.123 μg/kg OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFNA: 0.051-0.062 μg/kg QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOA: 0.202-0.247 μg/kg Qual interpreted qualifier

PFOS: 0.202-0.247 μg/kg SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

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

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI02

AOI02-04-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI02-05-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI02-03-SB-00-02

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

AOI02-03-SB-00-02-D

04/21/2022

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI02-02-SB-00-02

04/22/2022

0-2 ft

AECOM 6-6
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

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

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.036 J

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.040 J

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.171 J

PFOS 160 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.252 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

D duplicate

Notes DL detection limit

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. ft feet

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

PFBS: 0.051-0.059 μg/kg LOD limit of detection

PFHxS: 0.103-0.118 μg/kg ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFNA: 0.051-0.059 μg/kg OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFOA: 0.205-0.237 μg/kg QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOS: 0.205-0.237 μg/kg Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AOI01-03-SB-10-12

04/21/2022

10-12 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-02-SB-06-08

04/21/2022

6-8 ft

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s

Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of

contaminated soil.

AOI01 AOI02

AOI02-03-SB-02-04

04/21/2022

2-4 ft

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

AOI02-01-SB-02-04

04/22/2022

2-4 ft

AOI02-02-SB-02-04

04/22/2022

2-4 ft

AOI01-02-SB-12-14

04/21/2022

12-14 ft

AECOM 6-7
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain

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 U

PFHxS ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS ND U ND U ND U ND U

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

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

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

Notes PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: Acronyms and Abbreviations

PFBS: 0.057-0.059 μg/kg AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

PFHxS: 0.113-0.117 μg/kg AOI Area of Interest

PFNA: 0.057-0.059 μg/kg D duplicate

PFOA: 0.226-0.235 μg/kg DL detection limit

PFOS: 0.226-0.235 μg/kg ft feet

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

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

AOI01

AOI01-01-SB-33-35

04/21/2022

33-35 ft

AOI01-03-SB-18-20

04/21/2022

18-20 ft

AOI01-01-SB-15-17

04/21/2022

15-17 ft

AOI01-01-SB-15-17-D

04/21/2022

15-17 ft

AECOM 6-8
Table 6-5

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

Site Inspection Report, Camp McCain

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 601 0.858 J 16.6 1.18 J 1.05 J 0.841 J 1.58 J 5.74

PFHxS 39 ND U 62.3 4.01 ND U ND U ND U 16.7

PFNA 6 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 10.1

PFOA 6 ND U 9.63 ND U 1.48 J 0.970 J 1.30 J 56.1

PFOS 4 ND U 60.6 2.38 J 1.15 J 1.10 J 1.30 J 62.6

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL AOI Area of Interest

D duplicate

Notes DL detection limit

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. GW groundwater

HQ hazard quotient

ID identification

Limit of Detection (LOD) ranges for relevant compounds: LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

PFBS: 1.92-2.05 ng/L LOD limit of detection

PFHxS: 2.88-3.07 ng/L ND analyte not detected above the LOD

PFNA: 1.92-2.05 ng/L OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFOA: 1.92-2.05 ng/L QSM Quality Systems Manual

PFOS: 1.92-2.05 ng/L Qual interpreted qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/l nanogram per liter

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

04/21/2022

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

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using

USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

AOI01 AOI02

AOI02-02-GW-D

04/22/2022

AOI02-03-GW

04/22/2022

AOI02-01-GW

04/21/2022

AOI02-02-GW

04/22/2022

AOI01-02-GW

04/21/2022

AOI01-03-GW

04/21/2022

AECOM 6-9
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-1

PFOA Detections in Soil

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:7,800

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

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

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

0 325 650 1,300

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Shallow

Intermediate

Deep

AECOM 6-11
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-2

PFOS Detections in Soil

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:7,800

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

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

0 325 650 1,300

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Shallow

Intermediate

Deep

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-12
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:7,800

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

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

0 325 650 1,300

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Shallow

Intermediate

Deep

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

AECOM 6-13
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:7,800

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

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

0 325 650 1,300

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Shallow

Intermediate

Deep

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-14
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-06

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-05

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:7,800

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

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

0 325 650 1,300

­

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Shallow

Intermediate

Deep

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-15
Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowder Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections

in Groundwater

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:6,000

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

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFOA

PFOS

PFBS

0 250 500 1,000

­

Feet

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

AECOM 6-16
Crowde r Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

Crowde r Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876 Figure 6-7

PFHxS and PFNA Detections

in Groundwater

4/5/2023

4/5/2023

MS 4/5/2023

JH

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

4/5/2023

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Camp McCain, MS

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

INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong

1:5,400

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

Legend

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFHxS

PFNA

0 225 450 900

­

Feet

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

AECOM 6-17
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 6-18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figure 7-1 through 

Figure 7-2. 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. No construction was observed during SI field activities.

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 and AOI 2 based on the aforementioned 

criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 consists of Release Areas A and B. At Release Area A, approximately 3 to 5 gallons of 

AFFF were disposed of between 2009 and 2011. Release Area B is the dry drainage ditch where 

10 gallons of post-treatment effluent were released. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 7-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected below their SLs in the 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 pathways 

for these receptors are potentially complete. No constituents were detected in the shallow

subsurface soil at AOI 1. Therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathways for receptors are 

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

7.1.2 AOI 2 

AOI 2 consists of Release Area C, the current Camp McCain fire station, which currently houses 

a 1.5-gallon foam-capable Gator utility vehicle. Between approximate 2007 and 2011, a foamcapable truck was also housed at Release Area C, but the truck was reportedly never used. Lastly, 

a 5-gallon container of AFFF may have been stored at this location prior to disposal at Release

Area A. 

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

soil at AOI 2. 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 pathways for these receptors are potentially complete. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and

PFNA were detected below their respective SLs in subsurface soil at AOI 2. Future construction 

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

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

subsurface soil exposure pathways are incomplete for site worker, offsite resident, trespassers, 

and recreational users. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

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 PFHxS were detected above their SLs in groundwater collected at AOI 1. 

Domestic and public water supply wells screened within the Meridian-Upper Wilcox aquifer are 

located downgradient of Camp McCain. Therefore, the exposure pathway for offsite residents via 

ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured at AOI 1 

in April 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.95 to 34.00 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure 

pathway for future construction workers is considered complete. Additionally, during wet periods, 

the water level may rise to depths shallower than 2 feet bgs. Therefore, the incidental ingestion 

pathway for future site workers is considered potentially complete when the groundwater is 

shallower than 2 feet bgs. The potable facility wells are screened in the Middle Wilcox aquifer 

and, consequently, the exposure pathway for ingestion of groundwater for site workers via these 

supply wells is considered incomplete. The incidental exposure pathway to recreational users is 

incomplete because recreators are not expected to encounter groundwater at the facility or in 

downgradient potable wells. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2 

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

2. Due to the presence of offsite potable wells that are screened within the Meridian-Upper Wilcox 

aquifer and located downgradient of Camp McCain, the exposure pathway for offsite residents 

via ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured in 

April 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.61 to 3.64 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure 

pathway for future construction workers is considered potentially complete. Additionally, during 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 7-3

wet periods, the water level may rise to depths shallower than 2 feet bgs. Therefore, the incidental 

ingestion pathway for future site workers is considered potentially complete when the groundwater 

is shallower than 2 feet bgs. The exposure pathway for ingestion of groundwater for site workers 

via the potable facility supply wells is considered incomplete. The incidental exposure pathway to 

recreational users is incomplete because recreators are not expected to encounter groundwater 

at the facility or in downgradient potable wells. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 

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. Drainage from AOI 1 leads to an unnamed tributary of Batupan Bogue. Additionally, shallow 

groundwater may discharge to the nearby surface water bodies and drainage features. PFOA, 

PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1; therefore, it is 

possible that these compounds may have migrated from soil and groundwater to the 

downgradient surface water bodies. Although surface water and sediment were not sampled at 

the WWTP lagoons, AFFF was directly released to the eastern lagoon between 2009 and 2011. 

Therefore, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers, future 

construction workers, or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Also, due to potential 

recreational use of the Batupan Bogue and nearby surface water bodies, the surface water and 

sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility recreational users is also considered 

potentially complete. The residential exposure pathway for surface water is considered 

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

7.3.2 AOI 2 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 2. It is 

possible these compounds may have migrated via runoff, leaching, and groundwater discharge 

to nearby surface water bodies, such as Crowder Creek, which flows to the Little Bogue. 

Consequently, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers, 

construction workers, or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Also, due to potential 

recreational use of nearby surface water bodies, the surface water and sediment ingestion 

exposure pathway for off-facility recreational users is also considered potentially complete. The

residential exposure pathway for surface water is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 2 is 

presented on Figure 7-2. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 Release Areas A and B

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

AOI 1

PFAS in

Surface

Water

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1 Resident2 Recreational User/Trespasser2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1 Resident2 Recreational User/

Trespasser2

/

/

/ /

/ /

/

/

/

/

Notes:

1. No construction activities were

observed during SI field activities.

2. The resident and recreator receptors

refer to an off-site receptor.

Flow-Chart Stops

AFFF

disposed of in

WWTP lagoon

/

/

/

/

/

/

/ //

/

AECOM 7-5
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY

PFAS in

Surface Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 Release Area C

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

AOI 2

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1 Resident2 Recreational User/Trespasser2

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker1 Resident2 Recreational User/

Trespasser2

/

/

/ /

/ /

/

/

/

/

Flow-Chart Stops

AFFF storage

/

Notes:

1. No construction activities were

observed during SI field activities.

2. The resident and recreator receptors

refer to an off-site receptor.

/

/

/

/

/

/ / /

/

AECOM 7-6
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

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 19 to 25 April 2022 and consisted of utility clearance, 

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

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

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2022a), samples 

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

Table B-15 as follows. 

• Twenty-two (22) soil samples from 13 boring locations; 

• Six grab groundwater samples from six temporary wells; 

• Seventeen (17) QA/QC samples.

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

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

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

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

required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway 

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

described in Section 7. 

8.2 Outcome 

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

and AOI 2. Based on the CSMs developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential 

for exposure to drinking water receptors from AOI 1 and AOI 2 from sources on the facility resulting 

from historical DoD activities. Sample analytical concentrations collected during the SI were 

compared to the project SLs in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. A summary of 

the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows: 

• At AOI 1: 

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

AOI 1 were below their SLs. 

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS in groundwater exceeded their SLs at temporary well 

AOI01-02. PFOA exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L, with a concentration of 9.63 ng/L. PFOS 

exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L, with a concentration of 60.6 ng/L. PFHxS exceeded the 

SL of 39 ng/L, with a concentration of 62.3 ng/L. Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in an RI.

• At AOI 2: 

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

AOI 2 were below their SLs. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 8-2

• PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA in groundwater exceeded their SLs at temporary well 

AOI02-03. PFOA exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L, with a concentration of 56.1 ng/L. PFOS 

exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L, with a concentration of 62.6 ng/L. PFNA exceeded the 

SL of 6 ng/L with a concentration of 10.1 ng/L. Based on the results of the SI, further 

evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in an RI.

As discussed in Section 5.8, the midpoint soil sample at boring AOI01-01 was collected from 15 

to 17 feet bgs instead of 13 to 15 feet bgs, as described in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 

2022a). Therefore, no shallow subsurface soil was collected at this boring location to compare 

against the industrial/commercial soil SLs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1

Release Area A 

Proceed to RI 

Release Area B NA

2 Release Area C Proceed to RI

Legend:

NA = not applicable

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 9-1

9. References 

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

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

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

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

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

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

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

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Camp McCain, Grenada, MS. September. 

AECOM. 2022a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Camp McCain, Grenada, Mississippi, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

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

AECOM. 2022b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Camp McCain, Grenada, Mississippi, 

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. April. 

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

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

6 July. 

Brown, G.F. and R. Adams. 1943. Geology and Groundwater Supply at Camp McCain. Mississippi 

State Geological Survey Bulletin.

Cushing, E.M., Boswell, E.H., and Hosman, R.L. 1964. General Geology of the Mississippi 

Embayment, Water Resources of the Mississippi Embayment. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 448-B, USGS, Department of Interior. 

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

4 September.

Darden, D. 1986a. Potentiometric Map of the Meridian-Upper Wilcox Aquifer in Mississippi, Fall 

1983. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4018.

Darden, D. 1986b. Potentiometric Map of the Lower Wilcox Aquifer in Mississippi, Fall 1982. U.S. 

Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4059.

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.

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 and Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 
Site Inspection Report

Camp McCain, Mississippi

AECOM 9-2

Mississippi Automated Resource Information System. 2022. MS USGS Wells 2009. Accessed 1 

December 2022 at 

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.mississipp

i.edu%2Fserver%2Frest%2Fservices%2FHosted%2FMS_USGSWells_2009%2FFeatur

eServer&source=sd. 

MSARNG. 2003. Final Environmental Assessment, Proposed Construction and Operation of a 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Camp McCain Training Site, Mississippi. 

Thompson, D.E. 2010. Geologic Map of the Tie Plant Quadrangle, Grenada, Carroll, and 

Montgomery Counties, Mississippi. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. OpenFile Report OF-235.

USACE. 2009. Draft Final Operational Range Assessment Program, Phase I Qualitative 

Assessment Report, Camp McCain, Mississippi. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie for USACE 

Baltimore District, February 2009.

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

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

Innovation. January.

USFWS. 2022. Listed Species Believed to or Known to Occur in Grenada, Mississippi.

Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed 19 September 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=28043. 

USGS. 1983. Duck Hill Quadrangle. Mississippi 7.5-Minute Series, 1:24000 Scale.

USGS. 1992. USGS Public and Private Supply Wells. Geographic information system shapefiles 

for publicly and privately owned water wells monitored by the USGS. 

http://www.maris.state.ms.us/HTM/DownloadData/Statewide-Theme.htm. 

USGS. 2004. Quality of Water in the Unsaturated Zone at Camp McCain, Mississippi – 2002-

2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5279.

World Climate. 2022. Average Weather Data for Grenada, Mississippi. Accessed 23 September 

2022 at http://www.worldclimate.com/climate/us/mississippi/grenada. 

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.