FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Marianna Readiness Center

Marianna, Florida

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
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................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........................................................................................................2-3

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

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

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

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

3.1 AOI 1 Well Pump House........................................................................................3-1

3.2 Adjacent Sources ..................................................................................................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 .............................................................................5-3

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling...............................5-4

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

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

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

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.........................................................6-3

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

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

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway .........................................................................................7-1
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM iii

Appendices

Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

B3. Field Change Request Forms

B4. Survey Data

B5. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons

B6. Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs and Well Construction Forms 

Appendix F Analytical Results and Potable Well 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, February 2022

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations 

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

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

Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

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

Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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

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

DOT Department of Transportation

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FedEx Federal Express

FLARNG Florida Army National Guard

GPS Global positioning system

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM vi

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RC Readiness Center

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
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to address immediate threats, or no further action is required because there is no release that is 

the responsibility of the ARNG or based on SLs for relevant compounds. This SI was completed 

at the Marianna Readiness Center (RC) in Marianna, Florida. The Marianna RC will also be 

referred to as the “facility” throughout this document.

The Marianna RC is located in Jackson County, Florida. The facility is currently used as a logistical 

support RC and home to a ground transportation unit. The Florida ARNG (FLARNG) has operated 

at the subject property since 1956. FLARNG leases the property through the Trustees of the 

Internal Improvement Fund of the state of Florida for use as an RC. Two storage buildings are 

located south of the main RC building, and a covered, non-enclosed structure used for vehicle 

maintenance is located at the southwest corner of the property.

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

were compared to OSD SLs. Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for the AOI. At no point during 

either the PA or the SI was there any evidence that any of the relevant compounds were the result 

of current or historical ARNG/DoD activities.

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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 Well Pump House

No further 

action 

under 

CERCLA 

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic 

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

Readiness Center (RC) in Marianna, Florida. The Marianna RC 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 Marianna RC (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2020) that

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

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

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

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

action is required because there is no release that is the responsibility of the ARNG or 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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

The Marianna RC is located off US 90 (parallel to Interstate 10), approximately 4 miles west of 

the City of Marianna in Jackson County, Florida (Figure 2-1). The facility is currently used as a 

logistical support RC and home to a ground transportation unit. The Florida ARNG (FLARNG) has 

operated at the subject property since 1956. FLARNG leases the property through the Trustees 

of the Internal Improvement Fund of the state of Florida for use as an RC. The facility is situated 

on approximately 5 acres, with a 20,868 square-foot building (Jackson County Property Appraiser, 

2019). Two storage buildings are located south of the main RC building, and a covered, nonenclosed structure used for vehicle maintenance is located at the southwest corner of the 

property. Based on aerial imagery provided in the Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM (EDRTM) 

report, there does not appear to be evidence of major changes in facility operation from 1961 (the 

first available aerial image of the property) to the present (EDR, 2019).

A potable well used by the facility is located at the southeast corner of the property and is enclosed 

in a brick pump house. The well is actively used as the facility’s primary water supply and is 

equipped with a chlorination and filtration system.

Aerial imagery in the EDRTM report suggests the surrounding properties have remained 

predominately rural and residential, with the exception of state- and county-owned facilities to the 

west and south of Marianna RC. A state-owned facility was located about 1,800 feet southwest of 

the facility, prior to 1940. Property records and ARNG personnel interviews indicate that this facility 

may have operated as a prison prior to converting to the current Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) maintenance facility. The date of this transfer was not determined during 

the PA. An agricultural center located adjacent to and to the west and south of the Marianna RC 

was developed after 1955. Currently, area surrounding the facility consists of commercial and 

residential properties to the north, residential and pastureland to the east, and state and county 

properties to the south and west.

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

Jackson County is divided into three physiographic units: the Marianna River Valley Lowlands,

the Delta Plain Highlands, and the Terraced Coastal Lowlands, all of which are minor units of the

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Marianna RC is situated in the Marianna River Valley

Lowlands physiographic unit, which was formed as the result of erosion and deposition by a

number of streams, namely, the Chattahoochee-Apalachicola rivers, the Chipola River, Dry Creek,

and Holes Creek. The lowlands along each of these streams developed as floodplain terraces

and are considered one physiographic unit that was developed in the Marianna area through

complicated sequences of stream erosion, deposition, and capture (Moore, 1955). The resulting

topography is rolling hills consisting of clays, silts, and sands bisected by stream valleys with 

outcroppings of limestone (WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., 2003). The topography of the 

facility is generally level (Figure 2-2).

2.2.1 Geology

The following descriptions were adapted from a Florida Geologic Survey geological map (Green, 

et al. 2003). Near ground surface, the Pliocene-Pleistocene Citronelle Formation consists of 

sands and gravels with varying amounts of clay. The Citronelle Formation overlies the Middle 

Miocene to Early Pliocene-age Alum Bluff group, which consists of clayey sands and gravels, to 

stiff, greenish, micaceous clays with variable admixtures of silt, sand, and shell.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 2-2

The Lower Miocene-age Chattahoochee Formation lies unconformably below the Alum Bluff 

group and consists of brownish-gray, moderately indurated, sandy packstone to wackestone, with 

foraminifera.

Oligocene-age Marianna Limestone lies unconformably below the Chattahoochee Formation and 

is characterized as cavernous, white to gray, soft, fine-grained, poorly indurated, glauconitic, 

fossiliferous wackestone. In and around the town of Marianna, a grayish-yellow or light olivegreen dolosilt occurs at the top of the Marianna Limestone.

Late Eocene-age Ocala group limestones lie unconformably below the Marianna Formation. In 

the northwest portion of Jackson County, Ocala Group limestones are up to 200 feet thick and 

consist of moderately indurated cream- to white--colored grainstone with large benthic 

foraminifera. The Bumpnose member of the Ocala group has been identified in the vicinity of the 

facility and is characterized by poorly- to well- indurated, cream to white, fossiliferous packstone, 

and in some areas, wackestone.

During the SI, fine- to medium-grained sands and medium- to high-plasticity clays were observed 

as the dominant lithology below the Marianna RC. The borings were completed at depths between 

35 and 70 feet below ground surface (bgs). These results and facility observations are consistent 

with the reported environment of the region. Boring logs are presented in Appendix E.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The regional hydrogeologic framework of Jackson County generally consists of three aquifer 

systems: the surficial aquifer, the intermediate aquifer, and the Floridan Aquifer (WRS 

Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., 2003).

The surficial aquifer is relatively thin and composed of sand and clay terrace deposits and 

admixtures. The surficial aquifer surrounding the Marianna RC is encountered at approximately 5

feet bgs and is believed to flow towards the northwest, in concurrence with local topography. The 

surficial aquifer is rarely used for potable water supplies, as the clastic sediments that comprise 

this aquifer generally have low permeability and produce small quantities of water from wells. The 

surficial aquifer is generally under unconfined conditions and is recharged by local rainfall (WRS 

Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., 2003).

The intermediate aquifer is primarily composed of clays, sandy clays, intercalated sands, creamy 

white limestone, and greenish-gray marls; it is the confining unit between the surficial aquifer and 

the Floridan Aquifer, but it may be breached by sinkholes that provide localized areas of fluid 

exchange and semi-confining conditions. This unit is typically the Chattahoochee Formation and 

often contains thin irregular lenses of sandy limestone and dolomite, which may yield small 

quantities of water under artesian conditions. Recharge of the intermediate aquifer is through 

leakage from the overlying surficial aquifer (WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., 2003).

Collectively, the Ocala Group Limestones and Marianna Limestone comprise the Floridan Aquifer 

system in the Marianna area. All of these limestones are sources of groundwater for most 

municipalities and industries and are considered artesian (Moore, 1955). Much of the Florida 

Aquifer contains good secondary porosity caused by dissolution following deposition. The 

Floridan Aquifer is recharged where the unit outcrops at the surface or is breached by sinkholes. 

Regional groundwater flow in the Floridan Aquifer is to the south (WRS Infrastructure & 

Environment, Inc., 2003).

An EDRTM report conducted a well search for a 1-mile radius surrounding the facility. Using 

additional online resources, such as state and local Geographic Information System databases, 

wells were researched to a 4-mile radius of the facility (EDR, 2019). Three public water supply 

wells have been identified to the southwest of the facility that supply state and federal government 
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 2-3

facilities. One potable water supply well is present on the facility installed to a total depth of 220 

ft bgs. Based on current online real estate sales information for private residences in the local 

area surrounding the facility, private residences are supplied by private well water. Groundwater 

features surrounding the facility are shown in Figure 2-3.

The surficial aquifer at Marianna RC was encountered deeper than anticipated. Local knowledge 

was based on a nearby site investigated under the FDEP underground storage tank program and 

that site’s existing monitoring well network (WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., 2003). It is 

believed that the shallow clay deposits encountered at Marianna RC and the nearby area may 

form localized perched conditions for shallow groundwater. At Marianna RC these shallow clay 

deposits may intersect with stormwater drainages preventing the perched conditions and 

accumulation of the shallow groundwater seen in the nearby area. Depths to water measured in 

February 2022 during the SI ranged from 30.97 to 43.05 feet bgs (133.33 to 135.85 ft North

American Vertical Datum 1988 [NAVD88]). Groundwater was encountered only on the southern 

portion of the facility where it appears to be perched on top of competent limestone bedrock in 

monitoring wells AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and MRC-02. The limestone was not encountered in the 

northern portion of the facility at locations MRC-01, MRC-03, and MRC-04, even when drilled to 

greater depths. The borings are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2. Groundwater elevation 

contours from the SI are presented on Figure 2-4 and indicate groundwater flow direction is 

generally to the west-northwest in accordance with local topography.

2.2.3 Hydrology

One surface water retention area was identified at the Marianna RC, located approximately 80 

feet southwest of the main building. A surface water drainage ditch runs east to west, parallel to 

the US 90. Surface water flow appears to be directed to the north and northwest, toward the storm 

water retention area as well as the storm water drainage ditch located to the north of the Marianna 

RC Building. Springs are abundant in the area surrounding the Marianna RC because of the karst 

topography and geology. The facility is located in an area designated by the Florida Geological 

Survey and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as a Springs Protections 

Area (FDEP, 2011). The facility is located approximately 4 miles west of Jackson Blue Spring, 

which is defined as a 1st magnitude spring located in Jackson County (Bartel et.al, 2011). 

Connectivity between the storm water retention pond and local springs is not suspected. Surface 

water features surrounding the facility are shown in Figure 2-5.

Wastewater at the facility is managed via a septic system located in the grassy area west of the 

primary RC building and north of the stormwater retention pond. The wastewater drain field is to 

the north of the septic system.

2.2.4 Climate

The Marianna RC is located in Northwest Florida and the climate is characterized subtropical with 

hot and humid summers and mild winters. The average annual high temperature is 79 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F), the average annual low temperature is 56 °F, and average annual precipitation 

is 53.58 inches (US Climate Data, 2022). The threat of hurricanes is high during the 6-month long 

Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from 1 June to 30 November. Peak hurricane season 

occurs between mid-August and late October, when waters in the equatorial Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico have warmed enough to help support the development of tropical waves (Florida Climate 

Center, Florida State University, 2019).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The Marianna RC is currently owned by the state of Florida, leased to FLARNG, and is developed 

with the Marianna RC building, two storage buildings, and one non-enclosed maintenance area. 
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 2-4

Surrounding properties consist of commercial and residential properties to the north, residential 

and pastureland to the east, and state- and county-owned facilities to the south and west. 

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

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

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

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

surrounding area.

The following amphibians, clams, conifers and cycads, crustaceans, fish, flowering plants,

insects, mammals, and reptiles are federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed 

as candidate species in Jackson County, Florida (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2022). 

• Amphibians: Reticulated flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma bishop (endangered)

• Clams: Gulf moccasinshell, Medionidus penicillatus (endangered); Shinyrayed pocketbook, 

Hamiota subangulata (endangered); Purple bankclimber (mussel), Elliptoideus sloatianus

(threatened); Southern kidneyshell, Ptychobranchus jonesi (endangered); Fat threeridge 

(mussel), Amblema neislerii (endangered); Southern Sandshell, Hamiota australis

(threatened); Rayed creekshell, Anodontoides radiatus (under review); Southern elktoe, 

Alasmidonta triangulate (under review); Chipola slabshell, Elliptio chipolaensis (threatened); 

Tapered pigtoe, Fusconaia burkei (threatened); Oval pigtoe, Pleurobema pyriforme

(endangered); Choctaw bean, Villosa choctawensis (endangered); Fuzzy pigtoe, 

Pleurobema strodeanum (threatened)

• Conifers and Cycads: Florida torreya, Torreya taxifolia (endangered)

• Crustaceans: Coastal flatwoods crayfish, Procambarus apalachicolae (under review)

• Fishes: Halloween darter, Percina crypta (under review)

• Flowering Plants: Gentian pinkroot, Spigelia gentianoides (endangered)

• Insects: Southern snaketail, Ophiogomphus australis (under review)

• Mammals: Gray bat, Myotis grisescens (endangered); Tricolored bat, Perimyotis subflavus

(under review); Little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus (under review)

• Reptiles: Eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Crotalus adamanteus (under review); Gopher 

tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus (candidate); Eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais 

couperi (threatened)

2.3 History of PFAS Use

One potential release area was identified at the Marianna RC during the PA (AECOM, 2020). In

2017, the facility’s potable water supply well was sampled and measured low-level detections of

relevant compounds. Routine monitoring has continued since 2017; recent sampling from 

September 2021 detected levels of PFOS and PFOA in both pre- and post-treated water at the 

facility. PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L, with a concentration of 11 ng/L in both the 

pre- and post-treated water. PFOA was detected below the SL in the pre- and post-treated water, 

with concentrations of 4.2 ng/L and 4.1 ng/L, respectively. According to FLARNG personnel, AFFF 

has not been used or stored at the facility; however, the detections of PFAS may be indicative of 

a potential release in the vicinity of the well pump house and surrounding area (AOI 1). A 

description of AOI 1 is presented in Section 3.
Marianna Readiness Center

Legend

Installation Boundary

^_

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BM

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:31,680

8/23/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 8/23/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

AECOM 2-5
Legend

Facility Boundary

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BM

2/23/2023

2/23/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:12,000

2/23/2023 ­ Figure 2-2 PM CM 2/23/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Topographic contour interval = 10 feet

AECOM 2-6
&<

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

1320263

1320444

1324256

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Chattahoochee

Formation

Residuum on Oligocene

Sediments

Suwannee Limestone -

Marianna Limestone

Undifferentiated

Wells

&<

Water Supply Well

!C( Public Water Supply

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

MS

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:15,840

8/23/2022 ­ Figure 2-3 PM CM 8/23/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 0.125 0.25 0.5

Miles

AECOM 2-7
!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

AOI01-02

133.41

AOI01-01

135.85

MRC-01

DRY

MRC-02

133.33

MRC-03

DRY

MRC-04

DRY

134

134

Legend

!? Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BW

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

10/20/2022

1:1,200 ­ Figure 2-4 PM CM 10/20/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevations, 

February 2022

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

and the GIS User Community

0 50 100 200

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88. Feet

AECOM 2-8
SAPP BAY

WATERSHED

CARTERS

MILL BRANCH

WATERSHED

UPPER DRY

CREEK-CHIPOLA

RIVER WATERSHED

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BM

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:12,000

8/23/2022 ­ Figure 2-5 PM CM 8/23/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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, one potential release area was

identified at Marianna RC and designated as one AOI. The potential release area is shown on 

Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 Well Pump House

AOI 1 includes the well pump house and surrounding area, including the facility’s water supply 

well. In 2017, prior to the PA, the potable well was sampled (pre-treatment) and analytical results 

indicated low-level of the relevant compounds. Routine monitoring of the potable water supply 

has continued since 2017; recent sampling from September 2021 detected levels of PFOS and 

PFOA in both pre- and post-treated water at the facility. PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 

ng/L, with a concentration of 11 ng/L in both the pre- and post-treated water. PFOA was detected 

below the SL in the pre- and post-treated water, with concentrations of 4.2 ng/L and 4.1 ng/L, 

respectively. Analytical data for the initial 2017 sampling and subsequent monitoring of Marianna 

RC’s potable well are included in Appendix F. According to FLARNG personnel with knowledge 

of the facility since 2007, AFFF has not been used or stored in this area. However, the detections 

of PFAS may be indicative of a potential release in the vicinity of the AOI.

The potable well and pump house are located at the southeast corner of the Marianna RC property 

and provide water for the RC. The well was installed in 1957 to a depth of 220 feet bgs, and the 

pump is enclosed in a brick structure and is equipped with a chlorination and filtration system. 

3.2 Adjacent Sources

No off-facility sources adjacent to Marianna RC were identified during the PA. Four adjacent 

properties (FDOT Former Lee’s Motel, Thompson Tractor Co, Inc., FDOT-Marianna, and CAT Pit) 

were reviewed for their potential for off-facility contamination but are not considered to be potential 

off-site sources at this time (AECOM, 2020). 
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
&<

!C(

!C(

!C(

SAPP BAY

WATERSHED

CARTERS

MILL BRANCH

WATERSHED

UPPER DRY

CREEK-CHIPOLA

RIVER WATERSHED

AOI 1

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Groundwater Flow Direction

!C( Public Water Supply

&<

Water Supply Well

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BM

2/23/2023

2/23/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:12,000

2/23/2023 ­ Figure 3-1 PM CM 2/23/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

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

and the GIS User Community

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

&<

Well Pump House

SAPP BAY

WATERSHED

AOI 1

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOIs.

4.1 Problem Statement

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

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

were the result of the ARNG activities. The SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report.

4.2 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs included:

• The PA for Marianna RC (AECOM, 2020);

• Potable well groundwater analytical data at Marianna RC;

• 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, 2021); 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 horizontally by the property limits of the facility (Figure 2-2) and 

vertically by the shallow surficial aquifer. The SI was not limited by temporal boundaries. 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, 2021a).

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 4-2

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

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

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

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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, Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida dated 

August 2020 (AECOM, 2020);

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida dated October 2021 (AECOM, 2021); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida dated 

January 2022 (AECOM, 2022).

The SI field activities were conducted from 6 January to 4 February 2022 and consisted of utility 

clearance, direct push boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, and

grab groundwater sample collection. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021), 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:

• Eighteen soil samples from six boring locations;

• Three grab groundwater samples from three temporary wells; 

• Nine 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, Field Change Request Forms

are provided in Appendix B3, land survey data are provided in Appendix B4, investigationderived waste (IDW) polygons are provided in Appendix B5, and a Nonconformance and 

Corrective Action Report is provided in Appendix B6. Additionally, a photographic log of field 

activities is provided in Appendix C.

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

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

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

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

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

(USACE, 2016) defines four phases to project planning: 1.) defining the project phase; 2.) 

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-2

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

address the AOIs identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 7 September 2021, prior to SI field activities. The 

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

stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, FLARNG, USACE, FDEP, and representatives familiar 

with the facility, the regulations, and the community. Stakeholders were provided the opportunity 

to make comments on the technical sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP 

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

QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a).

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

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

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

Sunshine 811 “Call Before You Dig” Florida utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive 

work on 13 January 2022. Additionally, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems 

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

clearance of the proposed boring locations on 13 January 2022 with input from the AECOM field 

team and Marianna RC 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

One potable water source at Marianna RC was sampled on 6 January 2022 to assess usability 

for decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the sample collected at the truck 

maintenance area spigot (MRC-PW-01) determined that the water source at the facility was not

acceptable for use in this investigation; therefore, it was not used and an offsite water source was 

identified. The offsite water source was located at Brooksville RC, another FLARNG facility that 

was being investigated as part of the ARNG PA and SI program immediately prior to the field 

activities at Marianna RC. The Brooksville RC water source was sampled from a spigot on the 

south side of the C-23 Hangar (BRC-PW-01) on 21 December 2021. Results of BRC-PW-01 

confirmed the water source to be acceptable for use in this investigation at the time of sampling; 

therefore, it was used throughout the field activities. Specifically, the samples were analyzed by 

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the decontamination water samples

associated with the truck maintenance area spigot and C-23 Hangar water sources sampled for 

use during the SI are provided in Appendix F. Please note that field work was conducted prior to 

the release of the most current SLs and the PFOS result from BRC-PW-01 now exceeds its SL. 

As discussed in the DUA, the associated field sample results should still be considered usable for 

evaluating the presence or absence of PFAS at the facility and meeting the objectives of the SI. 

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, 2021). 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.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-3

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

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

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

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). A GeoProbe® 7822DT withDT22 dual-tube sampling 

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

collect soil from the top five 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. One boring location was adjusted within a 50-feet offset for reasons including drill rig access, 

utility avoidance, and bias toward sampling within observed drainage features.

In general, three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis 

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

top of the substantial clay unit due to no groundwater presence, and one subsurface soil sample 

at 13 to 15-feet below ground surface. 

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.

Soil borings completed during the SI found medium to high plasticity clays with varying levels of 

lean and fatty clay as the dominant lithology below Marianna RC. Fine- to medium-grained sand 

was seen throughout the clay layers. The borings were completed at depths between 35 and 70

feet bgs. Limestone bedrock was encountered in the southern portion of the facility in soil borings 

AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and MRC-02. The limestone is not present in the northern portion of the 

facility in borings MRC-01, MRC-03, and MRC-04. The deepest boring, MRC-04, was drilled to a 

depth approximately 30 ft deeper than the elevation at which the limestone was being 

encountered with no indication of groundwater or limestone being present. These observations 

are consistent with the understood 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) and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a).

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/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 when groundwater was encountered while 

drilling, which were subsequently abandoned in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2021) using bentonite chips at completion of sampling activities. Borings were installed 

in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-4

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7822DT with DT22 dual-tube sampling 

system at four of the six proposed groundwater sampling locations. At two locations, MRC-01 and 

MRC-04, temporary wells were not installed because groundwater was not encountered before 

refusal of the drill rods. After 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 in the 

open borehole with no sand pack and sufficient casing to reach ground surface. New PVC pipe 

and screen were used to avoid cross contamination between locations. One temporary well, 

MRC-03, could not be sampled because the well was dry. The screen intervals for the temporary 

wells are provided in Table 5-2.

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

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

period, groundwater samples were collected using a bladder 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 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, 2021).

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% 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. MS/MSDs were not collected at a rate of 5%

in accordance with the PQAPP (AECOM, 2018a). . Groundwater was not present in the last three 

proposed temporary monitoring well locations that were attempted. A MS/MSD had not yet been 

collected and the three temporary wells with groundwater had already been sampled more than 

24 hours previously. With no additional groundwater sampling conducted, no MS/MSD was 

collected.

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

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) by removing the PVC and backfilling 

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

each location was patched to match existing surrounding conditions.

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 4 February 2022. Groundwater 

elevation measurements were collected from the three new temporary monitoring wells. The 

fourth temporary monitoring well was dry. Water level measurements were taken from the 

northern side of the well casing. A groundwater flow contour map is provided in Figure 2-4.

Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-2.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-5

5.5 Surveying

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

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

data from the newly installed temporary wells on the facility were collected on 4 February 2022 in 

the applicable State Plane Coordinate System Florida North Zone projection with North American 

Datum Coordinate System of 1983 (NAD83) datum (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 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, 2021) and with the DA Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 

2018).

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

Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved steel drums and left onsite in a designated waste 

storage area. The soil IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated 

soil samples collected from that source location. ARNG will coordinate waste profiling, 

transportation, and disposal of the solid IDW. 

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

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

onsite in a designated waste storage area. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the 

characteristics of the associated groundwater samples collected from that source location.

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

onsite disposal with treatment, as appropriate) under a separate contract in accordance with SOP 

No. 042A (EA, 2021).

Geographic coordinates were collected using a global positioning system (GPS) around each 

location where IDW was placed (i.e., an IDW polygon). The IDW polygons are displayed on the 

figure in Appendix B5.

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

Five deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum were identified during review of the field 

documentation. The deviations are noted below and are documented in Field Change Request 

Forms (Appendix B3) and a Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report (Appendix B6): 

• Soil sampling and temporary well installation at original location MRC-02 was unable to be 

completed as planned. The drill rig was unable to access the location due to the risk of 

damaging the concrete spillway of the stormwater retention pond at the facility. The location 
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-6

for MRC-02 was moved approximately 50-feet north to a pre-cleared alternate location. This 

deviation was documented in a field change request form provided in Appendix B3. 

• During drilling activities, groundwater was encountered deeper than originally anticipated. 

Additional soil samples were collected at all boring locations. One additional sample was 

collected at depth that was not part of the original soil sampling scope. From each boring, 

soil samples were collected at the surface, on top of the substantial clay unit at the facility,

where groundwater was originally inferred to be (5 to 7 feet bgs), as well as one sample at 

13 to 15 feet bgs. This deviation was documented in a field change request form provided 

in Appendix B3. 

• At sampling locations MRC-01, MRC-03, and MRC-04, no water bearing unit was 

encountered within the lithology at any of the three borings. While a temporary well was 

installed at MRC-03, no water was able to be recovered. No temporary wells were installed 

at either MRC-01 or MRC-04. No alternative drilling method was available, and the area 

cleared of utilities was limited to a 10-foot square; therefore, additional attempts were not 

made to install temporary monitoring wells. This deviation was documented in a field change 

request form provided in Appendix B3. 

• Groundwater was not present in the last three proposed temporary monitoring well locations 

that were attempted. A MS/MSD had not yet been collected and the three temporary wells 

with groundwater had already been sampled more than 24 hours previously. With no 

additional groundwater sampling conducted, no MS/MSD was collected. This deviation was 

documented in a nonconformance and corrective action report provided in Appendix B6.

• Due to a laboratory error, the grain size sample collected at location MRC-04 was not 

analyzed. This deviation was documented in a nonconformance and corrective action 

reported provided in Appendix B6.
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center, Florida

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

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

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-(0-2) 2/1/2022 10:45 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-(0-2)-D 2/1/2022 10:45 0 - 2 x FD

AOI01-01-SB-(5-6) 2/2/2022 7:45 5 - 6 x

AOI01-01-SB-(13-15) 2/2/2022 10:30 13 - 15 x x x

AOI01-01-SB-(13-15)-D 2/2/2022 10:30 13 - 15 x x FD

AOI01-01-SB-(13-15)-MS 2/2/2022 10:30 13 - 15 x x MS

AOI01-01-SB-(13-15)-MSD 2/2/2022 10:30 13 - 15 x x MSD

AOI01-02-SB-(0-2) 2/1/2022 10:20 0 - 2 x

AOI01-02-SB-(3-5) 2/2/2022 14:33 3 - 5 x

AOI01-02-SB-(3-5)-MS 2/2/2022 14:33 3 - 5 x MS

AOI01-02-SB-(3-5)-MSD 2/2/2022 14:33 3 - 5 x MSD

AOI01-02-SB-(13-15) 2/2/2022 15:00 13 - 15 x

MRC-01-SB-(0-2) 2/1/2022 11:43 0 - 2 x

MRC-01-SB-(4-5) 2/4/2022 10:45 4 - 5 x

MRC-01-SB-(13-15) 2/4/2022 10:50 13 - 15 x

MRC-02-SB-(0-2) 2/2/2022 12:10 0 - 2 x x x

MRC-02-SB-(8-9) 2/2/2022 12:30 8 - 9 x

MRC-02-SB-(13-15) 2/2/2022 12:53 13 - 15 x

MRC-03-SB-(0-2) 2/3/2022 15:22 0 - 2 x

MRC-03-SB-(4-5) 2/3/2022 15:25 4 - 5 x

MRC-03-SB-(13-15) 2/3/2022 15:45 13 - 15 x

MRC-04-SB-(0-2) 2/1/2022 8:40 0 - 2 x

MRC-04-SB-(0-2)-D 2/1/2022 8:40 0 - 2 x FD

MRC-04-SB-(2-3) 2/3/2022 14:45 2 - 3 x

MRC-04-SB-(13-15) 2/3/2022 14:50 13 - 15 x

MRC-04-SB-(15-20) 2/1/2022 8:40 15 - 20 x

AOI01-01-GW 2/3/2022 14:30 NA x

AOI01-01-GW-D 2/3/2022 14:30 NA x FD

AOI01-02-GW 2/4/2022 8:35 NA x

MRC-02-GW 2/3/2022 12:55 NA x

Soil Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center, Florida

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

MRC-PW-01 1/6/2022 11:20 NA x

MRC-ERB-01 2/1/2022 12:31 NA x drill rods 

MRC-ERB-02 2/3/2022 14:35 NA x bladder pump

MRC-FRB-01 2/3/2022 14:30 NA x

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

GW = groundwater

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MRC = Marianna Readiness Center

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

SB = soil boring

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Samples

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center, Florida

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 47.5 42.50 - 47.50 180.84 178.90 44.99 43AOI01-02 54.5 49.26 - 54.26 168.99 168.80 35.58 35

MRC-01 47 NA NA 180.80 DRY DR

MRC-02 35 28.87 - 33.87 164.43 164.30 31.10 30

MRC-03 50 35 - 45 171.86 171.20 DRY DRMRC-04 70 NA NA 164.90 DRY DR

Notes:

1 Temporary well screen set above total depth to capture groundwater interfaceAOI = area of interest

bgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingMRC = Marianna Readiness CenterNA = not applicableNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988

1

AECOM 
AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

M 5-10
!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Legend

!? Soil Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Groundwater Flow Direction

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BW

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

1:1,200

8/23/2022 ­ Figure 5-1 PM CM 8/23/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

SI Sample Locations

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

and the GIS User Community

0 50 100 200

Feet

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results 

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

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

6-2 through Table 6-4 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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

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

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

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1

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

AOI 1: Well Pump House. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-4. 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 

6-3 summarize the soil results.

Surface soil was sampled from 0 to 2 feet bgs at AOI01-01 and AOI01-02 and MRC-01 through 

MRC-04. Soil was also sampled at shallow subsurface soil intervals (2 to 15 feet bgs) at each 

location. Two shallow subsurface soil intervals were sampled at each location because drilling 

refusal was encountered before encountering groundwater during drilling.

PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS were detected below their SLs in surface soil as listed below. 

PFBS was not detected at any of the six surface soil locations. 

• PFOA was detected at AOI01-01 and MRC-03, with concentrations of 0.117 J 

micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) and 0.087 J μg/kg, respectively.

• PFOS was detected in all six samples, with concentrations ranging from 0.075 J μg/kg 

to 0.290 J μg/kg.

• PFNA was detected at AOI01-01, MRC-02, and MRC-03, with concentrations ranging 

from 0.035 J μg/kg to 0.044 J μg/kg.

• PFHxS was detected at AOI01-02, with a concentration of 0.054 J μg/kg. 

PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS were detected in shallow subsurface samples below SLs as listed 

below. PFOA and PFBS were not detected at any shallow subsurface soil samples. 

• PFOS and PFHxS were detected at AOI01-01, in the 5 to 6 feet bgs interval, at 

concentrations of 0.445 J μg/kg and 0.136 J μg/kg, respectively.

• PFOS was also detected at MRC-04 at the 2 to 3 feet bgs and 13 to 15 feet bgs 

intervals at concentrations of 0.058 J μg/kg and 0.261 J μg/kg, respectively.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 6-3

• PFNA was detected at MRC-04 in the 13 to 15 feet bgs interval at a concentration of 

0.058 J μg/kg.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-4

summarizes the groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and MRC-02.

Detections are summarized below.

• PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 nanograms per liter (ng/L) at AOI01-02 and 

MRC-02, with concentrations of 43.7 ng/L and 12.0 ng/L, respectively.

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at AOI01-02 and MRC-02, with 

concentrations of 28.1 ng/L and 26.8 ng/L , respectively.

• PFNA was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L at AOI01-02, with a concentration of 14.1 

ng/L.

• PFBS was detected below the SL of 601 ng/L at AOI01-02 and MRC-02, with 

detections of 7.32 ng/L and 1.66 J ng/L, respectively.

• PFHxS was detected below the SL of 39 ng/L at AOI01-02 and MRC-02, with 

concentrations of 32.1 ng/L and 3.51 J ng/L, respectively.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

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

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

respective SLs. However, at no point during the PA or the SI was there any evidence that any of 

the relevant compounds were the result of current or historical ARNG/DoD activities.
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFHxS 130 ND U ND U 0.054 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFNA 19 ND UJ 0.044 J ND U ND U 0.041 J 0.035 J ND U ND UPFOA 19 ND UJ 0.117 J ND U ND U ND U 0.087 J ND U ND UPFOS 13 0.080 J 0.290 J 0.272 J 0.205 J 0.186 J 0.114 J 0.075 J ND UJ

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

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

ft feet

Notes HQ hazard quotient

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionMRC Marianna Readiness CenterND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiμg/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 MRC

MRC-04-SB-(0-2)-D

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

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

MRC-03-SB-(0-2)

02/03/2022

0-2 ft

MRC-04-SB-(0-2)

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

MRC-01-SB-(0-2)

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

MRC-02-SB-(0-2)

02/02/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-01-SB-(0-2)-D

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-(0-2)

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-(0-2)

02/01/2022

0-2 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Resu

PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFHxS 1600 0.136 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND PFOS 160 0.445 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL 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 identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionMRC Marianna Readiness CenterND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

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

AOI01 MRC

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

MRC-02-SB-(13-15)

02/02/2022

13-15 ft

MRC

0

MRC-01-SB-(13-15)

02/04/2022

13-15 ft

MRC-02-SB-(8-9)

02/02/2022

8-9 ft

AOI01-02-SB-(13-15)

02/02/2022

13-15 ft

MRC-01-SB-(4-5)

02/04/2022

4-5 ft

AOI01-01-SB-(13-15)

02/02/2022

13-15 ft

AOI01-02-SB-(3-5)

02/02/2022

3-5 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-(5-6)

02/02/2022

5-6 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 ND U ND UPFHxS 1600 ND U ND UPFNA 250 ND U 0.058 JPFOA 250 ND U ND UPFOS 160 0.058 J 0.261 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of InterestU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL 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 identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionMRC Marianna Readiness CenterND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

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

MRC

MRC-04-SB-(13-15)

02/03/2022

13-15 ft

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

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

MRC-04-SB-(2-3)

02/03/2022

2-3 ft

AECOM 
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Marianna Readiness Center

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 601 ND U ND U 7.32 1.66 J

PFHxS 39 ND U ND U 32.1 3.51 J

PFNA 6 ND U ND U 14.1 4.53PFOA 6 ND U ND U 43.7 12.0PFOS 4 0.909 J 1.45 J 28.1 26.8

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acidPFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations

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

DL detection limit

Notes GW groundwater

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

ID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionMRC Marianna Readiness CenterND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protecting/l nanogram per liter

MRC

MRC-02-GW

02/03/2022

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

AOI01-01-GW-D

02/03/2022

AOI01-02-GW

02/04/2022

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

02/03/2022

AECOM 
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

1:1,200

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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 50 100 200

Feet

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-9
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

1:1,200

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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 50 100 200

Feet

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-10
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

1:1,200

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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 50 100 200

Feet

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

AECOM 6-11
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

1:1,200

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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 50 100 200

Feet

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

AECOM 6-12
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-01

MRC-02

MRC-03

MRC-04

Shallow Intermediate Deep

­ Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

1:1,200

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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 50 100 200

Feet

Legend

Installation Boundary

Water Body

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

AECOM 6-13
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-02

PFOA PFOS PFBS

­ Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

10/5/2022

1:1,200

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

0 50 100 200

Feet

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Groundwater Flow Direction

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 6-14
AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

MRC-02

PFHxS PFNA

Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Marianna Readiness Center, FL

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

8/23/2022

MS

BW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/23/2022

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

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

0 50 100 200

Feet

Installation Boundary

Water Body

Groundwater Flow Direction

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

1:1,200 ­

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

AECOM 6-15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

6-16
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

The CSM for AOI 1, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on Figure 7-1. Please note 

that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a receptor may be impacted, the decision 

to move from SI to RI or interim action is determined based upon exceedances of the SLs for the 

relevant compounds and whether that 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 and whether the release came from 

DoD activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the facility boundary.

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1

AOI 1 includes the well pump house and surrounding area. This area includes the facility’s water 

supply well.

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 7-2

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

and construction workers are potentially complete. PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in 

subsurface soil at AOI 1. Construction workers could contact constituents in subsurface soil via 

incidental ingestion; therefore, the subsurface soil exposure pathway for construction workers is 

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

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.2.1 AOI 1

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

1. Due to the presence of public water system wells within a 4-mile radius of the facility, the 

pathway for exposure to off-facility residents via ingestion of groundwater is considered potentially 

complete. The private water supply well at AOI 1 provides water to the facility; therefore, the 

pathway for exposure to site workers via ingestion of groundwater is also considered potentially

complete. Depths to water measured during groundwater sampling at the well locations, which 

were not dry, ranged from 30.97 to 43.05 feet bgs. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for 

future construction workers is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 

7-1.

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

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

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

between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1

PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1; 

therefore, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil and groundwater to 

the wetlands west of the facility or the on-facility retention pond via groundwater discharge or 

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

construction workers, or trespassers is considered potentially complete. The exposure pathway 

to off-facility residents is also potentially complete due to downgradient water bodies and wetlands 

where contaminants from groundwater may have migrated.
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1 Well Pump

House 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

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker3 Resident1 Trespasser/ Recreational User1

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker3 Resident1,2

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Marianna RC

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Trespasser/ 

Recreational User1

1. The resident and recreational users refer to offsite receptors.

2. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes:

AECOM 7-3
AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

M 7-4
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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 6 January to 4 February 2022 and consisted of utility 

clearance, direct push boring, soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, and 

grab groundwater sample collection. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI 

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

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

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

Table B-15 as follows. 

• Eighteen soil samples from six boring locations;

• Three grab groundwater samples from three temporary wells;

• Nine QA/QC samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

described in Section 7. 

8.2 Outcome 

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation is warranted for AOI 1: Well Pump House (see 

Table 8-1). Based on the CSM developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is also

potential for exposure to drinking water receptors from AOI 1. However, at no point during either 

the PA or the SI was there any evidence that any of the relevant compounds were the result of 

current or historical ARNG/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, and PFNA in soil at AOI 1

were below their SLs. PFBS was not detected in soil at AOI 1.

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

SL, with a maximum concentration of 43.7 ng/L at location AOI01-02. PFOS

exceeded its SL, with a maximum concentration of 28.1 ng/L at location AOI01-02.

PFNA exceeded its SL, with a maximum concentration of 14.1 ng/L at location

AOI01-02. 

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

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

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 8-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

be considered for a removal action, and/or further investigation under CERCLA. 

Table 8-1: Summary of Site Inspection Findings 

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Future 

Action

1 Well Pump 

House

No 

Further 

Action 

under 

CERCLA 

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

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, Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, 

Florida. August.

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

Addendum, Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid 

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

October.

AECOM. 2022. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida, 

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. January.

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

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

6 July.

Bartel, R. L., Barrios, K., Pritzl, M., & Coates, K. (2011). Jackson Blue Spring Water Resource 

Assessment 11-01. Havana: Northwest Florida Water Management District.

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

4 September.

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

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

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

4 November.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)TM. 2019. Geocheck Report for Marianna RC, FL.

FDEP. 2011, August 24. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geospatial Open Data. 

Retrieved March 4, 2019, from Florida Department of Environmental Protection Geospatial 

Open Data: http://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/1eea00d9f3794a12bc658e77de29574f_1

Florida Climate Center, Florida State University. 2019. Florida Climate Center, Florida State 

University. Retrieved March 5, 2019, from Florida Climate Center, Florida State University: 

https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/hurricanes

Green, R. C., Evans, W. L., Bryan, J. R., & Paul, D. T. 2003. Geologic Map of the Eastern Half of 

the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000 Scale Marianna Quadrangle, Northwestern Florida. Tallahassee: 

Florida Geological Survey.

Jackson County Property Appraiser. (2019). qpublic.net Jackson County, FL. Retrieved March 5, 

2019, from qpublic.net: 

https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=851&LayerID=15884&PageType

ID=4&PageID=7083&KeyValue=01-4N-11-0000-0140-0000
Site Inspection Report

Marianna Readiness Center, Marianna, Florida

AECOM 9-2

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.

Moore, W. E. 1955. Geology of Jackson County, Florida. Tallahassee: The Florida Geologic 

Survey.

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

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

US Climate data. (2022). Climate Brooksville - Florida. Retrieved November 16, 2022, from U.S.

Climate data: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/marianna/florida/united-states/usfl0687

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. Species by County Report, County: Hartford, Connecticut. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 16 November 2022 at 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=12063

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. 

WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. (2003). Site Assessment Report FDOT-Former Lee's

Motel. Tallahassee: WRS.