Final 

Site Inspection Report 

Army Aviation Support Facility #2 

Wheeling, West Virginia 

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

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

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

September 2023 

Prepared for: 

Army National Guard Headquarters 

111 S. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ............ 2-3

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE ....................................................................... 2-3

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

3.1 AOI 1 – FIRE TRAINING AREAS, SURFACE DRAINAGE PATH, 

HAZMAT ROOM, AND TRI-MAXTM FILL AREA 2 .......................... 3-1

3.1.1 Hangar Ramp FTA .................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Wash Pad FTA .......................................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 Helicopter FTA ......................................................................... 3-2

3.1.4 HAZMAT Room ....................................................................... 3-2

3.1.5 Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2 .............................................................. 3-2

3.2 AOI 2 – AFFF Storage Shed and Tri-max Fill Area 1 ............................ 3-2

3.2.1 AFFF Storage Shed Tri-MaxTM extinguishers .......................... 3-3

3.2.2 Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1 .............................................................. 3-3

3.3 ADJACENT SOURCES .......................................................................... 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

3.3.1 Plane Crash Site 1 ..................................................................... 3-3

3.3.2 Plane Crash Site 2 ..................................................................... 3-3

3.3.3 Short Creek Landfill ................................................................. 3-3

3.3.4 Wheeling Ohio County Airport ................................................ 3-4

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 4-1

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................... 4-1

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS ....................................................................... 4-1

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES ......................................................................... 4-1

4.4 ANALYTICAL Approach ....................................................................... 4-1

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 4-2

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 5-1

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ................................................... 5-2

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ....................................................... 5-2

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

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

5.2 HAND AUGER SOIL SAMPLING ........................................................ 5-3

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER 

GRAB SAMPLING ................................................................................. 5-4

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

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

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

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS ....................................... 5-6

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SITE INVESTIGATION UFP-QAPP 

ADDENDUM .......................................................................................... 5-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.5 Facility Boundary ..................................................................................... 6-4
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

6.5.1 Facility Boundary – Soil Analytical Results ............................. 6-5

6.5.2 Facility Boundary – Groundwater Analytical Results .............. 6-5

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS.................................................................................. 7-1

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

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

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

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY........................................ 7-3

7.2.1 AOI 1 ........................................................................................ 7-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Data Usability Assessment and Data Validation Reports

Appendix B. Field Documentation

B1. Logs of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms 

B3. Survey Data 

B4. Field Change Request Forms 

Appendix C. Photographic Log 

Appendix D. Technical Project Planning Meeting Minutes

Appendix E. Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams 

Appendix F. Analytical Results

Appendix G. Laboratory Reports
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Facility Location

Figure 2-2. Topography 

Figure 2-3. Groundwater Features 

Figure 2-4. Surface Water Features

Figure 2-5. Groundwater Elevations, November 2022

Figure 3-1. Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1. Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFBS Detections in Soil 

Figure 6-4. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFNA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-6. AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater 

Figure 6-7 AOI 1 and AOI 2 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater 

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

Table 5-1. Samples by Medium, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West 

Virginia, Site Inspection Report

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

Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia, Site Inspection Report

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West 

Virginia, Site Inspection Report

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

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

Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia 

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

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West 

Virginia

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

Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia 

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

Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

% Percent

°C Degrees Celsius

oF Degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg Microgram(s) per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

AFFF Aqueous film forming foam 

amsl Above mean sea level

AOI Area of interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs Below ground surface 

btoc Below top of casing 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CoC Chain-of-custody 

CSM Conceptual site model

DA US Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DQO Data quality objective 

DUA Data Usability Assessment

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

EB Equipment blank

EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual 

FedEx Federal Express

ft Foot (feet)

FTA Fire Training Area

gal Gallon(s)

GIS Geographic information system

HAZMAT Hazardous material

HDPE High-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid 

IDW Investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council 

JPS Jet propulsion fuel (Grade 8) 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

LC/MS/MS Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

mg/kg Milligram(s) per kilogram

MS Matrix spike

MSD Matrix spike duplicate

NA Not applicable 

ng/L Nanogram(s) per liter

No. Number 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid 

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID Photoionization detector 

PVC Polyvinyl chloride 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QSM Quality Systems Manual 

RI Remedial investigation 

SI Site inspection

SL Screening level

TOC Total organic carbon 

TPP Technical Project Planning 

UCMR 3 Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 

UFP Uniform Federal Policy 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WHAASF #2 Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2 

WVARNG West Virginia Army National Guard
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Site Inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current or potential 

historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds 

presented in the memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) (Assistant 

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

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

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

acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA).1 These compounds are 

collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout the document and the applicable 

screening levels (SLs) are provided in Table ES-1.

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

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 

AOIs identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal 

action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on a 

comparison of SI results to SLs for the relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the 

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2 (WHAASF #2), in Wheeling, West Virginia, and 

determined further investigation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1. Based on the results of the 

SI, no further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted. WHAASF #2 is also referred to as the “Facility” 

throughout this document. 

WHAASF #2, operated by the West Virginia ARNG (WVARNG), encompasses approximately 

38.14 acres in Wheeling, West Virginia, within Ohio County, directly south of the Brooke 

County border. The Facility is located adjacent to the Wheeling Ohio County Airport, east of 

Runway 34. The WHAASF #2 has been an operational military facility for an active ARNG unit 

since the completion of construction in 1996 and the Facility provides support for helicopter 

operation and maintenance. The Facility is situated within the Allegheny Plateau, characterized

by steep hillslopes and ravines (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 2020). 

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

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

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

investigation (RI) for AOI 1. Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 2 is 

warranted at this time. 

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

Analyte2 

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)

1 

0 to 2 ft bgs

Industrial/Commercial

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)

 1 

2 to 15 ft bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels (SLs) in Groundwater and 

Soil using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Regional SL Calculator. Hazard

Quotient=0.1. May 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bgs = Below ground surface 

ft = Feet

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram

ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter

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

AOI Potential Release Area

Soil

Source Area

Groundwater

Source Area

Groundwater

Facility 

Boundary

Future 

Action

1 

FTAs, Surface Drainage Path, 

HAZMAT Room, and TriMaxTM Fill Area

2

Not applicable1 Proceed to 

RI

2 AFFF Storage Shed and 

TriMaxTM Fill Area 1 

No further 

action

Legend:

= Detected; exceedance of Screening Levels 

= Detected; no exceedance of Screening Levels

 = Not detected 1 No groundwater encountered prior to bedrock; therefore, no temporary wells were installed
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

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

Assessments (PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current 

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

compounds presented in the memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense 2022). The six compounds listed in the OSD 

memorandum will be referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout this document and include 

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

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

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

performed this SI at the Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2 (WHAASF #2) in 

Wheeling, West Virginia. WHAASF #2 will also be referred to as the “Facility” throughout this 

report. 

The SI project elements were performed in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

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

Department of the Army (DA) requirements and guidance for field investigations. 

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE

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

identified two Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials were used, stored, 

and/or disposed, or areas where known or suspected releases to the environment occurred. The 

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

AOIs identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal 

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

screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

WHAASF #2 occupies 38.14 acres in Wheeling, West Virginia (Figure 2-1). The facility is 

located adjacent to the Wheeling Ohio County Airport, east of Runway 34. Aside from the 

airport and runways to the northwest, WHAASF #2s immediate surroundings are primarily forest 

and agricultural land. The nearest urban area is the City of Wheeling, located 8.5 miles southwest 

of the Facility (AECOM 2020).

WHAASF #2 is located on a portion of land the West Virginia National Guard leased from the 

Ohio County Commission for a term of 99 years, beginning 14 December 1988. The Facility was 

fully operational starting in 1996 (AECOM 2020).

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

WHAASF #2 is located in Ohio County, West Virginia, directly south of the Brooke County 

border (Figure 2-2). The Facility is located northeast of the City of Wheeling and southeast of 

the residential community, Windsor Heights. The Facility is approximately 643 feet (ft) above 

mean sea level (amsl). This area of West Virginia is considered part of the Allegheny Plateau, 

which formed during the last glacial recession through the leveling of terrain beneath the 

retreating ice sheet. Typical surface features in the surrounding area include steep hillslopes and 

ravines formed through post-glacial erosional processes. The Facility and Wheeling-Ohio 

County Airport sit atop one of these plateaus (AECOM 2020). 

The following sections include information on geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, climate, and 

current and future land use. The regional geology and groundwater features are shown on Figure 

2-3. The regional surface water features and drainage basins are shown on Figure 2-4.

Groundwater elevations and contours are presented on Figures 2-5. 

2.2.1 Geology 

The Facility is located in a region where the soil is shallow and acidic, with a pH range of 4.5 to 

5. Soil is described as well drained, with immediate water holding capacity and primarily

composed of silt loam. The exposed geologic group in this portion of Ohio County is from the 

Paleozoic era, specifically, the Pennsylvanian period. The primary rock types are sandstone,

shale, clay, coal, and limestone. To the west of the Facility, approaching the Ohio River, alluvial 

deposits are the primary geologic feature (AECOM 2020).

Soils encountered during the SI field event were indicative of silty loam and consisted of 61.5 

percent (%) silt, 18.1% sand, 2.9% gravel, and 17.5% clay. Shallow bedrock was encountered 

across the facility between 5-10 ft below ground surface (bgs). Soil thicknesses were generally 

consistent across the facility with 0-1ft of topsoil, 1-2ft of silt and some sand, 3-4ft of fat clay, 

and 1-2ft of weathered shale and clay sitting atop bedrock. Most variation came in the 

thicknesses of the fat clay layer and the weathered shale layer. The pH of the soil ranged from 

2.6 to 6.5 and had a total organic carbon (TOC) concentration ranging between 9,800 and 22,000 

milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg).
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

2.2.2 Hydrogeology 

Sands and gravel form an alluvial aquifer above bedrock in Wheeling, West Virginia. The depth 

to water in this area is generally approximately 30 ft bgs. Beneath the alluvial aquifer is the 

Upper Pennsylvanian Sedimentary Bedrock Aquifer. The regional hydraulic gradient is such that 

groundwater flows west from the surrounding hills and valleys in Ohio County toward the Ohio 

River, as shown on Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4. However, local shallow groundwater generally 

flows east across the facility. Depth to groundwater in three wells installed along the facility’s 

eastern boundary during the SI ranged from 7.56-16.5 ft below ground surface; groundwater was 

not encountered in the central portion of the facility at AOI 1, where shallow bedrock was 

encountered around 5 ft bgs. Groundwater data observed from the SI field event is presented on 

Figure 2-5. 

In the Upper Ohio South Watershed, where WHAASF #2 is located, both groundwater and 

surface water are used for public water supply in Ohio, Brooke, Marshall, and Wetzel counties. 

An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (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 (GIS) databases, wells were researched to a 4-mile radius of the 

facility. According to the EDRTM Radius Map Report, there are two cross gradient wells of

unknown type within 1 mile of the Facility; one located northwest of WHAASF #2 and the other 

located south of the Facility, near a residential property (Figure 2-3). It is unknown if these wells 

are potable, domestic, or non-potable. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

National Water Information System Mapper, there are two active USGS monitoring wells

located cross gradient within a 4-mile radius of the Facility: one 3.8 miles north of the WHAASF 

#2 and the other 2.7 miles northeast. Additional inactive USGS monitoring wells were identified 

within 4 miles and are shown on figure 2-3. GIS data for wells within a 4-mile radius of the 

Facility was unavailable at the city, county, state, and national levels. Therefore, it is possible 

that additional unidentified public or private wells may be located within 4 miles of the Facility 

(AECOM 2020).

2.2.3 Hydrology 

The major water feature near the Facility is the Ohio River, which is located approximately 

2 miles west of the facility boundary. The Ohio River is used for recreational activities and 

public water supply. The Ohio River begins in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at the union of the 

Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. From its origin in Pittsburgh, the river flows southwest, 

ending at the borders of Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri when it meets with the Mississippi 

River. Wheeling, West Virginia, is within the Upper Ohio South Watershed, one of many 

watersheds of the Ohio River (Figure 2-4). The Upper Ohio South Watershed extends from 

Brooke County to the south through Ohio and Marshall Counties, ending in Wetzel County. 

Around the Facility, water flows towards the ravines, joining the primary tributary for the area, 

Short Creek. Short Creek is approximately 1 mile south of the Facility and flows northwest, 

where it joins the Ohio River (AECOM 2020).
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

2.2.4 Climate

Wheeling, West Virginia, has a continental climate. As such, Wheeling experiences four distinct

seasons, with moderately severe winters and warm, rainy summers. The amount of precipitation

between the seasons is about equal. Climate data for Wheeling records the average annual high 

temperature as 63.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), the average annual low temperature as 42.7°F, and

the average annual rainfall as 40.4 inches (AECOM 2020). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

WHAASF #2 currently resides on a portion of land leased from the Ohio County Commission 

under the terms of a 99-year lease. The Facility has been an operational military facility for an 

active ARNG unit since 1996, following the completion of construction. The unit at this Facility

provides support for helicopter operation and maintenance. Future land use is not anticipated to 

change (AECOM 2020). 

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species

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

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

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

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

Service 2022): 

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

• Mammal: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) – Federally Endangered; and Northern Long

eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – Federally Threatened.

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE

Seven potential PFAS release areas were identified at the site during the PA (AECOM 2020). 

Interviews and records obtained during the PA indicate that annual fire training with aqueous 

film forming foam (AFFF) was conducted on-site at multiple locations (Hangar Ramp and Wash 

Pad). A one-time fire training exercise was also conducted on a helicopter located in the center 

of the landing pads. Additionally, Tri-MaxTM fire extinguishers were refilled on-site at two 

locations (Tri-MaxTM Fill Areas 1 and 2) and AFFF was stored in a small storage shed while in 

use at the Facility. The potential release areas were grouped into two AOIs based on preliminary 

data and presumed drainage and groundwater flow directions. A description of each AOI is 

presented in Section 3. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Wheeling

-AASF#2

Wheeling-Ohio

County Airport

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Wheeling-Ohio County Airport

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-1

Facility Location

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Wheeling

AASF #2

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Figure 2-2

Facility Topography

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
!

!

<

<

@

@

@@

@

@

@

@

@

@@@

@ @

@

@

@

@@@

@ @@

@

@ @

@

@

@ @ @

@ @

@

@ @

@

@

@

@

@

@

@

@@

@

@

@

@

@

@ @

@

@

@

@

@ @

@

@

@

@

A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

A

AAA

A A

A

A

A

AAA

A AA

A

A A

A

A

A A A

AA

A

A A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

A A

A

A

A

A

@

@

A

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Well Type

A@ USGS Active Monitoring Well

A@ USGS Inactive Monitoring Well

<! Other/Unknown Well

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Groundwater Flow Direction

Perrenial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

0 2

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-3

Groundwater Features

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Ohio River

Short

Creek

Hogtan Run

Short Creek

Girty Run

Newlands Run

Waddles Run

Huff Run

North Fork Short Creek

Salt

Run-Ohio River

Watershed Sugarcamp

Run-Buffalo

Creek Watershed

Short

Creek

Watershed

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Perrenial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

Watershed Boundary

0 1

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-4

Surface Water Features

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
AOI01-01

AOI01-10

AOI01-09

AOI01-08

AOI01-07

WHAASF2-01

1163.0

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

WHAASF2-02

1164.7

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

WHAASF2-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-11-HA

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI02-02

1166.6

AOI02-01

AOI 1

AOI 2

Helicopter

FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed 1165

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS

Release

Sample Locations

Sample Location

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Local Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

Storm Water Pathway

Surface Water Inlet

Groundwater Elevation

Contour Interval (1 Foot)

0 500

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-5

Groundwater Elevations

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

AOI02-02 = Sample ID

1166.6 = Groundwater Elevation (in feet)

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 3-1

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST

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

or released historically. Based on the PA findings, seven potential release areas were identified at 

WHAASF #2 and grouped into two AOIs identified as: AOI 1 Fire Training Areas (FTAs), 

Surface Drainage Path, Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Room, and TRI-MAXTM Fill Area 2

and AOI 2 encompassing the AFFF Storage Shed and Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1. The potential AOIs 

are shown on Figure 3-1. 

3.1 AOI 1 – FIRE TRAINING AREAS, SURFACE DRAINAGE PATH, HAZMAT 

ROOM, AND TRI-MAXTM FILL AREA 2

AOI 1 consists of three FTAs (which include the hangar ramp, the wash pad, and the helicopter 

landing pads), the HAZMAT Room, the Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2, and their respective potential 

surface drainage pathways. First-hand knowledge from interviewees noted that training with 

AFFF occurred annually for the duration of time AFFF was kept at WHAASF #2. Interviewees 

recalled AFFF use at the Facility dating prior to 2001 and ending between 2011 and 2013. 

3.1.1 Hangar Ramp FTA 

During the time AFFF was kept on-site, annual fire training was conducted with extinguishers 

equipped with AFFF on the ramp in front of the hangar doors. On one occasion, shortly after

AFFF was brought on by the ARNG, there was a brief demonstration held at AASF #2 along the 

wall of the hangar. AFFF was sprayed on the wall to demonstrate how the foam sticks to surfaces 

during firefighting activities. Following this event, foam was left to dissipate on its own without 

being washed away. Interviewees present for the demonstration recalled the foam dissipating on 

the wall and paved ground before it could reach a drain. Though this demonstration was only 

held on one occasion, since foam was left to dissipate on its own, the foam may have leeched

into the wall or pavement where it was sprayed at WHAASF #2 (AECOM 2020). 

This location is also where the annual barrel burn training took place. Facility personnel’s

recollection, barrel burn training at this location may date back to 2005. During these trainings, 

there were occasional outside participants from the airport, local fire departments, as well as drill

soldiers sent to WHAASF #2 for drill around the time of the Safety Stand-Down. One such event 

was held in September 2010. During these annual trainings, a 55-gallon (gal) drum that had been 

cut in half was filled with water and jet propulsion fuel (Grade 8) (JP8) fuel. This jet fuel was 

then ignited, and AFFF foam was used to extinguish the flames. At least one tank of AFFF was 

used in each training, and up to 50 soldiers, including drill soldiers at the facility for safety day, 

participated at once. After training was over, foam would be allowed to dissipate on its own 

without being rinsed away. The foam released likely infiltrated surface soils in the area, as it 

would collect in the grass or travel down one of the stormwater inlets in the grass on either side 

of the ramp. The hangar ramp FTA is considered a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). 

3.1.2 Wash Pad FTA 

Interviewees could not recall the timeframe; however, for 2 years, the wash pad was used for

fire training activities with AFFF. During these exercises, an ARNG truck would be parked on 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

the wash pad and sprayed down with AFFF to demonstrate how the foam sticks to surfaces and

how to properly use the extinguisher. During these events, the foam was contained to the wash 

pad. Prior to 2006, drainage from the wash pad went to the oil-water separator and then to a 

surface water outflow on-site. After 2006, the WHAASF #2 wash pad was connected to 

municipal sewage; therefore, AFFF released at the wash pad would have gone to the municipal 

water treatment plant, located approximately 9 miles southwest of the Facility if the drainage 

valve were in proper operating position. Due to a lack of information on when these two fire 

training activities occurred, and uncertainty on whether the valve was set to properly direct 

liquids to municipal sewage, the path AFFF would have taken is uncertain. Therefore, it is 

equally likely the AFFF would have infiltrated surface water via outflow from the site prior to 

2006, or that it would have made its way to the municipal water treatment plant. Therefore, the 

wash pad FTA is a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020). 

3.1.3 Helicopter FTA

On one occasion, a fire training exercise was conducted where AFFF was sprayed on the tail of a

helicopter to familiarize personnel with the process of using Tri-MaxTM extinguishers. This 

training occurred in the center of the landing pads at WHAASF #2. Aircraft were relocated for 

the duration of the exercise, and approximately one Tri-MaxTM unit was expended. Following 

training, foam was rinsed off the helicopter’s tail, then left to dissipate on its own. It is possible

that foam from this FTA traveled to a grassy area and infiltrated the surface soil or followed 

on-site drainage pathways to stormwater inlets in the grass. Therefore, the helicopter FTA is 

considered a potential PFAS-release area. Based on interviewee recollection, it is believed this

event occurred in the early 2000s, prior to 2006 (AECOM 2020). 

3.1.4 HAZMAT Room

While AFFF was in-use at WHAASF #2, five-gal buckets of Tri-MaxTM were stored in the 

facility HAZMAT Room. To interviewee knowledge, no spills occurred in this location; 

however, due to the potential for unintended spills or releases, this location is considered a 

potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020).

3.1.5 Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2

The wash pad at WHAASF #2 is one of two areas where Tri-MaxTM extinguishers were refilled 

with AFFF. Buckets of AFFF were stored in spill containment buckets at collection points but 

were occasionally brought to the wash pad when refilling was necessary. If AFFF was spilled 

during refills, it would have been sprayed with water and washed down the wash pad drain. 

There is no record or recollection of a spill at this location throughout the time AFFF was kept at 

the WHAASF #2. However, due to the potential for unintended spills or releases, this area is 

considered a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020).

3.2 AOI 2 – AFFF STORAGE SHED AND TRI-MAX FILL AREA 1

AOI 2 consists of an AFFF storage shed and Tri-MaxTM fill Area 1 on the eastern side of the

property near the parking lot where Tri-MaxTM extinguishers were filled. During the time 

WHAASF #2 had Tri-MaxTM extinguishers at the Facility, 5-gal AFFF buckets were kept in a 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

storage shed in the parking lot. While there were no spills or leaks to interviewee knowledge, this 

location is considered a potential PFAS release area due to the potential for undocumented spills 

or releases (AECOM 2020).

3.2.1 AFFF Storage Shed Tri-MaxTM extinguishers

While AFFF was kept at the Facility, a small storage shed was also used to store 5-gal buckets of 

AFFF. The shed is located within a fenced area adjacent to the parking lot. There is no

knowledge of any spills or expended AFFF in this area. However, due to the potential for 

unintended spills or releases, this location is considered a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM

2020). 

3.2.2 Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1

In the southeast corner of the hangar, an area that was used for filling Tri-MaxTM extinguishers 

inside the hangar is marked out. Interviewees do not recall any instances of spills during the time 

AFFF was in use at the Facility. However, due to the potential for unintended spills or releases,

this area is considered a potential PFAS-release area (AECOM 2020).

3.3 ADJACENT SOURCES

Four potential off-facility sources of PFAS located adjacent to the Wheeling AASF #2 were 

identified during the PA (Figure 3-1). 

3.3.1 Plane Crash Site 1

Between the years 2009 and 2012, there was a civilian plane crash near a runway of the adjacent 

airport at the northeast corner of airport property. Interviewees recalled the municipal

fire department responding to the scene and determining there was no firefighting action 

necessary. There was no fire resulting from the crash, and interviewees who were present at the 

crash recalled that no foam or water were sprayed in response. Due to no known use of AFFF at 

this location, there is no suspected PFAS release (AECOM 2020). This area is located crossgradient of the AOIs. 

3.3.2 Plane Crash Site 2

Another crash occurred adjacent to AASF #2 between the years 1996 and 2005. A civilian plane 

crashed west of the adjacent airport’s runways. However, according to interviewees who were 

present at this incident, there was no fire, and therefore, no AFFF response necessary by the 

municipal fire department responding to the scene. Due to no known use of AFFF at this 

location, there is no suspected PFAS release (AECOM 2020). This area is located downgradient 

of the AOIs.

3.3.3 Short Creek Landfill

Short Creek Landfill is located approximately 1.7 miles downgradient of the Facility and is 

currently active. Landfills are not typically a primary potential release area of PFAS, but 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

materials disposed of in landfills may create a secondary source of contamination. Such materials 

may include sludge from wastewater treatment plants that process PFAS-laden water or products 

associated with waterproofing uniforms or boots. The exact materials disposed of at Short Creek 

Landfill are unknown. Due the potential that PFAS-containing materials were disposed of in the 

landfill, the Short Creek Landfill is considered a potential adjacent source of PFAS. However, 

because the landfill is located downgradient, it is unlikely that PFAS contamination from the 

landfill would migrate to the Facility (AECOM 2020). This area is located cross gradient, and to 

the south, of the AOIs. 

3.3.4 Wheeling Ohio County Airport 

The Wheeling Ohio County Airport sits approximately 0.6 miles northwest of the Facility. 

Secondary information from an airport employee contacted by WVARNG personnel asserts that 

there are no AFFF-equipped firetrucks at the airport, and no annual fire training with AFFF. 

However, due to a lack of robust information on the history of use of AFFF at the airport, there 

may have been releases at the airport outside of the employee’s knowledge. For this reason, the 

airport is considered a potential adjacent source of PFAS (AECOM 2020). This area is cross- and 

down gradient of the AOIs. 
North Fork Short Creek

Short Creek

Landfill

Wheeling Ohio

County Airport

Airplane

Crash 1

Airplane

Crash 2

Girty Run

Short Creek

Huff Run

Waddles Run

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Regional Groundwater Flow Direction

Local Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Wetlands

0 0.5

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 3-1

Areas of Interest

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

3

AOI 1

AOI 2

Helicopter

FTA

Hangar

Ramp FTA

Tri-Max

Fill

Area 1

Wash Pad FTA

HAZMAT Room

AFFF

Storage

Shed

Tri-Max

Fill

Area 2 0 250

Feet

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

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

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

Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC [EA] 2021a), the objective of the SI is to identify whether 

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

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

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

soil for presence or absence of relevant compounds at each of the sampled AOIs.

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

ARNG will recommend AOIs for remedial investigation (RI) if site-related soil and groundwater 

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

are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS

Primary information inputs for the SI include the following:

• The PA Report for WHAASF #2 (AECOM 2020)

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

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

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES

The scope of the SI was bounded horizontally by the property limits of the Facility (Figures 2-1 

and 2-2). Off-facility sampling was not included in the scope of this SI. If future off-facility 

sampling is required, the proper stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights-of-entry will 

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

available time field resources were available to complete the study.

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

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

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

Accreditation No. 1.01). PFAS data underwent 100% Stage 2B validation in accordance with the 

DoD General Data Validation Guidelines (2019a) and DoD Data Validation Guidelines Module 

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

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

Data were compared to applicable SLs and decision rules as defined in the SI UFP-QAPP 

Addendum (EA 2021a). 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

and qualitative methods, the assessment determines whether project execution and the resulting

data have met installation-specific DQOs. Both sampling and analytical activities are considered 

to assess whether the collected data are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the 

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

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents: 

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Army Aviation Support Facility #2,

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum, Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wheeling, West Virginia, dated

December 2021 (EA 2021a)

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

(EA 2020b)

• Final Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum, Army

Aviation Support Facility #2, Wheeling, West Virginia, dated October 2021 (EA

2021b).

The SI field activities were conducted from 1 to 3 November 2022 followed by one subsequent 

day on 10 November 2022. Field activities consisted of sonic drilling and hand auger borings, 

and soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, and grab groundwater 

sample collection. Three preparatory facility visits without intrusive work were also conducted 

on 15 November 2021 (source water sampling) and two utility location visits, one performed on 

10 February 2022 and another on 8 September 2022. Field activities were conducted in 

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

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

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

5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

• Twenty-Eight (28) soil samples from fourteen (14) primary locations, one (1) additional

hand auger location, and three (3) boundary locations

• Three (3) grab groundwater samples from three (3) temporary well locations

• Ten (10) quality assurance/quality control samples.

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

the list of samples collected for each medium. Field documentation is provided in Appendix B. 

A log of Daily Notice of Field Activity was completed throughout the SI field activities, which 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-2

is provided in Appendix B1; Field Forms are provided in B2; Survey information is provided in 

B3; and Field Change Request forms are provided in B4. Additionally, a photographic log of 

field activities is provided in Appendix C. 

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

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

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

water. Details of these activities are presented below. 

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 10 November 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 G-9, WVARNG, USACE, the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 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 

(EA 2021a). 

Note: A TPP Meeting (no. 3) will be held to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes for 

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

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

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

proposed boring locations on 10 February 2022 with input from the EA field team. General 

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

locations, as documented in the Field Change Request Form (Appendix B4), were relocated 

based on observations made during the site walk/utility clearance including overhead power 

lines, refusal in the form of a rip-rap lined channel, and subsurface utilities. Hand auger 

clearance of the boring locations to the full 5 ft bgs was unsuccessful as outlined in Section 5.9. 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

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

to the start of field activities. A sample from a potable water source outside the main hangar 

was collected on 15 November 2021, prior to mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/

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

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

SLs. PFHxS and PFNA were not detected, while PFBS was detected at a concentration less 

than one-tenth of the SL of 600 nanograms per liter (ng/L). PFOS and PFOA were detected at 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

concentrations less than one-third of the SLs of 4 and 6 ng/L, respectively. Based on these lowlevel detections, the water was deemed acceptable for use in decontamination. It is noted that the 

presence of the relevant compounds introduces limited uncertainty in environmental media 

samples below the SLs. Further discussion of uncertainty is provided in the DUA (Appendix A). 

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

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

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

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

UFP-QAPP (EA 2020a). 

5.2 HAND AUGER SOIL SAMPLING

Two borings were completed exclusively by hand auger; AOI01-11 and AOI02-01 (see Section 

5.9). No borings beyond AOI 01-11 and AOI02-01 were advanced exclusively by hand auger 

based on terminal depth. 

Hand augering of each boring was performed by EA’s drilling subcontractor, Enviroprobe, to 

verify utility clearance in the shallow subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered.

However, due to refusal at most locations, hand augering to 5 ft was not able to be completed, 

with most locations having a hand augering terminal depth of 3-4 ft bgs. A decontaminated hand 

auger was used to collect surface soil samples from the top 0 to 2 ft of each boring in compliance 

with utility clearance procedures. For samples collected beyond 5 ft in depth, Sonic drilling 

methods were used in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

As per the UFP-QAPP (EA 2021a), three discrete soil samples were to be collected for analysis 

from each soil boring: one sample at the surface (0 to 2 ft bgs) and two subsurface soil samples 

(one subsurface soil sample collected approximately 1 ft above the groundwater table, and one 

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

bgs). However, shallow bedrock was encountered across the Facility between 4 and 10 ft bgs, 

preventing a shallow subsurface and/or deep subsurface sample from being collected from the 

majority of locations (see Section 5.9). Further, drillers discarded the soil samples from AOI02-

02 prior to a mid-point sample being collected; thus, this location only had a surface and deep 

subsurface soil sample collected. Groundwater was encountered in three locations at depths 

ranging from 7.56 to 16.5 ft bgs during SI drilling. Total boring completion depths, to 

accommodate temporary well installation, ranged from 5 to 29 ft bgs. 

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

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

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

UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). Several boring locations were adjusted within a 20-ft offset 

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

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

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

detector (PID) was used to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as a part of personal 

safety requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

(Appendix B2) and in a non-treated field logbook. Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID 

concentrations, moisture, relative density, Munsell color, and USCS texture were recorded. The 

boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

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

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

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

the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table 

B-15), TOC (USEPA Method 9060A), pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and grain size (ASTM

International D422) in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a).

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

the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicates (MSDs) were collected at 

a rate of 5 percent and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. In 

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

shallow soil samples, one equipment blank (EB) was collected per day and analyzed for the same 

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

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

Borings were converted to temporary wells (where groundwater was encountered), which were 

subsequently abandoned after sampling and surveying in accordance with the UFP-QAPP 

Addendum (EA 2021a). After removal of the casings, boreholes were abandoned using bentonite 

chips. Borings were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.

Restoration of the drilling areas was completed per the Facility request including leveling and the 

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

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING

Temporary wells were installed by sonic drilling methods, using a GeoprobeTM 8150LS Sonic 

drill rig. Once the borehole was advanced to the desired depth, a temporary well was constructed 

of a 5-ft section of 1-inch Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen with sufficient casing to 

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

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

Table 5-2. 

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

groundwater to infiltrate and recharge the temporary well intervals. After the recharge period, 

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

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

PFAS-free marker or pen. 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) prior to 

sample collection. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under standard CoC 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM

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

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

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. Field blanks were collected in accordance with the

UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). In instances when non-dedicated sampling equipment was 

used, such as a bladder pump, one EB was collected a day and analyzed for the same parameters 

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

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

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

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

hole with bentonite chips. Upon completion of well abandonment, the ground surface at each 

location was patched to match existing surrounding conditions. 

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

Groundwater levels were used to monitor sitewide groundwater elevations and assess 

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

installed temporary monitoring wells on 10 November 2022, taken from the survey mark on the 

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

5.5 SURVEYING

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

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

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

report. Surveying data were collected on 10 November 2022 and are provided in Appendix B3. 

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

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

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

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

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

activities were containerized in four properly labeled 55-gal drums (1 water, 3 soil) and staged in 

the hangar in front of the washpad. Following the submittal of the Draft IDW Work Plan, dated 

16 March 2023, the soil IDW will be disposed of in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Subtitle C landfill, while the liquid IDW, upon approval, will be discharged to the ground at a 

location that is not near surface water bodies and which does not create pondage. Specifics on 

the disposal of solid and liquid IDW will be summarized in an IDW Technical Memorandum

which will be distributed to stakeholders. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

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

of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS

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

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

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program-certified laboratory.

Soil samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A, pH by USEPA Method 

9045D, and grain size by ASTM International D422. 

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM SITE INVESTIGATION UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM

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

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

are noted below: 

• Due to the rocky subsurface and shallow bedrock encountered on-site, a hand auger was

not able to clear the first 5 ft of all boring locations, as planned in the UFP-QAPP;

attempts were instead made to the frostline between 3 and 4 ft bgs.

• Two boring locations were advanced exclusively by hand auger with only a surface soil

sample collected, AOI01-11HA and AOI02-01; a drainage pattern following a surface

water inlet was noticed by ARNG G-9 while on-site and a decision was made to take a

surface sample exclusively by hand auger within this inlet (AOI01-11HA). The second

boring, AOI02-01, was located near an electrical junction box and the drillers refused to

drill the location as the utility markings had faded/dissipated. Therefore, a hand auger

was used at this location to collect a 0 to 2 ft surface soil sample only.

• On the first day of drilling, bedrock was encountered at approximately 5.5 ft bgs at

AOI01-05; a subsequent offset of 10 ft east confirmed bedrock at 4.5 to 5 ft bgs. A call

with ARNG G-9 took place to confirm the removal of the subsequent offset process for

other locations when shallow bedrock was encountered between 5 and 10 ft bgs, as this

was now the anticipated depth the majority of borings would reach. Subsequent borings

confirmed these suspicions as bed rock was seen across the Facility between 4 and 10 ft

bgs

• Further, a call with ARNG G-9 took place on the second day of drilling to discuss a plan

for sample collection, as only the surface 0–2 ft bgs sample was collected for the first

three samples, due to the shallow bedrock encountered around 5 ft bgs. It was determined

that a mid-point sample would only be collected if borings encountered competent

bedrock deeper than 5 ft bgs; thus, a surface and shallow subsurface soil sample were

collected for only seven locations, while only two locations had a full three samples
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

(surface, and two subsurface) collected; one location (AOI02-02) had a surface and deep

sample collected but no midpoint as the drillers discarded the midpoint sample prior to 

EA being able to collect it

• During utility clearance, seven soil boring/temporary monitoring well locations were

relocated approximately 15 to 20 ft east, southeast, and north of the original proposed

locations due to issues including rip-rap lined channel, subsurface utility lines, and

overhead powerlines. The boring identifications and full extent of these relocations were

submitted in a Field Change Request Form and can be found in Appendix B4.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Table 5-1. Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Wheeling AASF #2, Wheeling 

Site Inspection Report

Sample Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth

(ft bgs)

LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 

Table B-15

TOC

(USEPA 

Method 

9060A)

pH

(USEPA 

Method 

9045D)

Grain 

Size

(ASTM 

D-422) Comments

Soil Samples

AOI01-01-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-02-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-03-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-04-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-04-2-3 11/2/2022 2-3 X

AOI01-05-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X 

AOI01-05-4-5 11/2/2022 4-5 X 

AOI01-06-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X 

AOI01-07-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X 

AOI01-08-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X 

AOI01-09-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-09-2-3 11/2/2022 2-3 X

AOI01-10-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-11HA-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X Surface Soil Sample –

added in the field

AOI02-01-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X 

AOI02-02-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X 

AOI02-02-29-30 11/3/2022 29-30 X 

AOI02-03-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X MS/MSD collected

AOI02-03-4-5 11/3/2022 4-5 X

AOI02-04-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X

WHAASF2-01-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X

WHAASF2-01-6-7 11/3/2022 6-7 X

WHAASF2-01-14-15 11/3/2022 14-15 X

WHAASF2-02-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X

WHAASF2-02-6-7 11/3/2022 6-7 X 

WHAASF2-02-13-14 11/3/2022 13-14 X 

WHAASF2-03-0-2 11/3/2022 0-2 X 

WHAASF2-03-14-15 11/3/2022 14-15 X MS/MSD collected

AOI01-11HA-pH 11/3/2022 0-2 X Surface Soil Sample –

added in the field

AOI01-11HA-TOC 11/3/2022 0-2 X Surface Soil Sample –

added in the field

AOI02-01-pH 11/3/2022 0-2 X

AOI02-01-TOC 11/3/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-04-0-2 11/2/2022 0-2 X

DUP01-20221102 11/2/2022 0-2 X Field duplicate of 

AOI01-08-0-2
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Table 5-1. Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Wheeling AASF #2, Wheeling 

Site Inspection Report

Sample Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth

(ft bgs)

LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 

Table B-15

TOC

(USEPA 

Method 

9060A)

pH

(USEPA 

Method 

9045D)

Grain 

Size

(ASTM 

D-422) Comments

DUP02-20221102 11/2/2022 0-2 X Field duplicate of 

AOI02-03-0-2

DUP03-20221103 11/3/2022 6-7 X Field duplicate of 

WHAASF2-01-6-7

DUP04-20221103 11/3/2022 0-2 X Field duplicate of 

AOI01-11HA-0-2

Groundwater Samples

AOI02-02-GW 11/10/2022 -- X 

WHAASF2-01 11/10/2022 -- X 

WHAASF2-02 11/10/2022 -- X 

DUP01-20221110 11/10/2022 -- X Field duplicate of 

AOI02-02-GW

Blank Samples

FB1-20221110 11/10/2022 -- X Field Blank

EB1-20221102 11/2/2022 -- X EB

EB2-20221103 11/2/2022 -- X EB

Notes:

ATSM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface 

EB = Equipment Blank

ft = foot (feet)

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

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

Wheeling AASF #2, Wheeling, West Virginia 

Site Inspection Report

Area of Interest

Boring 

Identification

Soil Boring Depth

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval

(ft bgs)

Ground Surface 

Elevation ft amsl

1 

AOI01-01 10 NA NA

AOI01-02 10 NA NA

AOI01-03 8 NA NA

AOI01-04 9 NA NA

AOI01-05 6 NA NA

AOI01-06 7 NA NA

AOI01-07 5 NA NA

AOI01-08 8 NA NA

AOI01-09 10 NA NA

AOI01-10 5 NA NA

AOI01-11 2* NA NA

2 

AOI02-01 2* NA NA

AOI02-02 29 24-29 1,165.45

AOI02-03 12 NA NA
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

Wheeling AASF #2, Wheeling, West Virginia 

Site Inspection Report

Area of Interest

Boring 

Identification

Soil Boring Depth

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval

(ft bgs)

Ground Surface 

Elevation ft amsl

AOI02-04 6 NA NA

Facility Boundary

WHAASF2-01 20 15-20 1,162.05

WHAASF2-02 20 15-20 1,163.76

WHAASF2-03 22 NA NA

Notes:

amsl = Above mean sea level

bgs = below ground surface

ft = feet

NA = Not applicable; shallow bedrock was encountered, and no temporary wells were installed

* = Boring was exclusively sampled via hand auger and did not advance passed surface 0–5 ft interval.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-11

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation 

Wheeling AASF #2, Wheeling, West Virginia

Site Inspection Report

Temporary 

Well Identification

Top of Casing 

Elevation (ft amsl)

Depth to Water

(ft btoc)

Groundwater Elevation

(ft amsl)

Depth to Water

(ft bgs)

AOI02-02 1182.71 16.1 1166.6 14.95

WHAASF2-01 1179.95 16.95 1163.0 16

WHAASF2-02 1173.20 8.5 1164.7 7.56

Notes: 

Only the above listed temporary wells were installed due to shallow bedrock encountered at 5 to 10 ft.

amsl = Above mean sea level

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing
AOI01-01

AOI01-10

AOI01-09

AOI01-08

AOI01-07

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

WHAASF2-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

WHAASF2-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-11-HA

AOI 1

Helicopter

FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Oil/Water

Separator

Oil/Water

Separator

Oil/Water

Separator

^_

WV

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Oil/Water Separator

Sample Locations

Sample Location

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Local Groundwater Flow Direction

Surface Water Flow Direction

Storm Water Pathway

Surface Water Inlet

0 250

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 5-1

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx\Figure

AOI02-02

AOI02-01

AOI02-03

Tri-Max AOI02-04

Fill

Area 1

AFFF Storage

AOI 2 Shed

3

0 100

Feet

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-1

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS

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

presented in Section 6.1 in Table 6-1. A discussion of the results for the AOIs and boundary 

areas is provided in Sections 6.3 through 6.5. Tables 6-2 through 6-5 present results for soil or 

groundwater for the relevant compounds. Tables that contain all results are provided in 

Appendix F, and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G. 

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS

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

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

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

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

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

CERCLA. The SLs established in the OSD memorandum apply to the five compounds presented 

on Table 6-1 below. 

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

Analyte2

Residential 0 to 2 ft bgs

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

Industrial/Commercial

Composite Worker 2 to 15 ft bgs

(Soil)

(μg/kg) 1 

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

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

Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient=0.1. 6 July 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

bgs = below ground surface

ft = feet

ng/L = Nanograms per liter 

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram

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

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

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

receptors identified at the Facility; the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 

2 ft bgs) and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil 

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo and Higgins 2013). When sufficient 

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

help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical factors (e.g., pH and presence of 

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

Soil pH and TOC was analyzed in soil samples AOI01-11HA-pH, AOI01-11HA-TOC, AOI02-

01-pH, and AOI02-01-TOC. Results showed pH values of 2.6 and 6.5 for AOI 1 and AOI 2,

respectively, and TOC results of 22,000 and 9,800 mg/kg, respectively. The grain size analysis 

conducted on sample AOI01-04-SB-[0-2] consisted of approximately 18.1% sand, 2.9% gravel, 

17.5% clay, and 61.5% silt. This result corresponds to a soil texture of silt loam.

6.3 AOI 1 

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

AOI 1, which includes the FTAs (hangar ramp, the wash pad, and helicopter FTA), the 

HAZMAT Room, Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2, and their respective potential surface drainage 

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

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

6.3.1 AOI 1– Soil Analytical Results

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

present the ranges of detections in soil. 

Soil was sampled in 10 boring locations associated with the potential release areas at AOI 1, with 

an additional location (AOI01-11HA) collected exclusively by hand auger in surface soils (0 to 2 

ft bgs). Per the UFP-QAPP, three samples (one surface, one shallow subsurface, and one deep 

subsurface) were to be collected from each boring; however, due to shallow bedrock encountered 

at roughly 5 ft bgs, only three borings had a shallow subsurface sample collected (between 2 and 

5 ft bgs), and no borings in AOI 1 had deep subsurface samples collected. See Section 5.9 for 

complete details.

Surface soil (0 to 2 ft bgs) samples were collected from eleven locations, AOI01-01 through 

AOI01-11HA. Four of the five relevant compounds, including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS, 

were detected at AOI 1, with every location having one or more of the four relevant compounds 

detected except for AOI01-01, which had no detections of any relevant compounds. PFOA was 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

detected in all locations (except AOI01-01) with estimated concentrations ranging from 0.25 J 

μg/kg in AOI01-03 to 0.75 μg/kg in AOI01-07, below the SL of 19 μg/kg. PFOS was detected in 

four borings with concentrations ranging from 0.35 J μg/kg for the duplicate sample at AOI01-

11HA, to a concentration of 14 μg/kg in AOI01-02 (the concentration in AOI01-02 exceeded the 

associated SL of 13 μg/kg). PFHxS was detected in three locations below the SL of 130 μg/kg 

with concentrations ranging from 0.3 J μg/kg in the duplicate sample of AOI01-11HA, to 10 

μg/kg in location AOI01-05. PFBS was detected in a single location, AOI01-05, below the SL of 

1900 μg/kg, with a concentration of 1.2 J μg/kg. PFNA was not detected in any location. 

As mentioned previously, only three locations had shallow subsurface soil samples (between 2 

and 5 ft bgs) collected due to the shallow bedrock encountered: AOI01-04, AOI01-05, and 

AOI01-09. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in one or more of these samples, all 

below their respective SLs of 250, 160, 1,600, and 25,000 μg/kg, respectively. PFOA was 

detected in AOI01-04 and AOI01-09 at estimated concentrations of 0.7 J and 0.37 J μg/kg, 

respectively. PFOS was detected in AOI01-04 and AOI01-05 at concentrations of 20 and 0.36 J 

μg/kg, respectively. PFHxS was detected in AOI01-04 and AOI01-05 at concentrations of 14 and 

0.21 J μg/kg, respectively. PFBS was detected in AOI01-04 at an estimated concentration of 0.82 

J μg/kg. PFNA was not detected at any location. 

6.3.2 AOI 1 – Groundwater Analytical Results

Table 6-5 summarizes the groundwater results. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 present the ranges of 

detections in groundwater. 

No groundwater samples were collected from AOI 1 due to shallow bedrock encountered 

between 5 and 10 ft bgs. 

6.3.3 AOI 1 – Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, one location, AOI01-02, had a single exceedance in surface soil 

for PFOA above the 13 μg/kg SL, with a concentration of 14 μg/kg. Groundwater samples were 

not collected from AOI 1 due to the shallow bedrock. Based on the exceedances of the SLs in 

soil, further evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted.

6.4 AOI 2 

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

AOI 2, which includes the AFFF storage shed and Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1 on the eastern side of 

the property near the parking lot. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Tables 6-

2 through 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figures 6-1 through 6-7. 

6.4.1 AOI 2 – Soil Analytical Results

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

present the ranges of detections in soil. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

Per the UFP-QAPP, three samples (one surface, one shallow subsurface, and one deep 

subsurface) were to be collected from each boring; however, due to shallow bedrock encountered 

at roughly 5 ft bgs, only one boring had a surface and shallow subsurface sample collected, and

one boring had surface and deep subsurface sample collected (no midpoint sample; see Section 

5.9). 

Surface soil samples (0–2 ft bgs) were collected at boring locations AOI02-01 through AOI02-

04. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in one or more locations below their respective SLs

of 19, 13, and 130 μg/kg, respectively. PFOA was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.36 J 

μg/kg in AOI02-02 to 0.79 μg/kg in the duplicate AOI02-03 sample. PFOS was detected in 

AOI2-04, and AOI02-03 and its’ associated duplicate at concentrations of 1, 1.2, and 1.2 μg/kg, 

respectively. PFHxS was detected in AOI2-04, the duplicate of AOI02-03, and AOI02-03 at 

estimated concentrations of 0.38 J, 0.52 J, and 0.55 J μg/kg, respectively. PFNA and PFBS were 

not detected in any surface soil sample at AOI 2. 

One shallow subsurface soil sample was collected at AOI02-03 between 4-5 ft bgs. PFOA was 

detected below the 250 μg/kg SL at an estimated concentration of 0.24 J μg/kg at AOI2-03. 

There were no other detections of relevant compounds in shallow subsurface soil. 

One deep subsurface soil sample was collected for AOI02-02 (from 29 to 30 ft bgs). PFOA was 

detected in the sample at an estimated concentration of 0.28 J μg/kg. There were no other 

detections of relevant compounds. 

6.4.2 AOI 2 – Groundwater Analytical Results 

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

groundwater results. 

Groundwater samples were collected from one temporary well at AOI 2 during the SI. There 

were no detections of relevant compounds in groundwater. 

6.4.3 AOI 2 – Conclusions

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

respective SLs and there were no detections of relevant compounds in groundwater. Therefore, 

further evaluation at AOI 2 is not warranted.

6.5 FACILITY BOUNDARY

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

samples collected at the Facility Boundary, which include locations downgradient of AOI 1 

surface water intakes (WHAASF2-01 and WHAASF2-02) and surface water intakes passing 

through both AOI 1 and AOI 2 (WHAASF2-03). The soil and groundwater results are 

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

6-1 through 6-7.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

6.5.1 Facility Boundary – Soil Analytical Results

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

present the ranges of detections in soil. 

Soil was sampled from three borings located on the eastern Facility Boundary. These three 

borings were associated with locations downgradient of AOI 1 and AOI 2 surface water intakes, 

as well as the groundwater flow direction. Soil was sampled from three intervals at WHAASF2-

01 and WHAASF2-02, and two intervals (surface and shallow subsurface) at WHAASF2-03. 

Samples were collected from: surface (0-2 ft bgs), and shallow subsurface (6-7 ft bgs; 14-15 ft 

bgs; 13-15 ft bgs). 

Surface soil was sampled for all three Facility Boundary locations. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS 

were detected at concentrations below their respective SLs of 19, 13, and 130 μg/kg. PFOA was 

detected at concentrations ranging from 0.23 J μg/kg in WHAASF2-03 to 0.4 μg/kg in 

WHAASF2-02. PFOS and PFHxS were detected in a single location at concentrations of 0.88 

and 0.96 μg/kg, respectively. 

Shallow subsurface samples were collected at all three boundary locations. PFOA was detected 

at two locations, WHAASF2-01 and WHAASF2-02, at concentrations of 0.28 μg/kg and 0.31 J 

μg/kg, respectively. No other relevant compounds were detected. 

6.5.2 Facility Boundary – Groundwater Analytical Results

Table 6-5 summarizes the groundwater results. Figures 6-6 and 6-7 present the ranges of 

detections in groundwater. 

Groundwater boundary samples were collected from two temporary wells, WHAASF-01 and 

WHAASF2-02, associated with the Facility Boundary during the SI. There were no detections of 

relevant compounds in groundwater. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

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

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130 ND U 6.1 ND U 2.5 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19 ND U ND U ND U ND Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 ND U 14 ND U 6.5 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 ND U 0.54 0.25 J 0.32 Notes:μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.J = Estimated concentration.Qual = Qualifier.1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for direct ingestion ofcontaminated soil.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in Appendix F).U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted Limit ofDetection (LOD).

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

Sample Date 11/2/2022 11/2/2022 11/2/2022 11/2/

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name AOI01-01-0-2 AOI01-02-0-2 AOI01-03-0-2 AOI01

Location ID AOI01-01 

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

AOI01-02 AOI01-03 AOI0

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1,2

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19Notes:μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.J = Estimated concentration.Qual = Qualifier.1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for direct ingestion ofcontaminated soil.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in Appendix F).U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted Limit ofDetection (LOD).

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Location ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result 

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

0.47 J ND U 0.44 J 0.56 

0-2 0-2 0-2 0

11/2/2022 11/3/2022 11/2/2022 11/2/

AOI01-08-0-2 

AOI01-08-0-2 DUP01 AOI01-09-0-2 AOI01

AOI01-08 AOI01-08 AOI01-09 AOI0

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

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility 

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1,2

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 130Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 19Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19Notes:μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.J = Estimated concentration.Qual = Qualifier.1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels inGroundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on a residential scenario for direct ingestion ofcontaminated soil.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in Appendix F).U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted Limit ofDetection (LOD).

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Location ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result 

ND U ND U ND U ND ND U 0.55 J 0.52 J 0.38 ND U ND U ND U ND ND U 1.2 1.2 1 

0.36 J 0.44 J 0.79 0.54 

0-2 0-2 0-2 0

11/3/2022 11/3/2022 11/3/2022

AOI02-03-0-2

11/3/

AOI02-02-0-2 AOI02-03-0-2 DUP02 AOI02

AOI02-02 AOI02-03 AOI02-03 AOI0

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

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Version: FINAL

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

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

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25000 0.82 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1600 14 0.21 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160 20 0.36 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250 0.7 J ND U 0.37 J 0.24 J 0.28 ND U 0.31 J ND U

Notes:

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

Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Location ID AOI01-04 AOI01-05 AOI01-09 AOI02-03 WHAASF2-01 WHAASF2- 01 WHAASF2-02 WHAASF2-03

11/2/2022

WHAASF2-01-6-7

11/3/2022

Sample Name AOI01-04-2-3 AOI01-05-4-5 AOI01-09-2-3 AOI02-03-4-5 WHAASF2-03-14-15

Parent Sample ID WHAASF2-01-6-7

DUP03 WHAASF2-02-6-7

6-7 6-7 14-15

11/3/2022 11/3/2022 11/3/2022 11/3/2022

Sample Depth (ft bgs) 2-3 4-5 2-3 4-5

Sample Date 11/2/2022 11/1/2022

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in

Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard

Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.

2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on incidental ingestion of soil in a

industrial/commercial worker scenario.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.

ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.

J = Estimated concentration.

ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in Appendix

F).

Qual = Qualifier.

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the Values

exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.

6-7

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Location ID

Sample Name

Parent Sample ID

Sample Date

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Analyte Result Qual 

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND U Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND U Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND U Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND U Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND U 

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

11/3/2022 

14-15 

WHAASF2-01 

WHAASF2-01-14-15 

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

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in

Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HazardQuotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.

2. The Screening Levels for soil are based on incidental ingestion of soil in a

industrial/commercial worker scenario.μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.J = Estimated concentration.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in AppendixF).Qual = Qualifier.U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the Valuesexceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Location ID

Sample Name

Parent Sample ID

Sample Date

Sample Depth (ft bgs)

Analyte Resul

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 0.28 Notes:μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented in Appendix F).Qual = Qualifier.U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted Limit of Detec

Table 6-4. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subs

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, We

AO

AOI02

11/3

2

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1 Result Qual Result Qual R

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/L)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 601 ND U ND U 

Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 39 ND U ND U Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 6 ND U ND U 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 4 ND U ND U 

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 6 ND U ND U 

Notes:ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter.Qual = Qualifier.

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

Site Inspection Report, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wes

Sample Name AOI02-02-GW DUP01 W

Location ID AOI02-02 AOI02-02 

AOI02-02-GW

Sample Date 11/10/2022 11/10/2022 

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to theadjusted Limit of Detection (LOD).1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levelsin Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening LevelCalculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD (LOD values are presented inAppendix F).

Parent Sample ID

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Figure 6-1

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFOS Detections in Soil

AOI01-01 AOI02-04

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI01-10

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-11-HA

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI02-02

AOI01-09

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

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

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

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

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

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-13

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 6-2

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFOA Detections in Soil

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI01-01 AOI02-04

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI01-10

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-11-HA

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI02-02

AOI01-09

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2,500

> 250- 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2,500

> 250- 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release Date:......................September 2023

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

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

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

Notes:

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-15

This page intentionally left blank
Figure 6-3

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFBS Detections in Soil

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI01-01 AOI02-04

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI01-10

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-11-HA

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI02-02

AOI01-09

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release Date:.....................September 2023

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

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

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

Notes:

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-17

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Figure 6-4

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFHxS Detections in Soil

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI01-01 AOI02-04

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI01-10

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-11-HA

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI02-02

AOI01-09

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release Date:......................September 2023

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

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

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

Notes:

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-19

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Figure 6-5

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFNA Detections in Soil

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI01-01 AOI02-04

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-06

AOI01-05

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-07

AOI01-08

AOI01-09

AOI01-10

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI01-11-HA

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI02-02

AOI01-09

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

0 250

Feet

0 250

Feet

Shallow Intermediate Deep

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2 ,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2 ,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release Date:......................September 2023

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

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

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

Notes:

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-21

This page intentionally left blank 
Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

AOI02-02

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI02-02

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

3

0 250

Feet

^_

WV

0 250

Feet

PFOA PFOS

AOI02-02

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed AOI 1

AOI 2

0 250

Feet

PFBS

Note:

PFOA = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOS = Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFBS = Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Data Sources:

ESRI 2022

AECOM 2019

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 6 - 40

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (ng/L)

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 4 - 40

> ND - 4

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 600 - 1,000

> 100 - 600

> ND - 100

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (ng/L)

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

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

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

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

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-23

This page intentionally left blank 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling AASF #2, West Virginia

Figure 6-7

AOI 1 and AOI 2

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

AOI02-02

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

AOI 1

AOI 2

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed

AOI 1

AOI 2

Helicopter

FTA

Wash Pad FTA

Hangar Ramp

FTA

Tri-Max Fill Area 2

Tri-Max Fill Area 1

AFFF Storage Shed

AOI02-02

WHAASF2-03

WHAASF2-02

WHAASF2-01

3

0 250

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

^_

WV

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\Wheeling\WheelingSI.aprx

0 250

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

Notes:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 39 - 100

> ND - 39

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 6 - 100

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (ng/L)

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

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

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

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

Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-1

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The conceptual site model (CSM) for the AOIs, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on 

Figures 7-1 and 7-2. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a 

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

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

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

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

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

considered potentially complete when the following conditions are present: 

1. Contaminant source

2. Environmental fate and transport

3. Exposure point

4. Exposure route

5. Potentially exposed populations.

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

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 

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

complete if the relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

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

filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has 

detections of relevant compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete 

pathway that have detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further 

investigation. Although the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may 

exist, the recommendation for future study in a RI or no action at this time is based on the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

workers, trespasser/off-facility recreational users, and residents. The CSMs for AOI 1 and AOI 

2, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figures 7-1 and 7-2, respectively. 

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

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

between the source and potential receptors at AOI 1 and AOI 2 based on the aforementioned 

criteria. AOIs 1 and 2 are co-located within the Facility and share surface water drainage 

pathways; however, due to exceedances detected in AOI 1 and not AOI 2, they will be treated as 

separate CSMs. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-2

7.1.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 consists of the locations of the hangar ramp, the wash pad, the HAZMAT Room, the 

helicopter FTAs, and Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2. 

Facility personnel recalled AFFF use at the Facility prior to 2001 and ending between 2011 and 

2013. First-hand knowledge of events during this time period indicate AFFF was used for 

training at various locations including the wash pad and helicopter FTAs, stored in the 

HAZMAT room, and had fire extinguishers filled and re-filled at the Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 2. 

These events included barrel burnings, spills during fire extinguisher fills, and small, one-time 

events of fire extinguisher familiarization techniques. During these events, AFFF was either 

washed away into the grass and surface water inlets or left to dry on the concrete. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in surface soils at AOI 1, as well as two Facility 

Boundary locations downgradient of the AOI 1 surface drainage paths, with one or more of these 

relevant compounds detected in all boring locations except for AOI01-01. PFOA, PFHxS, and 

PFBS were detected in concentrations well below their respective SLs, while PFOS exceeded the 

SL at one location in AOI 1. Site workers and future construction workers could contact 

constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. Therefore, the surface 

soil exposure pathways for site workers and future construction workers are potentially 

complete. There were also detections of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS below their respective 

SLs in subsurface soil at AOI 1. The two downgradient boundary samples, WHAASF2-01 and 

WHAASF2-02, also had detections of PFOA well below the SL in subsurface soil. Grounddisturbing activities to subsurface soil could result in future construction worker exposure to 

detected constituents via incidental ingestion. Therefore, the exposure pathways for subsurface 

soil is considered potentially complete for the future construction worker at AOI 1. The CSM is 

presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.1.2 AOI 2

AOI 2 consists of AFFF storage shed and the Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1.

Facility personnel recalled AFFF being kept on pallets in the AFFF Storage Shed in the form of 

5-gal buckets. Fire extinguishers were also filled and re-filled at the Tri-MaxTM Fill Area 1.

Although there are no known instances of spills or leaks, there is the potential for spills to have 

occurred during any of the above activities.

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS were detected in surface soils at AOI 2 below their respective SLs. 

WHAASF2-03, the boundary sample located downgradient of the AOI 2 surface drainage path, 

also had a single detection of PFOA below the SL. Site workers and future construction workers 

could contact constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust. 

Therefore, the surface soil exposure pathways for site workers and future construction workers 

are potentially complete. Further, PFOA was detected in subsurface soil at AOI 2 below the 

respective SL. Ground-disturbing activities to subsurface soil could result in future construction 

worker exposure to detected constituents via incidental ingestion. Therefore, the exposure 

pathways for subsurface soil is considered potentially complete for the future construction 

worker at AOI 2. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-2. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-3

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY

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

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

7.2.1 AOI 1 

There were no groundwater samples collected from AOI 1 due to shallow refusal depths above 

the water table elevation. However, AOI02-02 and Facility Boundary locations WHAASF2-01 

and WHAASF2-02 are located in a downgradient direction from AOI 1 and AOI 2 based on the 

surface inlet drainage and groundwater elevations observed in this SI. There were no detections 

of relevant compounds in groundwater for any temporary well location. 

The Facility receives drinking water from the City of Wheeling municipal water system, which 

has surface water intakes located approximately 8 miles downgradient to the Facility on the Ohio 

River. Based on the results of this SI and the fact that there were no relevant compounds detected 

in groundwater at the AOIs or in Facility Boundary wells, the exposure pathway for groundwater 

for construction workers, site workers, and trespassers/off-facility residents and recreational 

users is considered incomplete. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2

Due to shallow refusal depths above the water table elevation, only one temporary well (AOI02-

02) was installed in AOI 2. Additionally, Facility Boundary location WHAASF2-03 is located

downgradient of AOI02-02. There were no relevant compounds detected in groundwater at either 

location. 

The Facility receives drinking water from the City of Wheeling municipal water system, which 

has surface water intakes located downgradient to the Facility. Further, there are two unidentified 

wells located northwest and southwest of the Facility. 

Based on the results of this SI and the fact that there were no relevant compounds

detected in groundwater at the AOIs or in Facility Boundary wells, the exposure pathway 

for groundwater for construction workers, site workers, and trespassers/off-facility

residents and recreational users is considered incomplete. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-2.

7.3 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

Surface water and sediment were not sampled as part of this SI, as the scope of sampling was 

limited to the presence or absence of the relevant compounds in soil and groundwater within the 

facility boundary. The Facility is comprised of numerous surface water intakes (Figure 5-1) 

beginning the eastern side of AOI 1. These intakes lead to grates that transfer water from the 

inlets to around both the northern and southern ends of the Facility and east through AOI 2, and 

finally end near the Facility boundaries as well as past the Facility boundaries via exposed PVC 

pipes that empty directly onto the ground surface. The terrain at the locations where these inlets 

empty gently slopes for roughly 1⁄2 mile towards a ravine. This ravine then descends roughly a 

mile, through a residential area at the bottom, and empties into the Ohio River. This river is 

popular for recreational use including swimming, fishing, and boating, as well as is a source of 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-4

potable drinking water to a high number of residential receptors downgradient of the Facility.

The detections of relevant compounds seen in surface soil in the AOIs and Facility Boundary 

locations, but not in the groundwater, lends credence to surface water and sediment being 

transferred out and way as runoff via the surface water inlets and off the Facility property; the 

silty-clayey soils, weathered bedrock, and lack of shallow groundwater flow seen throughout the 

Facility also could contribute to slow infiltration rates, high storability, and surface runoff events 

with soils comprised of PFAS relevant compounds. Due to this, and the potential for PFAS 

relevant compounds to discharge to the nearby Ohio River, the ingestion exposure pathway for 

surface water and sediment is considered potentially complete for off-facility residents and 

recreational users downgradient of the Facility. Further, human consumption of fish potentially

affected by PFAS from the river is also possible. The CSMs are presented in Figures 7-1 and 

Figure 7-2. 
SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

RECEPTOR

Human 

Activities

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

PATHWAY

Transport 

and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of

Dust

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Site

Worker

Site

Worker

Construction Resident2,3

Worker1

/ /

/

Future 

Construction Resident2,3

Worker 1

/ / /

/ /

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 Wheeling AASF #2 

/ /

/

/

Wheeling 

AASF #2 

AOI1

Precipitation/ 

Run-Off

Ingestion

Trespasser/

Recreational User2,3

Trespasser/

Recreational User2,3

/ / / /

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

/

Surface 

Water 

Flow

Surface 

Soil

Subsurface 

Soil

Potential AFFF 

Release

Surface 

Water

Shallow 

Groundwater

Potential

Off-Facility

Sources Not

Under

Control of

ARNG

/ / / /

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of Screening 

Level

LEGEND

Flow Chart Stops

Flow Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Incomplete Pathway

Partially Complete Pathway

Notes:

1. No current/active construction at the site.

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

3. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-6

This page intentionally left blank
SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

RECEPTOR

Human 

Activities

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

PATHWAY

Transport 

and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of

Dust

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Site

Worker

Site

Worker

Construction Resident2,3

Worker1

/ /

/

Future 

Construction Resident2,3

Worker 1

/ / /

/ /

Figure 7-2

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 2 Wheeling AASF #2 

/ /

/

/

Wheeling 

AASF #2 

AOI 2

Precipitation/ 

Run-Off

Ingestion

Trespasser/

Recreational User2,3

Trespasser/

Recreational User2,3

/ / / /

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

/

Surface 

Water 

Flow

Surface 

Soil

Subsurface 

Soil

Potential AFFF 

Release

Surface 

Water

Shallow 

Groundwater

Potential

Off-Facility

Sources Not

Under

Control of

ARNG

/ / / /

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of Screening 

Level

LEGEND

Flow Chart Stops

Flow Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Incomplete Pathway

Partially Complete Pathway

Notes:

1. No current/active construction at the site.

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

3. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-6

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-1

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

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

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

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

the SLs. 

8.1 SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 

The SI field activities were conducted from 1 to 3 November 2022 followed by one subsequent 

day on 10 November 2022. Field activities consisted of sonic drilling and hand auger borings and 

soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation and grab groundwater sample 

collection. Three preparatory facility visits without intrusive work were also conducted on 

15 November 2021 (source water sampling) and two utility location visits, one performed on 

10 February 2022 and another on 8 September 2022. Field activities were conducted in 

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

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), 

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 

Version 5.3 Table B-15 as follows: 

• Twenty-Eight (28) soil samples from fourteen (14) primary locations, one (1) additional

hand auger location, and three (3) boundary locations

• Three (3) grab groundwater samples from three (3) temporary well locations

• Ten (10) quality assurance/quality control samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

described in Section 7. 

8.2 OUTCOME

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

the CSMs developed and revised with SI findings, there is the potential for exposure to offfacility residential drinking water receptors, surface water recreators, and on-site construction 

and site workers from releases during historical DoD activities at the Facility. Sample chemical 

analytical concentrations collected during this SI were compared against the project SLs in soil 

and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

• AOI 1:

 PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in soil below their respective SLs, 

with a single exceedance for PFOS. 

 No groundwater samples were collected in AOI 1 due to shallow boring refusal 

above the water table depth. Groundwater contours (Figure 2-5) depicts flow 

moving off-facility to the east. The possibility exists that the surface soils, 

composed primarily of silts, clays, and weathered rock, are providing infiltration

with high storability, and the majority of the PFAS relevant compounds detected 

in soil are exiting the Facility via run-off events, especially as there is no shallow 

groundwater at AOI 1 to help drive contaminants through the site. 

• AOI 2:

 PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS were detected in soil at AOI 2 at concentrations below

their respective SLs. 

 A single temporary well was installed at AOI 2 (AOI02-02). There were no detections 

of relevant compounds in the groundwater sample. AOI 2 is downgradient of AOI 

and was installed immediately adjacent to a surface water drainage outlet being fed 

from AOI 1. Like AOI 1, infiltration and high storability coupled with surface run-off 

events likely explains the surface soil concentrations at AOI 2 and no relevant 

compound detections in groundwater. 

• Facility Boundary

 Facility Boundary soil samples collected downgradient of AOI 1 and 2 surface water

drainage pathways had detections of PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS below their respective 

SLs.

 Facility Boundary wells WHAASF2-02, WHAASF2-01, and WHAASF2-03 had no 

detections of relevant compounds in groundwater. As mentioned previously, the lack 

of a shallow groundwater table at AOI 1 coupled with the soil composition is most 

likely a contributor to why no relevant compounds were detected in groundwater at 

the Facility Boundary samples, but it was detected in Facility Boundary and AOI soil 

samples.

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, as 

screening values were established after SI planning and execution. However, ARNG will add 

HFPO-DA to the list of constituents sampled during the next phase of CERCLA if warranted. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-3

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

considered for further investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. 

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

AOI

Potential Release 

Area

Soil

Source Area

Groundwater

Source Area

Groundwater

Facility 

Boundary

Future 

Action

1 

FTAs, Surface 

Drainage Path, 

HAZMAT Room, 

and Tri-MaxTM 

Fill Area

2

Not applicable1

Proceed to 

RI

2 

AFFF Storage 

Shed and TriMax 

Fill Area 1 

No further 

action

Legend:

= Detected; exceedance of SLs 

= Detected; no exceedance of SLs 

 = Not detected 1 No groundwater was encountered prior to bedrock; therefore, no wells were installed. 
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-4

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-1

9. REFERENCES

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, 

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia. August. 

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

The Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 6 

July. 

Department of the Army. 2016. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February. 

Department of Defense (DoD). 2019a. General Data Validation Guidelines. November. 

———. 2019b. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated

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

. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data Validation Procedure for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. May.

EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC (EA). 2020a. Final Programmatic Uniform 

Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. December.

.2020b. Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1, November 2020. 

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

(UFP-QAPP) Addendum, Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia, 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. 

December. 

.2021b. Final Accident Prevention Plan Site Safety and Health Plan, Wheeling Army 

Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Revision 0, October 2021. 

Guelfo, J.L. and C.P. Higgins. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids and 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and 

Technology 47(9):4164-71. 

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

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

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport for 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 11 December.
Site Inspection Report

Wheeling Army Aviation Support Facility #2, West Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-2

. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule).

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September. 

. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

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

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. Accessed 9 July 2019 at 

https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule. 

January. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed

28 October. 

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

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

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