FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Sustained Airborne Training Facility,

Salt Lake City, Utah

Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 

(PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene oxide 

dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

September 2023 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-3

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.....................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 2014 Fire Suppression System Test............................................................3-1

3.1.2 Former Fire Station .....................................................................................3-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling .............................................................................5-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Exposure Pathways......................................................................................................7-1
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM iii

Appendices

Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Logs of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

B3. Field Change Request Forms and Nonconformance and Corrective Action

Reports

B4. Survey Data

B5. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs and Well Construction Forms 

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, November2021

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

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

Elevations

Table 5-3 Permanent Monitoring Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

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

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

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

ANG Air National Guard

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FedEx Federal Express

FTA Fire Training Area

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HEF high expansion foam

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

JP-4 Jet Fuel

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

ng/L nanograms per liter

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OWS oil-water separator

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM v

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

SATF Sustained Airborne Training Facility

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality

UDWR Utah Division of Water Rights

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

UTANG Utah Air National Guard

UTARNG Utah Army National Guard
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

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

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

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

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

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

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

to address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for 

relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the Sustained Airborne Training Facility (SATF) in 

Salt Lake City, Utah and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1. The SATF will also 

be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document.

The SATF is located in north-central Utah, 6 miles west of Salt Lake City and adjacent to the 

southeast side of Salt Lake City International Airport. The facility is positioned in a mountain valley 

of the Basin and Range physiographic province within Salt Lake County, between the Wasatch 

Mountains to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west. The facility is located within the 

Roland R. Wright Air National Guard Base and comprises approximately 1.3 acres used to support 

various training missions. The facility consists of an approximately 15,135 square foot building 

used to support various training missions (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2020).

The PA identified one AOI where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, 

disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI locations). SI sampling results from the 

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

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

for AOI 1.

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM ES-2

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

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

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

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

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

as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of 

HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history 

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

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

Table 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

2014 Fire 

Suppression 

System Test 

and Former 

Fire Station

Proceed to RI

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)2

, and perfluorobutanesulfonic 

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

Training Facility (SATF) in Salt Lake City, Utah. The SATF is also referred to as the “facility”

throughout this document.

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

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

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

investigations.

1.2 SI Purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description

The SATF is located in north-central Utah, 6 miles west of Salt Lake City and adjacent to the 

southeast side of Salt Lake City International Airport (Figure 2-1). The facility is positioned in a 

mountain valley of the Basin and Range physiographic province within Salt Lake County, between 

the Wasatch Mountains to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west. The facility is located 

within the Roland R. Wright Air National Guard (ANG) Base and comprises approximately 1.3

acres used to support various training missions (AECOM, 2020).

Prior to military use, the land currently occupied by the SATF was undeveloped wetland. The 

facility was constructed in the 1940s and used as a US Army Air Force facility until circa 1980, 

when the ANG acquired the facility and used it as their fire department. The building was used to 

store and maintain fire trucks and for storage of AFFF under the jurisdiction of the Air Force. In 

approximately 2013, the facility was leased to the Army and remodeled with the installation of a 

fire suppression system. According to lease documentation, the land is owned by Salt Lake City 

and leased to the US Government for use of the Utah ANG (UTANG), US Air Force, and Army 

Aviation flight activities. The lease term began on 1 January 1988 and extends until 30 September 

2037. 

The SATF building, also referred to as “Building 10”, is the location of Site 8, a remedial site 

managed by the ANG as an operable unit. Site 8 is the location of two former underground storage 

tanks containing aviation gasoline, jet fuel (JP-4), or diesel. The source of JP-4 contamination at 

Site 8 is attributed to possible releases from an oil-water separator (OWS). Groundwater 

monitoring is currently ongoing at Site 8 following groundwater remediation activities performed 

during 2014, which consisted of subsurface injections to promote anaerobic reductive 

dechlorination of contaminants of concern (CH2M Hill, 2015).

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

The SATF occupies approximately 1.3 acres that are composed almost entirely of impervious 

surfaces (concrete and asphalt). The topography of the facility is generally level, sloping slightly 

to the southeast (Figure 2-2). The areas surrounding the SATF are primarily ANG, Air Force, and 

various facilities in support of the operations of the Salt Lake City International Airport to the west. 

The facility sits at an elevation of 4,221 feet above mean sea level, with a very slight topographic 

slope to the northeast. The Great Salt Lake is located approximately 11 miles west of the facility, 

and the foothills of the Wasatch mountains are located approximately 5.5 miles east of the facility. 

2.2.1 Geology

The SATF is located in the Salt Lake valley, near the eastern edge of the Basin and Range 

physiographic province, which is generally composed of northerly-trending, fault-block ranges and 

intervening, drier basins (Woods et al., 2001). The geology underlying the facility is a quaternary 

alluvium dominated by deltaic (silt, sand, and clay) and lake deposits from historic Lake Bonneville 

during the Pleistocene epoch. 

Soil borings completed during the SI found lean clays as the dominant lithology of the 

unconsolidated material observed below the SATF. The borings were completed at depths 

between 10 and 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). Isolated 1-inch layers of sandy silty clay 

were also observed in the boring logs. These facility observations are consistent with the fill 

material known to be present at SATF and the understood alluvia/deltaic depositional environment

of the native soils. Samples for grain size analyses were collected at one location, AOI01-01, at 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 2-2

a sample interval depth of 8 to 10 feet bgs and analyzed via American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Method D-422. The results indicate that the soil sample is comprised primarily 

of silt (71.36 percent [%]) and clay (26.58%). Boring logs are presented in Appendix E, and grain 

size results are presented in Appendix F.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The Salt Lake Valley basin is filled with unconsolidated Quaternary deposits that likely exceed 

2,000 feet in thickness. Four basin-fill aquifers are present within the Salt Lake Valley. From 

deepest to shallowest, these aquifers include 1) a deep, confined aquifer in the central and 

northern valley areas; 2) a deep, unconfined aquifer adjacent to the mountains; 3) a shallow, 

unconfined aquifer overlying the deep, confined aquifer; and 4) local perched aquifers. The 

shallow, unconfined aquifer is laterally extensive and is present across the facility to a depth of 

approximately 50 feet bgs. This shallow, unconfined aquifer is not used as a drinking water source. 

The regional confining layer is present beneath the shallow, unconfined aquifer and extends to a 

depth of 200 feet or more. The regional vertical hydraulic gradient is upward. Local perched 

aquifers have not been reported at the facility (ANG, 2014). 

Previous investigations have indicated that the depth to groundwater at the facility ranges from 

approximately 3 to 6 feet bgs. The direction of groundwater flow is variable across the ANG base 

and is affected by seasonal precipitation and runoff, although the general groundwater flow is 

toward the north-northeast (ANG, 2014). Groundwater features are presented on Figure 2-3.

Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 4.10 to 7.50 feet bgs. 

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

groundwater flow direction is generally to the northeast. 

Drinking water at the SATF is supplied by the local municipal water authority. Groundwater 

beneath and in the vicinity of the SATF is not used as a drinking water source. More than 60% of 

Salt Lake City’s water originates in the mountain streams of the Wasatch Mountains, 

supplemented with deep wells throughout the Salt Lake Valley. An Environmental Data 

Resources, Inc. (EDR)TM Report conducted a well search for a 1-mile radius surrounding the 

facility as part of the PA (AECOM, 2020). Using additional online resources, such as state and 

local Geographic Information System databases, wells were researched to a 4-mile radius of the 

facility. The EDRTM search returned one public well and a number of stock watering, irrigation, 

domestic, and non-production groundwater wells in the vicinity of the facility (Figure 2-3). The 

closest underground public well is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the facility. It is 

unknown if there are any potable water wells using shallow groundwater down gradient of the 

facility. Data regarding US Geological Survey (USGS) wells in the area recorded depth to 

groundwater exists less than 10 feet bgs. A review of available well records showed numerous 

private wells downgradient from the facility screened at depths of 200 feet bgs or below. Records 

suggest that most of these wells are designated for use as irrigation (Utah Division of Water Rights 

[UDWR], 2022). 

2.2.3 Hydrology

The facility is located within the Jordan Hydrologic Unit. The majority of groundwater recharge 

most likely comes from mountain precipitation and surface waters. The nearest surface water to 

the subject property is the Jordan River, located approximately 1.1 miles east of the subject 

property, and which flows into the Great Salt Lake to the north. Surface water on the south side 

of the facility is directed southeast by grade to an approximately 60-foot by 3-foot gravel area 

leading to a stormwater drain in the southeast corner. Surface water features are presented on 

Figure 2-5. Stormwater on the east side of the airport drains into a canal that conveys the 

stormwater to the City Drain. The City Drain closely follows the Jordan River and empties into 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 2-3

Farmington Bay in the Great Salt Lake (CH2M Hill, 2012). Trench drains in Building 10 flow to the 

oil/water separator before discharging to the municipal sewer system (AECOM, 2020). 

Based on a desktop review of the National Wetlands Inventory online mapping system (US Fish 

and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2021), the facility does not contain any mapped wetlands or 

surface waters; however, there are approximately 465 acres of wetlands west of the airport that 

were created in the 1990s to compensate for natural wetlands impacted by runway construction 

(Salt Lake City International Airport, 2019). Due to the close proximity to the wetlands, the depth 

to groundwater at the facility is expected to be very close to the surface. 

2.2.4 Climate 

The climate of north-central Utah is semiarid and characterized by mild winters, hot summers, 

and low humidity. The facility is located in an area characterized by a dry, mid-latitude desert 

climate, which is marked by hot summers and mild winters (Woods et al., 2001). The annual 

average high temperature in Salt Lake City is 78.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the annual low 

temperature is 29.5 °F, with an annual average temperature of 52.7 °F. The average annual 

precipitation is 16.10 inches, with most of it falling during the spring (March-May); the driest month 

is July, with average precipitation of 0.61 inches. The average annual snowfall is 56.2 inches 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2020). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The facility currently operates as a Utah ARNG (UTARNG) SATF and is comprised of a hangar, 

maintenance and storage areas, and an administrative office area. Reasonably anticipated future 

land use is not expected to change significantly from the current land use described above.

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

The following insects, mammals, fishes, birds, and flowering plants are federally endangered, 

threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Salt Lake County, Utah (USFWS, 

2022). 

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate)

• Mammals: Little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus (under review); Canada Lynx, lynx canadensis

(threatened)

• Fishes: Least chub, Iotichthys phlegethontis (resolved taxon)

• Birds: Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus (threatened); Greater sage-grouse,

Centrocercus urophasianus (resolved taxon)

• Flowering plants: Ute ladies'-tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis (threatened)

2.3 History of PFAS Use

Two potential release areas where AFFF may have been used or released historically were 

identified at the SATF (AECOM, 2020). Fire suppression foam potentially containing PFAS may 

have been released to soil and groundwater within the boundary of the SATF during a fire 

suppression system test in 2014. In addition, firetruck washing and maintenance activities

conducted by the ANG prior to 2013 may have resulted in a release of AFFF to the subsurface or 

unpaved ground surface outside Building 10. The potential release areas were grouped into one 

AOI based on proximity to one another and presumed groundwater flow. A description of AOI 1 is 

presented in Section 3. 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 2-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

7/29/2022

7/29/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:63,360

7/29/2022 ­ Figure 2-1 PM CM 7/29/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

^_

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Building 10

PROJECT

AECOM 2-5
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AG

7/29/2022

7/29/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:6,000

7/29/2022 ­ Figure 2-2 PM CM 7/29/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

PROJECT

AECOM 2-6
A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A! A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A! A!A! A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!A! A!

A! A!

A!A!

A! A!

A!

A!

! A! A

AA!!

A!

!A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!A!A! A!A! A!

A! A!

A!

AA!A!A!!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

AA!A!!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

! A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA

!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!A!!

A! AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!A!AA!A!!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!A!A!

A! A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

!A!A A!A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A! A!

A!A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

! A! A

A! A!!

A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!A!

A!

A!

AA

!!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!A!

AA!!

A! A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A! A!

A!

A!!A!

A!

A!

A!AAAA!!!!

A!A!

AA

!! A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!A!

!!

A!

AA!!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A! A! A!

AA!!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA

!!

A!

A!!

!!AA

!!A!

A!A!A!AA!A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA

!!AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!A!!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!

AA!A!!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!A!

AA!!A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

AAA!!A!A!!AA!!

A!!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!!

A!!

AA!!!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AA!!A!A!A!!!

AA!A!A!!

A!

AA!!!!!

A!!

!!!AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

AA!!

A!

AAA!!!

AA!!!

AA!!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

AAA!AA!!A!!!!!

A!AA!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!AA!!!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

AA!!

!!AAA!!A!AAAA!!!!A

A

A!

A!

!!!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!!

A!

North Point Consolidated Canal

Jordan River

Brighton

Canal

City

Creek

Rudy Drain

Surplus Canal

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

8/1/2022

8/1/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:78,000

8/1/2022 ­ Figure 2-3 PM CM 8/1/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

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

Facility Boundary

Water Body

SwampMarsh

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Groundwater Flow Direction

Geology

Marshes

Unconsolidated alluvium and colluvium

Lake Bonneville deposits

Late Eocene to Oligocene Volcanics

Wasatch Formation

Frontier Formation

Morrison Formation

Stump and Preuss Sandstones and Twin Creek

Limestone

Hambug Formation and Deseret Limestone

Beirdneau Sandstone, Hyrum Dolomite, and

Water Canyon Formation

St. Charles Formation and Nounan Dolomite

Bloomington Formation, Maxfield Limstone, and

Ophir Formations

Wells

!C( Public Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

0 3,250 6,500 13,000

Feet

Building 10

PROJECT

AECOM 2-7
?!

?!

?!

S8-MW9

4213.56

AOI1-01

4213.31

AOI1-02

4213.40

AOI1-03

4215.35

S8-MW2

4215.66

4215.0

4214.5

4214.0

4213.5

4213.5

4215.5

4214.0

4215.5

4215.0

4214.5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

10/20/2022

10/20/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

10/20/2022

1:720 ­ Figure 2-4 PM CM 10/20/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevations, 

November 2021

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

and the GIS User Community

Legend

?! DPT Boring Sample Location

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 30 60 120

Feet

PROJECT

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

AECOM 2-8
Jordan River-Frontal

Great Salt

Lake Watershed

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

7/29/2022

7/29/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:12,000

7/29/2022 ­ Figure 2-5

PM CM 7/29/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

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

Legend

Facility Boundary

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Surface Water Flow Direction

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

PROJECT

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

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

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

identified at SATF and grouped into one AOI (AECOM, 2020). The potential release areas are 

shown on Figure 3-1. This figure also shows nearby off-facility potential releases for informational 

purposes.

3.1 AOI 1 

AOI 1 consists of two potential release areas, as described below. The PA and Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) refer to AOI 1 as Building 10 (AECOM, 2020; AECOM, 2021a). Based on 

the current understanding of the various Building 10 activities, what was originally called Building 

10 is now detailed into two release areas, as described below. 

3.1.1 2014 Fire Suppression System Test

Since the UTARNG has occupied Building 10, there has been one known discharge of foam 

potentially containing PFAS. The Building 10 fire suppression system is equipped with Jet-X 2% 

high expansion foam (HEF). The discharge of HEF in the hangar area during a fire suppression 

system test in 2014 may have resulted in a release to the subsurface via a potentially broken pipe

that conveyed wastewater from building drains to an OWS at the time. The exact location of the 

break in the pipe is not known but could reasonably be assumed to be between Building 10 and 

the OWS near the northeast corner of Building 10. Additionally, foam that was not captured by the 

trench drains may have spilled out of the hangar and onto the unpaved ground surface outside 

Building 10. 

3.1.2 Former Fire Station 

Building 10 operated as an ANG fire station circa 1980 until 2013. Firetruck washing and 

maintenance at the Former Fire Station may have resulted in a release of AFFF to the unpaved 

ground surface outside Building 10 via runoff not captured by building drains. Surface water on 

the south side of the facility is directed southeast by grade to an approximately 60-foot by 3-foot 

gravel area that leads to a stormwater drain in the southeast corner of the facility. The stormwater 

drains in this area flow into a canal that conveys the stormwater to the City Drain. The City Drain 

closely follows the Jordan River and empties into Farmington Bay in the Great Salt Lake (CH2M 

Hill, 2012).
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 3-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!A!

A!

A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A!!!!

A!A!

A!

A!

! A! A! A

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!A!

AA!!

A! A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!A!

AAA

!!!

A!AA!!

A!!

AA!!!A!A!A! A!AAA!A!!! A!A!A!

A!A!AA!!

A!!A!A!A!A!

AA!A!!A!!

AA

A!!

!!!

!A!!!!!!A!!!

!

AA!!!!!!!!A

!!!!!!!!!A!AAAA!!!!!!

AA!!

!!!!!AAA!!!!!AA!!!!AA!A!

A!

A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!A!

A!A!

A!

A!A!

A!

A

!!!!

!!AA!!!!!

!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

! A! A! A

A!

A!

A!

Rudy Drain

Surplus Canal

ARFF

Training

Facility

Salt Lake City

International

Airport

FTA-1

(SITE 4)

FTA-2

(SITE 5)

FORMER FTA

(AT016)

AOI 1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

8/31/2022

8/31/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:31,680

8/31/2022 ­ Figure 3-1 PM CM 8/31/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

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

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

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Pipeline

Surface Water Flow Direction

Groundwater Flow Direction

!C( Public Well

A! Other/Unknown Well

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Building 10

Oil Water 

Separator

Gravel 

Drainage Area

AOI 1

PROJECT

AECOM 3-3
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), the objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a 

release to the environment at the AOIs identified in the PA. For each AOI, ARNG determines if 

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

whether no further action is warranted. This SI evaluated groundwater and soil for presence or 

absence of relevant compounds at each of the sampled AOIs.

4.1 Problem Statement

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

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

SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 Information Inputs

Primary information inputs included:

• The PA for the SATF (AECOM, 2020);

• Analytical data collected as part of UTANG sampling efforts around the facility (Aerostar

SES LLC, 2018; AECOM, 2020);

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

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

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 Study Boundaries

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

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

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

owner(s). The SI scope was bounded vertically by the observed depths of the surficial groundwater 

table. Temporal boundaries of the study were limited to the Fall to avoid winter storms and freezing 

condition. 

4.4 Analytical Approach

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

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

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

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

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 4-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

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

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

in accordance with the following approved documents:

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

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

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

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, 

Utah dated September 2020 (AECOM, 2020);

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

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah dated June 2021 (AECOM, 

2021a);

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah 

dated August 2021 (AECOM, 2021b).

The SI field activities were conducted on 15 November 2021 and consisted of utility clearance, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Eight (8) soil samples from four (4) boring locations; 

• Three (3) grab groundwater samples from three (3) temporary wells; 

• Two (2) grab groundwater samples from two (2) existing permanent monitoring wells; and

• Eleven (11) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples (three (3) soil, three (3) 

groundwater, two (2) equipment blank, two (2) decontamination water, and one (1) field 

reagent blank samples).

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

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

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

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

Action Report is provided in Appendix B3, and land survey data are provided in Appendix B4. 

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

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

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

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

water. Details for each of these activities are presented below.
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-2

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

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

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

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

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

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

address the AOIs identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 5 April 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, UTARNG, USACE, Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality (UDEQ), and representatives familiar with the facility, the regulations, and the community.

Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling 

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

Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a).

A TPP Meeting 3 was held on DATE TBD to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes for 

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

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

Stakes of Utah 811 utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work on 28 October 2021. 

However, because the SATF is a private facility, the participating Blue Stakes of Utah 811 locators 

did not clear utilities at the entire facility. Therefore, AECOM contracted ESI Engineering, Inc., a 

private utility location service, to perform utility clearance. ESI Engineering, Inc. performed utility 

clearance of the proposed boring locations on 12 October 2021 with input from the AECOM field 

team and SATF facility staff. General locating services and ground-penetrating radar were used 

to complete the clearance. Additionally, on 15 November 2021, the first 5 feet of each boring were 

pre-cleared using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface where utilities 

would typically be encountered.

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

One potable water source at SATF was sampled on 12 May 2021, prior to mobilization, to assess 

usability for decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the sample (SATF-DECON-01) 

confirmed this source to be acceptable for use in this investigation; therefore, it was used 

throughout the field activities. Specifically, the samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant 

with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. A second sample of the same water, but run through the 

decontamination equipment, was collected on 15 November 2021 during the SI. The results of 

the decontamination water samples associated with the water source and decontamination of 

drilling equipment used during the SI are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the results is 

presented in the DUA (Appendix A).

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

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

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

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

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

member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment.
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-3

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). A direct push 7730DT dual-tube sampling system was used to 

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

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

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

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

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

approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample at the midpoint between the surface and the groundwater table. In borings where groundwater was 

encountered at 6 feet bgs or shallower, only two soil samples were collected per boring, in 

accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Specifically, only two soil samples were 

collected at locations AOI01-02 and AOI01-03 for this reason. As a result of deviations in the field 

due to a marked utility, one additional surface soil sample, AOI01-04, was collected as discussed 

in Section 5.8. 

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

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

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

Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms boring logs (Appendix E) 

and in a non-treated field logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, 

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

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

Soil borings completed during the SI found lean clays as the dominant lithology of the 

unconsolidated material observed below the SATF. Isolated 1-inch layers of sandy silty clay were 

also observed. The borings were completed at depths between 10 and 15 feet bgs. The shallow 

subsurface lithology at the facility is consistent with the fill material known to be present at the 

SATF and the understood alluvial/deltaic depositional environment of the native soils. 

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

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

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

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

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

Method D-422) in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 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. In instances when non-dedicated sampling 

equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the shallow soil samples, equipment rinsate blanks

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

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

6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment.

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

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) using bentonite chips at completion 

of sampling activities. Asphalt was hot patched at AOI01-01 and AOI01-02; AOI01-03 and AOI01-

04 were installed in the unpaved drainage ditch. 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-4

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7730DT dual-tube sampling system. Once 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tubing. Groundwater samples were also collected from two existing permanent wells using a 

peristaltic pump and PFAS-free HDPE tubing. The temporary wells were purged at a rate 

determined in the field to reduce turbidity and draw down prior to sampling. Water quality 

parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, and oxidationreduction potential) were measured using a water quality meter and recorded on the field 

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

of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and a shaker test was 

completed to identify if there was any foaming. No foaming was noted in any of the groundwater 

samples. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under standard CoC 

procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 in 

accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a).

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

as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were 

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

One field reagent blank was collected in accordance with the PQAPP (AECOM, 2018a). A 

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

6°C during shipment.

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

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

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

each location was patched to match existing surrounding conditions. Asphalt was hot patched at

locations AOI01-01 and AOI01-02; AOI01-03 and AOI01-04 were installed in the unpaved 

drainage ditch.

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 15 November 2021. Groundwater 

elevation measurements were collected from the three new temporary monitoring wells and two 

existing permanent wells. Water level measurements were taken from the northern side of the 

well casing. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the synoptic gauging ranged 

from 4.10 to 7.50 feet bgs. Based on the calculated groundwater elevations, the shallow 

groundwater flow direction at the facility is to the northeast. A groundwater flow contour map is 

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

5.5 Surveying

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

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

data from the newly installed and previously existing wells on the facility were collected on 15 

November 2021 in the applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with World 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-5

Geodetic System 84 datum (horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). The 

surveyed well data are provided in Appendix B4.

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

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

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

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

Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 2018). Consistent with the SI QAPP, soil cuttings and 

liquid IDW were distributed or discharged to the ground surface on the immediate downgradient 

side of the borehole, except where otherwise noted below.

Due to the pavement, soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities at AOI01-01 

and AOI01-02 were containerized in one 55-gallon Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved 

steel drum and placed in the southeast corner of the facility as indicated in the Photographic Log 

(Appendix C). The drum was labeled to indicate the type of media (e.g., soil or water) and the 

source locations. ARNG will coordinate waste profiling, transportation, and disposal of the solid 

IDW. 

Soil IDW generated during the SI activities at AOI01-03 and AOI01-04 were left in place at the 

point of the source and used to restore the ground surface to match the surrounding area. The 

soil IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the associated soil samples 

collected from that source location. 

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

decontamination fluids) were discharged directly to the ground surface slightly downgradient of 

the source. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the 

associated groundwater samples collected from that source location.

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

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

figure in Appendix B5.

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

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

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods

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

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

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

soil sample was analyzed for grain size using ASTM Method D-422.

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

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

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

(Appendix B3) and Nonconformance and Corrective Action Reports (Appendix B4): 

• A total of three soil borings/temporary wells were scoped for the SI, one of which was to be 

within an unlined ditch downslope of the wash area. Utility markings revealed that the 

originally selected location for AOI01-03 was within 3 feet of a water line. Recommended 

safe practices are to not drill within 5 feet of a known utility. Therefore, location AOI01-03 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-6

was adjusted approximately 5 feet northeast from where originally shown in the Final SI 

QAPP. This adjustment placed the soil boring/temporary well sample location slightly 

outside of the centerline of the ditch. An additional surface soil sample (AOI01-04) was 

collected at the originally proposed location so that soil could still be evaluated where 

surface runoff flow from the area around the building is most concentrated. This action was 

documented in a Field Change Request form provided in Appendix B3. 

• Three soil samples were scoped to be collected at each soil boring: one at the surface (0 to

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

and one subsurface soil sample at the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater

table. Groundwater was observed in the soil borings at AOI01-02 and AOI01-03 at

approximately 5 feet bgs. The shallow unsaturated zone observed at SATF did not allow for

the collection of three distinct soil samples. Therefore, the midpoint soil sample was omitted

and only a surface soil sample and a capillary fringe soil sample (just above water table)

were collected at AOI01-02 and AOI01-03. This action was documented in a Field Change

Request form provided in Appendix B3.

• The subcontracted licensed surveyor collected the coordinates and top of casing elevations

of the temporary monitoring wells, but inadvertently failed to record the ground surface

elevations at these temporary well locations. The SI QAPP stated that all three

measurements would be collected. The error was not recognized until the surveyor’s data

package was provided to AECOM several weeks after the field event. The coordinates and

top of casing elevations are considered sufficient to meet the data quality objectives for the

temporary wells. Groundwater elevations are calculated using the recorded top of casing

elevations and depths to water, which were measured from the top of casing. This action

was documented in a nonconformance and corrective action report provided in Appendix

B3.
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, SATF, Utah

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet 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

AOI01-01-SB-00-02 11/15/2021 10:45 0 - 2 x

AOI01-01-SB-03-05 11/15/2021 10:55 3 - 5 x

AOI01-01-SB-08-10 11/15/2021 11:15 8 - 10 x x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02 11/15/2021 10:10 0 - 2 x x x

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-D 11/15/2021 10:10 0 - 2 x x x FD

AOI01-02-SB-03-05 11/15/2021 10:15 3 - 5 x

AOI01-03-SB-00-02 11/15/2021 9:00 0 - 2 x

AOI01-03-SB-03-05 11/15/2021 9:05 3 - 5 x

AOI01-04-SB-00-02 11/15/2021 8:45 0 - 2 x x x

AOI01-04-SB-00-02-MS 11/15/2021 8:45 0 - 2 x x x MS

AOI01-04-SB-00-02-MSD 11/15/2021 8:45 0 - 2 x x x MSD

AOI01-01-GW 11/15/2021 13:05 NA x

AOI01-02-GW 11/15/2021 13:30 NA x

AOI01-03-GW 11/15/2021 11:40 NA x

S8-MW2-111521 11/15/2021 11:20 NA x

S8-MW2-111521-D 11/15/2021 11:20 NA x FD

S8-MW9-111521 11/15/2021 9:55 NA x

S8-MW9-111521-MS 11/15/2021 9:55 NA x MS

S8-MW9-111521-MSD 11/15/2021 9:55 NA x MSD

SATF-FRB-01 11/15/2021 10:30 NA x

SATF-ERB-01 11/15/2021 8:35 NA x from hand auger

SATF-ERB-02 11/15/2021 10:00 NA x from DPT shoe

SATF-DECON-01 5/12/2021 10:00 NA x from source

SATF-DECON-02 11/15/2021 9:45 NA x from driller tank

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

DECON = decontamination

DPT = direct push technology

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

GW = groundwater

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

MW = monitoring well

NA = not applicable

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

SATF = Sustained Airborne Training Facility

SB = soil boring

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Soil Samples

Quality Control Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, SATF, Utah

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Dept

Wa

(feet 

AOI01-01 15 10 - 15 4220.81 NM 7.5 NAOI01-02 10 5 - 10 4220.80 NM 7.4 NAOI01-03 10 5 - 10 4219.45 NM 4.1 N

Notes:AOI = area of interestbgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingNA = not applicableNM = not measuredNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988SATF = Sustained Airborne Training Facility

1

AECOM 
Table 5-3

Permanent Monitoring Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations

Site Inspection Report, SATF, Utah

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Dept

Wa

(feet 

S8-MW2 13.3 Unknown 4220.26 NM 4.6 N

S8-MW9 18.9 Unknown 4220.16 NM 6.6 N

Notes:bgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingMW = monitoring wellNA = not applicableNM = not measuredNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988SATF = Sustained Airborne Training Facility

1

AECOM 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
A!

?!

?!

?! A!

"S

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03 S8-MW2

AOI01-04

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AD

8/31/2022

8/31/2022

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

1:720

8/31/2022 ­ Figure 5-1 PM CM 8/31/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

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

and the GIS User Community

Legend

?! DPT Boring Sample Location

A! Existing Monitoring Wells

"S Surface Soil Sample

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 30 60 120

Feet

PROJECT

AECOM 5-11
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results 

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

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

6-2 through Table 6-4 present results in soil or groundwater for the relevant compounds. Tables 

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

Appendix G. 

6.1 Screening Levels 

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

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

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

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

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

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

6-1 below.

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Composite 

Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

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

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

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

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

as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of 

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. 

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 

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

results (2 to 15 feet bgs). The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (>15 feet bgs) 

because 15 feet is the anticipated limit of construction activities. 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

To provide basic soil parameter information, soil samples were analyzed in accordance with 

American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D-422 for TOC, pH, and grain size, which are 

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

the TOC, pH, and grain size sampling. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1

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

1: the 2014 fire suppression system test and the former fire station. The soil and groundwater 

results are summarized on Table 6-2 through Table 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are 

presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

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

6-3 summarize the soil results.

Soil near the discharge area for the 2014 fire suppression system test potential release was 

sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) and shallow subsurface soil (3 to 5 feet and 8 to 10 

feet bgs) from boring location AOI01-01. Soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) and 

shallow subsurface soil (3 to 5 feet bgs) from boring location AOI01-02. Soil near the former fire 

station drainage ditch was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) and shallow subsurface soil 

(3 to 5 feet bgs) from boring location AOI01-03. A surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs) was also 

sampled closer to the discharge area at AOI01-04. Due to shallow groundwater encountered 

during the SI, deep subsurface soil samples were not collected.

In surface soil, PFOS was detected exceeding its SL of 13 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at 

AOI01-02, with a concentration of 32.2 J μg/kg. PFOS in the remaining surface soil samples 

ranged between 2.29 μg/kg to 5.00 J (estimated concentration) μg/kg. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and

PFNA were detected in surface soil at concentrations below their respective SLs. Detected PFOA 

concentrations ranged between 0.412 J μg/kg to 7.28 μg/kg, with the maximum concentration at 

AOI01-03. PFBS concentrations ranged between 0.111 J μg/kg to 0.569 μg/kg, with the maximum 

concentration at AOI01-04. PFHxS concentrations ranged between 0.770 J μg/kg to 8.79 J μg/kg,

with the maximum concentration at AOI01-04. PFNA concentrations ranged between 0.026 J

μg/kg to 0.397 J μg/kg, with the maximum concentration at AOI01-02.

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

concentrations at least one order of magnitude below their respective SLs. PFOA concentrations 

ranged between 0.100 J μg/kg to 4.69 J μg/kg, with the maximum concentration at AOI01-03 (3 

to 5 feet bgs). PFOS concentrations ranged between 1.01 J μg/kg to 17.2 μg/kg, with the 

maximum concentration at AOI01-01 (8 to 10 feet bgs). PFBS concentrations ranged between 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-3

0.033 J μg/kg to 0.597 J μg/kg, with the maximum concentration at AOI01-01 (8 to 10 feet bgs). 

PFHxS concentrations ranged between 0.435 J μg/kg to 4.47 μg/kg, with the maximum 

concentration at AOI01-01 (8 to 10 feet bgs). Detected PFNA concentrations ranged between 

0.024 J μg/kg to 0.027 J μg/kg, with the maximum concentration at AOI01-02 (3 to 5 feet bgs).

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

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

summarizes the groundwater results.

PFOS and PFHxS exceeded their respective SLs at all locations. PFOA and PFNA exceeded the 

SL at all locations except AOI01-02. PFBS exceeded the SL at only one location, AOI01-03. The 

highest concentrations of PFOA, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected at AOI01-03. The highest 

concentration of PFOS was detected at AOI01-01, and the highest concentration of PFNA was 

detected at S8-MW2. 

PFOA was detected above the SL of 6 nanograms per liter (ng/L) at four of the five well locations 

(AOI01-01, AOI01-03, S8-MW2, and S8-MW9), with concentrations ranging between 749 ng/L to 

41,600 ng/L. PFOA was detected below the SL at AOI01-02 (1.20 J ng/L). PFOS was detected 

above the SL of 4 ng/L at all five well locations, at concentrations ranging between 8.55 ng/L to 

4,300 ng/L. PFBS was detected above the SL of 601 ng/L at one of the five well locations 

(AOI01-03), with a concentration of 1,650 ng/L. PFBS was below the SL at the remaining wells at 

concentrations ranging between 5.45 ng/L to 211 ng/L. PFHxS was detected above the SL of 39 

ng/L at all five well locations, with concentrations ranging between 51.1 ng/L to 17,100 ng/L. PFNA 

was detected above the SL of 6 ng/L at four of the five well locations (AOI01-01, AOI01-03, 

S8-MW2, and S8-MW9), with concentrations ranging between 7.93 ng/L to 31.9 ng/L. PFNA was 

not detected in AOI01-02.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOS was detected in the soil at concentrations above the SL.

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in groundwater at concentrations above 

their respective SLs. Based on the exceedances of the SLs in soil and groundwater, further 

evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted.
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, Sustained Airborne Training Facility

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 1900 0.111 J 0.177 J 0.198 J 0.230 J 0.569 JPFHxS 130 0.770 J 2.26 3.88 4.61 8.79 JPFNA 19 0.026 J 0.227 J 0.397 J 0.028 J 0.044 JPFOA 19 ND U 0.412 J 0.742 J 7.28 4.10PFOS 13 2.69 19.4 J 32.2 J 2.29 5.00 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical AbbreviationsND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

References PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration D duplicateU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectioμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-00-02

11/15/2021

0-2 ft

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

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

AOI01

AOI01-03-SB-00-02

11/15/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-00-02

11/15/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02

11/15/2021

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-00-02-D

11/15/2021

0-2 ft

Area of Interest

AECOM 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Sustained Airborne Training Facility

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

PFBS 25000 0.212 J 0.597 J 0.033 J 0.205 JPFHxS 1600 1.58 4.47 0.435 J 3.55PFNA 250 0.024 J ND U 0.027 J ND UPFOA 250 0.208 J 0.415 J 0.100 J 4.69PFOS 160 7.54 17.2 2.31 1.01 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical AbbreviationsND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

References PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration D duplicateU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL DL detection limit

ft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental Protectioμg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AOI01-01-SB-03-05

11/15/2021

3-5 ft

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

AOI01

AOI01-03-SB-03-05

11/15/2021

3-5 ft

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

AOI01-01-SB-08-10

11/15/2021

8-10 ft

AOI01-02-SB-03-05

11/15/2021

3-5 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AECOM 
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Sustained Airborne Training Facility

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 601 211 5.45 1650 172 160 73.9

PFHxS 39 2700 51.1 17100 2380 2170 1230 J+

PFNA 6 9.19 ND U 22.0 31.9 29.9 7.93PFOA 6 3360 1.20 J 41600 867 821 749

PFOS 4 4300 8.55 1110 3890 3640 1560 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical AbbreviationsND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

References PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acidPFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acidAcronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest

J = Estimated concentration D duplicateJ+ = Estimated concentration, biased high DL detection limitU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL GW groundwater

HQ hazard quotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mLOD limit of detectionND analyte not detected above the LODOSD Office of the Secretary of DefenseQSM Quality Systems ManualQual interpreted qualifierUSEPA United States Environmental Protectiong/l nanogram per liter

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

S8-MW2-111521

11/15/2021

S8-MW2-111521-D

11/15/2021

AOI01-02-GW

11/15/2021

AOI01-03-GW

11/15/2021

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

11/15/2021

S8-MW9-111521

11/15/2021

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

Area of Interest AOI01

AECOM 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

AOI01-01

Figure 6-1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

1:600

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

AECOM 6-9
AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

AOI01-01

Figure 6-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

1:600

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

AECOM 6-10
AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

AOI01-01

Figure 6-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

1:600

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

AECOM 6-11
AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

AOI01-01

Figure 6-4

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

1:600

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

AECOM 6-12
AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI 1

AOI01-01

Figure 6-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

1:600

Shallow Intermediate Deep

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

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

AECOM 6-13
AOI 1

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

S8-MW2

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

S8-MW2

AOI 1

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

S8-MW2

Figure 6-6

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

1:600

PFOA PFOS PFBS

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

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

AECOM 6-14
AOI 1

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

S8-MW2

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Flow Direction

0 25 50 100

Feet

AOI 1

S8-MW9

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

S8-MW2

Figure 6-7

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at Sustained Airborne Training Facility, UT

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

11/17/2022

MS

AD

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

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

11/17/2022

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

PFHxS (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

1:600

PFHxS PFNA

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

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

AECOM 6-15
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 6-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

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

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

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

relevant compounds and whether the release is more than likely attributable to the DoD. A CSM 

presents the current understanding of the site conditions with respect to known and suspected 

sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially exposed human 

receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when the following 

conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recommendation for future study in 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., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction 

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

the facility boundary. 

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1 

The discharge of HEF in the hangar area during the fire suppression system test in 2014 may 

have resulted in a release to the subsurface via a potentially broken pipe that led to an OWS, or 

a release to the unpaved ground surface outside of Building 10. Firetruck washing and 

maintenance at the Former Fire Station between 1980 and 2013 may have resulted in a release 

of AFFF to the unpaved ground surface outside Building 10 via runoff that was not captured by 

floor drains. 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 7-2

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in the surface soil at AOI 1, with PFOS

above the SL. Therefore, site workers, construction workers, and trespassers could contact 

constituents in surface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust, and the soil exposure 

pathway for those receptors is potentially complete. Additionally, trespassers just outside the 

facility may potentially be exposed to constituents in soil via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility 

ground disturbing activities. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were also detected in 

subsurface soil; however, all detections were below the respective SLs. Ground-disturbing 

activities could potentially result in construction worker exposure to constituents in subsurface soil 

via ingestion. Construction activities were observed to be occurring near the facility at the time of 

the SI field work. Therefore, current and future construction workers could contact constituents in 

shallow subsurface soil via incidental ingestion, and the soil exposure pathway for this receptor 

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

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.2.1 AOI 1 

PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected above their respective SLs in 

groundwater samples collected at AOI 1. The SATF receives its potable water from the Salt Lake 

City public utilities, mostly sourced from mountain streams and supplemented with deep wells 

throughout the Salt Lake Valley (Salt Lake City Public Utilities, 2022). Groundwater is not used 

for drinking water at the facility; therefore, the ingestion pathway for site workers is considered 

incomplete. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, well logs in the area are considerably deeper than 

groundwater at the facility (UDWR, 2022). It is unknown whether offsite private potable wells using 

shallow groundwater are located downgradient of AOI 1; therefore, the ingestion exposure 

pathway for off-facility residents and off-facility recreational users is considered potentially 

complete. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 4.10 to 7.5 

feet bgs. Therefore, groundwater may be encountered during construction activities, and the 

ingestion exposure pathway for construction workers is considered potentially complete as well. 

Construction activities were observed to be occurring near the facility at the time of the SI field 

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

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

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

properties of PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA, were used to determine whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1 

PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. 

Because PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 

1, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil and groundwater to waters in 

the Jordan River. The Jordan River is the main source of irrigation water for farms in the Jordan 

Valley; therefore, the exposure pathway for surface water and sediment to the off-facility resident

and recreational user receptors via ingestion of agricultural products is potentially complete.
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1

2014 Fire 

Suppression 

System Test 

and Former 

Fire Station

Surface Soil

Subsurface 

Soil

Human 

Activities

Precipitation/ 

Run-Off

Leaching/ 

Infiltration

Airborne Soil 

particulate

Surface Soil 

Surface 

Water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

Shallow 

Groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

LEGEND

/ / / /

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Sustained Airborne Training Facility (SATF), Utah

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Surface 

Water

Surface 

Water Flow

NOTES

1. The resident and recreational users

refer to off-site receptors.

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors

is likely insignificant.

3. Human consumption of potentially

affected fish is possible.

4. Active construction within AOI 1 was

occurring as of the date of SI field work..

Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3

Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

AECOM 7-3
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 8-1

8. Summary and Outcome

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

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

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

8.1 SI Activities

The SI field activities were conducted on 15 November 2021 and consisted of utility clearance, 

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

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

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

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

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

Table B-15 as follows. 

• Eight (8) soil samples from four boring locations; 

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

• Two (2) grab groundwater samples from two (2) existing permanent monitoring wells; and

• Eleven (11) QA/QC samples (three (3) soil, three (3) groundwater, two (2) equipment blank, 

two (2) decontamination water, and one (1) field reagent blank 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 AOI 1 to 

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

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

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

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

described in Section 7.

8.2 Outcome 

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

CSM developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure to drinking 

water receptors from AOI 1 from sources on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities.

Sample analytical concentrations collected during the SI were compared against the project SLs

in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative 

to the SLs is as follows:

• At AOI 1:

• PFOS in soil exceeded the SL of 13 μg/kg at one location, AOI01-02, with a

concentration of 32.2 J μg/kg. Based on the soil results of the SI, further evaluation 

of AOI 1 is warranted in an RI.

• PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in groundwater exceeded their respective 

SLs. PFOA exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L at four of the five well locations (AOI01-01, 

AOI01-03, S8-MW2, and S8-MW9), with a maximum concentration of 41,600 ng/L at 

AOI01-03. PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 ng/L at all five well locations, with 

a maximum concentration of 4,300 ng/L at AOI01-01. PFBS exceeded the SL of 601 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 8-2

ng/L at one of the five well locations (AOI01-03), with a concentration of 1,650 ng/L. 

PFHxS exceeded the SL of 39 ng/L at all five well locations, with a maximum 

concentration of 17,100 ng/L at AOI01-03. PFNA exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L at four 

of the five well locations (AOI01-01, AOI01-03, S8-MW2, and S8-MW9), with a 

maximum concentration of 31.9 ng/L at S8-MW2. Based on the groundwater results 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source 

Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility Boundary

Future 

Action

1

2014 Fire 

Suppression 

System Test 

and Former 

Fire Station

Proceed 

to RI

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 9-1

9. References 

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

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

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

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

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

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

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

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. September. 

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

Addendum, Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah, Perfluorooctane 

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

Nationwide. June.

AECOM. 2021b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility, Sustained 

Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

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

Aerostar SES LLC, 2018. Final Site Inspection Report of Aqueous Film Forming Foam Areas at 

Utah Air National Guard, Salt Lake County, Utah. Submitted to Air Force Civil Engineer Center 

by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District. October, 2018. 

ANG. 2014. Compliance Restoration Program – Central Region 2 Final Remedial Action Work 

Plan for Sites 2 and 8 151st Air Refueling Wing, Utah Air National Guard, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

May 2014. 

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

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

6 July. 

CH2M Hill, 2012. Salt Lake City International Airport Terminal Redevelopment Program 

Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Salt Lake City Department of Airports. August 2012.

Available online at: 

https://slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/EA/Final_SLC_EA_Aug2012.pdf

CH2M Hill. 2015. Final Preliminary Assessment Report for Perfluorinated Compounds at Utah Air 

National Guard, Salt Lake City, Utah. June.

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

4 September.

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

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

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

4 November.

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

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

47(9): 4164-71. 
Site Inspection Report

Sustained Airborne Training Facility, Salt Lake City, Utah

AECOM 9-2

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

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

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. Summary of Monthly Normals, 

Salt Lake City International Airport, UT. Electronic Document. Accessed June 2020 at 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/normals. 

Salt Lake City International Airport. 2019. About the Airport, Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting. 

Accessed 4 December 2019 at https://www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/arff/. 

Salt Lake City Public Utilities. 2022. Water Quality. Accessed 11 April 2022 at 

https://www.slc.gov/utilities/water-quality/

UDWR. 2022. Map Search; Water Right Details. Accessed 11 April 2022 at 

https://maps.waterrights.utah.gov/EsriMap/map.asp. 

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

USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation 

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

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

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

Innovation. January.

USFWS. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 2021 at 

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/

USFWS. 2022. Species by County Report, County: Salt Lake, Utah. Environmental Conservation 

Online System. Accessed 15 March 2022 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/

species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=09003. 

Woods, A.J., Lammers, D.A., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Denton, R.L., Domeier, M., and 

Comstock, J.A. 2001. Ecoregions of Utah (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary 

tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,175,000).

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

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

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