FINAL 

Site Inspection Report 

State Military Reservation

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

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

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

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

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

April 2023 

Prepared for: 

Army National Guard Headquarters 

111 S. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204 

UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ iv

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

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES- 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 2-3

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

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

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

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

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE ....................................................................... 2-5

2.4 HISTORICAL PFAS INVESTIGATIONS ............................................. 2-5

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

3.1 AOI 1 – BUILDING 4 ............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 AOI 2 – HELIPAD .................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 AOI 3 – BUILDING 410 ......................................................................... 3-1

3.4 ADJACENT SOURCES .......................................................................... 3-2

3.4.1 NAS Oceana.............................................................................. 3-2

3.4.2 Virginia Beach Fire Training Center and Fire Station 12 ......... 3-3

3.4.3 U.S. Navy Jet Crash Site ........................................................... 3-4

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

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

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

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

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH ................................................................. 4-1
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING............................................. 5-3

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER 

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

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ............................... 5-4

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

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

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

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM................................. 5-5

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS ........................................................................6-11

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS ......................................................................... 6-11

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES.......................................... 6-12

6.3 AOI 1 – Building 4 ................................................................................ 6-12

6.3.1 AOI 1 – Soil Analytical Results..............................................6-12

6.3.2 AOI 1 – Groundwater Analytical Results...............................6-13

6.3.3 AOI 1 – Conclusions...............................................................6-13

6.4 AOI 2 – HELIPAD ................................................................................ 6-13

6.4.1 AOI 2 – Soil Analytical Results..............................................6-13

6.4.2 AOI 2 – Groundwater Analytical Results...............................6-14

6.4.3 AOI 2 – Conclusions..............................................................6-14

6.5 AOI 3 – BUILDING 410 ....................................................................... 6-14

6.5.1 AOI 3 – Soil Analytical Results..............................................6-14

6.5.2 AOI 3 – Groundwater Analytical Results...............................6-15

6.5.3 AOI 3 – Conclusions...............................................................6-15

6.6 BOUNDARY SAMPLE LOCATIONS ................................................ 6-15

6.6.1 Facility Boundary – Soil Analytical Results...........................6-15

6.6.2 Facility Boundary – Groundwater Analytical Results............6-16

6.6.3 Facility Boundary – Conclusions............................................6-16

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS..................................................................................7-1
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Building 4 ...................................................................7-2

7.1.2 AOI 2 – Helipad........................................................................7-2

7.1.3 AOI 3 – Building 410 ...............................................................7-2

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY........................................ 7-2

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Building 4 ...................................................................7-2

7.2.2 AOI 2 – Helipad........................................................................7-3

7.2.3 AOI 3 – Building 410 ...............................................................7-3

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Data Usability Assessment and Data Validation Reports

Appendix B. Field Documentation

B1. Logs of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms 

B3. Survey Data

Appendix C. Photographic Log

Appendix D. Technical Project Planning Meeting Minutes*

Appendix E. Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams

Appendix F. Analytical Results

Appendix G. Laboratory Reports

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Facility Location

Figure 2-2. Facility Topography

Figure 2-3. Groundwater Elevations, September 2021

Figure 2-4. Groundwater Features 

Figure 2-5. Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1. Areas of Interest
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Figure 5-1. Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1. PFOS Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7. PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1. Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 

Figure 7-2. Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2

Figure 7-3. Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF TABLES

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

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

Table 5-1. Samples by Medium, State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Site 

Inspection Report

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

Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Site Inspection Report

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation, State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 

Site Inspection Report

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

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

Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

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

Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

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

Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

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

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius

% Percent

μg/kg Microgram(s) per kilogram

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

AFFF Aqueous film forming foam

amsl Above mean sea level

AOI Area of interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs Below ground surface

btoc Below top of casing

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CSM Conceptual site model

DoD Department of Defense

DPT Direct-push technology

DQO Data quality objective

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

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FB Field blank

FedEx Federal Express

ft Foot (feet)

HDPE High-density polyethylene

HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

HQ Hazard quotient

IDW Investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ng/L Nanogram(s) per liter

No. Number

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID Photoionization detector

PVC Polyvinyl chloride

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial investigation 

SI Site inspection

SL Screening level

TOC Total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VAANG Virginia Air National Guard
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

Inspections (SIs) at ARNG facilities nationwide based on the current or potential historical use of 

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

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

Defense). The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic 

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

perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene 

oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (GenX)1. These compounds are collectively referred to as 

“relevant compounds” throughout the document and the applicable Screening Levels (SLs) are 

provided below in Table ES-1.

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

been 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 identified in 

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

address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on a comparison of SI results to 

screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. This SI was completed at State Military 

Reservation in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and determined further investigation is warranted for 

AOI 2 – Helipad, and AOI 3 – Building 410. State Military Reservation will be referred to as the 

“Facility” throughout this document. 

The Facility, operated by the Virginia ARNG (VAARNG), encompasses approximately 327

acres in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Founded by the Virginia state militia and formerly known as 

State Military Reservation State Military Reservation, State Military Reservation provides 

support facilities for the VAARNG, as well as the Commonwealth ChalleNGe Program and the 

federal and local governments. The Camp proper consists of 229.87 acres owned by the 

VAARNG, 27.5 acres owned by the U.S. Navy, a 60.37-acre complex leased to the U.S. Air 

Force, and select parcels leased to the City of Virginia Beach. The majority of the facility 

consists mainly of level, open grassy areas; however, some wooded areas are present on-site. 

State Military Reservation contains a portion of Lake Christine and is bordered to the east by the 

Atlantic Ocean. 

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

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

Based on the results of this SI, and following the CERCLA process, a remedial investigation (RI) 

is warranted for AOI 2: Helipad and AOI 3: Building 410.

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

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)

1

Industrial / Commercial

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)

 1 

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for 

Groundwater and Soil using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) 

Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.

2. Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPODA (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.

μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram

ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter

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

AOI

Potential Release 

Area

Soil Source 

Area

Groundwater

Source Area

Groundwater

Facility Boundary Future Action

1 Building 4 No further action

2 Helipad Proceed to RI

3 Building 410 Proceed to RI

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of SLs 

 = Detected; no exceedance of SLs 

 = Not detected
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

performed this SI at State Military Reservation in Virginia Beach, Virginia. State Military 

Reservation will be referred to as the “Facility” throughout this report. 

The SI project elements were performed in accordance with the Comprehensive

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

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

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

compliance with Army requirements and guidance for field investigations.

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE

A PA was performed at State Military Reservation (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM] 

2020) that identified three Areas of Interest (AOI) where PFAS-containing materials were used, 

stored, and/or disposed, or areas where known or suspected releases to the environment may 

have occurred. The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the 

environment from the AOIs identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in the absence of other PFAS.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

State Military Reservation, formerly known as State Military Reservation State Military 

Reservation, is located just south of the main resort area of Virginia Beach, Virginia (Figure 2-

1). State Military Reservation provides support facilities for the Virginia Army National Guard 

(VAARNG), as well as tenants including the Commonwealth ChalleNGe Program, and federal 

and local government. State Military Reservation occupies a parcel of land owned by the U.S. 

Navy and leased to the VAARNG. The Virginia Air National Guard (VAANG) 203rd Civil 

Engineer Flight Unit occupies a portion of the Facility. State Military Reservation incorporates 

approximately 327 acres and is bounded by General Booth Boulevard to the west, Birdneck 

Road to the south, the Croatan residential neighborhood to the north, and the Atlantic Ocean to 

the east (AECOM 2020).

The Facility was founded by the Virginia state militia, the precursor to the VAARNG, and began 

construction in 1912. Originally, it comprised of approximately 400 acres. During the height of 

its training mission, State Military Reservation consisted of as much as 1,200 acres. The Facility 

was constructed during three distinct building campaigns with interspersed construction on a 

smaller scale since its establishment as the State Rifle Range in 1912. The first campaign laid out 

the original core of the rifle range, and the layout remains extant. The second campaign of major 

construction, performed by the U.S. Navy in 1919, brought further development of the rifle 

ranges. Although the buildings constructed by the U.S. Navy no longer exist, the layout and 

configuration of the original development areas have been retained. The final major construction 

campaign, completed by the U.S. Army during World War II, provides the majority of extant 

buildings and denotes when the facility was dedicated as State Military Reservation (AECOM 

2020). 

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

State Military Reservation was originally established on farmland and beachfront and has since 

been surrounded by the development of the City of Virginia Beach. The overall terrain of State 

Military Reservation consists of a largely level area; with slight increases in elevation near the 

beach Rifle Range in the facility’s eastern portion, with dunes in the area tending to be more 

gently sloping terrain and ranging from approximately 3 to 7 feet (ft) in height (Figure 2-2). The

Facility also contains some drainage areas, consisting of sloping to steep areas with moderately

drained soils. The elevation of the facility is approximately 26 ft above sea level (AECOM 

2020).

In addition to the Atlantic Ocean, which borders the Facility to the east, Lake Christine extends 

into the facility footprint. Lake Christine is a freshwater body that spans approximately 0.5 mile

from north to south and 0.5 mile from east to west. The Facility’s cottage residences are scattered 

along the west and south sides of Lake Christine, including the Governor's Cottage to the south, 

across Jefferson Avenue, and the Post Superintendent’s House at the southern end of the lake

(AECOM 2020).
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Although the majority of State Military Reservation’s grounds consist of open, grassy spaces, 

there are wooded areas, including the largely wooded zone along the central portion of the 

Facility’s northern boundary and east of Lake Christine. These wooded areas contain a variety of 

coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. The remainder of the facility landscape is developed 

with paved roads, buildings, and structures (AECOM 2020).

The Facility is restricted to the general public by locked fence and guarded entryways but is

unrestricted to State Military Reservation personnel. Facility roads are open only to personnel 

associated with State Military Reservation. The areas surrounding State Military Reservation

consist of commercial and suburban residential areas, as well as municipal facilities and 

recreational areas (AECOM 2020).

2.2.1 Geology

State Military Reservation is on the outer edge of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic 

province. The Atlantic Coastal Plain is a broad wedge of unconsolidated sediments that dip and 

thicken to the east. As confirmed by observations of the subsurface geology and grain size 

analysis conducted during SI field activities, sediments underlying State Military Reservation

consist of several thousand feet of unconsolidated sand, clay, silt, and gravels and are underlain 

by granite basement rock. The sediments range in age from late Cretaceous to recent. The eastern 

portions of State Military Reservation are underlain by beach sand and dune sand deposits, as 

well as marsh and intertidal mud deposits. The central and western portions of State Military 

Reservation are underlain by the Tabb formation Lynnhaven and Poquoson members. The 

Lynnhaven Member is pebbly and cobbly; fine to coarse gray sand grades upward into clayey 

and silty fine sand and sandy silt. Locally, at the base of the unit, medium to coarse cross-bedded 

sand and clayey silt containing abundant plant material fill channels cut into underlying 

stratigraphic units. The Poquoson Member is the surficial sediment over much of the Tabb 

formation area and consists of fluvial estuarine fine- to medium-sand and sandy clay (AECOM 

2020).

The geologic units described in previous environmental investigations at the adjacent Naval Air 

Station (NAS) Oceana are the Yorktown Formation and the Columbia Group. The Columbia 

Group is present at the ground surface in the vicinity of the site and generally extends to 

approximately 20 ft below ground surface (bgs). The Yorktown Formation underlies the 

Columbia Group. The upper Yorktown Formation consists of interbedded layers of shelly, very 

fine- to coarse-sands, clayey sands, and sandy clay of Tertiary age. Regionally, the uppermost of 

these silt and clay beds separates the Yorktown Formation from the sediments of the Columbia 

Group that overlie it. This uppermost bed consists of massive, well-bedded yellow-gray to 

greenish-gray clays and silty clays, commonly containing shells, fine sand, and mica. The 

clay layers within the confining bed are generally extensive but are a series of coalescing clay 

beds rather than a single-deposited unit. This unit was deposited in a shallow open-marine 

environment of broad lagoons and quiet bays. The sediments of the Columbia Group consist of 

interbedded gravels, sands, silts, and clays of Pleistocene and Holocene age. The Pleistocene and 

Holocene sediments were deposited in fluvial-marine terrace and near-shore marine 

environments such as lagoons, beaches, tidal flats, and barrier islands (AECOM 2020).
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

During the SI, the soil underlying State Military Reservation was found to be generally 

composed of light brown to gray silt clay, which transitions to layers of silty sand, consistent 

with the fluvial-marine terrace and near-shore marine environments described above. The 

borings were completed at depths between 10 and 18 feet below ground surface (bgs). 

Samples for grain size analyses were collected at two locations, CPEN-01 (3-4 ft bgs) and 

CPEN-03 (7-8 ft bgs) and analyzed via American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

Method D-422. The results indicate that the soil samples are comprised primarily of silt (64.2% 

to 67%), clay (23% to 30%), and sand (3%-10%). Boring logs are presented in Appendix E and 

grain size results are presented in Appendix F.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The surficial hydrogeologic unit at the adjacent NAS Oceana consists of the Columbia aquifer, 

which extends to a depth of approximately 17 to 30 ft bgs at the Facility. According to the PA, 

the hydrogeologic unit at NAS Oceana, and depth to groundwater, were anticipated to be similar 

at State Military Reservation. This hydrogeologic unit is underlain by the Yorktown confining 

unit across much of coastal Virginia; however, this unit is absent across most of State Military 

Reservation (AECOM 2020). Depth to groundwater encountered during the SI measured in 

September 2021 was found to be between 6.5 to 12 ft bgs. Groundwater elevations calculated 

using depth to groundwater measurements and survey data collected during the SI indicate 

groundwater within the shallow aquifer flows primarily to the north-northeast (Figure 2-3). 

Groundwater is not used for drinking water at State Military Reservation. Public water services 

are provided by the Virginia Beach Department of Public Utilities; water is sourced from Lake

Gaston, via the Lake Gaston Water Supply Pipeline. The 2018 Environmental Data Resources, 

Inc. (EDR)TM Geocheck Radius Map Report indicated that there are no drinking water wells at 

State Military Reservation. VAARNG staff confirmed that no operational wells exist at State 

Military Reservation; however, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, 

Division of Geology and Mineral Resources spatial data for State Military Reservation shows 

three groundwater wells located within the site boundary, as shown on Figure 2-4. The wells are 

listed as public/municipal/ government wells. Interviewees at State Military Reservation believe 

the wells may have been previously abandoned and confirmed that they are not used for drinking 

water (AECOM 2020).

2.2.3 Hydrology

Owl Creek and Lake Christine are the main drainage features surrounding State Military 

Reservation. Surface water in the northwestern section of the Facility flows north to northwest to 

a stormwater pond at the northern end of the facility and into Owl Creek. Surface water in the 

eastern section of the facility flows into Lake Christine. In the southern section of the facility, 

surface water flows north to northwest towards Owl Creek (Figure 2-5). A series of in-ground 

pipes and ditches take water towards two stormwater ponds and eventually discharge in Owl 

Creek (AECOM 2020).

The City of Virginia Beach’s elevation and proximity to water makes it susceptible to flooding.

According to the City of Virginia Beach’s Online Mapping Service, portions of State Military 

Reservation are identified as areas with 0.2 percent (%) annual chance of flooding, areas with a 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

1% chance of annual flooding, and areas that are part of the base floodplain. The majority of 

State Military Reservation is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area, which means it has a

lower risk for flooding (AECOM 2020).

2.2.4 Climate

State Military Reservation is located in an area where temperature extremes are moderated by the 

Atlantic Ocean. The average yearly temperature is 60.0 degrees Fahrenheit, with an annual 

precipitation of 45.7 inches. Winds on average blow from a northerly direction from January 

through March and again in September and October. During the remaining months, winds 

generally blow from a southerly direction (AECOM 2020).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

State Military Reservation’s primary purposes are the training of soldiers and personnel. Both 

VAARNG and VAANG control portions of the facility. The entire facility boundary is fenced, 

and access is gained through a secured gate. When the facilities are not used by military 

organizations, state and local civilian agencies also conduct training on-site. Virginia Beach City 

authorities have repeatedly requested to convert the camp to other uses, including partial or 

complete conversion to a state park. The facility is also currently listed on the Virginia 

Landmarks Register and on the National Register of Historic Places (AECOM 2020).

The Camp proper consists of 229.87 acres owned by the VAARNG. Within the Camp, parcels 

are leased to the City of Virginia Beach, including 1.4 acres for equipment and materials storage, 

a 12.2-acre parking lot used by the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center, 600 ft of 

beachfront, and approximately 505 parking spaces in a beachfront lot. The historic district of the 

Camp includes a 60.37-acre complex leased to the U.S. Air Force for use by a VAANG Civil 

Engineer Unit; 2.5 acres for the VAARNG Virginia Beach Readiness Center (Armory), 

27.5 acres owned by the U.S. Navy, and the remainder is Lake Christine. Also, within the Camp, 

the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Youth ChalleNGe Academy uses barracks and other buildings 

in Regimental Camp Area No. 2, located in the southwestern portion of the Camp, between 

3rd Street and the Camp boundary along South Birdneck Road. Future land use is not expected to 

change (AECOM 2020).

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species

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

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

in the surrounding area.

The following species are listed as federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate 

species in Virginia Beach City, Virginia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2021):

• Birds: Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) – Federally Threatened; Red Knot (Calidris 

canutus rufa) – Federally Threatened; and Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) –

Federally Endangered 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

• Reptiles: Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) – Federally Threatened; Hawksbill Sea 

Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) – Federally Endangered; Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii) – Federally Endangered; Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea) – Federally Endangered; and Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) –

Federally Threatened 

• Mammal: Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) – Federally Threatened.

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE

Three potential PFAS release areas were identified at the Facility during the PA (AECOM 2020). 

Interviews and records obtained during the PA indicate that there was a potential for the storage 

and release of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) at the facility due to the known use of such 

products by the U.S. Navy, who historically controlled and operated the property. According to 

the PA, there is no evidence of a release of PFAS-containing materials at State Military 

Reservation. 

A description of each AOI is presented in Section 3. 

2.4 HISTORICAL PFAS INVESTIGATIONS

No known historical PFAS investigations have been conducted at State Military Reservation. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank 
State Military Reservation

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

3

0 2

Miles

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-1

Facility Location

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

^_

Atlantic Ocean
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
State Military Reservation

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

3

0 2

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Figure 2-2

Facility Topography

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

^_

Date:.................... . April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
<!

<!

<!

<!

<! <!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Well Type

<! Domestic

<! Industrial

<! Municipal/Public/Goverment

<! Monitoring/Observation

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

3

0 0.5

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

USGS NHD 2021

Figure 2-3

Groundwater Features

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

^_

Atlantic Ocean

Lake

Holly

Owl Creek

Great Neck Creek

Lake

Redwing

Date:....................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Sand Ridge-Atlantic

Ocean Watershed

Rudee Inlet-Atlantic

Ocean

Watershed

Ashville

Bridge Creek

Watershed

Ashville

Bridge Creek

Watershed

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Intermittent Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

Watershed Boundary

3

0 0.25

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

USGS NHD 2021

Figure 2-4

Surface Water Features

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

^_

Atlantic Ocean

Owl Creek

Lake

Christine

Date:..................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
<!<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

<! <!

<! <!

<!

<!

<!

<!

AOI01-01

3.82

AOI01-02

2.44

AOI01-03

AOI01-04 5.32

4.62

AOI02-01

4.24

AOI02-02

3.42

AOI02-03

3.4

AOI02-04

3.45

AOI03-01

2.96

AOI03-02

3.99

AOI03-03

3.52 AOI03-04

4.83

CPEN-01

7.98

CPEN-02

4

CPEN-03

2.94

CPEN-04

3.25

4

7

5

6

4

5

4

3

4

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater Elevation

Contour Interval (1 Foot)

Dashed where Inferred

River/Stream

<! Temporary Well Location

3

0 200

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

USGS NHD 2021

Figure 2-5

Groundwater Elevations

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

AOI03-01 = Sample ID

2.96 = Groundwater Elevation (in feet)

^_

Date:..................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 2-16

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST

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

disposed, or released historically. Based on the PA findings, three AOIs were identified at the 

facility: AOI 1 – Building 4; AOI 2 – AFFF Helipad; and AOI 3 – Building 410. The potential 

AOIs are shown on Figure 3-1.

3.1 AOI 1 – BUILDING 4

AOI 1 consists of Building 4, located adjacent to the VAANG Civil Engineer Unit Property, 

in the northern portion of State Military Reservation. According to VAARNG interviewees, 

Building 4 was leased by the U.S. Navy from the late 1990s to 2010 and supported the Military 

Sea Lift Command. During its operation as a U.S. Navy building, a Halon fire suppression 

system was present within the building. The specific type of Halon foam product used by the 

suppression system is unknown, but its contents were never released, according to VAARNG 

staff. Halon is a fire extinguishing agent, almost universally used as an aircraft fire extinguisher, 

which contains bromochlorodifluoromethane. As a chlorofluorocarbon, Halon production has 

ceased, but many Halon products remain in circulation until used for their intended purpose. The 

Halon fire suppression system was removed in 2010, when the building was transferred to the 

VAARNG; it is unknown how the U.S. Navy disposed of their Halon after removal. Based on 

the prevalent use and storage of AFFF at U.S. Navy facilities and the lack of U.S. Navy 

interviewees available during this PA, it is possible that undocumented PFAS-containing 

materials were used or stored at Building 4. Building 4 is considered a potential PFAS release 

area (AECOM 2020).

3.2 AOI 2 – HELIPAD

AOI 2 consists of the Helipad, located directly south of the VAANG property in the northern 

portion of State Military Reservation. Similar to Building 4, a wheeled Halon fire extinguisher 

was formerly staged at the Helipad. The unit described also resembles the AMEREX Halon 1211 

wheeled fire extinguisher. According to interviewees, the Halon unit was never used for training 

or emergency response purposes and was disposed of in 2012. Based on the storage of Halon 

foam at the Helipad and the operational use by non-ARNG units, it is possible that 

undocumented use and storage of PFAS-containing materials occurred there. The Helipad is 

considered a potential PFAS release area (AECOM 2020).

3.3 AOI 3 – BUILDING 410

AOI 3 consists of Building 410, which served as the State Military Reservation Fire Department 

prior to the 1970s and is currently used as a classroom and storage building. Building 410 is 

located in the central portion of State Military Reservation. According to interviewees, Building 

410 has never been a place for storage or use of AFFF products, nor does it have an AFFF fire 

suppression system. During the site visit, hoses stamped in 1976 were observed at Building 410 

and appeared to have function for water only; use of PFAS for firefighting purposes by the 

Department of Defense (DoD) began in 1969. Based on the date stamped on firehoses, Building 

410 may have been used as the State Military Reservation Fire Department after the introduction 

of PFAS-containing materials to the ARNG. Although no evidence gathered for Building 410 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

indicates that AFFF was ever used of stored at the building, it is possible that undocumented 

storage or use of PFAS-containing materials occurred at the building based on its uncertain dates 

of use. Building 410 is considered a potential PFAS release area (AECOM 2020).

3.4 ADJACENT SOURCES

Three potential off-facility sources of PFAS are adjacent to the facility and are not under the 

control of the VAARNG. A description of each off-facility source is presented below and shown 

on Figure 3-1. 

3.4.1 NAS Oceana

The NAS Oceana base is located approximately 2 miles west of State Military Reservation. The 

base, including the NAS Oceana Dam Neck Annex located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of

State Military Reservation, was established in 1943 as a small auxiliary airfield. Since 1943, 

NAS Oceana has grown to 16 times its original size and is now 6,000 acres. NAS Oceana Range 

Control controls aviation operations at State Military Reservation. According to interviewees, 

NAS Oceana has its own Fire Department that stores and uses AFFF during fire training 

exercises within the base. The NAS Oceana Fire Department has responded to numerous U.S. 

Navy crashes within the base and its vicinity using AFFF. Fire training practices and schedule, as 

well as firefighting equipment maintenance and disposal routines, are unknown. According to the 

2018 CH2M NAS Oceana SI, only water is used during fire training at NAS Oceana; however, 

other releases are reported in the SI as listed below (AECOM 2020): 

• 1986 Plane Crash: A plane crashed off Oceana Boulevard. SI interviews indicated that 

AFFF was used in response to this crash.

• 1995 Plane Crash: A plane crashed in the woods on the installation, but SI interviewees 

could not recall whether there was an associated fire. 

• 2007 Plane Crash: A civilian plane crashed during an air show practice off runway 5L. 

SI interviewees could not recall whether AFFF was used. 

• 2012 Plane Crash: An F18 jet crashed into the nearby Mayview Apartments. AFFF was 

used on the subsequent fire. 

• 1100 Area Training Release: During training near the Hush House, an AFFF release 

was accidentally triggered by staff. The concrete area where AFFF was released was 

sprayed down to push AFFF into surrounding grass. 

• Building 145 Accidental Release: An AFFF release was accidentally triggered causing 

AFFF to spill out into the parking lot. Personnel were advised to cover the storm drains 

as best as they could, and spray water to wash the AFFF onto the grass. Remaining AFFF 

was vacuumed and disposed of by a contractor. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

• Hangar 111 Accidental Release: An accidental release occurred during floor nozzle 

retrofitting. 

• Hangar 500 Accidental Releases: Accidental releases of AFFF occurred approximately 

monthly due to suppression system sensor malfunctions. The date range of the monthly 

activations is unknown. 

• Building 139 Accidental Release: In 2010, a spill occurred at the corrosion control 

facility. The AFFF was pushed outside to the grass swale on the southeast side of the 

building, and then cleaned up with a vacuum truck. Multiple releases have occurred at 

Building 139. 

• Hangar 122 Accidental Release: In 201l, a storm caused stormwater to back up and fill 

the overflow tanks in Hangar 122, releasing AFFF to the storm drain and storm ditch. 

Groundwater samples collected during the Oceana SI indicate that PFOS and PFOA 

concentrations in groundwater beneath the base exceed the SLs, with maximum PFOA and 

PFOS concentrations in the Columbia aquifer of 22,600 nanograms per liter (ng/L) and 471,000 

ng/L, respectively. One off-base potable well east of the facility showed detections of PFOA 

(24.6 ng/L) and PFOS (9.25 ng/L). Groundwater at the base generally flows north on the 

northern side of the base, west-northwest at the eastern portion of the base, and south-southwest 

across the southern side of the base (AECOM 2020). The direction of groundwater flow under 

NAS Oceana and absence of PFAS detections in samples collected near the eastern NAS Oceana 

boundary indicate that it is unlikely contamination would influence groundwater underlying 

State Military Reservation. 

3.4.2 Virginia Beach Fire Training Center and Fire Station 12

The Virginia Beach Fire Training Center and Station 12 are located approximately 0.2 mile 

southwest of State Military Reservation. The City of Virginia Beach Fire Department is 

responsible for emergency response at State Military Reservation. Universal Gold 1%/3% ARAFFF is stored in 5-gallon buckets within the vehicle maintenance bays at Fire Station 12. 

Universal Gold 1%/3% AR-AFFF is known to contain fluoroalkyl surfactants. National Foam 

Knockdown Class A Foam Concentrate (non-AFFF) is also stored at Station 12. When needed, 

the Fire Department mixes AFFF from the concentrate with water for use at a response scene. 

According to City of Virginia Beach Fire Department staff, most of the City of Virginia Beach 

Fire Department fire stations have one AFFF-capable firetruck and two to three non-AFFFcapable response vehicles. No City of Virginia Beach Fire Department firetrucks have a history 

of maintenance issues related to AFFF. The City of Virginia Beach Fire Department Battalion 

Chief confirmed that AFFF is not used for washing spills or as a precaution for fuel spills, nor 

has it been used for emergency response at State Military Reservation. No joint fire training with 

AFFF occurs between VAARNG and the Fire Department at State Military Reservation. To the 

knowledge of both VAARNG and City of Virginia Beach Fire Department staff, AFFF has never 

been released at State Military Reservation. Fire Department staff could not confirm whether 

AFFF is used during training operations at the neighboring Virginia Beach Fire Training Center 

(AECOM 2020). Based on the direction of groundwater flow underlying State Military 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Reservation, the Virginia Beach Fire Training Center and Fire Station 12 are potentially 

upgradient of the AOIs. 

3.4.3 U.S. Navy Jet Crash Site

The 2012 U.S. Navy Jet Crash Site is located approximately 2.2 miles north of State Military 

Reservation, near the intersection of North Birdneck Road and Fleming Drive. The crash 

destroyed three buildings, and two were damaged. According to the VAARNG and City of 

Virginia Beach Fire Department interviewees, as well as the 2018 NAS Oceana SI Report, AFFF 

was used by the U.S. Navy Fire Department at the crash scene. The volume and type of AFFF 

used in response to the fire is unknown (AECOM 2020). The 2012 U.S. Navy Jet Crash Site is 

located down and cross-gradient of the AOIs. 
<!

<!

<!

<!

AOI 1

AOI 2

AOI 3

1970s Controlled

Burn Area

Building 4

Building 410

Building 424

Former

Burn Pit

Fueling

Station

Maintenance

Building

Readiness Center

VAANG

Property

Helipad - Halon

Staging Area

<!

<!

<!<!<!

<!<!<!<!

<!

<!

<!

<!

2012 Navy Jet Crash <!

State

Military

Reservation

NAS Oceana

Dam Neck

Annex

NAS

Oceana

Virginia Beach

Fire Department

Station No. 12

Virginia Beach

Fire Dept Fire

Training Center

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrogeology/Hydrology

<! Municipal/Public/Goverment Well Location

Surface Water Flow Direction

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Perennial Creek/Stream

Waterbody

Wetlands

3

0 0.25

Miles

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

USGS NHD 2021

Figure 3-1

Areas of Interest

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

0 1

Miles

Owl Creek

Lake

Christine

^_

Date:..................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

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

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

levels. The SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS

Primary information inputs for the SI include the following:

• The PA Report for State Military Reservation (AECOM 2020)

• Analytical data collected during other environmental sampling efforts at State Military 

Reservation

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

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

• Field data collected including groundwater elevations at the Facility and groundwater 

quality parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES

The scope of the SI was bounded horizontally by the property limits of the Facility (Figure 2-2). 

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

the proper stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be obtained by ARNG 

with property owner(s). Temporal boundaries were limited to the earliest available time field 

resources were available to complete the study.

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Samples were analyzed by Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC, accredited 

under the DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP); Accreditation No. 

1.01). PFAS data underwent 100% Stage 2B validation in accordance with the DoD General 

Data Validation Guidelines (2019) and DoD Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data 

Validation Procedure of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by Quality Systems 

Manual (QSM) Table B-15 (2020).
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

PFAS data were compared to applicable SLs and decision rules as defined in the UFP-QAPP 

Addendum (EA 2021a). 

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-1

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 

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

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

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents. 

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, State Military Reservation, Virginia, Virginia 

Army National Guard, dated August 2020 (AECOM 2020)

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

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

Nationwide, dated December 2020 (EA 2020a)

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

Addendum, State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia dated July 2021 (EA 

2021a)

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

(EA 2020b)

• Final Accident Prevention Plan / Site Safety and Health Plan, State Military Reservation, 

Virginia, Revision 1, dated May 2021 (EA 2021b). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 7 to 10 September 2021 and consisted of DPT boring 

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

collection. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 

2021a), except as noted in Section 5.8.

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

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

5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs:

• Thirty three (33) soil samples from 16 locations (soil borings locations)

• Sixteen (16) grab groundwater samples from temporary well locations.

• Three (3) field blanks (FBs)

• Five (5) equipment rinsate samples

• Six (6) field duplicate samples

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

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

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

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

provided in Appendix B1. 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 scoping/Technical

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

source water. Details of these activities are presented below. 

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process, 

Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (Department of Army 2016a) 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. There was 

no Virginia Department of Environmental Quality regulatory involvement in the planning 

process; therefore, the initial meetings included ARNG, VAARNG, USACE, and representatives 

familiar with the facility. 

A TPP Meeting (no. 3) was held on 11 April 2023 to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting 

minutes for TPP 3 are included in Appendix D of this report. The stakeholders for this TPP 

included VAARNG, USACE, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

representatives familiar with the Facility, the regulations, and the community.

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

EA’s drilling subcontractor contacted Miss Utility of Delmarva to notify them of intrusive work 

at the facility. EA contracted Inframap, a private utility location service, to perform utility 

clearance at the facility. Utility clearance was performed at each of the proposed boring locations 

on 30 August 2021 with input from the EA field team. General locating services and groundpenetrating radar were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 ft of each boring 

was pre-cleared by EA’s drilling subcontractor, GSI Mid-Atlantic, using a hand auger to verify 

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

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

A sample from a deionized water source at the EA Ecotoxicological Laboratory was collected on 

31 March 2021, prior to mobilization. Results of the sample 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. 

The results of the decontamination water sample associated with the wash rack spigot source 

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

DUA (Appendix A).
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

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

environment was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures appendix (Appendix A) to the

Programmatic UFP-QAPP (EA 2020a). 

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING

Soil samples were collected via DPT drilling methods in accordance with Standard Operating 

Procedure 047 Direct-Push Technology Sampling (EA 2021a). A Geoprobe® 7822DT dual-tube 

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

used to collect soil from the top 5 ft of the boring in compliance with utility clearance 

procedures.

Three discrete soil samples were planned to be collected for chemical analysis from each soil 

boring; one sample at the surface (0 to 2 ft bgs) and two subsurface soil samples. One subsurface 

soil sample was to be collected approximately 1 ft above the groundwater table and one was to 

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

bgs); however, one surface soil sample (0 to 2 ft bgs) and only one subsurface soil (1 ft above the 

groundwater table) sample were collected due to the shallow depths to groundwater encountered 

at most locations. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 6.5 to 12 ft bgs during 

drilling. At location CPEN-04, three planned samples were taken due to depth to groundwater 

(12 ft bgs). Total boring completion depths, to accommodate temporary well installation, ranged 

from 10 to 18 ft bgs. 

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

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

PA (AECOM 2020) and as agreed upon by stakeholders during the scoping meeting and review 

of the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

During DPT boring advancement, soil cores were continuously logged for lithological 

description by a field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. A photoionization 

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

safety requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms 

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

concentrations, moisture, relative density, Munsell color, and Unified Soil Classification System

texture were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

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

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

transported via FedEx under standard chain-of-custody procedures to the laboratory and 

analyzed for PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15), total organic 

compound (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A) and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with 

the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). 

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

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when non-dedicated sampling equipment 

was used, such as a hand auger for the shallow soil samples, one equipment blank (EB) was
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

collected per day and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. A temperature blank 

was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius 

(°C) during shipment. 

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

sampling and surveying in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). After 

removal of the casings, boreholes were abandoned using bentonite chips. Borings were installed 

in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces.

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING

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

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

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

ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used at each location to avoid crosscontamination between locations. The screen intervals for the temporary wells are provided in 

Table 5-2.

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

groundwater to infiltrate and recharge the temporary well intervals, using a peristaltic pump with 

PFAS-free HDPE tubing. Each sample was collected in laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE 

bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. The temporary wells were purged at a rate 

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

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

sampling form (Appendix B2) before each grab sample was collected in a separate container. 

Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under standard chain-of-custody

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

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

Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and 

a shaker test was completed to identify if there were any foaming. 

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

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. One field blank (FB) was collected per day in 

accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a). A temperature blank was placed in 

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

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

Groundwater levels measurements were recorded to evaluate site-wide groundwater elevations 

and assess groundwater flow direction. Synoptic water level elevation measurements were 

collected from the newly installed temporary monitoring wells, taken from the survey mark on 

the northern side of the well casing. Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-3. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

5.5 SURVEYING

The northern side of each new temporary well casing was surveyed using a Trimble R10 

real-time kinematic differential global positioning system. Positions were collected in the 

applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with World Geodetic System 1984 

datum (horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). Surveying data were

collected on 10 September 2021 and are provided in Appendix B3. 

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

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

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

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

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid IDW (i.e., purge water, development water, and 

decontamination fluids) generated during the SI activities were placed back into the boring (soil) 

or released to the ground surface at the completion of sampling activities. 

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 off-site at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS

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

at Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a DoD 

ELAP- and National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP)-certified 

laboratory.

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

Method 9045D.

5.8 DEVIATIONS FROM UFP-QAPP ADDENDUM

Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum occurred based on conditions encountered during 

the field investigation activities. These deviations were discussed between EA, ARNG, and 

USACE. Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum are noted below: 

• Due the fact the groundwater was encountered below 12 feet, only two soil samples,

rather than the three outlined in the UFP-QAPP Addendum, were collected at the boring 

locations, with the exception of CPEN-04. Three samples were collected from CPEN-04. 

• A surface soil sample (0–2 ft interval) was not taken at location CPEN-02 due to the 

presence of a thick organic layer (topsoil) from 0 to 1.4 ft bgs. 

• The temporary well purged dry at location AOI 01-03 and the sample was collected once 

there was sufficient recharge. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Table 5-1. Samples by Medium

Sample Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth

(ft bgs)

PFAS(USEPA Method 537 Modified)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

Soil Samples

AOI02-01-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-02-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI02-02-SB-8-9 9/9/2021 8–9 X

CPEN04-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

CPEN03-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI01-04-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI01-02-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI02-03-SB-8-9 9/9/2021 8–9 X

CPEN04-SB-11-12 9/8/2021 11–12 X

CPEN03-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-02-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI01-02-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-04-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI01-01-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-01-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI02-02-SB-1-2 9/9/2021 1–2 X

CPEN01-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

CPEN01-SB-5-6 9/8/2021 5–6 X

AOI01-01-SB-7-8 9/8/2021 7–8 X

AOI03-01-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

CPEN04-SB-6-7 9/8/2021 6–7 X

AOI02-04-SB-6-7 9/8/2021 6–7 X

AOI01-03-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X

AOI03-03-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI02-01-SB-7-8 9/8/2021 7–8 X MS/MSD

AOI03-04-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X MS/MSD

CPEN-FD4 9/9/2021 8–9 X Field duplicate of AOI02-02-SB-8-9

CPEN02-SB-2-3 9/9/2021 2–3 X

AOI02-04-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-04-SB-8-9 9/8/2021 8–9 X X

AOI01-04-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X X

AOI02-01-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X X

CPEN-FD5 9/8/2021 8–9 X X Field duplicate of AOI04-04-SB-8-9

CPEN-01-SB-03 9/8/2021 3 Grain Size Analysis

CPEN03-SB-7-8 9/8/2021 7–8 Grain Size Analysis

AOI02-03-SB-1-2 9/9/2021 1–2 X

AOI03-03-SB-6-7 9/8/2021 6–7 X

AOI01-03-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X

CPEN-FD2 9/8/2021 8–9 X Field duplicate of AOI03-02-SB-8-9

CPEN-FD3 9/8/2021 8–9 X Field duplicate of AOI01-04-SB-8-9

CPEN02-SB-5-6 9/9/2021 5–6 X

AOI01-04-SB-1-2 9/8/2021 1–2 X
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

Table 5-1. Samples by Medium

Sample Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth

(ft bgs)

PFAS(USEPA Method 537 Modified)TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

CPEN-FD1 9/8/2021 8–9 X Field duplicate of CPEN03-SB-8-9

Groundwater Samples

AOI01-01-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI01-02-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI01-03-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI01-04-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI02-01-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI02-02-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI02-03-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI02-04-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI03-01-GW 9/8/2021 X

AOI03-02-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI03-03-GW 9/9/2021 X

AOI03-04-GW 9/8/2021 X MS/MSD

CPEN-01-GW 9/8/2021 X

CPEN-02-GW 9/9/2021 X

CPEN-03-GW 9/8/2021 X

CPEN-04-GW 9/8/2021 X

CPEN-FD1-GW 9/8/2021 X Field duplicate of CPEN-04-GW

CPEN-FD2-GW 9/8/2021 X Field duplicate of AOI03-01-GW

CPEN-FD3-GW 9/9/2021 X Field duplicate of AOI02-01-GW

Blank Samples

CPEN-EB1 9/8/2021 X Equipment Blank

CPEN-EB2 9/9/2021 X Equipment Blank

CPEN-FB1 9/8/2021 X Field Blank

CPEN-FB2 9/9/2021 X Field Blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

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

State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia 

Site Inspection Report

Area of Interest

Boring 

Identification

Soil Boring Depth

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval

(ft bgs)

1 

AOI01-01 15 10–15

AOI01-02 15 10–15

AOI01-03 15 10–15

AOI01-04 15 10–15

2 

AOI02-01 15 10–15

AOI02-02 15 10–15

AOI02-03 15 10-15

AOI02-04 15 10–15

3 

AOI03-01 18 10–15

AOI03-02 15 10–15

AOI03-03 18 10–15

AOI03-04 15 10–15

Facility Boundary

CPEN-01 10 5–10

CPEN-02 10 5–10

CPEN-03 18 9–14

CPEN-04 17.5 10–15

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation 

State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia 

Site Inspection Report

Monitoring Well ID

Top of Casing Elevation

(ft amsl)

Depth to Water

(ft btoc)

Groundwater Elevation

(ft amsl)

AOI01-01 13.48 9.66 3.82

AOI01-02 12.29 9.85 2.44

AOI01-03 13.12 7.80 5.32

AOI01-04 12.60 7.98 4.62

AOI02-01 9.29 5.05 4.24

AOI02-02 7.37 3.95 3.42

AOI02-03 6.79 3.39 3.40

AOI02-04 11.10 7.65 3.45

AOI03-01 11.78 8.82 2.96

AOI03-02 12.33 8.34 3.99

AOI03-03 13.07 9.55 3.52

AOI03-04 11.63 6.80 4.83

CPEN-01 14.93 6.95 7.98

CPEN-02 7.70 3.70 4.00

CPEN-03 12.24 9.30 2.94

CPEN-04 11.04 7.79 3.25

Notes: 

amsl = Above mean sea level

btoc = Below top of casing
AOI01-02 AOI01-01

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI02-01

AOI02-02

AOI02-03

AOI02-04

AOI03-01

AOI03-02

AOI03-03

AOI03-04

CPEN-01

CPEN-02

CPEN-03

CPEN-04

1970s

Controlled

Burn Area

Building 4

Building 410

Former

Burn Pit

Maintenance

Building

Readiness

Center

VAANG

Property

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

VA

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Sample Location

DPT

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

3

0 200

Feet

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

USGS NHD 2021

Figure 5-1

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

^_

Date:..................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-11

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS

This section presents the analytical results of the SI for each AOI. The analytical results are 

reported and evaluated in the subsequent sections. The SLs used in this evaluation are presented 

in Table 6-1. A discussion of the results for each AOI is provided in Sections 6.3 through 6.5. 

Tables 6-2 through 6-4 present PFAS results for samples with detections in soil and 

groundwater; only constituents detected in one or more samples are included. Tables that contain 

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

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS

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)

Analyte

Residential

0 to 2 ft bgs

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

Industrial/Commercial

Composite Worker 2 to 15 ft bgs

(Soil)

(μg/kg) 1 

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L) 1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based SLs in Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional 

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

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

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

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

because 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. 

 μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram

 ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter

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 

receptor identified at the Facility; the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 2 

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

results (2 to 15 ft bgs). The industrial/commercial worker scenario was applied to shallow 

subsurface soil samples collected from mid-point at the soil borings (below 15 ft bgs) in each 

AOI, providing a conservative assessment of that potential exposure route for the 

industrial/commercial workers. The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (greater 

than 15 ft bgs) because 15 ft is the anticipated limit of construction activities. No soil samples 

were collected below 12 ft bgs. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-12

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES

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

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

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

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

appropriate, to assess fate and transport of PFAS contaminants. According to the Interstate 

Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), several important PFAS partitioning mechanisms 

include hydrophobic and lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. 

At relevant environmental pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions, and are 

therefore relatively mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al. 2015) but tend to associate with the 

organic carbon fraction that may be present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo 

and Higgins 2013). When sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized 

distribution coefficients (Koc values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other 

geochemical factors (e.g., pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption 

to solid phases (ITRC 2018). 

Soil pH was measured as 4.9 in samples collected from AOI 1. Soil pH was measured as 4.7 in 

samples collected from AOI 2. Soil pH was measured as 4.8 in a sample collected from AOI 3. 

TOC ranged from a low of 400,000 mg/kg in the sample collected from AOI 3 to a high of 

3,900,000 mg/kg in the sample collected from AOI 1.

6.3 AOI 1 

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

AOI 1 – Building 4, which was historically leased by the U.S. Navy. 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 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize 

the detected compounds in soil.

Soil was sampled in four boring locations associated with one potential release area at AOI 1. 

Soil was sampled from two intervals, shallow (0–2 ft bgs) and intermediate depths (less than 15 

ft bgs), at four locations. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in samples taken from the shallow

interval. PFOS was detected in one sample, taken from AOI01-04 at a depth of 8–9 ft bgs

(subsurface soil), with a value of 0.84 μg/kg. Location AOI01-04 is located to the southwest of 

Building 4. PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in any other subsurface soil 

samples collected from the boring locations associated with AOI 1. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-13

6.3.2 AOI 1 – Groundwater Analytical Results 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the 

groundwater results.

Groundwater samples were collected from four temporary wells at AOI 1 during the SI activities. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at concentrations 

exceeding associated SLs. PFOA was detected in groundwater at concentrations ranging from 

0.62 J ng/L (AOI01-01) to 3.0 ng/L (AOI01-03). PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected 

in groundwater at location AOI01-03 at concentrations of 3.4 ng/L, 0.82 ng/L, 1.5 ng/L, and

0.84 J ng/L, respectively. PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected at one location AOI01-

03, which also had the highest concentration of PFOA. 

6.3.3 AOI 1 – Conclusions

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

PFBS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective SLs. Therefore, 

further evaluation at AOI 1 is not warranted.

6.4 AOI 2 

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

AOI 2 - Helipad where a wheeled Halon fire extinguisher was formerly staged. 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.

6.4.1 AOI 2 – Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize 

the detected compounds in soil.

Soil was sampled in four boring locations associated with one potential release area at AOI 2. 

Soil was sampled from two intervals, at shallow (0–2 ft bgs) and intermediate depths (less than 

15 ft bgs), at four locations. 

PFOA was detected in two surface soil samples (0–2 ft bgs), taken from AOI02-02 and AOI02-

04, with values of 0.28 J μg/kg and 0.22 J μg/kg, respectively. PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS

were not detected in any shallow soil samples collected from the boring locations associated with 

AOI 2. Additionally, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in any 

subsurface soil samples collected from the boring locations associated with AOI 2. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-14

6.4.2 AOI 2 – Groundwater Analytical Results 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the 

groundwater results.

Groundwater samples were collected from four temporary wells at AOI 2 during the SI activities. 

PFNA was not detected in any samples. PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were not detected in 

groundwater at concentrations exceeding associated SLs. PFOS was detected at a concentration 

5.1 J ng/L, which exceeds the SL (4 ng/L). All detections of the aforementioned analytes, 

including the exceedance, were detected in the groundwater sample collected at location AOI02-

01, which was located southwest of the helipad, adjacent to the surrounding road and upgradient

of the AOI. 

6.4.3 AOI 2 – Conclusions

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

detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective SLs. However, PFOS was 

detected at a concentration, which exceeded the associated SL. Based on the exceedance of an

SL in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 2 is warranted.

6.5 AOI 3 

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

AOI 1 - Building 410, which served as the State Military Reservation Fire Department prior to 

the 1970s. 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.

6.5.1 AOI 3 – Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize 

the detected compounds in soil.

Soil was sampled in four boring locations associated with one potential release area at AOI 3. 

Soil was sampled from two intervals at four locations, at shallow (0–2 ft bgs) and intermediate 

depths (less than 15 ft bgs). 

PFOA and PFHxS were detected in one surface soil sample (0–2 ft bgs), taken from AOI03-01, 

with a values of 0.28 J μg/kg and 0.27 μg/kg, respectively. PFOS was detected in two surface 

soil samples, taken from AOI03-01 and AOI03-03, with values of 0.35 J μg/kg and 0.51 J μg/kg, 

respectively. PFBS and PFNA were not detected in any shallow soil samples collected from the 

boring locations associated with AOI 3. Additionally, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS

were not detected in any subsurface soil samples collected from the boring locations associated 

with AOI 3.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-15

6.5.2 AOI 3 – Groundwater Analytical Results 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the 

groundwater results.

Groundwater samples were collected from four temporary wells at AOI 3 during the SI activities. 

PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding 

associated SLs. However, at temporary well AOI03-03, PFOS and PFOA were detected at 

concentrations of 5.8 ng/L and 6.2 ng/L, which exceed the associated SLs of 4 ng/L and 6 ng/L, 

respectively. In addition to these exceedances, the highest concentrations of PFBS (1.1 ng/L) and 

PFNA (2.0 ng/L) were also detected at location AOI03-03, located east of Building 410, in the 

grass adjacent to the garage door.

6.5.3 AOI 3 – Conclusions

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

and PFBS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective SLs. However, 

PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations, which exceeded their associated SLs. Based 

on the exceedances of SLs in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 3 is warranted.

6.6 BOUNDARY SAMPLE LOCATIONS

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

facility boundary. 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.

6.6.1 Facility Boundary – Soil Analytical Results

Figure 6-1 through 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 summarize 

the detected compounds in soil.

Soil was sampled in four boring locations not associated with the AOIs, predominantly located 

around the facility boundary. Soil was sampled from two intervals at four locations, at shallow 

(0–2 ft bgs) and intermediate depths (less than 15 ft bgs), with the exception of CPEN-04 (three 

total samples due to deeper groundwater depth encountered at this location) and CPEN-02 (one 

sample collected 2–3 ft bgs and one <15 ft bgs), as previously described in Section 5.8.

PFOS was detected in two surface soil samples (0–2 ft bgs), collected from CPEN-01 and 

CPEN-04, with values of 0.26 J μg/kg and 0.27 J μg/kg, respectively. PFOA was detected in two 

surface soil samples, taken from CPEN-01 and CPEN-04, with values of 0.55 J μg/kg and 0.46 J 

μg/kg, respectively. PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in any soil samples collected 

from the boring locations associated with the facility boundary. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-16

6.6.2 Facility Boundary – Groundwater Analytical Results 

Figures 6-6 and 6-7 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the 

groundwater results.

Groundwater samples were collected from four temporary wells not associated with the AOIs, 

predominantly located around the facility boundary, during the SI activities. 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater samples collected from 

four temporary wells. In general, the detections of these analytes were below associated SLs. 

However, PFOA was detected at locations CPEN-01 and CPEN-03 at concentrations of 9.5 ng/L 

and 8.9 ng/L, respectively. Both of these detections exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L. Similarly, PFOS 

was detected at locations CPEN-01 and CPEN-03 at concentrations of 11 ng/L and 13 ng/L, 

respectively. Both of these detections exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L. Based on the location of these 

exceedances (upgradient and cross gradient boundaries), there is likely an off-facility source 

(Virginia Beach Fire Training Center and Fire Station 12), which may be contributing PFAS to

the groundwater migrating onto the site from the northeast.

6.6.3 Facility Boundary – Conclusions

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

PFBS were detected in groundwater below their respective SLs. However, PFOS and PFOA 

were detected in groundwater at concentrations, which exceeded their respective SLs. Based on 

the exceedances of SLs in groundwater, further evaluation of the facility boundary is warranted.
Site Inspection Reports

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1,2 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual 

PFAS (E537M) (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 130 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.27 J Perfluorononanoic acid 19 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 13 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.35 J Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 19 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 0.28 J ND U 0.22 J 0.28 J Notes:J = Estimated concentration.U = Analyte was not detected.μg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram1. The Screening Levels for soil are based on incidental ingestion of soil in a residential scenario. 2. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. RiskBased Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPO-DA if warrantedValues exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ft bgs = Feet below ground surface.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.Qual = Qualifier.

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 

9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 

AOI01 AOI02 

AOI01-01-SB-1-2 AOI01-02-SB-1-2 AOI01-03-SB-1-2 AOI01-04-SB-1-2 AOI02-01-SB-1-2 AOI02-02-SB-1-2 AOI02-03-SB-1-2 AOI02-04-SB-1-2 AOI03-01-SB-1-2 

Location ID

Depth (ft bgs)

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-18

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Reports

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1,2 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qua

PFAS (E537M) (ug/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorononanoic acid 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160 ND U ND U ND U 0.84 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Notes:U = Analyte was not detected.ug/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram1. The Screening Levels for soil are based on incidental ingestion of soil in a industrial/commercial worker scenario.2. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. RiskBased Screening Levels in Groundwater and 

Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.3. Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPO-DA if warrantedft bgs = Feet below ground surface.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.Qual = Qualifier.

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

7-8 8-9 8-9 8-9 8-9 7-8 8-9 8-9 6-7 

AOI01-01-SB-7-8 AOI01-02-SB-8-9 AOI01-03-SB-8-9 AOI01-04-SB-8-9 CPEN-FD3 AOI02-01-SB-7-8 AOI02-02-SB-8-9 AOI02-03-SB-8-9 AOI02-04-SB-6

Depth (ft bgs)

9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/8/2021 

Sample Date

Sample Name

Location ID AOI01 AOI02

Parent Sample ID AOI01-04-SB-8-9

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Site Inspection Reports

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1,2

PFAS (E537M) (ug/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 25000Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 1600Perfluorononanoic acid 250

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 160Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 250Notes:U = Analyte was not detected.ug/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogram1. The Screening Levels for soil are based on incidental ingestion of soil in a 

industrial/commercial worker scenario.2. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. RiskBased Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.Values exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.3. Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPO-DA if warrantedft bgs = Feet below ground surface.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.Qual = Qualifier.

Depth (ft bgs)

Sample Date

Sample Name

Location ID

Parent Sample ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qua

ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U 

5-6 2-3 8-9 8-9 

9/9/2021 9/8/2021 9/8/2021 

CPEN03-SB-8

9/8/2021

CPEN

CPEN01-SB-5-6 CPEN02-SB-2-3 CPEN03-SB-8-9 CPEN-FD1 

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

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation
Site Inspection Reports State 

Military Reservation , Virginia 

Location ID

Sample Name

Parent Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth (ft bgs)

Analyte Result Qual Result Qual

PFAS (E537M) (μg/kg)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND U ND UPerfluorohexanesulfonic acid ND U ND UPerfluorononanoic acid ND U ND UPerfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND U ND UPerfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND U ND UNotes:U = Analyte was not detected.Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPODA if warrantedμg/kg = Microgram(s) per kilogramft bgs = Feet below ground surface.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.

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

Soil Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

5-6 11-12

CPEN

CPEN02-SB-5-6 CPEN04-SB-11-12

9/9/2021 9/8/2021

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-22

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Reports

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Analyte Screening Level1 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qua

PFAS (E537M) (ng/L)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 601 ND U ND U 0.84 J ND U 1 J ND U ND U ND U Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 39 ND U ND U 0.82 J ND U 2 ND U ND U ND U 

Perfluorononanoic acid 6 ND U ND U 1.5 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 4 ND U ND U 3.4 ND U 5.1 J ND U ND U ND U 

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 6 0.62 J 0.64 J 3 0.75 J 2.6 ND U ND U ND U Notes:J = Estimated concentrationU = Analyte was not detected.ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter.1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.2. Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPO-DA if warrantedValues exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.Qual = Qualifier.

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation

9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 9/9/2021 

AOI02-02-GW AOI02-03-GW AOI02-04-GW 

Location ID

Sample Date 9/9/2021 9/9/2021

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

AOI01 AOI02 

AOI-01-01-GW AOI01-02-GW AOI01-03-GW AOI01-04-GW AOI02-01-GW

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC
Site Inspection Reports

State Military Reservation, Virginia 

Analyte Screening Level1

PFAS (E537M) (ng/L)Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 601Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 39Perfluorononanoic acid 6Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 4Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 6Notes:J = Estimated concentrationU = Analyte was not detected.ng/L = Nanogram(s) per liter.1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Risk-Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using EPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ)=0.1. May 2022.2. Screening values for HFPO-DA were established after SI planning and execution and thus not included as an analyte. Future CERCLA phases will include HFPO-DA if warrantedValues exceeding the Screening Level are shaded gray.ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD.Qual = Qualifier.

Location ID

Sample Date

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Resu

4.4 ND U 11 0.63.4 ND U 20 0.5

2.3 ND U 1.2 J 0.4

11 ND U 13 0.5

9.5 ND U 8.9 0.6

9/8/2021 9/9/2021 9/8/2021

9

CPEN-01-GW CPEN-02-GW CPEN-03-GW CPE

CPEN

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

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

Site Inspection Report, State Military Reservation
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

3

0 300

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

Shallow Intermediate

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N

^_

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 160 - 1,600

> 13 - 160

> ND - 13

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

Notes:

PFOS = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-26

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

3

0 300

Feet

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

Shallow Intermediate

^_

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2,500

> 250- 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N

Notes:

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-28

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

3

0 300

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

Shallow Intermediate

^_

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

> 25,000

> 1,900 - 25,000

> 10 - 1,900

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N

Notes:

PFBS = Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-30

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

3

0 300

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

Shallow Intermediate

Notes:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

^_

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

> 1,600

> 130 - 1,600

> 10 - 130

> ND - 10

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (μg/Kg)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-32

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

3

0 300

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

^_

Notes:

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo. Depth intervals shown

represent respective sampling position

within a given soil boring location.

Shallow Intermediate

> 2,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

> 2 ,500

> 250 - 2,500

> 19 - 250

> ND - 19

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-34

This page intentionally left blank 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 424

Building 410

Fueling Station

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-02

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-03 AOI02-02

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 424

Building 410

Fueling Station

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-02

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-03 AOI02-02

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 424

Building 410

Fueling Station

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-02

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-03 AOI02-02

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 400

Feet

PFOA PFOS

0 400

Feet

PFBS

Notes:

PFOA = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOS = Perfluorooctanoic acid

PFBS = Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

^_

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 6 - 40

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOA Results (ng/L)

> 70

> 40 - 70

> 4 - 40

> ND - 4

ND (Non-Detect)

PFOS Results (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 601 - 1,000

> 100 - 601

> ND - 100

ND (Non-Detect)

PFBS Results (ng/L)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-36

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia

Figure 6-7

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

VAANG Property

1970s Controlled Burn Area

Former Burn Pit

Readiness Center

Helipad

- Halon

Staging Area

Building 410

Building 4

Maintenance

Building

CPEN-04

CPEN-03

CPEN-01

AOI03-04

AOI03-03

AOI03-02

AOI03-01

AOI02-04

AOI02-02 AOI02-03

AOI02-01

AOI01-04

AOI01-03

AOI01-02

AOI01-01

CPEN-02

3

0 300

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

VA

Data Sources:

ESRI 2020

AECOM 2020

Path: \\lovetongis\GISdata\Federal\Nationwide\PFAS\MAES_634250383\PROJECTS\SIReport\CampPendleton\CampPendleton_SI.aprx

0 300

Feet

PFHxS PFNA

Notes:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted

with a yellow halo.

^_

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 39 - 100

> ND - 39

ND (Non-Detect)

PFHxS Result (ng/L)

> 1,000

> 100 - 1,000

> 6 - 100

> ND - 6

ND (Non-Detect)

PFNA Results (ng/L)

Date:.................... April 2023

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

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

Projection:........WGS 84 UTM 18N
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-38

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-1

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The conceptual site models (CSM) for the AOIs, revised based on the SI findings, are presented 

on Figures 7-1 through 7-3. 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 

solely 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. SLs are presented in 

Section 6.1 of this report.

1. Contaminant source

2. Environmental fate and transport

3. Exposure point

4. Exposure route

5. Potentially exposed populations. 

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

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 

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

complete if the relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

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

filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has 

detections of relevant compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete 

pathway that have detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further 

investigation. Although the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may 

exist, the recommendation for future study in a remedial investigation (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 PFAS exposure pathways 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 PFAS 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, and 

recreational users of Lake Christine and Owl Creek (and its tributaries). The CSM for AOIs 1, 2, 

and 3, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figures 7-1 through 7-3.

7.1 SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY 

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

between the source and potential receptors at AOI 1 through AOI 3 based on the aforementioned 

criteria.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-2

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Building 4

AOI 1 – Building 4 was potentially used for undocumented storage of PFAS-containing 

materials. PFOS was detected in subsurface soil (8-9 ft bgs) at a low level in one boring location 

at AOI 1. Based on the results of the SI at AOI 1, ground-disturbing activities to subsurface soil 

could potentially result in construction worker exposure to detected constituents via incidental 

ingestion. Therefore, the exposure pathway for ingestion of subsurface soil is potentially 

complete for construction workers. As PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not 

detected in the surface soil interval, there is no potential exposure to site or construction workers 

via inhalation of dust or incidental ingestion of soil and the associated exposure pathways are 

incomplete for these receptors. The CSM for this AOI is presented in Figure 7-1.

7.1.2 AOI 2 – Helipad

AOI 2 – Helipad was potentially used for undocumented storage of PFAS-containing materials. 

PFOA was detected in surface soil (0–2 ft bgs) at low levels in two boring locations completed at 

AOI 2. Site workers and construction workers could contact constituents in surface soil via 

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

workers and construction workers are potentially complete. As PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, 

and PFBS were not detected in the subsurface soil interval, there is no potential exposure to 

construction workers via incidental ingestion of subsurface soil and the associated exposure 

pathway is incomplete for this receptor. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-2.

7.1.3 AOI 3 – Building 410

AOI 2 – Building 410 served as the State Military Reservation Fire Department prior to the 

1970s. PFOS and PFOA were detected in surface soil (0–2 ft bgs) at low levels in two boring 

locations completed at AOI 3. Site workers and construction workers could contact constituents 

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

pathway for site workers and construction workers are potentially complete. As PFOA, PFOS, 

PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in the subsurface soil interval, there is no potential 

exposure to construction workers via incidental ingestion of subsurface soil and the associated 

exposure pathway is incomplete for this receptor. The CSM is presented in Figure 7-3.

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 at each AOI based on the aforementioned 

criteria. 

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Building 4

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from the temporary wells 

associated with AOI 1; however, no concentrations exceeded their respective SLs. Due to the 

shallow occurrence of groundwater (6.5–12 ft bgs), there is potential exposure to construction 

workers via incidental ingestion of shallow groundwater during trenching activities. Therefore,

the exposure pathway for construction workers is potentially complete. The PA noted that Owl 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-3

Creek acts as a hydraulic barrier between the AOI and downgradient wells identified as public, 

municipal, or government wells (AECOM 2020). Additionally, groundwater is not used for 

drinking water at State Military Reservation. Therefore, the exposure pathway for site workers, 

off-facility residents, and trespassers via the ingestion of groundwater is considered to be 

incomplete due to the absence of an exposure point or route to those receptors. The CSM is 

presented in Figure 7-1. 

7.2.2 AOI 2 – Helipad

PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from the temporary well location 

AOI02-01, associated with AOI 2; however, no concentrations exceeded their respective SLs. 

PFOS was detected at a concentration which exceeded the SL. Due to the shallow occurrence of 

groundwater (6.5–12 ft bgs), there is potential exposure to construction workers via incidental 

ingestion of shallow groundwater during trenching activities. Therefore, the exposure pathway 

for construction workers is potentially complete. The PA noted the lack of potable wells 

downgradient of AOI 2 and the assumption that shallow groundwater discharges to Lake 

Christine (AECOM 2020). Additionally, groundwater is not used for drinking water at State 

Military Reservation. Therefore, the exposure pathway for site workers, off-facility residents, 

and trespassers via the ingestion of groundwater is considered to be incomplete due 

to the absence of an exposure point or route to those receptors. The CSM is presented in 

Figure 7-2. 

7.2.3 AOI 3 – Building 410

PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from the temporary well locations

associated with AOI 3; however, no concentrations exceeded their respective SLs. PFOS and 

PFOA were detected at concentrations which exceeded their associated SLs. Due to the shallow 

occurrence of groundwater (6.5–12 ft bgs), there is potential exposure to construction workers 

via incidental ingestion of shallow groundwater during trenching activities. Therefore, the 

exposure pathway for construction workers is potentially complete. The PA noted that Owl 

Creek acts as a hydraulic barrier between the AOI and downgradient wells identified as public, 

municipal, or government wells (AECOM 2020). Additionally, groundwater is not used for 

drinking water at State Military Reservation. Therefore, the exposure pathway for site workers, 

off-facility residents, and trespassers via the ingestion of groundwater is considered to be 

incomplete due to the absence of an exposure point or route to those receptors. The CSM is 

presented in Figure 7-3. 

7.3 SURFACE WATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from the temporary wells 

associated with AOI 1. Due to the likelihood of shallow groundwater discharging to neighboring 

surface water bodies (on- and off-site), and the known groundwater detections found during the 

SI, there is potential exposure to site workers, construction workers, and off-site recreational 

users of Owl Creek, its tributaries, and Lake Christine. Surface water and sediment were not 

sampled as part of this SI, as the scope of sampling was limited to the presence or absence of 

PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS in soil and groundwater within the facility boundary. 

Therefore, the exposure pathways for these receptors are considered potentially complete.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-4

This page intentionally left blank
Notes:

1. The resident and recreational users refer to

off-site receptors.

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 State Military Reservation

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/Future

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker Resident1

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker

Resident1

AOI 1 –

Building 4

PFAS in 

Surface 

Soil

Human 

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne 

Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil 

at AOI

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

Shallow 

Groundwater

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Potential 

release or 

storage of 

PFAS due to 

historic U.S. 

Navy operations

SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

PATHWAY

Transport

and Migration Media Exposure 

Routes

Inhalation 

of Dust

Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of 

Screening Level

Recreational 

User1

Recreational 

User1
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-6

This page intentionally left blank
Notes:

1. The resident and recreational users refer to

off-site receptors.

Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site 

Model AOI 2 State Military 

Reservation

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/Future

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker Resident1

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker

Resident1

AOI 2 –

Helipad

PFAS in 

Surface 

Soil

Human 

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne 

Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil 

at AOI

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

Shallow 

Groundwater

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Potential 

storage or 

release of AFFF

SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

PATHWAY

Transport

and Migration Media Exposure 

Routes

Inhalation 

of Dust

Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of 

Screening Level

Recreational 

User1

Recreational 

User1
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-8

This page intentionally left blank
Notes:

1. The resident and recreational users refer to

off-site receptors.

Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model

AOI 3 State Military Reservation

RECEPTOR

Human Receptors:

Current/Future

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker Resident1

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker

Resident1

AOI 3 –

Building 

410

PFAS in 

Surface 

Soil

Human 

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne 

Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil 

at AOI

Surface 

Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface 

Soil

Shallow 

Groundwater

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Potential 

storage or 

release of AFFF

SOURCE

Source Release 

Mechanism Media

PATHWAY

Transport

and Migration Media Exposure 

Routes

Inhalation 

of Dust

Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of 

Screening Level

Recreational 

User1

Recreational 

User1
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-10

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-1

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

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

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

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

the SLs. 

8.1 SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES SUMMARY 

The SI field activities at the facility were conducted from 7 to 10 September 2021. The SI field 

activities included soil and groundwater sampling. Field activities were conducted in accordance 

with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA 2021a), 

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant 

with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 as follows:

• Thirty-three soil (33) samples from 16 locations (soil borings locations)

• Sixteen (16) grab groundwater samples from temporary well locations.

• Thirteen QA/QC samples.

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

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

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

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

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

exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure to PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, 

PFNA, and PFHxS at the AOIs, described in Section 7. 

8.2 OUTCOME

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation in the form of a RI is warranted for AOI 2 and 

AOI 3. Based on the CSMs developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is no potential 

for exposure to drinking water receptors from potential on-site releases of PFAS or potential offsite, adjacent sources. 

Sample chemical analytical concentrations collected during this SI were compared against the 

project SLs for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS in soil and groundwater, as described in 

Table 6-1. The following bullets summarize the SI results: 

• AOI 1:

 PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater in the 

sample locations associated with AOI 1. There were no exceedances of the SLs.

Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

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

 PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in soil in the sample locations 

associated with AOI 1. PFOS was detected at a concentration that did not exceed

the SL. Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 1 is 

warranted.

• AOI 2:

 PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at concentrations 

exceeding associated SLs. PFOS was detected at a concentration 5.1 J ng/L, 

which exceeds the SL (4.0 ng/L). All detections of the aforementioned analytes, 

including the exceedance, were detected in the groundwater sample collected at 

location AOI02-01, which was located southwest of the helipad, adjacent to the 

surrounding road and upgradient of the AOI. Based on the results of the SI, 

further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in the RI.

 PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in soil in the sample locations 

associated with AOI 2. PFOA was detected at a concentration that did not exceed 

the SL. 

• AOI 3: 

 PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS were not detected in groundwater at concentrations 

exceeding associated SLs. PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations of 

5.8 ng/L and 6.2 ng/L, which exceed the associated SLs of 4.0 ng/L and 6.0 ng/L, 

respectively. In addition to these exceedances, the highest concentrations of PFBS 

(1.1 ng/L) and PFNA (2.0 ng/L) were also detected at location AOI03-03, located 

east of Building 410, in the grass adjacent to the garage door. Based on the results 

of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 3 is warranted in the RI.

 PFBS and PFNA were not detected in any soil samples collected from the boring

locations associated with AOI 3. PFOA, PFHxS, and PFOS were detected at 

concentrations that did not exceed associated SLs. 

• Upgradient Boundary:

 PFHxS, PFNA, and PFBS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below 

associated SLs. PFOA was detected at locations CPEN-01 and CPEN-03 at 

concentrations of 9.5 ng/L and 8.9 ng/L, respectively. Both of these detections 

exceeded the SL of 6.0 ng/L. Similarly, PFOS was detected at locations CPEN-01 

and CPEN-03 at concentrations of 11 ng/L and 13 ng/L, respectively. Both of 

these detections exceeded the SL of 4.0 ng/L. These locations are upgradient of 

AOI 3. The groundwater detections of PFOA and PFOS at these locations 

represent the highest concentrations observed at the Facility. Based on the results 

of the SI, further evaluation of the boundary locations is warranted in the RI.
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-3 

 PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were not detected in any soil samples collected from 

the boring locations associated with the facility boundary. PFOA and PFOS were 

detected at concentrations that did not exceed associated SLs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI

Potential Release 

Area

Soil

Source Area

Groundwater

Source Area

Groundwater

Facility Boundary Future Action

1 Building 4 No further action

2 Helipad Proceed to RI

3 Building 410 Proceed to RI

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of SLs 

 = Detected; no exceedance of SLs 

 = Not detected
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-1

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-1

9. REFERENCES

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, State 

Military Reservation, Virginia, Virginia Army National Guard. August.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)TM . 2018. Geocheck Radius Map Report

Department of the Army. 2016. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February.

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

September.

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

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

. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. November.

. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data Validation Procedure for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. May.

EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC (EA). 2020a. Final Programmatic Uniform 

Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. December.

. 2020b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Revision 1. November.

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

Addendum, State Military Reservation, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. July. 

. 2021b. Final Accident Prevention Plan / Site Safety and Health Plan, State Military 

Reservation, Virginia, Revision 1. May.

Guelfo, J.L. and C.P. Higgins. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids and 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47(9):4164-

71. 

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

Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(23):7251-7256. 

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2018. Environmental Fate and Transport for 

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 
Site Inspection Report

State Military Reservation, Virginia Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-2

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances within The Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States 

Department of Defense. 6 July.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 11 December.

. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule).

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. 

Accessed 8 December. 

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

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

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