Final

Site Inspection Report 

Army Aviation Support Facility

Byrd Field

Sandston, Virginia

Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic 

acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), 

Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and 

Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at ARNG Installations, 

Nationwide 

May 2023 

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................... 2-1

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

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

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

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species............................. 2-3

2.3 History of PFAS Use ............................................................................................... 2-3

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

3.1 AOI 1: Flightline and Fuel Point .............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Adjacent Sources.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Former Virginia Air National Guard Base...................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Other Potential Release Areas at Richmond International Airport................ 3-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ........................................................................... 5-1

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

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

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling............................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling ............................... 5-3

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

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

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste ................................................................................... 5-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results ......................................................... 6-2

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions........................................................................................ 6-3
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM ii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM iii

Appendices

Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B2. Sampling Forms

B3. Field Change Request Forms

B4. Survey Data

B5. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs

Appendix F Analytical Results

Appendix G Laboratory Reports

Figures 

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, February 2022

Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Tables

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

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

Elevations

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

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

Soil

Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Deep Subsurface 

Soil

Table 6-5 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Detections in Groundwater

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

% percent

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film-forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI Area of Interest

ARFF Aircraft Rescue Firefighting

ARNG Army National Guard

BB&E BB&E, Inc. 

bgs below ground surface 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CoC chain of custody

CRAC Capital Region Airport Commission

CSM conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DPT direct push technology

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

EDRTM Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM 

EEE EEE Consulting, Inc.

EM Engineer Manual

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

FedEx Federal Express

FRB field reagent blank

GPS global positioning system

GPRS Ground Penetrating Radar Systems

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS matrix spike 

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ng/L nanograms per liter

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM vi

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VAANG Virginia Air National Guard

VAARNG Virginia Army National Guard
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compounds. This SI was completed at the Byrd Field Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) in 

Sandston, Virginia and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1. The AASF Byrd 

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

AASF Byrd Field is located on the southeast corner of the Richmond International Airport at 700 

Portugee Road, Sandston, Virginia in Henrico County. The property is about 94 acres and 

contains an airfield, fuel farm, hangars, hazardous materials storage areas, and aboveground 

storage tanks. A former munitions supply area was previously owned and occupied by the Virginia 

Air National Guard and is currently used by the Virginia ARNG (VAARNG) for general industrial 

purposes (EEE Consulting, Inc., 2008). The AASF Byrd Field property has been leased from the 

Capital Region Airport Commission by VAARNG since 1964. AASF Byrd Field is used by VAARNG 

for the maintenance and repair of military aircraft, military training, and hazardous materials 

storage.

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

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

results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation (RI)

for AOI 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM ES-2

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater) 

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4 

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1 Flightline and Fuel Point Proceed to RI 

Legend:

N/A = not applicable 

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Facility (AASF) Byrd Field in Sandston, Virginia. AASF Byrd Field is also referred to as 

the “facility” throughout this document. 

The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

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

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

investigations. 

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at AASF Byrd Field (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2020) that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 2-1

2. Facility Background

2.1 Facility Location and Description 

AASF Byrd Field is located on the southeast corner of the Richmond International Airport, at 700 

Portugee Road, in Sandston, Henrico County, Virginia (Figure 2-1). The AASF Byrd Field property 

has been leased from the Capital Region Airport Commission (CRAC) by the Virginia ARNG 

(VAARNG) since 1964. The property is about 94 acres. A former munitions supply area was 

previously owned and occupied by the Virginia Air National Guard (VAANG) and is currently used 

by VAARNG for general industrial purposes (EEE Consulting, Inc. [EEE], 2008). The facility has 

been referred to as the Former Richmond Army Airfield, but will be referred to as AASF Byrd Field, 

or the “facility” in this SI Report. 

The facility is bordered directly to the north by Richmond International Airport and to the south by 

Chesapeake & Ohio railroad. AASF Byrd Field and adjacent airport properties are generally 

characterized as light industrial areas; however, residences are present within the vicinity of the 

airport. Residential areas exist approximately 1.5 miles north of the facility, and the surrounding 

southern areas contain sparse rural residencies and wooded properties.

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

AASF Byrd Field is located just east of the Fall Line, which separates the Coastal Plain 

physiographic province (east) and the Piedmont physiographic province (west). The terrain is 

relatively flat, with the surface elevation of AASF Byrd Field at approximately 158 feet above mean 

sea level (amsl) (Figure 2-2). The topography gradually slopes downward to White Oak Swamp 

Creek, which is located approximately 2,000 feet south of the facility (EEE, 2008).

2.2.1 Geology

AASF Byrd Field is located in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Virginia Coastal Plain 

is underlain by a thick wedge of sediments that increase in thickness from the Fall Zone to the 

continental shelf, where it exceeds 4,000 meters in depth. These sediments rest on an eroded 

surface of Precambrian to early Mesozoic rock. Two-thirds of this wedge are comprised of late 

Jurassic and Cretaceous clay, sand, and gravel that were stripped from the Appalachian 

Mountains, carried eastward by rivers, and deposited in deltas in the newly formed Atlantic Ocean 

basin (Meng and Harsh, 1988). The uppermost geologic unit at AASF Byrd Field is the Bacons 

Castle Formation, which directly overlies unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits. Local geologic 

units are shown on Figure 2-3. 

Soil borings completed during the SI found poorly graded silty sand and clayey sand as the 

dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below AASF Byrd Field. All borings were 

completed to a depth of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring logs also showed layers of 

clay and sand observed at thicknesses ranging from a few inches to 15 feet, as well as varying 

percentages of gravel (trace to 10 percent [%)]. Additionally, brick and asphalt fragments were 

observed in shallow soil at AOI01-03. These observations are consistent with the expected 

subsurface material at the facility. Boring logs are presented in Appendix E. 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The facility aquifer (Yorktown aquifer) is a shallow water table aquifer within the sediments 

comprising fine-grained quartz sand interbedded with silt and clay laminae. Data from the 

previous investigations at the adjacent former VAANG Base indicate that the aquifer is semiconfined due to the generally impermeable nature of the 20 feet of overlying soil. The base 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 2-2

of the aquifer has been identified locally at depths of approximately 47 to 48 feet bgs. There are 

two distinct portions of the aquifer referred to as the upper surficial and lower surficial aquifer. The 

mean hydraulic conductivity of the upper surficial aquifer is approximately 2.41 feet per day 

(ft/day), while the mean hydraulic conductivity of the lower surficial aquifer is approximately 9.65 

ft/day (AECOM, 2018a). 

An Environmental Data Resources, Inc.TM (EDRTM) report presented results of a well search for a 

1-mile radius surrounding the facility (EDRTM, 2019). Using additional online resources, such as 

state and local Geographic Information System databases, wells were researched to a 4-mile 

radius of the facility. A public water supply well is located approximately 0.25 miles southeast of 

the facility but is listed in the EDRTM report as having a closed status. Information provided by the 

Virginia Department of Health (VDH) indicates the well is 331 ft deep with well screens from 240 

to 250 and 310 to 330 feet bgs. It is unclear whether the well has been abandoned, but it’s 

operation permit was revoked in February 1998. The VDH list of public waterworks does not 

include the well identified approximately 0.25 miles southeast of the facility. In addition, three 

water wells exist within a 1-mile radius of the facility, including one public/municipal/government 

well, one industrial well, and one domestic well (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and 

Energy, 2018).

The facility is provided drinking water by the Henrico County Department of Public Utilities, which 

sources its water from the James River. The nearest known surface water intake to the facility is 

the Raw Water Pumping Station associated with the Henrico County Water Treatment Facility, 

which is located on the James River approximately six miles south of AASF Byrd Field (Henrico 

County Department of Public Utilities, 2022). 

Depths to water measured in February 2022 during the SI ranged from 2.79 to 12.7 feet bgs. 

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

groundwater flow direction is to the west in the eastern portion of the facility, and to the south in 

the northern portion of the facility. It is presumed that the observed groundwater flow west 

converges with southern flow and migrates off facility south towards White Oak Swamp Creek. 

2.2.3 Hydrology

AASF Byrd Field is located within the White Oak Swamp Watershed, which drains to the 

Chickahominy River. The western portion of the property is predominately wooded with

wetland areas. Surface water is conveyed via reinforced channels in the southern portion of 

the facility, which then lead south to an off-facility rip-rap channel. All surface drainage from 

the facility eventually discharges to White Oak Swamp, which is located approximately 0.15 

miles south of the facility. 

According to the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) and Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VDEQ), elevated levels of PFAS were observed in surface water 

samples collected from White Oak Swamp near the Richmond International Airport (VDH, 

2021). PFAS compound concentrations and sample locations associated with the VDH and 

VDEQ study are unknown. PFAS compounds have also been detected in surface water 

samples collected as part of the former VAANG Base SI, as discussed in Section 3.2.1. 

Surface water features are presented on Figure 2-5. 

2.2.4 Climate

The climate of Richmond, Virginia is characterized as humid sub-tropical. Frequent short cold 

spells occur in winter, with temperatures in the low teens. The summer season experiences 

normal maximum and minimum temperatures of 88 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 67°F, 

respectively. The winter season experiences normal maximum and minimum temperatures of 

50°F and 30°F, respectively (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2019). 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 2-3

Annual precipitation is well-distributed throughout the year, with an average annual precipitation 

of 43.60 inches. On average, the most precipitation occurs in the month of August, with an 

average total accumulation of 4.7 inches, and the least precipitation occurs in the month of 

February, with an average total accumulation of 2.8 inches (NOAA, 2019). 

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

AASF Byrd Field is used by VAARNG for the maintenance and repair of military aircraft, military 

training, and hazardous materials storage. The current lease will expire in 2032. Plans for the 

construction of a new AASF facility are being developed but will not take place until the termination

of the current lease.

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species 

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

threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Henrico County, Virginia (US 

Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2022). 

• Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate)

• Birds: Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (recovery)

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

Myotis lucifugus (under review); Tricolored bat, Perimyotis subflavus (under review); West 

Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus (threatened)

• Clams: Atlantic pigtoe, Fusconaia masoni (threatened)

• Flowering plants: Small whorled pogonia, Isotria medeoloides (threatened); Swamp pink, 

Helonias bullata (threatened); Sensitive joint-vetch, Aeschynomene virginica (threatened); 

New Jersey rush, Juncus caesariensis (species of concern); Least, Virginia trillium, Trillium 

pusillum virginianum (Species of Concern)

2.3 History of PFAS Use 

One potential release area was identified during the PA where AFFF may have been used or 

released historically: AOI 1: the Flightline and Fuel Point (AECOM, 2020). AFFF is stored in ten 

Tri-MaxTM 30 fire extinguishers staged across the Flightline and Fuel Point. Based on the 

corrosive nature of AFFF, and the Tri-MaxTM 30 fire extinguishers exposure to the elements while 

staged at the AOI, it is possible that AFFF has leaked from the extinguishers. A description of AOI

1 is presented in Section 3. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 2-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA ­ 8/25/2022

1:63,360 Figure 2-1 PM CM 8/25/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

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

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

012 0.5

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

^_

AASF Byrd Field

AECOM 2-5
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA ­ 8/25/2022

1:12,000 Figure 2-2 PM CM 8/25/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Topography

Base Map: USGS The National Map: National

Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program,

0 1 500 ,000 2,000

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

AECOM 2-6
A!

!C(

!C(

A!

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!5

!P

!5 !P

!P

!5

!P

!C(

!C(

A!

!P

!C(

!P

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!5

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!C(

!C(

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!P

A!

!P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C( !C( !C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!5

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!5

!5

!5

!C( !C(

!5

!C(

!C(!5 !5

!C(

!5

!5

!5 !C(

A!

!C( !C(!C( !C(!C(

!C(

!P

!C(

!P

A!

!5 !5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!C(

!P

!P

!P

!C(

A!

A!

A!

AA!!

A!A!

AA!

AA!!!!AA

!

A!!A!

A!A!!A!

A!A!!

A!A!

A!

A!!

AA!

AA

!!!!

A!

A!A!A!

A!

A!

AA!!A!

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

A! AA!A!!

A!!!A!

!C(

El der S w

ma p

Tuckers Branch

BoarSwam p

Fou rmi leCreek

R oundabo ut Creek

Wh ite OakS wamp Creek

Canal S wamp

Chic kahominy Rive r

Stony

Run

Sweeney Cre e k

Al mond Creek

Whi teOa

C

k Swamp

ornelius Creek

Deep Run

Bailey

Creek

McDowe l l Creek

Gil

ie Creek

Deerlick Branch

ot S ny

Run

Coles Run

Ros s

Run

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

2/6/2023

2/6/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA ­ 2/6/2023

1:95,040 Figure 2-3 PM CM 2/6/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 1 0.75 .5 3

Miles

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Groundwater Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow

Direction

Geology

Alluvium

Quaternary and Tertiary Deposits

(Undifferentiated)

Chuckatuck Formation

Windsor Formation

Bacons Castle Formation

Pliocene Sand and Gravel

Chesapeake Group

Lower Tertiary Deposits

Wells

!P Domestic

!P Commercial

!5 Industrial

!5 Irrigation/Agriculture

!C( Public / Municipal / Government

A! Unknown

A! Monitoring

AECOM 2-7
?!

?!

?!

?!

?! ?!

A!

AOI01-01

144.7

AOI01-02

145.1

AOI01-03

144.64 AOI01-04

148.33

AOI01-05

145.64

AOI01-06

145.26

BF-MW-05

152.9

White Oak Swamp Creek

152

151 150

147

146

148

149

145

149

148

147

146

145

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

JW

10/18/2022

10/18/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA ­ 10/18/2022

1:5,160 Figure 2-4 PM CM 10/18/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevations, 

February 2022

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

and the GIS User Community

0 4 215 30 860

Feet

Legend

?! DTP Boring/Temporary Monitoring Well

A! Existing Monitoring Well

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88.

AECOM 2-8
Wh ite Oak Swamp

Fourmile Creek

White Oak Swam pCreek

Deerlic kBranch

Ro ss

Run

White Oak

Swamp

Watershed

Powhite

Creek-Chickahominy

River Watershed

Almond Creek-James

River Watershed

Fourmile

Creek

Watershed

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

BN

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA ­ 8/25/2022

1:31,680 Figure 2-5 PM CM 8/25/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

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

and the GIS User Community

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Surface Water Flow Direction

AECOM 2-9
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 2-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 3-1

3. Summary of Areas of Interest

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

disposed, or released historically. Based on the PA findings, one potential release area, AOI 1: 

Flightline and Fuel Point, was identified at AASF Byrd Field (AECOM, 2020). The potential release 

areas are shown on Figure 3-1. Other adjacent potential release areas are described in Section 

3.2 and are also shown on Figure 3-1 for informational purposes. 

3.1 AOI 1: Flightline and Fuel Point

AOI 1 includes the Flightline and Fuel Point, where AFFF is stored in ten Tri-MaxTM 30 fire 

extinguishers. The fire extinguishers are staged outdoors across the Flightline and Fuel Point. 

Based on the corrosive nature of AFFF, and the Tri-MaxTM 30 fire extinguishers exposure to the 

elements while staged at the AOI, it is possible that AFFF has leaked from the extinguishers.

According to VAARNG staff, the Tri-MaxTM extinguishers were acquired in 2010 and have never 

been used.

3.2 Adjacent Sources

Numerous potential off-facility sources adjacent to the facility, not under the control of the 

VAARNG, have been identified. Descriptions of the potential adjacent sources are presented 

below.

3.2.1 Former Virginia Air National Guard Base 

The former VAANG Base is located north of AASF Byrd Field, adjacent to the Richmond 

International Airport runway. During its operational history, the facility housed and serviced a 

variety of military aircraft. According to a 2016 PA report for PFAS by BB&E, Inc. (BB&E), five 

potential release locations were identified at the former VAANG Base (BB&E, 2016). Based on 

the PA’s recommendations, an SI was completed for the five potential release locations. The SI 

included soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water sampling at each of the locations (Amec 

Foster Wheeler, 2019). The potential release locations are described below with information 

drawn from the Phase I Regional SI for Perfluorinated Compounds at the VAANG Former 192nd 

Fighter Wing at Richmond International Airport Byrd Field (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2019). 

Building 3649 is the former VAANG Base Main Hangar, and based on the timeline of its 

operational use, AFFF releases are possible. Groundwater samples collected at Building 3649 

exceeded the screening criteria established in the SI Report, and the SI Report recommended 

additional groundwater and soil investigations to determine the nature and extent of a confirmed 

release. 

Building 3645 is the former VAANG Base Fire Station and housed four Aircraft Rescue Firefighting 

(ARFF) vehicles. No known AFFF releases occurred. Groundwater and surface water samples 

collected at Building 3645 exceeded the screening criteria established in the SI Report, and the 

SI Report recommended additional groundwater, soil, and surface water investigations to 

determine the nature and extent of a confirmed release.

Building 2851 is the former VAANG Base Fuel System Maintenance Dock, which included an 

AFFF fire suppression system. It is unknown whether the system were ever triggered or leaked. 

Groundwater and surface water samples collected at Building 2851 exceeded the screening 

criteria established in the SI Report, and the SI Report recommended additional groundwater, 

soil, and surface water investigations to determine the nature and extent of a confirmed release. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 3-2

Building 96 is the former VAANG Base Hush House (also known as the Jet Engine Test Cell), 

which was an enclosed aircraft jet engine testing facility. It is unknown whether AFFF were stored 

or used within the Hush House. No samples collected at Building 96 during the SI exceeded their 

respective screening criteria; however, the SI Report recommended additional groundwater and 

soil investigations to determine the nature and extent of a confirmed release. 

The Concrete Ramp/Apron area at the former VAANG Base used for aircraft de-icing operations 

was also investigated during the SI. The concrete ramp included a wash rack with a drain on the 

southern portion of the apron and was used for annual fire training with Class B foam. 

Approximately 5-gallons of AFFF product was used during each annual event. Groundwater and 

surface water samples collected at the Concrete Ramp/Apron area exceeded the respective 

screening criteria established in the SI Report, and the SI Report recommended additional 

groundwater, soil, and surface water investigations to determine the nature and extent of a 

confirmed release. 

In addition to investigating the potential release locations identified above, the SI investigated the 

former VAANG Base boundaries. Groundwater samples collected at the base boundary locations 

exceeded the screening criteria established in the SI Report, and the SI Report recommended 

additional groundwater investigation to evaluate potential off bases sources and determine the 

nature and extent of confirmed releases.

3.2.2 Other Potential Release Areas at Richmond International Airport 

According to the 2016 PA report for PFAS at the former VAANG Base (BB&E, 2016), a former fire 

training pit was located in the southwest portion of the Richmond International Airport. The fire 

training pit was used by VAANG and the Richmond International Airport ARFF Department. A 

mockup aircraft was stationed at the fire pit, where Jet Propellant Type 4 fuel was poured and 

then ignited. It is possible that AFFF might have been used during the fire training exercises 

conducted by VAANG. The area has since been remediated and has not been used since 1991.

The Richmond Fire Academy is located on the northeast side of the airport. The academy was 

rebuilt in 1988 and is currently used for training municipal firefighters. According to the 2016 PA 

report for PFAS (BB&E, 2016), the Fire Training Academy burns a mixture of #2 fuel oil and water 

approximately once per year for fire training purposes. It is possible that AFFF might have been 

used historically during the fire training exercises and may be used currently.

Several other areas not investigated as a part of the former VAANG Base PA or SI where potential 

releases may have occurred exist across the Richmond International Airport complex. The 

Richmond International Airport ARFF Department has a fire station between Runways 20 and 16. 

Approximately 4,000 gallons of AFFF are stored in totes at the fire station. Three firetrucks 

containing AFFF are additionally stored at the station. In the event of an emergency response, 

AFFF buckets are taken onto the firetrucks and then mixed at the location of the incident. The 

firetrucks/AFFF tanks are cleaned at the fire station after use. The Fire Department also has a 

maintenance shop and a nozzle testing area at the airport. The fire department performs nozzle 

testing everyday with water (AECOM, 2020).

There are also several hangars at the airport known to store AFFF, although use of AFFF at the 

locations is unknown. Altria Group, Inc. and the Virginia Department of Aviation maintain hangars 

to the west of Runway 20 with known AFFF storage, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 

a hangar located in a secured area to the east of Runway 16 with an AFFF fire suppression 

system (AECOM, 2020).

Lastly, several aircraft crash locations exist at the airport where AFFF was used in emergency 

response. In 1996, a fighter jet crashed onto Runway 16, adjacent to the former VAANG Base, 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 3-3

and AFFF was used in response. In 2008, a private aircraft crashed just west of Runway 20, and 

AFFF was used in response. In 2012, an aircraft crashed onto Runway 20, adjacent to the 

Richmond International Airport terminals, and AFFF was used in response. No information about 

the cleanup of AFFF at the crash locations is available (AECOM, 2020).
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AOI 1

White Oak Swamp Creek

White Oak Swamp

1996 Fighter

Jet Crash

2008 Crash

2012 Crash

Altria

Hangar

Facility

Byrd AASF

Flightline

Former Fire

Training Pit

Fuel Point

Richmond

Fire Academy

Virginia

Department

of Aviation

Concrete

Ramp/Apron

Building

96 - Former

Hush House

Building 3649

- Former Main

Hangar/FBI Hangar

Building 3645

- Former

Fire Station

Buliding 2851 -

Former Fuel System

Maintenance Dock

Richmond International

Airport Rescue Fire Fighting

Department Fire Station

White Oak

Swamp

Watershed

Almond

Creek-James

River Watershed

Fourmile

Creek

Watershed Fourmile Creek

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

ST

2/6/2023

2/6/2023

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

1:16,800

2/6/2023 ­ Figure 3-1 PM CM 2/6/2023

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Areas of Interest

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

and the GIS User Community

0 700 1,400 2,800

Feet

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential Release Area

Facility Boundary

Former VAANG Base

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Surface Water Flow Direction

Groundwater Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

AECOM 3-5 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 3-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 4-1

4. Project Data Quality Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 included:

• The PA for AASF Byrd Field AASF (AECOM, 2020);

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

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

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling. 

4.3 Study Boundaries

The scope of the SI is bounded by the property limits of AASF Byrd Field. Off-facility sampling is 

not included in the scope of this SI; however, if future off-facility sampling is required, the proper 

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

property owner(s). Temporal boundaries did not limit the scope of the SI. The SI was conducted in 

February and the results reflect conditions at the facility at that time. There was no severe weather 

event before or during field activities.

4.4 Analytical Approach

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 Data Usability Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 4-2

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

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-1

5. Site Inspection Activities

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

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

in accordance with the following approved documents:

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

dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018b);

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

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, AASF Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia dated July 2020 

(AECOM, 2020);

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

AASF Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia dated October 2021 (AECOM, 2021);

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, 

Virginia dated February 2022 (AECOM, 2022).

The SI field activities were conducted from 18 to 24 February 2022 and consisted of utility clearance, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Eighteen (18) soil samples from six boring locations; 

• Seven grab groundwater samples from six temporary wells and one existing permanent 

monitoring well; and

• Fourteen (14) quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) samples. 

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

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

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

in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, a Field Change Request is 

provided in Appendix B3, land survey data are provided in Appendix B4, and investigationderived waste (IDW) polygons are provided in Appendix B5. Additionally, a photographic log of 

field activities is provided in Appendix C. 

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

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

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

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

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-2

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

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

address the AOIs identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 15 October 2021, prior to SI field activities. The 

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

stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, VAARNG, and USACE. Stakeholders were provided 

the opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling approach and methods at the 

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

memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). 

A TPP Meeting 3 will be held after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes 

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

AECOM placed a ticket with the “Virginia 811” Virginia utility clearance provider to notify them of 

intrusive work on 27 January 2022; the ticket was updated on 14 February 2022. However, 

because the AASF is a private facility, the participating “Virginia 811”locators did not clear utilities 

across the entire facility. Therefore, AECOM contracted Ground Penetrating Radar Systems 

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

clearance of the proposed boring locations on 18 February 2022 with input from the AECOM field 

team and AASF Byrd Field facility staff. General locating services and ground-penetrating radar 

were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet of each boring were pre-cleared 

using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface where utilities would typically 

be encountered. 

5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability

Two potable water sources at AASF Byrd Field were sampled on 30 December 2021 to assess 

usability for decontamination of drilling equipment. Results of the samples collected from a spigot 

at the wash rack (BF-PW-01) and a spigot at Building 3905 (BF-PW-02) confirmed these sources 

to be acceptable for use in this investigation; therefore, the sources were used throughout the 

field activities. A third sample was collected from the drillers tote tank used to contain the potable 

water from the decontamination water sources (BF-PW-03). The results of the decontamination 

water sample collected from the drillers tote tank confirmed the tote to be acceptable for use in 

the investigation as well. The samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 

Table B-15. The results of the decontamination water samples associated with the potable water 

sources and drillers tote tank used during the SI are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the 

results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A). 

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

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

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

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

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

regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

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

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

Addendum (AECOM, 2021). A GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system was be used to 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-3

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

top 5 feet of the boring, in accordance with AECOM utility clearance procedures. The soil boring 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observations and measurements were recorded on boring logs (Appendix E) and in a nontreated field logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID 

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

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

Soil borings completed during the SI found poorly graded silty sand and clayey sand as the 

dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below AASF Byrd Field. All borings were 

completed to a depth of 20 feet bgs. Layers of clay and sand were also observed in the boring 

logs for all locations at thicknesses ranging from a few inches to 15 feet, as well as varying 

percentages of gravel (trace to 10%). Additionally, brick and asphalt fragments were observed in 

shallow soil at AOI01-03. These observations are consistent with the understood depositional 

environment of the region.

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

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

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

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

carbon (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A), and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the 

SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). Grain size analysis was not performed, in accordance with 

the SI QAPP Addendum, because distinguishable extensive horizontal and vertical clay units were 

not encountered in the field (AECOM, 2021). Clay layers were present across the facility. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sampling activities. 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-foot 

section of 2-inch Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen with a 0.01-inch slot size and 

sufficient casing to reach ground surface. New PVC pipe and screen were used to avoid cross 

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

Table 5-2. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-4

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

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

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

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

draw down prior to sampling. Groundwater samples were also collected from the existing 

permanent monitoring well via low-flow sampling methods using a peristaltic pump. Water quality 

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

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

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

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

samples. 

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

a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3

Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the hole with bentonite chips. 

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 24 February 2022. Groundwater 

elevation measurements were collected from the six new temporary monitoring wells and one 

existing permanent monitoring well sampled. Water level measurements were taken from the 

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

Groundwater elevation data are provided in Table 5-2. 

5.5 Surveying 

The northern side of each well casing was surveyed by a state-licensed surveyor following 

guidelines provided in the SOPs provided in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021). The top of 

casing and ground surface elevation were surveyed for each newly installed well and one existing 

permanent monitoring well. Survey data from the wells on the facility were collected on 24 

February 2022 in the applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with North 

American Datum 1983 State Plane (horizontal) and North American Vertical Datum 1988 

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

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

As of the date of this report, the disposal of IDW is not regulated federally. IDW generated during 

the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and was managed in accordance with the SI QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2021) and with the DA Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 

2018). 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-5

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities were left in place at the point of the 

source. The soil cuttings were distributed on the ground surface on the downgradient side of the 

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

samples collected from that source location. 

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

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

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

groundwater samples collected from that source location.

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

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

Appendix B5. 

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

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

activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods

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

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

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

5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum

One deviation from the SI QAPP Addendum was identified during review of the field 

documentation. The deviation is noted below and documented in Field Change Request Form 

(Appendix B3): 

• Of the six soil sample locations, four (AOI01-01, AOI01-02, AOI01-05, and AOI01-06) were 

relocated due to accessibility issues resulting from densely wooded areas. The sample 

locations were offset as necessary to allow for safe access while continuing to meet the SI 

DQOs. Distances between the original and revised sample locations can be found in the 

Field Change Request Form. Additionally, proposed groundwater sample location BF-MW10 was removed from SI sampling because it could not be located and may no longer exist, 

according to facility personnel; in its place, existing permanent monitoring well BF-MW-5 

was added to the sampling program to allow for assessment of the southeastern edge of 

the flight ramp. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field, Virginia

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC + pH (EPA 9060A/9045D)

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 8:25 0 - 2 X

AOI01-01-SB-0-2-D 2/23/2022 13:40 0 - 2 X FD

AOI01-01-SB-6-8 2/22/2022 9:00 6 - 8 X

AOI01-01-SB-12-14 2/22/2022 9:10 12 - 14 X

AOI01-02-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 9:45 0 - 2 X

AOI01-02-SB-7-9 2/22/2022 9:55 7 - 9 X

AOI01-02-SB-13-15 2/22/2022 10:00 13 - 15 X

AOI01-03-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 13:30 0 - 2 X

AOI01-03-SB-7-9 2/22/2022 13:35 7 - 9 X

AOI01-03-SB-17-19 2/22/2022 13:40 17 - 19 X

AOI01-04-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 12:20 0 - 2 X

AOI01-04-SB-7-9 2/22/2022 12:35 7 - 9 X

AOI01-04-SB-13-15 2/22/2022 12:45 13 - 15 X

AOI01-05-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 10:40 0 - 2 X

AOI01-05-SB-7-9 2/22/2022 10:50 7 - 9 X

AOI01-05-SB-13-15 2/22/2022 11:00 13 - 15 X X

AOI01-05-SB-13-15-D 2/22/2022 11:00 13 - 15 X FD

AOI01-05-SB-13-15-MS 2/22/2022 11:00 13 - 15 X MS

AOI01-05-SB-13-15-MSD 2/22/2022 11:00 13 - 15 X MSD

AOI01-06-SB-0-2 2/22/2022 8:50 0 - 2 X

AOI01-06-SB-0-2-MS 2/22/2022 8:50 0 - 2 X MS

AOI01-06-SB-0-2-MSD 2/22/2022 8:50 0 - 2 X MSD

AOI01-06-SB-7-9 2/22/2022 9:25 7 - 9 X

AOI01-06-SB-7-9-D 2/22/2022 9:25 7 - 9 X FD

AOI01-06-SB-13-15 2/22/2022 9:35 13 - 15 X

Soil Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field, Virginia

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date/Time

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15TOC + pH (EPA 9060A/9045D)

Comments

AOI01-01-GW 2/23/2022 14:00 NA X

AOI01-02-GW 2/23/2022 12:50 NA X

AOI01-03-GW 2/23/2022 11:42 NA X

AOI01-04-GW 2/23/2022 10:50 NA X

AOI01-05-GW 2/22/2022 9:58 NA X

AOI01-06-GW 2/22/2022 14:45 NA X

BF-MW-05-GW 2/22/2022 13:25 NA X

BF-MW-05-GW-D 2/22/2022 13:25 NA X FD

BF-MW-05-GW-MS 2/22/2022 13:25 NA X MS

BF-MW-05-GW-MSD 2/22/2022 13:25 NA X MSD

BF-ERB-01 2/23/2022 10:30 NA X Collected from drill rod tooling

BF-ERB-02 2/23/2022 10:38 NA X Collected from hand auger

BF-ERB-03 2/23/2022 14:15 NA X Collected from water level meter

BF-FRB-01 2/23/2022 10:25 NA X

BF-PW-01 12/30/2021 9:25 NA X Decon water source at wash rack

BF-PW-02 12/30/2021 9:40 NA X Decon water source at building 3905

BF-PW-03 2/23/2022 10:35 NA X Decon water source via driller tote

Groundwater Samples

Quality Control Samples

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

BF = Byrd Field

bgs = below ground surface

Decon = decontamination

ERB = equipment rinsate blank

FD = field duplicate

FRB = field reagent blank

GW = groundwater

LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

NA = not applicable

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

pH = potential of hydrogen; quantitative measure of the acidity or basicity of aqueous or other liquid solutions

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

SB = soil boring

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-2

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field, Virginia

Area of 

Interest

Boring 

Location

Soil Boring 

Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval 

(feet bgs)

Top of Casing 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Ground Surface 

Elevation 

(feet NAVD88)

Depth to 

Water

(feet btoc)

Dept

Wa

(feet 

AOI01-01 20 15 - 20 154.98 154.74 10.28 10AOI01-02 20 15 - 20 156.97 156.29 11.87 11AOI01-03 20 15 - 20 155.00 154.79 10.36 10AOI01-04 20 15 - 20 156.15 155.88 7.82 7.5AOI01-05 20 15 - 20 158.54 158.34 12.9 12AOI01-06 20 15 - 20 156.48 156.23 11.22 10

Sitewide BF-MW-05* 10 3 - 10 155.27 155.69 2.37 2.7

Notes:

AOI = area of interest

BF = Byrd Fieldbgs = below ground surfacebtoc = below top of casingNA = not applicableNAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988* = existing permanent monitoring well

1

AECOM 
AECOM 

Site Inspection ReportArmy Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
?!

?!

?!

?!

?! ?!

A!

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI 1

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

ST

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

PROJECT Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

1:5,160 ­ Figure 5-1 PM CM 8/25/2022

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

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

and the GIS User Community

0 215 430 860

Feet

Legend

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

AECOM 5-11
AECOM 5-12

Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 6-1

6. Site Inspection Results 

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

presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for AOI 1 is provided in Section 6.3. Table 

6-2 through Table 6-5 present results in soil or groundwater for the relevant compounds. Tables

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

Appendix G. 

6.1 Screening Levels 

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

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

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

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

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

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

6-1 below.

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

Analyteb

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ 

Commercial 

Composite 

Worker 

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater) 

(ng/L)a

PFOA 19 250 6 

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6 

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

identified at the facility: the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 2 feet bgs) 

and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil results (2 to 

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 6-2

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

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

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

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 AOI 1 

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

1: Flightline and Fuel Point. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Table 6-2

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

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

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

6-4 summarize the soil results. 

Surface soil was sampled in 2-foot intervals from 0 to 2 feet bgs at boring locations AOI01-01 

through AOI01-06. Soil was also sampled in 2-foot intervals from the shallow subsurface (6 to 15 

feet bgs) at boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-06, and from a deeper subsurface interval 

(17 to 19 feet bgs) at boring location AOI01-03. PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected 

at concentrations below their SLs in surface soil as listed below. PFOA was not detected in surface 

soil.

• PFOS was detected at two of the six locations, with a concentration of 0.089 J 

(estimated concentration) micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) at AOI01-03 and 1.46 J+ 

(estimated concentration, biased high) μg/kg at AOI01-01. 

• PFHxS was detected in three of the six locations, with concentrations ranging from 

0.037 J μg/kg to 0.151 J μg/kg.

• PFNA was detected at one location, AOI01-01, with a concentration of 0.036 J

μg/kg. 

• PFBS was detected at one location, AOI01-01, with a concentration of 0.038 J 

μg/kg. 

Of the relevant compounds, only PFOS was detected in shallow subsurface soil at a concentration 

below its SL at AOI01-02 (0.256 J+ μg/kg). No relevant compounds were detected in deep 

subsurface soil.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results

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

summarizes the groundwater results. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 6-3

Groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring wells AOI01-01 through AOI01-06 and 

existing permanent monitoring well BF-MW-05. The results are summarized below.

• PFOS was detected above the SL of 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L) in one well 

(AOI01-01) at 27.0 ng/L.

• PFOS was detected below its SL at AOI01-02 and BF-MW-05 at concentrations of 

0.902 J ng/L and 2.43 J ng/L, respectively.

• PFHxS was detected above the SL of 39 ng/L in well AOI01-01 at 112 ng/L.

• PFHxS was detected below its SL at AOI01-02, AOI01-03, and BF-MW-05 at 

concentrations of 15.0 J ng/L or less. 

• PFOA was detected below the SL of 6 ng/L in two wells: 5.49 ng/L at AOI01-01 and 

2.72 J ng/L at AOI01-02. 

• PFBS was detected below the SL of 601 ng/L at AOI01-01, AOI01-02, and BF-MW05, with concentrations of 17.0 ng/L or less. 

• PFNA was not detected in groundwater.

6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions

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

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

and PFBS were also detected in groundwater at concentrations below their SLs. Based on the 

exceedances of the SLs in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted. 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 6-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 6-2

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 1900 0.038 J ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFHxS 130 0.151 J ND UJ 0.048 J 0.037 J ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 19 ND UJ 0.036 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA 19 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 13 ND U 1.46 J+ ND U 0.089 J ND UQ ND U ND U

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Notes Acronyms and Abbreviations

ND - Analyte not detected above the LOD. AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

LOD values are presented in Appendix F. AOI Area of Interest

D duplicate

Interpreted Qualifiers DL detection limit

J = Estimated concentration ft feet

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high HQ hazard quotient

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL ID identification

UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-0-2

02/23/2022

0-2 ft

02/23/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-0-2

02/23/2022

0-2 ft

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

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

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

AOI01

AOI01-05-SB-0-2

02/22/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-06-SB-0-2

02/22/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-03-SB-0-2

02/22/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-0-2

02/22/2022

0-2 ft

AOI01-01-SB-0-2-D

AECOM 6-5
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

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

PFHxS 1600 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOA 250 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 160 ND U ND U ND U 0.256 J+ ND U ND U ND UQ ND UQ ND U ND UQ ND UQ ND UQ

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

References PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Notes AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

ND - Analyte not detected above the LOD. AOI Area of Interest

LOD values are presented in Appendix F. D duplicate

DL detection llimit

Interpreted Qualifiers ft feet

J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high HQ hazard quotient

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

LOQ limit of quantitation

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

- not applicable

< analyte not detected above the LOD

12-14 ft

AOI01-02-SB-7-9

02/23/2022

7-9 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-6-8

02/23/2022

6-8 ft

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

Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01-06-SB-7-9

02/22/2022

7-9 ft

AOI01-05-SB-7-9

02/22/2022

7-9 ft

AOI01-05-SB-13-15

02/22/2022

13-15 ft

AOI01-04-SB-7-9

02/22/2022

7-9 ft

AOI01-04-SB-13-15

02/22/2022

13-15 ft

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

AOI01

AOI01-06-SB-7-9-D AOI01-06-SB-13-15

02/22/2022 02/22/2022

7-9 ft 13-15 ft

AOI01-02-SB-13-15

02/23/2022

13-15 ft

AOI01-03-SB-7-9

02/22/2022

7-9 ft

AOI01-01-SB-12-14

02/23/2022

AECOM 6-6
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

Analyte Result Qual

PFBS ND U

PFHxS ND U

PFNA ND U

PFOA ND U

PFOS ND U

Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations

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

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

Notes PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

ND - Analyte not detected above the LOD. PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI Area of Interest

D duplicate

DL detection limit

ft feet

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

SB soil boring

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

AOI01

AOI01-03-SB-17-19

02/22/2022

17-19 ft

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

AECOM 6-7
Table 6-5

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

Site Inspection Report, AASF Byrd Field

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

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

PFBS 601 17.0 1.07 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UJ 0.681 J

PFHxS 39 112 15.0 1.79 J ND U ND U ND U 2.51 J 1.85 J

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

PFOA 6 5.49 2.72 J ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U ND U

PFOS 4 27.0 0.902 J ND U ND U ND U ND U 2.43 J 0.934 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Notes Acronyms and Abbreviations

ND - Analyte not detected above the LOD. AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

LOD values are presented in Appendix F. AOI Area of Interest

BF Byrd Field

Interpreted Qualifiers D duplicate

J = Estimated concentration DL detection limit

U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL GW groundwater

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

ID identification

LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry

LOD limit of detection

ND analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual interpreted qualifier

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/l nanogram per liter

02/23/2022

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

02/23/2022

BF-MW-05-GW-D

02/22/2022

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

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

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

AOI01

AOI01-06-GW

02/22/2022

BF-MW-05-GW

02/22/2022

AOI01-04-GW

02/23/2022

AOI01-05-GW

02/23/2022

AOI01-02-GW

02/23/2022

AOI01-03-GW

AECOM 6-8
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

Shallow Intermediate Deep

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-1

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

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

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

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-9
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

Shallow Intermediate Deep

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-2

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

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

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

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 13

>13 - 160

>160 - 1,600

>1,600

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-10
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

Shallow Intermediate Deep

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

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

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

PFBS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 1,900

>1,900 - 25,000

>25,000

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-11
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

Shallow Intermediate Deep

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

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

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

PFHxS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1,600

>1,600

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-12
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

Shallow Intermediate Deep

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

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

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

PFNA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 19

>19 - 250

>250 - 2,500

>2,500

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-13
White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

White Oak Swamp Creek

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

PFOA PFOS PFBS

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

10/5/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

10/5/2022

1:7,200 Figure 6-6

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

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

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 4

>4 - 40

>40 - 70

>70

PFBS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 100

>100 - 601

>601 - 2,000

>2,000

0 300 600 1,200

Feet

AECOM 6-14
AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

AOI01-03

AOI01-04

AOI01-05 AOI01-06

BF-MW-05

PFHxS PFNA

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection at AASF Byrd Field, VA

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

8/25/2022

MS

JW

CM

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

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

8/25/2022

1:4,800 Figure 6-7

PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive ­ Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Groundwater Flow Direction

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

PFHxS Reuslts (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 39

>39 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

PFNA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 6

>6 - 100

>100 - 1,000

>1,000

0 200 400 800

Feet

AECOM 6-15
AECOM 6-16

Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 7-1

7. Exposure Pathways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recommendation for future study in a RI or no action at this time is based on the comparison of 

the SI analytical results for the relevant compounds to the SLs and whether the release is more 

than likely attributable to the DoD. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boundary. 

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.1.1 AOI 1

AOI 1 is the Flightline and Fuel point, where AFFF is stored in 10 Tri-MaxTM 30 fire extinguishers 

staged across the AOI. Due to the corrosive nature of AFFF, and exposure of the Tri-MaxTM 30 

extinguishers to the elements, it is possible for AFFF to have leaked from the extinguishers.

Potential AFFF releases on the Flightline and Fuel Point would have occurred primarily on paved 

surfaces but may run-off into unpaved surfaces. AFFF releases carried by run-off into surface soil 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 7-2

could potentially infiltrate the subsurface soil. AFFF releases may also infiltrate the subsurface 

soil via cracks in the pavement or in joints between areas that are paved with different materials.

PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 1 below their respective 

SLs. As a result, site workers and future construction workers could contact constituents in surface 

soil via inhalation of dust and incidental ingestion due to ground disturbing activities. Therefore, 

the surface soil exposure pathways for site workers and future construction workers are potentially 

complete. Residents and recreational users of the areas adjacent to the facility could also contact 

constituents in surface soil via inhalation of dust due to ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the 

surface soil exposure pathways for residents and recreational users are also potentially complete. 

PFOS was detected in subsurface soil at AOI 1 below the SL. Future construction workers could 

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

exposure pathway for construction workers is potentially complete. No construction activities were 

observed at the facility during SI field work. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

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

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

7.2.1 AOI 1

PFOS and PFHxS were detected in exceedance of their SLs, and PFOA and PFBS were detected 

below their SLs in groundwater samples collected at AOI 1. Depths to water measured in February 

2022 during the SI ranged from 2.79 to 12.7 feet bgs. Therefore, future construction workers could 

contact constituents in shallow groundwater via incidental ingestion during construction activities

and the groundwater exposure pathway is potentially complete. Due to the presence of public 

water system wells within a 4-mile radius of the facility in the downgradient direction, the pathway 

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

complete. No groundwater wells exist at the facility. AASF Byrd Field is provided municipal water 

by Henrico County Department of Public Utilities, which sources its water from the James River 

located approximately 6 miles away (Henrico County Department of Public Utilities, 2022). 

Therefore, the pathway for exposure to site workers via ingestion of groundwater is considered 

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

7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway

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

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

between the source and potential receptors.

7.3.1 AOI 1

Potential AFFF releases carried by run-off would likely drain downslope into the White Oak 

Swamp Creek. PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to groundwater via 

leaching. Because the relevant compounds were detected in soil and groundwater at AOI 1, it is 

possible that these compounds may have migrated from soil and groundwater through wetlands 

at the facility. It is possible that groundwater interacts with surface water at White Oak Swamp 

Creek. It is also possible that constituents in soil and groundwater were conveyed via reinforced 

channels to an off-facility rip-rap channel, and ultimately to White Oak Swamp. Therefore, the 

surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and future construction 

workers at the facility as well as off-facility recreational users of White Oak Swamp Creek is 

considered potentially complete. Because facility surface water is drained by the Chickahominy 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 7-3

River Watershed, it is not expected that surface water conveyed offsite will reach the Henrico 

County Water Treatment Facility on the James River. Therefore, the surface water pathway to 

ingestion by off-facility residents is considered incomplete. The Newport News Waterworks

sources drinking water from the Chickahominy River; however, the surface water intake is 

approximately 22 miles east, downstream of the facility (Newport News Waterworks Department, 

2021). 
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1

Potential AFFF 

Release from 

Tri-MaxTM Fire 

Extinguishers

Surface soil

Human 

activities

Precipitation/ 

run-off

Leaching/ 

infiltration

Airborne soil 

particulate

Surface soil 

at AOI

Surface 

water/ 

sediment

Subsurface 

soil

Shallow 

groundwater

Source Release 

Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors: 

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial/ Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway 

with Exceedance of SL

/ / / /

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2 Recreational User1

Site Worker Construction Worker3 Resident1,2

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

LEGEND

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

AASF Byrd Field

Potential 

Off-Facility 

Source Not 

under 

Control of 

ARNG

Recreational User1

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

2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely

insignificant.

3. No current active construction at the facility.

Notes:

7-5
AECOM 

Site Inspection ReportArmy Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 8-1

8. Summary and Outcome

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

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

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

8.1 SI Activities 

The SI field activities were conducted from 18 to 24 February 2022 and consisted of utility 

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

groundwater sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance 

with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021), except as previously noted in Section 5.10. 

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

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

5.3 Table B-15 as follows. 

• Eighteen (18) soil samples from six boring locations; 

• Seven grab groundwater samples from six temporary wells and one existing permanent 

monitoring well; and

• Fourteen (14) QA/QC samples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

described in Section 7. 

8.2 Outcome 

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

during this SI, AOI 1: Flightline and Fuel Point. Based on the CSM developed and revised in light 

of the SI findings, the pathway for exposure to drinking water receptors from historical DoD 

activities at AOI 1 is potentially complete. Sample analytical concentrations collected during the 

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

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

• At AOI 1: 

• The detected concentrations of PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in soil at AOI 1 

were below their SLs. PFOA was not detected in soil. 

• PFOS and PFHxS in groundwater exceeded their SLs. PFOS exceeded the SL of 4 

ng/L at location AOI01-01 with a concentration of 27.0 ng/L. PFHxS exceeded the SL 

of 39 ng/L at location AOI01-01 with a concentration of 112 ng/L. PFOA and PFBS 

were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their SLs. Based on the results 

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 8-2

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.

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

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

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

AOI Potential 

Release Area

Soil –

Source Area

Groundwater –

Source Area Future Action

1 Flightline and Fuel Point Proceed to RI 

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected
Site Inspection Report

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 9-1

9. References

AECOM. 2018a. Final 2018 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Site 1 Basewide Groundwater 

Operable Unit (OU1), Former Virginia Air National Guard Base, Sandston, Virginia. December.

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

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

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

W912DR17F0192. 9 March.

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

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

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

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) Byrd 

Field, Sandston, Virginia. July. 

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

Addendum, AASF Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

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

AECOM. 2022. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, 

Sandston, Virginia, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. April.

Amec Foster Wheeler. 2019. Final Report FY16 Phase I Regional Site Inspections for 

Perfluorinated Compounds Volume I of VII, Virginia Air National Guard Former 192nd Fighter 

Wing, Richmond IAP Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia. May.

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

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

6 July. 

BB&E, Inc. 2016. Final Perfluorinated Compounds Preliminary Assessment Site Visit Report, 

Former Richmond Air National Guard Base, Richmond, Virginia. January.

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

4 September.

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

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

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

4 November.

EDRTM. 2019. EDR Summary Radius Map Report. Byrd Field, 844-800 Portugee Rd, Richmond, 

VA 23250. Inquiry Number 5577731.2s. March 01, 2019. 

EEE Consulting, Inc. (EEE). 2008. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Air Guard Munitions 

Facility, Beulah Road, Sandston, Virginia 23250. April.

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

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

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

Army Aviation Support Facility Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia

AECOM 9-2

Henrico County Department of Public Utilities. 2022. Annual Water Quality Report, Reporting Year 

2021. https://henrico.us/public-data/water-quality-report-2021/. 5 May 2022. 

Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on 

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

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

Meng, Andrew A. and Harsh, John F. 1988. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Virginia Coastal 

Plain, Regional Aquifer-System Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019. Richmond, VA Monthly & 

Annual Summary. 

https://www.weather.gov/media/akq/climateRECORDS/RIC_Climate_Records.pdf (Accessed 

April 2019). 

Newport News Waterworks Department. 2021. Combined Annual Water Quality Report 

Summarizing Test Results from 2021. https://www.nnva.gov/2745/Water-Quality-Report. 

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

USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation 

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

USEPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January.

USFWS. 2022. Species by County Report, County: Henrico County, Virginia. Environmental 

Conservation Online System. Accessed 6 April 2022 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/

species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=09003. 

VDH. 2021. Elevated PFAS Levels Found in the Chickahominy River Watershed. 

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/news/elevated-pfas-levels-found-in-the-chickahominy-riverwatershed/. October 28, 2021.

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy. 2018. Division of Geology and Mineral 

Resources DQO Data Information System. 

Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 2015, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) 

and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Soils and Groundwater of a U.S. Metropolitan Area: 

Migration and Implications for Human Exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74.