FINAL

Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2

Madison, Wisconsin

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) 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

August 2023

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Headquarters 

111 S. George Mason Drive 

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Site Inspection Purpose ............................................................................ 1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1 AOI 1 – West Ramp ................................................................................. 3-1

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

3.2.1 Wisconsin Air National Guard Property ...................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Aviation Crash ............................................................................. 3-2

3.2.3 Dane County Former Fire Training Area (FTA) and Burn Pit .... 3-2

3.2.4 Madison College Fire Education Center and Dane County Burn Pit 

 ................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.5 Findorff Demo Landfill................................................................ 3-3

3.2.6 Maple Bluff Landfill .................................................................... 3-3

3.2.7 Dane County Truax Landfill ........................................................ 3-3

3.2.8 Doc West Hog Farm Landfill ...................................................... 3-3

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ..................................................... 4-1
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

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

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

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

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

4.5 Data Usability Assessment ...................................................................... 4-2

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

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities ..................................................................... 5-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.8 Deviations from SI UFP-QAPP Addendum ............................................ 5-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.3.3 Conclusions.................................................................................. 6-3

6.4 Boundary Sample Locations.................................................................... 6-3

6.4.1 Boundary Sample Locations – Soil Analytical Results............... 6-4

6.4.2 Boundary Sample Locations – Groundwater Analytical Results 6-4

6.4.3 Conclusions.................................................................................. 6-4

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
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

7.3.1 AOI 1 ........................................................................................... 7-3

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

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

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

9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 9-1
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

LIST OF 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. Survey Data

Appendix C Photographic Log*

Appendix D. Technical Project Planning Meeting Minutes

Appendix E. Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams

Appendix F. Analytical Results

Appendix G. Laboratory Reports

*Photographs were not collected during this field effort.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Facility Topography

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-4 Surface Water Features

Figure 2-5 Groundwater Elevations, March 2022

Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil

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

Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

LIST OF TABLES

ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations

5-1 Samples by Medium, Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin, Site Inspection Report

5-2 Soil Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals, Madison AASF#2,

Wisconsin, Site Inspection Report

5-3 Groundwater Elevation, Madison AASF#2, Wisconsin, Site Inspection Report

6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

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

Report, Madison AASF#2, Wisconsin

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

Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Wisconsin

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

Report, Madison AASF#2, Wisconsin

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

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

°C Degrees Celsius

°F Degrees Fahrenheit

% Percent

μg/kg Microgram(s) per kilogram

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility 

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. 

AFFF Aqueous Film Forming Foam

amsl Above mean sea level

ANG Air National Guard

AOI Area of Interest

ARNG Army National Guard

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs Below ground surface

btoc Below top of casing

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

COC Chain-of-custody

CSM Conceptual site model

DA Department of the Army

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DPT Direct-push technology

DQI Data quality indicator

DQO Data quality objective

DUA Data usability assessment

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

EB Equipment Blank 

EIS Extraction internal standards

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

EM Engineer Manual

FB Field blank

FedEx Federal Express

ft Foot (feet)

FTA Fire Training Area

HDPE High-density polyethylene

HEF High expansion foam

HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid

HQ Hazard Quotient
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

ICAL initial calibration

IDW Investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

LC/MS/MS Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

LCS Laboratory control sample 

LCSD Laboratory control sample duplicate

LOQ Limit of quantification

MIL-SPEC military specification

MS Matrix spike

MSD Matrix spike duplicate

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ng/L Nanogram(s) per liter

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA preliminary assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PID photoionization detector

PVC polyvinyl chloride

QA Quality assurance

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC Quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial investigation 

RPD Relative percent difference

SI Site Inspection

SL Screening level

TOC Total organic carbon

TPP Technical Project Planning

UFP Uniform Federal Policy 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

USAF U.S. Air Force

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WIANG Wisconsin Air National Guard

WIARNG Wisconsin Army National Guard

Wood Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.

WSP WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

memorandum regarding Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within the 

Department of Defense (DoD) Cleanup Program (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022) from the 

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

OSD memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid 

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

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

. 

These compounds are collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout the document, 

and the applicable screening levels (SLs) are provided below 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 the AOI location). 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 

the relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the Madison Army Aviation Support Facility 

(AASF) #2 in Madison, Wisconsin and determined further investigation is warranted for AOI 1.

Madison AASF #2 will also be referred to as the “Facility” throughout this document. 

Madison AASF #2, operated by Wisconsin ARNG (WIARNG), encompasses approximately 

19.81 acres in Madison, Wisconsin. The Facility is split into two different parcels of land. The 

14.7-acre parcel where the ramps, hangars, and main AASF building are situated, is owned by 

Dane County Regional Airport, who leases it to the United States Air Force (USAF) for the term 

of 1982 to 2050. The USAF permits the parcel of land to the United States Army, who licenses 

the parcel to the Wisconsin Army National Guard (WIARNG). The term of the permit to the 

United States Army and license to the WIARNG is from 1988 to 2041. The second parcel of land 

includes approximately 5.11 acres of land that is leased directly to the WIARNG from Dane 

County Regional Airport for the term of 2011 to 2045. 

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

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

the results of this SI, further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (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

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

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

Analyte2

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial / Commercial

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

2-15 feet bgs

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 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. May 2022. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PFAS.

Abbreviations:

μg/kg = microgram(s) per kilogram

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

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

AOI

Potential Release 

Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility Boundary Future Action

1 West Ramp

Proceed to RI

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of screening levels

 = Detected; no exceedance of screening levels

= Not detected
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

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

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

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

compounds presented in the memorandum regarding Investigating Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances within the Department of Defense (DoD) Cleanup Program (Assistant Secretary of 

Defense, 2022) from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022. The six 

compounds listed in the OSD memorandum are referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout 

this document and include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), 

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

acid (PFHxS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1. The ARNG performed 

this SI at the Madison Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) #2 in Madison, Wisconsin. The 

Madison AASF #2 is also referred to as the “Facility” throughout this report. 

The SI project elements were performed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental 

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

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

Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; USEPA, 1994), and in compliance with U.S. 

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

1.2 SITE INSPECTION PURPOSE

A PA was performed at the Madison AASF #2 (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

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

2. FACILITY BACKGROUND

2.1 FACILITY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Madison AASF #2 is located in the southern portion of the Dane County Regional Airport in 

Madison, Wisconsin. The Facility is on the northeastern city limits of Madison and is adjacent to 

Lake Mendota and Lake Monona. The City of Madison and communities of Token Creek, 

Westport, Maple Bluff, and Burke lie within 5 miles of the Facility.

The Facility is split into two different parcels of land. The 14.7-acre parcel where the ramps, 

hangars, and main AASF building are situated, is owned by Dane County Regional Airport, who 

leases it to the United States Air Force (USAF) for the term of 1982 to 2050. The USAF permits 

the parcel of land to the United States Army, who licenses the parcel to the Wisconsin Army 

National Guard (WIARNG). The term of the permit to the United States Army and license to the 

WIARNG is from 1988 to 2041. The second parcel of land includes approximately 5.11 acres of 

land that is leased directly to the WIARNG from Dane County Regional Airport for the term of 

2011 to 2045 (Figure 2-1) (AECOM, 2020). 

2.2 FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Facility is in the City of Madison, south-central Wisconsin, near the western margin of the 

Great Lakes Section of the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province. This section is 

characterized by numerous lakes with associated lacustrine plains, prominent end moraines, 

poorly integrated drainage, and a still partially exposed cuestaform topography. There are three 

lakes within 10 miles of the Facility. Lakes Monona and Waubesa are to the south of the Facility, 

and Lake Mendota is southwest of the Facility. The Facility is at an elevation of approximately 

890 feet above mean sea level. (AECOM, 2020).

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

current and future land use. The topography at the Facility is shown on Figure 2-2. The regional 

geology and groundwater features are shown on Figure 2-3. The regional surface water features 

and drainage basins are shown on Figure 2-4. Groundwater elevations and contours are 

presented on Figure 2-5. 

2.2.1 Geology

Madison AASF #2 is in the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province, which is characterized by 

mostly Paleozoic bedrock, with some Cretaceous rocks underlying the western boundary. The 

underlying glacial deposits in the region are largely horizontal Paleozoic sandstones, shales, 

limestones, conglomerates, and coals (National Park Service, 2018). The topography of the 

region is a result of glaciation and is characterized structurally by numerous domes, and uplifts 

control regional dips. With the exception of the southern border, the entire province is bounded 

by topography that is higher in elevation (PEER, 1988). The glacial deposits in southern 

Wisconsin vary in thickness from only a few feet to several hundred feet. The Facility is located 

directly above a section of glacial drift that is approximately 300 feet thick.
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

During the SI, low to medium plasticity fines (silts and sands) were observed as the dominant 

lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the Madison AASF #2. The borings were 

completed at depths between 10 and 14.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Varying quantities of 

sand were noted, specifically, isolated layers of gravel, clay and clayey silt were also observed in 

the borings with thicknesses ranging from a few inches to one foot. Samples for grain size 

analyses were collected at one location, AOI01-03 and analyzed via American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D-422. The results indicate that the soil samples are 

comprised primarily of sand (20% to 86.4%), silt (5.5% to 18%) and clay (5.5%). These results 

and facility observations are consistent with the reported depositional environment of the region. 

Boring logs are presented in Appendix E and grain size results are presented in Appendix F.

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

There are two types of aquifers at Madison AASF #2. The Sandstone and Dolomite Aquifers 

consist of layers of sandstone and dolomite bedrock that vary greatly in their water-yielding 

properties. The Dolomite Aquifer has groundwater within the fractures of the rocks, while the 

Sandstone Aquifer groundwater occurs in pore spaces between loosely cemented sand grains. 

The sandstone aquifer is further broken down into an Upper Sandstone Aquifer and Lower 

Sandstone Aquifer. The Upper Sandstone Aquifer is composed of sandstone and dolomite of the 

Ancell and Prairie du Chien Groups of Ordovician age. This aquifer is not a major source of 

groundwater in the region due to erosion by other formations. The Lower Sandstone Aquifer is 

composed of a thick sedimentary sequence of Cambrian sandstone. The aquifer is wedge-shaped, 

and the water yields increase to the southeast. The Lower Sandstone Aquifer is an important 

source of water for municipalities and industries due to the ability to yield approximately 1,000 

gallons of water per minute. Infiltration from snowmelt and precipitation are the main sources of 

recharge for the shallow aquifers. The majority of recharge to the aquifers occurs in the winter 

months, where precipitation and snowmelt are high, and evapotranspiration is low. Groundwater 

at the Facility has been encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet bgs. Groundwater flow 

direction around the Facility is inferred to be generally to the southeast, towards Starkweather 

Creek (AECOM 2020).

Depth to water measured during the SI activities in March 2022 ranged from 5.69 to 9.34 feet 

bgs. Groundwater elevation contours from the SI are presented on Figure 2-5 and indicate the 

groundwater generally flows towards the center of Facility then towards Starkweather Creek 

located to the east.

No potable water wells are located within the boundary of the Facility. Drinking water for the 

Facility is supplied by the City of Madison, which obtains its public water supply from the 

Lower Sandstone Aquifer. The nearest municipal water supply well is located approximately 1 

mile southeast and is downgradient of the Facility. According to the City of Madison 

(https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/water-quality/water-quality-testing/perfluorinatedcompounds), PFAS is present in every Madison supply well at concentrations ranging from 2.5 

to 47 nanograms per liter (ng/L), based on the most recent test results. According to Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) well records, there are multiple wells of unknown 

use that are located within a 4-mile radius of the Facility. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

2.2.3 Hydrology

Madison AASF #2 is in the Starkweather Creek Watershed, which is a 24-square mile basin that 

encompasses parts of the City of Madison, and the towns of Burke and Blooming Grove. The 

bodies of water that are in the surrounding regions of the Facility include Lake Mendota to the 

southwest, Lake Monona and Lake Waubesa to the south, and Starkweather Creek, which 

surrounds the Facility. Lake Mendota is a 9,781-acre lake located in Dane County and has a 

maximum depth of 83 feet. Lake Monona is connected to Lake Mendota by the Yahara River, 

which is located on the southern border of Lake Mendota. Lake Monona is a 3,359-acre lake 

located in Dane County and has a maximum depth of 74 feet. Both lakes are accessible to 

recreational users via public beaches and boating activities. Starkweather Creek consists of two 

branches that total 20 miles in length. The West Branch of the creek originates in Token Creek 

Country Park, and the East Branch of the creek originates near the city of Sun Prairie. Both 

branches eventually converge and empty into Lake Monona, located in the Lake Monona-Yahara 

River Watershed (AECOM 2020).

The Facility has a storm water collection system consisting of a storm sewer system on the 

northern portion, and man-made ditches with underdrains around the south ramp. The storm 

water system discharges east into Starkweather Creek, which surrounds the Facility on the west,

east and south sides. The Starkweather Creek empties into Lake Monona, which is 

approximately 2 miles to the south.

2.2.4 Climate

The climate at Madison AASF #2 consists of four clearly separated seasons, with a humid 

continental climate that is characterized by variable weather patterns. Seasonally, temperatures 

vary from average summer highs of 83.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to average winter lows of 

8.1°F. The mean annual rainfall is 31.0 inches. The average snowfall is 50.9 inches (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2019).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The Madison AASF #2 is a controlled access facility with public roads and is adjacent to the 

Dane County Regional Airport (north-northwest) and the Wisconsin Air National Guard 

(WIANG) (north-northeast) at Truax Field. Reasonably anticipated future land use is not 

expected to change from the current land use; however, future infrastructure improvements, land 

acquisitions, and land use controls at the Dane County Regional Airport and WIANG at Truax 

Field are unknown.

2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species

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

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

in the surrounding area.

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

species in Dane County, Wisconsin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2021):
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

• Birds: Whooping Crane, Grus americana (Experimental population)

• Flowering Plants: Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid, Platanthera leucophaea 

(Threatened); Mead’s milkweed, Asclepias meadii (Threatened); Prairie Bush-clover, 

Lespedeza leptostachya (Threatened)

• Insects: Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate); Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, 

Bombus affinis (endangered)

• Mammals: Northern Long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (threatened)

2.3 HISTORY OF PFAS USE

One AOI was identified in the PA where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) may have been 

used, stored, disposed, or released historically at the Madison AASF #2 (AECOM, 2020). AOI 1 

historically had several 60-gallon TriMaxTM fire extinguishers in various locations on the West 

Ramp area. It is unknown when the TriMaxTM fire extinguishers arrived at the Facility; however, 

they were present until 2008. There are no records of training, routine maintenance, or annual 

maintenance. There were no reported leaks or aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) releases from 

the TriMaxTM fire extinguishers, however it is possible that leakages may have occurred

(AECOM 2020). A description of the AOI is presented in Section 3. 
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

Madison AASF #2

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-1 Facility Location.mxd - stephane.descombes - 10/26/2022 - 12:20:24 PM

Figure 2-1

Facility Location

0 2

Miles
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

Aviation Crash

AOI 1: West Ramp

Dane County

Burn Pit

Madison College

Fire Education Center

860

856

856

852

862

860

856

852

850

862

860

858

856

856

854

854

852

858

856

856

854

852

850

852

850

854 850

848

858

858

854

856

858

856

854

852

850

856

856

858

854

856

864

862

856

856

856

856

856

852

852

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-2 Facility Topography.mxd - stephane.descombes - 10/26/2022 - 12:18:32 PM

0 400

Feet

Topography

Elevation Contour

(2 ft. interval, NAVD88 datum)

Figure 2-2

Facility Topography

Stormwater

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!< !<

!<

!< !<!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!< !<!<

!<

!< !<!< !<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<!<!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<!<!<

!< !<

!<

!<

Starkweather CreekLake Mendota

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features.mxd - stephane.descombes - 10/26/2022 - 12:24:49 PM

Hydrology

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Waterbody

Wetland

Figure 2-3

Groundwater Features

0 1

Miles

Hydrogeology

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

Well Type

!< Municipal Well 15

!< Unknown*

* Only wells within 2 mile of Facility Boundary shown

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

Lake

MendotaYahara

River

Watershed

Starkweather

Creek Watershed

Lake MononaYahara

River

Watershed

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-4 Surface Water Features.mxd - stephane.descombes - 10/26/2022 - 12:30:10 PM

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Wetland

Watershed Boundary

Figure 2-4

Surface Water Features

0 1,500

Feet

Well Type

!< Unknown

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

*#

*#

*#

*#

*#

*#

*#

*#

Aviation Crash

AOI 1:

West Ramp

Dane County

Burn Pit

Madison College

Fire Education Center

736.2

735.8

736.0

736.2

735.4

735.6

735.2

736.4

736.4

736.2

735.8

735.6

735.4

735.2

736.2

736.0

MAASF-02

736.208

AOI01-06

735.455

AOI01-04

735.389

AOI01-05

735.057

AOI01-03

736.17

AOI01-01

736.464

MAASF-01

736.454

AOI01-02

736.303

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 2-5 Groundwater Elevations March 2022.mxd - brian.johnson - 11/1/2022 - 3:05:46 PM

0 400

Feet

Hydrology

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Groundwater Flow Direction

Figure 2-5

Groundwater Elevations, March, 2022

Sample Location

*# Soil Boring & Temporary 

Groundwater Well Location

Stormwater

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

 

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

3. SUMMARY OF AREAS OF INTEREST

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

or released historically. Based on the PA findings, one potential release area was identified at the 

Madison AASF #2 and designated as one AOI 1 West Ramp. The AOI is shown on Figure 3-1.

3.1 AOI 1 – WEST RAMP

AOI 1 is the fire extinguisher storage on the West Ramp, which historically had several 60-

gallon TriMaxTM fire extinguishers in various locations. It is unknown when the TriMaxTM fire 

extinguishers arrived at the Facility; however, they were present until 2008. There are no records 

of training, routine maintenance, or annual maintenance. There were no reported leaks or AFFF 

releases from the TriMaxTM fire extinguishers, however it is possible that leakages may have 

occurred.

3.2 ADJACENT SOURCES

Eight off-facility potential sources of PFAS were identified adjacent to the Madison AASF #2

and are not associated with WIARNG activities or under the control of the WIARNG. The 

potential adjacent sources are shown on Figure 3-1 and described in the following sections for 

information purposes only. 

3.2.1 Wisconsin Air National Guard Property

There are potential PFAS sources adjacent to Madison AASF #2 that may impact PFAS 

concentrations in groundwater underlying the Facility.

• Hangar 406: The former fire suppression system was supplied with AFFF until 2006 

when it was then retrofitted for use of High Expansion Foam (HEF). There were no 

documented releases, however any release would have been routed to the trench drains, 

from which is then discharged to the sanitary sewer system.

• Hangar 400: The former fire suppression system was supplied with AFFF until 2009 

when it was then retrofitted for use of HEF. Fire suppression system testing occurred at 

an unknown frequency; however, any release would have been routed to the trench 

drains, from which it is then discharged to an oil/water separator and ultimately to the 

sanitary sewer system.

• Former Building 403: Prior to relocation to Building 430, the Truax Fire Department 

was stationed in Building 403. AFFF was in use and stored at Building 403 from 1988 

until it was demolished in 1995/1996. There is no record of AFFF nozzle testing from 

this time period.

• Fuel Spill Ditch: In 1981, approximately 2,000 gallons of jet fuel were spilled due to an 

overflow. In response to the spill, the Truax Fire Department foamed the fuel and 

flushed it down the ditch, where it soaked into the ground and was covered with straw. 

One month after the spill, the affected soil in the ditch was removed to a depth of 6 feet. 

The type of foam used to cover the fuel is unknown.
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

• Building 503 Parking Lot: The soil that was excavated from the Fuel Spill Ditch was 

relocated to what is now the parking lot west of Building 503. The contaminated soil 

was placed on concrete pads and spread out to elicit volatilization. The area was then 

excavated to 3 feet, and all of the soil and concrete was disposed of off-site. The 

parking lot was paved the same year.

• Hangar 414: Hangar 414 has had an AFFF fire suppression system since 1994. Annual 

testing of the hangar fire suppression system has been conducted since 1994 and 

included discharging foam every other year. No other AFFF releases were documented. 

The hangar is outfitted with trench drains that discharge to a sanitary sewer system.

• Nozzle Test Area 1 and Area 2: The Truax Fire Department vehicles require nozzle 

testing every 6 months. The tests were conducted in the grassy areas on the northwest 

and southwest sides of Building 430. After the foam was released, the grassy area was 

typically watered down, and the foam was allowed to soak into the grass.

• Building 430: Building 430 has been the location of the Truax Fire Station since 1995 

and is where the fire department keeps the firetrucks and bulk storage of AFFF. AFFF 

is transferred to vehicles within the fire station via overhead fill. Additionally, Truax 

Fire Department vehicles are washed within the fire station or at the outside truck bays 

when necessary. There are trench drains both in the fire station and downgradient of the 

truck bays; therefore, any AFFF releases due to vehicle washing would be captured by 

the trench drains, which discharge into the sanitary sewer system.

This Truax Field Air National Guard Base site is moving to a Remedial Investigation. Although 

these locations are noted as being side-gradient, based on the proximity of these locations to 

WIARNG property as well as fluctuation in groundwater flow direction, there is the potential for 

AFFF releases from WIANG property to impact the Facility. Surface water flow is directed by a 

man-made surface drainage system that connects to Starkweather Creek and generally discharges 

to the south towards Lake Monona (BB&E, 2015).

3.2.2 Aviation Crash

A small aviation plane crash occurred at the south end of the air strip, just north of Anderson 

Street. The exact type of aircraft, date, and owner information of the aviation crash are unknown. 

The approximate geographic coordinates are 43°7'20.91"N; 89°20'31.91"W. The WIANG 

responded to the crash, and it is unknown if AFFF was dispensed at the crash site by the 

WIANG. This property is side-gradient (south-southwest) of the Facility. Although this location 

is noted as being side-gradient, based on the proximity of this location to WIARNG property as 

well as fluctuation in groundwater flow direction, there is the potential for this property to impact 

the Facility if AFFF was used to respond to the crash (AECOM, August 2020).

3.2.3 Dane County Former Fire Training Area (FTA) and Burn Pit

Based on WIANG PFAS investigations, the Dane County former FTA and Burn Pit were 

identified as potential AFFF release sources due to reported accounts of firefighting training 

activities potentially using perfluoroalkoxyl foams. The geographic coordinates for the Dane 

County former FTA are 43°7’44.83”N; 89°20’50.56”W. The Burn Pit associated with this 

location is located at 43° 7’25.39”N; 89°20’13.70”W. This property is upgradient (north-
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

northwest) of the Facility, and there is the potential for AFFF releases from this property to 

impact the Facility (AECOM, August 2020). This potential source area is located upgradient of 

AOI 1.

3.2.4 Madison College Fire Education Center and Dane County Burn Pit

The Madison College Fire Education Center is a public technical college which teaches several 

different types of firefighting courses for firefighter certifications. There is no information 

regarding the types of firefighting training that occurs; however, based on the nature of the 

activities that take place at the Madison College Fire Education Center, there is a possibility of 

the use of AFFF.

The Dane County burn pit is adjacent to the Madison College Fire Education Center, where 

several firefighting courses are taught. The type and volume of PFAS foams that were used is 

unknown. These locations are considered hydraulically downgradient (east of the Facility), and 

they are unlikely to impact the Facility (AECOM, August 2020).

3.2.5 Findorff Demo Landfill

The Findorff Demo landfill is currently an inactive landfill and is a closed facility. It is located 

hydraulically upgradient (northwest) of the Facility. 

3.2.6 Maple Bluff Landfill

The Maple Bluff Village landfill is an inactive landfill that is no longer a facility. It is located 

hydraulically upgradient (northwest) of the Facility.

3.2.7 Dane County Truax Landfill

The Dane County Truax landfill is currently closed while being actively monitored. It is located 

hydraulically side-gradient and downgradient (south-southwest) of the Facility.

3.2.8 Doc West Hog Farm Landfill

The Doc West Hog Farm landfill is an inactive landfill and is a closed facility. It is located 

hydraulically side-gradient and downgradient (south-southwest) of the Facility.
Site Inspection Report

Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!< !<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

!<

Madison College

Fire Education Center

Equipment Shelter

Dane County Former FTA

Hangar 406

Fuel Spill Ditch

Maple Bluff Landfill

Findorff Demo Landfill

Dane County

Truax Landfill

Doc West Hog Farm Landfill

Nozzle Test Area 2

Building 430 Hangar 414

Former Building 403

Hangar 400

Building 503 Parking Lot

AOI 1: West Ramp

Dane County Burn Pit Aviation Crash

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest.mxd - stephane.descombes - 12/5/2022 - 10:37:24 AM

0 2,000

Feet

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Wetland

Figure 3-1

Areas of Interest

Well Type

!< Municipal Well 15

!< Unknown

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

4. PROJECT DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

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

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

Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 

[EA/Wood], 2022), the objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the 

environment at the AOI 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 the presence or 

absence of relevant compounds at the AOI.

4.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

ARNG will recommend an AOI for remedial investigation (RI) if related soil and groundwater 

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

are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 

4.2 INFORMATION INPUTS

Primary information inputs for the SI include the following:

• The PA Report for Madison AASF #2 (AECOM, 2019);

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

accordance with the site-specific UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022); and

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

parameters measured at the time of sampling.

4.3 STUDY BOUNDARIES

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

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

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

be obtained by ARNG with property owner(s). The scope of the SI was bounded vertically by the 

depth of temporary monitoring wells installed within groundwater (maximum depth of 14.5 feet 

bgs). Temporal boundaries were limited to the earliest available time field resources were 

available to complete the study.

4.4 ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Samples were analyzed by Eurofins, accredited under the DoD Environmental Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP; Accreditation Number 1.01) and the National 

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate Number 021). Data were 

compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules as defined in the UFPQAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022). 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

4.5 DATA USABILITY ASSESSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements of the UFP-QAPP (EA, 2020).
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

5. SITE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES

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

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

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents. 

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

Wisconsin (AECOM, 2020);

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

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

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

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

Addendum, Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Madison, Wisconsin (EA/Wood,

2022);

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

2020b);

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Madison Army Aviation Facility #2, Madison, 

Wisconsin, dated December 2021 (EA/Wood, 2021). 

The SI field activities were conducted from 8 March to 9 March 2022 and consisted of utility 

clearance, direct-push technology (DPT), boring and soil sample collection, temporary 

monitoring well installation, grab groundwater sample collection, and land sreplurveying. Field 

activities were conducted in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022), 

except as noted in Section 5.8.

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for 24 compounds via liquid 

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

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

• Twenty-four (24) soil samples from eight boring locations;

• Eight (8) grab groundwater samples from eight temporary well locations;

• Six (6) 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 medium. Field documentation is provided in Appendix B. A 

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

provided in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, and land survey data 

are provided in Appendix B3. Photographs were not collected during this field effort.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

5.1 PRE-INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

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

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

water. Details of these activities are presented below.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning

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

2016a) defines four phases to project planning: (1) defining the project phase; (2) determining 

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

The process encourages stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall 

project objectives, including DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOI

identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 30 November 2021, prior to SI field activities.

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

stakeholders for this SI included ARNG, WIARNG, WDNR, Dane County Airport Authority, 

USACE, and representatives familiar with the Facility, the regulators, and the community. 

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

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

Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022). 

A TPP Meeting 3 was held to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes for TPP 3 are

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

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

5.1.2 Utility Clearance

WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (WSP), formerly doing business as Wood 

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood), contacted the Wisconsin One Call on 28 

February 2021 to notify them of intrusive work at the Facility beginning on 7 March 2022. WSP 

contracted GLS Utility, a private utility location service, to perform utility clearance at the

Facility. Utility clearance was performed at each of the proposed boring locations on 8 March 

2022 with input from the WSP field team. Additionally, the first 5 feet of each boring were precleared by WSP’s drilling subcontractor, Onsite Environmental, using a hand auger to verify 

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

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability

The potable water source used for decontamination of drilling equipment was confirmed to meet 

acceptability criteria, as defined in the UFP-QAPP Addendum, prior to the start of field 

activities. A sample from a potable water source at inside the main building, was collected on 16 

December 2021, prior to mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (DoD, 2020). The results of the sample of the potable water source used for 

decontamination of drilling equipment during the SI are provided in Appendix F. A discussion 

of the results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A).
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

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

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

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

UFP-QAPP (EA, 2020a). 

5.2 SOIL BORINGS AND SOIL SAMPLING

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

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

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

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

procedures. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and boring sample depths are 

provided in Table 5-1. Several boring locations were adjusted within a 50-feet offset for reasons 

including drill rig access, utility avoidance and bias toward sampling within observed drainage 

features.

Three discrete soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from each soil boring: one 

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

was collected approximately 1 ft above the groundwater table, and one collected at the mid-point 

between the surface and the groundwater table (not to exceed 15 ft bgs). Groundwater was 

encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 10 ft bgs during drilling. Total boring completion 

depths, to accommodate temporary well installation, ranged from 10 to 14.5 ft bgs. 

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

field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System. A photoionization detector (PID) 

was used to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as a part of personal safety 

requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) 

and in a non-treated field logbook. Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, 

moisture, relative density, Munsell color, and Unified Soil Classification System texture were 

recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

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

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

transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures to 

the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS (LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM Version 5.3 Table B15), total organic carbon (TOC, USEPA Method 9060A), pH (USEPA Method 9045D), and 

grain size (ASTM Method D-422) in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood,

2022). 

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

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

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

when non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, one equipment blank (EB) was collected per 

day and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. A temperature blank was placed in 

each cooler for use in confirming that samples were preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) 

during shipment. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

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

sampling and surveying in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022). After 

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

in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces. 

5.3 TEMPORARY WELL INSTALLATION AND GROUNDWATER GRAB 

SAMPLING

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5-2.

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

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

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

temporary wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and draw down 

prior to sampling. Water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, 

dissolved oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential) were measured using a water quality meter 

and recorded on the field sampling form (Appendix B2) before each grab sample was collected 

in a separate container. 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 in 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 for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant 

with QSM Version 5.3 Table B-15 in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood,

2022). 

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

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

parameters as the accompanying samples. One field blank (FB) was collected in accordance with 

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

was used, such as a water level meter, one EB was collected a day and analyzed for the same 

parameters as the groundwater samples. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler for use in 

confirming 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 UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022) by removing the PVC and 

backfilling the hole with bentonite chips. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

5.4 SYNOPTIC WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 9 March 2022. Groundwater elevation 

measurements were collected from the eight new temporary monitoring wells. Water level 

measurements were taken from the survey mark on the northern side of the well casing. 

Groundwater elevation data is provided in Table 5-3. A groundwater flow contour map is 

provided as Figure 2-4. The synoptic water level measurement indicate groundwater generally 

flows towards the center of the Facility, then is directed towards the west. 

5.5 SURVEYING

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

R10 GNSS with TSC7. Positions were collected in the applicable Universal Transverse Mercator 

zone projection with World Geodetic System 1984 datum (horizontal) and North American 

Vertical Datum 1988 (vertical). Surveying data were collected on 9 March 2022 and are

provided in Appendix B3. 

5.6 INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

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

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

managed in accordance with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022). 

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

gallon steel drums and left onsite in a designated waste storage area. The soil IDW was not 

sampled and assumes the characteristics of the associated soil samples collected from that source 

location.

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

decontamination fluids) were contained in labeled, 55-gallon steel drums and left onsite in a 

designated waste storage area. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the characteristics 

of the associated groundwater samples collected from that source location.

The solid and liquid IDW were taken offsite in September 2022 and disposed of in a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C landfill. Specifics on the disposal of solid and liquid 

IDW are included in a separate report provided to ARNG.

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 Version 5.3 Table B-15, at 

Eurofins in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a DoD ELAP and NELAP-certified laboratory. 

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

9045D, and grain size using ASTM Method D-422.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

5.8 Deviations from SI UFP-QAPP Addendum

Deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum occurred and were discussed between EA/Wood, 

ARNG, and USACE. Two deviations from the UFP-QAPP Addendum are noted below that were 

not documented on a Field Change Request Form. 

• Photographs taken during the SI were inadvertently deleted prior to download; therefore, 

no photographic log is presented in Appendix C.

• No equipment blank sample was collected from the hand auger.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

Table 5-1. Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Site Inspection Report 

Sample 

Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

PFAS

(LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table B15)

TOC

(USEPA Method 

9060A)

pH (USEPA 

Method 9045D)

Grain Size 

(ASTM D422)

Comments

Soil Samples

AOI01-01-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X Parent Sample of 

Dup-01

DUP-01 3/8/2022 0-2 X Field Duplicate

AOI01-01-SB-4-5 3/8/2022 4-5 X

AOI01-01-SB-8-9 3/8/2022 8-9 X

AOI01-02-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-02-SB-2-3 3/8/2022 2-3 X

AOI01-02-SB-4-5 3/8/2022 4-5 X

AOI01-03-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X X X X

AOI01-03-SB-3-4 3/8/2022 3-4 X

AOI01-03-SB-6-7 3/8/2022 6-7 X

AOI01-SB-DUP03 3/8/2022 X

AOI01-04-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X

AOI01-04-SB-3-4 3/8/2022 3-4 X

AOI01-04-SB-6-7 3/8/2022 6-7 X

AOI01-05-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X Parent Sample of 

Dup-02

DUP-02 3/8/2022 0-2 X Field Duplicate

AOI01-05-SB-3-4 3/8/2022 3-4 X

AOI01-05-SB-6-7 3/8/2022 6-7 X

AOI01-06-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X MS/MSD Collected

AOI01-06-SB-3-4 3/8/2022 3-4 X

AOI01-06-SB-6-7 3/8/2022 6-7 X

MAASF-01-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X

MAASF-01-SB-2-3 3/8/2022 2-3 X

MAASF-01-SB-4-5 3/8/2022 4-5 X

MAASF-01-SB-0-2 3/8/2022 0-2 X Parent Sample of 

Dup-03

DUP-03 3/8/2022 0-2 X Field Duplicate

MAASF-01-SB-5-6 3/8/2022 5-6 X

MAASF-01-SB-8-9 3/8/2022 8-9 X

Groundwater Samples

AOI01-01-GW 3/8/2022 X Parent Sample of 

DUP-01-GW

AOI01-02-GW 3/9/2022 X

AOI01-03-GW 3/9/2022 X

AOI01-04-GW 3/8/2022 X

AOI01-05-GW 3/8/2022 X MS/MSD Collected

AOI01-06-GW 3/8/2022 X
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

Sample 

Identification

Sample 

Collection 

Date

Sample 

Depth 

(ft bgs)

PFAS

(LC/MS/MS 

compliant with 

QSM 5.3 Table B15)

TOC

(USEPA Method 

9060A)

pH (USEPA 

Method 9045D)

Grain Size 

(ASTM D422)

Comments

DUP-01-GW 3/8/2022 X Field Duplicate

MAASF-01-GW 3/9/2022 X

MAASF-02-GW 3/9/2022 X

Blank Samples

MAASF-FB-01 3/9/2022 X Field Blank

MAASF-EB-01-WL 3/9/2022 X Equipment Blank 

Collected from 

Water Level Meter

Notes:

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials

bgs = below ground surface

EB = equipment blank

FB = field blank

ft = feet

MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate

QSM = Quality Systems Manual

TOC = total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

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

Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Site Inspection Report 

AOI Boring Location

Soil Boring Depth

(ft bgs)

Temporary Well 

Screen Interval

(ft bgs) 1

1 

AOI01-01 14 9-14

AOI01-02 10 5-10

AOI01-03 12 7-12

AOI01-04 12 7-12

AOI01-05 12 7-12

AOI01-06 13 8-13

MAASF-01 11 6-11

MAASF-02 14.5 9.5-14.5

Notes:

1 Temporary well screen set above total depth to capture groundwater interface

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

bgs = below ground surface

 ft = feet

Table 5-3. Groundwater Elevation 

Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Site Inspection Report 

Monitoring Well 

ID

Top of Casing 

Elevation

(ft NAVD88)

Ground 

Surface 

Elevation

(ft NAVD 88)

Depth to 

Water 

(ft btoc)

Depth to 

Water 

(ft bgs)

Groundwater 

Elevation

(ft NAVD 88)

AOI01-01-GW 743.994 742.881 7.53 6.42 736.46

AOI01-02-GW 741.903 741.257 5.69 5.04 736.30

AOI01-03-GW 745.51 744.969 9.34 8.80 736.17

AOI01-04-GW 741.289 739.344 5.90 3.96 735.39

AOI01-05-GW 741.807 741.287 6.75 6.23 735.06

AOI01-06-GW 744.745 742.325 9.29 6.87 735.46

MAASF-01-GW 743.344 742.773 6.89 6.32 736.45

MAASF-02-GW 742.368 741.557 6.16 5.35 736.21

Notes: 

1 Temporary well screen set above total depth to capture groundwater interface

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

bgs = below ground surface

btoc = below top of casing

ft = feet

NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Aviation Crash

AOI 1: West Ramp

Dane County

Burn Pit

Madison College

Fire Education Center

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

3

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/9/2022 - 8:14:48 AM

0 400

Feet

Hydrology

Inferred Shallow Groundwater 

Flow Direction

Figure 5-1

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Sample Location

#* Soil Boring & Temporary 

Groundwater Well Location

Stormwater

kj Oil/Water Separator (Sanitary Sewer)

kj Oil/Water Separator (Stormwater Sewer)

") Stormwater Inlet

!( Stormwater Manhole

Stormwater Outfall

é

é

Culvert

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

Stormwater Line

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 5-12

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

6. SITE INSPECTION RESULTS

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

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

6.4. SLs for relevant compounds, for both soil and groundwater, are presented in Table 6-1. 

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

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

Appendix G. 

6.1 SCREENING LEVELS

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

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

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

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

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

SLs established in the OSD memorandum apply to the five compounds presented on Table 6-1. 

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

Analyte2 

Residential 

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

0-2 ft bgs

Industrial / Commercial

Composite Worker 

(Soil)

(μg/kg)1 

2-15 ft bgs

Tap Water 

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)1 

PFOA 19 250 6

PFOS 13 160 4

PFBS 1,900 25,000 601

PFHxS 130 1,600 39

PFNA 19 250 6

Notes:

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense. July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient 

(HQ)=0.1. May 2022. 

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

Abbreviations:

μg/kg = microgram(s) per kilogram

bgs = below ground surface

ft = feet

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

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

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

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

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 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

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. 

6.2 SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL ANALYSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution coefficients (Koc 

values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical factors (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: West Ramp. The soil and groundwater results are summarized in Table 6-2 through 

Table 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figures 6-1 through Figure 6-7.

6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results

Soil samples were collected from seven boring locations associated with AOI 1 during the SI. 

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

summarize the soil results.

Surface soil (0 to 2 ft bgs) was sampled from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-06 and 

MAASF-01. Soil was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (2 to 5 ft bgs) and deeper

shallow subsurface soil intervals (4 to 9 ft bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-

06 and MAASF-01. PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA were detected in soil at AOI 1 at 

concentrations below their respective SLs. 

PFBS was detected in one of seven surface sample locations (AOI01-04) with a concentration of 

1.5 J μg/kg. PFHxS was detected in four of seven surface soil sample locations (AOI01-01 [and 

its duplicate], AOI01-04, AOI01-05 [and its duplicate], and MAASF-01) with concentrations 

ranging from 0.26 J μg/kg to 1.7 μg/kg. PFOS was detected in six of seven sample locations

(AOI01-01 [and its duplicate], AOI01-02, AOI01-03, AOI01-04, AOI01-05 [and its duplicate], 

and MAASF-01). PFOS concentrations ranged from 0.65 J+ μg/kg to 12μg/kg, with the 

maximum concentration detected in a duplicate sample. PFOA was detected in the surface soil 

samples from three of seven sample locations (AOI01-01 [and its duplicate], AOI01-05 [only in 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

the duplicate sample] and MAASF-01). PFOA with concentrations ranged from 0.32 J μg/kg to 

0.40 J μg/kg, with the maximum concentration detected in a duplicate sample. 

PFBS was detected in one of fourteen shallow subsurface samples (AOI01-05 [3-4 ft bgs]) with a 

concentration of 0.60 J μg/kg. PFHxS was detected in two of fourteen shallow subsurface

samples (AOI01-01 [4-5 ft bgs] and AOI01-04 [3-4 ft bgs]) with concentrations ranging from 

0.45 J μg/kg to 2.5 μg/kg. PFOS was detected in eight of fourteen shallow subsurface samples

(AOI01-01 [4-5 ft bgs], AOI01-01 [8-9 ft bgs], AOI01-02 [2-3 ft bgs], AOI01-03 [3-4 ft bgs], 

AOI01-03 [6-7 ft bgs], AOI01-04 [3-4 ft bgs], MAASF-01 [2-3 ft bgs], and MAASF-01 [4-5 ft 

bgs]) with concentrations ranging from 0.45 J+ μg/kg to 4.1 μg/kg. PFOA was detected in one of 

fourteen shallow subsurface samples (AOI01-01 [4-5 ft bgs]) with a concentration of 0.63 J 

μg/kg. PFNA was not detected in any of the fourteen shallow subsurface samples.

6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results 

Groundwater samples were collected from seven temporary wells associated with AOI 1 during 

the SI. Figure 6-4 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-4 summarizes the 

groundwater results.

Groundwater was sampled from seven temporary monitoring well locations AOI01-01 through 

AOI01-06 and MAASF-01. PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA were detected at concentrations 

exceeding their respective SLs. PFBS was detected but did not exceed the SL. PFHxS was 

detected at all seven locations. The PFHxS SL was exceeded at five locations (AOI01-03, 

AOI01-04, AOI01-05, AOI01-06, and MAASF-01) with concentrations ranging from 46 ng/L to 

590 ng/L. PFNA was detected at six of the seven locations (all but AOI01-06). The PFNA SL 

was exceeded at two locations (AOI01-03 and MAASF-01) with concentrations of 6.5 ng/L and 

8.4 ng/L. PFOS was detected at all seven locations. The PFOS SL was exceeded at six locations 

(AOI01-01 [and its duplicate] through AOI01-05 and MAASF-01) with concentrations ranging 

from 22 J ng/L to 860 ng/L. PFOA was detected at all seven locations. The PFOA SL was 

exceeded at four locations (AOI01-03, AOI01-04, AOI01-05, and MAASF-01) with 

concentrations ranging from 9.4 ng/L to 35 ng/L. PFBS was detected at concentrations below the 

SL at all seven locations.

6.3.3 Conclusions

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

AOI 1 at concentrations above their respective SLs. PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA 

were detected in soil below their respective SLs. Based on the exceedances of the SLs in 

groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted. 

6.4 BOUNDARY SAMPLE LOCATIONS

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

samples collected from location MAASF-02 at the Facility boundary. The detected compounds 

are summarized in Tables 6-2 through 6-4. Soil and groundwater results are presented on

Figures 6-1 through 6-7.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-4

6.4.1 Boundary Sample Locations – Soil Analytical Results

Surface soil (0 to 2 ft bgs) was sampled from boring location MAASF-02. Soil was also sampled 

from shallow subsurface soil (2 to 5 ft bgs) and deep subsurface soil intervals (4 to 9 ft bgs) from 

boring location MAASF-02. PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA were detected in the boundary soil sample 

at concentrations below their respective SLs. 

PFHxS was detected in the surface sample with a concentration of 1.1 μg/kg [0.68 J μg/kg in the 

duplicate]. PFOS was detected in the surface sample with a concentration of 3.6 J+ μg/kg [2.1 J+ 

μg/kg in the duplicate]. PFOA was detected at the surface sample with a concentration of 0.43 J 

μg/kg [0.34 J μg/kg in the duplicate]. PFNA and PFBS were not detected in the surface samples.

PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA were not detected in the shallow subsurface samples.

6.4.2 Boundary Sample Locations – Groundwater Analytical Results 

Groundwater was sampled from one temporary boundary monitoring well location, MAASF-02. 

PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA were non-detect for the boundary well location. 

6.4.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFHxS, PFOS and PFOA were detected in the boundary soil 

samples of MAASF-02 but at concentrations below their respective SLs. Relevant compounds 

were not detected in the groundwater sample from boundary location MAASF-02.
Table 6-2

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

 Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Analyte OSD Screening Level1 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Res

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)PFBS 1,900 ND U ND U ND U ND 

PFHxS 130 0.85 0.80 ND U ND 

PFNA 19 ND U 0.27 J ND U ND 

PFOS 13 9.5 12 0.65 J+ 2.5 

PFOA 19 0.32 J 0.40 J ND U ND 

Grey Fill

Chemica

References PFBS 

PFHxS PFNA PFOS PFOA Acronym

μg/kg 

Interpreted Qualifiers AASF 

AOI DUP HQ ID LCMSMLOD LOQ ND OSD QSM PFAS SB USEPA Qual 

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening LevelsCalculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater orSoil using USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May2022. Soil Screening levels based on residential scenario for incidentalingestion of contaminated soil.J = Estimated concentrationJ+ = The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased highU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL)

Sample Date 3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

Depth (ft) 0-2 0-2 

Parent Sample ID

AOI01-01-SB-0-2-03082022 AOI01-02-SB-0-2-03082022 AOI01-

AOI01-02 

AOI01-02-SB-0-2 AO

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

AOI01-01

DUP-01

DUP-01-03082022

AOI01-01-SB-0-2

0-2

3/8/2022

Sample Name AOI01-01-SB-0-2

Area of Interest 

Location ID AOI01-01
Table 6-2

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

 Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Analyte OSD Screening Level1

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)PFBS 1,900PFHxS 130PFNA 19PFOS 13PFOA 19Grey FillReferencesInterpreted Qualifiers1. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening LevelsCalculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater orSoil using USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May2022. Soil Screening levels based on residential scenario for incidentalingestion of contaminated soil.J = Estimated concentrationJ+ = The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased highU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL)

Sample Date

Depth (ft)

Parent Sample ID

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

Sample Name

Area of Interest 

Location ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Q

ND U ND U ND 

1.7 J ND U 0.26 

ND U ND U 0.32 

8.2 J ND U 7.5 

0.38 J ND U 0.36 

Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviationsμg/kg microgram(s) per kilogrAASF Army Aviation Support AOI Area of InterestDUP duplicateHQ Hazard QuotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatography wLOD limit of detectionLOQ limit of quantitationND analyte not detected aboOSD Office of the Secretary oQSM Quality Systems ManuaPFAS per- and polyfluoroalkySB soil boringUSEPA United States EnvironmQual interpreted qualifier

3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

0-2 0-2 

AOI01-06-SB-0-2-03082022 MAASF-01-SB-0-2-03

AOI01-06-SB-0-2 MAASF-01-SB-0

AOI01-06 MAASF-01

AOI01 

AOI01-05

DUP-02

DUP-02-03082022

AOI01-05-SB-0-2

0-2

3/8/2022
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Lab ID

Analyte OSD Screening Level1 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual R

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)PFBS 25,000 ND U ND U ND U PFHxS 1,600 2.5 ND U ND U PFNA 250 ND U ND U ND U PFOS 160 4.1 0.56 J+ 0.78 J+ 

PFOA 250 0.63 J ND U ND U 

Grey Fill Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS PerfluorobutanesuPFHxS Perfluorohexanesu

References PFNA Perfluorononanoic 

PFOS PerfluorooctanesuPFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acronyms and Abbreviationsμg/kg microgram(s) per AASF Army Aviation SuAOI Area of Interest

Interpreted Qualifiers DUP duplicate

HQ Hazard QuotientID identificationLCMSMS liquid chromatogrLOD limit of detectionLOQ limit of quantitatioND analyte not detectOSD Office of the SecrQSM Quality Systems MPFAS per- and polyfluorSB soil boringUSEPA United States EnvQual interpreted qualifi

1. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening LevelsCalculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soilusing USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. SoilScreening levels based on Industrial/Commercial Composite Worker scenariofor incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.J = Estimated concentrationJ+ = The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased highU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL)

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

Sample Date 3/8/2022 3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

Depth (ft) 4-5 8-9 2-3 

AOI01-01-SB-4-5-03082022 AOI01-01-SB-8-9-03082022

Parent Sample ID

AOI01-02-SB-2-3-03082022 AOI0

AOI01

Sample Name AOI01-01-SB-4-5 AOI01-01-SB-8-9 AOI01-02-SB-2-3 

Area of Interest 

Location ID AOI01-01 AOI01-01 AOI01-02 
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Lab ID

Analyte OSD Screening Level1

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)PFBS 25,000PFHxS 1,600PFNA 250PFOS 160PFOA 250Grey FillReferencesInterpreted Qualifiers1. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening LevelsCalculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soilusing USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. SoilScreening levels based on Industrial/Commercial Composite Worker scenariofor incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.J = Estimated concentrationJ+ = The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased highU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL)

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

Sample Date

Depth (ft)

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Area of Interest 

Location ID

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual 

ND U ND U 0.60 J 

0.45 J ND U ND U 

ND U ND U ND U 

0.56 J+ ND U ND U 

ND U ND U ND U 

Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS PerfluorobutanesPFHxS PerfluorohexanesPFNA PerfluorononanoiPFOS PerfluorooctanesPFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acronyms and AbbreviationsAASF Army Aviation SAOI Area of Interestft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLOD limit of detectionMDL method detection ND analyte was not dOSD Office of the SecPFAS per- and polyfluoQual interpreted qualifRL reporting limitSB soil boringUSEPA United States Envg/kg micrograms/kilog

3/8/2022 3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

3-4 6-7 3-4 

AOI01-04-SB-6-7-03082022 AOI01-05-SB-3-4-03082022 AO

AOIO1-04-SB-3-4 AOIO1-04-SB-6-7

AOI01

AOI01-05 

AOI01-04-SB-3-4-03082022

AOI01-05-SB-3-4 

AOI01-04 AOI01-04
Table 6-3

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

Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Lab ID

Analyte OSD Screening Level1

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (μg/kg)PFBS 25,000PFHxS 1,600PFNA 250PFOS 160PFOA 250Grey FillReferencesInterpreted Qualifiers1. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening LevelsCalculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soilusing USEPA's Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. May 2022. SoilScreening levels based on Industrial/Commercial Composite Worker scenariofor incidental ingestion of contaminated soil.J = Estimated concentrationJ+ = The result is an estimated quantity, but the result may be biased highU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL)

Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

Sample Date

Depth (ft)

Parent Sample ID

Sample Name

Area of Interest 

Location ID

Result Qual Result Qual Resu

ND U ND U ND ND U ND U ND ND U ND U ND 

0.63 J+ 1.9 J+ ND 

ND U ND U ND 

Chemical Abbreviations

PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic aPFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic aPFNA Perfluorononanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acPFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid Acronyms and AbbreviationsAASF Army Aviation Support FaAOI Area of Interestft feetHQ hazard quotientID identificationLOD limit of detectionMDL method detection limitND analyte was not detected aOSD Office of the Secretary of PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl sQual interpreted qualifierRL reporting limitSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmeng/kg micrograms/kilogram

3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

2-3 4-5 

MAASF-01-SB-4-5-03082022 MAASF-

MAASF-01-SB-2-3-03082022

MAASF-01-SB-4-5 MA

AOI01

MAASF-01 MAASF-01 

MAASF-01-SB-2-3
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-10

This page intentionally left blank
Table 6-4

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

Site Inspection Report, Madison AASF#2, Madison, Wisconsin

Analyte OSD Screening Level 1 Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual R

PFBS 601 2.6 2.3 1.7 J 9.7 170 

PFHxS 39 25 26 12 120 590 

PFNA 6 1.4 J 1.3 J 4.0 6.5 0.76 J 

PFOS 4 80 81 31 860 22 J 

PFOA 6 1.9 1.9 3.2 16 35 

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels

Chemical Abbreviations

References PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 

PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations

Interpreted Qualifiers AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI Area of InterestDUP duplicate

J+ = Result is an estimated quantity, but may be biased high HQ Hazard Quotient

J- = Result is an estimated quantity, but may be biased low ID identificationU = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted detection limit (DL) LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tan

LOD limit of detectionLOQ limit of quantitationND analyte not detected above the Lng/L nanogram(s) per literOSD Office of the Secretary of the DQSM Quality Systems ManualPFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substanSB soil boringUSEPA United States Environmental PrQual interpreted qualifier

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)J = Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value

Sample Date 3/8/2022 3/8/2022 

1. 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 contaminated groundwater.

Location ID AOI01-01

Sample Name

Lab ID

Parent Sample ID

AOI01-01-GW

AOI01-01-GW-03082022

AOI01-01

DUP-01-GW

3/8/2022

AOI01-02 AOI01-03

AOI01-02-GW-03092022

AOI01-02-GW

3/9/2022 3/9/2022

DUP-01-GW-03082022

AOI01-04

AOI01-04-GW 

AOI01-03-GW-03092022 AOI01-04-GW-03082022

AOI01-03-GW

AO
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:18:41 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

Shallow (0-2') Intermediate (2-6') 3

0 400

Feet

Deep (4-9') 3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFOS Results (μg/kg)

!( ND

!( >ND - 13

!!( >13 - 160

!!( >160 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFOS = perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

ND = Non-Detect

μg/kg = microgram per kilogram 

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:30:03 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

Shallow (0-2') Intermediate (2-6') 3

0 400

Feet

Deep (4-9') 3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFOA Results (μg/kg)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFOA = perfluorooctanoic acid

ND = Non-Detect

μg/kg = microgram per kilogram 

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-3

PFBS Detections in Soil

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:33:36 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFBS Results (μg/kg)

!( ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 1,900

!!( >1,900 - 25,000

!!( >25,000

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFBS = perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

ND = Non-Detect

μg/kg = microgram per kilogram

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo

Shallow (0-2') Intermediate (2-6') Deep (4-9')
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

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

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-4

PFHxS Detections in Soil

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:38:26 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFHxS Results (μg/kg)

!( >ND

!( >ND - 10

!( >10 - 130

!!( >130 - 1,600

!!( >1,600

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

ND = Non-Detect

μg/kg = microgram per kilogram

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo

Shallow (0-2') Intermediate (2-6') Deep (4-9')
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-20

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-5

PFNA Detections in Soil

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:43:22 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFNA Results (μg/kg)

!( ND

!( >ND - 19

!!( >19 - 250

!!( >250 - 2,500

!!( >2,500

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFNA = Perfluorononanoic acid

ND = Non-Detect

μg/kg = microgram per kilogram 

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted 

with a yellow halo

Shallow (0-2') Intermediate (2-6') Deep (4-9')
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-22

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!(

!(

!!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-6

PFOS, PFOA & PFBS Detections in Groundwater

WI

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-6 PFOS-PFOA-PFBS Detections in Groundwater.mxd - stephane.descombes - 3/27/2023 - 11:46:08 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

PFOS PFOA 3

0 400

Feet

PFBS 3

0 400

Feet

3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFBS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 100

!( >100 - 600

!!( >600 - 1,000

!!( >1,000

PFOA Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 6

!!( >6 - 40

!!( >40 - 70

!!( >70

PFOS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 4

!!( >4 - 40

!!( >40 - 70

!!( >70

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

^_

NOTES:

PFOS = perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFOA = perfluorooctanoic acid

PFBS = perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

ND = Non-Detect

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-24

This page intentionally left blank
! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!(

!(

!(

!!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!!(

!(

!(

!!(

MAASF-02

AOI01-06

AOI01-04

AOI01-05

AOI01-03

AOI01-01

AOI01-02

MAASF-01

Figure 6-7

PFHxS & PFNA Detections in Groundwater

WI

^_

Data Sources: 

ESRI 2020

K:\NGB Contract\ARNG PFAS SI\Madison AASF\13.0 GIS\_SI\Figure 6-7 PFHxS & PFNA Detections in Groundwater.mxd - stephane.descombes - 11/8/2022 - 10:00:46 AM

Army National Guard Site Inspections

Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin

Date:........................October 2022

Prepared By:..........................WSP

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

Projection:.........NAD 83 UTM 16N

PFHxS 3

0 400

Feet

PFNA 3

0 400

Feet

Facility Data

Facility Boundary

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Hydrology

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Shallow Groundwater Flow Direction

! ! ! ! ! Starkweather Creek

PFNA Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 6

!!( >6 - 100

!!( >100 - 1,000

!!( >1,000

PFHxS Results (ng/L)

!( ND

!( >ND - 39

!!( >39 - 100

!!( >100 - 1,000

!!( >1,000

NOTES:

PFHxS = Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA = Perfluorooctanoic acid

ND = Non-Detect

ng/L = nanogram(s) per liter

Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 6-26

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-1

7. EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the AOI, revised based on the SI findings, is presented on 

Figure 7-1. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a receptor may 

be impacted, the decision to move from SI to RI or interim action is determined based upon 

exceedances of the SLs for the relevant compounds and whether the release is more than likely 

attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents the current understanding of the Facility 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 figure uses an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 

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

complete if the relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

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

filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has 

detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially 

complete pathway and a complete pathway may warrant further investigation. Although the 

CSM indicates whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the recommendation 

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

results for the relevant compounds to the SLs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

construction workers, trespassers, and off-site residents outside 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 each AOI based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1

AOI 1 is the fire extinguisher storage on the West Ramp, which historically had several 60-

gallon TriMaxTM fire extinguishers in various locations. It is unknown when the TriMaxTM fire 

extinguishers arrived at the Facility; however, they were present until 2008. There are no records 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-2

of training, routine maintenance, or annual maintenance. There were no reported leaks or AFFF 

releases from the TriMaxTM fire extinguishers, however it is possible that leakages may have 

occurred.

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

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

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

construction workers, and trespassers are potentially complete. PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS

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

subsurface soil via incidental ingestion and inhalation of dust; therefore, the subsurface soil 

exposure pathway for construction workers is potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is 

presented on Figure 7-1.

7.2 GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE PATHWAY

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

exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the aforementioned 

criteria. 

7.2.1 AOI 1

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

samples collected at AOI 1. Groundwater was encountered at 4-7 ft bgs, therefore, construction 

workers may come in contact with shallow groundwater during ground-disturbing activities and 

the ingestion pathway is potentially complete. PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily 

from soil to groundwater via leaching. Drinking water for the Madison AASF #2 is supplied by 

the City of Madison, which obtains its public water supply from the Lower Sandstone Aquifer, 

which is hundreds of feet bgs (Madison Water Utility, 2021). The nearest municipal water supply 

wells are located approximately 1 mile southeast of the facility. Based upon this information, the 

exposure pathway for ingestion of shallow groundwater by site workers, construction workers, 

trespassers, and recreational users is incomplete. However, it is possible unregistered, private, 

domestic wells exist downgradient of the identified AOI, which may result in potential exposure 

via ingestion of groundwater by off-facility residents; therefore, the exposure pathway for

ingestion of shallow groundwater by off-facility residents is considered potentially complete. 

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

7.3 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT EXPOSURE PATHWAY

Starkweather Creek flows from north of the Facility to the south through the east side of the 

Facility. Stormwater at the Facility is managed by a storm water collection system and manmade ditches with underdrains before being discharged to Starkweather Creek, and ultimately to 

Lake Monona (AECOM, 2020). Runoff from the facility, or leaching groundwater that vents into 

surface water bodies, have the potential to transport AFFF or PFAS-impacted soils to water 

bodies including Starkweather Creek which could affect recreational users.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-3

7.3.1 AOI 1

There were no documented releases of PFAS to the ground surface outside the hangar, but 

PFAS-containing fire suppressants were stored at the Facility, and there is the potential for PFAS 

releases inside and immediately surrounding the Main Hangar. There are no documented 

incidents of PFAS-containing (or potentially containing) fire suppressants being discharged to 

the stormwater system. However, due to the presence of PFAS in soil, there is the potential for 

leaching to occur to the groundwater and for stormwater to transport PFAS-impacted soil and 

runoff to Starkweather Creek. Starkweather Creek runs offsite and ultimately to Lake Monona

and therefore there is a potential exposure to recreational user by ingestion of surface water. The 

CSM is presented in Figure 7-1.
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-4

This page intentionally left blank
Notes:

1. The resident and recreational users refer to off-site 

receptors

RECE

Human 

Curren

AOI 1 Surface Water

Human Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/Infiltration

Airborne Soil 

Particulate

Surface Soil at 

AOI

Surface Water/ 

Sediment

Subsurface Soil

Shallow 

Groundwater

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Potential OffFacility Source 

Not under Control 

of ARNG

Hangar Release, 

TriMaxTM Fire 

Extinguishers, Bulk 

AFFF Storage

SOURCE

Source

Release 

Mechanism Media

PATHWAY

Transport

and Migration Media Exposure Routes

Inhalation of 

Dust

Surface Soil

Subsurface Soil

Surface Water 

Flow

LEGEND

Flow Chart ContinuesPartial/Possible FlowIncomplete PathwayPotentially Complete PathwayPotentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of SL

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker 

Site 

Worker

Construction 

Worker 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 7-6

This page intentionally left blank
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 8-1

8. SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

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

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

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

the SLs. 

8.1 SI ACTIVITIES 

The SI field activities at the Facility were conducted from 8 March to 9 March 2022. The SI field 

activities included soil and groundwater sampling. Field activities were conducted in accordance 

with the UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA/Wood, 2022), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI UFP-QAPP Addendum (EA, 2021a), 

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of 24 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant 

with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 as follows. 

• Twenty-four (24) soil samples from eight boring locations;

• Eight (8) grab groundwater samples from 8 temporary well locations;

• Six (6) 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 each AOI to 

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

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

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

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

described in Section 7. 

8.2 OUTCOME

Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA in the form of an RI for AOI 1 

is warranted. Based on the CSM developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is 

potential for exposure to receptors from AOI 1 from sources on the Facility resulting from 

historical DoD activities. 

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

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

relative to the SLs is as follows at AOI 1:

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

exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L with a maximum concentration of 35 ng/L at location AOI01-

04. PFOS exceeded the SL of 4 ng/L with a maximum concentration of 860 ng/L at 

location AOI01-03. PFNA exceeded the SL of 6 ng/L with a maximum concentration of 

8.4 ng/L at location MAASF-01. PFHxS exceeded the SL of 39 ng/L with a maximum 

concentration of 590 ng/L at AOI01-04. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation 
Site Inspection Report 

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL 

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

of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI. PFBS was also detected in the groundwater but at 

concentrations below the SL. 

 PFBS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS and PFOA were detected in soil below their respective SLs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 8.1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater used to determine if an AOI should 

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

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

AOI

Potential Release 

Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Source Area

Groundwater – 

Facility Boundary Future Action 

1 West Ramp Proceed to RI 

Legend:

 = Detected; exceedance of screening levels 

 = Detected; no exceedance of screening levels 

 = Not detected 

Abbreviations: 

AOI = area of interest 

RI = remedial investigation
Site Inspection Report 

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-1 

9. REFERENCES 

AECOM. 2020. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Madison Army Aviation Support Facility 

#2, Madison, Wisconsin. August.

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

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 6 

July. 

City of Madison. 2022. https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/water-quality/water-qualitytesting/perfluorinated-compounds. Date Accessed August 10. 

Department of the Army (DA). 2016a. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February. 

. 2016b. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Contamination. August. 

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

September. 

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

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

. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. November. 

. 2020. Data Validation Guidelines Module 3: Data Validation Procedure for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Analysis by QSM Table B-15. May. 

EA, Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC (EA). 2020. Final Programmatic Uniform 

Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan, Site Inspections for Per- and 

Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. December. 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, PBC and Wood Environment & Infrastructure 

Solutions, Inc. (EA/Wood). 2022. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) Addendum, Madison Army Aviation Support 

Facility #2, Madison, Wisconsin, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Impacted Sites, 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. February. 

. 2021b. Accident Prevention Plan/Site Safety and Health Plan Addendum, Site 

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

Nationwide, Madison Army Aviation Support Facility #2, Madison, Wisconsin. 

December. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-2

Guelfo, J.L. and C.P. Higgins. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids and 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and 

Technology 47(9):4164-71. 

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

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

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

March. 

Madison Water Utility. 2021. Annual Water Quality Report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019. https://www.noaa.gov.

Accessed 10 August. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2021. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 

Substances within The Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States 

Department of Defense. 15 September.

Peer Consultants, P.C (PEER). 1988. Final Preliminary Assessment, 128th Tactical Fighter Wing, 

Wisconsin Air National Guard, Truax Field, Madison, Wisconsin. August.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1980. Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 11 December.

. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule).

40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

. 2005. Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide. 21 July.

. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process

USEPA/240/B-06/001. February.

. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Endangered Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. 

Accessed 10 August. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-3

Xiao, F., M. F. Simcik, T.R. Halbach, and J.S Gulliver. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72:64-74. 
Site Inspection Report

Madison AASF #2, Wisconsin Version: FINAL

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 9-4

This page intentionally left blank