The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDERR-2024-006308FINAL Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at ARNG Installations, Nationwide September 2023 Prepared for: Army National Guard Bureau 111 S. George Mason Drive Arlington, VA 22204 UNCLASSIFIED THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM i Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Authorization .............................................................................................1-1 1.2 SI Purpose ............................................................................................................1-1 2. Facility Background ......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Facility Location and Description ...........................................................................2-1 2.2 Facility Environmental Setting ...............................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................2-1 2.2.2 Hydrogeology ..............................................................................................2-2 2.2.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................2-3 2.2.4 Climate ........................................................................................................2-3 2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use ......................................................................2-4 2.2.6 Sensitive Habitat and Threatened/ Endangered Species .............................2-4 2.3 History of PFAS Use ..............................................................................................2-4 3. Summary of Areas of Interest .......................................................................................3-1 3.1 AOI 1 North Hangar...............................................................................................3-1 3.2 AOI 2 Hangar/Ramp Area .....................................................................................3-1 3.3 AOI 3 Armory Dumpster Fire .................................................................................3-2 3.4 Adjacent Sources ..................................................................................................3-2 3.4.1 Emergency Response Area .........................................................................3-2 3.4.2 Private Aviation Companies at South Valley Regional Airport ......................3-2 4. Project Data Quality Objectives ....................................................................................4-1 4.1 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Information Inputs .................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Study Boundaries ..................................................................................................4-1 4.4 Analytical Approach ...............................................................................................4-1 4.5 Data Usability Assessment ....................................................................................4-1 5. Site Inspection Activities ...............................................................................................5-1 5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities.....................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ..........................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Utility Clearance ..........................................................................................5-2 5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability .................................5-2 5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling .............................................................................5-2 5.3 Permanent Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling .......................................5-3 5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements ....................................................................5-4 5.5 Surveying ..............................................................................................................5-4 5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste ..................................................................................5-5 5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-5 5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum ....................................................................5-5 6. Site Inspection Results .................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Screening Levels ...................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses .............................................................................6-2 6.3 AOI 1 .....................................................................................................................6-2 6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-2 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM ii 6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results .........................................................6-3 6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-3 6.4 AOI 2 .....................................................................................................................6-3 6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-3 6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results .........................................................6-4 6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-4 6.5 AOI 3 .....................................................................................................................6-4 6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results .......................................................................6-4 6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results .........................................................6-5 6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-5 7. Exposure Pathways ......................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway .........................................................................................7-1 7.1.1 AOI 1 ...........................................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 AOI 2 ...........................................................................................................7-2 7.1.3 AOI 3 ...........................................................................................................7-2 7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway ...........................................................................7-2 7.2.1 AOI 1 ...........................................................................................................7-2 7.2.2 AOI 2 ...........................................................................................................7-3 7.2.3 AOI 3 ...........................................................................................................7-3 7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ..................................................7-3 7.3.1 AOI 1, AOI 2, and AOI 3 ..............................................................................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 E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM iii Appendices Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports Appendix B Field Documentation B1. Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities B2. Sampling Forms B3. Field Change Request Form B4. Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report B5. Survey Data B6. Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons Appendix C Photographic Log Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes Appendix E Boring Logs and Well Construction Forms Appendix F Analytical Results Appendix G Laboratory Reports Figures Figure 2-1 Facility Location Figure 2-2 Facility Topography Figure 2-3 Groundwater Features Figure 2-4 Groundwater Elevations, November 2021 Figure 2-5 Surface Water Features Figure 3-1 Areas of Interest Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations Figure 6-1 PFOA Detections in Soil Figure 6-2 PFOS Detections in Soil Figure 6-3 PFBS Detections in Soil Figure 6-4 PFHxS Detections in Soil Figure 6-5 PFNA Detections in Soil Figure 6-6 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater Figure 6-7 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3 Tables Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths Table 5-3 Permanent Monitoring Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) Table 6-2 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil Table 6-3 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurface Soil Table 6-5 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM iv THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM v Acronyms and Abbreviations % percent °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit µg/kg micrograms per kilogram AASF Army Aviation Support Facility AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. AFFF aqueous film forming foam amsl above mean sea level AOI Area of Interest ARNG Army National Guard bgs below ground surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CoC chain of custody CSM conceptual site model DA Department of the Army DO dissolved oxygen DoD Department of Defense DQI data quality indicator DQO data quality objective DUA data usability assessment DVR data validation report EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.™ ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ELU Equivalent Livestock Unit FedEx Federal Express FRB field reagent blank HAZMAT hazardous materials HDPE high-density polyethylene HFPO-DA hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HSA hollow stem auger IDW investigation-derived waste\ ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry\ MIL-SPEC military specification MS matrix spike MSD matrix spike duplicate NCO Non-Commissioned Officer NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ng/L nanograms per liter ORP oxidation-reduction potential OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PA Preliminary Assessment PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM vi PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PID photoionization detector PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP PVC polyvinyl chloride QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC quality control QSM Quality Systems Manual RI Remedial Investigation RPD relative percent differences SI Site Inspection SL screening level SOP standard operating procedure TOC total organic carbon TPP Technical Project Planning UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality UDWR Utah Division of Water Rights UFP Uniform Federal Policy US United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCS Unified Soil Classification System USDA US department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UTARNG Utah Army National Guard Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM ES-1 Executive Summary The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) on the current or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum include perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS). These compounds are collectively referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout the document and the applicable screening levels (SLs) are provided in Table ES-1. The PA identified three Areas of Interest (AOIs) where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, disposed, or released historically (see Table ES-2 for AOI locations). The objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOIs identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on SLs for relevant compounds. This SI was completed at the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex in West Jordan, Utah and determined further evaluation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is warranted for AOI 1 and AOI 2; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 3 at this time. The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex will also be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex occupies approximately 57 acres located at 7563 Airport Rd, West Jordan, Utah, 84084, within Salt Lake County. The facility was established in 1989 and serves as the base operations for military helicopter maintenance and support (Kleinfelder, 2018). The facility consists of two main ARNG areas divided by Airport Road, which runs through the middle of the facility; the Army Facility Maintenance Support-2 (the Armory) is located on the west side, and the Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) is located on the east side. The PA identified three AOIs for investigation during the SI phase. SI sampling results from the three AOIs were compared to OSD SLs. Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for each AOI. Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in a Remedial Investigation (RI) for AOI 1 and AOI 2; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 3 at this time. 1 Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the conceptual site model (CSM) developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of military specification (MIL-SPEC) aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM ES-2 Table ES-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) Analyteb Residential (Soil) (µg/kg)a 0-2 feet bgs Industrial/ Commercial Composite Worker (Soil) (µg/kg)a 2-15 feet bgs Tap Water (Groundwater) (ng/L)a PFOA 19 250 6 PFOS 13 160 4 PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 PFHxS 130 1,600 39 PFNA 19 250 6 Notes: bgs = below ground surface; µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. 6 July 2022. b.) Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO- DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. Table ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings and Recommendations AOI Potential Release Area Soil – Source Area Groundwater – Source Area Groundwater – Facility Boundary Future Action 1 North Hangar Proceed to RI Dry Well N/A N/A 2 Hangar/Ramp Area Proceed to RI Tent Storage Area 3 Armory Dumpster Fire No Further Action Legend: N/A = not applicable = detected; exceedance of the screening levels = detected; no exceedance of the screening levels = not detected Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 1-1 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Authorization The Army National Guard (ARNG) G-9 is the lead agency in performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) on the current or potential historical use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with a focus on the six compounds presented in the memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The six compounds listed in the OSD memorandum will be referred to as “relevant compounds” throughout this document and include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)1, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at ARNG facilities nationwide. The ARNG performed this SI at the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex in West Jordan, Utah. The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex is also referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. The SI project elements were performed in compliance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; United States [US] Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 1980), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300; USEPA, 1994), and in compliance with US Department of the Army (DA) requirements and guidance for field investigations. 1.2 SI Purpose A PA was performed at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex (AECOM Technical Services, Inc. [AECOM], 2019) that identified three Areas of Interest (AOIs) 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 AOIs identified in the PA and determine whether further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is required based on screening levels (SLs) for the relevant compounds. 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 E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 1-2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 2-1 2. Facility Background 2.1 Facility Location and Description The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex is located at 7563 Airport Rd, West Jordan, Utah, 84084, within Salt Lake County. The facility was established in 1989 and serves as the base operations for military helicopter maintenance and support (Kleinfelder, 2018). The facility consists of two main ARNG areas divided by Airport Road, which runs through the middle of the facility; the Army Facility Maintenance Support-2 (the Armory) is located on the west side, and the Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) is located on the east side. West Jordan is a suburb of Salt Lake City, bordered on the west by the Oquirrh Mountains and on the east by the Jordan River. The facility borders the South Valley Regional Airport to the east and is situated west of Interstate 15 (Figure 2-1). The facility is about 9.3 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. 2.2 Facility Environmental Setting The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex occupies approximately 57 acres, approximately 77 percent (%) of which is composed of impervious surfaces. The areas surrounding the facility are primarily the railroad to the west, and general aviation facilities at the South Valley Regional Airport to the north and east. Other surrounding areas include self-storage and manufacturing companies to the northwest, a Utah Department of Transportation facility to the southwest, and a water tank facility for the City of West Jordan to the east. The facility sits at an elevation of 4,620 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with a slight general topographic gradient to the east. There are no significant natural topographic features immediately surrounding the facility (Figure 2-2). 2.2.1 Geology The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex is located within the Jordan Valley, at the eastern margin of the Basin and Range physiographic province. The valley is bounded on the east by the Wasatch Range, on the south by the Traverse Mountains, on the west by the Oquirrh Mountains, and on the north by the Great Salt Lake and a low east-west salient of the Wasatch Range (Marine and Price, 1964). At the facility, Holocene-aged alluvium and Pleistocene-aged silt and clay deposits of the regressive Phase of Lake Bonneville overlie volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Salt Lake Formation of Tertiary age, which were largely of mud-rock flow origin (Marine and Price, 1964). Geologic units are depicted on Figure 2-3. The uppermost geologic units at the facility are comprised of massive to thinly bedded silt and clay deposits (7-16 feet), with boulder to pebble gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in channels and flood plain of streams (US Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2019). The Jordan Narrows unit of the Salt Lake Formation commonly underlies the alluvial or lacustrine material and consists of fine-grained sediments with a few thin gravel lenses, principally of andesite. The fine-grained sediments are mostly volcanic tuff, freshwater limestone, and clay, and they can be 300 to 2,000 feet thick (Marine and Price, 1964). Soil borings completed during the SI found various mixtures of silt, clay, and sand deposits as the dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex. The borings were completed at depths between 40 and 70 feet below ground surface (bgs). Many of the logs also reported varying percentages of gravel included in the sand packages. Samples for grain size analyses were collected at two locations where monitoring wells were installed, EJG- MW006 and EJG-MW005, and analyzed via American Society for Testing and Materials (ATSM) Method D-422. The results indicated that the soil samples are comprised primarily of silt (59.05% Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 2-2 to 61.78%) and clay (21.27% to 29.17%). These facility observations are consistent with the understood alluvial or lacustrine depositional environment. Boring logs are presented in Appendix E, and grain size results are presented in Appendix F. 2.2.2 Hydrogeology The complex pattern of sediment deposition in the Jordan Valley resulted in a widely-varying groundwater reservoir. Specific aquifers are generally not distinguishable over large areas, and they are underlain, overlain, and graded into beds with lesser permeability. The Jordan Valley has been divided into six groundwater districts based on geology and hydrology. The facility is in the West Slope District, within the North Pediment subdistrict (Marine and Price, 1964). In the North Pediment subdistrict, groundwater wells obtain water that is perched on the relatively impermeable beds of the Jordan Narrows Unit. Most of the ground water in the subdistrict is confined in the Jordan Narrows unit or in the overlying Pleistocene or late Tertiary gravel. Shallow wells screened in gravel layers, especially those in the lower part of the subdistrict near the facility, appear to be under artesian pressure and flow at the land surface. Deep wells (deeper than 150 feet) set within the Jordan Narrows unit may be under artesian pressure, however, they generally do not flow to the land surface. Much of the recharge to the gravel beds comes from irrigation water obtained from surface sources (Marine and Price, 1964). According to Marine and Price, groundwater in the North Pediment subdistrict generally moves toward the northeast. Based on the topography and water bodies in the vicinity of the facility, it is assumed groundwater moves from west to east, towards the Jordan River. Drinking water is supplied at the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex by the local municipal water authority. However, a number of groundwater wells exist in the vicinity of the facility. An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)™ report conducted a well search for a 1-mile radius surrounding the facility (EDRTM, 2019). Additional online resources, such as state and local geographic information systems databases, were utilized to research wells within a 4-mile radius of the facility. The Utah Division of Water Rights (UDWR) interactive map was reviewed to determine the status of many water rights. The information from UDWR and EDR indicates approximately 500 wells within a 4- mile radius of the facility, 302 of which are potentially down or cross-gradient of the facility. Of the wells within a 4-mile radius, 1 is domestic, 2 are municipal, 45 are monitoring, and the remaining are other/unknown use. Active wells located down or cross-gradient to the facility are described below and in Figure 2-3. • Water Right 59-2123 is an active point of diversion located approximately 1,750 feet southeast and cross-gradient of the facility. The well is used for stock water, with a beneficial use amount of 400 Equivalent Livestock Units (ELUs). • Water Rights 59-1615 and 59-5157 are tied to an active point of diversion located approximately 2,400 feet south and cross-gradient of the facility. The well (also known as Steadman Well), when active, is used for municipal water for the City of West Jordan, limited to the use of 750 families. The well was finished to a depth of 400 feet bgs. • Water Right 59-2122 is an active point of diversion water well located approximately 2,700 feet southeast and cross-gradient of the facility. The well is used for the domestic water supply for a single family. • Water Right 59-2733 is an active point of diversion located approximately 3,800 feet east and downgradient of the facility. The well is used for stock water, with a beneficial use amount of 50 ELUs to be used for 45 cattle and 5 horses. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 2-3 During the site visit, it was reported that a groundwater well serving the City of West Jordan was located approximately 1,300 feet east and downgradient of the facility, near the water tanks, identified as Water Right 59-2024 in the EDRTM. According to the UDWR, this well was formerly used for stock water since 1886; however, in 1976, the water right (59-2024) was disallowed, and the well was abandoned (UDWR, 2019). According to the facility Utilities Manager, none of the wells within the area supply municipal water for West Jordan. The adjacent tanks are supplied by piped water from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. Twenty percent of Jordan Valley Water’s supply is groundwater, pumped from wells scattered around the Salt Lake Valley (Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District [JVWCD], 2022). Based on a review of well logs for supply wells located in the vicinity of E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, perched water-bearing lenses have been observed above the regional aquifer. Several well logs recorded water as shallow as 40-60 feet bgs and were capable of pumping at least 2 gallons per minute (UDWR, 2019). It is likely these lenses are not continuous across the area and are highly influenced by seasonal changes in precipitation. Three federal United States Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring wells were identified within 1 mile of the facility. The wells are inactive; however, according to the most recent groundwater levels measured in each well, groundwater in the area ranges from approximately 28 feet bgs to 68 feet bgs (UDWR, 2019). Several off-facility municipal, domestic, and stock water wells have been identified in the vicinity of the facility. Groundwater features are presented on Figure 2-3. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 26.61 to 60.16 feet bgs. Groundwater elevation contours from the SI are presented on Figure 2-4 and indicate groundwater flow direction is generally to the east. 2.2.3 Hydrology Based on a desktop review of the National Wetlands Inventory online mapping system (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2021), the facility does not contain any mapped wetlands or surface waters, although the southern portion is located within the 100-year flood zone. Topographic maps depict a portion of Barney’s Creek on the west and south borders of the property. The creek follows the location of a historic irrigation system/stormwater discharge canal described by the ARNG Environmental Manager, which was reportedly dry 90% of the time and filled in circa 2013/2014. No surface water was observed during the site visit. Surface water runoff generally drains from west to east, with certain drainage areas draining north to south (Kleinfelder, 2018). There is a series of unlined catch basins along the east side of the facility, between the airfield and the runways. The catch basins also receive snow plowed from the Hangar/Ramp Area in the winter. The facility sits within the Jordan River and Utah Lake Watershed Management Unit. According to the Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the facility, stormwater from the facility enters Barney’s Creek along the southerly perimeter. The creek was observed to be dry during the site visit. Barney’s Creek discharges into a large detention pond/sedimentation basin to the east, where stormwater velocity is slowed, particulates are allowed to settle, and water is discharged through a restricted outfall. Ultimately, the stormwater runoff from the facility discharges to the Jordan River, which flows in a north to south direction to Utah Lake (Kleinfelder, 2018). Surface water features are presented on Figure 2-5. 2.2.4 Climate The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex is located in a semi-arid, temperate climate zone with four distinct seasons. West Jordan receives some precipitation, on average, 88 days per year. The average annual precipitation is 15.52 inches. Summer temperatures peak in July, with an average high of Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 2-4 94 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and an average low of 68°F. Winter temperatures are lowest in January with an average high of 39°F and an average low of 24°F. With the exception of two months of westerly winds in the spring, prevailing winds are southerly for the majority of the year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2022). 2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex serves as a Utah ARNG (UTARNG) base of operations for military helicopter maintenance and support. The Armory consists of an office building, a garage dedicated to light vehicle maintenance, and parking areas. The AASF is comprised of a hangar, maintenance and storage areas, operations and administrative buildings, and related infrastructure including parking lots, aircraft parking areas, and refueling pads. Reasonably anticipated future land use is not expected to change from the current land use described above. 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 insects, mammals, fishes, plants, and birds are federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/ or are listed as candidate species in Salt Lake County, Utah (USFWS, 2022). • Insects: Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (candidate) • Mammals: Little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus (under review); Canada Lynx, lynx canadensis (threatened) • Fishes: Least chub, Iotichthys phlegethontis (resolved taxon) • Flowering plants: Ute ladies'-tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis (threatened) • Birds: Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus (threatened); Greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus (resolved taxon) 2.3 History of PFAS Use A total of 11 potential release areas were identified and grouped into three AOIs at the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex during the PA where AFFF may have been used or released historically (AECOM, 2020). PFAS-containing materials were potentially released to soil and groundwater within the boundary of the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex through fire training exercises, fire suppression system testing, and emergency response with confirmed discharges of AFFF to the ground surface across the Hangar/Ramp Area. Three AOIs were identified based on preliminary data and assumed groundwater flow directions. A description of the AOIs is presented in Section 3. CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AG 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/2/2022 1:63,360 Figure 2-1 CM 8/2/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Facility Location Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, ^_ 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Facility Boundary E.J. Garn Aviation Complex AECOM 2-5 CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AG 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/2/2022 1:6,000 Figure 2-2 CM 8/2/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Facility Topography Base Map: USGS The National Map: NationalBoundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Legend Facility Boundary AECOM 2-6 !A !A!A!A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A!A !A !A!A!A !A !A!A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A !A!A!A !A!A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A !A!A!A!A !A!A!A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A!A !A!A!A !A!A !A !A!A !A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A!A!A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !A !A!A !A !A!A !A !C(!C(!A !A !5 !A !A !A !A !5 !P!5!A!A !A 59-1615 ; 59-5157 59-2122 59-2733 59-2123 DryCreek B a r n e y s C r e e k B i n ghamCree k Bingham Creek CoonCre ek B i n gha m Cre e k J o r d a n R i ve r Brig hton C a nal U t a h L a k e Distri b u t i n g Can a l N ort h Jordan C anal ProvoRese rvoir C a n a l UtahandSaltLakeCanal B a r n e y s W a s h SouthJorda n C anal Utah L a k e D is trib u tin g C a n a l CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AD 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection for E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/2/2022 1:95,040 Figure 2-3 CM 8/2/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Groundwater Features Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Facility Boundary Water Body Wetland River/Stream Canal/Ditch Pipeline Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction Geology Quaternary; clay or sand Quaternary; alluvium Quaternary; older alluvium Well !P Domestic !5 Irrigation/Stockwatering !C(Municipal !A Other/Unknown !A Monitoring 0 1.5 30.75 Miles !A 59-2733 AECOM 2-7 CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AD 10/20/2022 10/20/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 10/20/2022 Figure 2-4 CM 10/20/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Groundwater Elevations, November 2021 Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, !? !? !? !? !? !? !? EJG-MW0014578.91 EJG-MW0024549.19 EJG-MW0034570.24 EJG-MW0044597.94 EJG-MW0074579.21 EJG-MW0064590.16 EJG-MW0054593.35 4550 4550 4560 4560 4570 4580 4570 4590 458045904600 4600 0 330 660165Feet Legend !?Soil Boring/Permanent Monitoring Well Facility Boundary Groundwater Contour Inferred Groundwater Contour Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 1:3,960 Groundwater elevations in ft NAVD88. AECOM 2-8 SedimentationBasin B a r neys Creek P r o v o R e s e r v o i r C a n a l B a r n e y s W a s h U t a h L a k e D i s t r i b u t i n g C a n a l U t a h L a k e D i s t ri b u t i n g C a n a l Bingham CreekWatershed HeadwatersBarneys CreekWatershed BarneysCreek-JordanRiver Watershed CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AD 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/2/2022 1:24,000 Figure 2-5 CM 8/2/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Surface Water Features Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Legend Facility Boundary 100 Year Flood Zone Water Body River/Stream Canal/Ditch Surface Water Flow Direction 0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet AECOM 2-9 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 2-10 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 3-1 3.Summary of Areas of Interest The PA evaluated areas where PFAS-containing materials may have been used, stored, disposed, or released historically. Based on the PA findings, 11 potential release areas were identified at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex and grouped into three AOIs (AECOM, 2019; 2021a). The potential release areas are shown on Figure 3-1. This figure also shows nearby off-facility potential releases for informational purposes. 3.1 AOI 1 North Hangar AOI 1 comprises the area to the east and southeast of the North Hangar (Building 00001), including four potential releases at the firetruck bay/foam storage area and the wash down area. Potential releases consist of the North Hangar fire suppression system (no known releases); firetruck washing in the fire truck bay; oil/water separator and sanitary sewer drains within the hangar; and the former dry well east of the hangar. The North Hangar is an approximately 52,000 square foot building. The hangar had a fire suppression system; however, during AECOM’s site visit, it was under construction, and the facility personnel stated that no known releases have occurred. A firetruck bay that housed an AFFF-capable firetruck was historically located in the southeast corner of the North Hangar. The firetruck was washed in the firetruck bay, or to an area to the south of the firetruck bay. Potential discharges of AFFF in the wash down area for an unknown time period may have resulted in a release to the ground surface and subsequently to the catch basins to the east of the building. Drains in the North Hangar currently discharge to the oil/water separator to the east, and then to the municipal sanitary sewer system serviced by the City of West Jordan (SVW, 2019). However, it is not clear that the drains have always been connected to the sanitary sewer. According to UTARNG staff, drains from a different section of the North Hangar were discovered to be connected to a dry well to the northeast of the building. It is unknown if a similar pathway ever existed for the piping in the firetruck bay. Therefore, potential discharges of AFFF in the firetruck bay could have released AFFF to the dry well for an unknown time period prior to 2009. 3.2 AOI 2 Hangar/Ramp Area AOI 2 comprises the Hangar/Ramp Area east of the South Hangar (Building 00002) and Cold Storage building (Building 00004), including six potential releases from the South Hangar, Cold Storage Building, and the Tri-Max Fire Area. Potential releases include the South Hangar (Building 00002) fire suppression system tests from 1991 to 2016; Cold Storage Building (Building 00004) fire suppression system tests from 1991 to 2016; a Tri-MaxTM 30-gallon unit discharged in 1998; fire training activities from 1995 to 1999; emergency response activities using AFFF dating back to 1989; and the storage of 5-gallon 3% AFFF containers in Tent Storage (Building 00010), which was formerly located east of its current location. The South Hangar is an approximately 52,000 square feet building. The Cold Storage Building is an approximately 31,025 square feet building located on the western installation boundary. These buildings are equipped with AFFF fire suppression systems. Releases of the fire suppression systems in both buildings from approximately 1991 to 2016 resulted in AFFF being pushed onto the Hangar/Ramp Area concrete and left in place to evaporate or disperse with the wind. In addition, fire training activities were conducted around the Hangar/Ramp Area from at least 1995 to 1999, and emergency responses using foam may have occurred on the same area since 1989. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 3-2 The Tent Storage area (Building 00010) is also located within AOI 2. According to the PA Report, 3% AFFF was stored as concentrate in 5-gallon containers within tent storage (which was formerly located east of its current location) from at least 1989 to 2009; however, no releases were known to have occurred (AECOM, 2019). 3.3 AOI 3 Armory Dumpster Fire AOI 3 is located directly west of Building 00003 and comprises one potential release area from a former dumpster fire. According to the Safety Non-Commissioned Officer/Hazardous Materials (NCO/HAZMAT) Training Manager, the dumpster fire occurred at the Armory in 1997, which he extinguished with an AFFF mobile unit. It is unknown how many gallons were discharged. The dumpster was located on asphalt, with a grassy area directly to the north of the dumpster. The surface drainage in the vicinity of AOI 3 was designed to flow south into a catch basin. 3.4 Adjacent Sources Several potential off-facility sources of PFAS adjacent to the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex were identified during the PA. A description of each adjacent source is presented below, and the adjacent sources are shown on Figure 3-1. 3.4.1 Emergency Response Area Many air crashes have occurred on the runway; however, only one incident is known to have been handled by the AASF emergency services. In 1989 a civilian plane crashed on the runway east of the AASF and west of the city water supply. The crash included a fire suppressed by the AASF emergency services. It is presumed they used a fire truck equipped with 3% AFFF, although the quantity used is unknown (AECOM, 2019). 3.4.2 Private Aviation Companies at South Valley Regional Airport The South Valley Regional Airport (U42) Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is located north of the West Jordan AASF and shares the adjacent runway. The airport is located at 7799 Airport Rd, West Jordan, UT 84084. The FBO currently supports business-related flying, law enforcement/fire/rescue flying services, recreational flying, flight training, and air charters. Flight training is conducted by Randon Aviation and Utah Helicopter, both located at 7220 S 4450 W, West Jordan, UT 84084. Two additional aviation companies are reportedly located at 7365 South Airport Drive, West Jordan, UT 84084. The exact location of these facilities within the South Valley Regional Airport could not be determined (AECOM, 2019). The use or storage of AFFF at the airport facilities could not be determined during the PA; however, none of the facilities have their own emergency services and are under the municipal emergency services. The municipal fire department is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the facility at 7602 Jordan Landing Blvd, West Jordan, UT 84084. !A !A!A !A !A !A !5 !P!5 !A !A !A AOI 2 AOI 1AOI 3 1989 Civilian Crash Runways SedimentationBasin BarneysCreek-JordanRiver Watershed B a r n e y s C r e e k U t a h L a k e D i s t ri b u ti n g C a n a l 0 1,000 2,000500Feet !A Fire Training Area/Emergency Response 1997 Dumpster Fire Dry Well Building 00002 Building 00004 Tri-Max Training/CFR Nozzle Testing Area Catch Basins Fire Truck Bay/Foam Storage Wash Down Area Former Building 00010Foam Storage Area Building 00001 Current Building 00010 BarneysCreek-JordanRiver Watershed AOI2 AOI 1 AOI 3 Figure 3-1CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 9/20/2022 9/20/2022 9/20/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 9/20/2022 Area of Interest 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Area of Interest Potential Release Area Facility Boundary Water Body River/Stream Canal/Ditch Surface Water Flow Direction Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction !P Domestic !5 Irrigation/Stockwatering !C(Municipal !A Other/Unknown 0 300 600150Feet 1:12,000 AECOM 3-3 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 3-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 4-1 4. Project Data Quality Objectives As identified during the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process and outlined in the SI Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), the objective of the SI is to identify whether there has been a release to the environment at the AOIs identified in the PA. For each AOI, ARNG determines if further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or whether no further action is warranted. This SI evaluated groundwater and soil for presence or absence of relevant compounds at each of the sampled AOIs. 4.1 Problem Statement ARNG will recommend an AOI for Remedial Investigation (RI) if related soil and groundwater samples have concentrations of the relevant compounds above the OSD risk-based SLs. The SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of this report. 4.2 Information Inputs Primary information inputs included: • The PA for E.J. Garn Aviation Complex (AECOM, 2019); • Analytical data from groundwater and soil samples collected as part of this SI in accordance with the site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a); and • Field data collected during the SI, including groundwater elevation and water quality parameters measured at the time of sampling. 4.3 Study Boundaries The scope of the SI was bounded by the property limits of the facility (Figure 2-2). Off-facility sampling was not included in the scope of this SI. If future off-facility sampling is required, the proper stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be obtained by ARNG with property owner(s). The SI scope was bounded vertically by the observed depths of the surficial groundwater table. Temporal boundaries of the study were limited to the Fall to avoid winter storms and freezing conditions. 4.4 Analytical Approach Samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Gulf Coast, accredited under the Department of Defense (DoD) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP; Accreditation Number 74960) and the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate Number 01955). Data were compared to applicable SLs within this document and decision rules as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). 4.5 Data Usability Assessment The Data Usability Assessment (DUA), which is provided in Appendix A, is an evaluation at the conclusion of data collection activities that uses the results of both data verification and validation in the context of the overall project decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the assessment determines whether project execution and the resulting data have met installation-specific DQOs. Both sampling and analytical activities are considered to assess Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 4-2 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 SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-1 5. Site Inspection Activities This section describes the environmental investigation and sampling activities that occurred as part of the SI. The SI sampling approach was based on the findings of the PA and implemented in accordance with the following approved documents: • Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (PQAPP) dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a); • Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan dated July 2018 (AECOM, 2018b); • Final Preliminary Assessment Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah dated December 2019 (AECOM, 2019); • Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah, dated June 2021 (AECOM, 2021a); and • Final Site Safety and Health Plan, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah dated October 2021 (AECOM, 2021b). The SI field activities were conducted from 25 October to 10 November 2021 and consisted of utility clearance, hollow stem auger (HSA) drilling, rotary sonic drilling, soil sample collection, permanent monitoring well installation, grab groundwater sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), except as noted in Section 5.10. The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) compliant with Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.3 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs: • Twenty-five (25) soil samples from ten (10) boring locations; • Seven (7) grab groundwater samples from seven (7) permanent wells; and • Twenty-one (21) quality assurance (QA) samples. Figure 5-1 provides the sample locations for all media across the facility. Table 5-1 presents the list of samples collected for each media. Field documentation is provided in Appendix B. A Log of Daily Notice of Field Activity was completed throughout the SI field activities, which is provided in Appendix B1. Sampling forms are provided in Appendix B2, Field Change Request Forms are provided in Appendix B3, Nonconformance and Corrective Action Reports are provided in Appendix B4, land survey data are provided in Appendix B5, and investigation-derived waste (IDW) polygons are provided in Appendix B6. Additionally, a photographic log of field activities is provided in Appendix C. 5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities In preparation for the SI field activities, project team members participated in Technical Project Planning (TPP) meetings, performed utility clearance, and sampled decontamination source water. Details for each of these activities are presented below. 5.1.1 Tec hnical Project Planning The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) TPP Process, Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (USACE, 2016) defines four phases to project planning: 1.) defining the project phase; 2.) determining data needs; 3.) developing data collection strategies; and 4.) finalizing the data Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-2 collection plan. The process encourages stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall project objectives, including DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOIs identified in the PA. A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 22 December 2020, prior to SI field activities. The meeting was conducted in general accordance with Engineering Manual (EM) 200-1-2. The stakeholders for this SI include the ARNG, UTARNG, USACE, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), and representatives familiar with the facility and the regulations. Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The outcome of the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). A TPP Meeting 3 was held on 27 July 2023 after the field event to discuss the results of the SI. Meeting minutes for TPP 3 are included in Appendix D of this report. Future TPP meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the results and findings, and future actions, where warranted. 5.1.2 Utility Clearance AECOM’s drilling subcontractor, Cascade Technical Services, LLC placed a ticket with the Blue Stakes of Utah 811 utility clearance provider to notify them of intrusive work on 19 October 2021. AECOM also contracted ESI Engineering, Inc., a private utility location service, who performed utility clearance of the proposed boring locations on 13 October 2021 with input from the AECOM field team and E.J. Garn Aviation Complex facility staff. General locating services and ground- penetrating radar were used to complete the clearance. Additionally, the first 5 feet of each boring were pre-cleared using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered. 5.1.3 Source Water and Sampling Equipment Acceptability The potable water source used for decontamination of drilling equipment was confirmed to be acceptable for use in a PFAS investigation prior to the start of field activities. A sample from a potable water source at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex was collected on 12 May 2021, prior to mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15. The results of the decontamination water sample are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the results is presented in the DUA (Appendix A). Materials that were used within the sampling zone were confirmed as acceptable for use in the sampling environment. The checklist of acceptable materials for use in the sampling environment was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appendix to the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Prior to the start of field work each day, a Sampling Checklist was completed as an additional layer of control. The checklist served as a daily reminder to each field team member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling Soil samples were collected via HSA rig at AOI01-01, EJG-MW006, and EJG-MW001, in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Due to heaving sands in EJG-MW001, the HSA rig was replaced with a sonic drill rig for the installation of EJG-MW001 and the remaining boring locations (EJG-MW002 to EJG-MW005 and EJG-MW007); the field change request is provided in Appendix B3. A hand auger was used to collect soil from the top 5 feet of each boring, in accordance with AECOM utility clearance procedures. A hand auger was also used for the two surface soil sample locations (AOI03-01 and AOI03-02) in accordance the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-3 sample depths are provided in Table 5-1. The soil boring depths are provided in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. In general, three discrete soil samples were collected from the vadose zone for chemical analysis from each soil boring: one surface soil sample (0 to 2 feet bgs), one subsurface soil sample approximately 2 feet above the groundwater table, and one subsurface soil sample at the mid- point between the surface and the groundwater table. At AOI01-01, only two soil samples were collected, and only one sample was collected at AOI03-01 and AOI03-02, in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). The soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by an AECOM field geologist using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A photoionization detector (PID) was used to screen the breathing zone during boring activities as part of personal safety requirements. Observations and measurements were recorded on boring logs (Appendix E) and in a non- treated field logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, moisture, relative density, color (using a Munsell soil color chart), and texture (using the USCS) were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. Soil borings completed during the SI found various mixtures of silt, clay, and sand deposits as the dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex. The borings were completed at depths between 40 and 70 feet bgs. Many of the logs also reported varying percentages of gravel included in the sand packages. These facility observations are consistent with the understood alluvial or lacustrine depositional environment. Each soil sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard chain of custody (CoC) procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15, total organic carbon (TOC) (USEPA Method 9060A), and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/MS duplicate (MSDs) were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when non-dedicated sampling equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the shallow soil samples, equipment rinsate blanks should have been collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. However, collection of this blank for the hand auger was accidently missed and is discussed in Section 5.8 below. A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment. The laboratory received one of the coolers above the method temperature requirement for preservation, as described in Section 5.8 below. The seven borings deeper than 8 feet (EJG-MW001 to EJG-MW007) were converted to permanent wells. All but two of the borings were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt surfaces. 5.3 Permanent Well Installation and Groundwater Sampling During the SI, seven permanent monitoring wells (EJG-MW001 to EJG-MW007) were installed within or downgradient of potential source areas. The locations of the wells are shown on Figure 5-1. An HSA drill rig system was used at EJG-MW006, and a sonic drill rig system was used at the remaining six wells (EJG-MW001 through EJG-MW005 and MW007) to install the seven 2-inch diameter monitoring wells. Water was not added during the drilling of the wells. The monitoring Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-4 wells were constructed with Schedule 40 PVC, flush threaded 10-foot sections of riser, 0.010-inch slotted well screen, and a threaded bottom cap. A filter pack of 20/40 silica sand was installed in the annulus around the well screen to a minimum of 2-foot above the well screen. A 2-foot-thick bentonite seal was placed above the filter sand and hydrated with water. Bentonite grout was placed in the well annulus from the top of the bentonite seal to ground surface. The bentonite grout was allowed to set for 24 hours prior to well completion in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). All monitoring wells were completed with flush mount well vaults. The screen interval of each of the groundwater monitoring wells is provided in Table 5-3. Development and sampling of wells was completed in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). The newly installed monitoring wells were developed no sooner than 24 hours following installation by pumping and surging using a variable speed submersible pump. Samples were collected no sooner than 24 hours following development via low-flow sampling methods using a QED Sample Pro® bladder pump with disposable PFAS-free, HDPE tubing. New tubing was used at each well and the pumps were decontaminated between each well. The wells were purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce 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). Water levels were measured to the nearest 0.01 inch and recorded. Additionally, a subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and a shaker test was completed to identify if there were any foaming. No foaming was noted in any of the groundwater samples. Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. Matrix spike (MS)/MS duplicates (MSDs) were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the accompanying samples. One field reagent blank was collected in accordance with the Programmatic UFP-QAPP (PQAPP) (AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 6°C during shipment. 5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurements A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 15 November 2021. Groundwater elevation measurements were collected from the seven new permanent monitoring wells. Water level measurements were taken from the northern side of the well casing. Groundwater was observed ranging between 26.61 to 60.16 feet bgs, with groundwater elevations ranging between 4,549.19 to 4,597.94 feet North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88). Based on the groundwater elevations observed during the synoptic groundwater gauging event, the groundwater appears to flow predominantly to the east. A groundwater flow contour map is provided in Figure 2-4. Groundwater elevation data is provided in Table 5-3. 5.5 Surveying The northern side of each well casing was surveyed by Utah-licensed land surveyors following guidelines provided in the SOPs provided in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Survey data from the newly installed wells on the facility were collected on 10 November 2021, and ground surface elevation data were collected on 06 December 20221. Survey data was collected in the applicable Universal Transverse Mercator zone projection with World Geodetic System 84 datum (horizontal) and NAVD88 (vertical). The surveyed well data are provided in Appendix B5. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-5 5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste As of the date of this report, the disposal of IDW is not regulated federally. IDW generated during the SI is considered non-hazardous waste and was managed in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) and with the DA Guidance for Addressing Releases of PFAS, Q18 (DA, 2018). Consistent with the SI QAPP, soil cuttings and liquid IDW were distributed or discharged to the ground surface on the immediate downgradient side of the borehole, except where noted otherwise below. EJG-MW001, EJG-MW002, EJG-MW004, EJG-MW005, and EJG-MW006 were located in paved or high-profile areas, and therefore IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) generated during the SI activities at those locations was containerized in ten 55-gallon drums and placed in the drum staging area as indicated in the Photographic Log (Appendix C). The drums were labeled to indicate the type of media (i.e., soil or water) and the source location. Soil cuttings at all other locations were left in place at the point of the source. The soil cuttings were distributed on the ground surface on the downgradient side of the boring. The soil IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the associated soil samples collected from that source location. Based on laboratory results, containerized soil cuttings will be managed and disposed by ARNG, either by offsite disposal or, where PFAS concentrations are below the Industrial/Commercial Composite Worker OSD SLs, ARNG will distribute the soil on the downgradient side of the associated borehole. Due to the surrounding pavement, liquid IDW generated during SI activities (i.e., purge water, development water, and decontamination fluids) at EJG-MW005 and EJG-MW006 was containerized in five 55-gallon drums and placed in the drum staging area as indicated in the Photographic Log (Appendix C). The drums were labeled to indicate the type of media (i.e., soil or water) and the source location. Liquid IDW at all other locations was discharged directly to the ground surface slightly downgradient of the source. The liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the associated groundwater samples collected from that source location. Based on laboratory results, containerized liquid IDW will be managed and disposed by ARNG under a separate contract for Treating Liquid Investigation-Derived Material (purge water, drilling water, and decontamination fluids) (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., 2021). Geographic coordinates were collected using a global positioning system (GPS) around each location where IDW was placed (i.e., an IDW polygon). The IDW polygons are displayed on the figure in Appendix B6. Other solids, such as spent personal protective equipment, plastic sheeting, tubing, rope, unused monitoring well construction materials, and other environmental media generated during the field activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill. 5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods Samples were analyzed by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 at Pace Analytical Gulf Coast in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP certified laboratory. Soil samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A and pH by USEPA Method 9045D. 5.8 Deviations from SI QAPP Addendum Two deviations from the SI QAPP Addendum were identified during review of the field documentation. The deviation is noted below and is documented in Field Change Request Forms (Appendix B3) and Nonconformance and Corrective Action Reports (Appendix B4): Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-6 • The QAPP Addendum specified a hollow stem auger drill rig to install the soil borings and monitoring wells. An HSA truck mounted drill rig was used on AOI01-01, EJG-MW006, and EJG-MW001 during the first four days of field work. Heaving sands were encountered in EJG-MW001 and prevented the setting of the monitoring well. A sonic drill rig was mobilized to the site on 1 November 2021 and utilized for the remaining borings. This action was documented in a Field Change Request Form provided in Appendix B3. • Although all preservation techniques were followed by the field staff, a four-day delay by FedEx resulted in one of the coolers arriving at the laboratory above the QAPP-designated temperature of 6 ºC. The affected samples were in Sample Delivery Group (SDG) SDG22110162 and include soil samples EJG-MW006-SB-33-35, EJG-MW001-SB-13-15, EJG-MW001-SB-34-36, and QC sample EJG-PLUG-01. The field samples in SDG22110162 were received at 19.8 degrees ºC; however, the field samples were analyzed within the recommended holding time, so the associated field sample results were qualified as estimate. All technical and analytical holding times were met by the laboratory with minor exceptions. The technical holding time for pH analysis is considered ‘immediate’, so all pH sample results have been qualified as estimate. This action was documented in a nonconformance and corrective action report provided in Appendix B4. Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium Site Inspection Report, EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah Sample Identification Sample Collection Date/Time Sample Depth (feet bgs)LC / M S / M S c o m p l i a n t w i t h QS M 5 . 3 T a b l e B - 1 5 TO C (U S E P A M e t h o d 9 0 6 0 A ) pH (U S E P A M e t h o d 9 0 4 5 D ) Gr a i n S i z e ( A S T M D - 4 2 2 ) Comments EJG-MW007-SB-27-29 11/8/2021 13:30 37 -39 x AOI01-01-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 8:40 0 - 2 x AOI01-01-SB-06-08 10/26/2021 9:50 6 - 8 x AOI03-01-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 11:50 0 - 2 x AOI03-02-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 12:30 0 - 2 x EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 10:25 0 - 2 x EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 10:25 0 - 2 x FD EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-MS 10/26/2021 10:25 0 - 2 x MS/MSD EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-MSD 10/26/2021 10:25 0 - 2 x MS/MSD EJG-MW001-SB-13-15 10/28/2021 8:40 13 - 15 x x x EJG-MW001-SB-34-36 10/28/2021 10:30 34 - 36 x EJG-MW002-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 12:30 0 - 2 x EJG-MW002-SB-13-15 11/2/2021 15:15 13 - 15 x EJG-MW002-SB-59-61 11/4/2021 10:30 59 - 61 x EJG-MW003-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 11:45 0 - 2 x EJG-MW003-SB-13-15 11/4/2021 15:20 13 - 15 x EJG-MW003-SB-35-37 11/9/2021 10:00 35 - 37 x EJG-MW004-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 10:30 0 - 2 x EJG-MW004-SB-13-15 11/9/2021 15:00 13 - 15 x x x EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-D 11/9/2021 15:00 13 - 15 x x x FD EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-MS 11/9/2021 15:00 13 - 15 x x x MS/MSD EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-MSD 11/9/2021 15:00 13 - 15 x x x MS/MSD EJG-MW004-SB-39-41 11/9/2021 16:00 39 - 41 x x EJG-MW005-SB-00-02 11/1/2021 15:30 0 - 2 x EJG-MW005-SB-13-15 11/1/2021 16:10 13 - 15 x x EJG-MW005-SB-25-27 11/1/2021 16:30 25 - 27 x EJG-MW006-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 14:15 0 - 2 x EJG-MW006-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 14:15 0 - 2 x FD EJG-MW006-SB-13-15 10/26/2021 14:55 13 - 15 x x x EJG-MW006-SB-33-35 10/26/2021 16:00 33 - 35 x x EJG-MW007-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 9:30 0 - 2 x EJG-MW007-SB-13-15 11/9/2021 12:55 13 - 15 x EJG-MW001-110321 11/3/2021 16:15 NA x EJG-MW001-110321-D 11/3/2021 16:20 NA x FD EJG-MW002-110921 11/9/2021 12:40 NA x EJG-MW003-111021 11/10/2021 11:15 NA x EJG-MW003-111021-MS 11/10/2021 11:15 NA x MS EJG-MW003-111021-MSD 11/10/2021 11:15 NA x MSD EJG-MW004-111221 11/12/2021 15:15 NA x EJG-MW005-110421 11/4/2021 16:00 NA x EJG-MW006-110321 11/3/2021 11:35 NA x EJG-MW007-111021 11/10/2021 14:35 NA x Soil Samples Groundwater Samples AECOM 5-7 Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium Site Inspection Report, EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah Sample Identification Sample Collection Date/Time Sample Depth (feet bgs)LC / M S / M S c o m p l i a n t w i t h QS M 5 . 3 T a b l e B - 1 5 TO C (U S E P A M e t h o d 9 0 6 0 A ) pH (U S E P A M e t h o d 9 0 4 5 D ) Gr a i n S i z e ( A S T M D - 4 2 2 ) Comments EJG-DECON-01 5/12/2021 9:05 NA x Water source EJG-DECON-02 11/2/2021 12:15 NA x Water tank on trailer EJG-DECON-03 11/3/2021 15:30 NA x Portable water tank EJG-ERB-01 10/26/2021 11:00 NA x Hand Auger EJG-ERB-02 10/26/2021 11:10 NA x HSA Drill Bit EJG-ERB-03 11/2/2021 12:00 NA x Sonic Casing (bottom) EJG-ERB-04 11/2/2021 15:40 NA x Tornado Pump EJG-ERB-05 11/2/2021 15:45 NA x Wattera Pump EJG-ERB-06 11/4/2021 13:00 NA x Bladder Pump EJG-FRB-01 10/26/2021 12:15 NA x EJG-PLUG-01 10/28/2021 14:20 NA x Wooden Plug MW-1 Notes: ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials bgs = below ground surface DECON = decontamination EJG = EJ Garn ERB = equipment rinsate blank FD = field duplicate FRB = field reagent blank LC/MS/MS = Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry MS/MSD = matrix spike/ matrix spike duplicate MW = monitoring well NA = not applicable QSM = Quality Systems Manual SB = soil boring TOC = total organic carbon USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency Quality Control Samples AECOM 5-8 Table 5-2 Soil Boring Depths Site Inspection Report, EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah Area of Interest Boring Location Soil Boring Depth (feet bgs) Temporary Well Screen Interval (feet bgs) Top of Casing Elevation (feet NAVD88) Ground Surface Elevation (feet NAVD88) Depth to Water (feet btoc) Depth to Water (feet bgs) Groundwater Elevation (feet NAVD88) 1 AOI01-01 8 NA NA 4627 NA NA NA AOI03-01 2 NA NA 4643 NA NA NA AOI03-02 2 NA NA 4637 NA NA NA Notes: bgs = below ground surface btoc = below top of casing NA = not applicable NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988 3 AECOM 5-9 Table 5-3 Permanent Monitoring Well Screen Intervals and Groundwater Elevations Site Inspection Report, EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah Area of Interest Boring Location Soil Boring Depth (feet bgs) Permanent Well Screen Interval (feet bgs) Top of Casing Elevation (feet NAVD88) Ground Surface Elevation (feet NAVD88) Depth to Water (feet btoc) Depth to Water (feet bgs) Groundwater Elevation (feet NAVD88) EJG-MW001 45 35 - 45 4613.16 4613.29 34.25 34.38 4578.91 EJG-MW002 70 60 - 70 4609.29 4609.35 60.10 60.16 4549.19 EJG-MW003 45 35 - 45 4611.79 4612.44 41.55 42.20 4570.24 3 EJG-MW004 51 41 - 51 4630.94 4631.30 33.00 33.36 4597.94 2 EJG-MW005 48 28 - 38 4619.53 4619.95 26.18 26.61 4593.35 EJG-MW006 41 31 - 41 4623.98 4624.31 33.82 34.15 4590.16 EJG-MW007 40 30 - 40 4613.00 4613.16 33.79 33.95 4579.21 bgs = below ground surface btoc = below top of casing EJG = EJ Garn MW = monitoring well NA = not applicable NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum 1988 2 1 AECOM 5-10 CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AD 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 PROJECT Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/2/2022 Figure 5-1 CM 8/2/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Site Inspection Sample Locations Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\UT\EJ_Garn_AASF_Figures\EJ_Garn_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Fig_5-1_EJ_Garn_AASF_SI_Sample_Locations.mxd !? !? !? !? !? !? !?"S !? "S AOI 2 AOI 1 AOI 3 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 0 330 660165Feet Legend !?Soil Boring/Permanent Monitoring Well !?Soil Boring "S Surface Soil Sample Area of Interest Facility Boundary Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 1:3,960 AECOM 5-11 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 5-12 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-1 6. Site Inspection Results This section presents the analytical results of the SI. The SLs used in this evaluation are presented in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for each AOI is provided in Section 6.3 through Section 6.5. Table 6-2 through Table 6-5 present results in soil or groundwater for the relevant compounds. Tables that contain all results are provided in Appendix F, and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G. 6.1 Screening Levels The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the OSD dated 6 July 2022 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022). The ARNG program under which this SI was performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site concentration for sampled media exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the AOI will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA. The SLs established in the OSD memorandum apply to the five compounds presented on Table 6-1 below. Table 6-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) Analyteb Residential (Soil) (µg/kg)a 0-2 feet bgs Industrial/ Commercial Composite Worker (Soil) (µg/kg)a 2-15 feet bgs Tap Water (Groundwater) (ng/L)a PFOA 19 250 6 PFOS 13 160 4 PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 PFHxS 130 1,600 39 PFNA 19 250 6 Notes: bgs = below ground surface; µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram; ng/L = nanograms per liter a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels in Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level Calculator. Hazard Quotient (HQ) = 0.1. 6 July 2022. b.) Of the six PFAS compounds presented in the 6 July 2022 OSD memorandum, HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX) was not included as an analyte at the time of this SI. Based on the CSM developed during the PA and revised based on SI findings, the presence of HFPO-DA is not anticipated at the facility because HFPO-DA is generally not a component of MIL-SPEC AFFF and based on its history including distribution limitations that restricted use of GenX, it is generally not a component of other products the military used. In addition, it is unlikely that GenX would be an individual chemical of concern in the absence of other PFAS. The data in the subsequent sections are compared against the SLs presented in Table 6-1. The SLs for groundwater are based on direct ingestion. The SLs for soil are based on incidental ingestion and are applied to the depth intervals reasonably anticipated to be encountered by the receptors identified at the facility: the residential scenario is applied to surface soil results (0 to 2 feet bgs) and the industrial/commercial worker scenario is applied to shallow subsurface soil results (2 to 15 feet bgs). The SLs are not applied to deep subsurface soil results (>15 feet bgs) because 15 feet is the anticipated limit of construction activities. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-2 6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses To provide basic soil parameter information, three soil samples were analyzed for TOC, and pH, which are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. One sample was selected from each AOI in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). TOC results for AOI01, AOI02, and AOI03 were 1270, 647, and 1800 mg/kg, respectively; and pH results were 8.52, 8.51, and 8.83, respectively. Appendix F contains the results of the TOC, pH, sampling. The data collected in this investigation will be used in subsequent investigations, where appropriate, to assess fate and transport. According to the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), several important partitioning mechanisms include hydrophobic and lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At relevant environmental pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions and are therefore relatively mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but tend to associate with the organic carbon fraction that may be present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo and Higgins, 2013). When sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution coefficients (Koc values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical factors (for example, pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to solid phases (ITRC, 2018). 6.3 AOI 1 This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for AOI 1: the North Hangar. AOI 1 encompasses the co-located firetruck bay/foam storage area and the wash down area, as well as the dry well that may have received discharge from those areas. The soil and groundwater results are summarized on Table 6-2 through Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7. 6.3.1 AOI 1 Soil Analytical Results Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-4 summarize the soil results. At the firetruck bay/foam storage area and the wash down area, soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (13 to 15 feet bgs), and deep subsurface soil (33 to 35 feet bgs) from boring location EJG-MW006. The depth of the former dry well was estimated to be 6-8 feet bgs; next to (downgradient of) the dry well, soil from boring location AOI01-01 was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), and shallow subsurface soil (6 to 8 feet bgs), a depth representative of soil conditions at the bottom of the former dry well. Downgradient from the firetruck bay/foam storage area and the wash down area, soil was sampled from the surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (13 to 15 feet bgs), and deep subsurface soil (27 to 29 feet bgs) from boring location EJG-MW007. At AOI 1, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at all three locations. The only SL exceeded was for PFOS (13 µg/kg) at EJG-MW006 with a concentration of 53.6 µg/kg. PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in all three surface soil samples at concentrations at least an order of magnitude below their respective SLs. PFBS was not detected in surface soil at AOI 1. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were also detected in at least one shallow subsurface soil sample at AOI 1, all at concentrations at least one order of magnitude below their SLs. PFBS was not detected in shallow subsurface soil at AOI 1. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-3 In subsurface soil, PFOS and PFOA were detected only at EJG-MW006, with both concentrations less than 1 µg/kg and below their SLs. PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS were not detected in subsurface soil at AOI 1. 6.3.2 AOI 1 Groundwater Analytical Results Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the groundwater results. Within and downgradient of the North Hangar potential release area, groundwater was sampled from permanent monitoring wells EJG-MW006 and EJG-MW007. PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected at both locations. The only SL exceedance was for PFOS at EJG-MW006 with a concentration of 5.30 ng/L (SL of 4 ng/L). All other detected concentrations of PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFBS were below their SLs. There were no PFNA detections in groundwater at AOI 1. 6.3.3 AOI 1 Conclusions Based on the results of the SI, PFOA , PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil at AOI 1. PFOS exceeded the SL in surface soil at one location. PFBS was not detected in soil at AOI 1. PFOA, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their SLs. PFOS was detected above the SL in groundwater from one location. Based on the exceedance of the PFOS SL in surface soil and in groundwater in well EJG-MW006, further evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted. 6.4 AOI 2 This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for AOI 2, which includes the hangar/ramp area east of the south hangar, cold storage building, and Tri-Max training area. The results in soil and groundwater are summarized on Table 6-2 through Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7. 6.4.1 AOI 2 Soil Analytical Results Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-4 summarize the soil results. Immediately adjacent to the potential release area, soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (13 to 15 feet bgs), and deep subsurface soil (25 to 27 feet bgs) from boring location EJG-MW005. Downgradient from the Tri -Max training area, south hangar, cold storage building, soil was sampled from the surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs), shallow subsurface soil (13 to 15 feet bgs), and deep subsurface soil (34 to 36 feet bgs, 59 to 61 feet bgs, and 35 to 37 feet bgs) from boring locations EJG-MW001, EJG-MW002, and EJG-MW003, respectively. PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in at least one surface soil sample at AOI 2. PFOS was detected in EJG-MW001, EJG-MW003, and EJG-MW002 at concentrations ranging from 1.11 µg/kg to 77.3 µg/kg, with the maximum concentration in the duplicate sample for EJG- MW001. Concentrations of PFOS in both the regular and duplicate samples for EJG-MW001 exceeded the SL. Positive detections of PFOA (EJG-MW001 and EJG-MW002), PFNA (EJG- MW001, EJG-MW002, and EJG-MW003), and PFHxS (EJG-MW001, EJG-MW002, and EJG- MW003) were below their SLs. PFBS was only detected at EJG-MW001 and was below the SL. There were no detections in surface soil at EJG-MW005. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-4 PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected in one or more shallow soil samples at concentrations less than 1 µg/kg and below their SLs. PFOA and PFNA were not detected in any shallow subsurface soil at AOI 2. PFOS and PFHxS were detected at concentrations less than 1 µg/kg and below their SLs in subsurface soil at AOI 2, and only at locations EJG-MW001 and EJG-MW002. PFOA, PFNA, and PFBS were not detected in subsurface soil at AOI 2. 6.4.2 AOI 2 Groundwater Analytical Results Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the groundwater results. East of the Tri-Max Training area, groundwater samples were collected from permanent monitoring well EJG-MW001. PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS were detected above the SLs, at maximum concentrations of 698 ng/L, 7.31 ng/L, and 124 ng/L, respectively. PFBS was detected below the SL of 600 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 7.31 ng/L. At EJG-MW001, PFNA was not detected. East of the south hangar and cold storage building, groundwater samples were collected from permanent monitoring wells EJG-MW002, EJG-MW003, and EJG-MW005. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFBS were detected below SLs in groundwater at all locations, with maximum concentrations of 1.52 J ng/L (EJG-MW003), 1.60 J ng/L (EJG-MW002), 28.6 ng/L (EJG-MW003) and 3.55 ng/L (EJG-MW002). PFNA was not detected in groundwater samples. 6.4.3 AOI 2 Conclusions Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil at AOI 2. PFOS exceeded the SL in surface soil at EJG-MW001. At location EJG-MW001, associated with the Tri-Max Training area and potentially the south hangar, PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater, at concentrations exceeding the SLs. Based on the exceedances of the SL for PFOS in soil and exceedances of the SLs for PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 2 is warranted. 6.5 AOI 3 This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater in comparison to SLs for AOI 3, which includes the armory dumpster fire potential release area. The results in soil and groundwater are presented in Table 6-2 through Table 6-5. Soil and groundwater results are presented on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-7. 6.5.1 AOI 3 Soil Analytical Results Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-5 present the ranges of detections in soil. Table 6-2 through Table 6-4 summarize the soil results. At the dumpster fire area, soil was sampled from surface soil (0 to 2 feet bgs) at AOI03-01, AOI03-02, and EJG-MW004. Soil was also sampled from shallow subsurface soil (13 to 15 feet bgs) and deep subsurface soil (39 to 41 feet bgs) from boring location EJG-MW004. PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA were detected only in the surface soil samples from at least one location at AOI 3, at concentrations at least two orders of magnitude below the SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA were not detected in any shallow subsurface or subsurface soil samples. PFBS and PFHxS were not detected in any surface, shallow subsurface, or subsurface soil sample. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-5 6.5.2 AOI 3 Groundwater Analytical Results Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 present the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the groundwater results. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected but did not exceed the SLs in groundwater collected from well EJG-MW004 at AOI 3. PFHxS and PFNA were not detected in groundwater samples collected from EJG-MW004. Figure 6-4 presents the ranges of detections in groundwater. Table 6-5 summarizes the detected compounds in groundwater. Downgradient of the dumpster fire potential release area, groundwater was sampled from permanent monitoring well EJG-MW004. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected below the SLs at concentrations of 0.968 J ng/L, 0.786 J ng/L, and 0.985 J ng/L, respectively. PFHxS and PFNA were not detected in groundwater at AOI 3. 6.5.3 AOI 3 Conclusions Based on the results of the SI, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected only in surface soil at AOI 3 and at concentrations below the soil SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were also detected in groundwater and at concentrations below SLs. Thus, further evaluation at AOI 3 is not warranted. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Table 6-2 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UJ 0.023 J ND U ND U ND U PFHxS 130 1.84 0.528 J 0.448 J 0.057 J 2.13 J+ 4.20 J+ 0.192 J 0.232 J ND U PFNA 19 0.044 J 1.97 1.87 0.103 J 0.069 J 0.135 J 0.038 J 0.032 J ND U PFOA 19 0.205 J 3.80 4.98 0.108 J 0.152 J 0.753 J 0.118 J ND U ND U PFOS 13 4.55 53.6 51.2 1.15 23.8 J 77.3 J 1.11 2.23 ND U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high D duplicate U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL DL detection limit UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection ND analyte not detected above the LOD OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth AOI01-01-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW006-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW006-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 0-2 ft 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI02AOI01 EJG-MW003-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW005-SB-00-02 11/01/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW002-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW007-SB-00-02 AECOM 6-7 Table 6-2 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Surface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) PFBS 1900 ND U ND U ND U PFHxS 130 ND U ND U ND U PFNA 19 0.072 J ND U 0.032 J PFOA 19 0.136 J ND U ND U PFOS 13 0.447 J 0.225 J 0.220 J Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high D duplicate U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL DL detection limit UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection ND analyte not detected above the LOD OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI03-01-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft AOI03 EJG-MW004-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth AOI03-02-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft AECOM 6-8 Table 6-3 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Shallow Subsurface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual PFBS 25000 ND U ND U ND U ND UJ ND U 0.063 J ND U ND U ND UPFHxS16000.281 J 0.183 J 0.054 J 0.082 J ND U 0.147 J ND U ND U ND UPFNA250NDU0.172 J ND U ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOA250NDU1.69 ND U ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOS1600.213 J 7.60 0.130 J 0.226 J ND U 0.161 J 0.070 J ND U ND U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F. PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection ND analyte not detected above the LOD OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’sRegional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI01 AOI02 AOI03EJG-MW004-SB-13-1511/09/202113-15 ft EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-D11/09/202113-15 ft EJG-MW003-SB-13-1511/04/202113-15 ft EJG-MW005-SB-13-1511/01/202113-15 ft EJG-MW001-SB-13-1510/28/202113-15 ft EJG-MW002-SB-13-1511/02/202113-15 ft EJG-MW006-SB-13-1510/26/202113-15 ft EJG-MW007-SB-13-1511/09/202113-15 ft Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth AOI01-01-SB-06-0810/26/20216-8 ft AECOM 6-9 Table 6-4 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Deep Subsurface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth Analyte Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual PFBS ND UJ ND U ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND UPFHxSNDUJNDU0.095 J 0.212 J ND U ND U ND UPFNANDUJNDUNDUJNDUNDUNDUNDUPFOA0.139 J ND U ND UJ ND U ND U ND U ND UPFOS0.704 J ND U 0.093 J 0.256 J ND U ND U ND U ND = Analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F.Chemical Abbreviations PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid J = Estimated concentration PFNA perfluorononanoic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AASF Army Aviation Support Facility AOI Area of Interest DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection ND analyte not detected above the LOD QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring µg/kg micrograms per kilogram EJG-MW002-SB-59-6111/04/202159-61 ft EJG-MW006-SB-33-3510/26/202133-35 ft EJG-MW007-SB-27-2911/09/202127-29 ft AOI03EJG-MW004-SB-39-4111/09/202139-41 ft Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) AOI01 AOI02EJG-MW003-SB-35-3711/09/202135-37 ft EJG-MW005-SB-25-2711/01/202125-27 ft EJG-MW001-SB-34-3610/28/202134-36 ft AECOM 6-10 Table 6-5 PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFNA, and PFHxS Results in Groundwater Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l)PFBS 601 4.53 3.86 J 12.8 12.5 3.55 J 3.30 J 2.62 J 0.985 JPFHxS39 7.58 7.98 123 124 2.31 J 28.6 5.49 ND UPFNA6NDUNDUNDUNDUNDUNDUNDUNDUPFOA62.42 J 1.37 J 7.18 7.31 1.33 J 1.52 J 1.30 J 0.968 JPFOS45.30 1.54 J 693 698 1.60 J 0.910 J 0.890 J 0.786 J Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels ND = analyte not detected above the LOD. LOD values are presented in Appendix F.Chemical Abbreviations PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid References PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers Acronyms and Abbreviations J = Estimated concentration AOI Area of Interest U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL D duplicate UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex GW groundwater HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection ND analyte not detected above the LOD OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ng/l nanogram per liter EJG-MW001-11032111/03/2021 Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date EJG-MW006-11032111/03/2021 a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’sRegional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022 Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater. AOI01 AOI02 AOI03EJG-MW004-11122111/12/2021EJG-MW003-11102111/10/2021 EJG-MW005-11042111/04/2021EJG-MW001-110321-D11/03/2021 EJG-MW002-11092111/09/2021EJG-MW007-11102111/10/2021 AECOM 6-11 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-12 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-1 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFOA Detections in Soil 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Shallow Intermediate Deep Legend Facility Boundary 0 460 920230Feet Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location. PFOA Results (µg/Kg) ND >ND - 19 >19 - 250 >250 - 2,500 >2,500 AECOM 6-13 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-2 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFOS Detections in Soil 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Shallow Intermediate Deep Legend Facility Boundary 0 460 920230Feet Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location. PFOS Results (µg/Kg) ND >ND - 13 >13 - 160 >160 - 1,600 >1,600 AECOM 6-14 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-3 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFBS Detections in Soil 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Shallow Intermediate Deep Legend Facility Boundary 0 460 920230Feet Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location. PFBS Results (µg/Kg) ND >ND - 10 >10 - 1,900 >1,900 - 25,000 >25,000 AECOM 6-15 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-4 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFHxS Detections in Soil 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Shallow Intermediate Deep Legend Facility Boundary 0 460 920230Feet Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location. PFHxS Results (µg/Kg) ND >ND - 10 >10 - 130 >130 - 1,600 >1,600 AECOM 6-16 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-5 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFNA Detections in Soil 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 Shallow Intermediate Deep Legend Facility Boundary 0 460 920230Feet Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo.Depth intervals shown represent respective sampling position within a given soil boring location. PFNA Results (µg/Kg) ND >ND - 19 >19 - 250 >250 - 2,500 >2,500 AECOM 6-17 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-6 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 10/5/2022 10/5/2022 10/5/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 10/5/2022 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS Detections in Groundwater 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 PFOA Results (ng/L) ND >ND - 6 >6 - 40 >40 - 70 >70 PFOA PFOS PFBS Legend Facility Boundary Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 0 460 920230Feet PFOS Results (ng/L) ND >ND - 4 >4 - 40 >40 - 70 >70 PFBS Results (ng/L) ND >ND - 100 >100 - 601 >601 - 2,000 >2,000 Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo. AECOM 6-18 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006 EJG-MW005 Figure 6-7 CLIENT REVISED SCALE PROJECT ARNG Site Inspection at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 MS AD CM GIS BY CHK BY PMBase Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 8/11/2022 PFHxS and PFNA Detections in Groundwater 12420 Milestone Center DriveGermantown, MD 20876 PFHxS Results (ng/L) ND >ND - 39 >39 - 100 >100 - 1,000 >1,000 PFHxS PFNA Legend Facility Boundary Groundwater Flow Direction Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction 0 400 800200Feet PFNA Results (ng/L) ND >ND - 6 >6 - 100 >100 - 1,000 >1,000 Exceedances of the OSD SL are depicted with a yellow halo. AECOM 6-19 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 6-20 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 7-1 7. Exposure Pathways The CSMs for each AOI, revised based on the SI findings, are presented on Figure 7-1 through Figure 7-3. Please note that while the CSM discussion assists in determining if a receptor may be impacted, the decision to move from SI to RI or interim action is determined based upon exceedances of the SLs for the relevant compounds and whether the release is more than likely attributable to the DoD. A CSM presents the current understanding of the site conditions with respect to known and suspected sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially exposed human receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when the following conditions are present: 1. Contaminant source; 2. Environmental fate and transport; 3. Exposure point; 4. Exposure route; and 5. Potentially exposed populations. If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figures use an empty circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with an incomplete pathway generally warrant no further action. However, the pathway is considered potentially complete if the relevant compounds are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled circle symbol to represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has detections of relevant compounds above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete pathway that have detections of the relevant compounds above the SLs may warrant further investigation. Although the CSMs indicate whether potentially complete exposure pathways may exist, the recommendation for future study in a RI or no action at this time is based on the comparison of the SI analytical results for the relevant compounds to the SLs. In general, the potential routes of exposure to the relevant compounds are ingestion and inhalation. Human exposure via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice suggests it is an insignificant pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal pathways are sparse and continue to be the subject of toxicological study. The receptors evaluated are consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2001). Receptors at the facility include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction workers, trespassers, residents outside the facility boundary, and recreational users outside of the facility boundary. 7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway The SI results in soil were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at AOI 1, AOI 2, and AOI 3 based on the aforementioned criteria. 7.1.1 AOI 1 AFFF may have been released at AOI 1 at the firetruck bay/foam storage area and the wash down area. In addition, potential discharges of AFFF in the firetruck bay could have released AFFF to the dry well for an unknown time period prior to 2009. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in surface and subsurface soil at AOI 1, and PFOS exceeded the SL in surface soil. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 7-2 Based on the results of the SI in AOI 1, ground-disturbing activities could potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure to constituents via inhalation of dust. Additionally, off-facility recreational users may potentially be exposed to constituents via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility ground disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities could also potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure via ingestion of surface soil. Lastly, the exposure pathway to construction workers via subsurface soil ingestion is considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 7.1.2 AOI 2 From approximately 1991 to 2016, releases of the AFFF fire suppression systems in the South Hangar and Cold Storage Area resulted in AFFF being pushed onto the Hangar/Ramp Area concrete and left in place to evaporate or disperse with the wind. In addition, fire training activities were conducted around the Hangar/Ramp Area from at least 1995 to 1999, and emergency responses using foam may have occurred on the same area since 1989. PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil at AOI 2, and PFOS exceeded its SL in surface soil. Based on the results of the SI in AOI 2, ground-disturbing activities could potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure to constituents via inhalation of dust. Additionally, off-facility recreational users may potentially be exposed via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility ground disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities could also potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure via ingestion of surface soil. Lastly, the exposure pathway to construction workers via subsurface soil ingestion is considered potentially complete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 7.1.3 AOI 3 In 1997 AFFF was released to soil at AOI 3 from a mobile AFFF unit in response to a dumpster fire at the Armory. PFOA, PFOS, and PFNA were detected in surface soil at AOI 3, at concentrations below the SLs. No constituent was detected in shallow subsurface or subsurface soils at AOI 3. Based on the results of the SI in AOI 3, ground-disturbing activities could potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure to PFOA and PFOS via inhalation of dust. Additionally, off-facility recreational users may potentially be exposed to PFOA and PFOS via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility ground disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities could also potentially result in site worker, construction worker, or trespasser exposure via ingestion of surface soil. The exposure pathway to construction workers via subsurface soil ingestion is considered incomplete due to no detections of relevant constituents in subsurface soil at AOI 3. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3. 7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway The SI results in groundwater were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors based on the aforementioned criteria. 7.2.1 AOI 1 PFOS was detected above its SL in groundwater at AOI 1. It is unknown whether offsite potable wells are located downgradient of AOI 1; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and off-facility recreational users is considered potentially complete. E.J. Garn receives its potable water from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. Twenty percent of Jordan Valley Water’s supply is groundwater, pumped from wells scattered around the Salt Lake Valley (JVWCD, 2022). Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and trespassers is Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 7-3 considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 26.61 to 60.16 feet bgs, deeper than the maximum depth of 15 feet bgs reasonably considered for construction activities. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 1 is presented on Figure 7-1. 7.2.2 AOI 2 PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at AOI 2 at concentrations that exceeded the SLs. Records indicate there may be offsite potable wells located downgradient of AOI 2; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and off-facility recreational users is considered potentially complete. E.J. Garn receives its potable water from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. Twenty percent of Jordan Valley Water’s supply is groundwater, pumped from wells scattered around the Salt Lake Valley (JVWCD, 2022). Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and trespassers is considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 26.61 to 60.16 feet bgs, deeper than the maximum depth of 15 feet bgs reasonably considered for construction activities. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 2 is presented on Figure 7-2. 7.2.3 AOI 3 PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected, but did not exceed the SLs in groundwater at AOI 3. It is unknown whether offsite potable wells are located downgradient of AOI 3; therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and off-facility recreational users is considered potentially complete. E.J. Garn receives its potable water from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. Twenty percent of Jordan Valley Water’s supply is groundwater, pumped from wells scattered around the Salt Lake Valley (JVWCD, 2022). Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for site workers and trespassers is considered potentially complete. Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 26.61 to 60.16 feet bgs, deeper than the maximum depth of 15 feet bgs reasonably considered for construction activities. Therefore, the ingestion exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered incomplete. The CSM for AOI 3 is presented on Figure 7-3 7.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway The SI results in soil and groundwater, in combination with knowledge of the fate and transport properties of PFAS, were used to determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors. 7.3.1 AOI 1, AOI 2, and AOI 3 PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to surface water via leaching and runoff. Because constituents were detected in soil and groundwater at AOIs 1, 2, and 3, it is possible that those compounds may have migrated from soil and groundwater east to the detention pond/sedimentation basin, as well as the Jordan River, which flows in a north to south direction to the recreational Utah Lake. According to the Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the facility, stormwater from the facility enters Barney’s Creek along the southerly perimeter, although the creek was observed to be dry during the investigation. Due to the potential for seasonal surface water, surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for site workers, construction workers, or trespassers is considered potentially complete. Due to potential use of the Jordan River and Utah Lake, the surface water and sediment ingestion exposure pathway for off-facility residents and recreational users is also considered potentially complete. The CSMs for AOIs 1, 2, and 3 are presented on Figure 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, respectively. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 7-4 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Media SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR AOI 1 AFFF storage, firetruck washing PFAS in Surface Soil PFAS in Subsurface Soil Human Activities Precipitation/ Run-Off Leaching/ Infiltration Airborne Soil particulate Surface Soil Surface Water/ sediment Subsurface Soil Shallow Groundwater Source Release Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes Inhalation of Dust Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Human Receptors: Current/ Future Flow-Chart Continues Partial / Possible Flow Flow-Chart Stops Incomplete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of SL LEGEND Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1 EJ Garn Aviation Complex Potential Off-Facility Source Not under Control of ARNG PFAS in Surface Water Surface Water Flow NOTES 1. The resident and recreational users refer to off-site receptors. 2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely insignificant. 3.Human consumption of fish potentially affected by PFAS is possible. 4. Active construction within AOI 1 was occurring as of the date of SI field work.. Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 //// //// //// //// //// AECOM 7-5 Media SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR AOI 2 AFFF Fire Suppression Systems, fire training and emergency response activities, and AFFF storage PFAS in Surface Soil PFAS in Subsurface Soil Human Activities Precipitation/ Run-Off Leaching/ Infiltration Airborne Soil particulate Surface Soil Surface Water/ sediment Subsurface Soil Shallow Groundwater Source Release Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes Inhalation of Dust Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Human Receptors: Current/ Future Flow-Chart Continues Partial / Possible Flow Flow-Chart Stops Incomplete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of SL LEGEND / Figure 7-2 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 2 EJ Garn Aviation Complex Potential Off-Facility Source Not under Control of ARNG PFAS in Surface Water Surface Water Flow NOTES 1. The resident and recreational users refer to off-site receptors. 2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely insignificant. 3. Human consumption of fish potentially affected by PFAS is possible. 4. Active construction within AOI 1 was occurring as of the date of SI field work.. Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 //// //// //// //// /// AECOM 7-6 Media SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR AOI 3 Armory dumpster fire PFAS in Surface Soil PFAS in Subsurface Soil Human Activities Precipitation/ Run-Off Leaching/ Infiltration Airborne Soil particulate Surface Soil Surface Water/ sediment Subsurface Soil Shallow Groundwater Source Release Mechanism Media Transport and Migration Media Exposure Routes Inhalation of Dust Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Human Receptors: Current/ Future Flow-Chart Continues Partial / Possible Flow Flow-Chart Stops Incomplete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway Potentially Complete Pathway with Exceedance of SL LEGEND Figure 7-3 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 3 EJ Garn Aviation Complex Potential Off-Facility Source Not Under Control of ARNG PFAS in Surface Water Surface Water Flow NOTES 1. The resident and recreational users refer to off-site receptors. 2. Inhalation of dust for off-site receptors is likely insignificant. 3. Human consumption of fish potentially affected by PFAS is possible. 4. Active construction within AOI 1 was occurring as of the date of SI field work.. Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 Site Worker Construction Worker4 Resident1,2 Recreational User/ Trespasser1,3 //// //// //// //// //// AECOM 7-7 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 7-8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 8-1 8. Summary and Outcome This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs. 8.1 SI Activities The SI field activities were conducted from 25 October to 10 November 2021 and consisted of utility clearance, hollow stem auger drilling, sonic drilling, soil sample collection, permanent monitoring well installation, grab groundwater sample collection, and land surveying. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), except as previously noted in Section 5.8. To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of 18 compounds by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 as follows. • Twenty-five (25) soil samples from ten (10) boring locations; • Seven (7) grab groundwater samples from seven (7) permanent wells; and • Twenty-one (21) QA samples. An SI is conducted when the PA determines an AOI exists based on probable use, storage, and/or disposal of PFAS-containing materials. The SI includes multi-media sampling at AOIs to determine whether or not a release has occurred. The SI may conclude further investigation is warranted, a removal action is required to address immediate threats, or no further action is required. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors for potential exposure at the AOIs, which are described in Section 7. 8.2 Outcome Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation under CERCLA is warranted in an RI for AOI 1 and AOI 2; no further evaluation is warranted for AOI 3 at this time (see Table 8-1). Based on the CSMs developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is potential for exposure to drinking water receptors from AOI 1 and AOI 2 from sources on the facility resulting from historical DoD activities. Sample analytical concentrations collected during the SI were compared against the project SLs in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows: • At AOI 1: • PFOS in surface soil exceeded its SL of 13 µg/kg, with a concentration of 53.6 µg/kg at EJG-MW006. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in soil at AOI 1 were below their respective SLs. • PFOS in groundwater exceeded its SL of 4 ng/L, with a maximum concentration of 5.3 ng/L at location EJG-MW006. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in groundwater at AOI 1 were below their respective SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 8-2 • At AOI 2: • PFOS in surface soil exceeded its SL of 13 µg/kg, with a maximum concentration of 77.3 µg/kg at EJG-MW001. PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in surface, shallow subsurface, and subsurface soil at AOI 2 were below their respective SLs. PFOS in shallow subsurface and subsurface soil was below the SL. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in the RI. • PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater at AOI 2 at concentrations that exceeded their respective SLs of 4 ng/L, 6 ng/L, and 39 ng/L, with maximum concentrations of 698 ng/L, 7.31 ng/L, and 124 ng/L, respectively, at EJG-MW001. PFBS and PFNA in groundwater at AOI 2 were below their SLs. Based on the results of the SI, further evaluation of AOI 2 is warranted in the RI. • At AOI 3: • Detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS in groundwater were below SLs. Based on the results of the SI, no further evaluation of AOI 3 is warranted. • The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS in soil at AOI 3 were 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 North Hangar Proceed to RI Dry Well N/A N/A 2 Hangar/Ramp Area Proceed to RI Tent Storage Area 3 Armory Dumpster Fire No Further Action Legend: N/A = not applicable = detected; exceedance of the screening levels = detected; no exceedance of the screening levels = not detected Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 9-1 9. References AECOM. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/ W912DR17F0192. 9 March. AECOM. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July. AECOM. 2019. Draft Preliminary Assessment Report, the E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah. December. AECOM. 2021a. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum, Army Aviation Support Facility, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. June. AECOM. 2021b. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Army Aviation Support Facility, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah, Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. October. Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2022. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 15 September. DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. 4 September. DoD. 2019a. Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.3. DoD. 2019b. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 4 November. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2019. Geocheck Report for West Jordan AASF, UT. Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids ad aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and Technology 47(9): 4164-71. Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 40 (23): 7251-7256. ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District (JVWCD). 2022. Water Sources. Accessed 12 April 2022 at https://jvwcd.org/water/source Kleinfelder. 2018. Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. E.J. Garn Aviation Installation Army Aviation Support Facility Permit No. UTR000496 7563 South Airport Road, West Jordan, Utah 84084 Kleinfelder Project No. 20181545.001A. 12 October. Marine, I.W. and Price, D. 1964. Geology and Ground-Water resources of the Jordan Valley, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Water-Resources Bulletin 7. Prepared in Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM 9-2 cooperation with the Utah State Engineer. Accessed 20 January 2020 at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70179723. December. NOAA. 2022. National Centers for Environmental Information. Accessed September 2022 at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/. South Valley Water (SVW), 2019. South Valley Water Reclamation Facility Website. https://www.svwater.com/home (Accessed September 2019). UDWR. 2019. Map Search; Water Right Details. Accessed September 2019 at https://maps.waterrights.utah.gov/EsriMap/map.asp. USACE. 2016. Technical Project Planning Process, EM-200-1-2. 26 February. USDA. 2019. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Accessed September 2019 at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September. USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments). December. USEPA. 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. US USEPA Document Number: 822-R-16-005. May 2016. USEPA. 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. US USEPA Document Number: 822-R-16-004. May 2016. USEPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. January. USFWS. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 2021 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ USFWS. 2022. Species by County Report, County: Salt Lake, Utah. Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed 15 March 2022 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=09003. Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 2015, Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix A Data Usability Assessment and Validation Reports Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Data Usability Assessment The Data Usability Assessment (DUA) 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 (Department of Defense [DoD], 2019a; DoD, 2019b; United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2017). The references for all sources cited in this DUA are provided in Section 9.0 of the Site Inspection (SI) Report. Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) (Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability, Completeness and Sensitivity) are important components in assessing data usability. These DQIs were evaluated in the subsequent sections and demonstrate that the data presented in this SI report are of high quality. Although the SI data are considered reliable, some degree of uncertainty can be associated with the data collected. Specific factors that may contribute to the uncertainty of the data evaluation are described below. The Data Validation Report (DVR) (Appendix A) presents explanations for all qualified data in greater detail. Precision Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic on the same sample or on separate samples collected as close as possible in time and place. Field sampling precision is measured with the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD); laboratory precision is measured with calibration verification, laboratory control spike (LCS) duplicate (LCSD) pair and matrix spike (MS) duplicate (MSD) pair RPD. Calibration verifications were performed routinely to ensure that instrument responses for all calibrated analytes were within established quality control (QC) criteria. No associated calibration verifications displayed results outside the project established precision limits presented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). LCS/LCSD pairs were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each analyte in a matrix-free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD pairs were analyzed for every analytical batch to demonstrate the ability of the laboratory to detect similar concentrations of a known quantity in matrix-free media. The LCS/LCSD samples were within the project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). MS/MSD samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported for all preparation batches. MS/MSD samples demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix being tested. MS/MSD samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis at a rate of 5 percent (%). The MS/MSD samples were within the project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% to assess the overall sampling and measurement precision for this sampling effort. The field duplicate samples were analyzed for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and general chemistry parameters. The field Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM duplicate samples were within the project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) with several exceptions. The field duplicate pair performed on parent sample EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 displayed a RPD exceedance for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The associated field duplicate pair results were qualified as estimate. In addition, several field duplicate pairs also displayed instances of one non-detect result for a compound while the associated field duplicate sample displayed a positive result. The associated field duplicate pair results were qualified as estimate. Accuracy Accuracy is a measure of confidence in a measurement. The smaller the difference between the measurement of a parameter and its "true" or expected value, the more accurate the measurement. The more precise or reproducible the result, the more reliable or accurate the result. Accuracy is measured through percent recoveries in the LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, internal standard and surrogates. LCS/LCSD samples were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each analyte in a matrix free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD samples were analyzed for every analytical batch and demonstrated that the analytical system was in control during sample preparation and analysis. The LCS/LCSD samples were within the project established accuracy limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). MS/MSD samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported at a rate of 5%. MS/MSD samples demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix being tested. The MS/MSD samples were within the project established control limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), with the following exceptions. The MSD performed on field sample EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 displayed a percent recovery greater than the upper QC limit for perfluorohexanesulphonic acid (PFHxS). Additionally, this sample displayed a percent recovery for PFOS greater than the upper QC limit in the MS and less than the lower QC limit in the MSD. The native sample result displayed a PFOS concentration greater than four times the spike value; this was not applicable for data qualifying purposes, and the associated result should be considered usable as reported. The remaining field sample result was positive and was qualified as estimate with a positive bias. Extraction internal standards (EIS) were added by the laboratory during sample extraction to measure relative responses of target analytes and used to correct for bias associated with matrix interferences and sample preparation efficiencies, injection volume variances, mass spectrometry ionization efficiencies, and other associated preparation and analytical anomalies. The field samples were within the established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). Injection internal standards (IIS) were added by the laboratory after sample extraction and prior to analysis as a legacy requirement of DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 to measure relative responses of target analytes. Even though not required under the current DoD QSM 5.3 analysis, the IIS are still added to the sample after extraction as an additional QC measure. The IIS percent recoveries were within the established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Representativeness Representativeness qualitatively expresses the degree to which data accurately reflect site conditions. Factors that affect the representativeness of analytical data include appropriate sample population definitions, proper sample collection and preservation techniques, analytical holding times, use of standard analytical methods, and determination of matrix or analyte interferences. Relating to the use of standard analytical methods, the laboratory followed the method as established in PFAS by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15, including the specific preparation requirements (i.e., ENVI- Carb or equivalent used), mass calibration, spectra, all the ion transitions identified in Table B-15 were monitored, standards that contained both branched and linear isomers when available were used, and isotopically labeled standards were used for quantitation. Field QC samples were collected to assess the representativeness of the data collected. Field duplicates were collected at a rate of 10% for all field samples, while MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of 5%. The laboratory used approved standard methods in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a) for all analyses. While all preservation techniques were followed by the field staff, the laboratory received the field samples in SDG 22110162 at 19.8 degrees Celsius (ºC), greater than the QAPP-designated temperature for preservation. While higher than the QAPP limits, the field samples were analyzed within the recommended holding time, so the associated field sample results were qualified as estimate. All technical and analytical holding times were met by the laboratory with minor exceptions. The technical holding time for pH analysis is considered ‘immediate’, so all pH sample results have been qualified as estimate. A drill decontamination sample was collected by the field team before the sampling effort as a negative control. The decontamination sample displayed a positive concentration for perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) greater than the detection limit. The associated field sample results were either non-detect or displayed concentrations greater than five times the blank detection; no impact on data quality is anticipated. Instrument blanks and method blanks were prepared by the laboratory in each batch as a negative control. One PFAS instrument blank displayed target analyte concentrations greater than the detection limit for PFOS. The associated field sample results were either non-detect or displayed concentrations greater than five times the blank detection; no impact on data quality is anticipated. Equipment blanks were collected by the field team during the sampling process as a negative control. One equipment blank displayed target analyte concentrations greater than the detection limit for PFOS. The associated field sample results were either non-detect or displayed concentrations greater than five times the blank detection; no impact on data quality is anticipated. Overall, the data are usable for evaluating the presence or absence of PFAS at the facility. Sufficient usable data were obtained to meet the objectives of the SI. Comparability Comparability is the extent to which data from one study can be compared directly to either past data from the current project or data from another study. Using standardized sampling and analytical methods, units of reporting, and site selection procedures help ensure comparability. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Standard field sampling and typical laboratory protocols were used during the SI and are considered comparable to ongoing investigations. Completeness Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount of data expected under normal conditions. The laboratory provided data meeting system QC acceptance criteria for all samples tested. Project completeness was determined by evaluating the planned versus actual quantities of data. Percent completeness per parameter is as follows and reflects the exclusion of “X/UX” flagged data, if applicable:  PFAS in aqueous media by LC/MS/MS Compliant with DoD QSM 5.3 Table B-15 at 100%  PFAS in solid media by LC/MS/MS Compliant with DoD QSM 5.3 Table B-15 at 100%  pH in soil by USEPA Method 9045D at 100%  TOC by USEPA Method 9060 at 100% Sensitivity Sensitivity is the capability of a test method or instrument to discriminate between measurement responses representing different levels (e.g., concentrations) of a variable of interest. Examples of QC measures for determining sensitivity include laboratory fortified blanks, a method detection limit (MDL) study, and calibration standards at the limit of quantitation (LOQ). In order to meet the needs of the data users, project data must meet the measurement performance criteria for sensitivity and project LOQs specified in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a). The laboratory provided the requested MDL studies and provided applicable calibration standards at the LOQ. In order to achieve the DQOs for sensitivity outlined in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2021a), the laboratory reported all field sample results at the lowest possible dilution. Additionally, any analytes detected below the LOQ and above the MDL were reported and qualified “J” as estimated values by the laboratory. Several instrument sensitivity checks displayed percent recoveries outside QC limits. No results associated with instrument sensitivity check recoveries outside of QC limits were reported. Several calibration verifications displayed percent recoveries outside QC limits. The associated analytes were not reported from this analytical sequence; no impact on data quality is anticipated. DATA VALIDATION REPORT -Level III Review SDG No.: 221051442 + 2835 + 0162 + 0614 + 0732 + 1267 + 1539 Analysis: Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances Laboratory:Pace Gulf Coast Project:West Jordan Reviewer:Tyler Bryant Date:February 16th, 2022 This report presents the findings of a review of the referenced data.The report consists of this summary, a listing of the samples included in the review, copies of data reports with data qualifying flags applied, data review worksheets, supporting documentation, and an explanation of the data qualifying flags employed. The review performed is based on the specifics of the analytical method referenced and provisions of the approved project-specific work plan; and, qualified according to the Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines (NFG)for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, EPA-540-R-20-005,November 2020,and Department of Defense (DoD) Data Validation Guidelines Module 3 QSM Table B-15, May 2020.Modifications reflect the level of review requested, the specifications of the project specific QAPP, and the specifics of the analytical methods employed. Major Anomalies:None. Minor Anomalies:During the PFAS analysis, the field samples in sample delivery group (SDG)22110162 were received outside the required preservation temperature of 6°C at 19.8°C.These samples were prepared within the recommended holding time and the positive associated field sample results were qualified J,t while non-detect results were qualified UJ,t.The following blanks displayed target analyte concentrations greater than the detection limit: Blank Date Time Batch Analyte Concentration (ng/L) EJG-DECON-01 6/2/2021 0544 712707 PFBA 3.27 2210604B_10 6/4/2021 1514 713044 PFOS 1.51 EJG-ERB-01 11/03/2021 1157 725540 0.921 The field sample results associated with the blank detections were either non-detect or displayed concentrations greater than five times the blank detections.Several instrument sensitivity checks (ISC)displayed percent recoveries outside QC limits in sequence 713044.No results associated with ISC recoveries outside of QC limits were reported. Several calibration verifications displayed percent recoveries outside QC limits in sequence 713044. The associated analytes were not reported from this analytical sequence; no data qualifying action was required. The matrix spike pair (MS/MSD) performed on parent sample EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 displayed percent recoveries outside the quality control (QC) limits for the following analytes: QC Batch Analyte MS Recovery (%) MSD Recovery (%) QC Limits (%) 725654 PFOS*401 -8 68-136 PFHxS 112 201 67-130 *Native sample displayed concentration greater than four times the spike value; not applicable for qualifying purposes The field sample results associated with the positive biases were positive and were qualified J+,m.The field duplicate pair performed on parent sample EJG-MW001-SB-00- 02 displayed relative percent difference greater than the upper QC limit of 50% at 105.8% for PFOS.The associated field duplicate results were qualified J,fd.This parent 221051442 + 28335 + 0162 + 0614 + 0732 + 1267 + 1539 Page:2 of 2 sample also displayed a non-detect result for the following analytes while the associated duplicate displayed positive results: Analyte Sample Conc. (µg/Kg) Duplicate Conc. (µg/Kg) 8:2 FTS 0.108 U 0.084 J NEtFOSAA 0.108 U 0.171 J NMeFOSAA 0.054 U 0.048 J PFBA 0.108 U 0.076 J PFBS 0.054 U 0.023 J PFDOA 0.054 U 0.112 J PFTeDA 0.054 U 0.049 J PFTrDA 0.108 U 0.031 J The non-detect parent sample results were qualified UJ,fd, while the positive field duplicate sample results were qualified J,fd. During the TOC analysis, the MS/MSD performed on parent sample EJG-MW004-SB displayed a percent recovery in the MS greater than the QC limit 128% at 134%.The associated field sample results were positive and were qualified J+,m. The technical holding time for the pH analysis is “immediate”. The associated field sample results were qualified J,h. Correctable Anomalies:None. Comments:In SDG 221111267,the sample collection dates initially not listed on page 1 of the COC. The lab proceeded with the login using the sample collection date and time listed on the container labels which were confirmed by field team notes. The field sample ID“EJG- MW007-SB-37-39” was updated to reflect the correct sample depth “EJG-MW07-27- 29”.On the basis of this evaluation, the laboratory appears to have followed the specified method, with the exception of anomalies discussed previously.All data are usable, as qualified, for their intended purposed based on the quality control data reviewed. Signed:________________ Tyler Bryant Laboratory: Job:60552172 SDG#: Sample ID Client ID Sample Type Sample Date Matrix PFAS - QSM B- 15 TOC + pH 22105144201 EJG-DECON-01 Decon Water 5/12/2021 Aqueous X 22110283501 EJG-MW004-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/25/2021 Soil X 22110283502 AOI03-01-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/25/2021 Soil X 22110283503 AOI03-02-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/25/2021 Soil X 22110283504 AOI01-01-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283505 AOI01-01-SB-06-08 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283506 EJG-ERB-01 Equipment Blank 10/26/2021 Aqueous X 22110283507 EJG-ERB-02 Equipment Blank 10/26/2021 Aqueous X 22110283508 EJG-FRB-01 Field Rinse Blank 10/26/2021 Aqueous X 22110283509 EJG-MW006-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283510 EJG-MW006-SB-00-02-D Field Duplicate 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283511 EJG-MW007-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283512 EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283513 EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-D Field Duplicate 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283516 EJG-MW003-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283517 EJG-MW002-SB-00-02 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22110283518 EJG-MW000-SB-13-15 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X X 22111016201 EJG-MW006-SB-33-35 Field Sample 10/26/2021 Soil X 22111016202 EJG-MW001-SB-13-15 Field Sample 10/28/2021 Soil X X 22111016203 EJG-MW001-SB-34-36 Field Sample 10/28/2021 Soil X 22111016204 EJG-PLUG-01 Field Sample 10/28/2021 Water X 22111061401 EJG-MW005-SB-00-02 Field Sample 11/1/2021 Soil X 22111061402 EJG-MW005-SB-13-15 Field Sample 11/1/2021 Soil X 22111061403 EJG-MW005-SB-25-27 Field Sample 11/1/2021 Soil X 22111061404 EJG-ERB-03 Equipment Blank 11/2/2021 Aqueous X 22111061405 EJG-DECON-02 Decon Water 11/2/2021 Aqueous X 22111061406 EJG-MW002-SB-13-15 Field Sample 11/2/2021 Soil X 22111061407 EJG-ERB-04 Equipment Blank 11/2/2021 Aqueous X 22111061408 EJG-ERB-05 Equipment Blank 11/2/2021 Aqueous X 22111073201 EJG-MW006-110321 Field Sample 11/3/2021 Water X 22111073202 EJG-DECON-03 Decon Water 11/3/2021 Aqueous X 22111073203 EJG-MW001-110321 Field Sample 11/3/2021 Water X 22111073204 EJG-MW001-110321-D Field Duplicate 11/3/2021 Water X 22111073205 EJG-MW002-SB-59-61 Field Sample 11/4/2021 Soil X 22111073206 EJG-MW003-SB-13-15 Field Sample 11/4/2021 Soil X 22111073207 EJG-MW005-110421 Field Sample 11/4/2021 Water X 22111073208 EJG-ERB-06 Equipment Blank 11/4/2021 Aqueous X 22111126701 EJG-MW003-SB-35-37 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Soil X 22111126702 EJG-MW007-SB-13-15 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Soil X 22111126703 EJG-MW007-SB-27-29 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Soil X 22111126704 EJG-MW004-SB-13-15 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Soil X X 22111126705 EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-D Field Duplicate 11/9/2021 Soil X X 22111126708 EJG-MW004-SB-39-41 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Soil X 22111126709 EJG-MW002-110921 Field Sample 11/9/2021 Water X 22111126710 EJG-MW003-111021 Field Sample 11/10/2021 Water X 22111126713 EJG-MW007-111021 Field Sample 11/10/2021 Water X 22111153901 EJG-MW004-111221 Field Sample 11/12/2021 Water X West Jordan Pace Gulf Coast 221051442 + 221102835 + 0162 + 0614 + 0732 + 1267 + 1539 West Jordan Field Duplicates Units LOQ 5x LOQ % RPD Delta 4x LOQ Pass/ Fail Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances 6:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 4.19 4.79 12.5%0.600 4.16 Pass 8:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 18.4 21.7 15.2%3.30 4.16 Pass NEtFOSAA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 0.104 U 0.102 U 1.9%0.002 4.16 Pass NMeFOSAA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 0.052 U 0.051 U 1.9%0.001 4.16 Pass PFBA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .477 J 0.484 J 1.4%0.007 4.16 Pass PFBS µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .052 U 0.051 U 2.0%0.001 4.16 Pass PFDA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .314 J 0.398 J 21.1%0.084 4.16 Pass PFDOA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .052 U 0.051 U 2.0%0.001 4.16 Pass PFHpA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 1.27 1.45 12.4%0.180 4.16 Pass PFHxA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 1.29 1.52 15.1%0.230 4.16 Pass PFHxS µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .528 J 0.448 J 17.9%0.080 4.16 Pass PFNA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 1.97 1.87 5.3%0.100 4.16 Pass PFOA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 3.80 4.98 23.7%1.18 4.16 Pass PFOS µg/Kg 10.4 52.0 53.6 51.2 4.6%2.40 41.6 Pass PFPeA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 1.77 1.77 0.0%0.0 4.16 Pass PFTeDA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .052 U 0.051 U 2.0%0.001 4.16 Pass PFTrDA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 .104 U 0.102 U 2.0%0.002 4.16 Pass PFUnDA µg/Kg 1.04 5.20 0.031 J 0.058 J 60.7%0.027 4.16 Pass pH SU 1.00 5.00 #DIV/0!0.000 4.00 Pass TOC mg/Kg 250 1250 #DIV/0!0 1000 Pass Control limit [sample]>5xLOQ use 50% [sample]<5xLOQ use Delta<4xLOQ Sample Conc Duplicate Conc Client Sample ID:EJG-MW006- SB-00-02 EJG- MW006-SB- 00-02-D Date Sampled:10/26/21 10/26/21 General Chemistry AECOM West Jordan Field Duplicates Units LOQ 5x LOQ % RPD Delta 4x LOQ Pass/ Fail Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances 6:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.217 U 0.191 U 12.7%0.026 4.32 Pass 8:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.108 U 0.084 J 25.0%0.024 4.32 Pass NEtFOSAA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.108 U 0.171 J 45.2%0.063 4.32 Pass NMeFOSAA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.054 U 0.048 J 11.8%0.0060 4.32 Pass PFBA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.108 U 0.076 J 34.8%0.032 4.32 Pass PFBS µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.054 U 0.023 J 80.5%0.031 4.32 Pass PFDA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.149 J 0.348 J 80.1%0.199 4.32 Pass PFDOA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.054 U 0.112 J 69.9%0.058 4.32 Pass PFHpA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.032 J 0.075 J 80.4%0.043 4.32 Pass PFHxA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.156 J 0.606 J 118.1%0.450 4.32 Pass PFHxS µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 2.13 J 4.20 65.4%2.07 4.32 Pass PFNA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.069 J 0.135 J 64.7%0.066 4.32 Pass PFOA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.152 J 0.753 J 132.8%0.601 4.32 Pass PFOS µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 23.8 J 77.3 J 105.8%53.5 4.32 Fail PFPeA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.028 J 0.088 J 103.4%0.060 4.32 Pass PFTeDA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.054 U 0.049 J 9.7%0.0050 4.32 Pass PFTrDA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.108 U 0.031 J 110.8%0.077 4.32 Pass PFUnDA µg/Kg 1.08 5.40 0.023 J 0.119 J 135.2%0.096 4.32 Pass Control limit Sample Conc Duplicate Conc [sample]>5xLOQ use 50% [sample]<5xLOQ use Delta<4xLOQ Client Sample ID:EJG-MW001- SB-00-02 EJG-MW001- SB-00-02-D Date Sampled:10/26/21 10/26/21 AECOM West Jordan Field Duplicates Units LOQ 5x LOQ % RPD Delta 2x LOQ Pass/ Fail Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances 6:2 FTS ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass 8:2 FTS ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass NEtFOSAA ng/L 8.00 40.0 4.00 U 4.03 U 0.7%0.030 16.0 Pass NMeFOSAA ng/L 8.00 40.0 4.00 U 4.03 U 0.7%0.030 16.0 Pass PFBA ng/L 4.00 20.0 6.10 5.95 2.5%0.150 8.00 Pass PFBS ng/L 4.00 20.0 12.8 12.5 2.4%0.300 8.00 Pass PFDA ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass PFDOA ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass PFHpA ng/L 4.00 20.0 5.36 5.42 1.1%0.060 8.00 Pass PFHxA ng/L 4.00 20.0 38.5 39.4 2.3%0.900 8.00 Pass PFHxS ng/L 4.00 20.0 123 124 0.8%1.00 8.00 Pass PFNA ng/L 4.00 20.0 2.00 U 2.02 U 1.0%0.020 8.00 Pass PFOA ng/L 4.00 20.0 7.18 7.31 1.8%0.130 8.00 Pass PFOS ng/L 4.00 20.0 693 698 0.7%5.00 8.00 Pass PFPeA ng/L 4.00 20.0 8.96 9.23 3.0%0.270 8.00 Pass PFTeDA ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass PFTrDA ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass PFUnDA ng/L 4.00 20.0 3.00 U 3.02 U 0.7%0.020 8.00 Pass Control limit Sample Conc Duplicate Conc [sample]>5xLOQ use 35% [sample]<5xLOQ use Delta<2xLOQ Client Sample ID:EJG-MW001- 110321 EJG-MW001- 110321-D Date Sampled:11/3/21 11/3/21 AECOM West Jordan Field Duplicates Units LOQ 5x LOQ % RPD Delta 4x LOQ Pass/ Fail Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances 6:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.200 U 0.206 U 3.0%0.0060 4.00 Pass 8:2 FTS µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass NEtFOSAA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass NMeFOSAA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFBA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass PFBS µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFDA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass PFDOA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFHpA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFHxA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFHxS µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass PFNA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFOA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.200 U 0.206 U 3.0%0.0060 4.00 Pass PFOS µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.200 U 0.206 U 3.0%0.0060 4.00 Pass PFPeA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFTeDA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass PFTrDA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.100 U 0.103 U 3.0%0.0030 4.00 Pass PFUnDA µg/Kg 1.00 5.00 0.050 U 0.052 U 3.9%0.0020 4.00 Pass pH SU 1.00 5.00 8.83 8.71 1.4%0.120 4.00 Pass TOC mg/Kg 250 1250 1510 1800 17.5%290 1000 Pass Control limit Client Sample ID:EJG-MW004-SB- 13-15 EJG-MW004- SB-13-15-D Date Sampled:11/9/21 11/9/21 Sample Conc Duplicate Conc General Chemistry [sample]>5xLOQ use 50% [sample]<5xLOQ use Delta<4xLOQ AECOM Reviewer:Project Name: Date:Project Number: DV Level: II III IV Laboratory: Review Document: SDG No.: __X__ National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review Test Name: __X__ DOD QSM 5.1, Table B-15 _____ Method 537 Rev. 1.1 Yes No NA 1.1 X 1.2 X 1.4 X Notes: Yes No NA 2.1 X 2.2 X Notes: Yes No NA 3.1 X 3.2 X 3.3 X Notes: Have any technical holding times, determined from date of sampling to date of analysis, been exceeded? If yes, J(+)/UJ(-). Extraction: 14 days; Analysis: 40 days. Do any instrument/method blanks have positive results? Have any technical holding time grossly (twice the holding time) been exceeded? If yes, J(+)/X(-) . Were method blanks (MB) prepared at the appropriate frequency (one per 20 samples, per batch per matrix?) A decon, instrument and equipment blank all displayed target analyte concentrations greater than the detection limit. 3.0 Blanks (Laboratory and Field) Do any field equipment blanks/trip blanks have positive results? West Jordan DATA VALIDATION WORKSHEET 2.0 Holding Times 1.0 Laboratory Deliverables Do Chain-of-Custody forms list all samples that were analyzed? Are all Chain-of-Custody forms signed, indicating sample chain-of-custody was maintained? Tyler Bryant The samples in SDG 22110162 were received outside the required preseervation temperature at 19.8°C. 2/16/2022 1.3 Do the traffic Reports, chain-of-custody, and lab narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of samples, analytical problems or special circumstances affecting the quality of the data? Do sample preservation, collection and storage condition meet method requirement? 4±2°C If samples were received with the cooler temperature exceeding 6°C, then flag J(+)/UJ(-). If >20°C, J(+)/X(-) Per- and Polyfluorinated Compounds by LC/MS/MS 60552172 Pace Gulf Coast 221051442 + 2835 + 0162 + 0614 + 0732 + 1267 + 1539 PFAS X Yes No NA 4.1 X 4.2 X 4.3 X 4.4 X 4.5 X 4.6 X Notes: Yes No NA 5.1 X 5.3 X Notes: Yes No NA 6.1 X 6.2 X Positives Non-detects X Positives Non-detects X Notes: Several CCVs displayed percent recoveries outside QC limits in batch 713044. The associated analytes were not X X6.4 Are recoveries within acceptance criteria for all samples and method blanks? J-J-J+ If No in Section 6.2, is any sample dilution factor greater than 10? (recoveries may be diluted out.) Were LCS/LCSD analyzed at required frequency (one per 20 samples per batch) for each matrix? UJ None Are there any %R for LCS/LCSD recoveries outside the laboratory QC limits(lab default is 70%-130%)? Action: If Yes, for %R >130, J+(+) only; for %R 30%-70%, J-(+)/UJ(-), and %R<30%, J-(+)/X(-). Are there any RPD for LCS/LCSD recoveries outside the QC limits? If Yes, J(+) only. NoneUJ If No in Section 6.1, are these sample(s) or method blank(s) reanalyzed? J+J+J- <20% low high reported in this batch. 5.0 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) 6.0 Surrogate Recovery/Internal Standard Area Count/Extracted Internal Standards (For Table B-15 Matrices) Has the Extracted/Injected Standard area count been met for all quality control and field samples? (50%-150%) If 6.3 5.2 <10% low high For each calibration standard used for quantitation, was the S/N Ratio ≥10:1 and for all analytes with promulgated standards was the confirmation ion at a S/N at 3:1? (Table B-15, non-DW matrices) Was the retention time window for each analyte and surrogate set using the midpoint standard of the curve? Was the relative retention time of each analyte within laboratory control limits? For initial calibration: 70%-130%, RSD ≤20%, or r2≥0.99. J(+)/UJ(-) For ICV/CCV: %D>30%, Positive: J(+), Negative:J(+)/UJ(-). 4.0 Initial and Continuing Calibration Were continuing calibration standards analyzed every ten samples and at the end of the sequence? If no, flag "X". Was a second source calibration verification (ICV) analyzed for each calibration curve? If no, flag "X". For each calibration standard, was each analyte calculated within 70%-130% of the true value, RSD ≤20%, or r2≥0.99? X Yes No NA 7.1 X Notes: Yes No NA 8.1 X Notes: Yes No NA 9.1 X 9.2 X Notes: Yes No NA 10.1 X 10.2 X Notes: Yes No NA 11.1 X 11.1.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 9.0 Instrument Sensitivity Check (ISC) Was an instrument sensitivity check analyzed prior to analysis and every 12 hours? If not X(+/-) Were analyte concentrations at the LOQ for the ISC and within ±30% of their true values? If not (J(+)/UJ(-) X X7.2 %Recovery: <30% 30%-70% >130% Action: J-(+)/X(-) J-(+)/UJ(-) J+(+) only Action: No action is required based on MS/MSD failure alone. Note in the report and use professional judgement. Are there any %R for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries outside the laboratory QC limits? Were matrix spikes analyzed at required frequency (one per 20 samples per batch) for each matrix? Was a mass calibration performed daily prior to analysis? 10.0 Compound Identification/Tune and Detection Limit Verification Are there any RPD for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries outside the QC limits? (±30%) 8.0 Field/Laboratory Duplicates Acceptable field duplicate results? If no, J(+) parent sample/field duplicate only. 7.3 7.0 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) Field sample MW001-SB-00-02 displayed MS/MSD percent recoveries outside the QC limits for PFOS and PFHxS. The analytes associated with the ISC exceedance were not reported in the batch. The field duplicate pair performed on sample EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 displayed RPD exceedance for PFOS and a ND result for several analytes while the associated duplicate sample displayed a positive result. Number of samples:________47________ Number of target compounds in each analysis:_________18__________ Number of results "X" or "R" flagged results:__________0__________ Is % completeness within the control limits? (Control limit 95%aq and 90%so) Do detection limits meet those required by the project QAPP and were they properly adjusted for dilution factors and moisture (including adjustment of wet weight aliquot)? 11.0 Data Completeness Data Qualifying Codes Two types of data qualifying codes or flags are applied in the course of the data review. The data validation flags indicate data that are not usable for decision-making, more than normally biased and/or variable, or not representative of field conditions. These codes and their definitions are presented below in the hierarchy stipulated in the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic (August 2014) Data Review and the USEPA Region III Guidelines for Organic (September 1994) for blank qualifications only. Data Validation Flags Flag Interpretation R The sample results are unusable due to the quality of the data generated because certain criteria were not met. The analyte may or may not be present in the sample. B The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected at a level greater than or equal to the level of the adjusted Detection Limit (DL) for sample and method. J+ Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased high. J- Reported value may not be accurate or precise, but the result may be biased low. J The analyte was positively identified and the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample (due either to the quality of the data generated because certain quality control criteria were not met, or the concentration of the analyte was below the Limit of Detection (LOD). NJ The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been “tentatively identified” and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration. UJ The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. C This qualifier applies to pesticide and Aroclor results when the identification has been confirmed by gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) X This qualifier applies to pesticide and Aroclor results when GC/MS analysis was attempted but was unsuccessful. The other type of code used by AECOM is a “Reason Code”. The reason code indicates the type of quality control failure that led to the application of the data validation flag. Reason Codes Code Description Code Description a Tracer recovery (radiochemical data only)ld Laboratory duplicate RPDs (matrix duplicate, MSD, LCSD) be Equipment blank contamination lp Laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicateRPDs bf Field blank contamination m Matrix spike recovery bi Bias indeterminate md Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate RPD bl Laboratory blank contamination nb Negative laboratory blank contamination bm Missing Blank Information p Chemical preservation issue bt Trip Blank pe Post Extraction Spike c Calibration issue ps Performance Evaluation Sample cl Clean-up standard recovery q Quantitation issue cp Insufficient in growth (radiochemical data only)r Dual column RPD cr Chromatographic resolution rp Re-extraction precision issue [PAHs only] d Reporting limit raised due to chromatographic interference rt SIM ions not within + 2 seconds dt Dissolved result > total over limit s Surrogate recovery e Ether interference sc Sample collection issues fd Field duplicate RPDs sp Sample preparation issue su Evidence of ion suppressionhHolding times t Temperature Preservation Issue i Internal standard areas u High combined sample result uncertainty (radiochemical dataonly) ii Injection internal standard area or retention time exceedance v Compound identification issue k Estimated Maximum Possible Concentrations x Low % solids l LCS recoveries y Serial dilution results lc Labeled compound recovery z ICS results hs Sample headspace did not meet receiving requirements Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B Field Documentation Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B1 Logs of Daily Notice of Field Activities Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Log of Daily Notice of Field Activity ARNG PFAS, Site Inspection EJ Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, UT Date AECOM Personnel Weather Summary Daily Activities Issues Progress to Date Subcontractor(s)/ Visitors11/15/2021 Noah Zorsky Sunny, High 64°F, low 45°F.-AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting and reviewed SH&E concerns.-Measured and recorded depth to groundwater in all permanent monitoring wells as a synoptic groundwater gauging event. None -Soil Borings: 10/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 7/7-Wells Developed: 7/7-Groundwater Samples:7/7-Soil Samples: 25/25 11/12/2021 Noah Zorsky Sunny, High 61°F, low 40°F.-AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting and reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist.'-Collected 1 regular groundwater sample from MW-004 to be analyzed for PFAS. -One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight Saturday delivery to the analytical laboratory. None -Soil Borings: 10/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 7/7-Wells Developed: 7/7-Groundwater Samples:7/7-Soil Samples: 25/25 11/10/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Sunny, High 51°F, low 38°F.-AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Finished monument/well pad at MW-004. -Developed MW-004. -Collected 1 regular, 1 MS, and 1 MSD groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-003; and 1 regular groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-007.-Completed site cleanup. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with ESI Engineering. Reviewed SH&E concerns.-Completed well surveying. -One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight to the analytical laboratory. None -Soil Borings: 10/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 7/7-Wells Developed: 7/7-Groundwater Samples:6/7-Soil Samples: 25/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor CarpenterUTARNG: Erik SewellESI Engineering: Christopher Nay, Jesse Morgan 11/9/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Cloudy in the morning, rain with high winds (up to 20 mph)in the afternoon. High 50°F, low 37°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Completed drilling and well installation at MW-004. -Developed MW-003 and MW-007.-Collected 1 regular groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-002.-Organized IDW in containment area. -Finished the monuments/well pads at MW-001, MW-002, MW-003, and MW-007. -Began site cleanup. -One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight to the analytical laboratory. None -Soil Borings: 10/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 7/7-Wells Developed: 6/7-Groundwater Samples:4/7-Soil Samples: 25/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor CarpenterUTARNG: Mark Hogan 11/8/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Sunny, windy in the afternoon. High 50°F, low 38°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Completed drilling and well installation at MW-003 and collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Completed drilling and well installation at MW-007 and collected 2 regular soil samples to be analyzed for PFAS. -Began drilling at MW-004 and collected:1 regular, one duplicate, one MS, and 1 MSD soil samples for PFAS and pH+TOC analysis; and 1 regular sample to be analyzed for PFAS and grain size. -Developed MW-002. None -Soil Borings: 10/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 6/7-Wells Developed: 4/7-Groundwater Samples:3/7-Soil Samples: 25/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor CarpenterUTARNG: Erik Sewell, Mark Hogan Page 1 of 4 Log of Daily Notice of Field Activity ARNG PFAS, Site Inspection EJ Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, UT Date AECOM Personnel Weather Summary Daily Activities Issues Progress to Date Subcontractor(s)/ Visitors11/4/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Sunny, windy in the afternoon. High 66°F, low 41°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Completed drilling and well installation at MW-002 and collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Began drilling at MW-003 and collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Collected one equipment blank to be analyzed for PFAS. -Collected 1 regular groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-005. Utah Army National Guard informed onsite personnel of forthcoming COVID vaccination/ testing requirements that are expected to be in place next week. -Soil Borings: 7/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 4/7-Wells Developed: 3/7-Groundwater Samples:3/7-Soil Samples: 20/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor CarpenterUTARNG: Erik Sewell 11/3/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Partly cloudy, High 59°F, low 41°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Continued drilling at MW-002. -Collected one decon water sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Collected 1 regular and 1 duplicate groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-001 and and 1 regular groundwater sample for PFAS from MW-006. -Completed well development at MW-005. Two different repairs were conducted on the sonic rig. Additional repairs will be required tomorrow morning. -Soil Borings: 6/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 3/7-Wells Developed: 3/7-Groundwater Samples:2/7-Soil Samples: 18/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor CarpenterUTARNG: Erik Sewell 11/2/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Rainy in the morning, partly cloudy in the afternoon. High 57°F, low 39°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Completed drilling and well installation at MW-005. Collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Began drilling at MW-002 and collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Collected three equipment blanks and one decon water sample to be analyzed for PFAS. -Completed well development at MW-006 and MW-001. -One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight to the analytical laboratory. Sonic rig repair activities took place at the end of the day. -Soil Borings: 6/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 3/7-Wells Developed: 2/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 18/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter; Juan CervantesUTARNG: Erik Sewell 11/1/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Partly cloudy, High 63°F, low 48°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns (including new sonic drill rig) and daily PFAS sampling checklist. -Redrilled MW-001 with the sonic rig and installed the monitoring well (except surface finishing). -Hand cleared MW-005 to five feet bgs and began drilling. Collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS and 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS and grain size. -Purged 5.21 gallons of water from MW-006. Sediment in MW-006 caused the check valve int he development setup (using the waterra pump) to clog, thus impeding well development. A PFAS-free submersible pump (Tornado Pump from Proactive Environmental) has been ordered for delivery on Tuesday, 11/2 to assist with developing the wells. -Soil Borings: 5/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 2/7-Wells Developed: 0/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 16/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter; Juan CervantesUTARNG: Erik Sewell 10/28/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Partly cloudy, High 60°F, low 38°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist.-Began drilling at MW-001 and collected 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS and 1 regular soil sample to be analyzed for PFAS and pH/TOC. In addition, a blank sample was collected from a wooden plug used in the bottom of the drill bit to prevent heaving sands from entering the augers. -Hand cleared to five feet at MW-004. -One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight to the analytical laboratory Pace Analytical. The vac truck broke down on its way to the site and was not used; however, MW-004 was able to be cleared by hand. Heaving sands entering the auger at MW-001 caused the augers and well casing to stick, and the well could not be set. Cascade will mobilize a sonic rig on Monday, 11/1 to support finishing MW-001 and will be used to complete the remaining borings/ monitoring well installations. -Soil Borings: 4/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 1/7-Wells Developed: 0/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 14/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter; Brian PerkinsUTARNG: Mark Hogan Page 2 of 4 Log of Daily Notice of Field Activity ARNG PFAS, Site Inspection EJ Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, UT Date AECOM Personnel Weather Summary Daily Activities Issues Progress to Date Subcontractor(s)/ Visitors10/27/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Partly cloudy, High 56°F, low 38°F. -AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist.-Completed permanent well installation at MW-006. -Hand cleared to five feet at MW-007, MW-003, MW-002, and MW-001. Hand clearing at MW-001 was a substantial effort due to cobbles in the subsurface. Cascade will mobilize a vac truck to support clearance of MW-004 on 10/28. -Soil Borings: 4/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 1/7-Wells Developed: 0/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 12/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter;UTARNG: Mark HoganARNG: Joe Davis 10/26/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Rain/sleet, High 49°F, low 36°F.-AECOM held a tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed SH&E concerns and daily PFAS sampling checklist.-Advanced soil boring at AOI01-01. Collected 2 regular soil samples. Advanced soil boring at MW-0006 and began permanent well installation. Augers were left in place overnight. Collected 3 regular soil samples for PFAS analysis, 1 duplicate sample, 1 sample to be analyzed for pH/TOC, and 1 sample for grain size analysis. -Collected 1 regular surface soil sample at MW-007, MW-003, MW-001, and MW-002. In addition, collected 1 duplicate, 1 MS, and 1 MSD sample at MW-001.-Collected 1 FRB and 2 ERBs.-One cooler of samples was packed and shipped via FedEx Priority Overnight to the analytical laboratory Pace Analytical. Boring at MW-004 will be continued at a later date due to waterlogged terrain in an effort to reduce rutting in the landscaped area. -Soil Borings: 4/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 0/7-Wells Developed: 0/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 12/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter;UTARNG: Mark Hogan, Holly Welsh;ARNG: Joe Davis 10/25/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHONoah Zorsky Cloudy, High 69°F, low 39°F. High winds (sustained 25-35 mph with gusts up to 55 mph). -AECOM and Cascade mobilized to EJ Garn Aviation Complex for SI field work.-AECOM held a site orientation/kickoff and tailgate SH&E meeting with Cascade. Reviewed scope of work, SH&E concerns, daily PFAS sampling checklist, and facility operation protocols.-Collected three surface soil borings at AOI3-01, AOI03-02, and EJG-MW004. Collected 3 regular soil samples for PFAS analysis. Work stopped due to high winds. -Soil Borings: 3/10-Soil HA Locations: 2/2-Wells Installed: 0/7-Wells Developed: 0/7-Groundwater Samples:0/7-Soil Samples: 3/25 Cascade: Jonah Carpenter, Taylor Carpenter;UTARNG: Mark Hogan, Holly Welsh;ARNG: Joe Davis Page 3 of 4 Log of Daily Notice of Field Activity ARNG PFAS, Site Inspection EJ Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, UT Date AECOM Personnel Weather Summary Daily Activities Issues Progress to Date Subcontractor(s)/ Visitors10/13/2021 Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SSHOKrystal Walker Mostly Cloudy, High 48°F, low 34°F. -AECOM and their private utility locating subcontractor (GPRS)mobilized to EJ Garn Aviation Complex for SIfield work (utility location).-AECOM held tailgate safety meeting with GPRS and UTARNG.-Reviewed scope of work and SH&E concerns. Complete applicable AHAs.-All sample locations were located using GPS and marked withwhite paint.-GPRS completed utility clearance at all proposed boring locations. AOI01-01 moved approximately 25 ft west - northwest due to staged equipment blocking the original location. This does not affect the intended goal of the sample location. Private utility locating complete GPRS: Josue Torres;UTARNG: Mark Hogan;UDEQ: Megan Stewart NotesAHA = activity hazard analysisAOI = area of interestft = feetGPS = Global Positioning Systemmph = miles per hourSH&E = Safety, Health, and EnvironmentSSHO = Site Safety and Health OfficerUDEQ = Utah Department of Environmental QualityUTARNG = Utah Army National GuardERB = equipment reagent blankFRB = field reagent blankTOC = Total Organic Carbon Page 4 of 4 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B2 Sampling Forms Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Project #: 60552172 Sample Date Sample Time Sample Depth Sampled By Moisture Content Major Fraction (sand, silt, clay, gravel)Color Notes (Debris, etc.)Analytical Parameters 10/25/2021 1150 0-2 NZ M Silty sand (MS) 10 YR 5/3 Brown PID=0.3 ppm PFAS 10/25/2021 1230 0-2 NZ M Silty sand (MS) 10 YR 5/3 Brown PID=0.2 ppm PFAS Comments Moisture Content D - Dry M - Moist W - Wet S - Saturated AOI03-01-SB-00-02 AOI03-02-SB-00-02 Sample ID (List Duplicate, MS/MSD samples) Surface Soil Sampling Form LOCATION Project Name: ARNG PFAS Site: EJ Garn 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 35-45 'flushmount rental 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 0.4 0.5 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF flush 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF @ 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B3 Field Change Request Form Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Date: 29 October 2021 AECOM Technical Services Inc. Field Change Request Form Report Number: FCR001 Location: EJ Garn Aviation Complex,UT Document Title: EJ Garn AviationComplex SI QAPPAddendum, Final Contract Number: W912DR-12-D-0014DO: W912DR17F0192 Description of Field Change: A hollow stem auger truck mounted drill rig is currently beingutilized to drill the soil borings and install the monitoring wells.Heaving sands were encountered and pack the auger which ispreventing the setting of the monitoring well. As the packedauger is removed from the ground, so is the PVC within theauger. Switching to a sonic drill rig would allow us to address theheaving sands. Proposed Disposition: Mobilizing a track mounted sonic would address the heavingsands as the drilling process allows for the capability of clearingmaterials from the drill casing prior to setting well. Our dataquality objectives will also still be met using a sonic rig. Submitted by: Jeff Dvorak Date: 10/29/2021 Approved by (Project Manager): Claire Mitchell Completed by: Jeff Dvorak Date: 10/29/2021 Verified by (SI Task Manager): Date: 10/29/2021 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B4 Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Date: 27 December 2022 AECOM Technical Services Inc. Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report Report Number: NCR001 Location:EJ Garn Aviation Complex Project Title: Site Inspection for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS at ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract Number: W912DR-12-D-0014 DO: W912DR17F0192 Description of Nonconformance and Cause: The sample cooler for one sample delivery group (SDG) was logged in at the laboratory at a temperature above the 6°C preservation requirement identified in the UFP-QAPP. SDG SDG221101622 arrived at the laboratory at a temperature of 19.8°C; and included EJG-MW006-SB-33-35, EJG-MW001-SB-13-15, EJG- MW001-SB-34-36, and QC sample EJG-PLUG-01. FedEx delayed the shipment for four days for unknown reasons. Priority overnight delivery was requested for the delayed SDG and samples were shipped on Thursday to avoid weekend delivery. The sample coolers were properly packed with ice and requested for cold storage. Proposed Disposition: The laboratory notified AECOM of the over-temperature samples shortly after they were received. Project chemists proposed that the samples be analyzed rather than resampled. Resampling of over-temperature samples has been applied for aqueous samples, but not soil. Soil samples are considered usable if received above temperature, and are qualified with an J/UJ flag if ≤ 20°C;or a J/X flag if > 20°C. Submitted by: Amanda Grapes Dellinger Date: December 27, 2022 Approved by (Project Manager): Actual Disposition approved by Project Manager: All laboratory data underwent full validation. All results for the over-temperature SDG were qualified with a J/UJ flag as estimate. As stated in the DUA, all results are considered usable. AECOM continued using best practices for packaging and shipping samples. All other samples arrived in-temperature. Implementation of Disposition assigned to: AECOM project team; field staff, task managers, chemists Completed by: Amanda Grapes Dellinger Date: December 27, 2022 Verified by (SI Task Manager): Amanda Grapes Dellinger Date:December 27, 2022 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B5 Survey Data Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK ESI Engineering Inc. 3500 S. Main, Suite 206 Salt Lake City, UT 84115 EJ Garn Aviation Complex – West Jordan, Utah 801-263-1752 Monitoring Well - Site Survey Information Point ID Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 12, Northern Hemisphere US Foot, Northing Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 12, Northern Hemisphere US Foot, Easting NAVD 88 Top of Casing Elevation NAVD 88 Ground Elevation at Casing WELL - EJGMW001 14,751,528.206 1,364,275.042 4,613.159 4,613.29 WELL - EJGMWOO2 14,750,332.116 1,364,625.387 4,609.288 4,609.35 WELL - EJGMWOO3 14,751,107.974 1,364,537.168 4,611.794 4,612.44 WELL - EJGMW004 14,751,707.264 1,363,371.945 4,630.942 4,631.30 WELL - EJGMWOO5 14,750,745.767 1,364,061.429 4,619.525 4,619.95 WELL - EJGMW006 14,751,735.190 1,363,839.743 4,623.976 4,624.31 WELL - EJGMW007 14,751,910.260 1,364,247.699 4,612.996 4,613.16 Benchmark - ESI Control Point Rebar with Cap 14,751,215.906 1,364,514.824 4,612.138 Survey and differential leveling was performed on November 10th 2021 Horizontal: Universal Traverse Mercator zone 12 projection with WGS84 horizontal datum Vertical: NAVD 1988 - Geoid 18 Units: US Survey Feet ESI Engineering established a local (rebar and aluminum ESI cap) benchmark. NAVD88 elevation of said benchmark is 4612.138 feet derived using The Utah Reference Network (TURN VRS) with Geoid 18 as a model. Top of casing coordinates were collected on a black marker line on the top of the pipe casing on the north side. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix B6 Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CLIENT REVISED SCALE ARNG GIS BY CHK BY MS AD 3/29/2022 3/29/2022 NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, UT 3/29/2022 Appendix B6 CM 3/29/2022PM 12420 Milestone Center Drive Germantown, MD 20876 Investigation-Derived Waste Polygons Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\UT\EJ_Garn_AASF_Figures\EJ_Garn_SI_Figures\SI_Report\Appendix_B5_EJ_Garn_AASF_SI_ID_Polygons.mxd !? !? !? !? !? !? !? "S !? "S EJG-MW001 EJG-MW002 EJG-MW003 EJG-MW004 AOI01-01 EJG-MW007 EJG-MW006AOI03-01 EJG-MW005 AOI03-02 0 260 520130Feet Legend !?Soil Boring/Permanent Monitoring Well !?Soil Boring "S Surface Soil Sample IInvestigation-Derived Waste Polygon Facility Boundary 1:3,120 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix C Photographic Log Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 1 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1252 Description: AOI01-01 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: West Photograph No. 2 Date: 10-26-2021 Time: 0915 Description: AOI01-01 Boring hand cleared to 5 feet below ground surface prior to drilling. Orientation: Northwest Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 3 Date: 10-25-2021 Time: 1239 Description: AOI03-01 Surface soil boring. Orientation: South Photograph No. 4 Date: 10-25-2021 Time: 1230 Description: AOI03-02 Surface soil boring. Orientation: Southeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 5 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1348 Description: MW001 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: Northeast Photograph No. 6 Date: 10-27-2021 Time: 1327 Description: MW001 Hollow stem auger (HSA) drill and foreign object debris (FOD) fencing. Orientation: Southwest Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 7 Date: 11-01-2021 Time: 1143 Description: MW001 Sonic rig drilling. Orientation: Northeast Photograph No. 8 Date: 11-09-2021 Time: 1606 Description: MW001 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Southwest Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 9 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1331 Description: MW002 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: South Photograph No. 10 Date: 11-03-2021 Time: 0750 Description: MW002 Sonic drill at boring location. Orientation: East Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 11 Date: 11-09-2021 Time: 1615 Description: MW002 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: South Photograph No. 12 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1345 Description: MW003 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 13 Date: 11-08-2021 Time: 1036 Description: MW003 Sonic drill and FOD fence. Orientation: South Photograph No. 14 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 1210 Description: MW003 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 15 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1152 Description: MW004 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: Northeast Photograph No. 16 Date: 10-28-2021 Time: 1602 Description: MW004 Boring hand cleared to 5 feet below ground surface prior to drilling. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 17 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 0953 Description: MW004 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Southeast Photograph No. 18 Date: 11-08-2021 Time: 1542 Description: MW004 Sonic drilling at boring location. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 19 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 0953 Description: MW004 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Southeast Photograph No. 20 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1341 Description: MW005 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 21 Date: 11-02-2021 Time: 1106 Description: MW005 Boring location after drilling. Orientation: West Photograph No. 22 Date: 11-04-2021 Time: 1633 Description: MW005 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Southeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 23 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1354 Description: MW006 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: West Photograph No. 24 Date: 10-27-2021 Time: 0844 Description: MW006 HSA drilling within FOD fencing. Orientation: Northwest Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 25 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 1226 Description: MW006 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Southwest Photograph No. 26 Date: 10-13-2021 Time: 1351 Description: MW007 Proposed location marked during site walk. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 27 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 1219 Description: MW007 Completed monitoring well. Orientation: Northwest Photograph No. 28 Date: 11-01-2021 Time: 1407 Description: Representative photograph of Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) labels on drums. Orientation: Northwest Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah APPENDIX C – Photographic Log Site Inspection E.J. Garn Aviation Complex West Jordan, Utah AECOM Photograph No. 29 Date: 11-09-2021 Time: 1223 Description: IDW in the Army National Guard containment area. Orientation: Southeast Photograph No. 30 Date: 11-10-2021 Time: 1223 Description: Decontamination area and water source on the northeast side of the installation. Orientation: Northeast Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL ARNG PA/SI 1 27 July 2023 Meeting Minutes E.J. Garn Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) West Jordan, Utah – Site Inspection (SI) Technical Project Planning (TPP) – Meeting 3 Site Inspection for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at ARNG Installations, Nationwide Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014, DO W912DR17F0192 Thursday, 27 July 2023 0900-1100 MDT Participants Name Affiliation* Phone E-Mail Joe Davis ARNG G-9 615-791-1139 joe.b.davis36.ctr@army.mil Kiera Hearn USACE kiera.m.hearn@usace.army.mil Ted Repasky USACE ted.r.repasky@usace.army.mil Erik Sewell UTARNG 801-432-4434 erik.b.sewell.nfg@army.mil Matt Costakis AECOM 301-250-2629 matt.costakis@aecom.com Amanda Grapes Dellinger AECOM 801-707-4151 amanda.dellinger@aecom.com Cameron Clarke AECOM 703-304-1986 cameron.clarke@aecom.com Wes Sandlin UDEQ/DERR wsandlin@utah.gov Hannah Tremble-Marty UDEQ/DERR hannahmarty@utah.gov Maureen Petit UDEQ/DERR mpetit@utah.gov Craig Barnitz UDEQ/DERR cbarnitz@utah.gov Patty Nelis SLC Airport patty.nelis@slcgov.com *ARNG G-9 – Army National Guard G-9; USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers; USACE – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; UTARNG – Utah Army National Guard; UDEQ – Utah Department of Environmental Quality; DERR – Division of Environmental Response and Remediation; SLC – Salt Lake City Ms. Amanda Dellinger (AECOM) welcomed participants and reviewed the purpose of the meeting, outlined the agenda, and led a roundtable of introductions for everyone on the virtual Technical Project Planning (TPP) 3 meeting. An attendance sheet is included at the top of these meeting minutes. The meeting purpose was to discuss the Army National Guard (ARNG) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Preliminary Assessment (PA)/Site Inspection (SI) program and the results of the SI for PFAS at E.J. Garn Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) in West Jordan, Utah. Briefing slides are included as Attachment A. Key points discussed during the presentation are provided below. Additionally, a safety moment that discussed cleaning car headlights was shared with the participants. Both the importance of having clean headlights and how to clean car headlights were covered. Programmatic Discussion (Slides 5-7): - The meeting goals for the TPP meetings included in the ARNG PFAS program were presented. o The combined TPP 1 and 2 in July 2020 provided an overview of the ARNG PA/SI program, reviewed the PA findings, and discussed the approach of the SI at E.J. Garn. o TPP 3 presented the SI results, resolved comments/concerns to gain concurrence on the SI Report, and discussed future actions at the Site. - The program follows the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) progress. The CERCLA process was reviewed, and a CERCLA status overview of the site was provided: o The PA for E.J. Garn was completed in July 2020; o The SI fieldwork was completed in October and November 2021; and o The Draft Final SI Report was provided to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) May 2023. FINAL ARNG PA/SI 2 27 July 2023 PA Summary of Findings (Slides 8-10): - A brief overview of the PA findings were presented. During the PA, eight potential source areas were initially identified with three additional potential release areas during the SI Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) development. These eleven potential release areas were grouped into three Areas of Interest (AOI). The identified release areas included: o Building 00001/North Hangar o Hangar/Ramp Area o Building 00003/Armory Dumpster Fire - The potential PFAS releases at all three areas were attributed to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)-equipped fire suppression system releases, storage and washing of AFFF-equipped fire trucks, fire training activities, AFFF storage, and the emergency response of a dumpster fire. - AOI 1 comprises four potential release areas within the area to the east and southeast of the North Hangar (Building 00001). o Potential releases consist of the North Hangar fire suppression system (no known releases); firetruck washing in the fire truck bay; oil/water separator and sanitary sewer drains within the hangar; and the former dry well east of the hangar. - AOI 2 comprises six potential release areas within the Hangar/Ramp Area east of the South Hangar (Building 00002), Cold Storage building (Building 00004), and Tri-MaxTM Fire Area (Building 00010). o Potential releases include:  1991 to 2016: South Hangar (Building 00002) and Cold Storage Building (Building 00004) fire suppression system tests  1998: Tri-MaxTM 30-gallon unit discharged  1995 to 1999: Fire training activities  1989: Emergency response activities using AFFF  1989 to 2009: Storage of 5-gallon 3% AFFF containers in Tent Storage (Building 00010), which was formerly located east of its current location. - AOI 3 is located directly west of Building 00003 and comprises one potential release area from a former dumpster fire. o 1997: The dumpster fire occurred at the Armory, extinguished with an AFFF mobile unit. It is unknown how many gallons were discharged. The dumpster was located on asphalt, with a grassy area directly to the north of the dumpster. o The surface drainage in the vicinity of AOI 3 was designed to flow south into a catch basin. - Part of the PA was also to identify any offsite potential PFAS release areas within 4 miles of the site, and the following areas were identified: o An Emergency Response Area adjacent to the facility (1989 civilian plane crash handled by AASF emergency services). o Private Aviation Companies at the adjacent South Valley Regional Airport (none have their own emergency services and are under the municipal emergency services). o The municipal fire department, located approximately 0.5 miles east of the facility. o All the identified offsite potential release areas are considered to be downgradient of our onsite AOIs. - Ms. Dellinger showed a figure to present the PA findings displaying the potential release areas in their three AOIs. Conceptual Site Model (Slides 11-12): - Ms. Dellinger provided a brief summary of the conceptual site model (CSM), including geology, hydrogeology, and hydrology of the Site. - The E.J. Garn Aviation Complex is located within the Jordan Valley, at the eastern margin of the Basin and Range physiographic province. o Holocene-aged alluvium and Pleistocene-aged silt and clay deposits of the regressive Phase of Lake Bonneville overlie volcanic and sedimentary rocks of the Salt Lake Formation of Tertiary age, which were largely of mud-rock flow origin. FINAL ARNG PA/SI 3 27 July 2023 - The uppermost geologic units at the facility are comprised of massive- to thinly-bedded silt and clay deposits (7-16 feet), with boulder to pebble gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited in channels and flood plain of streams. o Soil borings completed during the SI found various mixtures of silt, clay, and sand deposits as the dominant lithology of the unconsolidated sediments below the site. Many of the logs also reported varying percentages of gravel included in the sand packages. - The Jordan Narrows unit of the Salt Lake Formation commonly underlies the alluvial or lacustrine material and consists of fine-grained sediments with a few thin gravel lenses, principally of andesite. o The fine-grained sediments are mostly volcanic tuff, freshwater limestone, and clay, and they can be 300 to 2,000 feet thick. - The complex pattern of sediment deposition in the Jordan Valley resulted in a highly variable groundwater reservoir. Specific aquifers are generally not distinguishable over large areas, and they are underlain, overlain, and graded into beds with lesser permeability. - The overall direction of groundwater flow in the Jordan Valley is to the northeast, while localized flow is from west to east. - Groundwater exists in perched water-bearing lenses above the regional aquifer, which is what we looked at during the SI. - Depths to water measured in November 2021 during the SI ranged from 26.61 to 60.16 feet below ground surface (bgs). - This figure also shows the potable wells at the site and surrounding the site, which were identified during an online database search. - The facility sits within the Jordan River and Utah Lake Watershed Management Unit. There are unlined catch basins along the east side of the facility, between the airfield and the runways, which receive snow plowed from the Hangar/Ramp Area in the winter. - Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the facility, stormwater from the facility enters Barney’s Creek along the southerly perimeter, which discharges into a large retention pond/sedimentation basin to the east. Eventually the water discharges to the Jordan River. SI Data Quality Objectives and Screening Levels (Slides 13-14): - The primary data quality objectives (DQOs) established for the SI included confirming the presence or absence of a release at the potential PFAS release areas, as well as gathering data to refine the CSM. o Enhanced DQOs for the SI included determining the presence/absence of PFAS at the facility boundary, checking for alternate sources, and measuring PFAS at/near receptors, if warranted. - The Department of Defense (DoD) has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based screening levels (SLs) for soil and groundwater. Programmatically, the SLs used were established in a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), dated 6 July 2022, and apply to five compounds: PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA. The previous programmatic SLs established by the 15 September 2021 memo that only applied to PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS have been replaced. o If the maximum concentration for sampled media were to exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the AOI would proceed to the next phase under CERCLA, which is the Remedial Investigation (RI). SI Summary of Approach (Slides 15-16): - The approach the SI was discussed, which included 10 soil borings and the installation of 7 permanent monitoring wells within or downgradient of potential source areas for grab groundwater samples. o Soil samples were collected via hollow stem auger (HSA) rig at AOI01-01, EJG-MW006, and EJG-MW001, in accordance with the SI QAPP Addendum. Due to heaving sands in EJG MW001, the HSA rig was replaced with a sonic drill rig for the installation of EJG- MW001 and the remaining boring locations (EJG-MW002 to EJG-MW005 and EJG- MW007).  Soil samples were collected from each location: surface, above water table, and at mid-point, at 7 locations FINAL ARNG PA/SI 4 27 July 2023  Only surface and shallow subsurface samples were taken at AOI01-01, which was drilled to the approximate depth of the dry well (8 feet bgs).  Only surface soil samples were taken at AOI-1-01 and AOI03-02 in the vicinity of the dumpster fire. o In total, 25 soil samples from 10 locations (soil boring or hand auger), 7 grab groundwater samples from 7 permanent well locations, and 21 quality assurance samples were collected. - Ms. Dellinger displayed a figure showing the SI sampling locations, and noted AOIs are shaded with the pink color, soil boring locations that were converted to permanent monitoring wells are shown by the blue circles, the one soil boring location which was not converted to a permanent well is shown by the red circle, and the hand auger surface soil locations are shown by the yellow squares. SI Summary of Findings (Slides 17-29): - Depths to water range from 26.1 to 60.16 feet bgs. - AOI 1- North Hangar o PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil, and PFOS detected above its SL with a maximum concentration of 53.6 µg/kg. o PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater with a PFOS exceedance of 5.30 ng/L. - AOI 2 – Hangar/Ramp Area o PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were all detected in the soil. PFOS was detected above its SL, with a maximum concentration of 77.3 J µg/kg. o PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater. PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS exceeded their respective SLs with maximum concentrations of 7.31, 698, and 124 ng/L, respectively. - AOI 3 – Armory Dumpster Fire o PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in soil and groundwater below their respective SLs. - A CSM chart was depicted for each AOI. o For AOI1 and AOI 2:  The pathways for inhalation of dust, ingestion of surface soil, and ingestion of shallow groundwater are potentially complete with exceedance of SLs for site workers, construction workers, and recreational users.  Ingestion of surface water and sediment is potentially complete with exceedance of SLs for site workers, construction workers, residents, and recreational users.  The pathway for subsurface soil ingestion is marked potentially complete for construction workers (no exceedance of SLs).  The pathway for groundwater is potentially complete with exceedance of SLs for site workers, off-facility residents, and trespassers or downgradient recreational users. o For AOI3:  The pathways and receptors are the same as AOI 1 and AOI 2 except there were no exceedances of SLs. - It was recommended that AOI 1 and AOI 2 proceed to RI. No Further Action was Recommended for AOI3. o In the summary of findings chart that was displayed, it is noted that AOI 1 and 2 were detected with exceedances in the soil, groundwater within the facility boundary, and groundwater at the source area. Relative Risk Site Evaluation (RRSE) (Slide 30-33): - Mr. Joe Davis (ARNG G-9) presented the DoD’s approach for using the RRSE methodology to sequence environmental restoration work. The goal is to evaluate the magnitude of detections and associated risks at each facility, so that RI funding can be prioritized. - The RRSE method is not meant to be a risk assessment, but it uses a screening tool with SI data to determine relative risk. - The RRSE method was presented with respect to E.J. Garn SI results to solicit stakeholder feedback. - Three evaluation factors were presented: FINAL ARNG PA/SI 5 27 July 2023 o The Contaminant Hazard Factor (CHF) was scored based on the ratio of maximum concentration to SL. o The Migration Pathway Factor (MPF) was determined based on the likelihood of contamination migrating to a point of exposure. o The Receptor Factor (RF) was determined based on the potential receptor exposure within 4-miles. - Mr. Davis discussed each AOI’s RRSE with respect to both soil and groundwater. AOI 1 and 2 soils had a medium relative risk evaluation (RRE) and groundwater a high RRE. AOI 3 soil had a low RRE and a medium groundwater RRE. - Overall AOI ratings scored high for the facility, and the score was primarily driven by groundwater and the potential receptor exposure for off-facility drinking water. - About one-third of ARNG facilities scored high, so ARNG G-9 also factored in other considerations, such as how close drinking water receptors were to the facilities. Based on the rating for E.J. Garn AASF, the ARNG G-9 is hoping to award funding for the RI at this facility later this year. Next Steps (Slide 34): - Based on the results of the SI, initiate next steps, Remedial Investigation, under CERCLA is recommended at E.J. Garn for AOI 1 and 2. - Additionally, the SI Report is estimated to be finalized August 2023 after comments from UDEQ are addressed in the report. Open Discussion (Slide 35): - Mr. Craig Barnitz (UDEQ) asked how the ARNG manages frequent changes to EPA policy, specifically regarding updates to SLs or the use analytical methods (particularly if EPA method 1633). Mr. Davis responded that ARNG must make decisions based on OSD guidance at the time. OSD has recently communicated that yearly updates are anticipated. The program under which these SIs were performed has/is reevaluating prior data against updated SLs as they’re released, and the determinations for future action revised accordingly. Additionally, the program is working to adopt Method 1633 for use in the RIs; however, the need for other screening level methods still exists in order to execute timely and informed RIs. DoD is working towards allowing both screening analytical methods and Method 1633, but only 1633 will be used as “definitive” data for risk evaluation. - Mr. Davis discussed ARNG RI funding for these facilities, and stated they plan to include the E.J. Garn AASF and SATF facilities to the forthcoming contract to be award by the end of FY23 for work to begin in the coming year. Actual funding received will determine if one or both facilities are awarded. If funding is less than expected, only one site will move forward to RI in the next year. All three sites will be moved over to Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) and will be paid for by those accounts. - Mr. Erik Sewell (UTARNG) provided clarification to regarding the funding mechanisms for regulator involvement. Costs for regulatory review have thus far been handled through interagency service agreements (ISA); however, the new contract funding will include Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) funding for regulatory review. Mr. Davis noted that the intent is to issue in- cycle, which is more easily managed; however, it’s possible an out-of-cycle request may be required depending on when funding becomes available. - Ms. Dellinger thanked the participants for attending and closed out the meeting. FINAL ARNG PA/SI 6 27 July 2023 Attachment A – TPP 3 Briefing Slides 1 July 2023 E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah Site Inspection Utah Army National Guard Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meeting 3 Site Inspection (SI) for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), and Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at Army National Guard (ARNG) Installations, Nationwide 27 July 2023 2 July 2023 Agenda •Introductions •Safety Moment •TPP Meeting Goals •ARNG Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Process Overview •Preliminary Assessment (PA) Overview •SI Results •Relative Risk Site Evaluation (RRSE) •Next Steps •Questions and Open Discussion 3 July 2023 Introductions ARNG G-9 •Jennifer Solomon, PFAS Program Manager •Bonnie Packer, Nationwide Technical Lead •Joe Davis, ARNG Project Manager U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) •Emily Cline, Nationwide Program Manager •Briana Niestrom, Project Manager, Seattle District •Taylor Roberts, Project Manager, Seattle District •Kiera Hearn, Technical Team •Ted Repasky, Technical Team Utah Army National Guard (UTARNG) •Erik Sewell, Environmental Manager AECOM Technical Services, Inc. •Matt Costakis, SI Senior Lead •Amanda Grapes Dellinger, SI Task Manager •Cameron Clarke, Meeting Minutes Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Division of Environmental Response and Remediation (DERR) •Hans Millican, Division Manager •Wes Sandlin, Program Manager •Hannah Tremble-Marty (E.J. Garn Project Manager) •Maureen Petit (SATF Project Manager) •Craig Barnitz (Building 835 Project Manager) Adjacent Airports •Patty Nelis, Environmental Programs Manager, SLC International Airport •Shawn Wiest, SLC Department of Airports 4 July 2023 Safety Moment Cleaning Headlights Importance of Clean Headlights •Foggy headlights prevent the proper amount of light from reaching the road. •Clean headlights provide greater clarity and visibility on the roadway, especially at night and during poor weather. How to Clean Headlights •Headlights can be cleaned as often as every two weeks. •Use a 2:1 mixture of baking soda to vinegar and a clean cloth. •Clean both the inside and outside the headlights, rinse with water, and wipe dry. 5 July 2023 Meeting Goals TPP 1/2 Review •Provide an overview of ARNG PA/SI Program •Define objectives for SI data collection •Encourage stakeholder involvement •Review project schedule •Capture action items •Discuss proposed SI approach TPP 3 •ARNG CERCLA program overview •Revisit the PA findings •Present SI Results and revised conceptual site model (CSM) •Resolve comments/concerns and gain concurrence on presentation of findings in Draft Final SI Report •Discuss future actions at the site 6 July 2023 ARNG PA/SI Overview Work Phases Preliminary Assessment *Site Inspection Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Proposed Plan Decision Document Remedial Design Remedial Action Notes: *Current stage of activity • Follows the CERCLA Process • An interim removal action can be conducted or a No Further Action determination can be made at any phase 7 July 2023 ARNG CERCLA Status Overview •PA for E.J. Garn was completed by ARNG 31 July, 2020 •SI fieldwork completed in October and November 2021 •Draft Final SI Report provided to UDEQ 30 May, 2023; results presented in today’s TPP 3 8 July 2023 PA – Summary of Findings •Eight potential per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) release areas grouped into three Areas of Interest (AOIs) –During development of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), three additional aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) storage/use areas were identified as potential PFAS release areas and captured within the three AOIs. •PFAS releases attributed to: –AFFF-equipped fire suppression system releases –Storage and washing of AFFF-equipped firetruck –Fire training activities –AFFF storage –Emergency response of dumpster fire 9 July 2023 PA – Summary of Findings •AOI 1 – North Hangar –North Hangar equipped with a fire suppression system with no known releases –Firetruck Bay housed an AFFF-equipped fire truck •Firetruck washed in the bay or in the wash down area to the south •Drainage to the oil-water separator and then to the sanitary sewer •North Hangar drains were found to have discharged to the former dry well •AOI 2 – Hangar/Ramp Area –South Hangar and Cold Storage Building are equipped with fire suppression systems •1991 to 2016: releases of AFFF and foam left to evaporate post-release –1998: Tri-Max 30-gallon unit discharged –1995 to 1999: fire training activities –1989: AFFF-required emergency response activities –1989 to 2009: storage of 5-gallon 3% AFFF containers •AOI 3 – Armory Dumpster Fire –1997: dumpster fire put out using unknown amount of AFFF –Surface drainage flow to catch basin to the south 10 July 2023 PA – Summary of Findings 11 July 2023 CSM – Groundwater Features 12 July 2023 CSM – Surface Water Features 13 July 2023 SI – Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) •Primary SI DQOs –Confirm the presence/absence of a release at a potential source area –Gather data for refinement of conceptual site model (CSM): •Source-Pathway-Receptor relationships •Extended SI DQOs –Determine the presence/absence at facility boundary –Check for alternate sources –Measure PFAS at/near receptor, if warranted 14 July 2023 SI – Screening Levels •Results compared to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Screening Levels (SLs) for soil and groundwater –Memorandum from the OSD dated 6 July 2022 –SLs for groundwater based on direct ingestion –SLs for soil based on incidental ingestion; 0-2 ft compared to Residential SL, 2-15 ft compared to Industrial SL, >15 ft not compared to either SL •AOIs exceeding OSD SLs will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA (i.e., Remedial Investigation) Analyteb Residential (Soil) (µg/kg)a 0-2 feet bgs Industrial/ Commercial Composite Worker (Soil) (µg/kg)a 2-15 feet bgs Tap Water (Groundwater) (ng/L)a PFOA 19 250 6 PFOS 13 160 4 PFBS 1,900 25,000 601 PFHxS 130 1,600 39 PFNA 19 250 6 15 July 2023 SI – Summary of Approach •SI Approach •Sonic and Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) soil borings •Three soil samples from each boring location: surface soil (0 - 2 ft bgs), subsurface ~2 feet above groundwater table, and a mid-point between surface and groundwater table •Permanent monitoring wells installed within or downgradient of potential source areas –Supplemental surface soil samples •Total Samples –25 soil grab samples from 10 boring locations –7 grab groundwater samples from 7 permanent well locations –21 quality assurance (QA) samples 16 July 2023 SI – Summary of Approach SI Investigation Locations 17 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings Groundwater Contours 18 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings •AOI 1 – North Hangar –PFOA , PFOS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil. –PFOS exceeded the SL in surface soil at one location. –PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater. –PFOS exceeded the SL in groundwater at one location. •AOI 2 – Hangar/Ramp Area –PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA were detected in soil. –PFOS exceeded the SL in surface soil at one location. –PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFHxS were detected in groundwater. –PFOA and PFHxS exceeded the SLs in groundwater at two locations, and PFOS exceeded the SL in groundwater at one location. •AOI 3 – Armory Dumpster Fire –PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in soil at a concentration lower than the soil SLs. –PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below their respective groundwater SLs. 19 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFOA in Soil ND 0.108J 0.205J 0.753J 0.118J 0.136J 4.98 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.69 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.139J ND ND 20 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFOS in Soil .212J 0.254J 0.276J 0.599J 2.23 1.15 4.55 77.3J 1.11 0.447J 53.6 ND 0.220J 0.225J 0.161J 0.130J 0.213J 0.226J ND 7.60 0.070J ND ND ND 0.093J 0.256J 0.704J ND ND 21 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFBS in Soil ND ND ND 0.023J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.063J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 22 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFHxS in Soil [insert PFHxS results figure with databoxes like for PFOA and PFOS] 0.232J 0.057J 1.84 4.20J+ 0.192J ND 0.528J ND ND ND 0.147J 0.054J 0.281J 0.082J ND 0.183J ND ND ND ND 0.095J 0.212J ND ND ND 23 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFNA in Soil 0.032J 0.103J 0.044J 0.135J 0.038J 0.072J 1.97 ND 0.032J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.172J ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 24 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in Groundwater 1.52J 1.37J 2.42J 7.31 1.33J 0.968J 1.30J 3.30J 3.86J 4.53 12.8 3.55J 0.985J 2.62J 0.910J 1.54J 5.30 698 1.60J 0.786J 0.890J 25 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings PFHxS and PFNA in Groundwater 82.8 144 140 149 128 1.99 40.1 103 ND 28.6 7.98 7.58 124 2.31J ND 5.49 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 26 July 2023 SI – CSM 27 July 2023 SI – CSM 28 July 2023 SI – CSM 29 July 2023 SI – Summary of Findings 30 July 2023 SI – Relative Risk Site Evaluation (RRSE) 31 July 2023 SI – RRSE 32 July 2023 SI – RRSE 33 July 2023 SI – RRSE 34 July 2023 Next Steps •Finalize SI Report –Address comments from UDEQ –Estimated August 2023 date for final SI report submittal •Initiate next step in CERCLA process: Remedial Investigation at AOI 1 and AOI 2 –No Further Action at AOI 3 35 July 2023 Open Discussion •[Add some photos from the SI if there are good ones] 36 July 2023 Acronyms •µg/Kg – micrograms per kilogram •AFFF – aqueous film forming foam •AOI – area of interest •ARNG – Army National Guard •bgs – below ground surface •CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act •CSM – conceptual site model •DERR – Division of Environmental Response and Remediation •DQO – data quality objective •ft – feet •HFPO-DA – hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid •HSA – Hollow Stem Auger •ng/L – nanograms per liter •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 •QAPP – Quality Assurance Project Plan •RRSE – Relative Risk Site Evaluation •SI – Site Inspection •SL – screening level •TPP – Technical Project Planning •UDEQ – Utah Department of Environmental Quality •USACE – U.S. Army Corp of Engineers •UTANG – Utah Air National Guard •UTARNG – Utah Army National Guard Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix E Boring Logs and Well Construction Forms Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Cleared with hand auger to depth. 4627.0 4622.0 AU AU AU AU AU SS 14-21-13 (34) 100 100 100 100 100 100 CLAYEY SILT, moist, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), low plascity, soft, with trace gravel. CLAYEY SILT, slightly moist, pale brown, low plasticity, very stiff. Bottom of borehole at 8.0 feet. 0.0 5.0 ML ML AOI01-01-SB-00-02 AOI01-01-SB-06-08 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 11/28/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING N/A NORTHING N/A HOLE SIZE 7 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4627 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT N/A DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT TIME OF SAMPLING --- SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 BORING NUMBER AOI01-01 TOTAL DEPTH 8 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 1AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME AOI01-01 BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4613.3 4612.8 4610.3 4607.3 4600.3 4594.3 AU AU AU AU AU SS SS SS Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 33 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 35 ft bgs 5-4-2 (6) 17-14-14 (28) 10-5-7 (12) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 TOPSOIL and grass. CLAYEY SILT, moist, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, soft, with 10% gravel. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, dry, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), nonplastic, stiff, with 40% gravel, 10% cobbles and mixture of sand and silt. CLAYEY SILT, moist, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), low plasticity, soft. GRAVELLY SILT, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), nonplastic, stiff, with 40% gravel up to 1.5-inches in diameter. SANDY SILT, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), nonplastic, moderately stiff. 0.0 0.5 3.0 6.0 13.0 19.0 ML GM MH ML SM EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 EJG-MW001-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 10/26/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1364275.042 NORTHING 14751528.206 HOLE SIZE 7 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4613.29 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger & Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 36.00 ft / Elev 4577.29 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 35.03 ft / Elev 4578.26 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW001 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW001 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4594.3 4591.3 4581.3 SS SS SS SS SS Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 35 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 33 ft bgs Bottom: 45 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 35 ft bgs Bottom: 45 ft bgs 14-19-16 (35) 13-16-15 (31) 11-10-11 (21) 14-15-12 (27) 12-8-6 (14) 50 100 100 80 100 SANDY SILT, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), nonplastic, moderately stiff. (continued) SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), nonplastic, very stiff, with trace white, black, and yellowish brown gravel up to 1-inch in diameter. SILTY GRAVEL, wet, pale brown (10YR 6/3), nonplastic, loose. 19.0 22.0 32.0 SM GM GM EJG-MW001-SB-34-36 EJG-MW001-110321 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW001 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW001 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4581.3 C Backfill Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 45 ft bgs Bottom: 50 ft bgs 100 SILTY GRAVEL, wet, pale brown (10YR 6/3), nonplastic, loose. (continued) Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feet. 32.0GM SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 45 50 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW001 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 3 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW001 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4609.4 4604.4 4599.4 4596.4 4594.4 4591.4 4590.4 AU AU AU AU AU C C C Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 58 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 60 ft bgs 100 100 100 100 100 LEAN CLAY, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), medium plasticity, soft, with 10% gravel. SILTY LEAN CLAY, dark gray (10YR 4/1), low plasticity, stiff, with white mottling from 7-8 feet bgs. LEAN CLAY, brown (10YR 4/3), low plasticity, hard. SANDY SILT, pale brown (10YR 6/3), low plasticity, very stiff, with 5% white gravel approx. 1 to 2-inches in diameter ROCK FLOUR sampled as GRAVELLY SILT, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), with 50% subrounded white gravel approx. 1 to 2-inches in diameter. SILTY SAND, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), fine to medium-grained, with 10% subangular white gravel. ROCK FLOUR sampled as SILT, with 20% subangular white gravel. 0.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 15.0 18.0 19.0 CL CL CL ML ML SM ML EJG-MW002-SB-00-02 EJG-MW002-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 11/2/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1364625.387 NORTHING 14750332.116 HOLE SIZE 6 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4609.35 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 61.00 ft / Elev 4548.35 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 59.10 ft / Elev 4550.25 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW002 TOTAL DEPTH 70 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW002 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4590.4 4588.9 4586.4 4584.4 4581.9 4580.4 4578.9 4574.4 4571.4 4569.4 C C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 60 ft bgs SILTY SAND, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, hard, with 20% subrounded gravel. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), subrounded, loose, with nonplastic silt. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, hard, with 20% subrounded gravel. SANDY SILT, pale brown (10YR 6/3), nonplastic, loose, with subrounded gravel approx. 1 to 3-inches in diameter. SANDY SILT, yellowish brown (10YR 5/6), nonplastic, hard, with fine-grained sand. ROCK FLOUR sampled as SILT, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), low plasticity, loose. Same as above (SAA), with 40% angular gravel (GRAVELLY SILT) and cobbles. GRAVEL, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), angular. CLAYEY SAND, moist, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. 19.0 20.5 23.0 25.0 27.5 29.0 30.5 35.0 38.0 40.0 ML SM GM SM ML SM ML GW SC (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW002 TOTAL DEPTH 70 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 5 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW002 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4569.4 4563.9 4552.4 4548.4 4544.4 C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 60 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 58 ft bgs Bottom: 70 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 60 ft bgs Bottom: 70 ft bgs CLAYEY SAND, moist, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. (continued) SAA with 10% subrounded gravel, 1 to 2-inches in diameter. CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, moist, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), fine- to medium-grained, soft, with low plasticity clay and 20% subrounded gravel. Becomes wet. 40.0 45.5 57.0 61.0 65.0 SC GC EJG-MW002-SB-59-61 EJG-MW002-110921 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 45 50 55 60 65 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW002 TOTAL DEPTH 70 FT BGS PAGE 3 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW002 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4544.4 C Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 60 ft bgs Bottom: 70 ft bgs Grades into gravel-sand-clay mixture: CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, with 60% subrounded gravel. (continued) Bottom of borehole at 70.0 feet. 65.0GC SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 70 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW002 TOTAL DEPTH 70 FT BGS PAGE 4 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW002 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4612.4 4611.9 4607.4 4602.4 AU AU AU AU AU C C C Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 33 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 35 ft bgs 100 100 100 100 100 Grass. LEAN CLAY, moist, very dark brown (10YR 2/2), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. SANDY LEAN CLAY, moist, brown (10YR 4/3), medium plasticity, soft, with fine-grained sand. CLAYEY SAND, moist, brown (10YR 5/3), with soft, medium plasticity clay. 0.0 0.5 5.0 10.0 CL CL SC EJG-MW003-SB-00-02 EJG-MW003-SB-13-14 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 11/8/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1364537.168 NORTHING 14751107.974 HOLE SIZE 6 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4612.44 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 37.00 ft / Elev 4575.44 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 41.50 ft / Elev 4570.94 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW003 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW003 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4602.4 4585.4 4583.4 4582.4 4575.4 C C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 35 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 33 ft bgs Bottom: 45 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 35 ft bgs Bottom: 45 ft bgs CLAYEY SAND, moist, brown (10YR 5/3), with soft, medium plasticity clay. (continued) WELL-GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL, dry, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), loose, with gravel up to 1-inch in diameter. SILTY LEAN CLAY, dry, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, soft, with trace sand. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, moist, brown (10YR 5/3), low plasticity, moderately stiff, with 20% subangular gravel. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, moist, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), with 20% nonplastic fines (silt). 10.0 27.0 29.0 30.0 37.0 SC SW CL SM GM EJG-MW003-SB-35-37 EJG-MW003-111021 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW003 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW003 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4575.4 4566.9 C Backfill Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 45 ft bgs Bottom: 50 ft bgs SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, moist, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), with 20% nonplastic fines (silt). (continued) CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, moist, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), stiff, with low plasticity clay and 20% subangular gravel. Bottom of borehole at 50.0 feet. 37.0 45.5 GM SC SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 45 50 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW003 TOTAL DEPTH 50 FT BGS PAGE 3 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW003 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4631.3 4630.8 4628.3 4626.3 4621.3 4618.3 AU AU AU AU AU C C Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 39 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 41 ft bgs 100 100 100 100 100 Grass. LEAN CLAY, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), well-graded, subrounded, with nonplastic fines (silt). Becomes stiff. CLAYEY SAND, dry, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), moderately stiff, with low plasticity clay. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), well-graded, subrounded, with nonplastic fines (silt). 0.0 0.5 3.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 CL GM SC GM EJG-MW004-SB-00-02 EJG-MW004-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/25/21 COMPLETED 11/8/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1363371.945 NORTHING 14751707.264 HOLE SIZE 6 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4631.3 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 41.00 ft / Elev 4590.30 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 33.40 ft / Elev 4597.90 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW004 TOTAL DEPTH 60 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW004 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4618.3 4601.3 C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 41 ft bgs SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), well-graded, subrounded, with nonplastic fines (silt). (continued) LEAN CLAY, moist, pale brown (10YR 6/3), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. 13.0 30.0 GM CL (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW004 TOTAL DEPTH 60 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW004 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4601.3 4591.3 4590.3 4586.3 4585.8 4584.3 C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 41 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 39 ft bgs Bottom: 60 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 41 ft bgs Bottom: 51 ft bgs LEAN CLAY, moist, pale brown (10YR 6/3), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. (continued) LEAN CLAY, moist, brown (10YR 5/3), low plasticity, soft. Becomes wet. Becomes dry. Becomes moist. LEAN CLAY, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), medium plasticity, soft. 30.0 40.0 41.0 45.0 45.5 47.0 CL CL CL EJG-MW004-SB-39-41 EJG-MW004-11122021 (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW004 TOTAL DEPTH 60 FT BGS PAGE 3 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW004 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4584.3 4581.3 4576.3 C C LEAN CLAY, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), medium plasticity, soft. (continued) Becomes very moist and moderately stiff. Becomes stiff. Bottom of borehole at 60.0 feet. 47.0 50.0 55.0 CL SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 50.0 52.5 55.0 57.5 60.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW004 TOTAL DEPTH 60 FT BGS PAGE 4 OF 4AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW004 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4620.0 4618.5 4610.0 4607.0 4602.5 AU AU AU AU AU C C C Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 28 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 28 ft bgs 100 100 100 100 100 Asphalt. FILL sampled as CLAY AND SAND, very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND, wet, brown (10YR 5/3), fine- to coarse-grained, loose, subangular. SILTY LEAN CLAY, moist, gray (10YR 6/1), low to medium plasticity, moderately stiff. SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, (slightly) moist, brown (10YR 5/3), low plasticity, moderately stiff, with 30% sand and 20% subangular gravel. 0.0 1.5 10.0 13.0 17.5 CL- ML GM CL- ML ML EJG-MW005-SB-00-02 EJG-MW005-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 11/1/21 COMPLETED 11/2/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1364061.429 NORTHING 14751735.19 HOLE SIZE 6 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4619.95 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 27.50 ft / Elev 4592.45 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 26.08 ft / Elev 4593.87 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW005 TOTAL DEPTH 40 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 2AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW005 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4602.5 4597.0 4595.0 4592.0 4590.5 4590.0 4585.0 4583.0 4581.2 C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 28 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 28 ft bgs Bottom: 40 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 28 ft bgs Bottom: 38 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 38 ft bgs Bottom: 40 ft bgs SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, (slightly) moist, brown (10YR 5/3), low plasticity, moderately stiff, with 30% sand and 20% subangular gravel. (continued) POORLY GRADED GRAVEL, dry, dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3), fine- to coarse-grained, rounded. CLAYEY SILT, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), low plasticity, with 10% subangular fine- to coarse-grained gravel (white, brown, and gray). Wet from 28.0-28.5 ft bgs. Grading to moist. CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, wet, pale brown (10YR 6/3), fine- to coarse-grained gravel (ranging from 0.2 to 2-inches diameter), subangular, with 50% low plasticity and moderately stiff clay. Changes to SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, pale brown (10YR 6/3), with 80% medium-grained sand and silt and 20% gravel. Grades back into CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, as above. SANDY SILT, moist, pale brown (10YR 6/3), medium plasticity, moderately stiff, with 10% subangular gravel. Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet. 17.5 23.0 25.0 28.0 29.5 30.0 35.0 37.0 38.8 ML GP ML GC SM GC ML EJG-MW005-SB-25-27 EJG-MW005-SB-110421 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW005 TOTAL DEPTH 40 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 2AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW005 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4624.3 4622.8 4619.3 4614.3 4611.3 AU AU AU AU AU SS SS Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 29 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 31 ft bgs 15-12-8 (20) 10-9-9 (18) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Asphalt. SANDY SILT, dry, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), with trace gravel. GRAVELLY SILT TO SILTY GRAVEL, very dark gray (10YR 3/1), low plasticity, very stiff, with 50% subangular gravel (up to 1-inch in diameter). SILT, (slightly) moist, brown (10YR 5/3), medium plasticity, stiff. SANDY SILT, dry, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, moderately stiff, with 10% fine-grained gravel. 0.0 1.5 5.0 10.0 13.0 ML ML ML ML EJG-MW006-SB-00-02 EJG-MW006-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 10/27/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1363839.743 NORTHING 14751910.26 HOLE SIZE 7 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4624.31 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT N/A DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING 35.00 ft / Elev 4589.31 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 33.73 ft / Elev 4590.58 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW006 TOTAL DEPTH 41 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW006 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4611.3 4604.3 4602.3 4596.3 SS SS SS Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 0.5 ft bgs Bottom: 31 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 29 ft bgs Bottom: 41 ft bgs 6-6-9 (15) 20-21-20 (41) 21-7-10 (17) 100 100 100 SANDY SILT, dry, dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), low plasticity, moderately stiff, with 10% fine-grained gravel. (continued) GRAVELLY SILT to SILTY GRAVEL, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), nonplastic, very stiff, with 50% subangular gravel. CLAYEY SILT, dry, brown (10YR 5/3), medium plasticity, moderately stiff. SILTY CLAY, moist, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. 13.0 20.0 22.0 28.0 ML ML CL- ML CL- ML (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW006 TOTAL DEPTH 41 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW006 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4. Hole collapsed to 37.5 feet bgs on 10/26/2021 and was redrilled to 41 feet bgs on 10/27/2021. Refusal at 41 feet bgs. 4596.3 4589.3 SS SS SS Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 31 ft bgs Bottom: 41 ft bgs 8-4-4 (8) 2-5-14 (19) 40 30 500 SILTY CLAY, moist, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. (continued) CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND, wet, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), subangular, with nonplastic, moderately stiff fines (clay). Bottom of borehole at 41.0 feet. 28.0 35.0 CL- ML GC EJG-MW006-SB-33-35 EJG-MW006-110321 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW006 TOTAL DEPTH 41 FT BGS PAGE 3 OF 3AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW006 WELL DIAGRAM BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 4613.2 4612.7 4606.2 4602.4 4598.4 AU AU AU AU AU C C C Annular Seal Type: Bentonite Medium Chip Top: 2 ft bgs Bottom: 28 ft bgs Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 30 ft bgs 100 100 100 100 100 Grass. CLAYEY SAND, wet, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. Becomes moist, color changes to dark gray (10YR 4/1). SANDY CLAY WITH GRAVEL, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), medium plasticity, stiff, with 40% subangular gravel. WELL-GRADED SAND, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), medium-grained, nonplastic, stiff, with 5% gravel. 0.0 0.5 7.0 10.8 14.8 SC CL SW EJG-MW007-SB-00-02 EJG-MW007-SB-13-15 GROUND WATER LEVELS: DATE STARTED 10/26/21 COMPLETED 11/8/21 LOGGED BY A. Grapes Dellinger CHECKED BY E. Belanger EASTING 1364247.699 NORTHING 14751215.906 HOLE SIZE 6 inchesGROUND ELEVATION 4613.16 ftDRILLING CONTRACTOR Cascade DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME75 / 100C DRILLING METHOD Roto Sonic AT TIME OF DRILLING 30.00 ft / Elev 4583.16 ft AT TIME OF SAMPLING 33.90 ft / Elev 4579.26 ft (Continued Next Page) SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW007 TOTAL DEPTH 40 FT BGS PAGE 1 OF 2AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW007 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A Notes: 1. Headspace screening values represent total volatile organic vapors (referenced to an isobutylene standard) measured with a Photoionization Detector (PID) with 10.6 eV lamp. 2. Coordinates and elevation data in NAVD88 for vertical datum in US survey feet and NAD83 UTM Zone 12N for horizontal datum in feet. 3. Top 5 Feet cleared with hand auger. 4598.4 4590.7 4583.7 4583.2 4575.2 4573.7 C C C C Well Casing Type: Schedule 40 PVC Diameter: 2 in Top: 1 ft bgs Bottom: 30 ft bgs Filter Pack Type: #10/20 Filter Sand Top: 28 ft bgs Bottom: 40 ft bgs Well Screen Type: Schedule 40 PVC Slot Size: 0.01 in Top: 30 ft bgs Bottom: 40 ft bgs WELL-GRADED SAND, yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), medium-grained, nonplastic, stiff, with 5% gravel. (continued) CLAYEY SAND, moist, grayish brown (10YR 5/2), medium plasticity, soft. Changes to CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND. SANDY SILT, wet, light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4), medium plasticity, soft, with 10% fines. SANDY SILT, moist, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2), low plasticity, hard. Becomes dry. Bottom of borehole at 40.0 feet. 14.8 22.5 29.5 30.0 38.0 39.5 SW SC GC ML ML EJG-MW007-SB-27-29 EJG-MW007-111021 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R DE P T H (f t ) 20 25 30 35 40 WELL NUMBER EJG-MW007 TOTAL DEPTH 40 FT BGS PAGE 2 OF 2AECOM AR N G S M A R T L O G 8 . 5 X 1 1 _ V 2 - - 3 / 2 9 / 2 2 1 4 : 3 6 - C : \ U S E R S \ E M M A . B E L A N G E R \ D O C U M E N T S \ A R N G P F A S \ S I S \ U T \ E J G A R N _ B O R I N G L O G S . G P J CLIENT ARNG, USACE Baltimore District PROJECT NUMBER 60552172 PROJECT NAME EJ Garn Aviation Complex, Utah SITE NAME EJG-MW007 WELL DIAGRAM RE C O V E R Y % GR A P H I C LO G MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U. S . C . S . EN V I R O N M E N T A L DA T A 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI- West Jordan AASF EJ Garn 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF 60552172.0006-SI 23-SI-West Jordan AASF Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix F Analytical Results Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Appendix F Laboratory Data Surface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS - < 0.195 0.977 U 4.19 0.209 1.04 4.79 0.204 1.02 < 0.223 1.12 U < 0.217 1.08 U < 0.191 0.954 U < 0.202 1.01 U 8:2 FTS - < 0.098 0.977 U 18.4 0.104 1.04 21.7 0.102 1.02 < 0.112 1.12 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ 0.084 0.095 0.954 J < 0.101 1.01 U NEtFOSAA - < 0.098 0.977 U < 0.104 1.04 U < 0.102 1.02 U < 0.112 1.12 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ 0.171 0.095 0.954 J < 0.101 1.01 U NMeFOSAA - < 0.049 0.977 U < 0.052 1.04 U < 0.051 1.02 U < 0.056 1.12 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.048 0.954 UJ < 0.051 1.01 U PFBA - 0.090 0.098 0.977 J 0.477 0.104 1.04 J 0.484 0.102 1.02 J < 0.112 1.12 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ 0.076 0.095 0.954 J 0.070 0.101 1.01 J PFBS 1900 < 0.049 0.977 U < 0.052 1.04 U < 0.051 1.02 U < 0.056 1.12 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ 0.023 0.048 0.954 J < 0.051 1.01 U PFDA - < 0.098 0.977 U 0.314 0.104 1.04 J 0.398 0.102 1.02 J < 0.112 1.12 U 0.149 0.108 1.08 J 0.348 0.095 0.954 J < 0.101 1.01 U PFDoA - < 0.049 0.977 U < 0.052 1.04 U < 0.051 1.02 U < 0.056 1.12 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ 0.112 0.048 0.954 J < 0.051 1.01 U PFHpA - 0.083 0.049 0.977 J 1.27 0.052 1.04 1.45 0.051 1.02 0.037 0.056 1.12 J 0.032 0.054 1.08 J 0.075 0.048 0.954 J 0.049 0.051 1.01 J PFHxA - 0.339 0.049 0.977 J 1.29 0.052 1.04 1.52 0.051 1.02 0.031 0.056 1.12 J 0.156 0.054 1.08 J 0.606 0.048 0.954 J 0.038 0.051 1.01 J PFHxS 130 1.84 0.098 0.977 0.528 0.104 1.04 J 0.448 0.102 1.02 J 0.057 0.112 1.12 J 2.13 0.108 1.08 J+ 4.20 0.095 0.954 J+ 0.192 0.101 1.01 J PFNA 19 0.044 0.049 0.977 J 1.97 0.052 1.04 1.87 0.051 1.02 0.103 0.056 1.12 J 0.069 0.054 1.08 J 0.135 0.048 0.954 J 0.038 0.051 1.01 J PFOA 19 0.205 0.195 0.977 J 3.80 0.209 1.04 4.98 0.204 1.02 0.108 0.223 1.12 J 0.152 0.217 1.08 J 0.753 0.191 0.954 J 0.118 0.202 1.01 J PFOS 13 4.55 0.195 0.977 53.6 2.09 10.4 51.2 2.04 10.2 1.15 0.223 1.12 23.8 0.217 1.08 J 77.3 1.91 9.54 J 1.11 0.202 1.01 PFPeA - 0.121 0.049 0.977 J 1.77 0.052 1.04 1.77 0.051 1.02 0.050 0.056 1.12 J 0.028 0.054 1.08 J 0.088 0.048 0.954 J 0.036 0.051 1.01 J PFTeDA - < 0.049 0.977 U < 0.052 1.04 U < 0.051 1.02 U < 0.056 1.12 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ 0.049 0.048 0.954 J < 0.051 1.01 U PFTrDA - < 0.098 0.977 U < 0.104 1.04 U < 0.102 1.02 U < 0.112 1.12 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ 0.031 0.095 0.954 J < 0.101 1.01 U PFUnDA - < 0.049 0.977 U 0.031 0.052 1.04 J 0.058 0.051 1.02 J < 0.056 1.12 U 0.023 0.054 1.08 J 0.119 0.048 0.954 J < 0.051 1.01 U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid References NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFNA perfluorononanoic acid J = Estimated concentration PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest D duplicate DL detection llimit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram - not applicable < analyte not detected above the LOD Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth AOI01-01-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW006-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW006-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 0-2 ft Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI01 AOI02 EJG-MW001-SB-00-02-D 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW002-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW007-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW001-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft AECOM Appendix F-Soil (PFAS) Page 1 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data Surface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS - < 0.220 1.10 U < 0.237 1.18 U < 0.199 0.993 U < 0.203 1.01 U < 0.226 1.13 U 8:2 FTS - < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.118 1.18 U < 0.099 0.993 U < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.113 1.13 U NEtFOSAA - < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.118 1.18 U < 0.099 0.993 U < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.113 1.13 U NMeFOSAA - < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.059 1.18 U < 0.050 0.993 U < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.056 1.13 U PFBA - 0.059 0.110 1.10 J < 0.118 1.18 U 0.063 0.099 0.993 J 0.045 0.101 1.01 J 0.067 0.113 1.13 J PFBS 1900 < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.059 1.18 U < 0.050 0.993 U < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.056 1.13 U PFDA - < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.118 1.18 U 0.122 0.099 0.993 J < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.113 1.13 U PFDoA - < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.059 1.18 U 0.041 0.050 0.993 J < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.056 1.13 U PFHpA - 0.033 0.055 1.10 J < 0.059 1.18 U 0.040 0.050 0.993 J < 0.051 1.01 U 0.031 0.056 1.13 J PFHxA - 0.096 0.055 1.10 J < 0.059 1.18 U 0.040 0.050 0.993 J 0.025 0.051 1.01 J 0.032 0.056 1.13 J PFHxS 130 0.232 0.110 1.10 J < 0.118 1.18 U < 0.099 0.993 U < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.113 1.13 U PFNA 19 0.032 0.055 1.10 J < 0.059 1.18 U 0.072 0.050 0.993 J < 0.051 1.01 U 0.032 0.056 1.13 J PFOA 19 < 0.220 1.10 U < 0.237 1.18 U 0.136 0.199 0.993 J < 0.203 1.01 U < 0.226 1.13 U PFOS 13 2.23 0.220 1.10 < 0.237 1.18 U 0.447 0.199 0.993 J 0.225 0.203 1.01 J 0.220 0.226 1.13 J PFPeA - 0.053 0.055 1.10 J < 0.059 1.18 U 0.039 0.050 0.993 J < 0.051 1.01 U 0.026 0.056 1.13 J PFTeDA - < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.059 1.18 U < 0.050 0.993 U < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.056 1.13 U PFTrDA - < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.118 1.18 U < 0.099 0.993 U < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.113 1.13 U PFUnDA - < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.059 1.18 U 0.049 0.050 0.993 J < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.056 1.13 U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid References NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFNA perfluorononanoic acid J = Estimated concentration PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest D duplicate DL detection llimit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram - not applicable < analyte not detected above the LOD Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth EJG-MW003-SB-00-02 10/26/2021 0-2 ft Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI02 AOI03 AOI03-02-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW004-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft EJG-MW005-SB-00-02 11/01/2021 0-2 ft AOI03-01-SB-00-02 10/25/2021 0-2 ft AECOM Appendix F-Soil (PFAS) Page 2 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data Shallow Subsurface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS - < 0.203 1.01 U 3.95 0.207 1.03 < 0.228 1.14 U < 0.215 1.08 UJ < 0.216 1.08 U < 0.220 1.10 U < 0.247 1.23 U 8:2 FTS - < 0.101 1.01 U 0.799 0.103 1.03 J < 0.114 1.14 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ < 0.108 1.08 U < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.123 1.23 U NEtFOSAA - < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.103 1.03 U < 0.114 1.14 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ < 0.108 1.08 U < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.123 1.23 U NMeFOSAA - < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.052 1.03 U < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U PFBA - < 0.101 1.01 U 0.069 0.103 1.03 J < 0.114 1.14 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ < 0.108 1.08 U < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.123 1.23 U PFBS 25000 < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.052 1.03 U < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U 0.063 0.055 1.10 J < 0.062 1.23 U PFDA - < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.103 1.03 U < 0.114 1.14 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ < 0.108 1.08 U < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.123 1.23 U PFDoA - < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.052 1.03 U < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U PFHpA - < 0.051 1.01 U 0.886 0.052 1.03 J 0.280 0.057 1.14 J < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U PFHxA - 0.076 0.051 1.01 J 0.394 0.052 1.03 J < 0.057 1.14 U 0.035 0.054 1.08 J < 0.054 1.08 U 0.058 0.055 1.10 J < 0.062 1.23 U PFHxS 1600 0.281 0.101 1.01 J 0.183 0.103 1.03 J 0.054 0.114 1.14 J 0.082 0.108 1.08 J < 0.108 1.08 U 0.147 0.110 1.10 J < 0.123 1.23 U PFNA 250 < 0.051 1.01 U 0.172 0.052 1.03 J < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U PFOA 250 < 0.203 1.01 U 1.69 0.207 1.03 < 0.228 1.14 U < 0.215 1.08 UJ < 0.216 1.08 U < 0.220 1.10 U < 0.247 1.23 U PFOS 160 0.213 0.203 1.01 J 7.60 0.207 1.03 0.130 0.228 1.14 J 0.226 0.215 1.08 J < 0.216 1.08 U 0.161 0.220 1.10 J 0.070 0.247 1.23 J PFPeA - < 0.051 1.01 U 0.298 0.052 1.03 J < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U 0.035 0.055 1.10 J < 0.062 1.23 U PFTeDA - < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.052 1.03 U < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U PFTrDA - < 0.101 1.01 U < 0.103 1.03 U < 0.114 1.14 U < 0.108 1.08 UJ < 0.108 1.08 U < 0.110 1.10 U < 0.123 1.23 U PFUnDA - < 0.051 1.01 U < 0.052 1.03 U < 0.057 1.14 U < 0.054 1.08 UJ < 0.054 1.08 U < 0.055 1.10 U < 0.062 1.23 U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid References NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFNA perfluorononanoic acid J = Estimated concentration PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest D duplicate DL detection llimit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency µg/kg micrograms per kilogram - not applicable < analyte not detected above the LOD Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth AOI01-01-SB-06-08 10/26/2021 6-8 ft EJG-MW006-SB-13-15 10/26/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW007-SB-13-15 11/09/2021 13-15 ft Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental ingestion of contaminated soil. AOI01 AOI02 EJG-MW003-SB-13-15 11/04/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW005-SB-13-15 11/01/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW001-SB-13-15 10/28/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW002-SB-13-15 11/02/2021 13-15 ft AECOM Appendix F-Soil (PFAS) Page 1 of 1 Appendix F Laboratory Data Deep Subsurface Soil Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth Analyte Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS 0.214 0.238 1.19 J < 0.234 1.17 U < 0.252 1.26 UJ 0.259 0.213 1.06 J < 0.200 0.999 U < 0.223 1.11 U < 0.244 1.22 U 8:2 FTS 0.455 0.119 1.19 J < 0.117 1.17 U < 0.126 1.26 UJ < 0.106 1.06 U < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U NEtFOSAA < 0.119 1.19 UJ < 0.117 1.17 U < 0.126 1.26 UJ < 0.106 1.06 U < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U NMeFOSAA < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFBA < 0.119 1.19 UJ 0.089 0.117 1.17 J < 0.126 1.26 UJ < 0.106 1.06 U < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U PFBS < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFDA < 0.119 1.19 UJ < 0.117 1.17 U < 0.126 1.26 UJ < 0.106 1.06 U < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U PFDoA < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFHpA 0.049 0.060 1.19 J 0.038 0.059 1.17 J < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFHxA 0.061 0.060 1.19 J 0.533 0.059 1.17 J < 0.063 1.26 UJ 0.058 0.053 1.06 J < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFHxS < 0.119 1.19 UJ < 0.117 1.17 U 0.095 0.126 1.26 J 0.212 0.106 1.06 J < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U PFNA < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFOA 0.139 0.238 1.19 J < 0.234 1.17 U < 0.252 1.26 UJ < 0.213 1.06 U < 0.200 0.999 U < 0.223 1.11 U < 0.244 1.22 U PFOS 0.704 0.238 1.19 J < 0.234 1.17 U 0.093 0.252 1.26 J 0.256 0.213 1.06 J < 0.200 0.999 U < 0.223 1.11 U < 0.244 1.22 U PFPeA 0.069 0.060 1.19 J 0.212 0.059 1.17 J < 0.063 1.26 UJ 0.033 0.053 1.06 J < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFTeDA < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U PFTrDA < 0.119 1.19 UJ < 0.117 1.17 U < 0.126 1.26 UJ < 0.106 1.06 U < 0.100 0.999 U < 0.111 1.11 U < 0.122 1.22 U PFUnDA < 0.060 1.19 UJ < 0.059 1.17 U < 0.063 1.26 UJ < 0.053 1.06 U < 0.050 0.999 U < 0.056 1.11 U < 0.061 1.22 U Interpreted Qualifiers Chemical Abbreviations J = Estimated concentration 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier SB soil boring µg/kg micrograms per kilogram < analyte not detected above the LOD EJG-MW002-SB-59-61 11/04/2021 59-61 ft EJG-MW006-SB-33-35 10/26/2021 33-35 ft EJG-MW007-SB-27-29 11/09/2021 27-29 ft AOI03 EJG-MW004-SB-39-41 11/09/2021 39-41 ft Soil, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (µg/kg) AOI01 AOI02 EJG-MW003-SB-35-37 11/09/2021 35-37 ft EJG-MW005-SB-25-27 11/01/2021 25-27 ft EJG-MW001-SB-34-36 10/28/2021 34-36 ft AECOM Appendix F-Soil (PFAS) Page 1 of 1 Appendix F Laboratory Data Groundwater Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS - 3.56 2.98 3.97 J < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U 8:2 FTS - 3.59 2.98 3.97 J < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U NEtFOSAA - < 3.97 7.94 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.03 8.06 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.17 8.33 U < 3.91 7.81 U NMeFOSAA - < 3.97 7.94 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.03 8.06 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.17 8.33 U < 3.91 7.81 U PFBA - 3.51 3.47 3.97 J 13.1 3.50 4.00 6.10 3.50 4.00 5.95 3.53 4.03 2.55 3.50 4.00 J 3.27 3.65 4.17 J 2.00 3.42 3.91 J PFBS 601 4.53 1.98 3.97 3.86 2.00 4.00 J 12.8 2.00 4.00 12.5 2.02 4.03 3.55 2.00 4.00 J 3.30 2.08 4.17 J 2.62 1.95 3.91 J PFDA - < 2.98 3.97 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U PFDoA - < 2.98 3.97 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U PFHpA - 2.26 2.98 3.97 J 13.0 3.00 4.00 5.36 3.00 4.00 5.42 3.02 4.03 1.26 3.00 4.00 J 3.19 3.13 4.17 J < 2.93 3.91 U PFHxA - 6.20 1.98 3.97 23.2 2.00 4.00 38.5 2.00 4.00 39.4 2.02 4.03 3.37 2.00 4.00 J 4.84 2.08 4.17 2.28 1.95 3.91 J PFHxS 39 7.58 2.98 3.97 7.98 3.00 4.00 123 3.00 4.00 124 3.02 4.03 2.31 3.00 4.00 J 28.6 3.13 4.17 5.49 2.93 3.91 PFNA 6 < 1.98 3.97 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.02 4.03 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.95 3.91 U PFOA 6 2.42 1.98 3.97 J 1.37 2.00 4.00 J 7.18 2.00 4.00 7.31 2.02 4.03 1.33 2.00 4.00 J 1.52 2.08 4.17 J 1.30 1.95 3.91 J PFOS 4 5.30 1.98 3.97 1.54 2.00 4.00 J 693 2.00 4.00 698 2.02 4.03 1.60 2.00 4.00 J 0.910 2.08 4.17 J 0.890 1.95 3.91 J PFPeA - 5.60 1.98 3.97 31.6 2.00 4.00 8.96 2.00 4.00 9.23 2.02 4.03 3.45 2.00 4.00 J 5.33 2.08 4.17 1.99 1.95 3.91 J PFTeDA - < 2.98 3.97 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U PFTrDA - < 2.98 3.97 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U PFUnDA - < 2.98 3.97 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.02 4.03 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.93 3.91 U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate References 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid J = Estimated concentration PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest D duplicate DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex GW groundwater HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ng/l nanogram per liter - not applicable < analyte not detected above the LOD Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date EJG-MW006-110321 11/03/2021 Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l) a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater. AOI01 AOI02 EJG-MW003-111021 11/10/2021 EJG-MW005-110421 11/04/2021 EJG-MW001-110321-D 11/03/2021 EJG-MW002-110921 11/09/2021 EJG-MW007-111021 11/10/2021 EJG-MW001-110321 11/03/2021 AECOM Appendix F-Groundwater (PFAS) Page 1 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data Groundwater Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result LOD LOQ Qual Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l) 6:2 FTS - < 3.00 4.00 U 8:2 FTS - < 3.00 4.00 U NEtFOSAA - < 4.00 8.00 U NMeFOSAA - < 4.00 8.00 U PFBA - < 3.50 4.00 U PFBS 601 0.985 2.00 4.00 J PFDA - < 3.00 4.00 U PFDoA - < 3.00 4.00 U PFHpA - < 3.00 4.00 U PFHxA - 1.33 2.00 4.00 J PFHxS 39 < 3.00 4.00 U PFNA 6 < 2.00 4.00 U PFOA 6 0.968 2.00 4.00 J PFOS 4 0.786 2.00 4.00 J PFPeA - 1.04 2.00 4.00 J PFTeDA - < 3.00 4.00 U PFTrDA - < 3.00 4.00 U PFUnDA - < 3.00 4.00 U Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate References 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid Interpreted Qualifiers PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid J = Estimated concentration PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest D duplicate DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex GW groundwater HQ hazard quotient ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ng/l nanogram per liter - not applicable < analyte not detected above the LOD a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, July 2022. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1, May 2022. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater. Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date AOI03 EJG-MW004-111221 11/12/2021 AECOM Appendix F-Groundwater (PFAS) Page 2 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data Decontamination Water and Quality Control Samples Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Analyte Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U 8:2 FTS < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U NEtFOSAA < 4.00 8.00 U < 3.85 7.69 U < 3.94 7.87 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U NMeFOSAA < 4.00 8.00 U < 3.85 7.69 U < 3.94 7.87 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U < 4.00 8.00 U PFBA 3.27 3.50 4.00 J < 3.37 3.85 U < 3.44 3.94 U < 3.50 4.00 U < 3.50 4.00 U < 3.50 4.00 U < 3.50 4.00 U PFBS < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFDA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFDoA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFHpA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFHxA < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFHxS < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFNA < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFOA < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFOS < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U 0.921 2.00 4.00 < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFPeA < 2.00 4.00 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 1.97 3.94 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U < 2.00 4.00 U PFTeDA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFTrDA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U PFUnDA < 3.00 4.00 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 2.95 3.94 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U < 3.00 4.00 U Interpreted Qualifiers U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL Chemical Abbreviations UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ERB equipment rinsate blank FRB field reagent blank ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation QC quality control QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier ng/l nanogram per liter < analyte not detected above the LOD Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l) DECON SOURCE FIELD QC EJG-ERB-02 10/26/2021 EJG-ERB-03 11/02/2021 EJG-DECON-03 11/03/2021 EJG-ERB-01 10/26/2021 EJG-DECON-01 05/12/2021 EJG-DECON-02 11/02/2021 EJG-ERB-04 11/02/2021 AECOM Appendix F-Decontamination Water Quality Control Samples Page 1 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data Decontamination Water and Quality Control Samples Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Analyte Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual 6:2 FTS < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ 8:2 FTS < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ NEtFOSAA < 4.17 8.33 U < 3.97 7.94 U < 3.85 7.69 U < 4.00 8.00 UJ NMeFOSAA < 4.17 8.33 U < 3.97 7.94 U < 3.85 7.69 U < 4.00 8.00 UJ PFBA < 3.65 4.17 U < 3.47 3.97 U < 3.37 3.85 U < 3.50 4.00 UJ PFBS < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFDA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFDoA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFHpA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFHxA < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFHxS < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFNA < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFOA < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFOS < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFPeA < 2.08 4.17 U < 1.98 3.97 U < 1.92 3.85 U < 2.00 4.00 UJ PFTeDA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFTrDA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ PFUnDA < 3.13 4.17 U < 2.98 3.97 U < 2.88 3.85 U < 3.00 4.00 UJ Interpreted Qualifiers U = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL Chemical Abbreviations UJ = The analyte was not detected at a level greater than or equal to the adjusted DL. However, the reported adjusted DL is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise. 6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctane- sulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid PFDoA perfluorododecanoic acid PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFNA perfluorononanoic acid PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid PFUnDA perfluoro-n-undecanoic acid Acronyms and Abbreviations AOI Area of Interest DL detection limit EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ERB equipment rinsate blank FRB field reagent blank ID identification LCMSMS liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation QC quality control QSM Quality Systems Manual Qual interpreted qualifier ng/l nanogram per liter < analyte not detected above the LOD FIELD QC Water, LCMSMS compliant with QSM 5.3 Table B-15 (ng/l) EJG-PLUG-01 10/28/2021 EJG-FRB-01 10/26/2021 EJG-ERB-05 11/02/2021 EJG-ERB-06 11/04/2021 AECOM Appendix F-Decontamination Water Quality Control Samples Page 2 of 2 Appendix F Laboratory Data TOC and pH Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest Sample ID Sample Date Depth Analyte Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual Result LOD LOQ Qual pH 8.52 1.00 1.00 J 8.51 1.00 1.00 J 8.83 1.00 1.00 J 8.71 1.00 1.00 J Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) 1270 350 500 647 350 500 1510 350 500 J+ 1800 350 500 J+ Acronyms and Abbreviations Interpreted Qualifiers AOI Area of Interest J = Estimated concentration D duplicate J+ = Estimated concentration, biased high EJG E.J. Garn Aviation Complex ft feet ID identification LOD limit of detection LOQ limit of quantitation Qual interpreted qualifier mg/kg milligram per kilogram SB soil boring TOC total organic carbon AOI03AOI01 EJG-MW006-SB-13-15 10/26/2021 13-15 ft AOI02 EJG-MW001-SB-13-15 10/28/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW004-SB-13-15 11/09/2021 13-15 ft EJG-MW004-SB-13-15-D 11/09/2021 13-15 ft AECOM Appendix F-TOC and pH Page 1 of 1 Appendix F Laboratory Data Grain Size Site Inspection Report, E.J. Garn Aviation Complex Area of Interest AOI01 AOI02 AOI03 Sample ID EJG-MW006-SB-33-35 EJG-MW005-SB-13-15 EJG-MW004-SB-39-41 Sample Date 10/26/2021 11/01/2021 11/09/2021 Depth 33 - 35 ft 13 - 15 ft 39 - 41 ft %% % Grain Size by ASTM D422 1 Clay (<0.002 mm) 29.17 21.27 22.02 Silt (>0.002 - 0.075 mm) 59.05 61.78 56.59 Fine Sand (>0.075 - 0.42 mm) 8.97 13.39 15.76 Medium Sand (>0.42 - 2.0 mm) 2.69 3.44 4.66 Coarse Sand (>2.0 - 4.75 mm) 0.13 0.12 0.96 Gravel (>4.75 - 75 mm) 0 0 0 Acronyms and Abbreviations % percent AOI Area of Interest ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials EJG E.J. Garn ft feet mm millimeter MW monitoring well USCS Unified Soil Classification System Notes 1.) Grain size fraction based on USCS soil classifications AECOM Appendix F-Grain Size Page 1 of 1 Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Appendix G Laboratory Reports Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM Due to file size, laboratory reports are provided electronically (CD) or can be requested. Site Inspection Report E.J. Garn Aviation Complex, West Jordan, Utah AECOM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK