SEMS-RM DOCID # 100034524

FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
NEWMARK GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SUPERFUND SITE

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

£

<

00
O

\



ro
z

PRO^°

o

J

PREPARED BY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
FOR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Date:

Digitally signed by DANA BARTON
Date: 2023.09.12 09:54:00 -07'00'

Dana Barton Assistant Director
California Site Cleanup and Enforcement Branch
Superfund and Emergency Response Division
U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Region 9

Approved by:
DANA BARTON


-------
Executive Summary

This is the fourth Five-Year Review of the Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site
located in San Bernardino, California. The purpose of this Five-Year Review is to review information
to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment.

The Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund (Newmark) site is located in San Bernardino,
California. The Site includes an area of approximately 23 square miles that is bounded to the
east/northeast by the San Andreas Fault and the San Bernardino Mountains, to the west/southwest by
the Loma Linda fault and Lytle Creek, to the south by a boundary approximated by 7th Avenue in
downtown San Bernardino, and to the East-by-East Twin Creek.

The Newmark site covers part of the Bunker Hill Basin, an essential groundwater aquifer for the City
of San Bernardino. Groundwater is the major source of drinking water for the City of San Bernardino,
the City of Riverside, and surrounding communities. The contaminants of concern include
tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene.

The Newmark site includes three Operable Units: the Newmark, Muscoy and Source. In August 2015,
EPA issued a final Record of Decision for Newmark and Muscoy, selecting the existing interim
remedies as the final remedy. The Source Operable Unit consists of the remaining areas outside of the
Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units and does not currently have a selected remedy.

The major components of the final remedy for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units include a
network of 14 current groundwater extraction wells which collectively pump approximately 20,000
gallons per minute of contaminated groundwater to three separate treatment plants for the removal of
volatile organic compounds by granular activated carbon. The treated water is delivered to the City of
San Bernardino's distribution system for further chlorine treatment to meet drinking water permit
requirements before supplying to users. Over 100 groundwater monitoring wells are used to monitor
the extent, hydraulic control, and cleanup progress of groundwater contaminated with volatile organic
compounds. Institutional controls prevent the use of Site-related contaminated groundwater.

The treatment systems within Newmark and Muscoy are successfully capturing contaminated
groundwater with each aquifer zone meeting the remedial action objectives of inhibiting migration of
the groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer and protecting downgradient
municipal wells. The mass removal at the treatment plants continue to show progress toward restoring
the aquifer to its beneficial use as a municipal and domestic water supply, while the institutional
controls in place are effective in preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater. The area-wide
groundwater model for this Site will be updated through 2016 and will need to be updated regularly
since it is a key element in the Institutional Controls Groundwater Management Program used to
analyze potential impacts of new and modified production wells and changes in artificial recharge
practices. Exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at
the time of remedy selection remain valid, and no changes to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements have occurred that affect protectiveness.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

i


-------
The remedy at the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Unit on the Newmark Superfund Site is currently
protective of human health and the environment. The extraction and treatment plants are operating as
intended and institutional controls are in place preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater. In
order to be protective in the long-term, the Groundwater Model should be updated to assist with
ensuring capture with decreasing groundwater levels and maintaining institutional controls.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Contents

Executive Summary	i

List of Figures v
List of Tables v

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations	vi

1.	Introduction	1

1.1.	Background	3

1.2.	Physical Characteristics	3

1.3.	Hydrology	4

1.3.1.	Regional Hydrogeology	4

1.3.2.	Site-Specific Hydrogeology	4

2.	Remedial Actions Summary	5

2.1.	Basis for Taking Action	5

2.2.	Remedy Selection	5

2.3.	Remedy Implementation	8

2.3.1.	Newmark Operable Unit Remedy	8

2.3.2.	Muscoy Operable Unit Remedy	10

2.3.3.	Institutional Controls	10

2.4.	System Operations/Operation and Maintenance	11

2.4.1. Operations and Maintenance Requirements	11

3.	Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review	11

3.1.	Previous Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement and Issues	11

3.2.	Work Completed at the Site During this Five-Year Review Period	12

4.	Five-Year Review Process	12

4.1.	Community Notification, Involvement and Site Interviews	12

4.1.1.	Five-Year Review Public Notice	12

4.1.2.	Site Interviews	13

4.2.	Data Review	13

4.2.1.	Groundwater	13

4.2.2.	Groundwater - Mass Remaining Estimates	23

4.2.3.	Sustainability	30

4.3.	Site Inspection	30

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
5.	Technical Assessment	30

5.1.	Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?.... 30

5.2.	Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
Remedial Action Objectives Used at the Time of Remedy Selection Still Valid?	31

5.3.	Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call Into
Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy?	31

6.	Issues/Recommendations	32

7.	Protectiveness Statement	33

8.	Next Review	33

Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed	34

Appendix B: Site Chronology	36

Appendix C: Data Review	37

Appendix D: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Assessment... 67

Appendix E: Public Notice	70

Appendix F: Interview Forms	71

Appendix G: Site Inspection Report and Photos	76

iv

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map	3

Figure 2. Detailed Map of the Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Remedy
System	9

Figure 3. Groundwater levels at USGS monitoring station showing a decrease in water levels
since 1991 and operation of Newmark and Muscoy Pump and Treatment

Systems	14

Figure 4. Capture Zones based on Particle Tracking in the Deep Aquifer for the Newmark

Plume for March 2018 and March 2022	16

Figure 5. Capture Zones based on Particle Tracking in the Muscoy Shallow Aquifer for

February 2018 and February 2022	17

Figure 6. Newmark North Plant Extraction Well Network	21

Figure 7. Newmark Plume Front Plant Extraction Well Network	22

Figure 8. Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network	22

Figure 9. Rate of Mass Reduction: 2013 to 2022	24

Figure 10. Reduction in PCE Plume Extent	25

Figure 11. PCE Plume at and above 5 |jg/L	26

Figure 12. PCE Plume at and above 0.5 |jg/L	29

List of Tables

Table 1. Five-Year Review Summary Form	2

Table 2. Groundwater Cleanup Levels from 2015 Final Record of Decision	6

Table 3. Summary of Flow Performance Criteria1	7

Table 4. Summary of Contaminant Performance Criteria1	7

Table 5. Status of Recommendations from the 2018 Five-Year Review	12

Table 6. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for PCE, February 2018 to May 2022. .20

Table 7. Historical and Current Status of Extremely Impaired Source Extraction Wells	27

Table 8. Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review	32

Table 9. Protectiveness Statement	33

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site	v


-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

3DVA

3D variable analysis

l-Lg/L

micrograms per Liter

City

City of San Bernardino

DTSC

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIS

Extremely-Impacted Source

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Site

Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

USACE

United States Army Corps of Engineers

PCE

T etrachloroethene

TCE

Trichloroethene

vi

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
1. Introduction

The purpose of a five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to
determine if the remedy will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The
methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in Five-Year Review reports. In addition,
five-year review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations
to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this five-year review pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Section 121, 40 Code of
Federal Regulation Section 300.430(f)(4)(h) of the National Contingency Plan and EPA policy.

This is the fourth Five-Year Review for the Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site.

(Site). The triggering action for this statutory review is the completion of the previous Five-Year Review,
signed on September 26, 2018. This Five-Year Review has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure.

The Newmark site includes three Operable Units; the Newmark, Muscoy and Source Operable Units. The
boundary of the Source Operable Unit is identical to that of the Newmark site; therefore, it geographically
encompasses the smaller Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units within its boundary. For the purpose of
this Five-Year Review, the Site is defined as the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units and only
evaluates the remedy components defined in the Final 2015 RODs.

EPA selected remedies for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units, in the 2015 Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Record of Decision. EPA is in the process of selecting a final remedy for the remaining
Northwest Area of the Source Area Operable Unit1.

The Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by Region 9
Remedial Project Managers Sharissa Singh and Kuceli Mari. Participants included Cynthia Wetmore and
Cynthia Ruelas, EPA Region 9 Superfund Five-Year Review Coordinators, and, from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE): Marlowe Laubach, environmental engineer; Travis Kelsay, geologist; Kris
Addis, geologist; and Helen Sanchez, civil engineer. The review began on November 7, 2022.

1 The Northwest Area of the Source OU was historically referred to as the "Northwest Source Area" or ".YII'S.l." For
the purposes of the future Source OU-related uses, the name has been changed to "Northwest Area of the Source
OIF or "Northwest Area."

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

1


-------
Table 1. Five-Year Review Summary Form

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

EPA ID: CAD981434517

Region: 9

State: CA

City/County: San Bernardino

National Priorities List Status: Final

Multiple Operable Units? Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion? No

Lead agency: EPA

Author name: Sharissa Singh, EPA RPM

Author affiliation: EPA Region 9

Review period: 11/7/2022 - 6/6/2023

Date of site inspection: 4/4/2023

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: 9/26/2018

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9/26/2023

2	Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
1.1. Background

The Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site encompasses 23 square miles within the
Upper Santa Ana River Basis (also known as the Bunker Hill Basin) in San Bernardino, California
(Figure 1). Site groundwater contamination impacts the drinking water resource in the region. The
contaminants of concern include tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE).

Source Operable Unit

Figure 1.1
Site Location and Operable Units

Figure 1. Location Map

1.2. Physical Characteristics

Groundwater contamination at the Site impacts the drinking water resource in the 100-square mile Bunker
Hill Basin aquifer, a primary source of drinking water for cities located in inland Southern California.
Bunker Hill Basin is bounded by the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the Crafton
Hill and badlands on the southeast, and by a hydrogeological barrier formed by the San Jacinto fault along
the southwest. Waters flowing from all parts of the aquifer join in a confined "artesian zone" before
leaving the basin, where the Santa Ana River crosses the San Jacinto fault line.

Urban development within the Site area has replaced much of the native landscape. The part of the Site
covered by the Newmark and Muscoy areas is currently used for light industrial, commercial, and
residential purposes. There is no indication that land use in the area will change.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

3


-------
1.3. Hydrology

1.3.1. Regional Hydrogeology

Coarse erosional material (alluvial and river channel deposits) has accumulated in this area of the basin to
depths of 400 feet to over 1,900 feet. A very important geologic feature impacting the flow dynamics of
groundwater in the area is the Shandin Hills. Shandin Hills is a structurally compressive feature created
by Southern California tectonic forces that have caused bedrock to buckle upwards and surface as hills
and mountains. Groundwater that encounters this feature will flow to the east or west of this feature,
depending on water levels, before resuming a southward path toward the Santa Ana River.

Most of the western portion of the basin is an unconfined aquifer. In the lowest area of the basin (the
south-central portion around the Santa Ana River), several extensive clay layers have formed an aquitard,
overlying and capping the water-bearing sand and gravel aquifers. This confined portion of the aquifer
produces a large supply of water for nearby communities. The southern area of the Site transitions into
this confined region. According to the San Bernardino Municipal Water District, the Bunker Hill Basin is
capable of storing approximately 5 million acre-feet (1.6 trillion gallons) of groundwater and producing
250,000 acre-feet (81 billion gallons) of groundwater per year, making this groundwater resource very
important to the viability of the region.

1.3.2. Site-Specific Hydrogeology

The alluvial deposits in the Newmark and Muscoy areas consist mostly of sand, gravel, boulders, and
occasional discontinuous clay lenses. These clay lenses increase in thickness and number toward the
south and the central portion of the basin. The alluvium in the Newmark Operable Unit area was divided
into three depositional sequences (EPA 1993):

•	The northern depositional sequence, located north of the Shandin Hills.

•	The middle or transition depositional sequence, located from the northeast edge of Shandin Hills
and extending south to approximately west of Perris Hill.

•	The southern depositional sequence, located near the 16th Street well and extending south.

The northern depositional sequence forms a single, unconfined aquifer consisting of predominantly
coarse-grained sediments. Sediments in the northern depositional sequence consist primarily of sand,
gravel, and boulders with little or no clay. Depth to groundwater ranges from 100 to 220 feet below
ground surface and fluctuates with season.

The middle depositional sequence forms a single unconfined aquifer consisting primarily of coarse-
grained sediments with minor discontinuous fine grained (silt and clay) lenses. It consists mostly of sand
and silt with significant intervals of gravel and boulders. Some thin clay lenses were found in this area
and are concentrated between 185 to 550 feet below ground surface. Depth to groundwater ranged from
100 to 300 feet below ground surface and fluctuates with season.

The southern depositional sequence forms separate aquifers: an upper unconfined aquifer and a lower
confined aquifer. It consists of silt, sand, and gravel with many clay lenses. A clay confining layer divides

4

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
groundwater into unconfined and confined flow regimes. A 200- to 300-foot zone of interfingering clay
lenses located approximately 75 feet below ground surface demarcates the boundary between the upper
unconfined aquifer and lower confined aquifer. Depth to groundwater in this area of the Site is 50 to 180
feet below ground surface and fluctuates with season.

2. Remedial Actions Summary

2.1.	Basis for Taking Action

In 1980, the California Department of Health Services (now the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control) found PCE, TCE, freons, and decay byproducts from these compounds in large
portions of the groundwater within the Bunker Hill Basin, which provides drinking water to the San
Bernadino community. The discovery of these contaminants resulted in the closing of 20 water supply
wells within a 6-mile radius of the Site. The presence of groundwater contamination concentrations above
federal drinking water standards provided the basis for taking action.

2.2.	lection

EPA selected remedial actions at the Site through issuance of an Interim Record of Decision for the
Newmark Operable Unit in 1993, and an Interim Record of Decision for the Muscoy Operable Unit in
1995. EPA issued a Final Record of Decision for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units in August
2015. The final remedy addresses the groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Operable
Units by adopting the components and performance requirements of the two interim groundwater
containment remedies implemented through previous decision documents. It also updated the remedial
action objectives.

The following remedial action objectives have been established for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable
Units:

•	Inhibit migration of groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer;

•	Limit the flow of additional contamination into the Newmark Operable Unit plume area;

•	Protect downgradient municipal supply wells south and southwest of the Shandin Hills;

•	Restore the aquifer (Site groundwater) to its designated beneficial use as an existing municipal
and domestic water supply;

•	Protect the public from coming into contact with contaminated groundwater; and

•	Protect the function and effectiveness of the treatment remedy.

The major components of the final remedy for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units include:

•	Two Extraction Well Networks and Multiple Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Plants -
Fourteen groundwater extraction wells are located in the eastern and southern areas of the Site.
These wells pump contaminated groundwater at approximately 20,000 gallons per minute to three

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

5


-------
treatment plants to remove volatile organic compounds using granular activated carbon. The City
conveys the treated water to its distribution system for further treatment to meet drinking water
permit requirements.

•	Monitoring Wells - The extent, hydraulic control, and cleanup progress of Site-related volatile
organic compound groundwater contamination is monitored using a network of over 100
monitoring wells.

•	Institutional Controls - A City ordinance requires a permit for any new, non-municipal well, or
change in existing well pumping or injection conditions, to prevent spread of contamination and
restrict public access to contaminated groundwater.

The EPA also established groundwater cleanup levels for each contaminant of concern in the 2015 Final
Record of Decision (Table 2).

Table 2. Groundwater Cleanup Levels from 2015 Final Record of Decision

Chemical

Cleanup Levels (ng/L)

Basis for Cleanup Level

PCE

5

Federal Drinking Water Level

TCE

5

Federal Drinking Water Level

The 2015 ROD identified compliance with California Department of Public Health Drinking Water
Division Policy Memo 97-005 as a performance standard to address extremely impaired sources of
groundwater where the Newmark Site is located. Per the terms of this policy, if groundwater supply wells
are used to provide drinking water, the extracted water must meet water well permit limits of non-detect
for contaminants prior to distribution. For the Newmark Site, compliance with the well permit
requirements mean that TCE and PCE concentrations must be 0.5 (ig/L or below prior to distribution. All
extraction wells associated with the three treatment systems for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Unit
plumes are designated as Extremely Impacted Source (EIS) wells because they are part of the drinking
water supply.

The 2015 ROD kept all the Interim RODs remedial action objectives and did not change the performance
standards set out in the 2005 Consent Decree. Based on the remedial action objectives in the Interim
Record of Decisions, the 2005 Consent Decree Statement of Work includes Operations and Maintenance
requirements with measurable performance criteria to facilitate enforcement of the Consent Decree
(Tables 3 and 4). These criteria are based on both flow capturing analyses and contaminant concentration,
taking into consideration the Newmark plume "impaired source" classification as a Drinking Water
source in the Drinking Water Permit requiring cleanup to non-detect for impaired drinking water source.

6

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Table 3. Summary of Flow Performance Criteria1

Operating Conditions2

Extraction Well Network

Particle Capture Criteria3

Operations Within the
Maximum Target
Extraction Rate4

Newmark Plume Front Extraction Well
Network

90% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network
- Shallow Plume

80% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network
- Intermediate/Deep Plume

85% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Transition Phase
and/or Non-Routine
Phase Operations5

Newmark Plume Front Extraction Well
Network

85% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network
- Shallow Plume

75% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network
- Intermediate/Deep Plume

80% particle capture or greater based on a
three-month rolling average

Notes:

(1)	Modified from Operation and Sampling Analysis Plan (Stantec, 2009a) Table 8-4.

(2)	Combined flow rate at which the Newmark Plume Front or Muscoy Plume extraction well network is operating.

(3)	Minimum percentage of particles placed across the subject contaminant plume (as defined by the 2.5 jug/L PCE
concentration contour) that are required to be captured per monthly flow performance analysis.

(4)	Maximum Target Extraction Rate: The annual Target Extraction Rate plus 10%.

(5)	Described in Baseline Mitigation Plan (BMP) (Stantec, 2009b).

Table 4. Summary of Contaminant Performance Criteria1

Wells Designated for Contaminant Performance

Suspended Wells

Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Well Network

MW-012A/B/C, MW-013A/B/C, MW-014A/B/C,
MW-015A/B/C

None

Muscoy Plume Extraction
Well Network

MW-135A/B/C, MW-136A/B/C, MW-137A/B/C,
MW-138A/B/C, MW-139A/B/C, MW-141A

MW-135A, MW-137A, MW-138A,
MW-141A

Criteria

PCE Drinking
Water MCL2
(1ig/L)

TCE MCL2 (ng/L)

Immediate Action

Increasing Trend

Based on Analysis

Based on Analysis

Increase Monitoring to Quarterly

> !/2 MCL

2.5

2.5

Increase Monitoring to Quarterly

> MCL

5

5

Evaluate Mitigation Measures

Notes:

(1)	Modified from Operation and Sampling Analysis Plan (Stantec, 2009a) Table 8-9.

(2)	The Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water (MCL) presented is based on the most conservative
(lowest) value presented in Federal and/or State regulations.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

7


-------
olementation

2.3.1. Newmark Operable Unit Remedy

EPA completed construction of the interim remedy for the Newmark Operable Unit in 1998. Components
of the remedy include:

•	Construction of groundwater extraction and treatment facilities at two locations (the Newmark
Plant in the northern portion, and the Waterman Plant in the southern portion of the Newmark
Operable Unit);

•	Treatment of extracted groundwater using granular activated carbon at the Newmark Plant and
the Waterman Plant;

•	Pipelines to bring contaminated water from three northern and four southern extraction wells to
the treatment plants; and

•	Monitoring wells to assess the performance of the remedy.

The San Bernardino Municipal Water Department uses the treated groundwater as potable water per
Water Supply Permit number 03-13-009P-002 issued by the California Department of Public Health. In
October 2000, the Newmark area interim remedy became operational and functional, and the City began
operation and maintenance under a Cooperative Agreement with EPA.

Following the completion of the 19th Street Water Treatment Plant (part of the Muscoy remedy), the flow
from one Newmark area extraction well (EPA 001) was conveyed for treatment to the 19th Street Water
Treatment Plant. Extraction well EPA 003 was connected to the 17th Street Treatment Plant (Figure 2).
The extraction well networks treated at the Waterman and 17th Street Treatment Plants are referred to as
the Newmark Plume Front. In 2007, the water distribution was re-configured to allow the Newmark
Plume Front to be treated by the Waterman plant. The 17th Street Treatment Plant is currently offline, but
remains available for future use, if needed.

8

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Newmark OU and Muscoy OU Remedial Action Facilities Map

CAJON003

NORTH PLANT
TREATMENT FACILITIES
(Newmark GAC & Air Stripping)

DEVIL'S CANYON 001

NEWMARK 003

DTSC I A'B'C

40TH

DTSC 2 ABC

MUSCOY MUTUAL 5

DTSC 3 A B C

NEWMARK PLUME FRONT
TREATMENT FACILITY
(Waterman GAC & Air Stripping)

MW PAPERBOARD

MW !40 AB C

LYNWOOD

LEROY -

'31ST&MT. \TEWJ

MALLORY 003

MUSCOY PLUME
TREATMENT FACILITY
(19th Street GAC Plant)

NEWMARK PLUME FRONT
TREATMENT FACILITY
(17th Street GAC Plant)

HIGHLAND

MW STATE STREET

WELL LOCATIONS (Designated by Typ«)



siw ira

TREATMENT FACILITIES

MUSCOY PLUME I

OUVE & GARNER

Source: City of San Bernardino 2022. 2nd Semi-Annual 2021 Progress Report

Figure 2. Detailed Map of the Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site Remedy System

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

9


-------
2.3.2.

Muscoy Operable Unit Remedy

From 2001 to 2005, EPA installed the Muscoy Operable Unit groundwater extraction and treatment
system. Components include:

•	Five extraction wells in the southern portion of the Muscoy Operable Unit;

•	Treatment of extracted groundwater using granular activated carbon at the 19th Street Water
Treatment Plant;

•	Pipelines connecting one Newmark area extraction well to the 19th Street Water Treatment Plant;

•	Pipelines from the Muscoy extraction well system to the 19th Street Water Treatment Plant; and

•	A monitoring well network to assess the performance of the remedy.

EPA declared the Muscoy groundwater treatment system operational and functional on September 28,
2007. The operation and maintenance for the Muscoy interim remedy started on October 1, 2007. The
Drinking Water Permit was modified to include the Muscoy system treated water as potable water.

2.3.3. Institutional Controls

EPA established institutional control requirements in the 2004 Explanation of Significant Differences for
the Newmark and Muscoy areas to "assure that the Newmark and Muscoy extraction and treatment
systems remain effective in meeting the objectives of capturing contaminated groundwater and inhibiting
the migration of groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer." The City has
implemented the institutional controls through a City Ordinance, while the water purveyors operating
wells within the Bunker Hill Basin have adopted a groundwater management agreement.

On March 20, 2006, the City adopted an ordinance placing requirements on any new domestic well drilled
within the Site management zone (San Bernardino Municipal Code, Title 13.25, ordinance MC-1221,
passed on March 30, 2006). The City ordinance requires entities that propose to install or modify a
production well, or to modify artificial recharge practices within a designated management zone, to
submit a permit application (or functional equivalent) detailing the location, construction, and pumping
rate of the proposed well, or the location and volume of water of a proposed artificial recharge activity.

The City and several local water purveyors adopted an Institutional Controls Groundwater Management
Program on June 30, 2010. The Institutional Controls Groundwater Management Program is intended to
be the functional equivalent of the City Ordinance for the water purveyors that are parties to the
agreement. The objective of the City Ordinance and Institutional Controls Groundwater Management
Program is to avoid spreading contaminated water into clean drinking water wells by simulating, in
advance, the impact of any new well construction, changes to existing municipal well construction or
changes in artificial recharge practices to the performance of the Site remedy. To facilitate this, the City
developed the Newmark Groundwater Flow Model to analyze the potential impacts of new and modified
production wells, and changes in artificial recharge practices.

The Institutional Controls Groundwater Management Program group meets every two months as part of
the regularly scheduled Basin Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Issues pertaining to the
Institutional Controls Groundwater Management Program are discussed on an as needed basis.

10

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Periodically, updates are provided to the Basin Technical Advisory Committee by San Bernardino
Municipal Water District and Valley District on the status of the Newmark Groundwater Flow Model.

The Newmark Groundwater Flow Model has not been updated since the 2018 Five-Year Review.

2.4. System Operations/Operation aintenance
2.4.1. Operations and Maintenance Requirements

The final Newmark and Muscoy Operations and Maintenance Plan (City of San Bernardino, 2008)
describes the operational parameters, monitoring frequencies, and preventative maintenance frequencies
for all the treatment systems and their associated components.

The monitoring network at the Site evaluates the performance of the groundwater extraction system,
monitors the groundwater contaminant plume, and monitors the groundwater flow direction to ensure
proper placement of the extraction and monitoring wells. The monitoring wells and piezometers
associated with the extraction well networks are sampled semiannually for volatile organic compounds.
Site-wide monitoring wells are sampled annually and analyzed for volatile organic compounds.

3. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review

3.1. Pnevio ¦¦	/iew Protectiveness Statement and Issues

The protectiveness statements from the 2018 Five-Year Review for the Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site stated the following:

"The remedy at the Newmark Operable Unit is protective of human health and the environment.
The extraction and treatment systems in place remove groundwater contaminants and limit
further contaminant migration. Institutional controls are in place and effective in preventing
exposure to contaminated groundwater. "

"The remedy at the Muscoy Operable Unit currently protects human health and the environment
because the extraction and treatment systems in place remove groundwater contaminants and
limit further contaminant migration. Institutional Controls are in place and effective in
preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater. "

The 2018 Five-Year Review included one issue and recommendation (Table 5).

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

11


-------
()|K-r;il>k-
Lnil #

Isslll-



( iirmil
Slulus

( iirmil Inipk'iiU'iiliiliiin
Slulus Description

Muscoy

The potential
for incomplete
capture is an
issue for the
shallow

Muscoy aquifer
due to
decreasing
groundwater
levels over the
past 15 years.

Develop and implement a plan
to ensure plume capture in the
shallow Muscoy aquifer during
low groundwater conditions.

Ongoing

EPA continues to work with the
San Bernardino Municipal Water
District to update the Newmark
Groundwater Flow Model.
Additional evaluations were
completed and presented to EPA
with respect to plume capture in
the shallow Muscoy aquifer.

Work CompleU	', | th	new Period

From June 2017 through June 2022, the treatment systems processed 27,595 million gallons of
contaminated groundwater. The cumulative contaminant mass removed from 2000 to June 2022 is 3,961
pounds.

During this review period San Bernardino Municipal Water District reported that they operated the
extraction well networks out of compliance with flow performance criteria on several occasions, as
described in the Progress Reports (2018-2022). The out-of-compliance episodes were noted as being due
to an extraction well, or multiple extraction wells, being down for maintenance at various times
throughout the review period. Stantec representatives indicated that the piezometers at extraction wells
EPA 109, located near MW-136A, and EPA 112, located near MW-139A, were not accurately reading
water levels because the piezometers installed within gravel pack connect all three aquifer zones. Stantec
estimated that inaccurate water level readings were affecting the calculation for percent capture, resulting
in a higher theoretical capture than actual conditions (Stantec, verbal communication 2018). Stantec
indicated that San Bernardino Municipal Water District plans to install new extraction wells and
piezometers at wells EPA 109 and EPA 112 to improve water level measurement accuracy and
calculations for capture analysis in the shallow Muscoy aquifer.

4. Five-Year Review Process

4.1.	ity Notification, Jweme >ite Interviews

4.1.1. Five-Year Review Public Notice

EPA issued a public notice in the Inland Empire News on May 10, 2023, announcing the third Five-Year
Review of the Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site and inviting the public to learn about the process
and submit any comments to EPA. EPA did not receive any comments. The results of the review and the
report will be made available at the Site information repository located at John M. Pfau Library, 5500
University Pkwy, San Bernardino, California, and at the EPA Superfund Records Center.

12

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
4.1.2. Site Interviews

During the Five-Year Review process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or
successes with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The results of these interviews are
summarized below. The complete interview forms are presented in Appendix F.

Mr. Steve Miller, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District Director of Water Utility, stated that
the remedy is functioning as intended and is performing well. Targeted volatile organic compounds are
being removed from the groundwater and concentrations are decreasing in extraction wells and
downgradient monitoring wells. Treated water meets state and federal drinking water standards. Mr.

Miller notes decreases in groundwater levels due to prolonged drought impact the overall efficiency of the
treatment systems. Mr. Miller notes that continued water level decline impacts the long-term ability of the
remedy to extract groundwater from the shallow aquifer.

Mr. Mark Eisen, Stantec consultant for the San Bernardino Municipal Water District, stated that the
systems are operating as expected with routine equipment maintenance and replacement. Pump/motor
failure downtime has increased in the last five years due to supply chain issues.

Ms. Michelle Micucci, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control Project Manager,
acknowledged that volatile organic compounds were detected in several municipal water supply wells
within the northern San Bernardino/Muscoy region. Generally, PCE and TCE concentrations in
groundwater have been reduced to at or below their federal or state drinking water standards.

4.	'101/1/

4.2.1. Groundwater

Data review for groundwater included reviewing the ten City of San Bernardino Progress Reports
developed during the review period for meeting the remedial action objectives: 1) inhibiting migration of
the groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer, 2) limiting additional contamination
from continuing to flow into the Newmark plume, 3) protecting downgradient municipal wells, and 4)
restoring the aquifer to its beneficial use. With isolated exceptions, the remedy is successful in capturing
groundwater containing contaminant concentrations greater than the federal drinking water standard
within each aquifer zone, meeting the remedial action objectives. However, the groundwater model is not
currently up to date for this five-year review. The model is meant to provide insight into future impacts
from changing site conditions such as declining water levels and extraction rates.

Inhibiting Migration of Groundwater Contamination

In absence of a groundwater model to reflect current groundwater elevations and pumping conditions,
EPA evaluated contaminant migration based on PCE concentrations and groundwater elevations to
demonstrate potential migration.

Groundwater levels have been decreasing since the Newmark Treatment System startup (Figure 3). In
some areas of the Site, groundwater levels have decreased more than 100 feet in the past 15 years. During

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

13


-------
the review period, California experienced drought conditions. Groundwater levels reflected these drought
conditions, which is typical of arid environments. If contamination currently remains adsorbed to the soil
in the vadose zone and groundwater levels increase in the future, then there is the potential for
contaminant concentrations to rebound. In addition, the decrease in groundwater levels impacts the
performance of the extraction wells as groundwater levels fall below optimal screen intervals and
ultimately decreasing efficiency. However, San Bernardino Municipal Water District monitors changes in
performance and makes necessary adjustments to meet performance criteria. To address the decreasing
groundwater level on the Muscoy plume, San Bernardino Municipal Water District is exploring
recharging the basin upgradient of the Muscoy operable unit. San Bernardino Municipal Water District
continues to manage extraction well performance by installing packers in the extraction wells to isolate
intervals within the water bearing zones that demonstrate greater volume of flow.

USGS

¦O

c

ro

¦P
O
0)

*+• Q}

50

100

150

200

250

300

USGS 340707117162707 001S004W02D007S





Newmark P&T













Muscoy P&T









hi
*; *

> *

; *•

yvv

*

•. ~*%

~	• r *

•	~ * ~

i* *

* \

if;

4







Drought









7.

V

>

ii

r.



:;
si *

















'** •
* *:
>

. *«
* ~

- V

i

\ **
1V

* „ :

• • v

~ r*r:























%

+>
V

1000 £

CO
CO
O)

950

900

850

800

o
>
o
-Q

10

3

O

c.
o

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021

Period of approved data	Period of provisional data

Source: USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface. Accessed 12-Dec-2022. (https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis).

Figure 3. Groundwater levels at USGS monitoring station showing a decrease in water levels since
1991 and operation of Newmark and Muscoy Pump and Treatment Systems.

14

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Performance Criteria

Two sets of criteria are to be evaluated periodically based on the data collected during the operation and
monitoring of the treatment facilities: 1) flow performance and 2) contaminant performance. These
criteria determine if the project is meeting the established remedial action objectives.

Flow performance is determined by analyzing water levels over 3-month periods to ensure an inward
cone of depression and groundwater modeling demonstrating capture analysis to determine if the system
is meeting the following target capture rates of 90 percent particle capture for Newmark, 80 percent for
the Muscoy shallow aquifer, and 85 percent for the Muscoy deep aquifer (Tables 3 and 4 above). This
methodology is highly sensitive to the water levels for the shallow aquifer and intermediate zone at each
of the extraction wells.

Flow Performance Evaluation

The Newmark plume appears stable during the review period. USACE reviewed capture analysis
performed by the City of San Bernadino Municipal Water District for the Newmark extraction system.
The City of San Bernadino Municipal Water District evaluates capture analysis using particle tracking
across the PCE plumes. The percent capture is then compared to the flow performance criteria (Tables 3
and 4). The PCE plume (green contour lines) in the Newmark Plume Front deep aquifer has remained
fairly consistent when comparing 2018 and 2022 data (Figure 4) and demonstrates containment.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

15


-------
March 2018

s ih i no	J4cc

March 2022 11 11 -J-' 11 '

OMMMOtttihainiMUV

Source: City of San Bemadino Water Department

Figure 4. Capture Zones based on Particle Tracking in the Deep Aquifer for the Newmark Plume
for March 2018 and March 2022.

16

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
The PCE plume (green contour lines) in the Muscoy shallow aquifer has remained stable during the
review period. The particle flow path (blue lines) and the concentric gray circles represent groundwater
elevation decreasing towards the extraction well demonstrate capture by the extraction well system
(Figure 5). This suggests that the remedial action objective of inhibiting migration of groundwater
contamination into clean portions of the aquifer is met.

February 2018

February 2022

Source: City of San Bemadino Water Department

Figure 5. Capture Zones based on Particle Tracking in the Muscoy Shallow Aquifer for February
2018 and February 2022

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

17


-------
Containment Performance - Monitoring Network

As mentioned in Section 3.2, San Bernardino Municipal Water District reported that they operated the
extraction well networks out of compliance with flow performance criteria on several occasions, as
described in the Progress Reports (2018-2022). San Bernardino Municipal Water District plans to install
new extraction wells and piezometers at wells EPA 109 and EPA 112 to improve water level
measurement accuracy and calculations for capture analysis in the shallow Muscoy aquifer. Accurate data
are essential for determination of plume capture and accurate groundwater monitoring. Until the new
extraction wells and piezometers are installed, and an updated model is created for each five-year review
period, this remains a limiting factor to determining complete capture.

San Bernardino Municipal Water District samples the downgradient monitoring wells either quarterly or
annually, depending on their historical concentrations and trends. Mann-Kendall trend analysis is
included in each progress report from 1988 to present time, and for a five-year period to present time for
each downgradient monitoring well. The five-year trend analysis for PCE in all the select monitoring
wells did not have an increasing trend. For TCE, MW-012A is the only monitoring well with an
increasing trend, though concentrations remain below the federal drinking water standard.

USACE independently assessed how well the remedy is inhibiting migration of groundwater
contamination by performing Mann-Kendall trend analysis on PCE concentration data between 2018 and
2022 for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units (Table 6). To assess the Newmark North Treatment
Plant facilities effectiveness in limiting contaminant mass entering the Newmark Plume from the
upgradient source area, USACE used Mann-Kendall statistics to evaluate one municipal well (MW-008B)
and two monitoring wells (MW-007A/B), all located upgradient; five monitoring wells located
downgradient (MW-004B, MW-009A/B, MW-016B, MW-017B); and four municipal wells located
downgradient (DTSC 003C, 30th & Mt. View, 31st & Mt. View, 27th & Acacia) of the Newmark Plume
Front Plant. No wells have an increasing trend wells upgradient and downgradient of the Newmark North
Treatment Plant; however, MW-007A does have a probably increasing trend for PCE, but its
concentrations are below the federal drinking water standard. By comparing the upgradient and
downgradient concentrations it is evident that the Newmark North Plant is performing as designed and
reducing mass requiring treatment at the downgradient Newmark Plume Front Plant.

To assess whether the Newmark Plume Front Treatment facility is inhibiting migration of groundwater
contamination into clean portions of the aquifer, USACE used Mann-Kendall statistics to evaluate six
monitoring wells immediately upgradient and downgradient of the Newmark Plume Front extraction
system (MW-010A/C, MW-011C, MW-012A/B, MW-014A - Figure 2). Concentrations of PCE in all
four wells have decreasing or stable trends. One well, MW-012A, had TCE values greater than those of
the PCE concentrations. Concentrations of TCE for MW-012A were increasing during the review period,
though under the federal drinking water standard.

To assess whether the Muscoy Plume Treatment facility is inhibiting migration of groundwater
contamination into clean portions of the aquifer, USACE used Mann-Kendall statistics to evaluate two
municipal wells located upgradient (MW-140B/C), five monitoring wells immediately upgradient (MW-

18

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
128A/B, MW-129A, MW-130A/B), and ten wells downgradient of the Muscoy Plume extraction system
(MW-135A/B/C, MW-136A/B, MW-137A/C, MW-138A, MW139A, MW-141A). With the exception of
MW-130B, PCE concentrations in these groundwater monitoring wells are below the federal drinking
water standard of 5 |ig/L. PCE concentration in MW-130B has been decreasing over the last five years
and has been below the federal drinking water standard since November 15, 2021. Concentrations of PCE
in 16 of the 17 wells (including A/B/C depths) had decreasing, stable, or no trend. Although the analysis
indicated that concentrations are increasing at MW-135C, located in the furthermost southeast
downgradient edge of the Muscoy shallow aquifer (Figure 2), the PCE concentrations in this well remain
below the federal drinking water standard.

A key objective of the remedy is to protect the municipal supply wells south and southwest of the
Shandin Hills. Well Olive & Garner is a municipal well located downgradient of the Newmark and
Muscoy Treatment Facilities. This well was selected for trend analysis to identify if contaminants are
migrating past either treatment facility during operation or during periods when the treatment facility was
not operational due to maintenance. Concentrations in this well have fluctuated between 0.23 (ig/L and
1.20 (ig/L for PCE over the last five years but have a stable trend and concentrations below the federal
drinking water standard.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

19


-------
Table S. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for PGE, February 2018 to May 2022,

Well

Number ofExcee dances/

Sampling Events

Con ce ntr ation T re nd



MW-128A

0/9

Stable

MW-128B

0/9

ND

MW-129A

0/9

Decreasing

MW-150A

0/9

Stable

MW-I33B

7/9

Decreasing

MW-14CB

0/5

Stable



OB

- . .

Mlisee, P uP'lc - She c-.v



MW-135A

0/18

Decreasing

MW-136A5

0/11

Stable

MW-137A

0/18

No Trend

MW-13SA

0/18

Decreasing

MW-139A

0/18

No Trend

Iwl A

: - is

Stable







MW-007A

0/9

Probably Increasing

MW-007B

0/9

Decreasing

MW-008B

0/5

Stable





MW-004B

0/9

Probably Decreasing

MW-009B

0/9

Stable

\i,\













QTSC 003C

0/5

Decreasing

30th & Pvt. View

Q/5

Stable

31st & ML View

0/4

Stabile

27th & Acacta

0/5

Decreasing

We v-/n ?'k P ui-tc i:rcr. Sha c,v

MW-OIOA

0/9

Stable

MW-012A

0/18

Stable







Newmark Plume front - Deep

MW-OIOC

0/9

Stable

MW011C

0/9

Decreasing

20

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Extraction Rates and Contaminant Removal

The cumulative mass removals are reported to be 555 pounds from the Newmark North Treatment Plant;
215.80 pounds from the 17th Street Treatment Plant (this plant is currently no longer treating remedy
water); 1,109.50 pounds from the Waterman Treatment Plant; and 2,080.30 pounds from the 19th Street
North Treatment Plant (Figures 8, 9 and 10).

U
(V

~o

CD

-t—1

u
ro

O
>

CD
>
¦4—1

3

E

3

u

Newmark North Plant Extraction Well

Cumulative Groundwater Volume and VOC Mass Extracted since

2000

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Years

tc
>
o
E
a>

QC

u
o
>

0)
>
'+-»
_tc

3

3

u

¦EPA 006
EPA 007
Newmark 3
¦VOC Mass

Figure 6. Newmark North Plant Extraction Well Network.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

21


-------
u
ro

~o

CD
+->
u
ro

O
>


¦4—1

_ro
3

3

u

Newmark Plume Front Plant Extraction Well

Cumulative Groundwater Volume and VOC Mass Extracted since 2000

1,200

1,000 nj
>

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Years

¦EPA 001
EPA 002
EPA 003
¦EPA 004
¦EPA 005
¦VOC Mass

Figure 7. Newmark Plume Front Plant Extraction Well Network.

d>

L_

u
~o

(D

-t—1

u
ro

(D

E

o
>

CD
>
¦4—1

3

E

3

u

Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network

Cumulative Groundwater Volume and VOC Mass Extracted since 2005

2,200

¦EPA 108
¦EPA 108S
EPA 109
¦EPA 110
EPA 111
EPA 112
¦VOC Mass

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Years

Figure 8. Muscoy Plume Extraction Well Network

22

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
4.2.2.

Groundwater - Mass Remaining Estimates

EPA estimated the residual PCE mass at concentrations equal to and greater than 5 |ig/L based on the
results of integrated 3D variability analysis (3DVA) modeling of the PCE plume from 1997 to 2012. The
approach was updated in 2019, and more recently in 2022.

In addition, EPA recently evaluated residual mass using statistical trend methods to estimate mass
remaining for the Federal Drinking Water standard (5 |ig/L) and for the Extremely-Impacted-Source
(EIS) criteria of non-detect (0.5 (.ig/L). Pursuant to the California Department of Public Health Drinking
Water Division Policy Memo 97-005 and the 2015 ROD (EPA 2015), all extraction wells associated with
the three treatment systems for the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units plumes are designated as EIS
wells because they serve as part of the drinking water supply.

Estimate of Mass Remaining - (PCE at 5 ug/L)

In 2012, EPA evaluated whether the Source Operable Unit is continuing to migrate to the Newmark and
Muscoy plumes. EPA estimated the residual PCE mass at concentrations equal to and greater than 5 |ig/L
for a period from 1997 to 2012 using 3DVA modeling of the PCE plume. EPA updated the 3DVA model
in 2019 and 2022.

From 1997 to 2022, site-wide mass reduced of PCE above 5 |ig/L from approximately 9,000 lbs to
approximately 6.4 lbs, a reduction of approximately 99.9 percent. In addition, there was significant
reduction in plume area. While data indicate that the remaining low concentration PCE mass in the
Source Operable Unit is approaching an asymptotic state; the additional order-of-magnitude reduction
from 2019 (approximately 23 lbs) to 2022 (approximately 6.4 lbs) shows that mass reduction is still
occurring at the site. Additional evaluation also showed that the 6.4 lbs of site-wide residual PCE mass
was distributed between overburden (approximately 4.7 lbs) and bedrock (approximately 1.7 lbs). PCE
present in bedrock is a condition unique to the Northwest Area due to the relatively shallow depth to
bedrock compared to the depth in downgradient areas of the plume in the Newmark and Muscoy Operable
Units, where most wells are screened at depths ranging up to several hundreds of feet bgs. The continuous
reduction in size, concentration and mass of the plume indicates successful mass removal, limited
additional contributions of contamination to the Newmark and Muscoy plumes, and continues progress
towards meeting the remedial action objective of restoring the aquifer to its beneficial use at the federal
drinking water standard.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

23


-------
Estimated Site-Wide PCE Mass 2013 Through 2022 (Pounds)

Monitoring Year

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2022

Based on N6FM*

Lithologv

Based on Revised Lithology
in Northwest Area

PCE Mass at
Concentration
Equal to and
Greater than
5 )J.g/L (MCLj

127

83

45

35

29

23

23

7.4

6.4
(Total)

4.7

(Overburden)

1.7
(Bedrock)

% Reduction from
Prior Year



"34.6%

~45.8%

~22%

~17%

~20.7%

0%

~68%

~72%

N/A

Totals Site-wide Mass, lbs
3 g £ 8 8 § £ £

Estimated Site-Wide PCE Mass (lbs) 2013 Through 2022





















































































































2013

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2022
Year

Rate of mass reduction
approaching asymptotic state in
2017 to 2019
Continued mass reduction
between 2019-2022
Asymptotic state related to mass
in low hydraulic conductivity (K)
zones

¦	Overburden

¦	Weathered and
Unweathered Bedrock

'NGFM = Newmark Groundwater Flow Model

Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site
San Bernardino, California

Figure 5.3

Reduction of Site-Wide PCE Mass: 2013-2022

TETRA TECH

Source: EPA, 2023, Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study, Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Source Operable Unit

Figure 9. Rate of Mass Reduction: 2013 to 2022.

24

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Total Mass =

~64ll» I	s

Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site
San Bernardino, California

Figure 5.2

Reduction of PCE Plume Size, Morphology and Mass: 1997-2022

TETRA TECH

Sitewide
Mass Reduction

1997-2022
~99.9%

SE

2022: PCE @>5 |ig/L

NW

Source: EPA, 2023, Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study, Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Source Operable Unit

Figure 10. Reduction in PCE Plume Extent.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

25


-------
Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site
San Bernardino, California

Figure 5.7

Extremely Impaired Source Designated Wells and PCE Plume at and Above 5 |ig/L MCL

TETRA TECH

Northwest Area not
serving as source to
downgradient
dissolved phase PCE
plume remnants at
and above 5 ng/L MCL
Remaining PCE mass
at and above 5 |ig/L
MCL = 6.4 pounds

Side View of PCE Plume at and Above 5 |ig/L MCL

Roference Map

Direction of
Side View

Operable Unit

San Bernardino
Mountains

Source: EPA, 2023, Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study, Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Source Operable Unit

Figure 11. PCE Piume at and above 5 jjg/L

26

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Estimate of Mass Remaining - (PCE at 0.5 |ig/L)

Pursuant to the California Department of Public Health Drinking Water Division Policy Memo 97-005
and the 2015 ROD, all extraction wells associated with the three treatment systems for the Newmark and
Muscoy Operable Unit plumes are ElS-designated wells because they serve as part of the drinking water
supply; therefore, the groundwater in these areas must be restored to non-detect levels (0.5 |ig/L). The
following treatment system and ElS-designated wells are identified as extremely impacted source wells.

•	Newmark Treatment System (Newmark North Area) - extraction wells EPA 006, EPA 007, and
Newmark 003;

•	Waterman Treatment System (Newmark Plume Front) - extraction wells EPA 001, EPA 002,
EPA 003, EPA 004, and EPA 005; and

•	19th Street North Treatment System (Muscoy Operable) - extraction wells EPA 108, EPA
108S, EPA 109, EPA 110, EPA 111, and EPA 112.

In 2022, EPA computed, plotted and compared the current concentration trends for the ElS-designated
wells against the federal drinking water standard, the ROD clean-up requirement (5 |ig/L). and the EIS
criteria (0.5 (.ig/L). The results of statistical analyses of contaminant concentration trends and projections
for the 14 extraction wells within the Source Operable Unit with ElS-designations are summarized in
Table 7.

Table 7. Historical and Current Status of Extremely Impaired Source Extraction Wells

Well ID

PCE Concentration
Versus MCL

PCE Concentration Versus EIS Criteria

<5.0
jig/L?

Year
Achieved

Number
of
Years
< MCL

<0.5
jig/L?

Current
Concentration

(f.ig/L)

Year
Achieved

Number of Years
< EIS or Trend

EW-001

Yes

2011

>10

No

2.7

NA

Downward

EW-002

Yes

2014

>8

No

2.4

NA

Downward

EW-003

Yes

2004

>18

Yes

0.41

2020

2

EW-004

Yes

1998

24

Yes

0.18

2010

12

EW-005

Yes

1998

24

Yes

<0.11

2011

11

EW-006

Yes

2000

22

No

0.66

NA

Downward

EW-007

Yes

2005

17

No

1.9

NA

Downward/Flat

EW-108

Yes

2003

19

No

2.7

NA

Flat/Downward

EW-108S

Yes

2013

9

No

1.9

NA

Downward

EW-109

Yes

2006

16

No

2.6

NA

Flat

EW-110

Yes

2017

5

No

3.2

NA

Downward/Upward

EW-111

No

NA

NA

No

5.6

NA

Flat/Upward

EW-112

Yes

2014

8

No

2

NA

Flat/Downward

Newmark 003

Yes

2010

12

No

1.5

NA

Upward

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

27


-------
Thirteen of the 14 extraction wells have statistically met the federal drinking water standard. The
exception is EW-111; however, no concentrations have been observed below the federal drinking water
standard. The current PCE trend estimate is close to, but slightly below, the 5 |ig/L Federal Drinking
Water standard, and projected to reduce further over time.

Eleven of the ElS-designated wells have PCE in groundwater remaining at concentrations at and above
the 0.5 |ig/L EIS criterion. Concentrations of PCE in groundwater in the three of the wells EW-003, EW-
004, and EW-005, have all decreased to below the 0.5 |ig/L EIS criterion. EPA and San Bernardino
Municipal Water District have agreed to propose the removal of the ElS-designations via a permit
modification.

28

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site
San Bernardino, California

Figure 5.12

Extremely Impaired Source Designated Wells and PCE Plume at and Above 0.5 |j.g/L

TETRA TECH

Northwest Area not serving as
source to downgradient
dissolved phase PCE plume
remnants at and above 0.5 |ag/L
Remaining PCE mass at and
above 0.5 ng/L = 2,260 pounds

Side View of PCE Plume at and Above 0.5 ng/L MCL

Direction of
Side View

Reference Map

Newmark
Operable Unit

San Bernardino
Mountains

jEW-001

/]PCE = 2,7 m»n|.

Source: EPA, 2023, Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study, Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Source Operable Unit

Figure 12. PCE Plume at and above 0.5 |jg/L

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

29


-------
4.2.3. Sustainability

The Government Accountability Office published a study in 2019 summarizing risks to EPA Superfund
sites across the country. The Newmark Contaminated Groundwater Superfund Site was identified as
having a flooding risk. Flooding at the Site would impact the operation of the groundwater extraction and
treatment systems in the form of physical damage to system components and power interruption. These
impacts would result in a loss of a drinking water source to millions of users and the mobilization of
contaminants in groundwater beyond the influence of the treatment systems.

The State of California produced vulnerability assessments in 2018 for the state and regional areas
(www.CAL-Adapt.org, California, 2018), evaluating the impacts to the following climate change related
hazards: extreme heat, wildfire, flooding, drought, severe weather, extreme wind, mudslides and
landslides, air quality, human health, and ecological hazards. Applicable hazards to the Site include
flooding, drought, extreme wind, extreme heat and severe weather. Flooding, extreme wind, extreme heat,
and severe weather could result in physical damage to the groundwater extraction and treatment systems
and power interruption. As noted in Section 4.2.1, drought could continue to affect the groundwater levels
impacting the extraction wells. Extreme weather in the form of excess precipitation can increase
groundwater levels, mobilizing contamination sorbed to soils in the vadose zone.

S/fe Inspection

The inspection of the Site was conducted on April 4, 2023. In attendance were Helen Sanchez, USACE,
Kuceli Mari, EPA, and Steve Miller, Director of Water Utility, City of San Bernardino. The purpose of
the inspection was to assess the condition of the remedy and verify that the remedy is operating as
intended.

The group inspected the Newmark Plume Front Treatment Facility (17th Street GAC Plant) which was
offline, the Newmark Plume Front Treatment Facility (Waterman GAC & Air Stripping), and the North
Plant Treatment Facility (Newmark GAC & Air Stripping). The facilities were well-maintained and
showed no property nuisance and no vandalism in its area. The Site inspection group also inspected ten
injection wells and the wells were all secured.

5. Technical Assessment

Question A: is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?

The remedy at the Site is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The remedial action
objectives include limiting contaminant migration, reducing contaminant concentrations in groundwater,
and protecting the public from contact with the contaminated groundwater. Based on the data analysis
performed for this review, the treatment systems within the Newmark and Muscoy operable units are
successfully capturing contaminated groundwater with each aquifer zone, meeting the remedial action
objectives of inhibiting migration of the groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer and
protecting downgradient municipal wells.

30

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
The mass removal at the treatment plants shows continued progress towards restoring the aquifer to its
beneficial use as municipal and domestic water supply. However, the potential for incomplete capture is
an issue for the shallow Muscoy aquifer. Groundwater levels have decreased 100 feet or more in some
areas of the Newmark and Muscoy operable units over the last 20 years. The decrease in groundwater
level, in conjunction with the downtime of several extraction wells, has negatively affected flow
performance of the extraction wells within the shallow Muscoy aquifer.

To address the decreasing groundwater level on the Muscoy Plume, San Bernardino Municipal Water
District monitors changes in performance and makes necessary adjustments to meet performance criteria.
A groundwater model, updated every five years, will assist with the capture analysis evaluating impacts
of declining groundwater levels.

The institutional controls are in place and effective in preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater.
However, an updated groundwater model is a key element in the Institutional Controls Groundwater
Management Program used to analyze potential impacts to contaminant migration due to new and
modified production wells and changes in artificial recharge practices.

Questi	¦	mre assumptk	icity C

medial Action Objectives Used at the Time o mdy
Selection Si id?

Exposure assumptions, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy
selection are still valid. The exposure assumptions in considered in selecting the remedy was for residents
and industrial/commercial workers potentially exposed to Site contaminants through ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation. These exposure pathways are still valid. These assumptions are still valid because
the land use at the Site has not changed. Toxicity data were not evaluated because cleanup levels are not
risk-based. Changes in standards have occurred during this review period. However, these changes were
primarily administrative changes that do not impact the protectiveness of the remedy. EPA reviewed the
depth of groundwater within the Newmark and Muscoy operable units to determine whether vapor
intrusion is a concern at the Site. Groundwater depths are greater than 100 feet below ground surface.
Therefore, vapor intrusion is not a concern at the Site.

Other Infc ¦	.	)uld

Call estion the Protectiveness of	mdy?

No other information has come to light that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

31


-------
6. Issues/Recommendations

Table 8. Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Operable Unit(s):
Newmark/Muscoy

Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: Groundwater modeling is a tool to identify potential areas of concern based on
existing site conditions and is used by the Institutional Controls Management Program to
assess migration of contaminated groundwater toward drinking water wells. The
groundwater model is out of date and not representative of current conditions.

Recommendation: Update the Groundwater Flow Model to assist with ensuring capture
with decreasing groundwater levels and maintaining institutional controls.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No



City of Bernardino

EPA

10/31/2024

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

Operable Unit(s):
Newmark/Muscoy

Issue Category: Other

Issue: As progress is made in restoring the aquifer, municipal extractions wells, currently
designated as Extremely-Impacted Source (EIS), have seen concentrations of PCE
decrease to 0.5 |ig/L and below

Recommendation: As EIS wells meet the EIS designation removal criterion, the need for
blending of these wells should be reevaluated. If blending of the EIS designated wells is
deemed unnecessary, San Bernardino Municipal Water District should propose
amendments to the Division of Drinking Water permit to remove the EIS designations
from the associated extraction well(s) and connect the wells to directly to San Bernardino
Municipal Water District's water distribution system.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No

No

Other

EPA

10/31/2025

32

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
7. Protectiveness Statement

Table 9. Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Statement

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

Newmark	Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at the Newmark Operable Unit at the Newmark Superfund Site is currently protective of human health
and the environment. The extraction and treatment plants are operating as intended and institutional controls are in
place preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater. In order to be protective in the long-term, the
Groundwater Model should be updated to assist with ensuring capture with decreasing groundwater levels and
maintaining institutional controls

Protectiveness Statement

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

Muscoy	Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedy at the Muscoy Operable Unit at the Newmark Superfund Site is currently protective of human health
and the environment. The extraction and treatment plants are operating as intended and institutional controls are in
place preventing exposure to contaminated groundwater. In order to be protective in the long-term, the
Groundwater Model should be updated to assist with ensuring capture with decreasing groundwater levels and
maintaining institutional controls

8. Next Review

The next Five-Year Review report for the Newmark Contaminated Groundwater Superfund Site is
required five years from the completion date of this review.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

33


-------
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed

California Department of Public Health Drinking Water Division. 1997. Policy Memo 97-005 Policy
Guidance for Direct Domestic Use of Extremely Impaired Sources. November 5, 1997.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2009. City of San Bernardino Municipal Water
Department, Muscoy and Newmark Operable Units, Final Operation and Maintenance Plan.
September 2009.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2018a. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 1st Semi-Annual
Report 2018 No 56. October.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2018b. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 2nd Semi-Annual
Report 2018 No 57. April.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2019a. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 1st Semi-Annual
Report 2019 No 58. September.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2019b. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 2nd Semi-Annual
Report 2019 No 59. March.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2020a. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 1st Semi-Annual
Report 2020 No 60. September.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2020b. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 2nd Semi-Annual
Report 2020 No 61. March.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2021a. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 1st Semi-Annual
Report 2021 No 62. August.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2021b. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 2nd Semi-Annual
Report 2021 No 63. March.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2022a. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 1st Semi-Annual
Report 2022 No 64. September.

City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department. 2022b. Progress Report for Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Remedial Action: Newmark/Muscoy Operable Unit 2nd Semi-Annual
Report 2022 No 65. March.

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study Report for the Newmark Operable Unit. March.

EPA. 2015. Record of Decision, Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site, Newmark and
Muscoy Operable Units, San Bernardino, California. August.

34

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
EPA. 2018. Third Five-Year Review Report for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site,
September.

EPA. 2021. Site-Wide 3DVA Update and Remedial Progress Evaluation. Newmark Groundwater
Contamination Superfund Site, CA. Presentation to EPA Region 9. August 10, 2021.

Stantec. Personal and Email Communication, February 2018.

State of California (California), 2018. Fourth Climate Change Assessment,
https://climateassessment.ca.gov/. August 2018.

USGS National Water Information System: Web Interface. Accessed 12-Dec-2022.
(https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis).

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

35


-------
Appendix B: Site Chronology

Event

Date

Initial discovery of contamination

1980

State funds interim treatment facilities for contaminated City production wells

1986

Newmark Site placed on the NPL

1989

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report for Newmark Operable Unit completed

1993

Newmark Operable Unit Interim ROD signed

1993

Remedial Investigation/F easibility Study Report for Muscoy Operable Unit completed

1994

Muscoy Operable Unit Interim ROD signed

1995

Newmark treatment systems on-site construction complete

1998

Newmark Operable Unit operational and functional

2000

Remedial design completed for Muscoy Operable Unit and construction started (treatment
plant)

2003

Explanation of Significant Differences for Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units

2004

Consent Decree with City of San Bernardino signed

2005

Passage of City Ordinance restricting construction of new water supply wells by non-
municipal entities

2006

Muscoy Operable Unit operational and functional

2007

First Five-Year Review

2008

Second Five-Year Review

2013

Newmark groundwater 3D Visualization Analysis Technical Memorandum

2014

Newmark Groundwater Contamination Final ROD Signed (includes Newmark and
Muscoy Operable Units)

2015

Third Five-Year Review

2018

36

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Appendix C: Data Review

The data review for groundwater includes the Newmark and Muscoy Operable Units. Although the
Source Operable Unit may be discussed, no evaluation of the Source area is completed because a final
remedy has not been selected or implemented. Generally, the remedy is successful in meeting the
remedial action objectives for the site. Each Remedial Action Objective is broken down in sections
discussed below.

Containment - Extraction Network

The extraction wells in the Newmark and Muscoy operable units are being operated under the San
Bernardino Municipal Water District's water supply permit administered by the State Water Resources
Control Board Division of Drinking Water (Permit). Per the terms of the Permit, San Bernardino
Municipal Water District is required to treat PCE and TCE in groundwater to 0.5 |ig/L standard. This
standard is in accordance with Policy Memo 97-005 Policy Guidance for Direct Domestic Use of
Extremely Impaired Sources. Therefore, persistence of PCE and TCE in most of the extraction wells at
concentrations between 0.5 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L indicate that remedial operations will continue for several
years into the future before the aquifer is capable of producing drinking water that will not require
treatment. USACE independently assessed the remedial operations of the Newmark and Muscoy
Operable Unit extraction wells, by performing Mann-Kendall trend analysis on PCE and TCE
concentration data between 2020 and 2022. With the exception of EPA-111, PCE in groundwater
currently being produced from the extraction wells is below the federal drinking water standard of 5 |ig/L.
TCE in groundwater currently being produced from the extraction wells is below the federal drinking
water standard of 5 |ig/L.

All three extraction wells in the Newmark North extraction well network are below the non-detect limit
(0.5 |ig/L) for TCE. Conversely, PCE concentrations are between 0.5 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L for all three
extraction wells. The concentration trends of EPA 006 and EPA 007 were stable and no trend,
respectively. The Newmark 3 concentration trend is increasing over the last two years (Table C-l).

All five extraction wells in the Newmark Plume Front extraction well network were below the non-detect
limit (0.5 |ig/L) for TCE. PCE concentrations are between 0.5 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L for two wells, EPA 001
and EPA 002, with stable and decreasing concentration trends, respectively (Table C-l).

All six extraction wells in the Muscoy Plume extraction well network were between 0.5 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L
for TCE. With the exception of EPA 111, PCE concentrations are between 0.5 |ig/L and 5 |ig/L. PCE and
TCE concentration trends are decreasing, stable, or no trend (Table C-l). In 2016, EPA 111 failed after
experiencing prolonged excessive drawdown. Chemical well rehabilitation successfully resolved the
problem and well performance has been reestablished. PCE observed from extraction well EPA 111 has
been relatively stable since 2014.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

37


-------
MANN-KENDALL ANALYSIS FOR FOURTH NEWMARK FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Background

Capture analysis was evaluated using USACE performed Mann-Kendall trend analysis to evaluate recent
PCE and TCE trends at the 95 percent significance level at several key monitoring wells at the Newmark
Groundwater Superfund Site in San Bernardino, California. The trend testing utilized analytical data from
the key down-gradient monitoring wells since the data evaluation conducted in the last Five-Year Review;
therefore, data was from the period of 2018 to 2022. EPA and San Bernardino Municipal Water District
have reported on trend analysis for data collected prior to 2013.

Performance Criteria

Two sets of criteria are to be evaluated periodically based on the data collected during the operation and
monitoring of the treatment facilities: 1) flow performance and 2) contaminant performance. These
criteria determine whether the project is meeting the established remedial action objectives.

Flow performance is determined by analyzing water levels over 3-month periods to ensure an inward
cone of depression and MODFLOW particle capture modeling demonstrating capture analysis to
determine if the system is meeting the following target capture rates of 90 percent particle capture for
Newmark, 80 percent for the Muscoy shallow aquifer, and 85 percent for the Muscoy deep aquifer
(Tables 3 and 4 above). This methodology is highly sensitive to the water levels for the shallow aquifer
and intermediate zone at each of the extraction wells.

Contaminant performance is evaluated by groundwater sample collection from monitoring well clusters
located down-gradient of the extraction well networks, laboratory analysis of the samples for volatile
organic compound concentrations, and trend analysis to compare the results to established criteria. Wells
that exceed 1 (ig/L are monitored quarterly. Wells that are below 1 (ig/L for volatile organic compounds
for eight consecutive quarters of monitoring are monitored annually or semi-annually. If a well exceeds 1
(ig/L at any time after it has been taken off the quarterly sampling schedule, then the quarterly schedule
will be reinstated for that well.

Compliance summaries for flow performance and contaminant performance are given in each Operations
and Maintenance Progress Report. Monitoring well performance criteria are show in in Tables 3 and 4
above.

Flow Performance Evaluation

USACE evaluates capture analysis using particle tracking across the PCE plumes (from the 2.5 (ig/L
contours). The contaminant concentration contours are generated using the chemical concentration data
from the designated sampling event. The percent capture is then compared to the flow performance
criteria as described in Tables 3 and 4.

38

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
USACE reviewed capture analysis performed by the City of San Bernadino Municipal Water District for
the Newmark extraction system (EPA 001-005) semi-annually (since 2012). The PCE plume (green
contour lines) in the Newmark Plume Front intermediate aquifer has remained fairly consistent (blue
concentric circles) during the past five years (Figure 4) and demonstrates containment.

Mann-Kendall Analysis

The Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test for identifying trends in time-series data. The test
compares the relative magnitudes of sample data rather than the data values themselves. One benefit of
this test is that the data does not need to conform to any one distribution type. Data reported as non-
detects can be included by assigning them a common value that is smaller than the lowest detected value
in the dataset, although the number of non-detects should not be greater than 50 percent of the sample
size («).

Mann-Kendall Results

The following paragraphs summarize the Mann-Kendall analysis results for the extraction system
performance for Newmark Superfund Site.

Table C-1. Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for PCE, February 2018 to May 2022.

Well

Clean

up
Level
(Mg/L)

Number
of

Exceedan

ces/
Sampling
Events1

Maximum
Concentrat
ion (ng/L)

Date of
Highest
Concentrat
ion

Mann-
Kenda
11

Statisti
cs (S)2

Coeffici
ent of
Variatio
n

(COV)3

Confide

nee
Factor
(CF)4

Concentrat
ion Trend

Comment

s

Upgradient Muscoy Extraction Wells

MW-
128A

5

0/9

0.74

21-May-18

-5

0.32

68.3%

Stable



MW-
128B

5

Not Applicable due to 80% non-detect values



MW-
129A

5

0/9

4.20

21-May-18

-18

0.41

96.2%

Decreasing



MW-
130A

5

0/9

1.20

21-May-19

-11

0.20

84.6%

Stable



MW-
130B

5

7/9

8.20

21-May-18

-23

0.23

99.1%

Decreasing



MW-
140B

5

0/5

1.30

21-May-19

-2

0.07

59.2%

Stable



MW-
140C

5

0/5

3.80

21-May-18

-8

0.23

95.8%

Decreasing



Muscoy Plume - Shallow

MW-
135A

5

0/18

2.30

21-May-18

-81

0.26

>99.9%

Decreasing



MW-
136A

5

5

0/11

0.68

21-May-18

-2

0.34

62.5%

Stable



MW-
137A

5

0/18

1.70

27-Feb-20

9

0.44

66.6%

No Trend



MW-
138A

5

0/18

1.20

29-Aug-19

-52

0.22

97.4%

Decreasing



MW-
139A

5

0/18

1.90

21-May-18

34

0.12

89.3%

No Trend

Most
recent date

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

39


-------
Well

Clean

up
Level
(Mg/L)

Number
of

Exceedan

ces/
Sampling
Events1

Maximum
Concentrat
ion (ng/L)

Date of
Highest
Concentrat
ion

Mann-
Kenda
11

Statisti
cs (S)2

Coeffici
ent of
Variatio
n

(COV)3

Confide

nee
Factor
(CF)4

Concentrat
ion Trend

Comment

s



















of max
concentrat
ion noted

MW-
141A

5

0/18

2.50

19-May-20

-22

0.15

78.4%

Stable

Most
recent date

of max
concentrat
ion noted

Muscoy Plume - Intermediate

MW-
135B

5

0/18

1.10

29-Aug-19

-17

0.38

80.6%

Stable



MW-
136B

5

0/9

0.80

20-Nov-19

-5

0.17

76.5%

Stable



Muscoy Plume - Deep

MW-
135C

5

0/9

0.39

15-Nov-21

25

0.51

100.0%

Increasing



MW-
137C

5

0/9

0.62

20-Nov-19

4

0.27

61.9%

No Trend



Downgradient Muscoy Extraction Wells

Olive
&
Game
r6

5

0/5

1.60

12-Apr-16

-6

0.53

88.3%

Stable







Number





Mann-
Kenda
11

Statisti
cs (S)2

Coeffici
ent of
Variatio
n

(COV)3







Well

Clean
up

Level
(Mg/L)

of

Exceedan

ces/
Sampling
Events1

Maximum
Concentrat
ion (ng/L)

Date of
Highest
Concentrat
ion

Confide

nee
Factor
(CF)4

Concentrat
ion Trend

Comment

s

Upgradient Newmark North Plant

MW-
007A

5

0/9

3.10

15-Nov-21

11

0.53

93.2%

Probably
Increasing



MW-
007B

5

0/9

1.30

21-May-18

-22

0.21

98.8%

Decreasing



MW-
008B

5

0/5

0.93

22-May-19

-6

0.11

88.3%

Stable



Newmark North Plant - Shallow

MW-
009A

5

0/9

3.10

21-May-18

-18

0.60

98.4%

Decreasing



Newmark North Plant - Intermediate

MW-
004B

5

0/9

0.84

16-Nov-20

-14

0.28

91.0%

Probably
Decreasing



MW-
009B

5

0/9

3.10

21-May-18

-11

0.10

84.6%

Stable





















Most

MW-
016B

5

0/9

1.70

19-May-20

-18

0.11

96.2%

Decreasing

recent date

of max
concentrat
ion noted

MW-
017B

5

0/9

0.92

16-May-22

6

0.29

88.3%

No Trend



40

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Well

Clean

up
Level
(Mg/L)

Number
of

Exceedan

ces/
Sampling
Events1

Maximum
Concentrat
ion (pg/L)

Date of
Highest
Concentrat
ion

Mann-
Kenda
11

Statisti
cs (S)2

Coeffici
ent of
Variatio
n

(COV)3

Confide

nee
Factor
(CF)4

Concentrat
ion Trend

Comment

s

Downgradient Newmark North Plant / Upgradient Newmark Plume Front

DTS

C
003C

5

0/5

1.20

22-May-18

-8

0.38

95.8%

Decreasing



30th
& Mt.
View

5

0/5

1.90

16-Apr-19

-3

0.38

67.5%

Stable

Most
recent date

of max
concentrat
ion noted

31st
& Mt.
View

5

0/4

2.10

16-Apr-19

-1

0.29

50.0%

Stable



27th
&
Acaci
a

5

0/5

2.30

16-Apr-19

-8

0.37

95.8%

Decreasing



Newmark Plume Front - Shallow

MW-
010A

5

0/9

0.59

21-May-19

0

0.28

37.5%

Stable



MW-
012A

5

0/18

0.30

27-Aug-20

-2

0.08

62.5%

Stable



MW-
014A

5

0/9

0.66

21-May-18

-13

0.14

89.0%

Stable



Newmark Plume Front - Intermediate

MW-
012B

5

0/18

1.50

28-Feb-18

-126

0.38

>99.9%

Decreasing



Newmark Plume Front - Deep

MW-
010C

5

0/9

0.45

21-May-18

-1

0.26

50.0%

Stable



MW-
011C

5

0/9

3.90

21-May-18

-24

0.33

99.4%

Decreasing



Notes:

1	Samples used during the Mann-Kendall Statistical analysis are from May 2017 to May 2022.

2	The Mann-Kendall Statistic (S) measures the trend of the data. The S statistic is the sum of the differences between sequential sampling events,
for the full population of sampling events conducted at a single sampling location (e.g., a monitoring well) for a selected chemical constituent
(e.g., benzene). Positive values indicate an increase of concentration overtime, whereas negative values indicate a decrease in concentration over
time.

3	The Coefficient of Variation (COV) is a statistical measure of how the individual data points vary about the mean value. The COV for the
dataset is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. The COV, provides a general indicator of the degree of variability in the concentrations
at a particular monitoring location over time. The COV is used to distinguish between a "No Trend" result (significant scatter in concentration
trend vs. time) and a "Stable" result (limited variability in concentration vs. time) for datasets with no significant increasing or decreasing trend.

4	The Confidence Factor (CF) is the statistical confidence that the constituent concentration is increasing. The CF value modifies the S Statistic
calculation to indicate the degree of confidence in the trend result, as in 'Decreasing" vs. "Probably Decreasing" or "Increasing" vs. "Probably
Increasing." Additionally, if the confidence factor is quite low, due either to considerable variability in concentrations vs. time or little change in
concentrations vs. time, the CF is used to apply a preliminary "No Trend" classification, pending consideration of the COV.

5	Samples evaluated from May-2017 to May-2022 to meet minimum sampling events required for calculating Mann-Kendall Trend.

6	Samples evaluated from Apr-2016 to Jul-2019 to meet minimum sampling events required for calculating Mann-Kendall Trend.

Upgradient Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant)

USACE performed trend analysis on two municipal wells (MW-140B/C) and five monitoring wells
upgradient (MW-128A/B, MW-129A, MW-130A/B) of the Muscoy Plume extraction system. Three

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

41


-------
wells (MW-129A, MW-130B, and MW-140C) resulted in decreasing trends. Three wells (MW-128A,
MW-129A, and MW-140B) resulted in stable trends. One well (MW-128B) did not have sufficient
sampling data above the non-detect value to establish a trend during the last five years, but concentrations
have increased above the non-detect value to 1.7 j^ig/L in May 2022. In the last five years, PCE
concentrations in MW-130B have exceeded the federal drinking water standard; however, PCE
concentrations have been decreasing over the last five years and have been below the federal drinking
water standard since 15-Nov-2021 (Figure C-l).

Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant) - Shallow / Intermediate / Deep
Aquifers

USACE performed trend analysis on ten wells (MW-135A/B/C, MW-136A/B, MW-137A/C, MW-138A,
MW139A, MW-141A) downgradient of Muscoy Plume extraction system (Figures C-2 through C-4).
Two wells (MW-135A and MW-138A) resulted in decreasing trends. Four wells (MW-136A, MW-141A,
MW-135B, and MW-136B) resulted in stable trends. Three wells (MW-137A, MW-139A, and MW-
137C) resulted in no trend. One well (MW-135C) resulted in an increasing trend. The maximum
concentration of PCE in MW-135C, located in the furthermost southeast downgradient edge of the
Muscoy shallow aquifer (Figure 2), was 0.39 (ig/L in November 2021, below the federal drinking water
standard of 5 (ig/L. The increase in concentration coincides with noted repeated EPA 108 temporary
outages (motor/pump failures) and an EPA 108S equipment failure in May 2021.

Downgradient Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant)

Well Olive & Garner is a municipal well located downgradient of the Newmark and Muscoy Treatment
Facilities. This well was selected for trend analysis to identify if contaminants are migrating past either
treatment facility during operation or during periods when the treatment facility was not operational due
to maintenance. Concentrations in the well over the past five years have fluctuated between 0.23 (ig/L and
1.20 (ig/L for PCE, which is below the federal drinking water standard of 5 (ig/L, with a stable trend
(Figure C-5), indicating that the Newmark and Muscoy Treatment Facilities are effective in protecting the
municipal supply wells south and southwest of the Shandin Hills.

Upgradient Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air Stripping)

USACE performed trend analysis on one municipal well (MW-008B) and two monitoring wells (MW-
007A/B) upgradient of the extraction system in the Newmark North Plant (Figures C-6 through C-8). One
well (MW-008B) resulted in a stable trend. One well (MW-007B) resulted in a decreasing trend. One well
(MW-007A) resulted in a probable increasing trend. The maximum concentration of PCE in MW-007A,
located upgradient the extraction well system, was 3.10 j^ig/L in November 2021, below the federal
drinking water standard of 5 (ig/L.

Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air Stripping) - Shallow / Intermediate Aquifers

USACE performed trend analysis on five wells (MW-004B, MW-009A/B, MW-016B, and MW-017B)
downgradient of the extraction system in the Newmark North Plant system (Figures C-7 and C-8). Two

42

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
wells (MW-009A and MW-016B) resulted in decreasing trends. One well (MW-004B) resulted in a
probably decreasing trend. One well (MW-009B) resulted in a stable trend. One well (MW-017B)
resulted in no trend.

Downgradient Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air Stripping) / Upgradient Newmark
Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility)

USACE performed trend analysis on four wells (DTSC 003C, 30th & Mt. View, 31st & Mt. View, and 27th
& Acacia, Figure C-9) downgradient of the extraction system in the Newmark North Plant system and
upgradient Newmark Plume Front. Two wells (DTSC 003C and 27th & Acacia) resulted in decreasing
trends. Two wells (30th & Mt. View and 31st & Mt. View) resulted in stable trends.

Newmark Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility) - Shallow / Intermediate / Deep Aquifers

USACE performed trend analysis on six wells (MW-010A/C, MW-011C, MW-012A/B, and MW-014A,
Figures C-10 through C-12) downgradient of the Newmark Plume Front extraction system. Two wells
(MW-011C and MW-012B) resulted in decreasing trends. Four wells (MW-010A, MW-010C, MW-
012A, and MW-014A) resulted in stable trends. MW-012A did have TCE values greater than those of the
PCE concentrations. This was the single exception to TCE following PCE behavior, noted in the first
paragraph of Section 4.2, therefore Mann-Kendall trend analysis was completed to capture the TCE trend
in this well. Concentrations of TCE for MW-012A were increasing during the review period, though
below the federal drinking water standard.

Capture analysis / Aquifer Plume Migration

USACE reviewed San Bernardino Municipal Water District's capture analysis figures from 2018 through
2022. Capture analysis was evaluated using particle tracking across the PCE plumes (from the 2.5 j^ig/L
contours.) The contaminant concentration contours are generated using the chemical concentration data
from the designated sampling event.

Capture zone analysis was performed for the Newmark extraction system (EPA 001-005) semi-annually
(since 2012) during Operations and Maintenance by San Bernardino Municipal Water District. Capture
zone analysis from June 2018 to June 2022 for the Newmark Plume Front aquifer are shown in Figures C-
13 through C-17. The PCE plume (green contour lines) in the Newmark Plume Front intermediate aquifer
has migrated down-gradient relative to the extent of the capture zone (blue concentric circles) during the
past five years near MW-012B.

Capture zone analysis was performed for the Newmark extraction system (EPA 108-112) semi-annually
(since 2012) during Operations and Maintenance by San Bernardino Municipal Water District. Capture
zone analysis in June 2018 to June 2022 for the Muscoy Plume shallow aquifer are shown in Figures C-
18 through C-22. The PCE plume (green contour lines) in the Muscoy Plume shallow aquifer has
migrated down-gradient relative to the extent of the capture zone (blue concentric circles) during the past
five years near MW-141A and MW-135A. This suggests that the remedial action objective of inhibiting
migration of groundwater contamination into clean portions of the aquifer may not continue to be met in

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

43


-------
the shallow and intermediate aquifers unless steps are taken to ensure capture of the Newmark Plume
front and Muscoy Plume.

44

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Upgradient Muscoy Extraction Wells

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

uq/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-128A

MW-129A

MW-130A

MW-130B

MW-140B

MW-140C







Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

21-May-18

0.74

4.2

1.1

8.2

1.2

3.8



2

28-NOV-18

ND

3.3

1.1

5.6







3

21-May-19

0.42

4.1

1.2

6.3

1.3

2.8



4

20-Nov-19

0.37

0.45

0.7

6







5

19-May-20

0.42

3

0.8

6.2

1.1

2.6



6

16-Nov-20

0.4

2.7

0.85

5.8







7

17-May-21

0.26

2

0.76

5.6

1.1

2.2



8

15-Nov-21

0.41

2.4

0.79

3.8







9

16-May-22

0.44

2.5

0.82

3.9

1.2

2.4



10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S)
Confidence Factor
Concentration Trend

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales.
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

» MW-140B

—	MW-140C

—	— Cleanup Level

o.f 4

09-17 04-18 10-18 05-19 12-19 06-20 01-21 07-21 02-22 08-22

Sampling Date

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-1. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Upgradient Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th
Street GAC Plant).

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

45


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Muscoy Plume - Shallow

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:| MW-135A

MW-136A

MW-137A

MW-138A

MW-139A

MW-141A

Sampling Samplint
Event	Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

22-May-17



0.47











2

15-NOV-17



0.39











3

28-Feb-18

2.1



1

0.77

1.6

1.8



4

21-May-18

2.3

0.68

0.66

0.85

1.9

2.2



5

23-Aug-18

1.9



0.34

0.84

1.4

1.7



6

28-Nov-18

2.2

ND

0.1

0.84

1.4

2.1



7

5-Mar-19

16



ND

0.91

1.3

2.1



8

21-May-19

2

ND

ND

0.79

1.4

2.5



9

29-Aug-19

2.1



1.2

1.2

1.4

1.9



10

20-Nov-19

2.1

0.31

1.4

0.92

1.2

2.4



11

27-Feb-20

1.9



1.7

1

1.3

1.8



12

19-May-20

1.2

ND

1.6

0.76

1.5

2.5



13

27-Aug-20

1.6



1.4

1.1

1.4

2.1



14

16-Nov-20

1.5

ND

1.6

0.85

1.3

2.3



15

25-Feb-21

1.3



1.1

0.55

1.4

1.4



16

17-May-21

1.3

ND

1.3

0.66

1.5

1.9



17

26-Aug-21

1.2



0.91

0.63

1.5

2



18

15-Nov-21

0.83

ND

0.88

0.61

1.6

1.6



19

24-Feb-22

ND



ND

0.59

1.7

1.8



20

16-May-22

ND

ND

ND

0.66

1.7

2



21

















22

















23

















24

















25

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.26

0.34

0.44

0.22

0.12

0.15

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

-81

-2

9

-52

34

-22

Confidence Factor:

>99.9%

62.5%

66.6%

97.4%

89.3%

78.4%

Concentration Trend:

Decreasing

Stable

No Trend

Decreasing

No Trend

Stable

J

o»

3

C
O

5 1

c

4>

O

c
o

o

0.1 	

05-16

-MW-135A
¦ MW136A
-MW-137A
-MW-138A

MW-* 35A
MW-141A
— — Cleanup Level

02-19	06-20

Sampling Date

03-23

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for 4 to 40 samples

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
a 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO, and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". JJ. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and JR. Gonzales,
Ground Water. 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall TooWt is available "as is" Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product, however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shaS be Sable for any direct, indirect, consequential[ incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

	GSi Environmental >nc . www gst-net com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit.

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified'' and the associated numencal value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-2. Marin-Kendall Analysis for Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant)
Shallow Aquifer.

46

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Muscoy Plume - Intermediate

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-135B | MW-136B



Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

28-Feb-18

0.96













2

21-May-18

0.69

ND











3

23-Aug-18

0.83













4

28-Nov-18

0.68

ND











5

5-Mar-19

0.98













6

21-May-19

ND

ND











7

29-Aug-19

1.1













8

20-Nov-19

1

0.8











9

27-Feb-20

0.26













10

19-May-20

ND

0.56











11

27-Aug-20

ND













12

16-Nov-20

0.38

0.75











13

25-Feb-21

ND













14

17-May-21

026

052











15

26-Aug-21

0.66













16

15-Nov-21

0.8

0.63











17

24-Feb-22

0.51













18

16-May-22

0.83

0.59











19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.38

0.17 |

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
Confidence Factor:

-17

-5

80.6%

76.5% |

Concentration Trend:

Stable

Stable

¦	MW-135B

¦	MW-136B

— — Cleanup Level

12-19 06-20 01-21

Sampling Date

08-22

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for 4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing:
a 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%. S*0. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling. H.S. Rifai. C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales,
Ground Water. 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is' Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product, however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party Shan be liable for any direct. indirect; consequential, incidental or other damages resuming from the use of this product or the information contained herein Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obtgation to update the information contained herein
	GSi Environmental inc.. wwwgsHret.com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for. but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numencal value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numencal value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-3. Marin-Kendall Analysis for Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant)
Intermediate Aquifer.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

47


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Muscoy Plume - Deep

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-135C

MW-137C I I I I I I







Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

21-May-18

0.26

0.36











2

28-NOV-18

ND

0.44











3

21-May-19

0.26

0.38











4

20-Nov-19

ND

0.62











5

19-May-20

0.27

0.53











6

16-Nov-20

0.29

0.61











7

17-May-21

ND

0.4











8

15-Nov-21

0.39

0.26











9

16-May-22

0.3

ND











10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.51

0.27 |

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

25

4

Confidence Factor:

100.0%

61.9% |

Concentration Trend:

Increasing

No Trend

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1

¦ MW-137C
— — Cleanup Level

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, inctirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-16. Mann Kendall Analysis for Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant)
-Deep Aquifer

48

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Powngradient Muscoy Extraction Wells

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

Olive & Garnerj







Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

12-Apr-16

1.6













2

26-Jul-16

0.77













3

25-Oct-16

1.5













4

24-Apr-18

1.2













5

4-Jun-19

0.23













6

















7

















8

















9

















10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.53 |

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

-6

Confidence Factor:

88.3%

Concentration Trend:

Stable

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1 -I	

01-16

-h-

i Olive & Gamer
— — Cleanup Level

08-16 03-17 09-17 04-18	10-18

Sampling Date

05-19

12-19

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be Sable for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein
	GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-5. Marin-Kendall Analysis for Downgradient Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th
Street GAC Plant).

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

49


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Upgradient Newmark North Plant

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

uq/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-008B I I I I I I I

Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

22-May-18

0.92













2

22-May-19

0.93













3

20-May-20

0.86













4

18-May-21

0.71













5

17-May-22

0.8













6

















7

















8

















9

















10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S)
Confidence Factor
Concentration Trend

i ¦ MW-OOBB
— — Cleanup Level

O)
D

!= 1

9	'

C
4>

o
c
o
u

0.1

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, inctirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-6. Marin-Kendall Analysis for Upgradient Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air
Stripping).

50

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Newmark North Plant - Shallow

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-007A | MW-009A



Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

21-May-18

ND

3.1











2

28-NOV-18

1.4

1.9











3

21-May-19

0.62

2.1











4

20-Nov-19

0.68

2.4











5

19-May-20

ND

1.3











6

16-Nov-20

2.2

ND











7

17-May-21

2.7

0.63











8

15-Nov-21

3.1

0.26











9

16-May-22

2.1

1











10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.53 | 0.60 |

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

11 | -18

Confidence Factor:

93.2% | 98.4% |

Concentration Trend:

Prob. Increasing] Decreasing

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1

¦ MW-008A
— — Cleanup Level

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be Sable for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein
	GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-7. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air Stripping)
Shallow Aquifer.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

51


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-004B

MW-007B

MW-009B

MW-016B

MW-017B







Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

21-May-18

0.64

1.3

3.1

1.6

ND





2

28-Nov-18

0.78

0.95

2.8

1.5

042





3

21-May-19

0.7

0.89

2.8

1.6

ND





4

20-NOV-19

0.79

1.1

2.6

1.7

0.79





5

19-May-20

0.52

1

2.3

1.7

ND





6

16-Nov-20

0.84

097

3

1.5

0.55





7

17-May-21

0.53

081

2.3

1.4

ND





8

15-N0V-21

0.48

0 68

2.6

1.4

0.65





9

16-May-22

0.31

0.72

2.8

1.2

0.92





10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.28

0.21

0.10

0.11

0.29

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

-14

22

-11

-18

6

Confidence Factor:

91.0%

98.8%

84.6%

96.2%

88.3% |





Prob. Decreasing









ooncemrauon irena |

Decreasing

Stable

Decreasing

No Trend

O)
D

% 1

C
0)

u
c
o
a

0.1

-f-

i ¦ MW-0O4D

¦	i UW-U07B

¦	MW-009D
' MW-0160

MW-017B
™ Cleanup Level

04-18 10-18 05-19 12-19 06-20 01-21

Sampling Date

07-21

02-22

08-22

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for 4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing:
a 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%. S*0. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J J. Aziz. M. Ling. H.S. Rifai. C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales,
Ground Water. 41(3):355-367,2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is" Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product, however, no party, incJuding without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party Shan be liable for any direct. indirect; consequential, incidental or other damages resisting from the use of this product or the information contained herein Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obtgation to update the information contained herein
	GSi Environmental inc.. wwwgsHret.com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for. but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numencal value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numencal value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-8. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air Stripping) -
Intermediate Aquifer.

52

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Down/Upgrad. Newmark N. Plant/Plume Front

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

DTSC 003C

30th & Mt. View| 31st & Mt. View| 27th & Acacia |

Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

24-Apr-18



1.9



2.1







2

22-May-18

1.2













3

16-Apr-19



1.9

2.1

2.3







4

22-May-19

1













5

21-Apr-20



0.67

1

2







6

20-May-20

0.8













7

20-Apr-21



1.1



1.5







8

18-May-21

0.81













9

25-May-21





2









10

19-Apr-22



1.7

2

0.71







11

17-May-22

0.35













12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.38

0.38

0.29

0.37 i

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

-8

-3

-1

-a

Confidence Factor:

95.8%

67.5%

50.0%

95.8% |

Concentration Trend:

Decreasing

Stable

Stable

Decreasing

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1

I	DTSC 0Q3C

¦	30th & Mt View
•	31st & Mt View

¦	27th & Acacia
— —	Cleanup Level

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, inctirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-9. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Downgradient Newmark North Plant (Newmark GAC/Air
Stripping) / Upgradient Newmark Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility).

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

53


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Newmark Plume Front - Shallow

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:| MW-Q10A

MW-012A

MW-014A

Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

28-Feb-18



ND











2

21-May-18

ND

0.27

0.66









3

23-Aug-18



ND











4

28-Nov-18

ND

ND

0.48









5

5-Mar-19



ND











6

21-May-19

0.59

ND

0.46









7

29-Aug-19



ND











8

20-Nov-19

ND

ND

0.54









9

27-Feb-20



ND











10

19-May-20

0.29

ND

0.54









11

27-Aug-20



0.3











12

16-Nov-20

ND

ND

0.45









13

25-Feb-21



ND











14

17-May-21

ND

0.25

0.52









15

26-Aug-21



0.26











16

15-Nov-21

0.42

ND

0.43









17

24-Feb-22



ND











18

16-May-22

0.49

ND

0.49









19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S)
Confidence Factor
Concentration Trend

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1 4-

i	MW-010A

¦	MW-012A

¦	MW-014A

— — Cleanup Level

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, inctirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-10. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Newmark Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility) - Shallow
Aquifer.

54

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Travis Kelsay

ug/L

Sampling Point ID: | MW-012B

Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

28-Feb-18

1.5













2

21-May-18

1.2













3

23-Aug-18

1.1













4

28-Nov-18

1.2













5

5-Mar-19

1.2













6

21-May-19

1.2













7

29-Aug-19

1.2













8

20-Nov-19

0.97













9

27-Feb-20

0.84













10

19-May-20

0.84













11

27-Aug-20

0.83













12

16-Nov-20

0.71













13

25-Feb-21

0.53













14

17-May-21

0.65













15

26-Aug-21

0.59













16

15-Nov-21

0.49













17

24-Feb-22

0.25













18

16-May-22

0.5













19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
Confidence Factor:
Concentration Trend:

0.38

>99.9% |
Decreasing J

0.1

"S

i MW012B
— — Cleanup Level

04-18 10-18 05-19 12-19 06-20 01-21

Sampling Date

07-21

02-22

08-22

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for 4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
a 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%. S*0. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling. H.S. Rifai. C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales,
Ground Water. 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is' Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product, however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party Shan be liable for any direct. indirect; consequential, incidental or other damages resuming from the use of this product or the information contained herein Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obtgation to update the information contained herein
	GSi Environmental inc.. wwwgsHret.com	

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for. but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numencal value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numencal value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-11. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Newmark Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility)
Intermediate Aquifer.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

55


-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT

for Constituent Trend Analysis

Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:

01-Dec-22

Newmark Groundwater Superfund Site

Travis Kelsay

Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:

Newmark Plume Front - Deep

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

ug/L

Sampling Point ID:

MW-010C

MW-011C I I I I I I







Sampling
Event

Sampling
Date

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

1

21-May-18

0.45

3.9











2

28-NOV-18

0.31

3.3











3

21-May-19

0.33

3.3











4

20-Nov-19

0.32

2.8











5

19-May-20

0.29

1.8











6

16-Nov-20

0.3

2.5











7

17-May-21

0.25

1.4











8

15-Nov-21

0.5

1.8











9

16-May-22

0.5

2











10

















11

















12

















13

















14

















15

















16

















17

















18

















19

















20

















Coefficient of Variation:

0.26

0.33 |

Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):

1

-24

Confidence Factor:

50.0%

99.4% |

Concentration Trend:

Stable

Decreasing

O)
D

!= 1

¦M	'

c
a>

o
c
o
u

0.1 4-

-m—MWOtCC

		MW011C

— Cleanup Lewd

09-17

04-18

10-18

05-19

12-19

06-20

01-21

07-21

02-22

08-22

Sampling Date

Notes:

1.	At least four independent sampling events per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology is valid for4 to 40 samples.

2.	Confidence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (S<0): >95% = Increasing or Decreasing;
s 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, SsO. and COV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.

3.	Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans". J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355-367.2003.

DISCLAIMER The GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit is available 'as is * Considerable care has been exercised in preparing this software product; however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Environmental Inc., makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the information contained herein, and no such
party shall be liable for any direct, inctirect, consequential, incidental or other damages resulting from the use of this product or the information contained herein. Information in
this publication is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental Inc., disclaims any responsibility or obligation to update the information contained herein

GSI Environmental inc., www gsi-net. com

ND = Non-Detect The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit

Red value = (1) The analyte was positively identified, the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample or (2) The analysis
indicates the presence of an analyte that has been tentatively identified" and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration

Figure C-12. Mann-Kendall Analysis for Newmark Plume Front (17th Street GAC Facility) - Deep
Aquifer.

56

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
PREPARED BY:

Stantec

$ Anlil 6
7 (860.67)

For: City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in Deep Aquifer
June 2018
Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Network
San Bernardino, California

Date:
09/28/18

Figure:

Legend

Simulated Flow Lines Generated
Using Surfer 8.0 and ArcGIS 10.0

Estimated Water Elevation
Contours for the LWBM (ft msl)
—850— Contour Interval = 5ft

(Produced using Surfer Grid)

May 2018

PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)
— i.o— (Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

Source: City of San Bernardino 2018. 1st Semi-Annual 2018 Progress Report.

Figure C-13. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the intermediate Newmark Plume Front aquifer during
June 2018.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

57


-------
PREPARED BY:

Stantec

For: City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in Deep Aquifer
June 2019
Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Network
San Bernardino. California

Date:
09/23/19

Figure:

Legend

Well

EPA001PB Well ID
(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	 Simulated Flow Lines Generated

Using Surfer 8.0 and ArcGIS 10.0

Estimated Water Elevation
Contours for the LWBM (ft msl)
—850— Contour Interval = 5ft

(Produced using Surfer Grid)

May 2019

PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)
— t.o<— (Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

LWBM = Lower Water Bearing Member
gpm = Gallons per Minute

Source: City of San Bernardino 2019. 1st Semi-Annual 2019 Progress Report.

Figure C-14. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the intermediate Newmark Plume Front aquifer during
June 2019.

58

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Antfl 6

(859.21)

MW140C

(865.59)

Legend

V Well

EPA001PB Well ID
(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	 Simulated Flow Lines Generated

Using Surfer 8 0 and ArcGIS 10.0

Estimated Water Elevation
Contours for the LWBM (ft msl)
—850— Contour Interval = 5ft

(Produced using Surfer Grid)

May 2020

PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)
—vo— (Dashed Where Less Certain)

—— Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

1	I	I	L_

Feet

Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane CA V

£ t

S<3
Ss

S3

PREPARED BY:

Stantec

stamec consulting, mc.
230 Conejo Ridge Ave. Suite 200
Tnousana Oats. Ca 31361
(805) 230-12661230-1277 ffai)

For City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in Deep Aquifer
June 2020
Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Network
San Bernardino, California

Date:
08/26/20

Figure:

4-6

Source: City of San Bernardino 2020. 1st Semi-Annual 2020 Progress Report.

Figure C-15. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the intermediate Newmark Plume Front aquifer during
June 2020.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

59


-------
Legend

Well

EPA 001PB Well ID
(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	 Simulated Flow Lines Generated

Using Surfer 8.0 and ArcGIS 10.0

Estimated Water Elevation
Contours for the LWBM (ft msl)
—850— Contour Interval = 5ft

(Produced using Surfer Grid)

May 2021

PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)
— io— (Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

PREPARED BY:



Stantec

sancc Consulting, inc.

SO Conep ROge Ave. Sure 200
Thousand Oalre. Ca 91361
(SOS) 230-1266*230-1277 (lax}

For City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in Deep Aquifer
June 2021
Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Network
San Bernardino. California

Date:
08/24/21

Figure:

4-6

Antil 6

(858.01)

Source: City of San Bernardino 2021. P1 Semi-Annual 2021 Progress Report.

Figure C-16. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the intermediate Newmark Plume Front aquifer during
June 2021.

60

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Waterman
(845.4)

27th & Acacia
(629.87)

[*jWt30C
(819.25)

tm 011B

' (813.36)

EPA00^

'(784.27)

MW138C

(817.09)

MW136C

(809.82)

005PB

pi5YJ

(1573)

MW135C

rflJ0.36i

MW015B

/(809.91)

—

MW012B

(810.05)

MW014B

(807.12)

EPA 002PB
(7994)

EPA 003PI

(78627)

Antil 6

(83521)

Legend

-«¦ Well

EPA 001PB Well ID
(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	 Simulated Row Lines Generated

Using Surfer 8.0 and ArcGIS 10.0

Estimated Water Elevation
Contours for the LWBM (ft msl)
—860— Contour Interval = 5ft

(Produced using Surfer Grid)

May 2022

PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)
—1 a— (Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

3.S00

¦ I I I

Feet

Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane CA V

PREPARED BY:



Stantec

Stantec ConsuUng. loo.
290 cons)o Ridge Ave, Suile20B
Tfiousard Oats. Ca 91361

For City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in Deep Aquifer
June 2022
Newmark Plume Front
Extraction Network
San Bernardino, California

Date:
08/30/22

Figure.

4-6

Source: City of San Bernardino 2022. 1st Semi-Annual 2022 Progress Report.

Figure C-17. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the intermediate Newmark Plume Front aquifer during
June 2022.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

61


-------
Average Monthly Flow Rate Approximately One Day
Prior *5 the Water Le«l Mentoring Round Used for
Capture Analysis (qpm)

MW Paperboard

(DRY)

WW 128 A

(M5.35)

MW 129 A

(862.77)"

EPA 1101

—f873.4!

Sierra High School A

(DRY)

MW 014A

^^80.36)

MW 012A
(879.41)

Encanto Park B

^ (DRY)

Legend

Well

EPA 001PB Wei! ID

(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	050 Estimated Water Elevation Contours

(ft msl) Contour Interval = 5ft
Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed between the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to evaluate percent
capture performance.

Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed outside the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to illustrate
groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity
of the extraction wells. These particles
are not used to evaluate percent capture
performance.

	May 2018 PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)

(Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

(1) Discrete shallow aquifer water level not
available. The shalow aquifer water level
was approximated using KT3D H20 and an
extraction well ftow rate adjusted based on
2011/2012 spinner testing to represent flow
from the shallow aquifer, (i.e. 14% for EPA 109
10% and for EPA 112).

gpm = Gallons per Minute
0	875	1.760	3.500

Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane CA V



PREPARED BY:



® £

il
£. ®
3

Qjj> Stantec

stantec ccnsirtrng
SO Ccnejo Rags Ave, S ute 200
Thousand Oats, ca SI3S1
(80S) 230-126&2JIM277 (tax)

ita Generated by:
M, Bartosek

For: City of San Bernardino

Municipal Water Department

#

o

Fiowline Capture in

i

Shallow Aquifer

June 2018
Muscoy Plume
Extraction Well Network

£

Date:
10/02/18

Figure:

4-12

Source: City of San Bernardino 2018. 1® Semi-Annual 2018 Progress Report.

Figure C-18. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the shallow Muscoy Plume aquifer during June 2018.

62

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
A«rage Monthly Flow Rate Approxmaiely One Day
Prior to tie Water Level Monitorng Round Used for
Capture Analysis (acmi
EPA 001
EPA 002
EPA 003
EPA 004
EPA 005
EPA 108
EPA108S
EPA 100
EPA 110
EPA 111
EPA 112

Legend

EPA001PB Well ID

(867.39) (Water Elevation It msl)

	qsq Estimated Water Elevation Contours

(ft msl) Contour Interval = 5ft
Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed between the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to evaluate percent
capture performance.

Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed outside the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to illustrate
groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity
of the extraction wells. These particles
are not used to evaluate percent capture
performance.

	May 2019 PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)

(Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

(1) Discrete shallow aquifer water level not
available. The shallow aquifer water level
was approximated using KT3D H20 and an
extraction well fiow rate adjusted based on
2011/2012 spinner testing to represent flow
from the shallow aquifer, (i.e. 14% for EPA 109
10% and for EPA 112).

gpm = Gallons per Minute
i	1.750

3,500

_l

PREPARED BY:

Stantec

Stantec conranng
290 Conejo sage Ave. Suite 200

Tnousand cans, ca 31361
(605) 2J0-126&23D-1277 (tax)

For: City of San Bernardino

Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in
Shallow Aquifer

June 2019
Muscoy Plume
Extraction Well Network

Date:
09/24/19

Figure:

4-12

Source: City of San Bernardino 2019. 1® Semi-Annual 2019 Progress Report.

Figure C-19. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the shallow Muscoy Plume aquifer during June 2019.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

63


-------
Legend

& Well

EPA001PB We4l ID

(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

050 Estimated Water Elevation Contours
(ft msl) Contour Interval = 5ft
Simulated flow lines generated using

	KT3D H20. Particles placed between the

PCE 2.5ug/L contours to evaluate percent
capture performance-

Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed outside the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to illustrate
groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity
of the extraction wells. These particles
are not used to evaluate percent capture
performance.

	May 2020 PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)

(Dashed Where Less Certain)

—Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

(1) Discrete shallow aquifer water level not
available. The shallow aquifer water level
was approximated using KT3D H20 and an
extraction well flow rate adjusted based on
2011/2012 spinner testing to represent flow
from the shallow aquifer (i.e. 14% for EPA 109
10% and for EPA 112).

gpm = Gallons per Minute

J	l_

3.500

_l

Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane CA V

PREPARED BY:



Stantec

Stantec consulting
230 C0f*|0 RXJge Ave. Suite 200

Tnousana oa«s. ca 91361
(805) 230-1266/23&-1277 (Tax)

For City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in
Shallow Aquifer

June 2020
Muscoy Plume
Extraction Well Network

Date:
08/27/20

Figure:

4-12

Source: City of San Bernardino 2020. !P Semi-Annual 2020 Progress Report.

Figure C-20. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the shallow Muscoy Plume aquifer during June 2020.

64

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Legend

Well

EPA 001PB Well ID

(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

	05Q Estimated Water Elevation Contours

(ft msl) Contour Interval = 5fl
Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed between the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to evaluate percent
capture performance.

Simulated flow lines generated using
KT3D H20. Particles placed outside the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to illustrate
groundwater flow patterns in the vicinity
of the extraction wells. These particles
are not used to evaluate percent capture
performance.

	May 2021 PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)

(Dashed Where Less Certain)

Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

(1) Discrete shallow aquifer water level not
available. The shallow aquifer water level
was appro* mated using KT3D H20 and an
extraction wel flow rate adjusted based on
2011/2012 spinner testing to represent flow
from the shallow aquifer, (i.e. 14% for EPA 109
10% and for EPA 112).

PREPARED BY:

Stantec

SsanJec Csn Bulling
230 Conejo wage Ave. Suite 200
Thousand Oa*s, Ca 91361
(80S} 23D-126&'230-1277 flax)

For: City of San Bernardino

Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in
Shallow Aquifer

June 2021
Muscoy Plume
Extraction Well Network

Date:
08/24/21

Figure:

Source: City of San Bernardino 2021. 1st Semi-Annual 2021 Progress Report.

Figure C-21. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the shallow Muscoy Plume aquifer during June 2021.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site	65


-------
Average Monthly Few Rale Approiamately Ctie Day
Pnor to the W3ter Leves Monitoring Rourxi U;

Capture Anafyss (gpm)

EPA 001	0

EPA 002	1.511

EPA 003	1.174

EPA0O4	1.417

EPA 005	1.568

EPA 10S	1.821

Legend

^ Well

EPA001PB Well ID

(867.39) (Water Elevation ft msl)

. Estimated Water Elevation Contours
(It msl) Contour Interval = 5ft
Simulated flow lines generated using
¦ KT3D H20. Particles placed between the
PCE 2.5ug/L contours to evaluate percent
capture performance.

. 	May 2022 PCE Isoconcentration (ug/L)

(Dashed Where Less Certain)

- Faults/Hydraulic Barriers

(1) Discrete shallow aquifer water level not
available. The shallow aquifer water level
was approximated using KT3D H20 and an
extraction well flow rate adjusted based on
2011/2012 spinner testing to represent flow
from the shallow aquifer, (i.e. 14% for EPA 109
10% and for EPA 112).

gpm = Gallons per Minute
i 1.730

-I	I	I

PREPARED BY:

Stantec

Kantec Consulting
290 Conejo RUge Ave, Suite 200
Tttousana 031s. Ca 91361
(80S) 230-1266.'230-t277(ta«|

For City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Department

Flowline Capture in
Shallow Aquifer

June 2022
Muscoy Plume
Extraction Well Network

Date:
08/30/22

Figure:

4-12

Source: City of San Bernardino 2022. 1st Semi-Annual 2022 Progress Report.

Figure C-22. Groundwater flow lines demonstrating capture of PCE plume within the shallow Muscoy Plume aquifer during June 2022.

66

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Appendix D: Applicable or Relevant and

Appropriate Requirements
Assessment

Section 121 (d)(2)(A) of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any Federal standards, requirements, criteria, or
limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs). ARARs are those standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance at a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act site.

Changes (if any) in ARARs are evaluated to determine if the changes affect the protectiveness of the
remedy. Each ARAR and any change to the applicable standard or criterion are discussed below.

Chemical-specific ARARs identified in the 2015 ROD for groundwater were evaluated (Table D-l).

Table D-1. Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Changes

Chemical

2015
Cleanup
Levels (ng/L)

Basis for Cleanup

Current Regulations (ng/L)

ARARs More or
Less Stringent than
Cleanup Levels?

Level

State

Federal

PCE

5

Federal and State
Drinking Water
Standard

5

5

No changes

TCE

5

Federal and State
Drinking Water
Standard

5

5

No changes

Federal and State laws and regulations other than the chemical-specific ARARs discussed in Table D-l
that have been promulgated or changed since the 2015 ROD are described in Table D-2. There have been
no revisions to laws or regulations that affect the protectiveness of the remedy.

The following action- or location-specific ARARs have not changed in the past five years, and therefore
do not affect protectiveness:

•	California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 1, 64401 et seq

•	Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Articles 4, 4,5, and 5.5 sections 64431 et seq

•	Water Quality Control Plan, Bunker Hill Basin (Basin Plan): 23 CCR Division 4, Chapter 1, Article
6, Section 3950

•	Water Code Sections 13140 and 13240

•	Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

67


-------
•	California Health and Safety Code 39000 et seq

•	South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulation XIV, Rule 1401

•	South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 1301, 1303, 1304.1-1309, 1311-1311, 1401

•	South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 401, 402, 403

•	California Hazardous Waste Control Act, Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5; 22 CCR
Section 66261.31

•	22 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66264.600 and .603 and 66264.111 - .115

68

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Table D-2. Summary of ARAR Changes for Site in the Past Five Years

Requirement and Citation

Document

Description

Effect on
Protectiveness

Comments

Recent Amendment
Date

Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous
Waste

CCRDiv. 4.5, Chapter 11,
Articles 1,3, and 5, Section
66261

Chapter 12, Articles 1-4,
Sections 66262, 66264

2015 Final ROD

Establishes standards for
generators of RCRA and
California hazardous
wastes.

Changes do not affect
protectiveness.

Change to administrative
filing deadlines

January 1, 2021

South Coast Air Quality
Management District
Rules 1302, 1304, 1310

2015 Final ROD

Rule 1302 provides
definitions for the
Regulation XIII - New
Source Review
Rule 1304 provides
exemptions to the
modeling requirement in
Rule 1303 for specific
sources

Rule 1310 establishes
specific analysis and
reporting requirements.

Changes do not affect
protectiveness.

Administrative changes

Rule 1302 amended
December 4, 2020
Rule 1304 amended
November 5, 2021
Rule 1310 amended
March 2019

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

69


-------
Appendix E: Public Notice

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

70


-------
Appendix F: Interview Forms

Five-Year Review Interview Record

Site:

Newmark Contaminated Groundwater

EPA ID No: CAD981434517

Interview Questionnaire

Date: 2/17/2023

(Fill in the components below, one line per person if multiple persons are providing responses)

Name

Organization

Title

Telephone

Email

DTSC

Michelle Micucci

714-816-1979

Michelle.micucci@dtsc.ca.gov

(Record responses to the guestions below)

1)	What is your role in the project (e.g. property owner, groundwater user, drinking water provider, impacted adjacent property,
consultant)? DTSC Project Manager

2)	How do you interact with the Superfund Project Manager regarding concerns with the cleanup?

3)	Do you have evidence or prior knowledge that a public or private well, water system, or aquifer has been designated contaminated
by any government or health agency? Please describe.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contaminants are in several municipal water-supply wells
within the northern San Bernardino/Muscoy region. EPA placed this site on the NPL list in 1990.

4)	Do you review any of the published data/reports and what is your overall impression of the project? (If the answer is no continue
on to question 12).

Yes, Newark has 14 extraction wells to inhibit further migration of the VOC contamination

4) When you are reviewing the monitoring data, are there any trends that show contaminant levels decreasing?

PCE and TCE concentrations in groundwater have been reduced to at or below Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCL). MW139A and MW012A have increased in PCE recently.

6)	Is the cleanup functioning as expected and how well is it performing?

7)	Are you aware of any changes in Federal/State/County/Local laws and regulations that may impact the recovery of the existing
contamination or how the cleanup will be conducted? No

8)	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project?

There have been conversations that there is PCE contamination coming from outside contributor.

9)	Do you wish to be included in the contact roster for receiving additional data reports or Five-Year Reports?

yes

Additional Site-Specific Questions

[If needed]

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

71


-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Site:

Newmark Contaminated Groundwater

EPA ID No: CAD981434517

Interview Questionnaire

Date: 03/30/2023

(Fill in the components below, one line per person if multiple persons are providing responses)

Name

Steve Miller

Organization

City of Sari Bernardino
Municipal Water District

Title

Director of Water Utility

Telephone Email

Steve, m i llerggsbmwd. org

(Record responses to the questions below}

1) What is your role in the project (e.g. property owner, groundwater user, drinking water provider, impacted adjacent property,
consultant)?

i ,,	'	1	i 'jrtdwater

2} How do you interact with the Superfund Project Manager regarding concerns with the cleanup?

• , , .	¦, , , i , - . , - RA status,.1	i'Ve also , ¦

; report to

3) Has a private well or a non-public water system ever served the property? Can you provide details?

4) Do you have evidence or prior knowledge that a public or private well, water system, or aquifer has been designated
contaminated by any government or health agency? Please describe.

f IVIWD wate • r' ' are well documented through the Administrative Record for the NGCSS which is maintained

5) Do you review any of the published data/reports and what is your overall impression of the project? {If the answer is no
continue on to question 12).

6) When you are reviewing the monitoring data, are there any trends that show contaminant levels decreasing?



7) Is the cleanup functioning as expected and how well is it performing?

8) Is there a continuous G&M presence? if so, please describe staff and activities. If there is not a continuous on-site presence,
describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities.

72

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
9) Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines in the last
five years? Please describe changes and impacts.

1 i i i	1 1, i n i1 i11 t changes in these operational areas, with the exception of the water level . >ng frequency

10) Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties at the site in the last five years (e.g. fence damage, vandalism, storm
damage)? If so, please give details.

11) Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and desired results or
improved efficiency (e.g. better warning system for groundwater wells, repair/replace outdated equipment).

12)	Are you aware of any changes in Federal/State/County/Local laws and regulations that may impact the recovery of the
existing contamination or how the cleanup will be conducted?

No, we are not aware oi	to laws and regulations thai impact the mmedy operation,

13)	Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project?

„ . • •	1 i , i 1 ¦ , sry well. The Water Department will coi , •	11 iperate the remedy ami

14) Do you wish to be included in the contact roster for receiving additional data reports or Five Year Reports?
Yes

Additional Site-Specific Questions

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

73


-------
Five-Year Review Interview Record

Site:

Newmark Contaminated Groundwater

EPA ID No: CAD981434517

Interview Questionnaire

_ Date: 0?;29;23

(Fill in the components below, one line per person if multiple persons are providing responses)

Name

Organization Title

Telephone

Email

Mark Eisen

Stantec

Consultant for SBMWD



mark,eisen@stantec.com































(Record responses to the questions below)

1)	What is your role in the project (e.g. property owner, groundwater user, drinking water provider, impacted adjacent property,
consultant)? I provk - »„ „ . - - 'tation services as part of the SBMWD Team with respect to the Newmark

Groundwater Conta	'NGCSS) Newmark and Muscoy Operable Unit (OU) Remedial Action (RA)

operations, mainten

2)	How do you interact with the Superfund Project Manager regarding concerns with the cleanup? We have quarterly to semi-
annual meetings to discuss RA status and issues. We also submit a semi-annual progress report to both the EPA and DTSC
project managers.

3)	Has a private well or a non-public water system evei served the property' Can you provide details? ' > vice area

imps	1 -	u ¦	' v u >	i1 ") jspomibilities are

limik	traction wells

coni) i m an " \ 1 >	¦	> - <	i	i - <•. ' - - of impacted

grou -r I am r - > i	• ,	- „ - ; - ' •

4)	Do you have evidence or prior knowledge that a public or private well, water system, or aquifer has been designated
contaminated by any government or health agency? Please describe. Impacts to SBMWD water systems are well documented
through the Administrative Record for the NGCSS which is maintained by EPA.

5)	Do you review any of the published data/reports and what is your overall impression of the project? (If the answer is no
continue on to question 121 ~ 1 < ,	<" * i	> ~ T > i i ><	i

IS,

'A.

6i When you are reviewing the monitoring data	are there any tiends that show contaminant levels decreasing'

• ztion wells and i >	' 1 > * - >

• ¦ iter samples. F - -	- t , -> - - 1 -i - . > \. i

' EPA 001 andf~ • < ( •	> - < v ' > - > " 7 " • -

rater distribution system.

7) Is the cleanup functioning as expected and how well is it performing?	> >	a

s

8)	Is there a continuous O&M presence? If so, please descube staff and activities If theie is not a continuous on-site piesence,
describe staff and frequency of site inspections and activities " '	• r > , „ ^ -1 . i «
systems. SBMWD operators are on duty 24 hours a day. The entire RA pumping and treatment system is continuously monitored

• >,	i s. ¦	j	u, rom eacn i t < n >	i ^ t - > t

- - ¦	1 . c-	• ¦ notified. C, "• , ¦ ' - ' < ~

throughout me day to perform manual «v > !'' ie extraction and treatment systems.

9)	Have there been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling routines in the last

74

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
five years'? Please describe changes and impacts. With the exception of the water level monitoring frequency change discussed
? not been any significant changes in the O&M requirements, maintenance schedules, or sampling
•ars.

10)	Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties at the site in the last five years (e g fence damage, vandalism storm
damage)? If so, please give details. Sim ¦ etofthe COVID pandemi , ' ' > v , nsiif > 3d
delays in procuring replacement pumpimi <- / ,• fit for the extraction wells.	•- < "ease - * „ >> it
downtime related to planned and unplani r > :ement of pumping equipr,

11)	Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M or sampling efforts? Please describe changes and desired results or
imptoved efficiency (e g better warning system for groundwatei wells repair/replace outdated equipment) i> -

12)	Are you aware of any changes in Federal/State/County/Local laws and regulations that may impact the recovery of the
existing contamination or how the cleanup will be conducted? No

13)	Do you have any comments suggestions oi lecommendations regarding the project?	'• 1	-

are m artificial recharge basins located upgradient of the MuscoyOU. SBMWDhas identified an appropriate¦ location for s

commerciai entity

14)	Do you wish to be included in the contact roster for receiving additional data reports or Five Year Reports? Yes

	Additional Site-Specific Questions	

	fif needed]	

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

75


-------
Appendix G: Site Inspection Report and

Photos

1.	INTRODUCTION

a.	Date of Visit: 04 April 2023

b.	Location: San Bernardino, CA

c.	Purpose: A site visit was conducted to visually inspect and document the conditions of the
remedy, the site, and the surrounding area for inclusion into the Five-Year Review Report.

d.	Participants: _

Helen Sanchez USACE-SPL, Project Engineer
Kuceli Mari EPA, RPM

Steve Miller Director of Water Utility, City of San Bernardino

2.	SUMMARY

A site visit was completed at the Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site in the City of San
Bernardino on 4 April 2023The weather was sunny and in the 70s. The site visit lasted from
approximately 9:00 to 2:00 p.m. which included a walk-through of the treatment facilities, extraction
wells, Vulcan study area, and surroundings.

3.	DISCUSSION

The inspection began in the office building with background provided of the facility. Following, the City
of San Bernardino Water Department led the tour. The group first visited the Newmark Plume Front
Treatment Facility (17th Street GAC Plant) which was offline. The Newmark Plume Front Treatment
Facility showed no property nuisance and no vandalism in its area. The group then toured the Newmark
Plume Front Treatment Facility (Waterman GAC & Air Stripping). Mr. Miller noted that the employees
have access to the SCADA system electronically and at the facility itself. Other than common challenges
of increased pricing for materials for the facility during COVID, there were no other impediments for the
routine working order of the facility. Additional small parts were bought as backup in case the supply
chain was impacted during those times as well.

The group then toured the following facility of North Plant Treatment Facility (Newmark GAC & Air
Stripping). The facility showed no property nuisance in its surroundings. The SCADA system showed the
current operation in working order. The flowmeters showed to be functioning operational mode. The
group walked over to see the reservoir area which was secured by a fence within the property. The group

76

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
also observed to the chemical storage room located within the facility as well. Following afterwards, the
group visited the Muscoy Plume Treatment Facility (19th Street GAC Plant). The group toured the
treatment system for the Muscoy groundwater plume, which included viewing the SCADA system in
functioning order. There were no signs of vandalism or trespassing at this facility.

The group had also visited the following extraction wells: EPA 001, EPA 002, EPA 003, EPA 005, EPA
112, EPA 111, EPA 110, EPA 109, EPA 108, EPA 108S for security, accessibility, and functionality. All
wells were online and functioning except for EPA 108 and EPA 108S which were temporarily offline for
safety reasons. Also, EPA 006 and EPA 007 extraction wells were less accessible due to homeless
encampments nearby and photos were taken from inside the vehicle.

The Vulcan Recharge Basin proposed area was also visited by the group located north of the Muscoy
Plume Treatment Facility. There was a pilot study that was conducted to determine the recharge rate from
the proposed area of the Vulcan Materials Company and the recharge penetration rate was found to be
calculated at 3 feet per day. There is current ongoing discussion on determining whether the proposed
area will be used for purposes of a recharge basin.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

77


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

78


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

79


-------
80

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Newmark

Plume

Front

Treatment

Facility

(17th Street

GAC

Plant)

Newmark

Plume

Front

Treatment

Facility

(Waterman

GAC &

Air

Stripping)

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

81


-------
82	Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
North

Plant

Treatment

Facility

(Newmcirk

GAC&

Air

Stripping)

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site	83


-------
SCADA
System at
North
Plant
Treatment
Facility
(New mark
GAC &
Air

Stripping)

84

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

85


-------
SCADA System
at Muscoy
Plume
Treatment
Facility (19th
Street GAC
Plant)

Muscoy Plume
Treatment
Facility (19th
Street GAC
Plant)

86	Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

87


-------
88

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

89


-------
90

Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site


-------
Fourth Five-Year Review for Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Site

91


-------