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 ------- |