SEMS-RM DOCID # 100034754
FOURTH COMBINED FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 1) SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH HOLLYWOOD AND BURBANK, LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
PRO^°
PREPARED BY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
FOR
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
MirUACI Digitally signed by
lvllv_n Mt. L MICHAEL MONTGOMERY
Approved by: (MONTGOMERY ^
2023.09.28 Date:
13:58:25 -07 00'
Michael Montgomery. Director
Superfund and Emergency Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 9
-------
Executive Summary
This is the fourth combined Five-Year Review of the San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
(Site) located in North Hollywood and Burbank, Los Angeles County, 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 San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Site has been divided into two groundwater operable units1, North
Hollywood and Burbank, located within its boundaries. The Five-Year Review is required due to the
fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site at levels above those that
would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
In September 2009, EPA selected the following Second Interim Remedy for North Hollywood:
construction of new extraction wells; modification/rehabilitation of several existing extraction wells;
expanded treatment; chromium treatment for four of the extraction wells; 1,4-dioxane treatment for
one extraction well; installation of additional monitoring wells; institutional controls; and use of the
treated water in Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's water supply system.
Since the 2009 Record of Decision, EPA has modified the Second Interim Remedy three times. First,
EPA amended the Second Interim Remedy in 2014 via a Record of Decision Amendment, adding
reinjection of the treated water as an alternative end use. Second, in 2016, EPA finalized using a
Memorandum to File that confirmed the need to add more extraction wells targeting 1,4 dioxane
contamination in the western portion of the North Hollywood Third, EPA determined that containment
could be improved by increasing groundwater extraction and issued an Explanation of Significant
Differences in February 2018, which increased the groundwater extraction rate by adding new
extraction wells and expanding the treatment system, in order to improve containment.
Honeywell International is implementing the Second Interim Remedy within the Central North
Hollywood area (separate from the North Hollywood Eastern and Western areas). Lockheed Martin is
implementing the Second Interim Remedy within the Eastern North Hollywood area. The Second
Interim Remedy in the Western North Hollywood area is being addressed by CalMat2. The remedy is
being constructed in phases. The first phase, which includes both extraction and treatment of
groundwater, began operating in 2023. Construction of the remaining phases is ongoing in both for the
Central and Eastern North Hollywood areas, with full operation expected within the next five years.
EPA selected a remedy for Burbank in a June 1989 Interim Record of Decision that included:
extraction of contaminated groundwater, treatment by stripping, and reuse of the water by the City of
Burbank for drinking water. Subsequently, EPA signed two Explanations of Significant Differences in
November 1990 and February 1997. The 1990 Explanation of Significant Differences included the
1 During cleanup, a site can be divided into distinct areas depending on the complexity of the problems
associated with the site. These areas, called operable units, may address geographic areas of a site, specific site
problems, or areas where a specific action is required.
2 CalMat Co., doing business as Vulcan Materials Company, Western Division.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
i
-------
addition of blending of the extracted and treated groundwater with a water supply lower in nitrate,
reinjection of excess water, and a clarification that the interim remedy could be designed, constructed,
and operated in phases. In the second Explanation of Significant Differences, EPA eliminated the
reinjection requirement and suspended the minimum extraction rate requirement when nitrate levels in
the extracted groundwater exceed 50 milligrams per liter as nitrate. The City of Burbank committed to
accept an annual average of 9,000 gallons per minute from interim remedy facilities.
Lockheed Martin is responsible for coordinating with the City of Burbank to implement the Interim
Remedy for Burbank.
The exposure assumptions for ingestion of groundwater remain valid. While no numeric cleanup
values were selected at the time of remedy for Burbank any water treated by either system is delivered
to the drinking water supply for each remedy the groundwater treatment systems must meet up-to-date
drinking water standards. Therefore, any changes in toxicity data and cleanup standards, would not
impact protectiveness of the remedy. No other new information has come to light that calls into
question the protectiveness of the remedy.
The remedy at North Hollywood is protective of human health and the environment. The remedy's
institutional controls, which include governmental controls that prohibit the public from extracting
groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Basin and prohibit service of drinking water without a
permit from California's Division of Drinking Water, ensuring that the public is not exposed to
untreated drinking water. The Second Interim Remedy for North Hollywood is being constructed in
phases. Phase 1 is complete and started operation in May 2023. Although data regarding the first phase
of implementation is not yet available, five of the eight extraction wells are now operational and
improving containment of the plume. EPA anticipates the remaining remedy phases will be completed,
and operation will begin in the next five years.
The remedy at Burbank is protective of human health and the environment. The treatment system
effluent contaminant concentrations are less than their regulatory cleanup goals, the remedy is limiting
contaminant migration, and there are governmental controls in place that prevent exposure to untreated
groundwater.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) 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 7
2. Remedial Actions Summary 11
2.1. Basis for Taking Action 11
2.2. Remedy Selection 11
2.2.1. North Hollywood 11
2.2.2. Burbank 14
2.3. Remedy Implementation 15
2.3.1. North Hollywood 15
2.3.2. Burbank 16
2.3.3. Institutional Controls 18
2.3.4. North Hollywood 18
2.3.5. Burbank 18
2.4. Operation and Maintenance 18
2.4.1. North Hollywood 18
2.4.2. Burbank 18
3. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 20
3.1. Previous Five-Year Review Protectiveness Statement and Issues 20
3.2. Work Completed at the Site During this Five-Year Review Period 20
3.2.1. North Hollywood 20
3.2.2. Burbank 20
4. Five-Year Review Process 23
4.1. Community Notification, Involvement, and Site Interviews 23
4.1.1. Site Interviews 23
4.2. Data Review 23
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site iii
-------
4.2.1. North Hollywood 23
4.2.2. Burbank 32
4.2.3. Climate Change 34
4.3. Site Inspection 34
5. Technical Assessment 35
5.1. Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?.... 35
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? 35
5.3. Question C: Has Any Other Information Come to Light That Could Call Into
Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy? 36
6. Issues/Recommendations 36
6.1. Other Findings 36
7. Protectiveness Statement 37
8. Next Review 37
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed 38
Appendix B: Site Chronology 40
Appendix C: Data Review 41
Appendix D: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Assessment ....67
Appendix E: Public Notice 70
Appendix F: Site Inspection Report and Photos 71
Appendix G: Interview Form 85
iv
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Plume location based on 2019 data for the San Fernando Valley Superfund Sites .4
Figure 2. San Fernando Valley Superfund Site Investigation Areas with location of North
Hollywood and Burbank Operable Units 5
Figure 3. San Fernando Groundwater Basin, Part of the Upper Los Angeles River
Adjudicated Area 6
Figure 4. Generalized Hydrogeologic Cross Section for San Fernando Valley Superfund Site
8
Figure 5. Generalized Groundwater Flow within the San Fernando Valley 9
Figure 6. Site Well Fields and Monitoring Wells Near Well Fields with Groundwater Gradient
10
Figure 7. Location of Production and Extraction Wells and Treatment Plants 17
Figure 8. Well Fields (upper) and Monitoring Wells (lower) Near Well Fields 28
Figure 9. Trichloroethene Trends at Well Fields 29
Figure 10. Tetrachloroethene Trends at Well Fields 30
Figure 11. Hexavalent Chromium Trends at Well Fields 31
Figure 12. Burbank Mass Removed and Water Treated 33
List of Tables
Table 1. Five-Year Review Summary Form 2
Table 2. Performance Standards for in Extracted and Treated Groundwater in North
Hollywood 13
Table 3. Well Locations Selected for Vapor Intrusion Field Verification Investigation 22
Table 4. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in North Hollywood 24
Table 5. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Rinaldi-Toluca Well Field 25
Table 6. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in North Hollywood Well Field 25
Table 7. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Second Interim Remedy Well Field..26
Table 8. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Erwin Well Field 27
Table 9. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Burbank Well Field 34
Table 10. Protectiveness Statement 37
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1)Superfund Site
v
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
Site San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site
Tetra Tech Contractor for Lockheed Martin for Burbank
|ig/L micrograms per liter
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
TCE Trichloroethylene
Wood/WSP Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc/WSP USA
Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc, Contractor for Honeywell
International for North Hollywood
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
vi Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
1. Introduction
The purpose of a Five-Year Review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy in
order 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 combined Five-Year Review for the San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
(Site)3. The triggering action for this statutory review is the signature date of the previous Five-Year
Review, September 21, 2018. The 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 Site consists of two operable units, North Hollywood and Burbank, which both have comingled
contaminant groundwater plumes that will be addressed in this Five-Year Review.
The San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site Five-Year Review was led by Bianca Handley and
Larry Sievers, EPA Region 9 Remedial Project Managers. 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): Jeff Weiss, Hydrogeologist; Jennifer Phillippe, Physical Scientist; and
Jeffrey Luong, Environmental Engineer. The review began on October 28, 2022.
3 EPA prepared three North Hollywood Five-Year Review reports (1993, 1998, 2003) and one Burbank Five-Year
Review report (2004) before combining these operable units into one combined report beginning in 2008.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
1
-------
Table 1. Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
EPA ID: CAD980894893
Region: 9
State: CA
City/County: North Hollywood/Burbank/Los Angeles
County
National Priorities List Status: Final
Multiple Operable Units? Yes
Has the site achieved construction completion? No
Lead agency: EPA
Author name (Federal Project Manager): Bianca Handley and Larry Sievers
Author affiliation: EPA Region IX
Review period: 10/28/2022 - 8/31/2023
Date of site inspection: 2/14/2023
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 4
Triggering action date: 9/21/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/21/2023
2 Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
1.1. Background
The San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site consists primarily of a large groundwater contaminant
plume from multiple sources in the San Fernando Valley (Figure 1). Site contaminant sources include, but
are not limited to, the former Bendix Aviation and Allied Signal-Aerospace Company facilities in North
Hollywood (successor cooperation is now Honeywell International), the former Lockheed Martin
Corporation facilities near the Burbank Airport, the former Hewitt Pit Landfill, and many other known
sources throughout Area 1. Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were widely used in the San Fernando
Valley starting in the 1940s for dry cleaning and for degreasing machinery. Disposal was not well-
regulated at that time, and releases from a large number of facilities throughout the eastern San Fernando
Valley Area 1 have resulted in the large plume of volatile organic compounds-contaminated groundwater
that starts in the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Site, extends southeast, down-gradient, through the San
Fernando Valley Area 2 Site and through the San Fernando Valley Area 4 Site (Figure 2).
1.2. Physic icierisiics
The Site is an area of comingled contaminated groundwater that encompasses approximately 13 square
miles beneath the cities of North Hollywood and Burbank in the eastern San Fernando Valley, within the
Upper Los Angeles River Area. The Site is in a populated urban area and does not affect any
environmentally sensitive areas.
The San Fernando Valley Basin is a 122,800-acre basin in the south-central portion of the Transverse
Ranges. It represents the largest basin within the Upper Los Angeles River Area. The San Fernando
Valley is bordered on the northeast by the San Gabriel Mountains with the Verdugo Mountains to the
southeast, on the north and northwest by the Santa Susana Mountains, on the west by the Simi Hills, and
on the south by the Santa Monica Mountains.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
3
-------
Source: OTIE Plume Map for EPA
Figure 1. Plume location based on 2019 data for the San Fernando Valley Superfund Sites
4
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
-------
SAN GABRIEL
MOUNTAINS
VERDUGO
MOUNTAINS
AREA 1
NORTH HOLLYWOOD
NORTH HOLLYWOOD
OPERABLE UNIT
AREA 2
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
Ctnof
Burbaxk
GLENDALE NORTH
OPERABLE UNIT
GLENDALE
SOUTH
OPERABLE
UNIT
POLLOCK '
TRBWlOfT
PLAWT
SANTA MONICA
MOUNTAINS
AREA 4
POLLOCK
¦ OPERABLE UNIT GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT
APPROXIMATE 90UNCARY OF IWEST1GATVON
___ AREAS FOR SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
SUPERFUND SITES
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SUPER FUND SITES
Source: 2009 Record of Decision, North Hollywood Operable Unit
Figure 2. San Fernando Valley Superfund Site Investigation Areas with location of North Hollywood and Burbank Operable Units
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
5
-------
Santa Susana
Mountains
San Gaonel Mountains
San Fernando
Groundwater Basin
San Rafael
.Hills
,«a Monica MounUij ,
2017-18 Water Year
ULARA Watermaster Report
Upper Los Angeles River Area:
San Fernando Groundwater Basin Map
Plate 1A
LEGEND
Sjft Fofiwado
Ground»aii* B «%**
Lot Ange** Rhnw
Prwwy 3*r^am
\ Los Angoos A^bOOuct
^ GcreMno Grouno
«£* JLARA V»-3Urtr*id
• C*roreuunvuaarMa
• 5i>!'?wwr«w
O LA3KPWMMH
Q* VM •» rtyauy^ r Cuiwi
Arruai isauranr -
-------
1.3. Hydrology
Groundwater in the San Fernando Valley is present in unconsolidated sediments shed from the
surrounding mountains. The primary contaminated units at the Site are the A Zone, (also known as the
Water Table Zone (WT-HSU) and the B Zone (Figure 4). The A-Zone is an unconfined aquifer within the
coarse-grained sands and gravels present up to 350 feet below ground surface and overlies a leaky
confining layer consisting of interbedded sands, silts, and clays. Beneath the confining layer is the B-
Zone, which consists of coarse-grained sands and gravels from about 350 to 425 feet below ground
surface. The depth to groundwater ranges from approximately 120 to 425 feet below ground surface.
Natural horizontal hydraulic gradients in the eastern San Fernando Valley generally run south and east,
toward the Los Angeles River Narrows (Figure 5). However, extraction wells in North Hollywood and
Burbank affect the gradient and can draw the flow of groundwater toward the extraction wells (Figure 6).
Local water-spreading projects also have an impact on the gradient and aquifer recharge.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
7
-------
Aster law?
A' Unit
J XUNt
I I A"*
^ V HSU
I I 9 HSU
~ DBH
Afljvum
-Wei
- Wetf Sawn
ttJCl »"• *•«*»¦ Us, XIB [Tfsrs ItP. 1
Aoapteo»wi5*w»HydnvGMrH ryitw.
SuRBAW OPERABLE JM-T
Hycfrotjeologic
C ross Section
through the
OOU Extraction Weils
_£:
Source: Focused Feasibility Study, Burbank Operable Unit, Burbank, California (Tetra Tech, 2021)
Figure 4. Generalized Hydrogeologic Cross Section for San Fernando Valley Superfund Site
8
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
-------
San'Gabciel Mountains
Santa Susana
Mountains
San
Rafael
Hills
Santa'Monica Moun'
2017-18 Water Year
ULARA Watermaster Report
Upper Los Angeles River Area:
Simulated Groundwater Elevation Contour Map
Spring (April) 2018
Plate 4
LEGEND
Los An^etat RMr
Prmary Str%jnr.
Los Argctos Afluettuct
¦I
Q aARAWnrV*d
Si Occnd
I—*! UaM Aetnr* Aim
OiwmKirtK Flfvitiom (MSI |
iCXHt inip»v«'Co^*xr
2Mt lnte»val Coricxr
^ GmrmiUmd
Rm Ofcwtfon
Source: 2017-18 Annual Watemiaster Report, (ULARA 2019)
Figure 5. Generalized Groundwater Flow within the San Fernando Valley
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
9
-------
STRATHERN AVE
Buibaiik
VICTORY BLVD
BURBANK BLVO
CHANDLER BLVO
North
Hollywood
NH-CM-2IS
Source: Focused Feasibility Study, Burbank Operable Unit, Burbank, California (Tetra Tech, 2021)
Figure 6. Site Well Fields and Monitoring Wells Near Well Fields with Groundwater Gradient
10
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
-------
2. Remedial Actions Summary
2.1. Basis for Taking Action
The basis for taking action at this Site was the risk to human health associated with exposure to
groundwater containing trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, 1,4-dioxane, and chromium (both total and
hexavalent). The primary risk to human health at the Site is ingestion of drinking water. The groundwater
within the San Fernando Valley Basin provides drinking water to the Los Angeles, Burbank, and
Glendale communities.
2.2. lection
2.2.1. North Hollywood
In September 1987, EPA signed the first interim Record of Decision for North Hollywood, selecting an
interim remedy to address volatile organic compound-contaminated groundwater in the North Hollywood
area. The first Interim Action Record of Decision selected groundwater extraction and, treatment of
volatile organic compounds by aeration combined with vapor phase carbon adsorption prior to discharge
to the atmosphere.
In September 2009, EPA signed a second Interim Record of Decision for North Hollywood, selecting a
remedy that utilized existing infrastructure to achieve improved performance and containment through
rehabilitation and expansion of the previously installed extraction well network , and expanding the
treatment system to include wellhead treatment, as necessary, accommodate higher flows, and treat
additional compounds including volatile organic compounds, chromium, and 1,4-dioxane, with the
intended end-use of this extracted water being drinking water.
EPA also identified the governmental controls to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater. The
primary governmental control is the 1979 Final Judgment in the Superior Court of California created the
entity known as "Watermaster" with full authority to administer the adjudication of water rights. Under
the judgment, only the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale are permitted to extract groundwater
from the Basin. These drinking water regulatory controls and the Watermaster's authority to regulate and
allocate water resources ensure centralized control over area groundwater and its use as a drinking water
source.
However, certain groundwater pumping scenarios acceptable to the Watermaster could interfere with the
effectiveness of the Second Interim Remedy. In order to address this issue, EPA selected an institutional
control in the form of a groundwater management plan to ensure the nearby pumping of water supply
production wellfields does not negatively impact the North Hollywood remedy wells performance.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
11
-------
The remedial action objectives selected in the 2009 Interim Record of Decision are:
• Prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater above acceptable risk levels.
• Contain areas of groundwater with contaminant concentrations that exceed the drinking water
standards and notification levels to the maximum extent practicable.
• Prevent further degradation of water quality at the Rinaldi-Toluca and North Hollywood West
production wells fields by preventing the migration toward these well fields of the more highly
contaminated areas of the volatile organic compound plume located to the east/southeast.
• Achieve improved hydraulic containment to inhibit horizontal and vertical contaminant
migration in groundwater from the more highly contaminated areas and depths of the aquifer to
the less contaminated areas and depths of the aquifer, including the southeast portion of North
Hollywood in the vicinity of the Erwin and Whitnall production well fields.
• Remove contaminant mass from the aquifer.
In January 2014, EPA issued a Record of Decision Amendment allowing an alternative end-use if
necessary; re-injection of treated water into the aquifer.
In June 2016, EPA determined that additional extraction wells should be included in the scope of the
remedy in order to ensure the protection of the North Hollywood West production wellfield from 1,4-
dioxane contamination, and issued a Memorandum to File which clarified that these wells were part of the
required remedy.
In February 2018, EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences which expanded the amount of
water to be extracted by the remedy. After reviewing additional groundwater data collected since 2009,
EPA determined that increased groundwater extraction in North Hollywood could achieve greater
containment. Requirements in the Explanation of Significant Differences include addition of new
extraction wells, diversion of wells in the North Hollywood Eastern Plume Area to Burbank for
treatment4 and expansion of the North Hollywood treatment plant to accommodate the additional flow
created by the new wells.
The 2009 Interim Record of Decision, as modified by the 2018 Explanation of Significant Differences,
selected performance standards for treatment of the extracted groundwater, in addition to any other permit
drinking water requirements. If an offsite drinking water requirement changes, the treatment system must
meet whichever standard - the performance standard or the offsite requirement - is lower. With the
4 Per the 2009 Explanation of Significant Differences, water extracted the Eastern North Hollywood Wells will be
diverted to the treatment plant for the Burbank. Lockheed will evaluate the impacts of managing the Eastern North
Hollywood well field as part of the Burbank treatment system in its upcoming Focused Feasibility Study. Following
completion of the Focused Feasibility Study, EPA expects to issue a second interim record of decision for the
Burbank. And the Burbank remedy will be updated to include this additional groundwater stream, via a
Memorandum to File.
12
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
exception of hexavalent chromium, the performance standards based on maximum contaminant levels and
notification levels, promulgated by EPA and the State of California. There is no state or federal maximum
contaminant level or notification level for hexavalent chromium; therefore, EPA selected the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power's voluntary cleanup level as the performance standard for hexavalent
chromium.
Table 2. Performance Standards for in Extracted and Treated Groundwater in North Hollywood
Chemical
Performance
Standard
(fig/L)
Basis for
Performance Standarda
Trichloroethene (TCE)
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
1,1 -Dichloroethane
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
1,1 -Dichloroethene
6
Federal Drinking Water Standard
cis-1,2-Dichloroethen
6
Federal Drinking Water Standard
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
Carbon tetrachloride
0.5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
Methylene Chloride
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
Total Chromium
50
State Drinking Water Standard
Hexavalent Chromium
5d
See footnote "d"
Perchlorate
6
State Drinking Water Standard
1,2,3 -Trichloropropane
0.005
California Department of Public Health notification level
1,4-dioxane
1
California Department of Public Health notification level
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
0.01
California Department of Public Health notification level
Notes:
a The California Department of Public Health permitting process may require lower concentrations in the treated effluent.
b Federal and State Drinking Water Standards specific to hexavalent chromium have not been established; therefore, the State
Drinking Water Standard for total chromium currently is applied to hexavalent chromium.
c A Public Health Goal for hexavalent chromium is currently under development by the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment. Following development of a Public Health Goal, a State Drinking Water Standard specific to
hexavalent chromium may be established.
d Based on discussions with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, it is EPA's understanding that Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power will continue to use a voluntary cleanup level of 5 |xg/L for hexavalent chromium for water it
will accept for use in its water supply system. Consequently, under the drinking water end use option, chromium treatment at
North Hollywood will be needed so that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's voluntary cleanup level of 5 |xg/L can be
met.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
13
-------
2.2.2. Burbank
In June 1989, EPA issued the Interim Record of Decision for Burbank. EPA selected an interim remedy
to address the volatile organic compound-contaminated groundwater plume in the Burbank area. The two
remedial action objectives for the remedy are:
• To partially control the movement and spread of groundwater contaminants in the Burbank
area, while contributing to aquifer restoration in the San Fernando Valley Basin Area 1 Superfund
Site.
• To address the public health threat posed by contamination of the City of Burbank's public
water supply wells by providing residents in the area with a water supply that meets state and
federal drinking water standards.
The selected remedy includes extraction wells to pump groundwater to the treatment plant for volatile
organic compound removal by air stripping followed by a liquid phase granular activated carbon
polishing step. The treated water is delivered to the City of Burbank for municipal supply. The air
generated by air stripping is treated using granular activated carbon to remove contamination prior to
discharge to the atmosphere. The selected remedy identified the governmental requirement that treated
water distributed as drinking water is required to meet all Safe Drinking Water Act standards, as an
institutional control.
In November 1990, EPA signed an Explanation of Significant Differences which determined that, based
on high nitrate levels in the groundwater, additional measures were required to meet the drinking water
standards for nitrate in the extracted and treated groundwater. EPA required blending of the extracted and
treated groundwater with additional water from a water supply lower in nitrate, such that water served to
the public would achieve the drinking water standards. The blending process resulted in a larger quantity
of water being produced and raised the possibility that the City of Burbank would not have the demand,
i.e., enough customers, to use all of the water produced. In the Explanation of Significant Differences,
EPA required reinjection of excess treated water into the aquifer.
In February 1997, EPA signed a second Explanation of Significant Differences which allowed for a lower
extraction rate than was selected in the 1989 Record of Decision. EPA determined that, based on
additional study of the local groundwater system, an extraction rate of 9,000 gallons per minute resulted
in substantially the same level of groundwater containment as an extraction rate of 12,000 gallons per
minute (the rate called for in the 1989 Record of Decision). Because the City of Burbank had the capacity
to accept the revised amount of extracted and treated water, 9,000 gallons per minute, EPA also
eliminated the requirement for reinjection. EPA suspended the 9,000 gallons per minute extraction rate
requirement during times when nitrate levels in the extracted groundwater exceed 50 milligrams per liter.
In these cases, the quantity of water required to be used in the blending process in order for the effluent to
meet federal drinking water standards for nitrate could make extraction at 9,000 gallons per minute
infeasible for the City of Burbank to accept.
14
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
olementation
2.3.1. North Hollywood
2.3.1.1 First Interim Remedy (1987 Interim Record of Decision)
Construction of the First Interim Remedy for North Hollywood was completed in March 1989 and the
remedy operated from December 1989 until November 2017, when it was shut down with EPA approval
due to declining water levels and maintenance issues.
The First Interim Remedy consisted of eight groundwater extraction wells (NHE-1 through NHE-8), one
air stripping tower to remove volatile organic compounds from the extracted groundwater, two vapor
phase granular activated carbon adsorbers to remove volatile organic compounds from the air stream, and
ancillary equipment. Each extraction well is approximately 300 feet deep (screened in North Hollywood
A Zone) and had an approximate capacity of 300 gallons per minute. Extraction well NHE-1 was never
operated because of insufficient groundwater availability.
Extracted groundwater was fed through a 48-foot-tall, packed air stripper (packing height of 22 feet) with
a capacity of 2,000 gallons per minute. After disinfection, treated groundwater was discharged into a Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power blending facility where it was combined with water from other
sources before entering the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power municipal supply system. The
First Interim Remedy remains shut down while the Second Interim Remedy is being designed and built.
2.3.1.2 Second Interim Remedy (2009 Interim Record of Decision, modified by the
2018 Explanation of Significant Differences)
Honeywell International is currently designing and implementing the addition of new extraction wells in
the central plume area and the expansion of the North Hollywood treatment plant while Lockheed Martin
is designing and constructing additional extraction wells and implementing the diversion of groundwater
extracted from wells in the North Hollywood eastern plume area that will deliver extracted water to the
Burbank treatment system (see Section 2.4.2.1). Separately, CalMat is working on a design for additional
extraction wells in the North Hollywood western plume area, as required by the Record of Decision.
Honeywell has been implementing the remedy in the central plume area using a phased approach.
Honeywell entered into an agreement with Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to operate the
Second Interim Remedy once it is constructed and permitted. Honeywell retained contractors, Wood
Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc/WSP USA Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions,
Inc (Wood/WSP) and Carollo Engineers, Inc, to assist with the implementation of the Second Interim
Remedy. The phases and their completion status are summarized below:
• Phase 1A: Wood/WSP installed replacement extraction wells NHE-3R, NHE-4R, and NHE-5R,
which replaced existing extraction wells NHE-3, NHE-4, and NHE-5 in 2018. EPA provided
completion approval for Phase 1A in 2019.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
15
-------
• Phase IB: Wood/WSP initiated installation of the Second Interim Remedy groundwater treatment
system5 and associated commissioning water conveyance to the storm drain in 2020. Construction
was completed in early 2023. Wood/WSP constructed the Phase IB treatment system and
initiated start-up and shakedown activities in May 2023 to evaluate system performance.
• Phase 2A: Wood began installation of additional extraction wells (CCC-1, CCC-2, CCC-3) in
2019 and completed fieldwork in early 2020. EPA approved the well installations in mid-2020.
• Phase 2B: Carollo began construction of the of upgraded conveyance lines for influent from the
Phase 2A extraction wells in February 2023 after EPA design approval in January 2023.
Construction is anticipated to be completed in early 2024.
• Phase 3 - Wood/WSP submitted the 60% design for the Second Interim Remedy groundwater
treatment plant in 2022. The Second Interim Remedy groundwater treatment system, like the
Phase IB treatment system will be located on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power-
owned property referred to as Lankershim Yard. This treatment system is planned to be operated
by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power pursuant to the agreement between Honeywell
and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
2.3.2. Burbank
The extraction and treatment system for Burbank was completed in two phases. Construction of Phase I
of the Burbank extraction and treatment system occurred from 1993 to 1994, which included the
installation of seven extraction wells (VO-1 through VO-7) capable of producing a combined flow of
6,000 gallons per minute. Operation began in 1996. In Phase II, a new well was added to allow an
increase in the groundwater extraction rate from 6,000 gallons per minute to 9,000 gallons per minute.
The City's municipal supply well W-10 (also known as WP-180) was modified and incorporated into the
interim remedy as Burbank extraction well VO-8. Construction of Phase II was completed in December
1997 and operation commenced in 1998.
The treatment facility for Burbank is located southeast of Bob Hope Airport, and approximately 3.5 miles
north of the Los Angeles River (Figure 7). All eight extraction wells within a half-mile of the treatment
facility. A pipeline conveys the extracted groundwater to the Burbank treatment system. Treated
groundwater is then conveyed to the City of Burbank's Valley Forebay for disinfection and storage, then
to the blending facility. At the blending facility, the groundwater is blended with water from the
Metropolitan Water District prior to distribution.
5 First Remedy treatment system was demolished and the Second Interim Remedy, modified by the 2018
Explanation of Significant Differences, expanded system is constructed where the original treatment system was
located.
16
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
V
Tujung* MM Ft*ld
I ' j» *
VERDUGO
kAOttNTAlNS
Y
\\ > Hw-ldl .Tu4c*WHPW<
r\an Noct* tootywood Exi Mail Field
' . \ ¦
« \ \ tjC -
/ ^ » \ w 'ot -
\ B * » a# a ' a\ «» » 1
\
x-4 :>
hhmb
Y
1 ^N»«* 0 so
O o
Sort' He*y»ee< ¥»»•¦ Won Fn\4
.\
W-«na» *•« *to*d
O OVk
a IfoUAcnWa*
¦ r««• ITMW T'Mn«ni f<» «
_ Itmitwy >' l%wV|«n>i«« I
' - S»« Feirntdc vtlvyAw 1 Super* wl &M
TCE Ctmatnhmkkcm
Dr«*«*Urtf-Suit*.
5 31 SO m»1
•U.C tWMfA.
^ n»«l MU»«V
^ 500 01 -
^ «M»i3t.»xr (H
* A6** ?000 n;/
'* »tu mof c»r>«Mf
Rf4 N inoi4rt kwwn •crto'tla AC
lonimulx n Vm G*t f(im»k vioyArw imi
ft ~•**«*« ifi to* N ant *»f /wn
TV fXT ol«-«s «w j|E*«r«>iriwl»r »he Ikhh^io1
'h ttote* ICfe ismM n *<«•« i «»d 2.
N
0 IPSO J.*0
FMt
t Met- W t*K
FIGURE 3-1
LDCAIION OF PKOO'JCVION
AMD EXTRACTION WELLS
IAN »WNAXIMJ VALir* |AMKA 1
loo *>nries corv CM.ir*amA
.CM2IWIHILL —I
Source: Focused Feasibility Study, Burbank Operable Unit, Burbank, California (Tetra Tech, 2021)
Figure 7. Location of Production and Extraction Wells and Treatment Plants
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
17
-------
2.3.3.
Institutional Controls
2.3.4. North Hollywood
The governmental control is the 1979 Final Judgment in Los Angeles v. San Fernando, (Superior Court
Case No. 650079) (LA v. San Fernando). The 1979 Final Judgment in LA v. San Fernando upheld the
Pueblo Right of the City of Los Angeles to all groundwater in the Upper Los Angeles River Area Basin
from precipitation within the Upper Los Angeles River Area and all surface and groundwater flows from
the Sylmar and Verdugo Basins. 14 Cal. 3d 199 (1975). LA v. San Fernando also established the water
rights of the cities of Los Angeles, Glendale, and Burbank to all water imported from outside the San
Fernando Valley Basin and either spread or delivered within the San Fernando Valley Basin. With the
exception of a few legacy entities including a few cemeteries and a hotel, only the Cities that are party to
the Judgment have the authority to extract groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Basin.
The Final Judgment created the entity known as "Watermaster" with full authority to administer the
adjudication, under the auspices of the Superior Court Each of these municipalities administers a public
water system, which is regulated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of
Drinking Water.
Additional governmental controls on the use of groundwater as drinking water include EPA and State of
California-promulgated drinking water standards and California State Action Levels that require drinking
water standards to be met before delivery of the treated water to the potable water supply.
2.3.5. Burbank
The Burbank remedy identified as the institutional control, the governmental control, of drinking water
permit requirements from the state drinking water authority. The use of groundwater as drinking water
includes EPA and State of California-promulgated drinking water standards and California State Action
Levels that require drinking water standards to be met before delivery of the treated water to the potable
water supply.
oration and Maintenance
2.4.1. North Hollywood
Limited operations and maintenance activities were conducted during the review period because the
treatment system for the first interim remedy was shut down in 2017 so that to design and construct the
Second Interim Remedy treatment system could be designed and constructed. However, operation of a
portion of the Second Interim Remedy treatment plant, Phase 1, began in May 2023, and initial activities
to ensure that treatment plan can perform as designed are ongoing.
2.4.2. Burbank
The City of Burbank conducts operations and maintenance activities for the Burbank groundwater
treatment plant. Operations and maintenance are conducted in accordance with the Operations and
18
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Maintenance Plan and are monitored to evaluate if the treatment plant is operating within permit
conditions. Monitoring is conducted in accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and
Analysis Plan, which includes as attachments, a Field Sampling Plan and updated Quality Assurance
Project Plan. Tetra Tech, consultant for Lockheed Martin, revised the Sampling and Analysis Plan for
Burbank in 2019 and prepared an addendum in 2022 to replace total chromium analysis with dissolved
chromium.
Tetra Tech conducts the larger groundwater monitoring program intended to evaluate the near-field and
far-field effects of the Burbank extraction well field. Tetra Tech conducted an evaluation in 2019 to set
criteria for replacing dry wells resulting from dropping basin water levels within the Burbank
groundwater monitoring program. Because basin water levels are transient, key monitoring wells are not
considered for replacement unless they have been dry for at least two years in a row, and conditions do
not suggest that groundwater elevations should be recovering. Damaged monitoring wells are also be
considered for replacement.
2.4.2.1 Significant Operations and Maintenance Activities
The following non-routine operations and maintenance tasks, primarily associated with the groundwater
monitoring and replacement program were noted during the review period:
• Tetra Tech abandoned monitoring well A-1-CW07, because it was damaged and could not be
rehabilitated, and replaced it with a similarly constructed replacement well, identified as A-l-
CW07R in 2018.
• In 2018, Tetra Tech rehabilitated observation wells OW-V04A/B, OW-V05A/B, and
destroyed and replaced OW-V07A/B.
• As part of the former Lockheed Martin Plant B-6 property redevelopment, Tetra Tech
destroyed nine groundwater monitoring wells (B-6-CW04, B-6-CW05, B-6-CW06, B-6-
CW07, B-6-CW08, B-6-CW09, MW-01, MW-02, and MW-03) in 2020 and replaced four
key wells (identified as MW-03R, B-6-CW05R, B-6-CW-08R and B-6-CW09R) in 2020 and
2021.
• Tetra Tech installed monitoring well C-1-CW06-R in 2022 to replace monitoring C-1-CW06,
which has been identified as a key well in the North Hollywood Eastern Plume Area. Because of
the declining water levels within the San Fernando Valley, C-1-CW06 has not consistently had a
sufficient water column to allow for sampling; and the recent groundwater model update forecasts
a continued decline in the groundwater elevation. The original well was not abandoned since it is
not consistently dry.
• Well B-5-CW03R is scheduled to be replaced in the third quarter of 2023.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
19
-------
3. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
3.1. Pnevic ¦ w Protectiveness State mi jes
The protectiveness statement from the Third Five-Year Review for the San Fernando Valley Area 1
Superfund Site stated the following:
The remedy at the North Hollywood Operable Unit is currently protective of human health and the
environment because there is no exposure to untreated groundwater. The public is not exposed to
untreated groundwater because the Second Interim Remedy is not currently extracting groundwater and
governmental controls restrict and require treatment of other extraction of the groundwater. The remedy
for North Hollywood has recently been modified to increase pumping rates and add new wells. Once
these improvements have been implemented, EPA expects that all Remedial Action Objectives will be
achieved.
The remedy at the Burbank Operable Unit is currently protective of human health and the environment.
The treatment system effluent contaminant concentrations are less than their regulatory cleanup goals
and there are governmental controls in place that prevent exposure to untreated groundwater.
The Third Five-Year Review did not include any issues or recommendations.
3.2. Wo mplet ' ' ; new Period
3.2.1. North Hollywood
The majority of the work completed in North Hollywood during the review period was associated with
implementing the Second Interim Remedy (Section 2.3.1.2). Other work completed during the review
period during included groundwater monitoring, which will be evaluated in Data Review (Section 4.2).
3.2.2. Burbank
3.2.2.1 Focused Feasibility Study
Tetra Tech, consultant for Lockheed Martin, prepared a Focused Feasibility Study in 2021 to support the
selection of a Second Interim Remedy for Burbank, that included incorporation of the North Hollywood
Eastern Plume Area. The focused feasibility study goals were to: identify, collect, and evaluate updated
Burbank site data; evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Burbank interim remedy in achieving the
remedial action objectives set forth in the 1989 Burbank Record of Decision; and evaluate containment
and treatment options to improve remedy performance.
Tetra Tech recommended the following alternative from the feasibility study to enhance hydraulic
containment within Burbank and the North Hollywood Eastern Plume Areas:
• Install three new extraction wells in the North Hollywood Eastern Plume Area along with a new
pipeline to connect the wells to the influent of the existing Burbank water treatment plant. Each
20
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
well will be pumped at 600 gallons per minute, for a total of 1,800 gallons per minute of
groundwater.
• Increase the existing Burbank well extraction rates so that the total influent matches the required
9,000 gallons per minute.
• Install an ultraviolet/advanced oxidation process system to treat 1,4-dioxane in the influent to
below its California drinking water notification level and permit discharge criteria.
• Discontinue use of the current air stripping towers for volatile organic compounds since the
ultraviolet/advanced oxidation process system will treat volatile organic compounds alongside the
existing granular activated carbon vessels.
• Install one additional liquid-phase granular activated carbon vessel to accommodate the higher
flowrate.
• Install a permanent piping intertie between the City of Burbank distribution system and the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power system that will allow distribution of treated water to
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power beyond what the City of Burbank can accept.
3.2.2.2 Vapor Intrusion
Lockheed Martin completed a vapor intrusion desktop study focused on tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethene in 2019 as part of updating the conceptual site model in the focused feasibility study. The
objectives of the desktop study were to:
• Gather and evaluate available data within Burbank to develop generalized and localized vapor
intrusion conceptual site models; and
• Identify whether there are priority areas within Burbank that may warrant further evaluation
based on the potential for vapor intrusion impacts due to migration of volatile organic compounds
from the regional groundwater plume.
The Desktop Study concluded that no further assessment of the vapor intrusion pathway was warranted,
because locations with high vapor intrusion potential were not identified within the study area. However,
during subsequent discussions between Lockheed Martin and EPA, a mutually agreeable scope for a field
investigation at eight locations (Table 3) was reached to confirm the results of the desktop study to verify
that no vapor intrusion associated with the deeper groundwater plume is occurring. EPA accepted the
Desktop Study in August 2021 and Lockheed Martin submitted a Revised Vapor Intrusion Field
Verification Sampling and Analysis Work Plan in September 2022. EPA expects the sampling to be
completed by end of 2023.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
21
-------
Table 3. Well Locations Selected for Vapor Intrusion Field Verification Investigation.
Well Locations Selected for Field Investigation
Well Name
Land Use Category
2016 through 2019 Stud
v Period
Prioritization
Category
(2016-2019)
1993 through 1996 Study Period
Prioritization
Category
(1993-1996)
Depth to
Groundwater
(ft btoc)
PCE
Concentration
(HgX)
TCE
Concentration
Clig/L)
Depth to
Groundwater
(ft btoc)
PCE
Concentration
(jtg/L)
TCE
Concentration
(M2/L)
3830S
Residential
229.13
5.30
160
3
208.01
180
49
3
3850N
C' ommerc m 1 Industrial
197.12
53.4
39.8
5
155
540
1100
3
3850X
Residential
173.23
99
72
4
100
goo
550
3
3851M
ConmiercMlndustml
185.21
5.51
24
5
155.82
1800
4000
3
3860K
C ommere m 1 Industrial
204.45
3220
444
3
170.82
1300
360
3
38-S1D
Residential
157.67
24
160
3
120.64
3000
3400
3
3872Q
Residential
114.7
216
73
3
89.4
1300
1100
3
3871G*
Residential
No data, wel dry, (DTW at 3871H - 133 ft btoc m 2018)
99.95
1800
1500
3
Shallow well at 3871 well cluster. Location added at the request of EPA
3.2.2.3 Groundwater Model Update
In 2019, Tetra Tech completed a calibration update for the San Fernando Valley historical groundwater
flow model, which includes North Hollywood, Burbank, and San Fernando Valley Area 2 and
surrounding areas. CH2M Hill created the initial groundwater flow model of the San Fernando Valley in
1994 for EPA to analyze alternatives for the existing and planned remedial measures. Ongoing data
collection and improvements in hydrogeologic interpretation in the San Fernando Valley have led to
numerous revisions to the flow model.
The 2019 flow model update included the following modifications and additions:
• Revised the model boundary at the base of the Verdugo Mountains to better reflect the model
representation of the mountain front.
• Added and implemented the effects of the Verdugo Fault on groundwater flow into the model.
• Updated the historical calibration period from water year 2015 through water year 2017.
• Refined the model calibration by verifying the calibration against the large-scale aquifer test
conducted in 2010 at the Burbank extraction well system, using drawdowns measured during the
test as calibration targets.
3.2.2.4 High Speed Rail Project
The California High-Speed Rail Authority hired a contractor, Jacobs, to prepare a memo detailing the
overlap between the Site remediation infrastructure and the planned California High Speed Rail Project
from Burbank to Los Angeles. Project design overlies parts of the Burbank remedy creating a need for the
High-Speed Rail Authority to replace some remedy infrastructure that would be impacted by their project
including: 1) conveyance piping and ancillary infrastructure (primarily the sampling cabinets) associated
with extraction wells V01 to V04; 2) a portion of conveyance system piping which crosses Buena Vista
22
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
St. and is situated between extraction wells V04 and V05; 3) portions of conveyance system piping and
the valve vault within Vanowen St.. and between extraction wells V05 and V07; and 4) extraction wells
V05 and V06, with the remaining extraction wells (V01 to V04, V07) and all associated observation wells
being protected in place. Construction of the High-Speed Rail Project isn't expected within the next five-
year review period.
4. Five-Year Review Process
4.1. ity Notification, .Ivement, and Site interviews
An announcement regarding the Five-Year Review was made at the November 2022 and the March 2023
quarterly stakeholder meeting for anyone wishing to provide comments or be interviewed. No comments
or response were received from the announcement.
A separate public notice was made available by a newspaper posting in the Los Angeles Daily News on
March 20, 2023, stating that there was a Five-Year Review and inviting the public to submit any
comments to the EPA. No public comments were received. The results of the review and the report will
be made available at the Site information repository located at 75 Hawthorne Street, Room 3110, San
Francisco, California 94105.
4.1.1. 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 EPA solicited written responses to
questions from the City of Glendale. The City of Glendale impression is that the project is well-run and
the communication with EPA and other agencies is frequent. The City of Glendale noted that the Plant
Manager is also proactive in performing preventive maintenance which helps minimize unexpected
project interruptions. The Glendale Respondents Group has been very supportive of the operations.
lew
4.2.1. North Hollywood
The North Hollywood treatment plant has been shut down since 2017. While the presence of
governmental controls (e.g., the Site is located within an adjudicated basin) ensures that the first objective
has been met despite the fact that the groundwater extraction and treatment has not operated during the
review period, the final remedial objective of contaminant mass removal from the aquifer has not been
achieved during the review period since no groundwater has been extracted or treated in North
Hollywood. The remaining three remedial objectives primarily relate to protecting nearby water supply
fields from degradation and/or contaminant migration and are further evaluated in Section 4.2.1.1.
Because portions of the Second Interim Remedy extraction and treatment system only recently began
operating, there is no data available at this time to evaluate the extent of containment that the initial phase
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
23
-------
of operations is achieving. It is anticipated that hydraulic containment and mass removal will be improved
once the North Hollywood Second Interim Remedy construction is fully completed and fully operational.
4.2.1.1 North Hollywood Contaminant Migration and Well Field Evaluation
This section includes detailed discussions for each of the five well fields identified in the remedial action
objectives and additional details regarding contaminant migration and changes in hydraulic containment
since the First Interim Remedy's extraction and treatment system was shut down in 2017. To evaluate if
the objective of protecting nearby drinking water wells and inhibiting contaminant migration were met
during the review period, Mann-Kendall trend analyses were completed for monitoring wells near and
water supply wells at the following production well fields: North Hollywood, North Hollywood East,
Rinaldi-Toluca, Whitnall and Erwin (Figures 7 and 8). The wells selected for analysis were wells with
more than three detections of tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and/or hexavalent chromium during the
previous five years (Appendix C). Based on these conditions, evaluations were completed on 26 wells for
TCE, 12 wells for PCE, and 18 wells for hexavalent chromium. These evaluations included both drinking
water wells (which are generally deeper), remediation wells (which are generally in the areas of higher
concentrations of contamination) and monitoring wells (which are generally shallower).
Table 4. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in North Hollywood
Mann Kendall
Trend:
Contaminant of
Concern:
No Trend
(% of wells analyzed)
Decreasing/
Probably
Decreasing
(% of wells analyzed)
Stable
(% of wells analyzed)
Increasing/
Probably
Increasing
(% of wells analyzed)
TCE
9 (35%)
8 (30%)
2 (8%)
7 (27%)
PCE
4 (33%)
3 (25%)
1 (9%)
4 (33%)
Hexavalent
Chromium
3 (16.5%)
3 (16.5%)
6 (33%)
6 (33%)
Based on this table, there is no dominant trend among a majority of wells. Variability in this type of
analysis is common and it is important to compare well characteristics such as depth and location to
understand how these trends correlate. Therefore, this analysis is further broken down by drinking water
well field (location) below.
Rinaldi-Toluca Well Field
At the Rinaldi-Toluca well field, contamination is relatively stable with no indications of increasing
contamination at the well field (Table 5). Only two of the eight drinking water wells had an increasing
trichloroethene trend and none of them had increasing trends for hexavalent chromium or
tetrachloroethene (Figures 8 through 11). One of the four monitoring wells had increasing trichloroethene
trends. Three of the nine nearby monitoring wells had increasing hexavalent chromium; however, none of
the drinking water wells had increasing hexavalent chromium. This difference may be due to the long-
screen intervals in and the high-flow pumping of drinking water wells.
24
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Table 5. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Rinaldi-Toluca Well Field
Well
TCE
Hexavalent
Chromium
PCE
Drinking Water Wells
RT-1
Stable
Stable
RT-10
Increasing
RT-11
Stable
RT-13
Decreasing
RT-14
Probably Decreasing
RT-15
No Trend
RT-2
Increasing
Stable
RT-3
No Trend
Monitoring Wells
RT-MW-01-Z1
Decreasing
RT-MW-04-Z1
Decreasing
RT-MW-04-Z3
No Trend
RT-MW-06-Z1
Increasing
North Hollywood West Well Field
The North Hollywood West well field had increasing trichloroethene trends at three wells and increasing
tetrachloroethene at two wells and one with a stable tetrachloroethene trend. Only one out of the four
monitoring wells had an increasing trichloroethene trend and one of the three had an increasing
tetrachloroethene trend (Figures 8 through 11). Similar to the other well field, there is variability in the
trends at the wells and therefore a trend can't be assigned to the well field as a whole. Because there is an
increasing trend at most of the extraction wells in the North Hollywood West well field, it is likely this
well field is pulling contamination in from other parts of the aquifer.
Table 6. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in North Hollywood Well Field
Well
TCE
Hexavalent Chromium
PCE
Drinking Water Wells
NH-22
Increasing
NH-23
Increasing
NH-26
Increasing
Increasing
NH-4
Increasing
NH-7
Stable
Monitoring Wells
NH-MW-03-Z1
Probably Increasing
NH-MW-05-Z1
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z1
Probably
Decreasing
Increasing
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z2
Stable
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z3
Increasing
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
25
-------
Well
TCE
Hexavalent Chromium
PCE
NH-MW-11-Z1
Increasing
Decreasing
Probably
Increasing
NH-MW-11-Z2
Decreasing
Stable
No Trend
NH-MW-11-Z3
Stable
Second Interim Remedy Extraction Well Field
The North Hollywood Second Interim Remedy extraction well field had five wells with enough data to
complete Mann-Kendall and one well had increasing tetrachloroethene trends, two had increasing
hexavalent chromium and no wells had increasing trichloroethene trends (Figures 8 through 11). Three of
the four nearby monitoring wells had increasing trends. Contamination at the Second Interim Remedy
extraction well field has not significantly increased in the past five years but is showing increasing trends
in certain areas.
Table 7. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Second Interim Remedy Well Field
Well
TCE
Hexavalent Chromium
PCE
Drinking Water Wells
NHE -7
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
NHE-2
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
NHE-3
No Trend
No Trend
Increasing
NHE-4
No Trend
Probably Increasing
No Trend
NHE-6
No Trend
Increasing
Probably Decreasing
M
onitoring Wells
NH-MW-03-Z1
Probably Increasing
NH-MW-05-Z1
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z1
Probably
Decreasing
Increasing
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z2
Stable
No Trend
NH-MW-06-Z3
Increasing
NH-MW-11-Z1
Increasing
Decreasing
Probably Increasing
NH-MW-11-Z2
Decreasing
Stable
No Trend
NH-MW-11-Z3
Stable
Erwin Well Field
The Erwin well field is currently not within the contaminant plume based on the most recent 2022
groundwater reports for both North Hollywood and Burbank. This was also found to be the case in the
previous Five-Year Review. The closest area of contaminated groundwater is to the northeast, south of
the Burbank airport at Clybourn Ave, Victory Blvd and Vineland Ave, seen in monitoring wells NH-C 17-
255, NH-C 12-280 and 3831Q.
26
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Table 8. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Erwin Well Field
Well
TCE
Hexavalent Chromium
PCE
Drinking Water Wells
EW-6
No Trend
Monitoring Wells
NH-C02-220
No Trend
Stable
NH-C02-325
No Trend
Stable
NH-VPB-04
No Trend
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
27
-------
'/VI
\
v- m\
Tujunga
T3-MW-09
K
La Tuna
Canyon Park
\ NH-MW-06
S
NH-MW-05
Valley Gien
nc. Una rtf
Map lave* by F.vt
Legend
® Well Field labels 7."."J BPOU 2020 Plume Map
Groundwater How ZZl SFVAreal MWs near wefl field
Erection V tebe|
TJ-MW-
,Source: USAGE
Figure 8. Well Fields (upper) and Monitoring Wells (lower) Near Well Fields
28
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
PCE Trends from 2017 to 2022
Legend |
Monitoring Wells
^ Increasing/Probably
Increasing
V No Trend/Stable
Drinking Water Wells
North Hollywood
(¦) East,Decreasing/Probaly
Decreasing
North Hollywood
(8) East,Increasing/
Probably Increasing
®
North Hollywood
East,Stable/No Trend
North Hollywood
® West, Increasing/
Probably Increasing
w Groundwater Flow
™ Direction
CI' SFVAreal
BOU
Location Map
Los Angeles
x
Source: US ACE
Figure 9. Trichloroethene Trends at Well Fields
0.25 0.5
Miles 1 '
jheldon Arleta
Park
U-pick
/ ^La Tuna
Peak
Sun Valley
i>Sun Valley
Burbankv
Airport-Norths
Sherman Way
Winona Av
Hollywood
Burbank
Airport
NH-MW-06-Z1
NHE-2
NHE-3
NH--26
Thorton Avenue
NH-MW-11-Z1/Z2
NHE-4
'Burbank
Airport-South j
Empire Avenue
NHE-6
CA 170
Victory Boulevard
Victory Boulev
CA 170
: 1 inn
CA 170
Burbank Soulevi
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
29
-------
TCE Trends from 2017 to 2022
Legend
Monitoring Wells
Decreasing/Probably
Decreasing
Increasing/Probably
Increasing
^ No Trend/Stable
Drinking Water Wells
North Hollywood
(B) East,Decreasing/Probaly
Decreasing
/g. North Hollywood
East,Stable/No Trend
North Hollywood
® West,Increasing/
Probably Increasing
Rinaldi-
® Toluca,Decreasing/
Probaly Decreasing
Rinaldi-
© Toluca,Increasing/
Probably Increasing
fj- Rinaldi-Toluca,Stable/No
^ Trend
Source: US ACE
Figure 10. Tetrachloroethene Trends at Well Fields
30
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
-------
Hexavalent Chromium Trends from 2017 to 2022
Sun Valley
Saticoy Street
Sherman Way
NH-MW-06-Z1/Z2/Z3 ^
d NH-MW-11-Z1/Z2/Z3
V g ^
Hollywood
Burbank
Airport: :
^Avenus Bur^n^ =
^^enter^B. /
^LB1-CW20 /
Victory Boulevard
Oxnard Street
Burbank Boulevard
North Hollywood
Magnolia Boulevard
Moorpark Street
'NBC/Uriiversal
^Studios
Legend
Monitoring Wells
^ Decreasing/Probably
Decreasing
jk Increasing/Probably
Increasing
^ No Trend/Stable
Drinking Water Wells
North Hollywood
(¦) East,Decreasing/Probaly
Decreasing
North Hollywood
(§) East,Increasing/
Probably Increasing
/gs North Hollywood
East,Stable/No Trend
Rinaldi-Toluca,Stable/No
U Trend
I SFV Areal
Valley Glen
Location Map
¦¦S
Forest Lawn
Memorial
1 ir\ jl
Studio City
Los Angeles
Park
a
Burbank'Peak.
Source: I 'SACK
Figure 11. Hexavalent Chromium Trends at Well Fields
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
31
-------
4.2.2. Burbank
The Burbank interim remedy's remedial action objectives are to partially control the movement and
spread of groundwater contaminants in the Burbank area, while contributing to aquifer restoration in the
San Fernando Valley Basin Area 1 Superfund Site and to address the public health threat posed by
contamination of the City of Burbank's public water supply wells by providing residents in the area with a
water supply that meets state and federal drinking water standards.
The existing governmental controls of the California Department of Drinking Water permits requirement
for distribution of the treated groundwater (effluent) from the Burbank treatment plant to meet state and
federal drinking water standards remains in place. The other remedial action objectives, including of
contribution to aquifer restoration and partially control of the movement and spread of groundwater
contaminants were met during the review period by operation of the interim remedy's groundwater
extraction wells and treatment system, as discussed in the following sections.
4.2.2.1 Burbank Contaminant Removal
One of the remedial action objectives for Burbank is to contribute to aquifer restoration. Multiple lines of
evidence are needed to evaluate aquifer restoration, including mass removal, trend analysis, and current
concentrations in the wells. For that reason, contaminant mass removal calculations were conducted for
the Burbank remedy to demonstrate how much mass has been removed from the aquifer towards
restoration (Figure 12). The Burbank treatment plant continued to maintain high averages for both pounds
of volatile organic compounds removed and gallons of groundwater treated during the review period.
32
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Burbank Treatment Plant
400
400000000
350000000
300000000
250000000 aj
200000000 o
tn
c
_o
150000000 «
100000000
50000000
-------
Analysis was conducted on one monitoring well associated with the Burbank well field. This well, LB1-
CW20 was demonstrated to have an increasing trend in chromium indicating there may be a degradation
of groundwater quality at this well (Figures 8 and 11). Over the past five year, the concentration at this
well has increased from 6.4 (ig/L, in April 2018, to 8.1 (ig/L. in April 2023 . This well is part of the
monitoring program for the operable unit and will continue to be monitored moving forward to continue
to evaluate this trend.
Table 9. Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis in Burbank Well Field
Well
TCE
Hexavalent Chromium
PCE
Monitoring Well
LB1-CW20
Increasing
No Trend
4.2.3. Climate Change
The 2019 Government Accounting Office Report notes that the Site falls within the highest flood hazard
category (1% or higher annual chance of flooding) as a result of climate change. California's Fourth
Climate Change Assessment identified 72 atmospheric rivers (regions of high-water vapor transport from
the tropics to the Pacific Coast of the U.S. that can produce intense precipitation) that made landfall were
along the coast of southern California, between 1979 and 2013. While this averages out to approximately
2-3 events each year, significant variability exists from year to year. This extreme variation between
heavy precipitation events and droughts is expected to increase with climate change.
California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment notes that while the overall average precipitation is not
forecasted to change dramatically, extreme variations are expected on a yearly basis. This is expected to
lead to more extreme droughts with more in the already drought- prone south coast of California. The
potential increase in frequency and intensity of droughts due to climate change will likely lead to
increased groundwater usage in the Los Angeles area. As a result of this increased usage, water levels
may continue to drop, which would make it difficult to maintain hinder meeting the target pumping rates
established in the remedy and accelerate the need to replace monitoring wells with additional, deeper
wells in Burbank. While the 2019 Upper Los Angeles Area Basin Watermaster Report notes that the
increase in infiltration and recharge projects may positively impacted groundwater elevations in some
areas of the San Fernando Valley Basin, most of the projects are several years from completion.
S/fe Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on February 14, 2023. In attendance were Bianca Handley and
Larry Sievers, EPA; Jeffrey Luong, USACE; Jeffery Hu, Los Angeles Waterboard Region 4; Vahe
Dabbaghian, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Richard Salazar, Kevin Mitchell, and Jose
Baraza, Terranear PMC; Javier Martinez and Richard Wilson, Burbank Water and Power; and Natalie
Young, WSP. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the condition of the remedy and verify that the
remedy is operating as intended.
34
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
While the North Hollywood treatment plant is not operating, the construction site was inspected, and no
safety or maintenance concerns noted. The construction project was noted to be making good progress
toward completion.
The Burbank treatment plant and extraction wells were visited, and no concerns noted regarding
maintenance, operations, or safety. Recent improvements noted during the inspection included seismic
upgrades for selected equipment.
5. Technical Assessment
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
The North Hollywood Second Interim Remedy is under construction and the Phase IB Treatment Plant
began testing the operating of recently installed equipment in May 2023. While the remedy is not yet fully
operational, the institutional controls selected in the Second Interim Remedy, including existing
governmental controls (i.e., the San Fernando Valley Basin Watermaster who administers the adjudicated
basin and maintains legal authority over groundwater), prevent public exposure to contaminated
groundwater. EPA anticipates the Second Interim Remedy construction will be completed, and operation
will begin in the next five years.
The Burbank interim remedy is generally functioning as intended and meeting its remedial objectives by
contributing to aquifer restoration in the San Fernando Valley through contaminant mass removal,
partially controlling the movement and spread of groundwater contaminants through extraction of
contaminated groundwater, and providing residents in the Burbank area with a water supply that meets
state and federal drinking water standards.
Questi ¦ mre assumptk icity C
medial Action Objectives Used at the Time o ledy
Selection Si id'?
The remedial action objectives remain valid for both North Hollywood and Burbank. While North
Hollywood is not currently meeting its remedial action objective of mass removal, due to ongoing
construction of the Second Interim Remedy, all of the remedial action objectives are expected to be met
once the Second Interim Remedy begins operation. Burbank is achieving its remedial action objectives.
While North Hollywood is not currently processing water, drinking water is required to current state and
federal drinking water standards at the time of distribution to the public according to the California
Department of Drinking Water permits associated Second Interim Remedy under construction. Similarly,
water distributed from the Burbank treatment plant must meet current state and federal drinking water
standards at the time of discharge. Therefore, any changes in toxicity data and cleanup standards, would
not impact the protectiveness of either remedy.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
35
-------
The exposure assumptions for both North Hollywood and Burbank remain valid. Vapor intrusion was not
considered when the remedies were selected and Lockheed Martin's Desktop Study in 2019 for Burbank
concluded that no further assessment of the vapor intrusion pathway was warranted, because locations
with high vapor intrusion potential were not identified. Additional sampling to confirm these conclusions
is expected by the end of 2023.
Other Infc ¦¦ . )uld
Call estion the Protectiveness of mdy?
No new information has come to light that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy.
6. Issues/Recommendations
There were no issues and recommendations identified in this Five-Year Review.
. Oih >dings
In addition, the following are recommendations that promote climate change resiliency but do not affect
current and/or future protectiveness and were identified during the Five-Year Review:
• The California High Speed Rail Project has significant overlap with the extraction wells and
conveyance lines for the Burbank interim remedy and may require significant coordination to
prevent damage to existing remedial infrastructure.
• Assess methods for reducing climate change vulnerability to increasingly frequent droughts and
dropping water levels in monitoring wells.
36
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
7. Protectiveness Statement
Table 10. Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
North Hollywood Protective
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at North Hollywood is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy's institutional controls, which include governmental controls that prohibit the public from extracting
groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Basin and prohibit service of drinking water without a permit from
California's Division of Drinking Water, ensuring that the public is not exposed to untreated drinking water. The
Second Interim Remedy for North Hollywood is being constructed in phases. Phase 1 is complete and started
operation in May 2023. Although data regarding the first phase of implementation is not yet available, five of the
eight extraction wells are now operational and improving containment of the plume. EPA anticipates the
remaining remedy phases will be completed, and operation will begin in the next five years.
Protectiveness Statement(s)
Operable Unit: Protectiveness Determination:
Burbank Protective
Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at Burbank is protective of human health and the environment. The
treatment system effluent contaminant concentrations are less than their regulatory cleanup goals, the remedy is
controlling contaminant migration, and there are governmental controls in place that prevent exposure to
untreated groundwater.
8. Next Review
The next Five-Year Review report for the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site is required five
years from the completion date of this review.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site
37
-------
Appendix A: List of Documents Reviewed
Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2022. Prefinal (90%) Design, North Hollywood Operable Unit, Second Interim
Remedy, Phase 2B Conveyance, North Hollywood, California. March 2022.
EPA. 2018. Five-Year Review Report for San Fernando Valley (Area 1) Superfund Site. Los Angeles
County, California. September 2018.
Jacobs. 2021. Status of California High Speed Rail Design Amidst San Fernando Valley Superfund Sites
Area 1 and 2 Memo. August 2021.
Government Accounting Office. 2019. Interactive Map: https://www.gao.gov/multimedia/GAO-20-
73/interactive/. Accessed June 20, 2023.
Hall, Alex, Neil Berg, Katharine Reich. (University of California, Los Angeles). 2018. Los Angeles
Summary Report. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-
2018-007
Tetra Tech. 2015. Technical Memorandum - Capture Analysis at the Burbank Operable Unit, San
Fernando Valley Basin, California. November 2015
Tetra Tech. 2018. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2018, Burbank Operable
Unit, Burbank, California. November.
Tetra Tech. 2019. Well Installation and Replacement Report, Burbank Operable Unit Monitoring Well A-
1-CW07R, Burbank, California. February 2019.
Tetra Tech. 2019. Final Report Abandonment and Replacement of OW-V07 and Rehabilitation of OW-
V04 and OW-V05, Burbank Operable Unit, Burbank, California. May 2019.
Tetra Tech. 2019. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2019, Burbank Operable
Unit, Burbank, California. September.
Tetra Tech 2019. San Fernando Valley Flow Model Historical Calibration Update, San Fernando Valley
Operable Units, San Fernando Basin, California. December 2019.
Tetra Tech 2021. Final Vapor Intrusion Desktop Study, Burbank Operable Unit. May 2021.
Tetra Tech 2021. Revised Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2020, Burbank
Operable Unit, Burbank, California. June 2021.
Tetra Tech. 2021. Focused Feasibility Study Burbank Operable Unit, San Fernando Valley Basin,
California. December 2021.
38
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Tetra Tech 2022. Revised Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2021, Burbank
Operable Unit, Burbank, California. February 2022.
Tetra Tech. 2022. Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Second Quarter 2022, Burbank Operable
Unit, Burbank, California. September
Tetra Tech . 2022. C-1-CW06R Monitoring Well Replacement Report, Burbank Operable Unit, Burbank
California. September 2022.
Tetra Tech 2022. Revised Vapor Intrusion Field Verification Sampling and Analysis Work Plan, Burbank
Operable Unit. September 2022
Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster. 2019. Annual Report Upper Los Angeles River Area
(ULARA), Los Angeles, California, 2017-2018 Water Year. December 2019.
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Los Angeles Department of Public Works, and Los
Angeles County Flood Control District 2016. Summary Report. Los Angeles Basin Study. November
2016.
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. (Wood). 2018. April 2018 Groundwater Monitoring
Report, North Hollywood Operable Unit, Second Interim Remedy, Groundwater Remediation Design.
August.
Wood. 2020. Fourth Quarter 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Bendix Facility, 11600
Sherman Way, North Hollywood, California. January 2020.
Wood. 2020. Revised Transportation and Off-Site Disposal Plan, North Hollywood Operable Unit,
Second Interim Remedy, Los Angeles, California. May 2020.
Wood. 2021. Fourth Quarter 2020 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Bendix Facility, North
Hollywood, California. January 2021.
Wood. 2022. Fourth Quarter 2021 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Bendix Facility, North
Hollywood, California. January 2022.
Wood. 2022. Third Quarter 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Bendix Facility, North
Hollywood, California. October 2022.
WSP Environment and Infrastructure Inc. (WSP) 2023. Phase IB Site-Wide Monitoring Plan, North
Hollywood Operable Unit Area, Los Angeles, California. May 2023.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
39
-------
Appendix B: Site Chronology
Event
Date
California Department of Public Health detected TCE, PCE, and other volatile organic
compounds in a large number of production wells.
1980
The San Fernando (SFV) Area 1 Superfund Site was placed on the National Priorities List.
July 1986
An interim Record of Decision (ROD) for North Hollywood Operable Unit was signed.
September 1987
Construction of the North Hollywood Operable Unit facility was completed.
March 1989
An interim ROD for BOU was signed.
June 1989
North Hollywood Operable Unit treatment systems operations began.
December 1989
An Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for BOU was signed.
November 1990
The R1 for all SFV Superfund Sites (including Area 1) was completed.
December 1992
The first North Hollywood Operable Unit five-year review was completed.
July 1993
The Phase 1 BOU treatment plant was constructed.
Summer 1993 -
Spring 1994
The Final Remedial Design Report for BOU was approved by EPA.
November 1993
The BOU Phase 1 remedy was determined operational.
January 1996
A second ESD for BOU was signed.
February 1997
The Phase 11 BOU treatment plant was constructed.
October 1997 -
December 1997
The second North Hollywood Operable Unit FYR was completed.
July 1998
The BOU Second Phase of Operation was initiated (9,000 gpm).
December 1998
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued Cleanup and
Abatement Order to Honeywell International Inc. (in the North Hollywood Operable Unit)
for chromium"
February 2003
The third North Hollywood Operable Unit FYR was completed.
September 2003
The first BOU FYR was completed.
September 2004
EPA completed the North Hollywood Operable Unit Chromium Evaluation.
January 2006
A performance attainment study of the BOU groundwater extraction wells, delivery
systems, and control processes was conducted.
May 2006
Well NHE-2 was shut down due to high chromium concentrations.
February 2007
EPA completed a draft Focused Feasibility Study at North Hollywood Operable Unit.
February 2008
The first sitewide SFV Area 1 FYR was completed, representing the fourth North
Hollywood Operable Unit FYR and the second BOU FYR.
September 2008
EPA finalized the North Hollywood Operable Unit FFS for Second Interim Remedy.
July 2009
The second interim ROD for North Hollywood Operable Unit was signed.
September 2009
EPA concluded a successful operational capacity test to demonstrate that 9,000 gpm of
groundwater could be extracted and processed
August 2010
An Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design was
executed among EPA, Honeywell, and Lockheed Martin.
February 2011
The second sitewide SFV Area 1 FYR was completed, representing the fifth North
Hollywood Operable Unit FYR and the third BOU FYR.
09/30/2013
North Hollywood Record of Decision Amendment
01/10/2014
North Hollywood Record of Decision Memo to File
2016
North Hollywood Explanation of Significant Differences
02/27/2018
The third sitewide SFV Area 1 FYR was completed, representing the sixth North
Hollywood Operable Unit FYR and the fourth BOU FYR.
09/21/2018
Burbank Final Vapor Intrusion Desktop Study
05/05/2021
Burbank Focused Feasibility Study
12/22/2021
North Hollywood Phase IB construction complete for Second Interim Remedy
Early 2023
40
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Appendix C: Data Review
USACE performed Mann-Kendall groundwater concentration trend analysis on wells that resulted in
sufficient detections of contaminants of concern for the five-year review period and the long-term trends.
Mann-Kendall trend evaluations are presented in figures C-l through C-37.
Degradation of groundwater quality at the well fields was evaluated utilizing groundwater concentration
trends of tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene and hexavalent chromium at the water supply wells and
nearby monitoring wells. Mann- Kendall analyses were completed for monitoring wells near the well
field and extraction wells with more than three detections during the previous five years. Data from 19
drinking water wells and 16 monitoring wells were used for the Mann-Kendall analysis.
The groundwater plume trends vary based on contaminant and operable unit. Some of the increasing
trends within the plume are increasing due to the shutdown of the North Hollywood treatment system.
This shutdown has allowed for mid-plume monitoring wells and mid-plume drinking water wells to
increase in concentration of contaminants. Typically, drinking water well groups are increasing in the
northwestern most wells and decreasing in contaminants in the southern and eastern most well, effectively
acting like treatment extraction wells for the OU.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
41
-------
BOU System is VO-1 through VO-8,
BNH-1/2 and NHE-7/8R
BOU Wellfield Pumptng =6100 GPM
BNH-1/2 = 1200 GPM
NHE-7/8R = 600 GPM
Simulation Period:
Oct. 1.2017-Sep. 30. 2046
Results shown at t = 30 years (2048)
BURBANK OPERABLE UNIT
BOU FFS -
Hydraulic Containment Evaluation
Scenario 3 - A HSU Potentiometry,
Flow Vectors and Paths
Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri. HERE. Garmin. Intermap. increment
P Corp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN, GeoBase. IGN. Kadaster
NL Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan. METI, Esr China (HongKongi, (c)
GpenStreetMap contnbusxs. ana the GIS User Community
TETRATECH
Figure
4-3
Figure C-1 Focus Feasibility Study modeled Groundwater Gradients As Per The Conceptual Site
Model Tetra Tech 2021
42
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
5^rnp in g Point D:
NH-MW-0&-ZI
NH-MW-11-Z1
NH-MW-11-Z2 |
EvBrt
~ate
PCE COMCEMTRATtOH fUglL)
1
Aug-17
27.4
10.6
1.27
2
Sep-17
23.5
3
Apr-16
22.6
15
0.B79
4
Jun-19
33.4
9.43
5
Auo-18
31.1
9.33
6
Sep-19
0.835
7
Ndv-19
35
11.8
0.791
8
Aup-20
60.7
64.6
4.43
9
Nov-23
49.2
53.6
ID
Mar-21
102
11
Juft-21
46
56 7
12
Auq-21
62.3
96.7
4.72
13
Nw-21
33
25.1
2.77
14
Jarv22
20
15.8
2.04
15
16
17
IB
19
20
1 nfUuiali«i-
Mann-Ksndall Statistic (5):
¦¦¦
1 * 1
6
¦ II 1
Confidence Factor III
Concentration Trend: I
72.6%
No Trend
1000
Bi
£
e
+*
(0
tm
+*
c
8
C
3
¦NH-MW-C6-Z1
¦NH-WW-11-Z1
NH-MW-11-Z2
03f1T OS/17 04/18 10/18
05/19
12/19 08/20
01/21
07/21 02/22
OS/22
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least far ndeperdert sampling everts per well are required for calcdating the trend. Methodology is valid for 4 to 40 sampies.
2. Ccrnaence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent co'^centaton is increasing (S>0) or ctecreasng (SO): >86% = Increase or Decreasing;
2: £0% = Probably Increasing or Probady Decreasrrg < &[?% and S>Q = No Trend; < 90%, S<33. ard COV £ 1 = No Trend. < 90% ard GOV < 1 = Siafcle.
3. Methooology basec on *MAROS: A Decision Support System fcr Optmzing Monitoring Plans', J.J Aziz. M. Ling. H.S. Rifai, €.J. Newell, and J.RL Gonzales,
Ground Water, 41(3):355^67,2003.
QfSCLA/MEft- The GSI MannhKene&l TooM is a/afable 'as cs" Conaicte'abCe care has been erenasea'An preparing tfus software product howe/er, no party, inducting tviruut
¦Vrrwiatiof? GSt BwonmeHtal tic., makes an/ represertancn or warrarfy regaung the aacurecy, ccrrectne^, orsocipiereness afire information curtained reren and no such
party sna!) be Aabfe for any direct, incbect Knseqyenfiai', .ratiertai or other damages resulting iron the use of this product or the irftyrr.airon contained herein. Anrorrnaocn jin
this pubtcation is subject to change wthout rotjoe. SSI By/rronmentai he, desciaims any r&spons&jt/ orooVgation to update the
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
15-Jan-23
Job D:
Facility Name:
SFV Area 1
Constituent
PCE
Conducted By:
Jeffrey Weiss
Concentration Units:
Ufl/L
Sampling Point ID:
NH-26 |
i i i i 1
Eront
Date
PCE CONCENTRATION (UflL)
1
jan-15
0.705
2
ASMS
0-369
3
Deo-15
0308
4
Oct-tB
0367
5
NOV-18
122
5
Fst-2-3
0554
7
Sep-20
0.735
a
Od-20
0.32
9
NOV-2G
0958
10
Deo-23
121
11
Jan-2'
127
12
Fet-21
1.78
13
Mar-21
1.92
14
Aar-2-
226
15
Uay-21
2.72
16
Jun-21
1.78
17
JuJ-21
1.37
15
¦--u:-:!
2,35
19
vsep-21
2.15
20
¦ -co: 1
229
21
I
2.6
22
i-jan-22
1.94
23
i-=e>22
2.59
24
l-M:-r-22
2.73
25
' -Apr-22
1.56
25'
HM
2.65
27
Wjn-22
2.38
25
•-jl -:;
2.75
29
30
Ccefficien
of variation:
0.44
Mann-Kendall Startiabc -;3}:
273
:
¦
Ccrrfictence Fader.
>99.9% |
1
Concentration Trend;
hcreasing |
m
=)
E
05
L)
e
O
10/18 05/19
06/20 01/21
Sampling Date
0M22 8U23
Now:
1. At least tiur independent sampling events per well are recured for calci&atng ifte trend. Mettiodabgy .'-s vaK for 4 to 40 samples.
Corfderee lr Treno - Ccnflctence (In percent) that consfflLEn! ccncemnaflon is increasing {S»0} or decreasing (5«G): >95% - increasing or Decreasing;
a 90% - P?«jaEHy Increasing or Proaaoiy Decrease ng; < 5C% ants S>0 - No Trend; « 90%, SsO. ard COV * 1 - No Trend; « 90% 3rd GOV <1- Slatte.
MEftoaaogy oases or "MAROS: A Decision Support System Tor Opimlztng Monttodng Rans*, J.J. Aziz, M. Ling, H.S. Rftal, C.J. Newell, ana j.r. Gonzaes,
Ground Water, 41<3;<:355-36712003.
DfSCLAJMER. 7?» GSf Maon-Kenoax Tootx is aoitiUe "as is'. CansderaJVe care tos teen exercsed ai prepanng [fits software product. however, no par/, hading mBtout
Marion G3.< Bmonm&ual fnc.. mates any KfKGenoaon or warranty parting ^e accuracy, cafesmess. or completeness of me kn'onreow eodaiiBf and no sucrt
paiy sftal be laoe for aty tfrect rdrecs, consegyennai naidensaf & offer tiamages lesiawg ftwn me use tfmc product or me in*ymaocn oanarad herein. .iT*cnrwc
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
15-Jan-23
Job ID:
Facility Name:
SFV Area 1
Constituent
PCE
Conducted By:
Jeffrey Weiss
Concentration Units:
ugj'L
Sampling Point D:
LB1-CW20 I I I I I I
Evert
Date
PCE CONCENTRATION (ug/L)
1
Apr-17
0.34
2
Apr-18
0-3
Apr-19
0.25
4
Qct-20
0.45
5
Apr-21
0.3
6
Apr-22
0.41
7
8
§
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Varancn:
0.22
1 1 1
i
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
2
i
Confidence Factor
57 0%
i
Concentration Trend:
No Trend
1
1
Notes:
1. At least fwu*- ndepe'xiert sampling events per well are required for calculating tr»e tre-md. k fetfrodoiogy « valid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Cor#D) or decreasing (SOJc >86% = Increasing or Decreasing;
£ £0% = Probably Increasing or Probacy Decreasing: < SO% and S>0 = No Trend; < 9Q%„ S3d„ and CGV i 1 = No Trend: < 90% and GOV < 1 = Stable.
3. Methcodogy based on "MARCS A Decision Support System for Optmizing Monitoring Plans", J.J- Aziz. M. L^g, H.S. Rifai, C.J. NeweJI, arsd J.R Gonzales.
Grow) Water, 41(3):355367.2003
DISCLAIMER: The GS) fAann-KendaR Toolkit is jrafabfe "as is' Goosid&akte cav has been ejretsseo' .'.n orepamg fi'v.s ssrorare predtet howe/er, no party, inducing without
farvtathn GS/ Emimnmeftial Inc., makes an?/ repre-sertereo or warranty regareng fihe accuracy, correctness, orcorTftfereriess of the nromsaKn contahed hereix and no suoh
party sfia'.1 be liable for any direct, jxinxt consequential, nadentaiar other damages resulting nwn ire use of this product or the mfomHfon contained reran. ^ronriaDon .in
this cubfcatori g subject to cfiange wtteu! nofce SSI En/iwnrnental fric, dedans any responsi&ty orobfigetwn to update the information contained herein.
•SSI BM'iDMT&za/ mc., wwv gsh'w'cc^;
Figure C- 4 Tetrachloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
45
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Det-17
9.5s
2
Jan-19
10.5
3
Fet-10
1D
4
Mar-10
9.26
5
,^r-19
¦4.1
S
May-19
5.79
7
Jun-19
7.B3
9
JuMS
7.5
9
¦\jg-15
5.5S
1D
Sec-IS
5.56
11
OcM9
5.57
12
Nov-1S
5.17
13
Jan- 9
5.95
14
Mar-19
5.93
15
.^pr-19
7.3B
15
Sep-13
5.5
17
Ocs-19
9.11
19
1-Nov-IS
9.-49
19
1-Oec-19
943
20
" -Jan-2C
5.57
21
l-fefc-2Q
5.53
22
1 -Mar-20
7.42
23
1-Apr-2D
5.9
24
-Vay-ZC
9.-4S
25
'-Jun-2C
7.26
25
l-Jut-20
5.3
27
5.92
29
1-£e&-20
9.3
29
1-0020
57
30
1-NOV-20
7.95
31
1-Oec-2Q
9.94
32
1-Jan-21
7.2
33
1-Fefc-21
9.24
34
l-Aer-21
7.23
35
5.OS
35
1-Jun-21
5.23
37
1-Jiih21
5.9
39
1-AJO-21
2.96
39
1-OC-21
5.1
±0
l-Jan-22
0.74
Ccefficert of Variation:!
Ma--Kendall Stassbc (S|:
Confidence Factor
Concertracafl Trend:
Bb
£
0
1
§
I
o
O
m
03/17 09,17 04,'lt mi 0S.1t flit 0620 MM 07/21 OZ-TJ 06,72
Sampling Date
Notac:
1. A1 east 1t-j- rdependen! same ins events per wen are requ red 'or caiajlzcng the rend. I^xxtaesj- is w»M *>r4 Jo 40 sa-^nes
Ccnftderce !r> Trend - Conscience On perter*:! ttiaE constituent cEreertrSSon is rcreasno |S»Q;i or decreasing |S55% - rcreasng or Ceceasna;
& 90% - PnctaOiy Increasing or PrctoaUy Deoeasng; < 90* and S>0 - No Trend; < 30%, SsO, and OOV at 1 - No Trena; < SD* and GOV «1 - Stabe.
3. Methodaofli1 based or. "fcWSOS: A DeCMon Suoporl System for Ootz-ima klOHflarina Plans* J.J m. Ung, H.B. Ritas. C J. Ne*e-, and J.R. Gcraae-s,
Ground Water, 41<3>:355-3€7, 2002.
DiSCLAiflEJ?; 7?* SSI SfsmXer-Qef ToofcS « 9f» W*e 'as a'. Cor-siterah# sat r.as betr, ewnsw' n Jks xfr^am pnxkct Kntevtf, no patty, nsfctfnj wibsuf
fmfefan SSf fiwrarnBofal l-v., wj aynsnAtisfl or werrarcfyttgendng rne- »sancj; camcfntss, a' xmpivtcres; oft* nfcnnaeon cetiantd here*?. and no a«h
par^- sHa? be is£« Ibrany Greet ffldswi corseojarasl, '.-csta'ta1 svoifaer sswk nssuftirsg mm i^c jse ctifris proofs irtheiifst'ssrefi oorriared Mbmafion r
ths pjbtKotar, is subiecf lo cnsrot mihsuf nowe. GSI fewonmni^ /nc, aFsnbintB an/ .TSBorstiiy v sbSjaton o uocWe fre .Tfcm^t'cr cotiuntd he*rin
G&i EtwcnnttU/ lie, m»* j&-«f cant
Figure C- 5 Tetrachloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
46
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluzon Data
Facility Nxr«
Conducted By
J&ffr&y Wflaa
Gamp ing Poind D:[
Job ID:
«tituer.:
Concentration Units:
X
UfliL.
PCE COMCOTTRATHDN (UgfL)
1
Mar-15
0.99S
C.874
2
xZr- r
1.D5
12L2
3
lawytn
1.13
C.S93
A
. j'- ?
1.15
127
5
JllM 9
1.11
1.31
5
AJS-15
1.D9
12:9
7
SeF-19
D.B75
1.47
S
Oct-19
1.05
123
9
Ndv-15
1.K
1.35
13
I t:-
1.34
1.01
11
Jan-20
D.943
1.13
12
Fet-2C
3.95
1.13
13
Mar-2G
1.35
14
Acr-23
144
1.49
15
May-20
1.52
1,47
15
,j-::
D.S14
129
17
JuK20
12S
C.75S
15
1-.AJO-S
1.27
C.229
19
1-&ep-3D
1.56
C.S99
2D
1-DC-23
1.57
C.S45
21
(•Mora
1.55
C.59
22
1-Dec-2D
1.51
G.749
23
•-Jan-21
1.51
C.539
24
1 -Pet-21
1.34
1.02
25
1 -t.la'-r I
1.42
G.514
25
1-^-1
1.3
1.12
27
-'-'ay--
1.41
1.19
29
-Jun-2
0.922
1.05
29
1SJUH21
1.26
1.17
3D
1-AJO-21
1.53
1.55
31
1-Sep-21
123
32
1-Da-21
1.5
1.13
33
1-No^-21
1.35
1.1
34
^-¦ian-22
1.19
C.&iS
35
l-Fefc-22
1.34
C.99
35
14MZ
1.39
1.07
37
l-^r-22
1.56
1.55
39
-'-'ay-22
1.39
1.09
39
-Jun-22
1.19
1.05
40
-.. -21
1.35
1.09
Coeffk-err. of Variation:
022
Ma"f-,.'endall Stat-stic |'S|:
Codtdtice Factor
-75
m hh _
99.€%
«-» 1 1
Corcetrator Trend:^B
SUM
Motec:
Ai «ast 1>x independe**: samping events per weil are nequred *or talojlatng the Tend. JMetfiodMjgK is vald ftr4 jo 40 samples.
ConMerice r Trend - Confluence (In penierEi tfta: coos-rtuenJ concertrarron s rceasng iS»nj of -decreasnQ iS55% - rcneaanu v Decreasing;
t 90% - Prctao j Increasing or Probably Deceasng; < 90*s and S»Q - No Trend; < 90%, &s0, and Off"/ 11 - No Trend; < 50% and GOV < 1 - Stat* e.
Methodology based or "MARCS: A Deeper Support Sysse— tor Opti—izsig Momwttig Plans' J.J Azx, M una. H.S. Rifai. C J. Ne*e , and J.fi. Goraae-:,
Gicuntf rt-aer, 41\r3Jc3S5-367, 2003.
LXSCL4il#£f?: The SSI MbfimKmbf Tx&A Is variable 'a: a" C^rsOeratte cat nas icen trtmsed in prepatvjg frits acftmre product nzttwtr, no petty, nefcrirty mihauf
fanisoan GS9 £*wuiIl«'iW fnc., nukrs «i> reffttcrtxtcc or rnirarfylagenmg rr» asoiogt oafTecriess, yownMetewss of the rrfcflnecon co/tancd herein. and no such
oarfv be tai» fcr any direct in#s£ ccrswjeriat, Hoderia' or dher ssnook resuftrtg nrwr i^c jsc cfihs pnjoirr or the *rfom«tiBn asrSanud nerein. I'rfbnTHOon r
rhr pdbfa.sbon is sutyecf b cnaroe nAduI noo». SSf Etvmj/mtntd /nc, ax&rns an/ nzporabOb/ or fasten re upddt t*-« .nfcmwfor aniakmiher&i
QSPcf*irane*rttf he., wv* j&'-woMi
Figure C- 6 Tetrachloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
47
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Sampling Poine D:
NHE-7
NHE-3
NHE-4
NHE-6 III!
Event
Dabs
PCE CONCENTRATKJM (UgJL)
1
Jan-17
6.3
2
Feb-17
7.22
6.44
0.78
0.78
3
Ms--17
7.8
7.43
0.74
10.8
4
Apr-17
6.4
5
May-17
8.06
5.76
6
Juiy17
7.6
4-5
127
Jul-'7
7.4
5.86
11
s
Aug-17
3.16
0
Sep-17
6.74
8.46
8.06
0.16
1D
Oct-17
6.77
8.53
8.68
S.D7
11
Nov-17
0.6
7.03
3.02
7.60
12
Dec-17
8.66
13
Jan-18
8.52
14
Feb-18
8.60
15
16
17
18
19
20
Gwffieient of Variation;
0.07
0.12
0.20
0.18
Mam-Kendall Statistic (3):
-13
41
10
-11
¦
ConfideiKS Factor
96.5%
100.0%
821%
93.2%
Concentration Trend:
Decreasing
Increasing
Mo Trend
Prob- Decreasing
Notes:
1. At least fOur "depe^de"! sampling everts cer well are required for calculating re tre'xi. flfeflkidbfcgp .is valid for 4 to 40 sangles.
2. Canfiderice in Trend = Gwtfxtienee (in percent) that constituent concents ten is increasng (3-HD) cr decreasing (SOjn >95% = increas cr Decreasing;
£ 90% = Frobafcly Increasing or Probacy Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%_ 3£0 and GOV a 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = Stafcle.
Metfawology basec op, "MARCS: A Decision StEport System for Optimizing Monitaing Rans", J.J. Aziz: ML Ung. H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales
Groira* Water, 41(3):35M67.2003
DISCLAIMER: The GSJ Marm-Kenfai ToqM is avafaWe 'as is' Considerate can? has been exercised in preparing this software prwtoct however, no party, inducting wthout
finvtaKn GSt Ewrnvnerta! Inc., makes any refyesertaow? or warranty- regawig the accuracy, correctness, arconpfefeness oftre information corteined nereki and no such
party- sha1.' be fefcde for any dra£ in&rect consequential, fnodental or other damages resulting iron the use of this product or the frAvmaion conSineef newi. iNbrmafoo in
this pubfcatiof" is subject to cnange without rxSce. GSf Eraroroieniaf Inc .- disclaims any responsMt/ Drooftgatioo tc update the inSymatton contained herein.
GSJ eiM'ronmefiai fn&. mvtgst-neicc/r.
Figure C- 7 Tetrachloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
48
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
SamplBig Point D:
NH-MW-06-Z1
NH-MW-11 -Z1
MH-MW-11-Z2
NH-MW-06-Z2 |
Sampling
Event
tele
TCE CONCENTRATION (Ugrt.)
1
Ajfl-17
106
5.3
17.1
2
Sep-17
93.9
1.1
3
Apr-1S
75.2
21 4
127
1.30
4
Jun-19
84.3
13.5
0.502
t
Aua-18
64
19.5
6
Sep-18
11.0
7
Nov-16
77.6
30 .S
11.4
8
Aua-20
111
444
9.93
0.964
S
No«-20
67.7
424
10
Mar-21
372
11
Jiss-21
76.3
39.3
12
Ajq-21
94.4
27-S
6.54
13
Nou-21
67.6
39.1
9.39
0.564
14
Jar>-22
60.3
34.3
6
15
16
17
16
10
20
Coefficient of Variation:
019
0-42
0 30
0.41
¦
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
20
2G
-2A
I
Confidence Factor
90.2%
95.7%
99.9%
75.8%
Concentration Trend:
Prob Decreasing
Increasing
Decreasing
Stable
100 -
c
o
z
s
-NH-WW-05-Z1
•NH-MW-11-Z1
NH-MW-11-Z2
»NH-WW-05-Z2
03/17 00/17 04/19 10/18 05/19 12/19 06/20 01/21 07/21 02/22 0V22
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least fa.' ndependent sampling everts per well are required for calculating the trend. Methodoiogy is valid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Confidence in Trend = Cofrxsence (in percent) that corstitLient co"cen&aton is increasng (SXJ) cx deceasing (SO): >55% = I ncreas e or Decreasing;
'£ SQ% = Probacy Increasing or Probacy Decreasing < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, S30, and COV a 1 = No Tre?xl < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.
3. Methodology bases on "WARDS: A Decision Sifport System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans", J.J. Aziz, M. Ltug, H.S. Rrfai, C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales,
fromd Water. 41(3):355-367,2003-
DISCLAIMER: Trie GSi ktem-Kendali TooM s awaiahfe 'as is". CbiahaMg cans has been ererasedin pneparaig this software product; however, no party, irdudarig winour
Arrtaoof GSf EnvMyvnenra1 inc., makes at?/ rE^'essftaDOf or warranty regarding £te accuracy, correctness, or compfeteness of ire initiation ccrtained' reren and no such
party sna1) be facte for any direct. indrect consequential, inoderialar otter damages resulting from the use of this product or tfre infamiafon corrtairecf ftereh. kifarTaobr' .in
this Dabucaton is sutler to crange without notice. So/ Ewrrsrrneri&f tnc, cfeciatrjs any responsiiiiy or oohgaboo to update the wio/matton contained herein.
GSt BmomenM iTkl, www gs^netcon]
Figure C- 8 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
49
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Samp ing Point D:| RT-MW-01-Z1 I RT-MW-04-Z1 I RT-MW-04-Z3 | RT-MW-06-ZI
TCE CONCENTRATION (UgJT.)
1
Jur-17
21.5
2.59
2
JuJ-17
1.15
7.65
3
Feb-*3
5.36
4
Mar--8
9.6
3.96
3S 9
5
Jan-ffi
1.14
6
Feb-19
9.32
3.54
39.2
7
Js--13
0.752
3 07
4 35
6S.S
S
Jul-21
1.4
3.31
9
Sep-21
1.Q7
50.7
1D
May-22
0.7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
16
20
Coefficient of Variat-cn:
1.13 | 0.95
0.23
0.54
Mann-Kendall Statistic jS):
-11
-10
2
8
Confidence Factor
97.2%
99.2%
59.2% 95.8%
1
Concentration Trend:
Decreasing
Decreasing
Ho Trend
Increasing
a
c
o
c
8
c
3
- RT-MW-Q1-Z1
-RT-WW-04-Z1
RT-MW-04-Z3 [
~RT-MW-06-Z1
W16 63/17 OSfIT 04/18 1M8 flSWfl 1MB OfflO OtQi 07/21 0202 08/22
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least tow relependent sanding everts cerwdl are required for calculating tfse trend. Methodology is valid for 4 !o 40 samptes.
2. Conscience in Trend = Conscience (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasng f S>0) or decreasing (SO): >96% = Increasing or Decreasing;
z 90% = Probably Increasing or Probacy Decreasing; < £0% and SXJ = No Trend; < 90%. S£0_ and GOV z 1 = No Trend: < 90% and CCV < 1 = Stable.
3. MethcooJogy baseo on "MAROS: A Decision SiEport System for Opfcmsing Monitoring Rans". J.J. Aziz. M. Lang, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales
Grtxnd Water, 41(3):35&367,2003-
DISCLAIMER: Fre GSI Manr-KendaN TooM e ?/a*'a£He 'as s * Conacteabfe care has teen exeidsedm preparing ftus software product however, no party, including wtfxwt
.Madon iSSf Eivtrofmenta! Inc., mokes any representation or waTartty regaling the accuracy.. correctness, or completeness of ire infotmatjon contained neren and no such
pany Shall be ifia&ie for any (Urea, raVpct consequent' radertaf or ether damages resulting iron ire use of this product or the tvkyrr,ation confined herein, hfbrmaooo m
this pubUcation is subject to change without notice. GSf EwirwYTTenta! fnc^ dedaiTC any fesponsibUt/ orooiigatiort to update the hfarowtfon contained rewi.
GS' Enunxmevta! inc., mvt.gs>-neLc&r,
Figure C- 9 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
50
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Sampling Point D:
NH-C02-220
NH-C02-325
1
i
i
Evert
Date
TCE CONCENTRATION (ug/L)
1
ApM7
1
2
May-19
0.64
3
CctOD
0.91
0.61
4
«pr-2"
1.4
1.4
R
Apr-Zl:
1.4
2.4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0.35
0.57
1
i
Mann-Kendall Statistic |S|:
5
4
Confidence Factor
89.6%
83.3%
1
i
Concentration Trend:
No Trend
No Trend
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least fousr independent sampling everts per well are retired for calculating the trend. Mefoodoiogy is valid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. CcfT^oence in Trend = Cwroence (in percent) that constituent ccraeniratcn is increasing (S>0) or decreasing (SO): >95% = jncreas tq or Decreasing;
£ SO% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decrease^: < 90% ana S>0 = No Trend; < 90%. SSQ„ and DOV a 1 = No Trend: < 90% and GOV < 1 = Stable.
3. Methooology basec on "MAKOS: A Decision Support System for Qptrrczing Monitoring Plans", J.J. Aziz M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales
Ground W&ler. 41(3):355-367.2003
DISCLAIMER: The QSi MarirhKendaH Toolkit is avaiabfe "as is' Coosidefabie ea*e Jias teen exercisedin preparing ifus safrtwe product; Jwwever, no party, endudtng wthoui
^lofcaocf' GSt Bmonmental Inc., mates any rep^sertanbr or warranty regawig tfie aseu^y;. cerectTess, or Kfnptereness of ire infofmatwi ujridtiet/ heren and no such
party shall be AaoJe for any direct. indied. consequential', jhcxfertaf or ether damages resuttirq from tre use of this product or the intimation contained reran. Information Vi
this txjbfcafon is sabHrCf to cnange without notice. SGI Bj,irofmerftai tncr disdains any responsiity orobfgaBon io update the irforrnatim contained reran.
GSi Bnuormenta/ ftic. iiwii^isHietcafi?
Figure C- 10 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
51
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
B.-aiuation Date:
15-Jan-23
Job ID:
Facility Name:
SFV Areal
Constituent:
TCE
Conducted By:
Jeffrey Weiss
Concentration Unite:
U^L
Sampl ing Point D:
NHE-7
NHE-3
NHE-4
NHE-6
i i
Event
Date
TCE CONCENTRATION (UgJL)
1
Jan-17
ASA
2
Feb-17
4.73
44.9
24.8
21
3
Mar-17
4.14
46.0
24 2
24.0
4
Apr-17
43
c
Way-17
42 .S
29.4
6
Ju"-17
2.91
42
321
7
Jul-17
2.44
31.3
27.3
g
Aug-17
31.6
9
Sep-17
2.42
49.4
26
24.3
ID
Oct-17
32
50-7
20
225
11
Now-17
2.42
45.5
40.1
25.8
12
h-
&
u
43.1
13
Jan-18
45.0
14
Feb-13
44 6
15
16
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0.33
0.05
0.20
0.14
i
Mann-Kendall Statistic |S|:
-IB
5
12
1
i
Confidence Factor:
99.7%
61.9%
B7 0%
50.0%
i i
Concentration Trend:
Decreasing
No Trend
Hp Trend
No Trend
—NiE-7
^^NHE-3
—NHE-4
NHE-6
Notes:
1. At least four ndependent sampling everts per well are requred for calcdating the trend, ktethodoiogy .is vaHa for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Conference in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasng (S>0) or decreasing (SO): >95% = 'naeas ng or Decreasing;
2: £0% = Probacy Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < 90% and S>0 = Nc Trend; < 90%. S£0, and GOV i 1 = No Trend: < 90% and COV < 1 = Stable.
3. Metteocrfogy based on "MARC'S: A Decision 3i®port System for Customizing Monitoring Pans', J.J. Aziz: M. Ling, H.S. Rrfai, C.J. r-tewell, and J.R. Gonzales
Ground W&ter. 41(3):355-367,2003.
lVSCLA/iMER Fre GS) Wnn-Kendali TooM is aalaUB 'as b" Conskieratie can? has been exercised in preparing tfw software pnxhxt; however, to party, ivctv&ng mrihout
Matin? GS/ Enwrvnrvenial Inc., makes any representation or warranty wgunfcity the acca^cy, correctness, or completeness of trie nfomHtion contained reran, and no such
party sbat! be Haole for any direct, indirect consequer&ai, k\cider(a( or other damages resulting iron fe use of this product or the information contained herein. /ntbmaticr> in
this pubficatnn is subject to cnaige without notce. 3SJ Efr#Tnsm;&Ttal inc., disclaims any responsMfy orobtigaSon to update the kfamation confined nerein.
GS! EnHfonrnerEa' Inc., mvtgs*-neLc&r<
Figure C- 11 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
52
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
1
Dec-17
974
2
Jan- S
104.
3
Fefc-18
974
4
Mar-18
974
5
Apr-1 b
56
S
May-1 B
913
7
Jun- :9
B4
a
Jui-19
953
9
Ajq-'IS
77 3
13
See-1S
753
11
Od-19
70.9
12
Nov-IS
71
13
Jan-13
50
14
Ma*-15
55.3
15
Apr-19
553
15
Sep-19
55
17
OcJ-19
95
18
1-NoiM9
99.1
19
1-Dec-19
773
20
-Jan-2C
573
21
1-Feto-2D
523
22
1 -Mar-2D
594
23
1-Apr-ZD
55
2±
*-May-2C
7-4
25
-sJun-2G
702
25
1-JUH20
50
27
1-AU0-23
54.2
29
1-Sep-20
79.7
29
1-0C-2D
5i
30
1-NOV-3D
55
31
1-Dec-SD
74
32
1-Jan-21
53
33
1-Fet-21
73.6
3A
1-.*cr-21
573
35
*-May-2
53.7
35
1 -Jun-2'!
554
37
1-JuK21
49
39
1-AJQ-21
23.1
35
1-CO-21
42
¦iO
vjan-22
4.2
01*7 mm wii hot ti/w mm wfa otm
Sampling Date
0172 06.72
Notes:
1. At eastt>_r rcependeT samplng uulk per wei are require! *or calciilaeng the Tend. ftMIMWfll' '5 tor 4 3d 40 aarvies.
2. Confidence r "rend - Con"dence i n pcuen:i that consstuenl concertraeon 2 kneadng iS>n;i or decreasing iSS£% - > m 11 iiinurr
i 50% - P*ct-ab:> Ino-easrtg or Probatay Decreasing; < 30% and 5>G - No Trend;« 90%, BsD, and GOV 11 - No Trend; < StRt and GOV < 1 - Stat e.
3. Methodology based or ABCEMm Support BysSersPer dflntSng i.tor lonng Plans", J.J. Aztt, M. Lino, H.S- FUtai, CJ. Ne*e , and J.fi. Gcrzaes,
Ground IMIfer, 4.iqjc3S5-3G7, 2001.
ijUSCUU MR: TTrc SSl MmdiKbhW TsoftS ,'r ewdafcfe *ar is". Cor-zae^atK sat r.ss hew, fsrenasBj' r: prewiraj ir,>s safimm product immttf, no perry, netting m&icrf
ftnfaeon GSi1 EfMrannKfriaJ Inc., nates any rtfnsertaaon or wetrarif iw/stdkKf me Karacj; ccnscries;!, ar®rr^«fft'«5s ofiht rribmwpyi oodetitd Hetw;. and no sich
cvb( 3.W esc sat* fc< arff direct inditci ccrstmerael, '.-odeTa1 wether 3&*vok resuftng fern i^c jm of His pnxiiti x c^w nftrmsKfi amfamd wfcn. /nfemwoon i?
eK's pja'tcmcfi .is siijed b changa wOmi ncose. SST E^rorrrKfjW bv, dscfens any fltsooratH'f & afaEpfnn sb updd* fre .Tfc«**isiror corninerf ,He»R*t
GSrBvroiMritf tic.,
Figure C- 12 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
53
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
ErakaSon Dane:
l5-Jan-23
Job ID:
Facility Name:
SFV Area 1
Constituent:
TCE
Conducted By:
JsfTrey Wslas
Concensratkri Uniis:
Ug/L
Camping Point IO:
NH-22
MH-26
I I I i i
Sampfccg
Event
Date
ICE CONCENTRATION (UglL)
1
Jan-IB
1.38
2
A3f-1E
1.71
3
JJ-1E
0.76
4
Aug-13
0.601
5
Sep-18
1.17
6
Oct-IE
1.49
NOtf-lfl
2. C6
8
Fe>20
0.918
9
Mar-20
0.532
10
May-2D
0.519
0.577
11
Jin-2C
0.6S5
12
Sep-20
0.912
13
Qd-2C
0.928
U
NW-20
1.D3
15
Dec-20
1.26
16
Jan-21
0,575
1.3
17
Feo-21
0.585
1.B9
18
1-Mar-2i
0.723
1.55
19
l-Apr-21
0,342
2.56
2D
l-May-21
0.745
4.D2
21
t-JUn-21
0.61
2.5o
22
1-JJ-2*
0.513
3.29
23
1-AU0-21
0.554
4.C4
24
1-Sep-21
0,565
4.31
25
1-M-21
0.595
4.53
26
l-Nw-21
0.771
5.55
27
t-Jan-22
0.574
4.23
28
1-FSC-22
0.597
5.55
29
l-Mar-22
0.752
6.15
30
1-Apr-22
0.553
3.8
31
l-May-22
0.77
6.D9
32
KJUn-22
0.727
6.68
33
1-JU-22
0.<32£
6.8
34
35
Coefficient of Variation:
0.13
0.63
I
Mann-Kendall Statistic- {S'<:
58
332
I
Confidence Factor:
95.7%
>99.9%
I
:
Co-ncentration T rend:
Increasing | increasing |
Sampling Date
Motes:
1. At least far Independent samplng everts per *ei sra reqUred tw catenating tne rem uanodobgy is vaU tor4 to 40 sampies.
2 Gomderce h Trend - Corfaence (in percenl) tnsrt ccrsttrjert ccncerttaflon s increasing ^S><]) or aecTBa&ng >95% - increasing or Decreasing;
190% - ProeaWy hcreating or Prcibatty Decreasing; < 90% and S*0 - No Trend; < 90%, S®0, and CW ;= 1 - No Trend; < 30% and GOV < 1 - Statte.
3. Metnooaogy based cm "MAROG: A Decision Dipper Sy&srr Tor Optmang Morltorng PlansT. J .J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rta, CJ. Newet, and J.R. Gonzaes,
GT>!#ii? Water. 41(3^355-367, 2D03.
OffiCLVMER: The GSi Manrt-Kendoi Tcottt iz avalafye "bz a* CDnsidernisie are has c«n ex erased m preparing for scArane produsk however, no party, including tdfmii
hoiiaton SSJ En ivm.Trc fits' (nr., rwes any neoTsefTtsfen or worrarcty regerdina fee accuracy, correc&ess, cr GOttpknness of the informaihr corrtoiatd herein. ano" w such
party sfta/be isblt for any tfviKt. iidnet carsrgjent*K jiabenra' cr cdie/ damages resufr'ng £wi me use of rhts putat or the mkamSatt cchained ncf»?. UnnfiH r
Aapufafcation is subject jo zhanot iwthoiiT nnfce. GSI EnvranoiHriM foe., oSsaa'ms any n^MnsJjjfiry or ccigsfc'ci to uca'afe me •rrfsyma&nr' carfared herein.
GS* Ervmrvntrni k\£-n ww.asHetca?:
Figure C- 13 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
54
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Sampling Point ID.|_
NH-23
uaL.
TC£ CONCENTRATION (UgiL)
1
jai-17
1,34
2
Fetx,7
1.59
3
Vr-ir- "
1,34
4
May-17
1J09
5
Jun-17
126
6
JUM7
1.32
7
Jan-1 E
1.59
a
Fee--3
1.55
9
Mar-13
2.97
10
Jun-1 E
D.979
11
•: :>::
1.07
12
NOV-13
D.558
13
Oec-18
1.76
14
Jan-15
1.52
15
Mar-19
3.94
15
Anr-15
5.55
17
Wlay-19
5.74
15
1-JM9
4.54
15
•-JL--9
428
2C
1-.AJLK5-19
4.79
21
•-Gep-*9
3.72
22
' -Oct-" 9
3.36
23
"-NDV-19
2.37
24
¦ -Dec- • 9
2.77
25
l-Jan-23
2.18
25
27
26
25
3C1
Coefficen
of Variation:
0.59
1 1 1 1
Mann-Kendall Statistic -JSj:
103
m mm m
Confidence Fader
99.2%
I I I I
Concentration Trend:
ki creasing
m
3
a
c.
o
O
oa/f«s
G3W7
WW7
OfcTO
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least tiir rrtependent sarrtolftg events per well are required Tor caJciiaUng "he trend. fJetrwi&cg}' Is vau tor 4 E 40 samptej.
2. Confidents In Trent! - Confidence (In percent) that constituent ccnceftratlon is increasing |S>0;' or decreasing (S«Qj: >9.5% - increasing or Decreasing;
a 90% - Rrecaerty Increasing or F>noejacny Decreasi ng; < 50% ana S>0 - No Trent!;« 90%, S*0, arrt COV £ 1 - No Trend; < 9C% and COV < 1 - Stafce.
Metfsosoogy oased on "MARCS: a Dec&on Support System for Opimizmg Monitoring Pans', j.j. Aziz, M. Ung, H.S. RTai, C.J. Newell, ana J.Ft. Gonzaes,
Ground WOer. 41<3;:355-357,2003.
DISCLAIMER. 77>e GSt Mam-Kewav Tookt is a»'aiia£te '35 is'. CanstfsraWe care tes fleer? exerrisecj jn prepanng rms scrtware preduct: rxwever, .no par/, rwjfrg
Arnftawr' GSJ En^rDrfW.nta1 /nc._. mates any .-spresenraKyi or wanarav regaiftng ?ve accuracy, twreaness, or ramptere.ne&s of me rtfcnflafion oonrar-M na^fi, antf msxfi
(Oany steal Se lade Tcr ary Atc. rdre«, cc^eo^enDaJ. incwJenai' crooher Cannes reskcrcg1 ttiyn me use -of me jc/oolbj; or me infyrodcn confined nerein in'omsoDn »i
tfvs pufittaKvi is suiter rc change ntnct/r rrawe. GSt Envjonrnerva! Ik, tiisaaira any reapxmtaiiy orottfgason to upaate me I'rtymacibn confined fie/ein
SSI EivirwTienW lncv tmit.gsHiti.ayn
Figure C- 14 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
55
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Dace:
Fac-lity Naire:
Conducted 3y:
JgffTfly Wftte
Damping Poire D:[_
Job ID:
Corretituerr.:
Concentration lAiifis:
TCE
yak.
TCE CONCENTRATION (UglL)
1
Fefc-18
1.31
2
Mar-IS
1.56
3
Afr-19
3.939
4
May-19
3.933
5
Ajij-13
3.949
5
Sep-1S
7
OGHB
4.23
9
Nov-18
3.929
9
Mar-13
3.547
10
Acr-13
3.732
1T
Jun-19
3.94=
12
Jut-13
1.11
13
ftm-is
1.24
14
Sec-19
1.55
15
Oct-19
3.559
15
Nav-19
3.916
17
Dec-19
12S
19
-¦jat-IC
1.13
19
1 -Feto-2D
1.73
23
1-Mar-20
1.19
21
1-Apr-2D
1.9
22
-WBy-2C
1.79
23
-Jun-2C
3.1
24
NUHD
9.97
25
1-Sep-X
1.39
25
10j or ascreasng i30 - No Trend; < SO%, &s0, and GOV * 1 - No Trend; < SO* and GOV < 1 - Stable.
MeffimMagy based on *M^OS: A Dec&or> Support Sja»T for Qptirtano Mwiotao Plans'. J.J Azz, M.Lfctg, H.S.R/fa C-.J. Ne*e , and J.FL Gorzaes,
Ground LVSfe-r, 41<33c355-367, 20EB.
£XSCL4JIA£«».'«s: a'ihe irrfcrmsRyi caisned brat and no such
pari;,- shaf oc wsb* fcr any drcct indeed, ccrzeajefitsi, vxHeiiel or other damaoei nesuirra ram the use vrihs pnadbcr or :Ht nfermaricfi flMriamd herein. frifcrmsnan it
pjctntDZ-n .r sii>ptd te cranst wttiKxi nonst. S51 S^Varmerala1 inz, dsri&jrv an? iKporabity or oUgatian rs updde the kiMm§un c&T&ntd herein.
GSi'cfMfOfiOSrCrf it, trw 0-MtCOIB
Figure C- 15 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
56
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
E^alusfcon Date:
Faclity Natrve:
Conducted 3y:
Jeffrey Wataa
Gamp ing Point D:(_
Job ID
Corstibuenc
Concentration Units
TCE
ML.
TCE CONCENTRATION (Ug*4
t
=et-ts
2.95
2
Ma-IS
i.97
3
ApMB
722
¦i
ItaHB
104
5
Jun-13
11.6
5
Ju-19
U.3
7
*.j;- I :
17.9
9
sec-IE.
19.1
9
OcMB
21.9
13
NnrtS
9
11
Oecifl
5.51
12
Ja'r h
5.55
13
FMM9
i.EU
14
lbH9
3.3S
15
ApM9
2.5
IS
May-19
1.96
17
.J-'r
1.5
19
I-JlM 9
1.12
19
l-Ajg-19
0.909
20
I -1: —" ' =•
3.71
21
Irfitor^a
0.593
22
1 -Mar-2Q
0.514
23
-Jun-2C
¦4.56
24.
KAWO
0.7Ef7
25
1-Oec-2Q
0.524
25
' -Jan-2:
0.513
27
I-Fefc-H
2.34
29
1-Mar-21
5.11
23
l-.^r-2!
2.35
30
-¦•2.-:
0.553
31
2.71
32
I-JLH21
5.93
33
7.2
3i
1-Eee-2I
5.53
35
1-0 c>21
2.85
35
l-Noi^21
3.7
37
-.Jun-22
4.42
39
l-JUr22
3.92
39
—D
Coeffit*n: of Variation:
0.M> |
ManniKenifall Stare tic- (S|:
-117 |
1
Confidence Factor
99.t* |
i
Conce?tra£on Trend:
~Mresing |
£
O
¥
o
o
DM 7 0*11 Wit tZW M.-30 01/21 07,11 OZ'22 Oft-22 flffl
Sampling Date
Nctec:
A1 least Ixr JTdependen: samping events per well are requ red *ar catajlacng the Tend. is va*d fcr 4 ic 40 zampies.
Confidence Trend - Consilience i;n ptfctfti that cons^tuent ccncertrxon 3 rcreasng iS>nj or decreasng iS<0;«: >55*t - rcreasng or Decreasng;
c SQ% - Pttao > Inn-easrg or Probata/ Decreasing; < 50% and SHD - .So Trend; < 90%, &s0, and GOV 11 - Mo Trend; < SC* and COV < t - Statte.
Meth^o^j-based cr( ^WK03: A Ceci«cc Suwrarl Syse-- fur OpOrOng Mor&ortrtgRare'. J.J. AzSc, M una, H.S Rffai.CJ. Ne*e~, and J.R. Gcrzaet
Ground W-aer, 41.;3;c355-357, 2003.
D($CL4jtt£R: The GSI Trafct.s scalable "asis'. Canzoe'ab*e can? r.s: bctr, «««H5ea in zg Ms xftwv o«wA/ct nottevc.', no pany. incurfriy miJiou!
rrrcfetoon 39 c-vronmcTiji Uv., rnakpj arjj. .vprcsesixicn or tfenw^e .«prnV:o rr» khawjp; wcon^HP/xss o?fr# rrfomwwyi coriancd hercr. a^ no such
pari;.' sbal be isdtt for any afacz ndnd, zar^sueiat, •rodi'ta* or other ssmaxs ^sufcrq mrr, ihc jze ofiHz proeucf or ifre jrrarnabof: zonteireo wren, rrafermation k?
d*s Euofearion iz siiyerf to crta-ge a^houf ncrise. SSJ ETjctormefilal i'nc, thdekas an/ .Tsporatdty & oMaaticn to urcy* few .'nfc"nrt'ar r-ctainec' he
-------
Figure C- 16 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluate Date:
FacdhyNatne:
Conducted 3y:
15-Jan-23
Job ID:
Constituen::
Concentration Lric:
SFV Ar&a 1
TCE
J affray welsa
UOil. |
Samping 3oh: O:
RT-1
RT-10
RT-11
RT-U
1 1 1
Saving
Em
Date
ICf CONCENTRATION fU^L)
1
Jan-19
9.76
7.5
7.E2
4.97
2
Fet-15
13.5
£.3*
6.3£
5.SI
3
Mar-19
m s
5
7.35
622
4
Acr-13
9.1
2.5
6.17
5.99
5
May-19
9.92
3.3i
6
5.17
S
Jun-19
-.54
2.35
£.32
72£
7
JuM9
5.95
1.95
4.45
7.03
9
Ajg-19
B.ii
1.91
3.76
63
9
Eep-19
6.3
357
6 4£
13
OcS-19
17.5
12.4
10.4
54£
11
No >¦'-13
5.19
3.13
3.64
4=€
12
Dec-19
i.K
7.33
2.86
5 66
13
Jan-23
¦i.3
3^3
2.04
4 96
14
Fet-2E
i.i4
452
2.03
6.13
15
Mar-2D
4.15
757
1.S
- 58
15
Apr-23
4.2
2.74
157
=¦.52
17
May-23
¦£.27
3.9i
152
5.11
19
-Jun-20
11.4
WJ2
£.02
104
19
1-JUI-23
12.2
£.££
7 £11
23
1-Ajg-20
2.14
829
0.S66
4 1
21
1-Sep-20
2.54
5.39
a so 3
42:1
22
1-OC-23
2.34
11.4
1.47
3.1£
23
1-N3%-20
1.94
8.79
0.83
3.02
24
1-Dec-20
1.64
11.2
0.747
2.67
25
' -Jan-2
1.93
15.5
1.3£
2.7
25
1-Fet-21
3.57
14.2
6.24
3.4£
27
1-Mar-21
9.95
17.1
14.1
5«
29
1-Apc-21
135
15.2
1£.£
= S
29
¦ -May-21
15.1
€.92
S.6£
12
33
1-Jun-2 -
2.92
15.A
4.41
2:94
31
Wui-21
155
15.1
17
144
32
1-Ajg-21
335
15.2
26.2
165
33
1-Sep-21
35
1A.3
19.3
152
3i
KkK 1
32.5
14.4
16.2
17
35
1-No i-21
255
15.5
13.1
16.7
35
Wan-22
£.13
1.64
3.1£
37
1-Fefc-22
2.19
7.9
1.4
2.3S
39
1-t.4ar-22
2.27
£.57
1.42
2.46
39
-Jun-22
5.17
2A.4
12.1
2.73
A3
Wuh22
3.31
1B.5
758
2.11
Coeffiterr od Variation:
037
0.58
0.93
0-64 !
lian*t-Kendall 3 tits be |S|:
-100
353
-14
-121
Confidence Facte*-:
flS.3%
>39.3%
56.0%
91N
Conce*tracon Trend:
statte
increasing
sbm
PttHSl Deaaasingj
^3=
MM# OSflf 13/19 MtfO OtOI 07/11 0111 M£2 0Vt3
Sampling Date
Motec:
1. Al east tojr roecendtt sampling events per well are requred *cr calcLlaeng tfie *rcnd. UeMMtofeor Js va*d tor 4 !o 40 samples.
2. Conftderce r> Trend - Con"dence flit penrenci thac ccnsrtuent ccncertraron ts rcreasing iS>0.i or deceasing i35£«t - mreasng w Decreasng;
•c 90* - protaory increasing or =rot«atMy Ceeeasnfl; < 93* and S>0 - fSto Trend; < SO%, SasO, and COV * 1 - Nd Trend; < 90% and CQV «1 - Stable.
3. Memxlacfiy bKed or "W(fi03: A Dec&cc Suorcrt SysBer-, for Optirmtztog Wfcr ianng Plans". J.J. Azz, M. ung, H.S. RiTaf. C J. Newel, and J.R. Gccaaes,
Ground Water. 410*355-367.2003.
aSCiJUT^c SSI Afe-r^ertfef TxMs/sfat»c 'a s is" Corzaerabit can r,s: ieen erensw' n -reas^-c Sis scflware cnxAjct Acmbv; no parr/, r,ajdng mfroi
imferon E^vwrnctSal Inc., "^a^cs errf .Tepnese.^-frar sr wsrrwtt .TgemVig rne kcu-sc/; conesiHKS, ar-xi
cerb i1®! ce tat* fcr a»*' tincz ,*Kfrwi car^Mjcrntf. '.-odcra' ft'cttic wtok reEitao mm -jse cfiHs producr orihe neresn. I'nSxmessc" r
Sir Kjofcsmi .'r ni^ecd b craige wthco! rsopoe. SS1 Ervirormtrisi iW;, asdaims any nsporabifei or sbkgotvyi ed urcWe fre .nfernat'or r-cfairw' herein.
QS¥£fi*afintriif wi, wt* ji-rttcap
58
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
Figure C- 17 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
Faclity Name:
Conducted 3y:
5FV Area 1
Jeffrey Wrtaa
Samp ing Poms D:[]
Ewrt Date
Job ID:
Corffltituer:
Cancellation Units:
TCE
ugik.
TCE CONCENTRATION! (UgHJ
Jan-17
•4.52
c 55
2
Fet-17
1.81
3
Mar-17
1.54
4
May-17
1.05
5
Jun-17
0.303
5
Juf-17
0.747
7
Ajq-17
0.533
B
Sep-17
0.644
C.S22
9
OCM7
0.553
ID
No^-17
0.514
11
Dec-17
C.S8B
12
Jan-19
0.5
1.03
13
Fet-18
1.35
1.51
14
Mar-16
1.01
1.01
15
.^r-19
1.54
G.873
15
May-15
3.5$
17
Jim-19
4v49
1S
1-JuMB
i.93
13
1-Ajo-IS
5.57
2D
1-Sep-18
-.35
21
1-OC-1B
7.04.
22
1-No39.9%
54.8% I
Conce'tracon Trend:
Increasing | No Trend |
Not pc :
Al east t>jr raependerE sarnolng events per we'l are requ red •'or calcL.laena the Tend. MfelfiQC/crag/' 's vmK lo 40 sa"v*ei.
Confidence ir Trend - Confdence (in percerRi thac consttuent ccneeriraCan is increas-no |3»D<) or decreasna iS«n;i: 3-S5* - roreasng v Cecreasng;
t SOS - ProbaCt-/ increasing or Prafeofefy Decreasing; -c 30% and S>0 - No Trend; * 90%, &sG, and GOV 11 - Mo Trend; < SC% and COV < 1 - Static.
Methodology based on "MARCS: A Dec -tor Support oyster* for Optofetog MoriSortag Flans". J.J Aza, M. Ung, H.S. FrTa CJ. Ne*e , and J.R. Qoraate,
Grama' rt'isrer, 41 (3 >35 5-367,2003.
uHS&L4Jtf£P: The S5l Mm-finii TocfcKr scalable 'as s" CoraKratw- sat r.as Acerr masmi in pmpating ins sofinm praricfc hott&tf, no party, rtajdng untoui
frrwbfan GSJ EwrarwittAf fnc., "v't; anfftfnsentsbon or wumjd/m/aiAty me sonjrarr; MHTKinKs, ar ¦xmpmress afto* rfcrmeoon corisr.-vd hereH, and no a*:h
c-sr!r, zha9 6c isi* fc^a*.' direct »ndirtd zarztojeriial, '-odeto1 or other M*nflo« nesutirra mm the job oft^s prcoiicr or nftpwcfi contained rwvn, Ifiymsocn ir
6k pjotizmon z stijerf to cnsrgt wihouf nowe. SSI E-vro-YTwnla1 6k, (fastens any /tsporsbtit/ or uUk/B&Mi to tdxUv tf-« jr&fSHfar? rcTanec hertm.
CSiciwyirwrtf Inc, wv* jfr-nKftun
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
59
-------
Figure C- 18 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
E-aluation Date:
15Jan-23
Job ID:
Facility Name:
S FV Area 1
Coratrtusnrt
TCE
Conducted By:
Jeffrey Weiss
Concentration Units:
UgfL |
Samp iiv|j Point O:
EW-8 | | | | | |
Event
Date
TCE CONCENTRATION (UgJL)
1
Jul-15
2.1
2
Sep-1fi
0.35
3
Oct-18
0.65
4
Jaiv19
0.763
5
Apr-19
1.64
6
May-18
2.03
7
Ana-19
3.21
S
Oct-15
4.12
9
Jan-20
4.76
ID
Apr-20
5.27
11
Ai»-20
5.04
12
Oct-20
3.48
13
Mar-21
3.31
14
Apr-2"
3.05
15
Jul-21
2.06
16
Jan-22
0.761
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Variation:
050
Mann-Kendall Statistic S|:
26
Confidence Factor
B6.7%
^¦
^¦
Concentration Trend:
No Trend
Sampling Date
Notes:
1. At least four ^dependent sampling events oer well are required for calculating the trend. Methodology .is vatid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Corroence in T'end = Cnidaxs (in percent) that constituent concentratcn is increasng (S>0) or ciecfeasing (SO): >95% = ncreas or Decreasing;
£ 00% = Probacy Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < £0% and 3>0 = No Trend; < 90%. S£Q. and COV i 1 = No Treffxl; < 90% and GOV < 1 = Statole.
3. Mefoxxslogy basec on "MARCS: A Decision Support System for Optimizing Monitoring Plans", J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.R Gonzales.
Grocj>ai Waier, 41(3):355-367,2003.
OISCLASMER: The (SSI UamKenUS TooM is auafabfe 'as is". ConadoaUe ca"e has fceen exerasecfin orepamg this prorijct hcwevef, no parry, including without
.¦ofeaton G6f EnwiwiTCntaJ Inc., makes an/ representaKn or warranty regawig the aotuaqr, cofreciress, or K3fTpfete.rfess of the jifomHfon contained herein, and no such
party srs1,1 be Aaote for any direct irxftrect consequential, .rariertaf or offer damages resulting from ire use of fltes product or the information contained nerein. Information in
this [xibica&or is su^ecr to change without notice. 3Sf fiMrcrrneTiaf tact, dtscSaims any r&sponsijiiy or obligation to update the information contained herein.
GSf Bimmestal me., mrngsHMam
Figure C- 19 Trichloroethene concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
60
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:
15-Jan-23
SFV Area 1
Jeffrey Weiss
Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:
Hex Chromium
Ug'L
Sampling Point B:
NH-MW-06-Z3
NH-MW-11-Z1
NH-MW-11-Z2
NH-MW-II-Z3
i i
Sampling
Event
SarjJhig
Date
HEX CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (Ug/L)
t
Aup-17
3.55
2.16
2.74
2
Sep-17
3.69
3
Apr-15
3.63
3.32
2.14
2.72
4
Mar-39
3.31
3.51
2.11
5
Apr-13
2.53
6
Jusv19
3.91
3_27
2.4
7
Jul-19
8
Ajb-19
4.26
2.9B
2.23
9
Sep-19
2 24
1D
Nov-10
4.06
311
2.31
2.09
11
Aup-20
4.15
2.4S
21
3.76
12
Nov-20
4.73
2.73
4.42
226
13
Mar-21
4.66
2.64
4.27
2.12
14
Jufs-21
4.68
2.53
3.3
2.15
15
Aug-21
4.45
2.64
2.19
4.31
16
Nov-21
4.49
2.46
2.09
271
17
J»v22
4.45
2.41
2.03
2.74
16
19
20
Coefficient of Variation;
0l11
0.14
0-33
0.25
1
¦
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S):
43
4J3
-3
1
Confidence Factor
99.6%
>99J9%
68.1%
54.8% 1 i
Concentration Trend:
Increasing
Decreasing
Stable
Stable
—NH-WW-05-Z3
^^Nrt-WW-11-ZI
—NH-MW-11-Z2
—NH-MW-11-Z3
Notes:
1. At least far ndepervden1 samding ewerts ser wdl are required for calculating the trend. Kieifiodology is vaiid for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Cor^oence in Trend = Conscience (in percent) that constituent concentraton is increasng (S>0) or decreasing (SO): >95% = increasng or Decreasing;
z '50% = Probacy Increasing or Probably Decreasing: < 90% and 3>0 = No Trend; < 90%. c£0. and GOV s 1 = No Trend: < 90% and COV < 1 = Stade.
3. Methodology based on "MAROS: A Decision Support System for Optm£zing Monitoring Pians', J .J. Aziz., M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. IStewell, and J.R Gonzales
GrourxJ W&rer. 41(3):355-367,20C&
DISCLtJMER: The GSi fitennfiendafi TooM is evaifabie 'as is '. Considerate care has been exercised In wepaong this scrtivare product; te?aeverI no pat?/, including vwHwjT
.loteooo GS/ EnvrDrvrenra' Inc., makes an/ irepresentaoon or ivaTanty rsganjrng the accuracycorrectness, or completeness of ire lirotation ccrtatned' reran, and no such
parry sna1.' be facte for any direct. indirect consequential, incidental & other damages resulting from fine use of this product or the information corrtairetf Herein /nrbmater' in
this fjitBf-dmm & suJ^ecr & change wthout notice. GSJ Efrrfrannjen&i tncv dsctaims any resfonsbSfy or obligation to update the tjutrndbon contained reran.
GS! STMnarneraa1 iTjcl, vmt.gswm.com
Figure C- 20 Hexavalent chromium concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
61
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Data:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:
15-Jan-23
SFV Area 1
Jeffrey Weiss
Job ID:
Constituent
Concentration Units:
Hex Chromium
Ug'L
Sampiing Point B:| MH-MW-03-ZI | NH-MW-Q5-Z1 | NH-MW-Q&-Z1 [ NH-MW-06-Z2 1
Sampling
Evont
HEX CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (Ug/L)
1
Aug-17
1.55
2.52
2
Sep-17
1.74
2.74
3
Qct-17
0.312
4
Apr- 1S
1.71
2.78
5
Sep-1S
28
8
Cct-18
0.31
7
Feb-19
1.97
3.07
S
Mar-19
0.654
S
Jun-19
211
3.17
1D
Jul-19
0.253
11
Ajg-15
2.13
3.57
12
Nov-19
2.19
3.24
13
A.fl-20
2.03
026
249
2.85
14
Ncw-2D
3.3
15
Mar-21
3.11
3.25
16
Jurt-21
1.3
2.68
3.1
17
Aus-21
3.53
2.31
2.93
16
1-to)-21
2.17
2.95
15
l-Jsr-22
3.76
1.58
1.33
2.82
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0.79
0-83
0JJ1
0.09'
i
¦
Mann-Kendall Statistic (5):
11
2 i 44
13
i
Confidence Factor
93.2%
62.5% 1 99.7% I 74.1%
i
Concentration Trend:
Prob. tncrsaang
No Trend
Incraaang
No Trend
—•—NH-MV-Q3-Z1
^^Nr+-WW-05-Z1
=—>NH-WA4»-Z1
—NH-MW-Q5-Z2
Notes:
1. .At least four ¦xiepB'xJerrt sampling everts cer well are required for calculating trend. kiethodofogy is vatia for 4 to 40 samples.
2. Corrxsence in Trend = GorfxSence {in percert) that constituent concentratrcn is increasng (S>0) or decreasing (SO): >95% = Ercreas^ or Decreasing;
£ S0% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < £0% and S>Q = No Trend; < 90%. S£Q, and GOV z 1 = No Trend < 90% and COV < 1 = Stafcle.
3. Me4txxx)iogy basetf on "MAR03: A Decision SLeport System for OpttTtzing Moritoring Rans", J.J. Aziz., M. Lug, H.S. Rifai, C.J. IStewell, arid J.R Gonzales
GtoutkJ to&rer. 41(3):355-367t 2003~
DfSClASMER: The GSI tAann-Piendaft TooM is avafebfe "as &' Considerable can? .has been exercised in preparing this scrtivare product; however no parvy. ivdud'ng wiinoui
}irvtaoon GSt Ewnxvrema! Inc., makes an/ represefteobr" or warranty regarding the aocu'acy; correctness, or completeness of tre Lnfonrowon ccrtained' reran, and no such
party sna1.1 is facte for any direct, indi'eci, conseqLertai', jncidentaf or other danages resulting from ire use of ftts jrocUcf or nhe irobroafiwn contained reran. Jnrbmaiibri in
this cubfcatoo is sui^scr to cnanpe wthovt notice. SSf £fr#fnaYnenial tno., dfedaims any resoonsibdfy crochgatoon to update the (rfcnr.ation contained reran.
GSf BiU'Vfrn&ta/ (nc, mw.gsweicom
Figure C- 21 Hexavalent chromium concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
62
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Sampling Point D:
LB1-CW20
NH-C02-220
NH-CD2-325
NH-VPB-04
I I I
Event
Date
HEX CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (ug/L)
1
.Apr-17
2.1
0.4
1.2
2
Apr-18
6-4
Apr-19
6
2.7
4
Qct-20
6,7
2.3
1.3
2.1
c
Apr-2"
7.3
2.3
1.9
1.2
0
Apr-22
e.i
2.1
0.37
2.1
7
8
9
1D
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0 34
0.11
0.75
0.31 |
I
Mann-Kendall Statistic (3):
13
-5
0
2
Confidence Factor
99.2%
89.6%
37.5%
62.5% I
Concentration Trend:
Increasing
Stable
Stable
No Trend
"a
a
£
01
u
c
o
o
0.1 1
02/19 OMQ
Sampling Date
Notes:
M least few independent sanding everts per well are required for calculating Sue Herd. KiethDaology is va(id for 4 to 40' sanfMfes.
Corroence in Trend = Gonfoence (in percent) that constituent concentration is ircreasng (S>0) or decreasing (SO): >95% = Increasing cr Decreasing;
£ 90% = Probacy Increasing or Probacy Decreasing < £0% ard S>0 = No Trend; < 90%,, S£G_ and GOV 11 = No Trend: < 90% and GOV < 1 = Stade.
Methocdogy based on "MAR05: A Decision Sucport System for Ojptmzing Moritoring Plans", J.J. Aziz. M. Ling, H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, ard J.R. Gorzales
Growd Water, 41t3j:355-367.2003.
DISCLAIMER; Trie GSI MannrKendaR TooM is mraiable "as is ' Conade^atie ca»e hats ieen e*en3Fsed'.i.n preparing iShis scftivare pmduct however, no party, including without
limitation GSI Enworvnarrfaf inc., makes any representation or nwrarfly regarding the accuracy, corectness, orcocysfeteness of the rfannaticn axtained herein, and no such
party shaf.1 be tiaoJe for any direct, indirect, consequential, ireoertaf or other dafsges resuttng from tre use of the product or the inbrrofcri contained terean. hiWTTiaoon .in
this Duixca&cr1 is 5-ubtecr to cnange without notice. SSf EnmmrnerttaH fnc, dodaims any responsiiWy crooYgetwn to update the iTsfrrnaxon contained he/ean.
GSI Enunxrr&zal mc., wftw.gtSHw:co»n
Figure C- 22 Hexavalent chromium concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
63
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By
15-Jan-23
SFV Area 1
Jeffrey Weiss
Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:
Hex Chromium
Ufl/L
Sampling Point ID:
NHE-7
NHE-3
NHE-4
NHE-G
1
Sampling
Event
Sampling
Date
HEX CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (Ug/L)
1
Jan-17
41.4
2
Feb-17
2.66
39.4
6.22
3.80
3
Mar-17
2.52
37.6
6.83
4.12
4
Aor-17
39
K
May-*7
37.1
3.81
6
Jun-17
1 68
3
4.71
7
Jul-17
1.67
8.84
4.49
8
Aug-17
3.29
4.52
9
Sep-17
1.44
4D.7
9.27
4.9
10
Oct-17
1.53
42.4
4.85
S.Q3
It
Nov-17
1.35
43.2
10.2
4.SS
12
Dec-17
44.8
13
Jan-1S
44.5
14
Feb-16
35.6
15
16
17
ia
19
20
Coefficient of Variation:
0.28
0.08
0.21
0-32 1
1
Mann-Kendall Statistic (S|:
17
13
14
20
Confidence Factor:
99.5*
82.1%
91.0*
99.3%
1
Concentration Trend:
Decreasing
No Trend
Prob. Increasing
Increasing |
100
Oi
3
2 10
c
<11
a
C
O
o
1
* ¦* -vv*"
Jt >0) or decreasing (S<0): >05% = Increasing or Decreasing;
£ 90% = Probably Increasing or Probably Decreasing; < SG% and S>Q = No Trend; < 90%, SsD. and COV £ 1 = No Trend; < 90% and COV < 1 = StabJe.
3. Methodology based on "MAR OS: A Decsion Support System fo? Optimizing Monitoring Plans', J J. Aziz, M. Ling, H.S. Rrfai, C.J. NeweH, and J.R. Gonzales,
Ground Wafer. 41(3):355-367, 2003.
DISCLAIMER: The GSI Mar,n-Kendatt Toolkit is ara.ifab.ie 'as is". Considerable care .has been exercised in preparing this -ssflwars product, however, no party, indudi.ng without
iVmrrawjn GSI Environmental Inc.. makes any representation or warranty regarding the accuracy, correctness, or completeness of the inform etK>.n contained .herah, and no sucb
party staff be .'iadfe for any direct indirect consequential, inckfenfaf or other damages resulting man? the use of this product or the ^formation contained .herein. Information m
the pubfcatwn is subject to change without notice. GSI Environmental inc., disclaims any responsibly or obligation to update the mfotmatitm contained herein.
GSJ EnvTO/vnemai inc., WHW.gsHietcom
Figure C- 23 Hexavalent chromium concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
64
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Jan-19
425
2
Fet-1S
35.3
3
Mar-18
412
4
Apr-19
3D
5
May-19
394
S
Jun-^
37
7
Jul-19
332
9
\JC-13
373
9
S«p-13
33.3
ID
OCM9
3*2
11
Nov-13
33.3
12
Jan-19
32.5
13
Mar-19
293
U
Acr-13
29.1
15
Sep-13
25
15
OCM9
27.9
17
Noh-19
2S.1
19
1-Dec-19
29.5
19
*-Jan-2C
25.9
23
l-Fet-2ij
27.3
21
1 -t4ar-20
27.1
22
I-Apr-2D
29
23
l-4tey-2E
273
24
-Jun-2C
24.3
25
1-JUH2D
27
25
1-AJO-20
23.3
27
1-Sep-2G
27.1
29
1-3C-2D
27
29
1-Nov-20
244
3D
1-Dec-20
233
31
Wan-2i
22
32
1 -Fet-21
23.3
33
l-Mar-21
22.3
34
1-.<©r-2l
24
35
l-May-21
25.3
35
l-Jun-21
23
37
1-JUH21
23
39
1-AJO-21
13
39
1-OG-21
25
4D
"-Jan-22
D.51
Ccflct'treior Trend:
3
e
0
1
s
i
©
Q
omt mw fd;i cf decreasing iS95% - increasing or Decreasing;
i 90% - Prctaey Increasing or Prctway Oscreafing; < 90% and S>0 - Mo Trend; < 90%, SsO, and GOV 11 - No Trend; « 90% and GOV «1 - Stat*e.
3. Methodtfogy tesed or TAARCS: A Cecior Support SysBern tor Optintzttg MortfcJilno Plans* J.J. Azz, M. Una, H.S RJta C-J. Ne»e . and J.R. Goraaies,
Ground rt-aer, 41<:3::355-367, 2003.
OSCL4MR; 77* SS1 Aftjwi Kmiii TocSrA.r svslabe 'asis" est hss been trernzn r -ffliw.-o #ws :cflvra*r c-nxfozt nownnrr. noperfy, r.ajdng1 wthouf
rmAsron GSI £.nii'vrrrVTial inc., "rates er?f rvjyszerisbor, orwsiT^f .ttgeraino nw sccwsc/, comecriKs, aro«Tpera^«si offrt infcmwDon cwis.-ed Herein, and no hkH
party c* sa!* fer any arret .HA-red, Eor»pjerMl, rodcta1 arottw oarwo« nesuftna tow i^c use of Ms prooucr srifrt frfepsmon jocteeefl reran. I'lAmHCc r
9*5 .EtAVcflDoo h siijeri to craipe ndhju! now*. G5f £~.TO-mefia| iVw, rfxbi^z any tKparz&te/ or chasten to uvddt Sre jrfc/TT«t'or r-cTarw' hewi
Gc. ctW'3fiCW^ re »v* J& WtaTI
Figure C- 24 Hexavalent chromium concentration trend plot between 2017 and 2022.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
65
-------
GSI MANN-KENDALL TOOLKIT
for Constituent Trend Analysis
Evaluation Date:
Facility Name:
Conducted By:
15-Jan-23
SFV Area 1
Jeffrey Weiss
Job ID:
Constituent:
Concentration Units:
Hex Chromium
Ug-'L
Sampling Point D:
RT-1 | RT-2 | | | | | I
Sampling
Event
Date
HEX CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION (Ug/L)
t
Jarv18
1.5
2.3
2
OtS-16
1.27
3
Mar-19
243
4
£pr-15
1.5
5
Oct-21
D.31
6
Mar-22
14E
7
Jul-22
1.43
e
0
ID
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2D
Coefficient of Variation:
Mann-Kendall Statistic -|S|:
Confidence Factor
Concentration Trend:
Stable
Stable
1 1
ll
c
o
c
8
c
-RT-1
-RT-2
0m7 04fl8 10/18 05/19 12/19 06,70 01/21 07/21 02/22 QM22 0ZV3
Sampling Date
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. Comdence in Trend = Confidence (in percent) that constituent concentration is increasng «3>0i or deceasing • S: I ; r" * = m-reas ~g or Deceasing;
£ 90% = Frobasly Increasing or Ftobaely Deceasing < 90% and S>0 = No Trend; < 90%, 3
-------
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 2009 Interim Record of Decision for North Hollywood for
groundwater were evaluated (Table D-l). While the North Hollywood treatment system is not currently
operating; when it is operating with a drinking water end use, the treated water must meet California's
existing drinking water standards even when they are lower than the selected ARARs at the time of
delivery. The chemical-specific ARARs in the 2009 Interim Record of Decision were evaluated against
promulgated standards current regulations in effect at the time, except for hexavalent chromium, which
was based on a voluntary cleanup level at the time of remedy selection used by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, and there have been no new State or Federal standards for hexavalent
chromium enacted during the review period and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is no
longer requiring that treated water meet voluntary cleanup levels.
The California Department of Public Health Notification Level for 1,4-dioxane has lowered from 3
micrograms per liter to 1 microgram per liter since EPA signed the 2009 Interim Record of Decision, but
no other ARARS have become more stringent. The protectiveness of the remedy is not impacted by this
change since the remedy has a drinking water end use that requires all North Hollywood effluent to is
used as drinking water and must meet all current drinking water standards and notification levels as part
of its California Department of Drinking Water permit.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
67
-------
Table D-1. Summary of Groundwater Chemical-Specific ARAR Changes
Chemical
Performance
Standards
Basis for Performance Standard
Current Regulations (ng/L)
ARARs More or
Less Stringent
than Cleanup
Levels?
State
California
Federal
TCE
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
5
5
No changes
PCE
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
5
5
No changes
1,1-DC A
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
5
5
No changes
1,2-DCA
0.5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
0.5
5
No changes
1,1-DCE
6
Federal Drinking Water Standard
6
7
No changes
cis-l,2-DCE
6
Federal Drinking Water Standard
6
70
No changes
1,1,2-TCA
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
5
5
No changes
Carbon
tetrachloride
0.5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
0.5
5
No changes
Methylene
Chloride
5
Federal Drinking Water Standard
5
5
No changes
Total
Chromium
50
State Drinking Water Standard
50
100
No changes
Hexavalent
Chromium
5
Los Angeles Department of Power
and Water Voluntary Cleanup Value
NA
NA
NA
Perchlorate
6
State Drinking Water Standard
6
NA
No changes
TCP
0.005
California Department of Public
Health notification level
0.005*
NA
No changes
1,4-dioxane
3
California Department of Public
Health notification level
1
NA
More stringent
NDMA
0.01
California Department of Public
Health notification level
0.01
NA
No changes
* California now has a State Drinking Water Standard that is equal to the previous notification leve
EPA did not select numeric chemical-specific ARARs in any of the decision documents for Burbank.
Instead, EPA determined that the Federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or any more stringent
State of California MCLs are relevant and appropriate and must be attained regardless of the end use or
discharge method for the treated water. Therefore, treated, blended water must meet all applicable
requirements for drinking water in existence at the time that the water is served, prior to distribution
through the public drinking water supply system. While some of the State of California MCLs have
changed during the Five-Year Review period, the California Department of Drinking Water permits for
Burbank have also been updated and so no impact to protectiveness of the remedy has occurred.
Federal and State laws and regulations other than the chemical-specific ARARs that have been
promulgated or changed over the past five years are described in D-1. 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:
68
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
-------
• Clean Air Act SCAQMD, Rule 1401
• California Water Code and State Water Resources Control Board Model Well Standards
Ordinance (1989), Division 7, CH 10, Section 13700 et seq.
• California Hazardous Wates Regulations, Generator Requirements, 22 CCR 66262.10, 22 CCR
66262.11, 22 CCR 66262.34(a)(1)(A), 22 CCR 66265.170 et. Seq (Article 9), 22 CCR 66265.190
et seq. (Article 10)
• California Land Disposal Restrictions, Requirements for Generators, 22 CCR 66268.3, 22 CCR
66268.7, 22 CCR 66268.9, 22 CCR 66268.50
• California Land Disposal Restrictions, Requirements for Generators, 22 CCR 66268.1 (Article 1)
• Spent Carbon Disposal, 40 CFR 268.40
• Groundwater Reinjection, State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 68-16 No Changes
• Groundwater Reinjection, RCRA Section 3020
• Clean Air Act SCAQMD, Regulation XIII: Rules 1309
Rct|uircmcn
t and
Citation
Document
Description
Effect on
Protectiveness
Comments
Recent Amendment Date
Clean Air
Act
SCAQMD,
Regulation
XIII: Rule
1325
1993 ROD
Air emissions
associated with
air stripper
operation
Changes do not affect
protectiveness.
Federal PM 2.5
New Source
Review Program
is exempt from
the requirements
ofCEQA
January 4, 2019
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
69
-------
Appendix
E: Public
Notice
©START YOUR DAY HERE gags: 55;
1969
1976
1996
mum
AnttM wivuiu
tali 3 Aturun '¦
:¦»», 111
Mr* i fl J.c-
(nuif i
is.it 14 w y>
ai> onw
tat: a (o|«u Utq*
2Mb MtlWn
?*« k
Rtnfnt '45.il
ft. 10 •*.A
Mm 4i«fw» ;
¦•(MltirtllWflM
0*k**r. |
HIUIMlISM
(idtytil'iAnj
ik ;e ;» »
M*9« >wTt»r. A
i ttbulM
Mctpcc t.r.r**,
KMIMUU
&¦trnftwr I iTHtff
<4n»MIN
r»toi n
Wl«f I
t*e»pec SU-l^i
box of net
'Shazam!'
fulls short of
rxpiTlulkms
Hot shot
Birthdays
JUrt#NATA/£ € Tmtfttorcl rB£ATMI~MS
~P
f
TERMITE & PEST
PROBLEMS SOLVED!
le«rn «tiy ynu* mfhtxiPi ilKfatd
Fi i .I.j m lh« B
-------
Appendix F: Site Inspection Report and
Photos
1. INTRODUCTION
a. Date of Visit: 14 February 2023
b. Location: Burbank, 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:
NAME
ORGANIZATION SITE
Jeffrey Luong
USACE-SPL, Project Engineer
Larry Sievers
EPA, RPM
Bianca Handley
EPA, RPM
Richard Salazar
Terranear PMC (TPMC), Plant Manager
Javier Martinez
Burbank Water and Power (BWP), Manager Water
Production and Operations
Richard Wilson
BWP, Assistant General ManagerBOU
Kevin Mitchell
TPMC, Consultant
Jose Barraza
TPMC, Operations Supervisor
Natalie Young
WSP, Site Engineer
Vahe Dabbaghian
LADWP, PM
Jeffrey Hu
Los Angeles Waterboard Region 4
Site visits were completed at the Burbank Treatment Plant (BTP - Burbank Operable Unit [BOU]) and
North Hollywood Treatment Plant (North Hollywood Treatment Plant - North Hollywood Operable Unit
[NHOU]) on February 14, 2023, as part of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site (Site) Five-
Year Review. The participants listed attended the Site listed next to their name. EPA and USACE
personnel attended both site visits. The weather was partly cloudy and in the 60s. The site visit at BTP
lasted from approximately 8:15 to 11:30 a.m. followed by a visit to four extraction well locations from
11:40 a.m. to 12:40 p.m. EPA and USACE visited the North Hollywood Treatment Plant from
approximately 1:50 to 3:00 p.m., and a final visit to one extraction well at 3:10 p.m.
Burbank Treatment Plant (BTP)/Burbank Operable Unit (BOU)
The inspection at BTP began in the main office building with a discussion on site security. There are two
entrances to the plant itself from the east and west gate. The plant contained a secured fence along the
perimeter and security cameras were observed facing each entrance. Mr. Salazar noted that there have not
been any security concerns within the past five years and someone is on-site 24 hours, 7 days a week. Mr.
Luong then asked the BTP representatives a number of general questions relating to the potential
challenges, locations of emergency/safety plans, and the overall resiliency relating to plant operations.
Mr. Salazar responded that the biggest challenge encountered within the past five years was when the
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
71
-------
transformer blew in the beginning of 2020 causing electrical damage throughout the plant and wellfield,
but the plant was able to re-establish flow within a week, minimizing operation downtime. Some other
challenges noted were the retainment of experienced, certified personnel, and the rising costs of
equipment, parts, and chemicals. Mr. Salazar noted that all necessary documents including the safety
plans, O&M manuals, and integrated contingency plan was kept on-site to address any concerns any
emergencies such as a hazardous waste spill, fire, or natural disaster. Mr. Luong confirmed the locations
of the documents in the main office and the control room. In light of COVID-19, the remaining
challenges were the supply chain issues and rising costs of materials. The plant continued operations and
followed all health guidelines regarding COVID-19, with some short staffing issues at times.
The group then toured the treatment plant beginning from the influent piping. At the time of the
inspection, the plant was running at approximately 4,300 gallons per minute from three wells (V-04, V-
05, and V-06) due to ongoing inspections and instrument calibrations. Within the past five years, a
seismic evaluation was conducted in 2019 which resulted in a design completed in 2021 and construction
of improvements completed in 2022. Seismic improvements included banding for pipe racks, roof to wall
connections/brackets in the boiler room, and brackets on the foot of the air stripper towers. There were no
signs of damage or issues with the treatment plant and the BTP is operating as intended by the current
remedy.
Extraction Wells - BTP/BOU
At approximately 11:40 a.m., the group drove to visit the various extraction wells starting with V-08, the
only aboveground wellhead for the BOU, located in the Burbank Fire Training Center. At the time of the
inspection, this well was not in operation as Mr. Salazar noted they were in the process of replacing a
check valve. The group then drove to V-03, passing by V-05, V-06, and V-07 on Vanowen St. Mr.
Salazar and Mr. Barraza opened the underground vault to observe V-03. Although not in operation at the
time of the inspection, the wellhead and sampling cabinet all appeared in good condition and securely
locked. Mr. Salazar noted that all wells are visited daily and are inspected on an alternate monthly basis.
The group drove by V-02 and V-01 located at the back of the Burbank Empire Center plaza and
concluded the BTP visit.
North Hollywood Treatment Plant (NHTP)/North Hollywood Operable Unit (NHOU)
Mr. Luong, Mr. Hu, Ms. Handley met with Ms. Young and Mr. Dabbaghian at the NHTP at
approximately 1:30 p.m. The activities at the treatment plant appears to be progressing along and
construction of the new extraction and treatment system is near complete.
Extraction Well - NHTP/NHOU
At approximately 3:10 p.m., the group visited North Hollywood Extraction Well 3R (NHE-3R), which
was located right off the corner of Vanowen St. and Beck Ave. The aboveground well unit was securely
fenced and contained a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD). There were no signs of vandalism or damage
and appeared to be in good condition.
Jeffrey Luong
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
73
-------
2
O&M Manual, safety logs,
equipment manuals located in
rrmW^lF^*
the control room.
1 M mi W ' SMm' "' r» _ .
J- _^JH|* flP
|fl ¦j^n 1 I h
H iHI » tV
f/jKr^r^
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Facing northwest, influent
piping to the two air stripper
towers.
Facing north, vapor phase
vessels
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site 75
-------
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Newly installed roof to wall
connections for seismic
nnprovements in the boiler
room.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
77
-------
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Six 120,000 gallon holding
tanks for backwash.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
79
-------
SCAD A system used to operate
the treatment plant located in
the control room.
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Aboveground Well V-08
located in the Burbank Fire
Training Center.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
81
-------
-------
-------
14
Facing east, newly installed
GAC vessels.
15
Facing north, North Flollywood
Extraction Well - 3R with a
VFD and secured fence in the
background.
-------
Site Visit Photos - San Fernando Valley Area 1 - BTP/BOU
Appendix G: Interview Form
Five-Year Review Interview Record (2019-2023)
Site:
San Fernando Valley Areas 2 (GOU)
Interview Questionnaire
Date: June 7, 2023
(Fill in the components below, one line per person if multiple persons are providing responses)
Name
Organization
Title
Telephone
Email
Richard Ruyle
City of Glendale
Water Services Administrator
(818) 548-3982
rruyle@glendaleca.gov
Leo Chan
City of Glendale
Senior Civil Engineer
(818) 548-3905
lchan@glendaleca.gov
(Record responses to the questions below)
1) Historically, what has been your organization's role in the project? The City of Glendale (City) has been
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the GOU treatment facility via its contractor, CDM, Smith and in meeting
the project objectives as identified in the consent decree. The City also plays the role as a water purveyor in making
sure the treated water from the Glendale Water Treatment Plant meets all drinking water standards and
requirements prior to serving the Glendale residents. What is your organization's current and expected future role?
The City is expecting to continue carrying out the same responsibility in the future regarding the project.
2) Do you feel that there is adequate communication between the water purveyors, EPA, and other agencies
managing or coordinating cleanup efforts at the site? Yes. The City (as the water purveyor) communicates with EPA
and other agencies (e.g. Division of Drinking Water) on a weekly basis and holds monthly and quarterly meetings
with the regulatory agencies and project stakeholders to discuss the operation and issues related to the GOU.
3) Do you feel that adequate efforts are made to inform the community and stakeholders about the project's activities
and progress? Do you have any comments or suggestions on EPA's efforts? Yes. CDM Smith, City's contractor for
GOU facilities operation and maintenance, provides daily project status to all stakeholders via email. CDM also
updates the stakeholders via email whenever there is a change in operation or project activity during the day.
4) Are you aware of any complaints, violations, or community concerns about the project in the last few years? None
5) What is your overall impression of the project? Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations?
My overall impression of the project is that it is a well-run project. The City of Glendale's contracted CDM Smith to
operate the GOU facilities. The plant manager and the operators are very responsible and competent in operating
the operable unit. The Plant Manager is also proactive in performing preventive maintenance which helps minimize
unexpected project interruptions. The Glendale Respondents Group (GRG) has been very supportive of the
operations. There have been no budget issues. The City also works very well with the State Water Board - Division
of Drinking Water.
Fourth Combined Five-Year Review for San Fernando Valley (Areal) Superfund Site
85
------- |