Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board

1. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Update on Maximum Benefit And Perchlorate Issues In the Chino Basin July 20, 2004 Gerard J. Thibeault, P.E. Executive Officer

2. Nitrogen/TDS Basin PlanAmendment • N/TDS Task Force • 7-Year Effort • Funded by water supply, wastewater, & other governmental agencies • Scientific review of water quality objectives adopted in 1972. • Evaluated Santa Ana Basin for assimilative capacity

3. Assimilative Capacity • If assimilative capacity exists, then may discharge at quality in excess of objectives, if supported by antidegradation analysis (maximum benefit & support beneficial uses) • If no assimilative capacity, may not discharge at quality above objectives (Rancho Caballero decision)

4. “Maximum Benefit” Objectives • In many cases, historic water quality was very good, and hence, calculated antidegradation objectives were found to be very restrictive • Objectives too low, with little or no assimilative capacity, for discharge of recycled water, or even SPW

14. Max Ben Objectives • Three areas made requests for objectives less stringent than the scientifically-derived antidegradation objectives • Chino Basin, Yucaipa, and Beaumont • Made proposals for integrated water quality and water supply management strategies, including alternative WQ objectives

15. Max Ben Objectives • Less stringent objectives would allow lowering of water quality, so must satisfy state’s antidegradation policy – Resolution 68-16 • 1. Demonstrate that beneficial uses will continue to be protected • 2. Water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained

16. Max Ben Demonstration • Chino Basin Example • Integrated water supply plan • Recycled water • Enhanced stormwater capture • Two (later, three) desalters • Recharge excess low-TDS SPW • Hydraulic Isolation • Extensive monitoring proposal • Water softener improvement program

17. Chino Basin Max Benefit • Max benefit to people of state • Extraction and treatment of salt-contaminated groundwater • Protect downstream users from rising poor-quality groundwater • Less reliance on SPW for growth • Integrated water supply planning – Optimum Basin Management Program

18. Basin Plan Amendment • Regional Board strongly supported task force effort • Amendment incorporating max ben objectives for Chino Basin adopted without dissent or objection • Forwarded to State Board and Office of Administrative Law for adoption

19. Current Status of Max Ben Basin Plan Amendment • State Board staff review complete • Never before attempted • Significant discussion and explanation • Asked for more explanation added to text • Judged non-substantive changes • S.B. staff agreed to take BPA to S.B. • Requested expedited hearing • State Board W.S. on September 8th • State Board hearing on September 23rd

20. Public Drinking Water Wells Affected by Perchlorate • Riverside County: 61 • San Bernardino County: 80 • Orange County: 31 • Santa Ana Region total: 172 • Statewide: 338

21. Perchlorate Source Areas • North Rialto (DOD, defense contractors, fireworks) • Mentone (Lockheed Martin) • Glen Avon (Stringfellow site) • Orange County (Colorado River water) • Historic Chilean Fertilizer Use - ???

22. Rialto/Colton/Fontana WellsAffected by Perchlorate • WVWD – 5 8,000 gpm • Rialto – 5 10,206 gpm • Colton – 3 4,713 gpm • Fontana WC – 714,900 gpm Total 20 37,819 gpm

23. Former West Coast Loading Corp. & Goodrich Site Pyro Spectaculars American Promotional Events Rialto Concrete Denova Environmental Former Pond Former Bunker Area Robertson’s Ready-Mix Mid-Valley Landfill Astro Pyrotechnics N

27. R/C/F Regulatory Activities • 21 Investigation Orders, pursuant to CWC 13267 • 14 Soil & GW Investigation Orders • 7 Orders for Investigation of Records

28. R/C/F Regulatory Activities • Enforcement Actions • 4 Notices of Violation • 3 Administrative Civil Liability Complaints issued ($30,000 collected) • 1 Cleanup and Abatement Order to San Bernardino County • 1 Cleanup and Abatement Order for Astro/Peters/Whittaker Corp.

29. Wellhead Treatment Systems • City of Colton – All 3 affected wells have treatment systems • City of Rialto – 5 wells • 2003 – one well • 2004 – two more wells to be added

31. Wellhead Treatment Systems • West Valley Water District – 5 wells • 2003 – two wells • 2005 – another well, early 2005 • Fontana Water Company – 7 wells • 2003 – two wells • 2004 – one well

33. Wellhead Treatment Systems • $3,000,000 from SWRCB Cleanup and Abatement Account • $3,000,000 (+/-) from Props 13 and 50 • $4,000,000 from Goodrich settlement • $135,000 to date from Regional Board liability assessment contributions • Regional Board requested an additional $2,000,000 from Cleanup and Abatement Account

34. Ongoing Litigation • West Coast Loading/Kwikset Locks/Emhart Industries/Black & Decker – Ongoing litigation seeking relief from Regional Board investigation activities. • Two Deputies Attorney General, one SWRCB Office of the Chief Counsel attorney, and lawyer representing City of Rialto, as well as thousands of staff hours for litigation support • Additional litigation deadlines approach

35. Additional Inland Empire Sites • Chino Basin Watermaster – 28 wells (Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana) • Initiating investigation activities • East Valley Water District, City of San Bernardino and City of Riverside – 17 wells • Initiating investigation activities

36. Citrus and Perchlorate • Many contaminated areas with no sources • Staff research – Chilean Nitrate fertilizer mined since late 1800’s, and imported to citrus groves in Inland Empire from early to mid-1900’s (possible from late 1800’s) • Heavily used for Inland Empire citrus production

37. Citrus and Perchlorate • Hundreds of thousands of tons thru WWII • Chilean contains 0.2% perchlorate • Acts much like nitrate • Chilean Nitrate, alone or combined with CRW, may be source of widespread low-level perchlorate contamination

40. California Citrograph October, 1928

42. Citrus and Perchlorate • Certain affected parties are upset with findings of this research • Part of cleanup costs would not be responsibility of industrial sources • Public would be required to pay for portion of cleanup and wellhead treatment • Expect this to be subject of future senate hearings