Pacific Swell

Southern California environment news and trends

Superfund Site of the Week: Rialto's B.F. Goodrich

It was in 1997 that Rialto first figured out that a plume of perchlorate was contaminating groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency named it the B.F. Goodrich site after the Goodrich Corporation, and made it a Superfund site in 2009. Rialto's B.F. Goodrich is our Superfund site of the week. 

  • WHERE A hundred and sixty acres of Rialto, a city in Western San Bernardino county, is the Superfund site. The contamination has entered water and is in a plume, moving, underground, that's affecting Rialto, Colton and Fontana. Groundwater - water underground - rests in the space between rocks, sediment, and sand. Think of marbles in a glass jar; you can pour water between the marbles, more than you might think. 
  • WHAT The EPA's worried about perchlorate and TCE: trichlorylethylate. Both chemical compounds are found in rocket propellant. TCE's a classic: exposure cause "headache, nausea, dizziness, clumsiness, drowsiness, and other effects like those of being drunk." Damage to the central nervous system; known to cause cancer in animals; may cause cancer in people. California's got enough of a problem with perchlorate in drinking water that the state made a set of policy goals about it: essentially, they represent what California wants to get to based on the best scientific data available. Perhaps unsurprisingly, perc exposure hazards are larger for pregnant and breastfeeding women, children, and those with thyroid disorders. Mostly, they're worried about water contamination - that's explained in slightly more detail below. But soil and soil vapor contamination is a problem too. Not just soil, but soil gas or vapors as well, trapped in tiny spaces settled among soil particles. 
  • WHY The why is contained in the what, in this case. So this isn't exactly why, but local communities pressed the EPA for a while to get Goodrich on the national priorities list. They're generally supportive of the designation, because it means federal money for cleanup…at some point…probably…and efforts to get money out of the companies that left the chemicals there. Public awareness - and local political awareness about the hazards of perc-contaminated drinking water has been on the rise for several years. But with our busted up state budget and general lack of funding at the county level for major cleanups like this, San Bernardino communities say they need help. The rule of thumb for anything Superfund related is that it's mindbendingly expensive to undo what's been done. Getting chemicals out of drinking water is no exception. It's worth pointing out that perchlorate is a big driver of Superfund designations in southern California; there are other sites that are perc-related. And smaller pockets of contamination - perhaps discovered, but without a responsible party anywhere in the picture - exist too. 
  • WHEN The site was part of federal property during World War II - "an inspection, consolidation, and storage facility for rail cars transporting ordnance to the Port of Los Angeles." Bombs and ammo en route to Pacific battles was gathered up there. After the war, defense contractors used the property to build explosives, rockets, and fireworks. B.F. Goodrich, who the site's named for, used the Rialto location from 1957-1962. So pretty continuously, the EPA argues, from the mid-forties until pretty recently, bombs, ammo, and other explosives made on site brought these chemicals into contact with the landscape. 
  • WHO Goodrich is one of several parties named here.  Also implicated are: Emhart Industries (on behalf of West Coast Loading Corporation), Pyro Spectaculars Inc. (PSI), Ken Thompson Inc. (current property owner), Chung Ming Wong (current property owner), Pyrotronics, Inc. (“Pyrotronics”) and Harry HescoxAnd it's worth noting that the company disputes its responsibility. Goodrich lawyers say there's no evidence the company used TCE when it was on site. they dispute EPA's designation that it's a potentially responsible party. That's not uncommon. When that happens, the federal government will usually seek to enforce their designation: basically, take the companies to court, and get a judge to do that. But that's a last resort. Court time don't come cheap. 
  • HOW…(ARE THEY GONNA CLEAN IT UP, and HOW MUCH WILL IT COST). THe solution EPA's talking about - pumps and treatment systems - would cost up to $18 million to start, a few million every year. In theory, the EPA systems would clean up the contaminated water, and send it to local utilities to sell as drinking-grade water. But utilities might not want it. In which case, the EPA would send the water to an underground aquifer. 

(Incidentally, KPCC's Inland Empire reporter, Steven Cuevas, has done a lot of reporting on Rialto's water. I don't know how to find it on our site.)


(Fireworks over Fontana, one of the cities affected by toxic contamination at a Superfund site in Rialto. Photo by Erik Nielsen via Flickr under a Creative Commons license.)

blog comments powered by Disqus

Enjoy reading Pacific Swell? You might like KPCC’s other blogs.

What's popular now on KPCC