GroupWise
WebAccess
Message
Item
Mail
Message
Close
Previous
Next
Forward
Reply
to
Sender
Reply
All
Move
Delete
Read
Later
Properties
Print
View
­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Carey
Johnston/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
08/
18/
2004
09:
52
AM
­­­­­

William
Anderson
To:
Carey
Johnston/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Tom
08/
18/
2004
09:
13
Wall/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Jan
Matuszko/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lynn
AM
Zipf/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc:

Subject:
Dioxin
&
SF
Bay
Petroleum
Refinery
Permit
Water
Pollution
Permit
Authorizing
Dioxin
Discharges
In
Bay
Area
Said
to
Violate
Clean
Water
Act
A
permit
authorizing
a
San
Francisco
Bay­
area
oil
refinery
to
discharge
dioxins
violates
the
anti­
backsliding
provisions
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
allows
too
much
time
for
compliance,
environmental
groups
said
in
an
appeal
filed
Aug.
16
(
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
v.
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board,
Cal.
Ct.
App.,
No.
319575,
filed
8/
16/
04).

Earthjustice
filed
the
appeal
in
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
in
San
Francisco
on
behalf
of
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
and
San
Francisco
Baykeeper
after
the
Superior
Court
of
California
denied
their
petition
in
June
(
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment
v.
State
Water
Resources
Control
Board
Cal.
Super.
Ct.,
Case
No.
CPF­
01­
319575,
6/
28/
04).
Mike
Lozeau,
an
attorney
with
Earthjustice,
told
BNA
Aug.
17
the
groups
were
challenging
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
issued
in
2000
by
the
San
Francisco
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
for
the
Tesoro
Refining
and
Marketing
Co.
in
Martinez,
Calif.

The
permit
would
allow
the
facility
to
meet
an
interim
dioxin
limit
of
0.65
picograms
per
liter.
The
regional
board
originally
issued
a
permit
for
the
refinery
in
1993
that
contained
a
water­
quality­
based
effluent
limit
of
0.14
picograms
per
liter
(
pg/
L)
of
dioxins,
a
limit
based
on
the
state
board's
regional
plan
for
the
San
Francisco
Bay
basin.

Permit
Limits
Argued
in
Earlier
Case
According
to
information
in
a
May
2003
decision
by
the
California
Court
of
Appeal
on
a
different
challenge
filed
by
the
same
groups
against
the
refinery,
the
permit
limits
were
based
on
the
assumption
that
Tesoro
was
the
sole
source
of
the
dioxin
to
the
bay
area
(
Tesoro
Refining
and
Marketing
Co.
v.
Communities
for
a
Better
Environment,
Cal.
Ct.
App.,
No.
A100327,
5/
30/
03;
109
DEN
A­
9,
6/
6/
03).

In
that
case,
the
appeals
court
ruled
that
Tesoro's
permit
for
discharges
of
dioxin
was
not
required
to
have
a
numeric
limit,
as
the
environmental
groups
had
charged.
The
court
said
there
is
no
requirement
for
the
water
quality­
based
effluent
limit
to
be
numeric
as
opposed
to
narrative.

Because
the
Suisun
Bay
into
which
the
refinery
discharges
was
listed
in
1999
as
impaired
for
dioxin,
a
total
maximum
daily
load
was
required
that
would
allocate
allowable
loads
of
dioxin
among
the
known
point
source
dischargers.

Tesoro
was
originally
believed
to
be
the
only
source
of
dioxins
and
imposed
controls
designed
to
cut
its
contribution
by
95
percent.
However,
these
controls
did
nothing
to
reduce
the
amount
of
dioxin
going
into
the
bay,
and
it
was
later
found
that
the
actual
culprit
was
stormwater
canal
that
ran
through
the
property
and
picked
up
dioxin
from
other
industrial
facilities
in
the
area,
according
to
the
May
2003
decision.

TMDL
Under
Development
The
water
board
amended
the
2000
permit
to
remove
the
0.14
pg/
L
limit,
which
had
been
established
as
an
interim
limit
pending
completion
of
the
TMDL.
In
developing
the
TMDL,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
had
decided
to
address
the
dioxin
problem
in
the
bay
by
considering
all
possible
sources.
With
this
in
mind,
the
regional
board
revised
Tesoro's
permit
to
include
an
interim
technology­
based
effluent
limit
of
0.65
pg/
L,
a
performance­
based
restriction,
according
to
the
2003
decision.

"
The
Regional
Board
intended
the
0.65
pg/
L
interim
effluent
limitation
to
apply
until
the
EPA
prepared
a
TMDL
for
dioxins
in
Suisun
Bay,
at
which
point
the
final
WQBEL
for
dioxins
would
be
established
as
a
[
waste
load
allocation]
in
the
TMDL,"
the
appeals
court
ruling
said,
adding
the
TMDL
was
expected
to
be
completed
by
2012.

The
groups
then
challenged
the
permit
on
the
grounds
that
the
compliance
schedule
for
meeting
the
requirements
was
too
long.

"
We
argue
there
is
no
authority
to
issue
a
10­
year
compliance
schedule,"
Lozeau
told
BNA.

Moreover,
he
said,
the
0.65
pg/
L
interim
limit
violates
the
anti­
backsliding
provisions
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
water
quality
standards
program
requires
states
to
establish
criteria
designed
to
protect
uses
designated
for
individual
waterways,
such
as
fishing
or
swimming.
The
standards
program
prohibits
weakening
these
criteria
without
changing
the
designated
use,
which
requires
extensive
analysis
and
study.

Sandra
Salazar­
Thompson,
a
spokeswoman
for
the
regional
board,
told
BNA
Aug.
17
the
board
was
disappointed
the
groups
chose
to
appeal
and
would
stand
by
the
superior
court's
ruling
and
defend
its
case.(
Embedded
image
moved
to
file:
pic01949.
gif)
End
of
article
graphic
