Board Denies Foot-Dragging on Illegal Dumping by Chevron

The Regional Water Quality Control Board has denied charges by the Sierra Club that it “dragged its feet” in halting violations of Chevron USA Inc.’s permit for discharging chemical wastes into Santa Monica Bay.

Rather, a board spokesman said, the agency--which issued Chevron a cease-and-desist order in December--views the problem “very seriously” and is continuing its investigation of the causes behind what it terms an “unacceptable pattern of non-compliance.”

The Sierra Club recently filed a $2.3-million federal lawsuit against Chevron, accusing it of discharging illegal levels of grease and oil, ammonia, chromium, phenols, and other petroleum byproducts into the bay.

265 Violations

The San Francisco-based environmental group claims that the refinery’s own reports document more than 265 violations during the last eight years. Chevron spokesman Bill Graessley said that while the company has not made a formal count of the violations, “we’re not challenging the Sierra Club’s figures at this point.”

Chevron officials admit to an average of 28 violations a year but have said that the current treatment system makes occasional violations almost unavoidable. They have proposed a new system that they say would put them well within compliance, but which could not be completed before 1987.

Since 1972, Chevron’s El Segundo refinery has held a federal permit that allows it to discharge up to 15 million gallons of treated waste water daily through an outfall pipe 900 feet south of Grand Avenue in El Segundo. The pipe extends 500 feet offshore and dumps into about 20 feet of water. The refinery, however, has been discharging waste into the bay virtually since it began operations at the turn of the century, Graessley said.

Action Requested

Sierra Club attorney Deborah Reames said the club notified the board and the Environmental Protection Agency of Chevron’s violations last September and asked that the agencies take action against the company.

“Regional Water did somewhat intensify its nagging,” Reames said, and issued a cease-and-desist order that gave Chevron a December, 1984, deadline to comply with dry-weather discharge regulations and until February, 1987, to comply with wet-weather regulations.

(During rainy weather, the refinery is allowed to discharge higher levels because storm water runoff from the plant further dilutes the chemical waste.)

However, Reames said, the problem goes back “at least 10 years, and they (the agencies) should have taken much stronger action by now.” The Sierra Club in its suit is demanding that the court order Chevron to immediately halt illegal dumping and pay all legal fees in the case and $2.3 million in fines.

Enforcement Reviewed

EPA spokesman Al Zemsky said that the federal agency is “reviewing enforcement action now” but that the federal laws pertaining to Chevron’s discharge are carried out at the state level.

“We will review the state action,” he said. “If we determine state action is not appropriate, we can impose our own enforcement action, but Regional Water is the lead agency on this.”

Regional Water Quality Control Board spokesman David Gildersleeve said the agency has always monitored monthly reports from the refinery and that Chevron has always corrected its errors, but that the problem is similar to that of a car owner who repeatedly takes his aging car in for repairs.

“What happens is you get nickel-and-dimed to death,” he said. “The mechanic tells you, ‘Well, if I just do a couple more things, this car will be running great.’ Then it breaks down again, and he says, ‘It just needs this one thing fixed and it will be fine.’

“At what point do you tell him, ‘You’re crazy,’ and decide that all the piecemeal work is adding up to a major problem?”

Renewal Application

For the board, Gildersleeve said, that point was in November, when Chevron came for a renewal of its discharge permit.

“That’s when we looked at this and said, ‘We have a serious problem.’ ”

Gildersleeve said that Chevron has committed several violations since its December compliance deadline and that the board is contemplating further action pending results of its investigation.

Those actions, he said, could range from direct fines issued by the board, to prosecution by the state attorney general’s office or possible suspension of Chevron’s discharge permit. The latter, Gildersleeve noted, is unlikely because of its severity--Chevron, he said, could not operate its plant without the discharge pipe.

Chevron has appealed the December deadline of the cease-and-desist order and maintains that the violations result from inadequacies in the system that can be corrected only by the construction of its proposed $19-million project, which would provide holding tanks for the system’s overflow.

6 Million Gallons a Day

Currently, Chevron funnels about 6 million gallons of waste water daily through a system that is divided into two streams, Graessley said.

Rainwater, storm runoff and heavy-metal waste water from cooling towers form the bulk of one stream and account for about two-thirds of all waste water at the refinery, he said. That stream is shunted into tanks where oil and grease are skimmed off and suspended solids are allowed to settle to the bottom before the effluent is discharged into the bay.

The second stream, he said, is reserved for heavier pollutants and contaminants such as ammonia, phenolic compounds and sulfides. In addition to the skimming and settling process, the second stream is also subjected to biological treatment, where organic “bugs” are dispatched to gobble the toxic wastes. The biological treatment plant, Graessley said, is a relatively new addition to the system. Before its construction in 1977, he said, there was no separate biological treatment for segregated waste before it was discharged.

Sudden Surges

As it stands, Graessley said, the system is frequently unable to handle the sudden surges of waste water that often occur during storms and system breakdowns. The result, he said, shows up as “spikes”--illegally high amounts of toxic chemicals shot into the bay because of the system’s inability to process it quickly enough.

The solution, he maintains, is the proposed Effluent Diversion Project, which would add holding tanks to the current system that would be capable of storing nearly 16 million gallons of waste water.

Such a system, Graessley said, would eliminate wet-weather spikes and would enable Chevron to catch leaks or equipment breakdowns before they result in permit violations. In dry weather, he said, such leaks and breakdowns account for about 33% of the refinery’s permit violations.

But Gildersleeve and Sierra attorney Reames remain unconvinced.

Said Gildersleeve: “We agree that they need the new facilities for wet-weather compliance, but for dry weather, I don’t think that’s the only way to correct it. We’re very concerned with protecting marine life in the bay, and I can’t see letting the dry weather situation continue until 1987. We think there’s something that can be done in the meantime.”

Violations Listed

Among the dry-weather violations recorded by the board are:

- 300 pounds of phenolic compounds discharged into the bay on Feb. 26, 1981. The permit maximum is 32 pounds a day.

- 5,554 pounds of oil and grease on June 21, 1983. Permit maximum is 1,428 pounds a day.

- 27,115 pounds of suspended solids on May 16, 1981. Permit maximum is 3,039 pounds a day.

- 54,480 pounds on Jan. 9, 1984, of what is termed “biological oxygen demand”--materials that, when dumped into water, consume oxygen, thus depriving marine life. Permit maximum is 4,430 pounds a day.

Reames contends that the Sierra Club “has not seen enough evidence that the new system will bring (Chevron) into compliance.”

Even if it does, she said, “these dischargers should be put on notice that they can’t just discharge until they’re caught. They remain liable for past violations. The law is clear on that.”