Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Louisiana DEQ Public Comment Hearing Thursday February 7, 2008 6pm.
Murphy Oil Meraux Refinery has applied for an expedited permit to replace crude oil storage tanks in the tank farm at Judge Perez Drive with crude oil and middle distillates tanks.
According to Murphy Oil's LDEQ EDMS document 36418107 dated 11/15/2007, "Results of extensive inspections performed by MOUSA showed that the existing tanks...have settled and suffered damage over time, partially attributed to Hurricane Katrina." EDMS research indicates this tank farm has had groundwater and soil concerns since 2002.
Residents have specific concerns and questions not only regarding this settlement of tanks and in particular in this area of the tank farms, but also about the added inventory of middle distillates and how that fits into the refinery's longrange plans for this community.
We have specific questions and concerns regarding this tank farm, the settlement and replacement of these tanks , emergency, flood and hurricane preparedness, soil and ground water test results and remediation, foundation and construction considerations for the next flood, the potential for increased danger due to middle distillates, and the overall effect on our neighborhoods and on our community's health, safety and welfare and quality of life issues.
Read More Tank Farm Expansion in Flood Plain
Infamous Tank 250-2 was permited in 2006 to replace with a tank on the very same foundation. Two other 250 tanks were permited to repair ontop of the old settled foundation/footprint (releveled). Although the refinery is repairing one, it is now requesting to replace 250-3 (also ontop of the same footprint). The expedited permit is for a total of Five replacement tanks; four within the same footprints of the old tanks.
The EAS submitted by the refinery addresses avoidance of potential and real environmental effects, balancing of social and economic benefits against environmental impact costs, and alternative sites, projects, and mitigative measures. We have requested the refinery update their 1995 EAS which can be veiwed at the St Bernard Parish Temporary Library or at LDEQ website http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/pdf/MOEAS1-4-08.pdf.
Written comments must be received by 12:30 p.m., Monday, February 11, 2008. Write: Ms. Soumaya Ghosn at LDEQ, Public Participation Group, P.O. Box 4313, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 email: Soumaya.Ghosn@la.gov or fax (225)- 219-3309
All correspondence should specify AI Number 1238, Permit Number 3062-V0, and Activity Number PER PER20070005
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is proposing to construct Tanks T1 (replacing Tank 450-1), T2 (replacing Tank 450-2), T3 (replacing Tank 250-3), T4 (replacing Tank 200-6), and T5 (replacing Tank 25-2) .
The proposed permit and EAS may be viewed as attachments at the bottom of the the LDEQ Public Notice
http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/show.asp?qPostID=4115&SearchText=&startDate=1/1/2005&endDate=1/5/2008&category=
http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/default.asp
According to Murphy Oil's LDEQ EDMS document 36418107 dated 11/15/2007, "Results of extensive inspections performed by MOUSA showed that the existing tanks...have settled and suffered damage over time, partially attributed to Hurricane Katrina." EDMS research indicates this tank farm has had groundwater and soil concerns since 2002.
Residents have specific concerns and questions not only regarding this settlement of tanks and in particular in this area of the tank farms, but also about the added inventory of middle distillates and how that fits into the refinery's longrange plans for this community.
We have specific questions and concerns regarding this tank farm, the settlement and replacement of these tanks , emergency, flood and hurricane preparedness, soil and ground water test results and remediation, foundation and construction considerations for the next flood, the potential for increased danger due to middle distillates, and the overall effect on our neighborhoods and on our community's health, safety and welfare and quality of life issues.
Read More Tank Farm Expansion in Flood Plain
Infamous Tank 250-2 was permited in 2006 to replace with a tank on the very same foundation. Two other 250 tanks were permited to repair ontop of the old settled foundation/footprint (releveled). Although the refinery is repairing one, it is now requesting to replace 250-3 (also ontop of the same footprint). The expedited permit is for a total of Five replacement tanks; four within the same footprints of the old tanks.
The EAS submitted by the refinery addresses avoidance of potential and real environmental effects, balancing of social and economic benefits against environmental impact costs, and alternative sites, projects, and mitigative measures. We have requested the refinery update their 1995 EAS which can be veiwed at the St Bernard Parish Temporary Library or at LDEQ website http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/pdf/MOEAS1-4-08.pdf.
Written comments must be received by 12:30 p.m., Monday, February 11, 2008. Write: Ms. Soumaya Ghosn at LDEQ, Public Participation Group, P.O. Box 4313, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 email: Soumaya.Ghosn@la.gov or fax (225)- 219-3309
All correspondence should specify AI Number 1238, Permit Number 3062-V0, and Activity Number PER PER20070005
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is proposing to construct Tanks T1 (replacing Tank 450-1), T2 (replacing Tank 450-2), T3 (replacing Tank 250-3), T4 (replacing Tank 200-6), and T5 (replacing Tank 25-2) .
The proposed permit and EAS may be viewed as attachments at the bottom of the the LDEQ Public Notice
http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/show.asp?qPostID=4115&SearchText=&startDate=1/1/2005&endDate=1/5/2008&category=
http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/default.asp
Friday, November 9, 2007
when they don't want public participation
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/94901420/Murphy-Oil
The change-tracking is more easily followed in the highlighted versions.
The change-tracking is more easily followed in the highlighted versions.
.
.
they just don't stop
Friday, November 2, 2007
Jacob Drive Firestation and Murphy Oil Refinery Expansion
Our Community Needs Jacob Drive Firestation
We Should NOT Sell It to Murphy Refinery for Expansion
Should this property ever be taken out of service, due to Insurance Fire Rating Review Placement Determinations, it should remain forever greenspace landuse to preserve our residential neighborhood and improve our quality of life.
We need to utilized FEMA Monies / matching grants to Rebuild ALL Our Firestations so not to adversely effect fire protection levels, 'first responder' response times and our homeowners' fire insurance premiums. Comprehensive plans based on Fire Insurance Rating Determinations for the placement of Fire Stations throughout St Bernard Parish are paramount and should be the predominate factor in these decisions
Recent house fires and medical emergencies confirm our community's need to rebuild ALL Our Firestations - Fully Staffed, Equipped, and Operational- to restore fire protection level and Firefighters and FirstResponders' response time.
Imagine if the St. Bernard Parish Government had succeeded in their little known plan to land swap and/or sell the Jacob Drive Firestation to Murphy Oil for the refinery expansion( http://www.sbpg.net/images/council/minutes/councilagenda7-10-07.pdf item #26 SBPC Agenda). That decision would place the nearest operating Firestation for both Districts C and D on Guerra Drive in Violet and on Pakenham Drive in Chalmette. From what little we know of the Jacob Drive Firestation and Murphy Meraux Refinery Expansion, plans include moving facilities, such as a warehouse, maintenance building, parking lot and laboratory into the subdivision to allow processing unit expansion on the refinery's current campus. Some of these facilities are currently out of compliance with the new OSHA explosion cone regulations. The new processing expansions may include a coker unit .
If the plan surfaces again (and it will) to sell Jacob Drive Firestation to Murphy Refinery, please join and help oppose it. Remember, they could try and sell the one in your area next.
The house you save could be your own.
Registered voters can sign the petition to oppose the sale of Jacob Drive Firestation.
Contact CCAMLA1@gmail.com or download the petition at
Petition to Oppose Sale of Firestation to Murphy Refinery
We Should NOT Sell It to Murphy Refinery for Expansion
Should this property ever be taken out of service, due to Insurance Fire Rating Review Placement Determinations, it should remain forever greenspace landuse to preserve our residential neighborhood and improve our quality of life.
We need to utilized FEMA Monies / matching grants to Rebuild ALL Our Firestations so not to adversely effect fire protection levels, 'first responder' response times and our homeowners' fire insurance premiums. Comprehensive plans based on Fire Insurance Rating Determinations for the placement of Fire Stations throughout St Bernard Parish are paramount and should be the predominate factor in these decisions
Recent house fires and medical emergencies confirm our community's need to rebuild ALL Our Firestations - Fully Staffed, Equipped, and Operational- to restore fire protection level and Firefighters and FirstResponders' response time.
Imagine if the St. Bernard Parish Government had succeeded in their little known plan to land swap and/or sell the Jacob Drive Firestation to Murphy Oil for the refinery expansion( http://www.sbpg.net/images/council/minutes/councilagenda7-10-07.pdf item #26 SBPC Agenda). That decision would place the nearest operating Firestation for both Districts C and D on Guerra Drive in Violet and on Pakenham Drive in Chalmette. From what little we know of the Jacob Drive Firestation and Murphy Meraux Refinery Expansion, plans include moving facilities, such as a warehouse, maintenance building, parking lot and laboratory into the subdivision to allow processing unit expansion on the refinery's current campus. Some of these facilities are currently out of compliance with the new OSHA explosion cone regulations. The new processing expansions may include a coker unit .
If the plan surfaces again (and it will) to sell Jacob Drive Firestation to Murphy Refinery, please join and help oppose it. Remember, they could try and sell the one in your area next.
The house you save could be your own.
Registered voters can sign the petition to oppose the sale of Jacob Drive Firestation.
Contact CCAMLA1@gmail.com or download the petition at
Petition to Oppose Sale of Firestation to Murphy Refinery
Friday, June 29, 2007
permit for more tanks
http://gcmonitor.org/article.php?id=599
Katrina Survivors Fight Murphy Oil Permit for More Pollution
& More Tanks After Disaster
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
What Constitutes Flaring?
CCAM is pursuing this determination of why there is so much recurring flaring.If you would like to help, please log your findings with date, time, odor, smoke, noise, vibration, and flare observations and either email them to CCAMLA1@gmail.com or send to LDEQ spoc@la.gov or 888-763-5424 or online services -- incident reports at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/
Our industrial neighbor had assured us in the Fall of 2007 that they were working on the reliablity of their processes and equipment as a plan to reduce flaring in the neighborhood. Since most of us have observed the various occurances of smoke, flame and its accompanying noise and odors, we thought it might be worth the effort to document the obervations and track the industry's explainations to the LDEQ. This corporation, in our opinion, needs vigilant attention to remain compliant and we think this community effort should better identify recurring problems such as faulty compressors, hydrogen supply problems, instrument failure, unit shutdowns, or true emergencies.
According to Denny Larson of Global Monitor:
Flaring rules vary:
- more than 6 minutes of black smoke from incomplete combustion - should be a violation - video of the time may be needed to prove.
- even without black smoke, flaring may be illegal if the refinery is using the flare as a "pollution control" device - instead of as a true emergency relief device - You may need the accident report from LADEQ as filed by Murphy to determine - also see if they termed the incident "preventable" - if so - the cause of that incident - ie compressor failure etc - should not happen more than once - under the clean air act: they have a duty to prevent it the second time
-also look at the reports to see if the flaring and related cause exceeded permit limits
There are some very informative and helpful documents on the flaring subject at these links.
http://www.cbecal.org/pdf/refinery-neighborhood.pdf
http://www.exxonmobil.com/NA-English/Files/FreddietheFlareflier.pdf
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ruledev/12-12/1212_fact_0215.pdf
Our industrial neighbor had assured us in the Fall of 2007 that they were working on the reliablity of their processes and equipment as a plan to reduce flaring in the neighborhood. Since most of us have observed the various occurances of smoke, flame and its accompanying noise and odors, we thought it might be worth the effort to document the obervations and track the industry's explainations to the LDEQ. This corporation, in our opinion, needs vigilant attention to remain compliant and we think this community effort should better identify recurring problems such as faulty compressors, hydrogen supply problems, instrument failure, unit shutdowns, or true emergencies.
According to Denny Larson of Global Monitor:
Flaring rules vary:
- more than 6 minutes of black smoke from incomplete combustion - should be a violation - video of the time may be needed to prove.
- even without black smoke, flaring may be illegal if the refinery is using the flare as a "pollution control" device - instead of as a true emergency relief device - You may need the accident report from LADEQ as filed by Murphy to determine - also see if they termed the incident "preventable" - if so - the cause of that incident - ie compressor failure etc - should not happen more than once - under the clean air act: they have a duty to prevent it the second time
-also look at the reports to see if the flaring and related cause exceeded permit limits
There are some very informative and helpful documents on the flaring subject at these links.
http://www.cbecal.org/pdf/refinery-neighborhood.pdf
http://www.exxonmobil.com/NA-English/Files/FreddietheFlareflier.pdf
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ruledev/12-12/1212_fact_0215.pdf
Together We Can
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
