The change-tracking is more easily followed in the highlighted versions.
.
.
they just don't stop
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.
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)
