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




Together We Can

Friday, December 1, 2006

The St Bernard Recovery Times
November 2006
Publication of St Bernard Parish Citizen's Recovery Committee


Create Buffer Zones Around Murphy Oil:

What is it?

A proposal to create a buffer zone around the Murphy Oil Refinery (west of the refinery one-to-four streets and east of therefinery one-to-three streets).

Background:

This proposal could be funded through multiple programs: flood mitigation, CBDG (Community Development BlockGrants), expropriation, or refinery contributions. Some areas could be used for recreational activities. The boundaries are under review andare linked to available funds.

http://www.stbpcrc.com/archives/2006/12/11_1_06Newsletter.pdf

http://www.stbpcrc.com/

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

photographs of neighborhoods

we're not the only ones being detained by big oil
"there is absolutely no local, state, or federal law against photographing industrial facilities from public sidewalks."
http://louisiana2.sierraclub.org/content/activist-ousted-la-ags-office

Activist ousted at LA. AG's office

Antioch New England Study Trip Sparks Political Harassment In Louisiana

Respected Environmental Advocate Forced Out of Job By Attorney General

Keene, NH – From March 14 to 25, two instructors and 13 master's students from Antioch New England Graduate School’s Environmental Studies Program in Keene, NH visited Louisiana as part of a field studies course entitled Environmental Justice in the Mississippi Delta.
During their visit, the Antioch New England class met with a diverse array of stakeholders, including elected officials, petrochemical industry executives, union leaders, scientists, EPA officials, environmental activists, and members of polluted communities along the stretch of the Mississippi River that many state officials call “the Chemical Corridor” and local people often call “Cancer Alley.” The Antioch New England study group also met some people they did not expect to, including off-duty police and sheriff’s department officers and corporate security officials who detained them on two separate occasions because they took photos of industrial facilities from public roadways and sidewalks.
On March 16, Mr. Willie Fontenot was accompanying the group in his official capacity as Community Liaison Officer for the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office. They were touring the neighborhood surrounding the major ExxonMobil chemical facility in the area. Mr. Fontenot took the group to the neighborhood because ExxonMobil has engaged in a program to buy out nearby homeowners who had long complained of toxic emissions from the plant. During a stop on a side street off Scenic Highway, some students got out of the group’s vehicle and took photos of a remaining home and the ExxonMobil facility. Students are required to complete a visual presentation about the trip as a course assignment and took photos throughout their stay in Louisiana.
Course instructor Steve Chase, the Director of Antioch’s Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program,
said members of the group had been detained the day before by a corporate security guard near the Shell chemical plant in Norco who claimed that photographing industrial facilities was a violation of federal law and had threatened Chase and the students with images of FBI agents knocking on their doors in the middle of the night. Mr. Fontenot explained, however, that while the police had every right to stop and ask people who they were, standing on public property and photographing facilities was perfectly legal. “I’ve researched this extensively over the years because I often give tours to academics and journalists as part of my job with the Attorney General’s Office,” said Mr. Fontenot.
Within two minutes of the stop near the ExxonMobiil plant, a pair of off-duty officers from the Baton Rouge sheriff’s and police departments, wearing their official public service uniforms, but in the employ of ExxonMobil, quickly detained the group. Fulltime ExxonMobil security officials soon joined the detention team. “We were less than impressed,” said co-instructor Abigail Abrash Walton, “when one of the officers falsely stated that three of the students had gone on company property and then falsely claimed that we were refusing to turn over our IDs.” When asked by the course instructor about what actions he would be taking in filing a report about the group, the off-duty sheriff's department officer refused to answer, and instead responded aggressively that he was going to call in “homeland security” people who would detain the group into the night.
The group was released after more than an hour, but later learned that the sheriff’s department had filed a complaint with the Attorney General against Mr. Fontenot, the group’s local guide for the day. Both The New Orleans Times-Picayune and The Baton Rouge Advocate reported that Mr. Fontenot was forced to retire at 10 am on Tuesday, April 5, or risk being fired over the incident. Said Mr. Fontenot, “I was advised that taking retirement was a better way to go.”

“I am very disappointed,”

said Chase, “that our detention served as the catalyst for the Attorney General to force Mr. Fontenot out of the public service job he’s held for 27 years. Given what we experienced, I suspect that this whole matter has just been used as an excuse to remove one of the state’s most respected citizen participation advocates from the Attorney General’s Office.” Chase added, “I am particularly stunned that Mr. Fontenot lost his job when even the U.S. Coast Guard investigator who phoned me when we arrived back in New Hampshire assured me that there is absolutely no local, state, or federal law against photographing industrial facilities from public sidewalks."
Co-instructor Abigail Abrash Walton noted, “This incident showed our students a vivid example of how law enforcement and corporations can sometimes overstep their legitimate security duties in the guise of ‘homeland security.’ This experience was also a firsthand glimpse of the type of over-the-top repression that community members and their supporters told us they experience on the frontlines of trying to defend their communities’ health and homes in Louisiana.”
As a response to Mr. Fontenot being forced out of his job, the Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program at Antioch New England Graduate School is working with Marylee Orr, Executive Director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), to create a fund to help Mr. Fontenot make up his lost salary and continue to work for environmental justice in Louisiana through a nonprofit organization of his choice. The Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program, LEAN, and other Louisiana citizen groups and members of the academic community are considering further actions aimed at addressing the political harassment of academics, concerned community members, and advocates in Louisiana.

For more information, please contact:

Eleanor Falcon
efalcon@antiochne.edu
Director of Public Affairs
603.357.3122 ext 213
Date:
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

49411. JUST CURIOUS?!?! by bignosy, 3/22/06 20:14 ET
ANYONE LIVING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JUDGE PEREZ ON JACOB,DESPAUX,VENTURA,LENA, DO YALL KNOW WHO IS REALLY BUYING OUR PROPERTIES? MURPHY & PARISH OFFICIALS KEEP POINTING AT EACH OTHER. I FEEL BOTH PARTIES KNOW SOMETHING AND JUST ARE MAKING FOOLS OUT OF US

Sunday, September 4, 2005

more than one tank moved

September 4, 2005 8:00 AM  Status

The parish found out we have a leak...  page 12 Meeting Notes 1 of 1 August 2005 - September 2005



page 63




page 71
















page 7











Thursday, September 1, 2005

Building Mitigation Meeting on Library

Dear EM,
Here is the story of the Library's adventure with the Building Mitigation Committee, chaired by Mr. Taffaro, and with the Parish Council.
The whole affair began in September, 2005. Danny Menesse signed the Project Worksheet for the library building and FEMA allowed me to sign for the contents. Danny, for some reason, wanted me to sign for the Ducros Museum building which definitely did not belong to the library but not for the Chalmette building which had been paid for with library dedicated funds.
Minutes from January 13, 1959, talk about needing a new building. The library was a room in the courthouse at the time.
In 1961, the Library Board looked at vacant buildings as a possibility for a new place, but decided against buying used.
In February, 1962, a representative from a bonding company came to a meeting and Mr. Preble and the group decided to ask for a bond issue to finance a new building.
An audit report from December 31, 1963, reports the purchase of a library site for $5,000.00 and the purchase of US treasury bills. The audit report of December 31, 1988, shows that the bond was paid off. Dedicated library funds were used for the transactions.
From 2005 through the beginning of 2007, I met with various parish officials trying to get someone to give permission for the Library Board to proceed with repairs to the Chalmette building. At first, we thought the Parish was waiting for the 10% penalty to be waived - which made good sense to us.
Early in 2007, we were called to a Building Mitigation Meeting with Craig Taffaro, Judy Hoffmeister, Mark Madary, Chris Merkl, Dave Peralta, and Chief Stone.
They proposed that the Library's five acres between Judy and Bartolo be divided between Murphy and the Fire Department. Murphy was to build an education building for training personnel and the Chief was to build an office building for his staff. They also suggested the Board sell the property to get funds to build.
The Library Board refused the suggestions. The Board would not allow the Parish to take the property nor would it sell. The property cost one million ninety thousand dollars in 2001 and we knew we would lose too much. The committee backed down.
Subsequent meetings with the BMC (Building Mitigation Committee) resulted in various proposals from them. Always they would ask what we wanted to do and always we would say "we want to repair the building and work there until we can build a new building." They would send us away to think again, not accepting our decision to repair and wait.
The Committee always had suggestions: move in with a school library, ask Ms. Votier for land on her campus to build, move into the auditorium behind the cultural center or use what funds you have and

build. Their attitude was that any place was good enough for the library and besides, the Internet was available to answer questions.
Finally in May, 2007, we were given an ultimatum - choose from the options they had proposed. The first, formal Library decision was presented. (Building mitigation script, May 16).
The result of that meeting was the agenda for the June 5, 2007, council meeting. The Library Board was not told about items 39 and 40 on the agenda. A friend of the library notified us about the intent of the meeting. Joey was chairman and allowed me to address the Council before the motions were presented. Mr. Taffaro was infuriated with the statement, especially the comments about usurping the Library Board's authority. The motions about the library were never made at the June 5th meeting.
At the June 5th meeting, however, the Council did make some promises about getting the Judy-Bartolo property ready for building. I called Joey about the ftpromisesft when the minutes were published. The minutes simply state that Ms. Llamas read a statement. Nothing appeared about the Council's responses. The Council had made no formal and binding commitments.
Joey said we should come to the next Council meeting to get things worked out. We went back in July with another statement and Mr. Taffaro promised a resolution about the library to take care of everything.
That July meeting resulted in Resolution SBPC #66-07-07 dated July 24,2007.
We had no reason to argue with the resolution. We would use the donated Gates trailer until April, 2010, the end of the grant and move from there into a fttemporaryft facility the parish promised to provide. In the meantime, the Board had decided to investigate providing their own temporary facility on the Judy-Bortolo site.
With no consultation with me or the Library Board, we find that the library is to become part of the LaCoste project - not a fttemporary" solution at all. The first floor of a school building will be a permanent public library. We know no details other than what was reported in the Council minutes of February 7,2007.
Mrs. Kuehl's term on the Board was to end in 2011, Sally Wolfe's in 2009, Francesca DiFatta in 2009, Skip Malus in 2009. The terms of Pam Nevle, Fred Jirovec, and Rebecca Livaudais had expired, but the Parish rule is that an appointee continues until the Council appoints a replacement,
The Board still had a quorum of legally appointed members, but Mr. Taffaro decided that all parish Boards must be dissolved and everyone must reapply. To be fair, maybe that is why the Board was not consulted on decisions with the School Board, but I was not privy to arrangements either.
At the February 11, 2008, executive finance meeting Mrs. Kuehl and I attended, Mr. Louga and Mr. Ginart commented on the Library Board's inaction - we did not have a building ready for a library - and said the school solution was more than acceptable to them and we should not have a problem with the

Council's decision. Mr. Taffaro said it was the duty of parish government to provide a public library, and this was IT.
St. Charles Parish is building a branch library in Destrehan. The cost is between $250 and $300 a square foot. We have only enough money to build the same size building we are losing to Public Works. The Board is reluctant to squander the funds it has saved for nearly 20 years to build an inadequate building. Library standards suggest 1.25 square feet per capita. The Board would like to build a 33,000 square foot building to accommodate the present and future population.
Now, it is up to the people of the parish to decide whether this is a proper, permanent outcome for the public library in St. Bernard.

Blog Archive