Thursday, September 17, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
settlement for water violations
Amount is said to represent the Department’s enforcement costs.
There is nothing proposed for the St Bernard community or the water quality.
The agreement includes settlement for the December 9, 2009 oil discharge into the local neighborhood canal, known as the 20 arpent canal, and other violations, such as failure to sample various outfalls at different times, spill into river, and failure to calibrate or perform maintenance procedures at other times.
Link to LDEQ settlement document 9880360 dated August 2015
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9880360&ob=yes&child=yes
In more recent time, the new owner,Valero Energy, reported a discharge of 6,900 gallons of “treated” waste water on June 8, 2015 "due to a
power outage".
LDEQ EDMS document 9811488
The more things change the more they remain the same.
Friday, August 28, 2015
WDSU 10 Years Forward
WDSU - TV 10 Years Forward: St Bernard Parish
"It's time to celebrate. We've got a lot of good things going on. You know, we lost a lot, but we've gained an awful lot. Again, you were here, you know what it looked like. It's a remarkable difference now." -- Parish President Peralta
http://www.wdsu.com/katrina-10-years-forward/10-years-forward-st-bernard-parish/34951930
http://www.wdsu.com/katrina-10-years-forward/10-years-forward-st-bernard-parish-part-3/34861322
Thursday, August 27, 2015
reprint
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Our Story
Concerned Citizens neighborhood association in St Bernard Parish, Louisiana, began as a means to have our voices heard in District C postKatrina. Our area captain was clearly instructed in early 2006 to 'not invite' those returning, rebuilding residents from the streets closest to the refinery. Shortly afterwards, Murphy Oil's tank farm expansion plans public noticed and the neighbors decided to form the association to address quality of life issues; more specifically those of our community's environment. CCAM members began to join with other neighbors for neighborhoods to effect the ever changing decisions that empact our community by encouraging citizen participation and providing advocacy for all residents who are committed to return, rebuild, and remain in St Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
Later we learned of the council resolution for a letter of no objection to the Army Corps of Engineers for Murphy Oil to construct this tank farm expansion on what seemed to be lower lying lands with natural waterways or wetlands. The tank farm expansion is slated for an area adjacent to established residential neighborhoods and seems to have no improvements for spill containment, storm preparedness, nor soil subsidence. So much for lessons learned.
Returning in 2005 after hurricanes Rita and Katrina, parts of our neighborhoods were not included in the oil spill maps. Murphy Oil executives went door to door to greet residents and give assurances their area had no oil, the household items were not contaminated, it was safe to clean out one's own home, and there would be no buyouts. The area was repopulated during Fall 2005 and some neighbors were actually fortunate enough to celebrate the Christmas holidays inside restored homes.Two years later a voluntary buyout would be one of the many options of a class action suit, Turner v Murphy Oil. The defendant's attorneys stated at the Fairness Hearing that the buyout properties would be a green zone buffer and the newspapers reported this as greenspace. At Community meetings and Council Meetings, it was continually and consistently purported as "greenspace". Any talk of industrial buildings and other commercial use of the land were firmly disputed by refinery representatives who insisted it would be "greenspace, that was the plan". People made agreements based on this understanding that it is this empty greenspace, now in existence, which is to function as the buffer.
Demolition of the buyup properties caused restored homes to have structural damage claims and yet another wake of destruction on our residential streets. Illegally placed cement truck weigh stations and less than best business practices added insult to injury. Only half of the sidewalks have been restored and the children are left to play in the same streets that some propose to add increased industrial traffic.
Further illuminating the local politics and poor zoning, heavy industry is still allowed within 100 feet of residential properties, however, new rental laws require single family dwellings, when rented out, to be specially permitted and spaced 500 feet apart. Noise ordinances have been updated for music speakers but not enforced for industrial sources.
Our Future, who knows. Let's just hope the levees are rebuilt to a higher level of integrity.
Later we learned of the council resolution for a letter of no objection to the Army Corps of Engineers for Murphy Oil to construct this tank farm expansion on what seemed to be lower lying lands with natural waterways or wetlands. The tank farm expansion is slated for an area adjacent to established residential neighborhoods and seems to have no improvements for spill containment, storm preparedness, nor soil subsidence. So much for lessons learned.
Returning in 2005 after hurricanes Rita and Katrina, parts of our neighborhoods were not included in the oil spill maps. Murphy Oil executives went door to door to greet residents and give assurances their area had no oil, the household items were not contaminated, it was safe to clean out one's own home, and there would be no buyouts. The area was repopulated during Fall 2005 and some neighbors were actually fortunate enough to celebrate the Christmas holidays inside restored homes.Two years later a voluntary buyout would be one of the many options of a class action suit, Turner v Murphy Oil. The defendant's attorneys stated at the Fairness Hearing that the buyout properties would be a green zone buffer and the newspapers reported this as greenspace. At Community meetings and Council Meetings, it was continually and consistently purported as "greenspace". Any talk of industrial buildings and other commercial use of the land were firmly disputed by refinery representatives who insisted it would be "greenspace, that was the plan". People made agreements based on this understanding that it is this empty greenspace, now in existence, which is to function as the buffer.
Demolition of the buyup properties caused restored homes to have structural damage claims and yet another wake of destruction on our residential streets. Illegally placed cement truck weigh stations and less than best business practices added insult to injury. Only half of the sidewalks have been restored and the children are left to play in the same streets that some propose to add increased industrial traffic.
Further illuminating the local politics and poor zoning, heavy industry is still allowed within 100 feet of residential properties, however, new rental laws require single family dwellings, when rented out, to be specially permitted and spaced 500 feet apart. Noise ordinances have been updated for music speakers but not enforced for industrial sources.
Our Future, who knows. Let's just hope the levees are rebuilt to a higher level of integrity.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
speed bump
Michigan v EPA March 2015 Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325015-1/michigan-v-epa-oral-argument-audio
The SCOTUS ruled 5 -4 the EPA failed to consider costs and remanded to lower court.
Power plant regulation was found appropriate because the plants' emissions pose risks to public heath and the environment and because controls capable of reducing these emissions are available.
Regulation was found necessary because the these risks to public health and the environment have not been eliminated by existing Clean Air Act requirements. The D C Circuit court had upheld the EPA's refusal to consider costs in this decision (of whether regulation is appropriate and necessary). "Statutory context supports" that EPA was required "to conduct three studies, including one that reflects concern about cost", and EPA agreed "that the term appropriate and necessary must be interpreted in light of all three studies." The SCOTUS found "EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency (EPA) to decide how to account for cost." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf
: "No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good." -- Justice Scalia {editorial note, this should be applied to neighborhoods around "Clean Fuel" projects, where Clean Fuel Creates Dirty Neighborhood}
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/06/29-michigan-v-epa-administrative-deference-Wallach
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/02/the-lesson-we-should-take-from-michigan-v-epa/
""EPA expressed disappointment at the ruling but noted that the regulation “was issued more than three years ago [and] investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to compliance.”
The Sierra Club agreed that the ruling couldn’t reverse decisions energy companies have already made to comply.
“Practically speaking, today’s decision won’t revive the fortunes of Big Coal or slow down our nation’s transition to clean energy,” said Mary Anne Hitt, director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “Most utilities have long since made decisions about how to meet the standard. Only a few dozen coal plants are still operating today with no pollution controls for mercury and air toxics and no clear plans to install them.”""
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325015-1/michigan-v-epa-oral-argument-audio
The SCOTUS ruled 5 -4 the EPA failed to consider costs and remanded to lower court.
Power plant regulation was found appropriate because the plants' emissions pose risks to public heath and the environment and because controls capable of reducing these emissions are available.
Regulation was found necessary because the these risks to public health and the environment have not been eliminated by existing Clean Air Act requirements. The D C Circuit court had upheld the EPA's refusal to consider costs in this decision (of whether regulation is appropriate and necessary). "Statutory context supports" that EPA was required "to conduct three studies, including one that reflects concern about cost", and EPA agreed "that the term appropriate and necessary must be interpreted in light of all three studies." The SCOTUS found "EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency (EPA) to decide how to account for cost." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf
: "No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good." -- Justice Scalia {editorial note, this should be applied to neighborhoods around "Clean Fuel" projects, where Clean Fuel Creates Dirty Neighborhood}
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/06/29-michigan-v-epa-administrative-deference-Wallach
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/02/the-lesson-we-should-take-from-michigan-v-epa/
""EPA expressed disappointment at the ruling but noted that the regulation “was issued more than three years ago [and] investments have been made and most plants are already well on their way to compliance.”
The Sierra Club agreed that the ruling couldn’t reverse decisions energy companies have already made to comply.
“Practically speaking, today’s decision won’t revive the fortunes of Big Coal or slow down our nation’s transition to clean energy,” said Mary Anne Hitt, director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. “Most utilities have long since made decisions about how to meet the standard. Only a few dozen coal plants are still operating today with no pollution controls for mercury and air toxics and no clear plans to install them.”""
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Thanks Sierra Club !!
36 States Ordered to Remove SSM and Affirmative Defense
Provisions from Their Rules
Alert 6/12/2015
On June 12, EPA published its final regulatory action under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requiring 36 states to remove provisions from their State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) allowing exemptions from emission limitations during startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events. This action also requires 17 states to
remove affirmative defenses from the SSM provisions of their SIPs. Affected
states must submit their SIP revisions to EPA for approval by Nov. 22, 2016. .....
As previously reported, EPA first proposed this action (SIP
Call) in 2013 as a result of the Sierra Club’s June 30, 2011, petition following
the environmental organization’s successful challenge to EPA’s General
Provisions regarding SSM exemptions for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019
(D.C. Cir. 2008). ...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-12/pdf/2015-12905.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-12/pdf/2015-12905.pdf
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
EPA will not be able to approve Louisiana SIP as proposed for 1-hour SO2 standard
EPA has “identified a number of instances in which the State’s plan does not follow the EPA’s April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions and deviates from the modeling protocol approach previously agreed upon between EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Unfortunately, we do not believe we will be able to approve the SIP as proposed. The enclosure to this letter details specific issues and recommendations we have concerning the proposed attainment demonstration SIP.”
“We appreciate your work on the proposed attainment demonstration SIP and are committed to working with you to address the issues we have identified to ensure the plan is protective of public health in St. Bernard Parish.”
EPA's comments on Louisiana's State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9784329&ob=yes&child=yes
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9784329&ob=yes&child=yes
If the State is unable to submit a plan that EPA approves, within 18- and 24- month milestones from non-approval, EPA must develop a FIP (Federal Implementation Plan) and apply sanctions to St Bernard Parish. Sanctions could include, limited highway funded projects and grants, and, increased emission offsets for new or modified major industry in St Bernard Parish
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf
On April 1 2015 Louisiana submitted its State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9704523&ob=yes&child=yes
We need a State SIP with appropriate modeling and permit limits that ensures a violation cannot occur. It is not enough just to now have a promise for reduced production rates, a higher stack, and a monitor without violations. We need federally enforceable limits to protect the air we are forced to breathe.
Basically, it seems EPA is concerned with what was excluded from the modeling used for the SIP and what was excluded from emissions data for Rain CII calcining plant. Based on EPA's comments, LDEQ did not include:
On April 1 2015 Louisiana submitted its State SIP for St Bernard Parish Sulfur Dioxide:
http://edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/view.aspx?doc=9704523&ob=yes&child=yes
We need a State SIP with appropriate modeling and permit limits that ensures a violation cannot occur. It is not enough just to now have a promise for reduced production rates, a higher stack, and a monitor without violations. We need federally enforceable limits to protect the air we are forced to breathe.
Basically, it seems EPA is concerned with what was excluded from the modeling used for the SIP and what was excluded from emissions data for Rain CII calcining plant. Based on EPA's comments, LDEQ did not include:
- all four of Rain CII’s permitted operating scenarios. “LDEQ forwarded a document that summarized Rain CII modeling of these four scenarios but it does not appear to follow the parameters previously agreed upon” The modeling only addresses ONE of the FOUR permitted operating scenarios at Rain.
- It does not include “Enforceable limits” to address all operating conditions at Rain CII…. It does not clearly state pounds per hour for each stack and does not ensure the limits are to be complied with on a short term rate, such as a 3-hour average.
- It does not include All major sources within 20 km; “LDEQ should follow the previously agreed upon procedures in the modeling protocol version from late January 2015”
- LDEQ also did not include minor sources within close proximity to the violating monitor, but EPA previously agreed to this. There is no further information on what these minor sources are or how small business maybe effected in the future.
- The background monitor value was not calculated correctly. “LDEQ’s use of an annual average value for 1-Hour SO2 is not acceptable." “This is a modeling demonstration to show compliance with a one hour standard. As a result, the modeling demonstration needs to show that under worst case conditions (i.e. the most difficult hours of the year) the NAAQS will be protected. As a result, it is not appropriate to use average background conditions as proposed in the SIP.”
- Excluded modeling receptors inside Chalmette Refinery, considering Rain’s close proximity to ExxonMobil's Chalmette Refinery, “there should be a separate run for each of the scenarios in the attainment demonstration that evaluates a set of receptors within the Chalmette Refinery”, but that excludes emissions from the Chalmette refinery.
- Apparently, LDEQ has permitted several EGU turbine facilities in the area that have the capability to burn fuel oil with no hours per year restriction. The largest source is Entergy's Michoud facility in New Orleans East (although New Orleans was not included in the non-attainment designation). The Michoud facility has a permit allowable of over 39,000 tons per year SO2, but no restrictions on hours per year when the power plant switches from natural gas to fuel oil. The SIP must either include restrictions in an Administrative Order or a permit…… otherwise, this could affect the ability of the area [St Bernard] to achieve and maintain attainment..
- The modeling protocol is undated and has significant differences from the protocol that EPA approved January 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
