Although this new refinery rule is good progress and a step in the right direction, we still have a long fight ahead of us. This rule will monitor for benzene, a known carcinogen. Our problem in St. Rose has been release of the chemical hydrogen sulfide – a neurotoxin. If they’re not allowing hydrogen sulfide to be monitored, there’s obviously a bigger problem.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
refinery rule for benzene monitors
Although this new refinery rule is good progress and a step in the right direction, we still have a long fight ahead of us. This rule will monitor for benzene, a known carcinogen. Our problem in St. Rose has been release of the chemical hydrogen sulfide – a neurotoxin. If they’re not allowing hydrogen sulfide to be monitored, there’s obviously a bigger problem.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
