Exhibit B – Air Monitoring Results Taken At Fenceline of Murphy Oil Meraux RefineryEAS OVERVIEW
There is nothing in the permit nor EAS which assures compliance with SPCC.
Murphy Oil Meraux Refinery (MOMR) states in the revised February 2008 EAS Overview: "Before putting the new tanks in service, the dike walls will be surveyed to confirm continued compliance with the federal and state" Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rules. MOMR also states, "Construction of the tanks will meet the most current SPCC rules." However, the clay earth materials to be used to construct the dikes are not identified. It is not sufficient for the applicant just to state they will comply without demonstrating how compliance will be achieved. MOMR further states "All four (tanks) will be surrounded with the same dike that surrounded the former tanks." MOMR further states, "Four will be new tanks, but will go back in the same location as before." If the same foundation/ringwalls are just going to be re-leveled and reused and since the foundations settled below grade, MOMR must propose settlement mitigation of the soil if the tanks will be placed in the same footprint. MOMR must explain how it will be compliant with SPCC if the T Tanks will be surrounded with the same dike that surrounded the former tanks.
It is not enough for MOMR to state they will comply with SPCC without stating specifically how and what the criteria is to comply with SPCC. With the known dangers of tanks in this particular tank farm, the given results of the floods that will occur, and the proximity to neighborhoods, MOMR must explain what changes they are making to ensure an elevated protection against these risks. This flood plain will flood and at times it will be catastrophic.
MOMR must state how does each phase of the dismantling and construction of these replacement tanks, their foundations and dikes adhere to the 2007 LDEQ Construction Advisory Document with regards to how this project will adversely affect existing soil and ground water remediation or quality. Given that the foundations of the T Tanks 1 and 2 (replacing 450-1, 450-2) will be to 15 feet (see EDMS document #36543881, page 3), MOMR must explain how the contaminated groundwater and soil just to the east (see EDMS #35729963, 2/16/2007) may be adversely affected by this project.
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (SOUR WATER) CAP
Given that the contents of T Tank 5 is sour water and presumably contains hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, MOMR has not identified the emission cap on all the sour water tanks for the refinery. There is nothing in the permit to ensure compliance with this cap.
EAS COMMENTS
Q1. Have the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed facility (activity) been avoided to the maximum extent possible?
MOMR has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to control the tank inventory they currently have. Not only considering the crude oil spill of 2005, but with their own work practices and admitted discrepancies, deviations, and violations (see Exhibit A), coupled with the independent air monitoring results from June 2007 showing exceedingly high benzene releases into the atmosphere around the refinery (see Exhibit B).
.
MOMR has proven they cannot be trusted with their present tank inventory. Should they be trusted with more responsibility handling a more volatile product (middle distillates)? MOMR must declare what measures they are taking to ensure the foundations of these tanks will not settle. Furthermore, MOMR must declare what measures they are taking to ensure the tanks will not lift and dislodge in the next flood.
Because MOMR’s record demonstrates they cannot be trusted, before the permit is issued, LDEQ must require in the permit:
- Storage and fugitive emissions reductions to the lowest achievable levels through the investment in the Best Available Control Technology (BACT); the best available roof(s) and seals for all tanks, (especially those closest to people along the eastern refinery fenceline), with independent optical scanning and increased frequency of inspections and reporting over NSPS Requirements.
Because MOMR’s record demonstrates they cannot be trusted, before the permit is issued, LDEQ must require BACT in the permit for:
- Monitoring storage and fugitive emissions with independent optical scanning leak detection devices including, but not limited to, light detection and ranging (LDAR) technology using DIAL (differential absorption light detection and ranging), FTRS (Fourier Transformation Infrared Spectroscopy) (see A Handbook for Citizen Participation, pages 73, 75, 94, Ben Wakefield, http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/HANDBOOK_FINAL_12%2010%2007.pdf).- Assurance of no exceedances of permitted emissions, especially benzene.
- That soil and ground water around the tank farms have been appropriately remediated, not only from the crude oil spill of 2005, but also from the soil and groundwater concerns noted in the 2002 facility-wide inspection (note that this 2002 facility-wide inspection led to secondary containment compliance plans for this tank farm, which led to the resulting soil and groundwater testing, which indicated releases of benzene to soil).
- Assurance that all the tank farms comply with SPCC.
- Assurance that the 'remediated' (and now ) MOMR-owned residential properties involved in the 2005 crude oil spill have been appropriately remediated. Information published by LDEQ only refers to release of a property as below recap level, as opposed to the actual test results.
- Construction, foundation, ringwalls and soil mitigation (for settlement issues).
- Roof(s) and seals; the best available for all tanks, especially those closest to residents.
- Secondary containment dikes and pipe configuration (SPCC ), which are constructed to withstand the type of tidal surges they will inevitably experience in this location.
- Independent monitoring of pipelines that transfers product from tanks to processing and on to the terminal
GROUND WATER CONCERNS
MOMR’s response on page 5 of the EAS states, "None of the areas where the tanks will be constructed are known to have groundwater contamination. MOMR has had various groundwater assessment and monitoring programs over the years which indicate that the refinery does not have a groundwater contamination problem." However, there have been site delineation work plans for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination over the years that indicated problems at various tank sites, the tank farm, the refinery and the terminal. In MOMR’s workplan (see EDMS #35503218, dated 11/27/2006, page 4) there were five of the eight proposed processing construction areas with exceeded RECAP screenings for total petroleum hydrocarbons in soils.
.
MOMR must conclusively demonstrate that the soil and ground water areas of concern in this tank farm that were noted in May and June 2005 (see EDMS document #35729963, dated 2/16/2007, pages 18-21) were properly remediated. The T Tanks being constructed are located in the same tank farm and share the same site hydrogeology. An EDMS document refers to "…assessment activities associated with a ground water certification project in the tank farm…" yet MOMR has not documented whether these areas in this tank farm, which were a concern prior Hurricane Katrina, have been remediated (see EDMS document #36254801, dated 9/04/2007). In another EDMS document, (see EDMS document #36196456, page 5, dated 8/15/2007), a map indicates where the ground water certification test’s borings will be for T Tanks 1 and 2, but no reference to the ground water concerns for the tanks to the east of this tank farm (T Tank 3 and Tanks 250-2, 250-1).
.
MOMR has mis-handled their product and the tanks that should contain their product, which resulted in leaks and contaminated soil and groundwater. An MOMR document notes (pre-Hurricane Katrina) 2005 soil and ground water exceedances at tanks 250-1, 250-3 (T Tanks 3 and 4) (see EDMS document #35729963, page 7 and 18, dated 2/16/2007). The same MOMR document notes the 2005 map "recap appendix D unknown hydrocarbon release parameter" and "soil coc exceeds limiting recap screening for soils or soils protective of groundwater" (see EDMS document #35729963, page 19, dated 2/16/2007). Further, the same document refers to "…standard for soils hydrocarbons in ground water." (see EDMS document #35729963, page 20, dated 2/16/2007). Furthermore, a letter from LDEQ to MOMR requested MOMR provide a work plan for Tanks 250-1,250-2, 250-3. MOMR must provide proof that they have completely remediated this contamination (see EDMS document #35729963, page 7, dated 2/16/2007).
.
There is a hydrogeologic between the groundwater at MOMR and the surrounding neighborhood. "Groundwater occurs at shallow depth beneath the refinery and is in direct hydraulic communication with the Meraux Canal and the Twenty Arpent Canal." (see EDMS document #35503218, page 8, dated 11/27/2006). That document further states, "The shallow ground water flow gradient direction in and around the Meraux refinery is generally toward the north, away from the Mississippi River." (see EDMS document #35503218, page 10, dated 11/27/2006). The same document states, "COC's were detected in AOI soils at concentrations that exceed RECAP screening standards for industrial soils or soil screening standards protective of ground water." The same document also states, "Coc's were detected in ground water samples collected from the shallow saturated zone in five of the eight proposed construction sites at concentrations that exceed RECAP screening standards for ground water." MOMR’s site delineation work plan dated 11/27/2006 states "further assessment of areas indicating potential exceedance of RECAP...previous groundwater certification..."MOMR must prove they have remediated these groundwater areas, and any associated contamination of the neighborhood canals that were contaminated due to the hydrogeologic connection with MOMR’s groundwater. MOMR must prove full remediation before LDEQ can determine that the EAS is proper.
.
"The five new tanks will not require deep pilings and therefore constructing pilings into groundwater is not a concern." Given the shallowness of the groundwater and the proximity of T Tanks 1 and 2 to the areas of concern noted in May and June 2005 (see EDMS document #35729963, pages 18-21, dated 2/16/2007), MOMR does not explain how can the T Tanks 1 and 2 foundations be constructed to 15 feet (see EDMS document #36543881, page 3) without adversely affecting groundwater and soil contamination and remediation. There is not sufficient information in the proposed permit, nor permit application, nor EAS to make these determinations on the 2007 LDEQ construction advisory document.
.
The February EAS states, "All four (tanks) will be surrounded with the same dike that surrounded the former tanks" and the information in the March 2005 workplan for changing the dikes to comply with SPCC. MOMR does not explain why it did not take the prudent action to remove the contaminated soil and groundwater and then rebuild the dikes. If the same dikes are being used, MOMR must explain what precautions are being taken not to disturb the contaminated soil during dismantling of the tanks and during construction of the new tanks. Further, MOMR has not disclosed any soil test results of the dikes.
MOMR claims the total emission from all five new tanks in the aggregate will be lower. However, MOMR has not explained what it will do during the dismantling of the tanks to avoid fugitive emissions.
One must cover their nose at most times traveling through this tank farm with the car windows up and even then the children complain that their noses burn.
One must cover their nose at most times traveling through this tank farm with the car windows up and even then the children complain that their noses burn.
MOMR’s response on page 4 of the EAS states," MOMR will manage process wastewater and storm water from the proposed tanks in accordance with the LPDES permit." Given the contamination concerns, it is not sufficient for MOMR to state they will comply with the LPDES permit. MOMR must demonstrate how compliance will be achieved. MOMR must prove how they will handle process wastewater without making an oily water or other pollution discharge into the neighborhoods' canals (see EDMS document #36411648, dated 10/26/2007). With the frequency of 5 - 8 inch rains and because storm water from this tank farm goes into the 20 Arpent canal approximately once a week (as noted in the MOMR CSW-G for the tank farm expansion north of the 20 arpent canal), MOMR must provide proof in its application for a separate CSW-G permit for this construction project that no toxicity adversely effects the canal water. The LDEQ must enforce that the sediment runoff from this tank farm doesnot enter the 20 arpent canal or the neighborhoods' storm drain system. MOMR must state how does each phase of the dismantling and construction of these replacement tanks, their foundations and dikes is proven not to have sediment runoff. Inparticular concern for the residents is the affect of stages of this project which are incomplete during the hurricane season 2008.
.
MOMR also asserts in the EAS that "Groundwater protection is an integrated part of the design for the proposed facilities", however this tank farm has had ground water problems since as early as 2002 (see Exhibit A). MOMR has had numerous spills and releases from this tank farm (Exhibit A) and here is a link between spills and releases from this tank farm and the neighborhood's canal (see EDMS document #25827391, 3/07/2003). MOMR should identify the design of this project and how it will change from the previous design, equipment and procedures, construction, foundation, or work practices to prevent groundwater contamination again. MOMR should prove their design protects groundwater and the 20 arpent canal before LDEQ can determine that the EAS is proper.
.
MOMR cannot be trusted to place groundwater protection above its own budgetary limits (see EDMS document #23928654, page 2, dated 9/27/2002 ). MOMR conducted their business in a way that directly resulted in "grossly contaminated soils" with "significant quantities of soil that must be excavated from several areas in the tank farm". Yet MOMR requested to "execute project with reasonable budgetary limits".
As our guardian, the LDEQ is required to enforce all measures for public health and prioritize these soil and groundwater concerns over any budgetary limits.
.
MOMR was "upgrading the retention capacity of its tank farm earthen dike secondary containment system in response to concerns raised by LDEQ during recent inspection." This workplan was not approved until March 2005 (see EDMS document #32762781, dated 3/29/2005). MOMR should prove there was sufficient time to implement this March 2005 work plan for SPCC containment dikes prior to Hurricane Katrina and MOMR should further prove all the grossly contaminated soil and ground water has been excavated and remediated.
.
Emergency Preparedness Assurances
Emergency response plans like hurricane preparedness plans are only effective if implemented.
Since Paul Drive Fire station (east of this tank farm) has not returned post-Hurricane Katrina and MOMR has made aggressive attempts to obtain the Jacob Drive Fire station property, MOMR should prove they can manage an emergency situation without reliance on our public services. MOMR should further prove that St Bernard Parish emergency response personnel are properly trained and equipped to handle an emergency related to these specific petroleum products and the quantity stored in these tanks. MOMR should additionally prove they donot hinder our local preparedness level necessary to comply with the new state mandated emergency preparedness requirements.
.
New State Mandated Emergency Preparedness Laws require our community to provide a plan of preparedness and the ability to implement it for all of our parishes' industries' emergency scenarios. Since MOMR does not provide this scenario information we cannot comment on what level of preparedness our community can provide. MOMR should reveal to us how all these different recently applied for permits fit together into the total expansion plans in order for us to determine the real adverse effects. While MOMR participates in the coordination of the local emergency response committee, this committe does not include residents, the people who will be effected first; nor is the CAP open to the public.
.
Q2 Does a cost benefit analysis of the environmental costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of the proposed facility (activity) demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former?
.
MOMR's response to this EAS question is "The proposed activity is to replace older tanks with new tanks that have improved design and safety features and lower emissions. There are no adverse environmental or economic consequences to the project". MOMR fails to identify what the improvements of design and safety features are. MOMR must prove how these feature and design improvements would achieve "no adverse environmental or economic consequences". Without the proof from MOMR that they would achieve "no adverse environmental or economic consequences", it is insufficient for LDEQ to make a determination that the EAS is adequate. Additionally, MMOR fails to state the known environmental costs of this tank farm and the potential environmental costs. MMOR must identify the environmental costs before LDEQ can make this determination that the latter outweighs the former.
.
MOMR also states the project "provides the needed flexibility to store materials so that tank inspections and repairs schedules can be more easily accommodated." MOMR doesnot identify which tanks are in need of inspections and repairs. MOMR must prove changing of tankage inventory is a necessity for an expedited permit. MOMR does not explain why this permit is applied for as a new facility/new permit. It is not enough for MOMR to state this is the reason for storage flexibility. Because MOMR has not been trustworthy, we suspect these tanks are also changing inventory for another unrevealed reason. Due to the lack of open public knowledge of future refinery plans, the residents have been left to guess what the refinery's plans are.
.
MOMR states the new tanks will be constructed to higher standards but fails to identify what those construction methods or standards are. MOMR should prove these construction standards are higher. MOMR fails to state the major costs to this community not just with the 2005 crude oil spill in this tank farm but also with the exposure to the fugitive emissions from the releases that caused and from the exposure to the soil and ground water contaminants. MOMR states "If anything, any potential cost to the community would be lessened as these are environmental and safety improvements." Yet it does not state the potential cost to the community of another spill from these tanks, an emergency scenario which isolated the eastern portion of our parish, nor the cost to the residents nearest the tanks due to potential exposure. Without the proof from MOMR that any potential cost would be lessened, it is insufficient for LDEQ to make a determination that the EAS is adequate.
.
There is inadequate information for LDEQ to determine if that cost outweighs the amount of the sales and use taxes generated that is reinvested into our local community. One cannot determine if these increases are permanent or if they are attributable to short-term projects due to Hurricane Katrina. MOMR's application states they employ 250 workers without identifying if these are permanent jobs to domiciled residents or not.
.
Q4 Are there alternative sites which would offer more protection to the environment that the proposed facility (activity) site without unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits?
.
MOMR incorrectly answers EAS Q4 "alternative sites" with the response "no" and fails to identify alternative sites. The right course of action with this tank farm would be to replace the tankage on the higher ground next to the river, South of St Bernard Hwy; the land is less subjected to tidal surge and sinking(settlement) and that would give our school's the option of transporting our children on Judge Perez only (the route furthest away from the dangers and emissions of the refinery and tank farm; were the tank farm on the riverland side). MOMR owns other land which might prove the better alternative site within this industrial campus.
.
MOMR stated the site was chosen because, "roads, rail and waterways are adequate for traffic." However, it is our experience that St Bernard Hwy (LA 46) is not now an adequate road to handle transportation by rail or road. While the railroad is just this week undergoing maintenance (starting in Arabi), the rail way is used by numerous industries that transport hazardous materials parallel to St Bernard Hwy and directly through the riverside property. The pipeline to the terminal crosses over the railroad tracks. There are pipelines directly west of the refinery fenceline.
.
MOMR also responds to this "alternative sites" EAS question stating "The potential for transportation incidents is minimal." MOMR fails to identify the worse case potential of transportation incidents and further fails to support the minimal potential statement with any information. Given the condition of St Bernard Hwy, MOMR must prove this EAS response for LDEQ to determine it is adequate,
.
There is no shoulder on this State Hwy LA 46. We have witnessed disabled vehicles with no area to safely pull over and often times tanker trucks are waiting in the turning lane without flagman. The ingress and outgress are not the appropriate size to allow for safe exit and entrance to the highway from either the refinery or the terminal without tanker having to extend the width of all three lanes (east/west/and turning lane) plus utilize what minimal space is between the road and the old wooden fence. Some fire hydrants along the fenceline have settled below grade.
.
There are not the appropriate setbacks for the visible butane and other hazardous tanks from the highway. The refinery sends product to the terminal by way of overhead piperack which has leaked (see Exhibit A) and has the potential for leaks and other hazards. At times it drips precipitation or some other liquids on the road and vehicles. The refinery produces a abundance of steam on the St Bernard Hwy side of processes and at times this vapor crosses the highway.
.
MOMR claims " No traffic should be affected by the tank replacement project in any case." Our observation has been that there would be heavy truck traffic and contractors' commuting traffic associated with this project. In MOMR's response to EAS Q 1 "potential and real adverse environmental effects" , MOMR responds the use of contractors for construction activities. Given the lack of a quality skilled labor pool in this region, MOMR's contractors are most likely nondomiciled residents. It has been our experience that construction and turnarounds bring much added traffic to our community's two thoroughfares. MOMR must bring its temporary parking lots into compliance with local codes. MOMR should hire a local sheriff detail to coordinate the shift change traffic affects on the roads and to ensure there will be no use of residential streets by these employees for either parking, commuting nor truck traffic,
.
Q5 Are there mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environment that the facility (activity) as proposed without unduly curtailing non-environmental benefits?
.
MOMR states "the facility is designed and operated to maximize environmental protection, prevent any adverse environmental impacts." Yet, MOMR has proved the facility is not operated to maximize environmental protection (see Exhibit A). MOMR fails to identify mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environment. Without that information, the response is insufficient for LDEQ to make a determination if this EAS is proper. Some very minor and low cost investments would make tremendous differences in the adverse effects their tanks are having on our community, our neighborhoods. Other regulatory requirements if enforced would result in additional noted improvements. This corporation is capable of making the investment in the best available control technology to result in the lowest achievable emissions, independent emissions monitoring, more frequent inspections over NSPS, the best available tank roof(s) and seals for all tanks, especially those tanks located closest to people (the gasoline tanks which are within feet of residents on Myrtle Grove Drive (now a FEMA trailer park) and Munster Blvd); anchorage of all tanks to assure the tanks don’t lift and spill in the next flood; and remediate all the groundwater and soil areas of concern in all tank farms and in the crude oil spill area,
.
Also, MOMR has not identified how it would mitigate the soil settlement issues or the issue of disturbing the contaminated soil and ground water during dismantling and construction. It is insufficient to determine what measure would offer more protection, yet we know their current measures do not offer enough protection,
.
In the answer to EAS Q5 "mitigating measures," MOMR states it uses state-of-the-art technology and has a stringent leak detection program....no known impacts that could be alleviated by additional mitigating measures." MOMR 's stringent leak program failed and resulted in benzene exceedances. MOMR should prove the stringent leak detection program in this permit will not fail. Independent use of monitoring and more frequent inspections above NSPS would have detected these releases to air, water, soil before that impact was to such an extent. These optical scanning leak detection devices would be state-of-the-art and would detect leaks in a more timely manner, perhaps providing greater protection of our community's health. Real-time monitors for benzene would have detected the noted seal problems, soil releases, leak in bottom, hole in tank and all the associated fugitive and storage emissions sooner.
.
Before this permit is issued, MOMR must remove the soil and ground water contamination and areas of concern must be remediated to residential recap levels because of the proximity to residential neighborhoods.
.
Before this permit is issued, MOMR must provide proof and assurances that all tanks and tank farms have been extensively inspected for damage and settlement, repaired, tested and remediated for soil and groundwater contaminants, areas of concern excavated and removed, and the use of BACT for all tanks, especially those tanks closest to our residents.
.
We also want the same continual independent monitoring of the entire crude oil spill area of 2005, before that project's closure. MOMR should prove the crude oil spill was properly remediated to residential recap levels. As with the recent AOI's on the refinery's campus, tank farms and terminal, MOMR should prove they excavated all the contaminated soils and used the same thorough testing. MOMR should publish this proof and allow public access to test results and other assurances that the spill's adverse effects are still being mitigated and remediated to below residential recap. MOMR is not in compliance with the CSW-G permit for that construction - remediation/demolition - project, as there is still continual sediment runoff with the effected properties. MOMR's work practices have resulted in damaged infrastructure, private property and other concerns that MOMR must assure will be addressed in a timely manner before LDEQ allows closure of that crude oil spill.
.
Commitment to Resident's rebuild and revitalization efforts.
In the answer to EAS Q2 "cost benefit analysis of the environmental costs balanced against the social and economic benefits" MOMR states "insignificant local environmental impacts, and positive social and economic contributions.." Additionally in the answer to EAS Q5 "mitigating measures" MOMR states the corporation "recognizes the importance of efficiently meeting society's needs while responsibly working with the public".
.
To Preserve Our Neighborhood's revitalization since Hurricane Katrina and the crude oil spill and to protect our health, safety and welfare, each project with this refinery should be questioned what is the quality of life improvement NOT what is the industry's economic opportunity. The social empact of losing community to the crude oil spill is not positive and even post-Katrina, MOMR has not been trustworthy.
.
Due to recent aggressive approaches by MOMR to acquire our Jacob Drive Fire station and the nearby residential properties sold to the State of Louisiana LA Land Trusts (LRA properties), we question the corporations commitment to our community. In the January 2008 stockholders meeting the Murphy Corporation responded to a question about if a decision had been made to hang on to downstream assets with the answer that decisions would be made in the course of the year. MOMR should show the corporations' financial assurance and stability to back MOMR's liabilities and obligations. MOMR should show the corporate level of longterm commitment to retain ownership in MOMR..
.
For our health, safety and welfare, we need to know that the future plans for our subdivisions' properties will not compromise the integrity of our residential district, our revitalization efforts post-Hurricane Katrina and post crude oil spill, emergency preparedness nor Homeland Security Issues. With each addition of tanks or processes nearer and nearer our Unified Public High School and our homes, this encroachment compromises our health, safety, welfare and diminishes our quality of life.
.
Without a commitment from the corporation regarding the future use of these residential and residential district properties, and how that future use would affect all permits assurances and our exposure to future spills, explosions, fires, and emission exceedances, we cannot comment on how all the different refinery's permit applications will affect our environment, health, safety or welfare, emergency and fire protection response time nor homeland security issues. Nor can we trust their statements that each permits' proposed construction does not include any use of these residential and commercial (residential district) properties acquired post crude oil spill.
.
We will measure trust by whether MOMR follows the appropriate federal and state regulations as well as the local parish codes and ordinances. Even post-Katrina, MOMR has not been trustworthy in abiding by the letter and spirit of regulations, codes and ordinances. This corporation states its employee's "have a commitment to preserve and protect their communities for tomorrow." We want Murphy Corporation and MOMR and its employees to demonstrate that level of commitment to us, to our neighborhoods, to our community and to our future.
Exhibit A - EDMS Documents
Exhibit A - EDMS Documents
(A) LDEQ EDMS Documents
1) The soil and groundwater in this permit's tank farm have been adversely effected since as early as 2002 (see EDMS document #25534058, dated 01/17/2003) (Soil grading plans for Tanks 200-6, 250-1, 250-2, 250-3, dated 1/17/2003 - to address deficiencies in tank farm noted in 2002, facility-wide inspection, references made regarding need to change secondary containment dikes to comply with SPCC and notes discussions regarding benzene soil exceedances).
.
2) Inspections to maintain integrity of tank seals (which led to the change of MOMR’s reported emissions upon reporting the seals used discrepancies; MOMR had to show the exceedance of permit emissions for 5 years).
.
(a) Seal Discrepancies On Tanks 200-1,200-3,200-4,200-5. These tanks on the eastern fenceline of the MOMR processing campus are located nearest our residents.MOMR’s self disclosure report states: "…exceedences of the crude oil tank emission cap and the gasoline tank emission cap occurred..." and "…will be resubmitting our Annual Emission Inventories for the last five years and Annual Title V CAP Reports for 2001-2004 (Tanks 200-1, 200-3, 200-4, 200-5)." (see EDMS document # 34753993 page 3, #8, second paragraph, dated 12/30/2005). Yet MOMR does not take responsibility. MOMR claims their exceedances : "...did not result in serious actual harm or present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment...", "…the difference between the two emission rates is not significant…" and "...correcting the 2004 emission inventory from 727 to 786." (see EDMS document # 34753993 page 3, #8).Other documents regarding the same tank and seal deviations:(see EDMS document# 35738982 dated 1/05/2007) (notes a December 16, 2005 letter from EPA to MOMR that "EPA will not take further action at this time" ..." demonstrating that MOMR had knowledge since 2001" of tank and seal deviations).
MOMR made notification of seal repairs (see EDMS document #34099673, dated 3/6/2006, regarding Tanks 200-1,3,4,50).MOMR did not have the proper seal and did not replace the seal at the first de-gassings (see EDMS document #36196540, dated 12/15/2006).
Page 4 Tank 200-1 Group 1 subject to MACT. MOMR did not have the proper seal and did not replace the seal at the first de-gassings, which were March 2000 for Tank 200-1 and January 2004 for Tank 200-3. MOMR had knowledge of violations since 2001 and did not promptly disclosure these violations.
(b) Failed Seal Gap Inspection on Tank 200-4 on 4/18/2005 (see EDMS document #33724468, dated 7-27-2005) This same tank area had a lot of attention from the September 1999 spill and had MOMR used independent monitoring and more frequent inspections, the seal gap would have been detected earlier. Particularly, optical scanning technology should have been used and used more frequently while the tank area of concern was frequently visited due to the 1999 spill.
3) Inspecting tanks according to permit and regulations.
MOMR does not comply with inspection requirements as repoted in the Title V 2007 2nd Quarter Deviation Report (see EDMS Document #36324639,dated 9/27/2007, Page 14) With regards to Tank 5-3 and Tank 25-2, "MOMR did not conduct an internal inspection in a timely manner, which is required at least every 10 years per 40 CFR 63, subpart CC." When were the last two internal inspections of Tank 5-3 and Tank 25-2 performed? (see EDMS document #36535047, 1/17/2008).
4) Preventing releases to soil and ground water; having timely remediation of soil and groundwaterand implementing and complying with SPCC (2002 facility wide inspection)Soil Grading Plan in this EDMS for Tank Areas Tanks 200-6,. 250-1, 250-2, 250-3 (the soil and groundwater investigation of Tanks 250-1, 250-2, and 250-3 started before Hurricane Katrina) references the 2002 facility wide inspection which resulted in a plan for SPCC compliance and discussion regarding benzene soil exceedances (see EDMS document #25534058, dated 1/17/2003). Another EDMS has referenced benzene concentrations and "hot spot" areas for Tanks 200-6, 250-1, 250-2, 250-3 (see EDMS document #25867720, dated 2/26/2003). MOMR must prove this entire tank farm has been remediated regardless if the soil is to be graded or disturbed.
Tanks 250-1, 250-2, 250-3 (see EDMS document #35729963, dated 2/16/2007, pages 19-20) MOMR's report notes the extent of groundwater areas of concern for hydrocarbons and lead in the groundwater and also notes the extent of soil areas of concern for methylnaphthalene, nahthalene, lead, C10-C12,C12-C16,C21-C35 aromatics. The document notes (on page two) that LDEQ is waiting on a site investigation recap report and (on page 7) a soil and groundwater investigation which was started prior to Hurricane Katrina. We have not been able to find any proof in EDMS that this site investigation recap report as been conducted. One area of concern is located nearest the Judge Perez Drive. (see EDMS document #32676633, dated 2/10/2005, page 4, #5) .."the AOC include total lead and benzene in soils"
Tank 20-1 overfilled 450 bbl 5/16/07;This episode was the apparent result of human error during the transfer of gasoline from the refinery via pipeline. MOMR reported the operator failed to secure two valves (see EDMS document #36003068, 5/23/07).This same (incident) operator failure is noted in AI 93523 Meraux Terminal incident T96245 Notice of Potential AE PP 07-0115, (see EDMS #36027431, dated 5/16/2007). MOMR reports the operator failed to follow written procedures, failed to secure two valves and due to these failures there was a release of VOC, benzene and xylene. This terminal receives transfers of gasoline from the refinery via pipeline. This notice of potential penalty is for the terminal AI # and not the refinery AI # . However, in my opinion the terminal, tank farm and refinery are interconnected not only physically with this inadequate pipeline yet also with the processing production linkage, contiguous property, same management, personnel, work practices, management and corporate decisions and general accident prevention programs.
Tank 20-5 overfilled (see EDMS document #24610054, dated, 3/01/2002) due to control devices not in proper working order, as MOMR noted the "gauge tape stuck".
Tank 250-1 spill 50 bbl 5/12/07; MOMR noted the source of this spill was the result of a high point vent valve that had been left open (see EDMS document #36195878, dated 5/12/2007)
Tank 200-6 diesel fuel release into Meraux Canal (5-10 gallons)as a result of
leaking mixer at the tank , heavy rains and potential leak in containment system.
(1/26/2003 notification to Lake Borgne Levee District, US Coast Guard, Nat'l
response center) (see EDMS document #25827391, 3/07/2003) The potential leak in containment system that could have been detected with optical scanning and other independent monitoring and more frequent inspections.
MOMR has noted ground water concerns in the middle distillate expansion farm north of the 20 Arpent Canal (see EDMS document #33958626, dated 2/14/2006). This document notes a Jan 17, 2006 NOD in response to MOMR 12/28/2005 ground water certification for proposed tank construction (arsenic).
SPCC (see EDMS document # 32676633, page 2, dated 2/10/2005) is the Soil and ground water investigation work plan Tanks 200-6, 250-1, 250-2, 250-3, Background...to comply ...
SPCC regulations, upgrading secondary containment dikes in the North Tank Farm during 2002.
pg 8 shows soil exceedances for benzene
(see EDMS document #34464102, page 3, 7/25/2006) Tanks 250-2 and Tanks 250-3
"both soil and groundwater were found above RECAP screening standards for the investigations conducted in May and July of 2005."
page 4 ..."soil and ground water investigation of Tanks 250-1,2,3 started before Hurricane Katrina..."
(see EDMS document #23928654, page 2, 9/27/2002 ) "grossly contaminated soils"
"upgrading the retention capacity of its tank farm earthen dike secondary containment system in response to concerns raised by LDEQ during recent inspection."..."significant quantities of soil that must be excavated from several areas in the tank farm".. .."execute project with reasonable budgetary limits"..
LDEQ must require the priority of concerns be with the public health issues of the contaminated soils and the exposure to benzene rather than with the execution of the project to be within reasonable budgetary limits.
LDEQ did not approve the work plan until March 2005 (see EDMS document #32762781, dated 3/29/2005).
There are safety concerns with expanding this refinery across the only two highways in our community (see EDMS document #14511230, dated 4/4/2000), highlighted in the 3/28/2000 gasoline spill into batture of Mississippi River from the gasoline supply line to the dock which is the same overhead gasoline pipe rack that crosses St Bernard Hwy(LA 46) and crosses the railroad tracks.
Tank 250-1(see EDMS document #14511247, dated 5/13/2000) MOMR reported a leak in Tank 250-1 of 6 bbls crude oil (see EDMS document #14417909, dated 5/19/2000) and stated it was taking the tank out of service for inspection to determine if the bottom is leaking.
Tank 200-4 (see EDMS document #33201811, dated 8/3/2005) had a late 1999-2000 crude petroleum release,with ground water exceedances from Tank 200-4 May 1, 2000. The area of concern around Tank 200-4 was frequented often due to the 1999 spill AOI. Real-time monitors would have detected the seal gap and associated fugitive emissions sooner.
Tank 200-4 failed seal gap inspection on 4-18-05 (EDMS document #33152353, dated 4-25-05)
Tank 200-4 area closure 4/2005 (see EDMS document #32785731, dated 4/08/2005)
Tank 200-4 area closure 4/2005 (see EDMS document #32785731, dated 4/08/2005)
MOMR had a Naphtha Spill from Tank 80-2 on 11/5/2003 as a result of a hole in the tank (see EDMS document #30248073, dated 11/12/2003). Optical scanning and real time monitors together with more frequent inspections would have detected the hole in tank much sooner.
5) MOMR does not maintain tankage and control devices which resulted in excess VOC as noted in the Title V 2006 4th Q Deviation Report (see EDMS document #350871313, dated 3/30/2007 Page 30). Tank 80-14 had excess VOC due to "tank did not have a functioning manual side level gauge or high level alarm".
Exhibit B – Air Monitoring Results Taken At Fenceline of Murphy Oil Meraux Refinery
(blogger's note: Comments submitted by CCAM
No comments:
Post a Comment