1 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC HEARING 2 PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL LLC PETROPLEX INTERNATIONAL TANK FARM- 3 GREENFIELD SITE 4 5 The Public Hearing conducted by the Louisiana Department of Environmental 6 Quality Services, Permits Division taken at the Westbank Reception Center, 2455 Highway 7 18, Vacherie, Louisiana 70090 on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. 8 9 Reported by: Tara Torres-Blank 10 Certified Court Reporter 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 I N D E X Page 2 Caption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 By Mr. Sciacchetano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 5 By Mr. Aucoin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 6 By Mr. Florent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 7 By Mr. Dumas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 8 By Ms. Octave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 9 By Mr. Octave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 10 By Mr. Zeringue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 11 By Ms. Hickerson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 12 By Mr. Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 13 By Ms. Zeringue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 14 By Mr. Landry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 15 By Mr. Prestenback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 16 By Mr. Bourgeois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 17 By Ms. Cazenave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 18 By Ms. Waguespack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 19 By Mr. Waguespack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 20 By Ms. Cazenave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 21 By Ms. Cazenave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 22 By Ms. Recatto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 23 By Mr. Recatto. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 24 By Mr. Prestenback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 25 By Ms. Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 3 1 By Mr. Zeringue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 2 By Ms. White. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 3 By Mr. Hymel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 4 By Mr. Chauvin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 5 By Mr. Zeringue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 6 By Ms. Ockmond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 7 By Ms. Glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78 8 By Mr. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 9 By Mr. Amato. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 10 By Ms. Johnson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 11 By Ms. Prestenback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 12 By Ms. Faucheux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 13 By Mr. Evans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 14 By Mr. Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 15 By Mr. Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 16 By Mr. Narcisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 17 By Mr. Christy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 18 By Ms. Subra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 19 By Mr. Gross. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 20 By Ms. Culley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 21 By Ms. Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 22 By Mr. Prestenback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 23 By Mr. Zeringue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 24 By Ms. Subra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 25 By Mr. Bailey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4 1 Reporter's Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 2 3 Reporter's Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 4 5 I N T R O D U C T I O N 6 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Good evening. Let the 9 Record reflect that the time is 6:04 10 p.m. My name is Allen Kirkpatrick. 11 I'm employed with Louisiana 12 Department of Environmental Quality. 13 I will be serving as the hearing 14 officer this evening, Tuesday, 15 October 13, 2009. This hearing is 16 scheduled to accept public comments 17 concerning the draft for the 18 discharge permit for the Petroplex 19 International, LLC, 842 Main Street, 20 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70872, for 21 the Petroplex International, LLC 22 tank form. 23 Agency Interest Number 159541, 24 Permit Number LA0124401, and 25 activity tracking Number 5 1 PER20280002. 2 The site is located on - it's 3 located at 1407 La Highway 18 in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 Vacherie, Louisiana, St. James 2 Parish. 3 The principal discharge from 4 this proposed source would be made 5 into the Mississippi River from 6 Outfall 001. Waters of the state 7 classified for primary contact, 8 recreation, secondary contact, 9 recreation fish and wildlife 10 propagation, and drinking water 11 supply. 12 The discharge from Outfall 002 13 is named Bayou Lasseigne, thence 14 into Bayou Des Allemands. Waters of 15 the state classified for primary 16 contact, recreation, secondary 17 contact, recreation and propagation 18 of fish and wildlife. 19 Under the SIC Codes, 5171 and 20 4226, the applicant proposes to 21 discharge tank draw wastewater, 22 storm water runoff from the 23 equipment pads, maintenance, wash 24 water, ship and barge bilge, bows 25 and slop water, compressor 7 1 condensates, steam condensates, tank 2 and equipment wash water, boiler 3 blow down and steam condensate 4 hydrostatic test wastewater. 5 Treated sanitary wastewater and 6 uncontaminated storm water runoff 7 from the proposed petroleum liquid 8 storage and terminal. 9 During the preparation of this 10 permit, it's been determine that the 11 discharge will have no adverse 12 effect, adverse impact on the 13 existing uses of the receiving water 14 ways. 15 As with any discharge, however, 16 some change in existing water 17 quality may occur. This hearing is 18 not being conducted in a question 19 and answer format. The - 20 Please remember that the purpose 21 of this public hearing is to allow 22 you, the public, an opportunity to 23 express your thoughts concerning the 24 draft permit. I will allow all 25 interested parties a reasonable time 8 1 to comment, unless testimony is not 2 related to the purpose of this 3 hearing. 4 This hearing is being held to 5 give all individuals a chance to be 6 heard, regardless of their position 7 on the draft permit. Courteous 8 behavior is expected of everyone at 9 all times. 10 You may speak in support of, in 11 opposition to, or simply to provide 12 additional information. Your 13 comments will be evaluated and 14 addressed in the department's 15 written response. 16 A public notice advertising this 17 public hearing and request the 18 public comment on the draft permit 19 was published in the Enterprise on 20 Wednesday, September 9, 2009, and 21 the Advocate, and the New Examiner 22 on Thursday, September 10, 2009. 23 A copy of the application, draft 24 permit, and statement of basis, are 25 available for inspection and review 9 1 at that LDET public records center. 2 602 North 5th Street, Baton Rouge, 3 Louisiana. 4 Viewing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 6 except holidays. Additional 7 information can be accessed 8 electronically, on the electronic 9 document management system, EDMS, on 10 the DEQ public website at 11 www.deq.louisiana.gov. 12 Additional copies are also 13 available for review at the St. 14 James Parish Library, Vacherie 15 Branch, 2593 Highway 20, Vacherie, 16 Louisiana. 17 In addition, copies of the 18 public notice were mailed to 19 individuals who had requested to be 20 placed on a mailing list maintained 21 by the Office of Environmental 22 Services, on September 4, 2009. 23 In accordance with Louisiana 24 Administrative Code Title 3349, 25 Chapter 31, Section 3113.D, comments 10 1 received by 12:30 p.m., Friday, 2 October 16, 2009, will be considered 3 prior to the final decision. 4 All oral comments received and 5 transcribed during this hearing and 6 written comments received by 12:30 7 p.m., Friday, October 16, 2009, 8 shall be retained by the department 9 in the exhibit, in determining 10 whether to issue or deny the 11 proposed permits. 12 Written comments on the draft 13 permit, may be submitted to Ms. 14 Soumaya Ghosn, LDEQ OES, Permit 15 Services Division, P.O. Box 4313, 16 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4313. 17 Under the Louisiana Revised 18 Statutes 30:2017, it is revised by 19 the Legislation in the 2004 session; 20 The department is required to 21 following the form - following the 22 order with the provision that the 23 presiding officer may give 24 preference to a public official to 25 speak at anytime during the hearing. 11 1 However, any time limit set for 2 citizen testimony shall apply to 3 public officials. The department is 4 required to provide up to 30 minutes 5 to the permit applicant for an 6 introductory presentation. 7 Thereafter, the preference of 8 speaking, up to one hour, is given 9 as follows: for the first hour, 10 those citizens who live within a 11 two-mile radius of the location of 12 the facility. 13 For the second hour, those 14 citizens who work within a two-mile 15 radius of the location of the 16 facility. 17 And for the third hour, those 18 citizens who live within the parish 19 of the location of the facility. 20 Thereafter, each hour of the hearing 21 shall alternate between those who 22 are in support of the draft permit, 23 and those who oppose the draft. 24 The order of tonight's hearing 25 will be based on the information 12 1 provided by the speaker on the 2 registration form. Anyone who 3 registered to speak, but did not 4 provide the necessary information, 5 will be given the opportunity to 6 speak. 7 However, they will be called 8 last in the order of registration. 9 This hearing is being transcribed. 10 Therefore, I will ask each speaker 11 to begin by stating, for the Record, 12 their name, address and any 13 organization he or she may 14 represent. 15 I would like to remind you to 16 please turn off all of your cell 17 phones. Thank you. 18 At this time I would like to ask 19 the permit applicant representative 20 to come forward to make an 21 introductory presentation. Thank 22 you. 23 MR. SCIACCHETANO: 24 I promise not to take 30 25 minutes. I'll keep it short. My 13 1 name is Larry Sciacchetano, 842 Main 2 Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 3 Many of you know that, in 4 another life, a number of years ago, 5 I was a college coach and an Olympic 6 coach. And one of the things I 7 learned during that period of time 8 - Can everybody hear me without the 9 mic? 10 One of the things I learned is 11 that, in any endeavor in life, there 12 are rules. There are rules you have 13 to follow. 14 In this case, the agency that's 15 entrusted with protecting the 16 community and providing 17 environmental quality is LDEQ. 18 LDEQ, and their experts, have 19 created the rules that an applicant 20 has to follow, in order to get a 21 permit. 22 And then they oversee that 23 applicant, and supervise their 24 performance. I can tell you that 25 when we started this process, our 14 1 mandate to our environmental 2 engineers was that we want to build 3 a state of the art facility. 4 We wanted the latest technology, 5 to make sure that we build the 6 facility that the community can be 7 proud of. I can stand here and tell 8 you tonight that we have done that, 9 in every respect. We've done it 10 right. 11 We've made a commitment to be a 12 good partner to the community, and 13 regardless of what you might hear, 14 we've fully lived up and exceeded 15 the requirements of DEQ. 16 You can count on Petroplex being 17 a good partner in the community. 18 Thank you 19 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 20 I have to allow all persons who 21 have signed up to speak, five 22 minutes in which to present their 23 comments. Anyone who needs more 24 than five minutes will be allowed to 25 finish his or her comments after the 15 1 registered speakers have had the 2 opportunity to speak. 3 First to speak will be those 4 citizens who live within a two-mile 5 radius of the location facility. 6 All right. Now, when you-all - you 7 can come up, up here, and speak. 8 And what I'll do is when you get 9 down to when your three minutes is 10 gone by, I'll hold up - kind of 11 look over here and I'll hold up two 12 fingers, and when you have one 13 finger, that means you've got one 14 minute. 15 And when it's time, I'll do the 16 basketball kind of time thing. If 17 your time is up and you need to come 18 back and finish your thoughts, you 19 may just tell me so, and I'll save 20 your sheet over here on the side, 21 and we'll call you back again. 22 Okay? The first person will be Paul 23 Aucoin. 24 MR. AUCOIN: 25 Good afternoon. Thank you. My 16 1 name is Paul Aucoin, I'm chairman of 2 the St. James Parish Economic 3 Development Board. 4 For those of you that may not be 5 familiar with the Economic 6 Development Board, it's a board 7 composed of 19 volunteers citizens 8 throughout the Parish of St. James. 9 And of course, obviously the 10 goal of the board is to promote 11 economic development within the 12 parish, when we think that the 13 industry that is attempting to 14 locate here is a good fit. 15 And I'm here today to tell you, 16 as chairman of the board, that on 17 the 25th day of March, 2009, the 18 board adopted a resolution in 19 unanimous support of this particular 20 project, Petroplex. 21 The board, having been informed 22 about the project from its 23 beginning, until the present time, 24 we still are. Overwhelmingly, and 25 unanimously, agree that this project 17 1 is good for the parish, good for the 2 citizens, and good for the location 3 in which it is going to be situated. 4 So with that, we introduce this 5 resolution or submitted this 6 resolution at the first hearing. 7 But I'd like to resubmit it on 8 behalf of the Economic Development 9 Board, the resolution in support. 10 Thank you (handing). 11 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 12 Mr. Aucoin, did you want this 13 marked as an exhibit? 14 MR. AUCOIN: 15 Yes, please. 16 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 17 Yes, sir. I'll do so. All 18 right. Let's see, I have James 19 Florent, Sr. 20 MR. FLORENT: 21 Good afternoon. My name is 22 James Florent, Sr. I reside at 1225 23 Luther King Street, Vacherie, 24 Louisiana. I was present and I made 25 a presentation at the very first 18 1 meeting. And I haven't changed my 2 mind. 3 As far as I see it, Petroplex is 4 a win, win situation. It's going to 5 help us economically, it's going to 6 help us to grow, it's going to 7 employ people, and truly we need, we 8 need more growth in this area. 9 I don't know whether you-all 10 know, but we are getting kind of 11 stagnate, and we need growth. So 12 without any further ado, I say, I 13 strongly support Petroplex. I think 14 it's a win, win situation. 15 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 16 Thank you, sir. Delvin Dumas. 17 MR. DUMAS: 18 My name is Delvin Dumas. I 19 reside at 1319 Magnolia Heights in 20 Vacherie, Louisiana. 21 I'm here to say I fully support 22 Petroplex for this main reason, it 23 will bring jobs to our community, 24 and maybe we'll get a few more 25 things on this side of the river. 19 1 So by saying that, I'm in support of 2 Petroplex. 3 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 4 All right. Betty Octave, 5 please. 6 MS. OCTAVE: 7 Good evening. My name is Betty 8 W. Octave. I live at 1311 Magnolia 9 Heights in Vacherie, Louisiana. I 10 wrote a little spiel. 11 Many of you, or should I say the 12 majority of you assembled here have 13 worked in industry. I have worked 14 in industry for 27 years. I am 15 surprised you are against industry 16 in our area. 17 The phrase, "not in my 18 backyard," is a lame excuse. You 19 have made your living and retired 20 from industry in someone else's 21 backyard. I implore you to take a 22 look around. 23 What incentives do we offer for 24 people to live and come to Vacherie? 25 You have to travel to nearby cities 20 1 if you want to shop for decent 2 clothing, food, furniture, lumber, 3 even housing. 4 What do we have to offer our 5 kids once they graduate? I support 6 Petroplex, and look forward to them 7 coming to our area. Thank you. 8 MR. KIRKPATRICK 9 Brad Octave. 10 MR. OCTAVE: 11 Good afternoon, my name Brad 12 Octave. I reside at 1311 Magnolia 13 Height. And I drove truck for right 14 at 27 and a half years hauling 15 Chemical. 16 Tank farm, plants, the chemical 17 made, how hard I delivered. And I 18 don't see nothing wrong with the 19 tank farm. I'm in favor of 20 Petroplex coming to our parish. 21 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 22 Rene Zeringue. 23 MR. ZERINGUE: 24 Good evening. My name is Rene 25 Zeringue. I live at 1275 St. James 21 1 Street. I'm here to support 2 community strength. I live about 3 150 feet from the Petroplex 4 property. 5 Our community does not need this 6 toxic air and water pollution from 7 this facility. Our community does 8 not need the noise, day and night, 9 from barges, tugboats, trains, 10 railcars, trucks, fire trucks, 11 sirens and relief valves lifting 12 from their steam boiler systems. 13 I've worked in the chemical 14 industry for 35 years. Petroplex 15 says it will build a state-of-the- 16 art facility. That's all they say. 17 I believe all equipment will 18 fail from age, stress and 19 deterioration. Pump seals will 20 fail, leaking product into our water 21 systems. Lines, flanges, gaskets 22 will leak into our water systems 23 also. Pressure relief valves, 24 conservation vents will hang up, 25 leaking toxic vapors into the air. 22 1 Mistakes by human error, will 2 put us all at risk. All these 3 examples I'm giving you-all will 4 happen. I have seen elementary 5 schools have to be evacuated. I've 6 seen them close bridges. I've seen 7 highways closed. I've seen a whole 8 1,000 person facility had to 9 evacuate one time. All these things 10 can happen. 11 And they are going to have their 12 own fire departments, which tells me 13 they're going to have fires. It's 14 going to be gasoline fires and 15 everything else. 16 And those things can get pretty 17 bad. This Petroplex facility will 18 be highly detrimental to our 19 community. For these reasons, I 20 strongly oppose Petroplex 21 International facility. 22 In spite of our effort, if this 23 facility becomes a reality, I will 24 continue to fight it, to rid it from 25 our community. Thank you. 23 1 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 2 Whitney Hickerson. 3 MR. HICKERSON: 4 Good evening. My name is 5 Whitney Hickerson. I reside at 2127 6 Franklin Street, Vacherie. I live 7 within two miles of the proposed 8 project. 9 I worked in industry for 37 10 years at a chemical plant in St. 11 John Parish. I have really never 12 worked up in St. James Parish. 13 And the jobs that Petroplex is 14 going to bring to St. James Parish, 15 it could help our youngsters in and 16 around Vacherie, for gainful 17 employment and also health insurance 18 that's really needed. 19 And for those reasons I fully 20 support Petroplex. And also, for 21 the Record, I have 200 names I would 22 like to turn in at this time. These 23 are letters in support of Petroplex 24 (handing). 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 24 1 Yes, sir. We'll attach that as 2 an exhibit. That'll be P2 in globo. 3 Ridgely Mitchell. 4 MR. MITCHELL: 5 I guess I signed the wrong form 6 when I came in. But that's okay. 7 Let me say a few things while I'm 8 here. I've worked in the chemical 9 industry for a few years. 10 I'm a retired principal, St. 11 James Parish school system. I'm 12 still working on a substitute basis 13 in the school system. I can't 14 understand why we get into issues 15 that have been here forever. 16 There are chemical plants all 17 over the place. There's trucks 18 passing the highways and the rivers 19 and the byways every day. And all 20 those things seem to work out pretty 21 good. 22 Do we have issues? Yes, we do. 23 Because I believe that we need all 24 the jobs and support we can get, 25 without having any issues to deal 25 1 with them, I support the Petroplex 2 complex. Thank you. 3 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 4 Gayle Zeringue. 5 MS. ZERINGUE: 6 My name is Gail Zeringue. My 7 home is at 1275 St. James Street, 8 just 100 or so feet from the 9 proposed Petroplex facility. 10 I'm a member of Community 11 Strength, and am opposed to the 12 Petroplex storage and blending 13 facility. I am a registered nurse 14 working in a very large hospital. 15 On a daily basis I care for 16 patients diagnosed with cancer, many 17 who reside in the River Parishes. 18 Where industry along with air and 19 water pollution are all too common. 20 Quality of life is something 21 that we all have some control over 22 if we stand together to protect our 23 environment. Our present water 24 system has been compromised 25 repeatedly. 26 1 Public notices have warned us 2 again and again. How can we even 3 consider allowing more pollution to 4 invade our communities, and put our 5 health and well-being at even 6 greater risks. 7 Life is precious and all too 8 short. Please, don't threaten it by 9 allowing Petroplex to locate here in 10 our community. 11 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 12 Lou Landry. 13 MR. LANDRY: 14 Good evening. I'm Louis Landry. 15 I'm a retired detective with the St. 16 James Parish Sheriff Department. 17 Throughout my career in St. 18 James and working among you people, 19 I consider are first class citizens. 20 And those with responsibility and 21 respect. 22 Of all the horrific things that 23 I had to do, and the tragedies that 24 I incurred in my career, none of it 25 entailed a release or an expression 27 1 from a chemical plant or a storage 2 facility. 3 I support Petroplex for the 4 purpose of the jobs that it will 5 bring into our community and the 6 added taxes that it would bring to 7 assure that we have a growth that 8 would be comparable to most places 9 up and down the Mississippi River, 10 throughout the State of Louisiana. 11 And for that reason, I support 12 Petroplex. 13 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 14 Kyle Prestenback. 15 MR. PRESTENBACK: 16 My name is Kyle Prestenback. I 17 live at 1234 St. James Street in 18 Vacherie. I'm representing myself, 19 and I live right on the east fence 20 line of the proposed tank farm. 21 And I'm strongly opposed to the 22 location of this project. I have 23 some comments on the water permit, 24 but I'm just going to submit them 25 and talk about some other things, 28 1 mainly the basis for decision that 2 was awarded for that air permit. 3 I took a minute to do some 4 research and found out that Front 5 Vacherie is composed of about 11 6 square miles of land. Just to give 7 you an idea of the impact this 8 project will have, from the 9 footprint of Front Vacherie, 1,000 10 acres of cleared farm land that they 11 are proposing to build on, is 1.56 12 square miles or about 14.5 percent 13 of the total land area that's 14 considered front Vacherie. 15 Now, the tank form, as proposed, 16 will not be the whole 1,000 acres of 17 cleared land. But we don't know 18 what the future holds for that piece 19 of property, once the property is 20 purchased. 21 Many of you might say, "so 22 what," but let me explain a little 23 bit further. Petroplex is already 24 offering certain property owners, 25 right next to the current 29 1 plantation, a buy out, so that 2 footprint would be even larger than 3 what is proposed now. 4 We've all seen this before up 5 and down the river. Industry moves 6 in, people move out, and industry 7 consumes more and more land, like a 8 chain reaction. They already have 9 it taking place, with deals on the 10 side, before a property is even 11 purchased. 12 Is this what St. James Parish 13 and the State of Louisiana wants? 14 To take start small rural towns and 15 trade that for tax dollars and jobs, 16 which very few people, if any, from 17 the immediate local communities will 18 get, because of a lack of trained 19 and skilled and educated workers. 20 We all know that each of the 21 five or six local investors has 22 family, friends or neighbors who 23 want and need jobs. When I say 24 "local," I'm referring to the area 25 between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. 30 1 Up to 50 or 60 or 100 permanent 2 jobs, or whatever number they're 3 advertising on that by Petroplex, 4 how many of these jobs will have 5 already have been promised to their 6 families and friends and neighbors. 7 They don't have to hire local, 8 they can hire anybody they want to. 9 St. James Parish and the State of 10 Louisiana has one chance to get this 11 right. 12 Once the tank farm is built, 13 there's no turning back. This will 14 set the future development of 15 Vacherie as a town. And this is not 16 a "build it and they will come" 17 project. 18 It's not a Walmart, not a state 19 park, not a theater, not a ballpark. 20 This is a facility that will store 21 over 400,000,000 gallons of 22 flammable and explosive materials. 23 And it will handle or move 24 10,000,000,000 gallons of this stuff 25 every year. This is a project that 31 1 will forever change what the town of 2 Front and Back Vacherie are, and 3 will be in the future. 4 This project is definitely not 5 an attraction to get people to come 6 here, or to move here. If anything, 7 people will leave and new people or 8 the children of people living here 9 now that can't leave for some reason 10 or another, would never come back. 11 You know, we don't live in a 12 third world country, where people 13 build cities around industry, 14 because there is nothing else. You 15 know, we live in America. And we 16 can drive to work, it doesn't have 17 to be in our backyard. 18 This is not going to be an 19 attraction. And I'm all for 20 Petroplex building this tank farm, 21 just not here. I don't blame the 22 investors for wanting to make money 23 on this business deal, because after 24 all, that's what it is to them, a 25 business deal. But not at our 32 1 expense and at the expense of 2 Vacherie. 3 I want to make some remarks now 4 on the basis for decision. In 5 response to comments issued, after 6 the air public hearing in March of 7 this year. Issue Number 10, 8 concerning the effect that the 9 proposed tank farm would have on 10 property values of nearby residents. 11 Part of the permit application 12 process is to fill out an 13 environmental assessment statement. 14 One of the questions asked is, "What 15 are the possible affects on property 16 values?" 17 Well, Petroplex responded that, 18 "Due to the project's minimal 19 affects on environment, and due to 20 the significant positive social and 21 economic impact from the proposed 22 facility, it is anticipated that the 23 facility may have a positive impact 24 on property values." 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 33 1 You have one minute. 2 MR. PRESTENBACK: 3 This sounds good on paper. So I 4 asked for Petroplex to support this 5 statement with data, to show how the 6 nearby communities property value 7 has the potential to increase, when 8 this thing is built in our back 9 yards. 10 Petroplex responded to the 11 question by saying that there is no 12 such requirement from DEQ to provide 13 such data. My opinion is that no 14 such data exists. 15 Even the St. James Parish 16 Assessor said that he did not see 17 how property values immediately 18 surrounding this tank farm might 19 potentially increase, with such a 20 facility built here. 21 You know, nobody's going to say 22 that their project is going to have 23 a negative impact on property 24 values. I mean, you have to support 25 it with data. 34 1 And all of us here know that our 2 property values would increase - 3 will decrease because of the health 4 and safety issues this type of 5 facility brings. 6 And Petroplex can't rebut this 7 statement, because they can't 8 provide data to support their own 9 statement. 10 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 11 Mr. Prestenback, are you about 12 through? Because your five minutes 13 is over. 14 MR. PRESTENBACK: 15 No. 16 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 17 You want to come back? 18 MR. PRESTENBACK: 19 Yeah, I'll come back at the end. 20 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 21 Okay. You going to mark where 22 you are? 23 MR. PRESTENBACK: 24 Okay. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 35 1 You need a pen? 2 MR. PRESTENBACK: 3 No, I got it. 4 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 5 Okay, you got it? Okay. Just 6 stick around and we'll call you 7 back. Hudson Bourgeois. 8 MR. BOURGEOIS: 9 My name is Hudson Bourgeois and 10 I live at 742 North Montz Street in 11 Gramercy, Louisiana. I also am here 12 to represent Crescent Homeplace, 13 LLC, which has a membership of 180 14 people, of which 175 of those 15 people, I'm representing here 16 tonight. 17 And I want everybody to know, we 18 100 percent approve of Petroplex, 19 and hope that they can get started 20 on their project as soon as 21 possible. Thank you. 22 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 23 Mabil Cazenave. 24 MS. CAZENAVE: 25 My name is Mabil Cazenave. My 36 1 address is 1199 St. James Street in 2 Vacherie. I live about 100 feet 3 from the proposed Petroplex 4 facility. 5 We do not need the stress from 6 this facility in our area. The 7 storage of toxic materials will be 8 too close to where we live. 9 I am strongly opposed to the 10 proposed Petroplex International 11 Storage and Blending facility. 12 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 13 Mae Waguespack. 14 MS. WAGUESPACK: 15 Good evening. My name is Mae 16 Waguespack. I live at 1136 St. 17 James Street in Vacherie. I'm with 18 Community Strength. 19 I am opposed to the proposed 20 Petroplex International Storage and 21 Blending facility. Your proposed 22 facility is right on our property 23 line, which is about 50 feet from my 24 kitchen window. 25 Regarding your Louisiana 37 1 pollutant discharge elimination 2 system permit, I am at a loss to 3 understand how you could possibly 4 allowed to obtain such permit, 5 especially after learning of the 6 principle discharge from your 7 facility will be made into the 8 Mississippi River, our primary 9 source of drinking water supply. 10 You state however, that some 11 change in the existing water quality 12 may occur. Every community from 13 Vacherie to New Orleans will be 14 affected by all of these poisons, 15 since every parish along the 16 Mississippi River draws their 17 drinking water from the river. 18 In quite a few responses to our 19 comments you state, there is no 20 zoning in St. James Parish, which 21 leads us to believe that you are not 22 at all concerned about our health. 23 It's all about money, and you could 24 care less about our health and well- 25 being. 38 1 I am not anti-industry, just 2 because I am anti-Petroplex. We 3 have a much better industry here in 4 St. James Parish. The sugarcane 5 industry, which gives us a green 6 community, and industry as well. 7 We don't need more pollution 8 added to our environment. I am a 9 breast cancer survivor, and there 10 are many people in our community and 11 surrounding areas who have had and 12 still have cancer. 13 For the above reasons, I am 14 strongly opposed to the proposed 15 Petroplex International facility 16 (handing). 17 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 18 Nolan Waguespack. Ma'am, did 19 you want to put this as an exhibit? 20 This here (indicating)? This 21 letter, did you want this as an 22 exhibit? 23 MS. WAGUESPACK: 24 Yes. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 39 1 Okay. Well, I'll mark Ms. 2 Waguespack's letter as PI3. And 3 we'll mark Mr. Waguespack's letter 4 as PI4. 5 MR. WAGUESPACK: 6 My name is - This thing is 7 working all right, I guess. You 8 hear me all right? My name is Nolan 9 Waguespack. I live at 1136 St. 10 James Street. 11 In reference to the Louisiana 12 Pollutant Discharge Elimination 13 System permit, I definitely do not 14 agree with the statement that the 15 discharge from this proposed 16 facility would not have any adverse 17 impact on discharging the waste into 18 the Mississippi River and Bayou 19 Lasseigne, and ultimately, into Lac 20 Des Allemands. 21 I certainly feel that all 22 communities from Vacherie to the 23 mouth of the Mississippi River would 24 be affected, as they draw water from 25 the river for their drinking water. 40 1 Hazards and pollutant wastes 2 from the blending process, draining 3 into the wetlands, and eventually 4 going to Lac Des Allemands will 5 indisputably destroy all vegetation 6 and fish. 7 For your information, the two 8 detrimental ingredients Petroplex 9 will be blending are Venezuela 10 asphaltic sour crude, which I'm very 11 familiar with, and gasoline, which 12 are both cancer causing agents. 13 This crude stinks like rotten 14 eggs, hydrogen sulfide, which is 15 very toxic and unbearable to live 16 nearby, as it pollutes the entire 17 area. 18 The blending process, mixed with 19 other chemical materials, the waste 20 does become even more carcinogenic. 21 In essence, this kind of facility is 22 the most dirtiest, toxic, volatile 23 and very detrimental to our health, 24 and should definitely not be 25 permitted near our residential 41 1 areas. 2 We have young families with 3 small children and many retirees. 4 Many of our citizens and children 5 have health problems, such as heart, 6 asthma, COPD, and cancer survivors. 7 The two retention ponds, one 8 would be very close to my house, 9 definitely would be a hazard to our 10 children, and bring stagnation, 11 mosquitoes and snakes nearby. 12 And would also have an 13 everlasting unpleasant odor to the 14 community. When you add the 15 disadvantage of the ponds, along 16 with the plant toxic chemicals and 17 the volatility of gasoline, this 18 community would now become unfit to 19 reside near. 20 The proposed Petroplex facility 21 is located directly on my property 22 line, which is approximately 50 feet 23 from the house. I must say that the 24 Petroplex is definitely not 25 concerned about the environment, nor 42 1 the health of the people in our 2 area. 3 In view of the above, I strongly 4 oppose to the Petroplex facility and 5 the subject discharge elimination 6 system permit application. 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Lorain Cazenave. 9 MS. CAZENAVE: 10 Good evening. My name is Lorain 11 Cazenave and I live at 1119 St. 12 James Street, Vacherie. I have 13 lived at my present address for the 14 past 40 years. 15 My husband and I have raised our 16 three children in our present home, 17 and have welcomed our seven 18 grandchildren into our home 19 frequently since the time of their 20 births. 21 Our home is located 22 approximately 60 yards from the 23 property line of the proposed 24 Petroplex Tank Storage facility. I 25 suffer from allergies and also from 43 1 chronic bronchial asthma, which has 2 at times in the past been life 3 threatening. 4 This condition requires that I 5 take medicine seven days a week, 52 6 weeks a year. My husband and I have 7 attempted to maintain a good 8 lifestyle, and our home environment 9 is included in that lifestyle. 10 I feel that our way of life is 11 threatened by having such a large 12 industrial complex next door. I 13 have a family history of lymphoma. 14 Four of my siblings developed 15 this serious form of cancer. Three 16 of the four are now deceased. 17 We have been told by treating 18 physicians that lymphoma is not 19 genetic, and therefore, the cause of 20 lymphoma, in the cluster within our 21 family, must be environmental 22 exposure to carcinogens. 23 When I was a young child oil 24 field sludge was pumped into canals 25 and bayous in the vicinity of our 44 1 home. We were told this sludge was 2 not harmful. 3 50 years later, the cancers 4 began to appear. Over the years, it 5 has been determined that carcinogens 6 were present in oil field sludge. 7 It was too late for our family. 8 I'm not reassured by Petroplex's 9 claims that the water released into 10 the Mississippi River or into Bayou 11 Lasseigne will contain no harmful 12 substances. 13 I place no credibility in any 14 statements made by them. During the 15 permit request process, they stated 16 that there were no schools or 17 childcare facilities near the 18 proposed site, when indeed there 19 were several. 20 They now claim that there are no 21 water intakes in the 50 miles down 22 river from their proposed site. 23 We do know that there are water 24 intakes on the east bank of St. 25 James Parish. On the east and west 45 1 banks of St. John Parish. On the 2 east and west banks of St. Charles 3 Parish. 4 And on the east and west banks 5 of Jefferson Parish, within 50 miles 6 downstream from the Petroplex 7 proposed site. On the water permit 8 application, no chemicals are listed 9 as being discharged into the two out 10 falls. 11 Are we to believe that the only 12 thing being discharged will be pure 13 H2O? I voice my strong opposition 14 to the approval of this water 15 discharge permit. Thank you. 16 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 17 R.J. Cazenave. 18 MR. CAZENAVE: 19 Good evening. My name is R.J. 20 Cazenave. My address is 1119 St. 21 James Street in Vacherie, Louisiana. 22 I am opposed to the proposed 23 Petroplex Storage and Blending 24 facility. 25 I live about 50 yards from the 46 1 eastern boundary of the proposed 2 complex. I have been living at my 3 present address for the past 40 4 years. 5 My main concern is that this 6 proposed facility is too close to 7 residential areas in our community. 8 We have a quiet, clean, serene 9 community here in North Vacherie, 10 along the river that runs roughly 11 from the junction of Highway 20 and 12 18 West, to the Veteran's Memorial 13 Bridge. 14 This distance is about 4 to 5 15 miles. This proposed facility will 16 cut this small residential community 17 right in half. 18 I was under the impression 19 during earlier discussions, that all 20 waters from this proposed site, 21 outfall one and two, would be 22 discharged into the Mississippi 23 River. 24 We now know that the outfall 002 25 will be discharged into Bayou 47 1 Lasseigne and end up in Lac Des 2 Allemands. This concerns me. 3 Local people have fished and 4 hunted in this area all of their 5 lives. How will this discharge 6 affect the fish, crabs and animals 7 that live in this habitat, around 8 the bayous and the lake? 9 It does not take a large amount 10 of contaminated or toxic water, 11 parts per million, to get into these 12 waters and cause injury to death or 13 death to wildlife. 14 As I have stated before, I still 15 question whether Petroplex has any 16 intention, in the near future, of 17 barging in waste water from other 18 nearby facilities, such as oil 19 refineries, to this site, for the 20 purpose of treating the waste water 21 from these other sites. 22 I am not opposed to Petroplex 23 building a complex such as this in 24 St. James Parish. But why build 25 this small - why build in this 48 1 small populated community, such as 2 ours? 3 Why not build on the western end 4 of the parish, where similar 5 industry sites are now located, away 6 from large population areas? 7 I share all the concerns of 8 others who are opposed to this 9 facility being built on this site. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 12 Ethel Recatto. 13 MS. RECATTO: 14 Good evening. My name is Ethel 15 Recatto, and I live at 1190 St. 16 James Street in Vacherie. 17 I live next to the proposed 18 facility and I am strongly opposed 19 to the Petroplex International 20 Storage and Blending facility, and 21 the Louisiana Pollutant Discharge 22 Elimination System permit. 23 This LPDES permit, prepared for 24 Petroplex International, exhibits a 25 lack of appropriate and adequate 49 1 treatment of waste water streams to 2 address the full array of 3 contaminants present. 4 The chemical plants along the 5 river road are already emitting 6 chemicals into the air, land and 7 water. How is Petroplex 8 International outfall not directly 9 increasing this already existing 10 problem? Thank you. 11 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 12 Russell Recatto. 13 MR. RECATTO: 14 My name is Russell Recatto and I 15 live at 1190 St. James Street in 16 Vacherie for 46 years. The proposed 17 Petroplex International site will be 18 in my backyard, too close to 19 residential areas, to store toxic 20 materials. 21 This Louisiana Pollutant 22 Discharge Elimination System permit, 23 will result in an overall change in 24 land use, from residential to heavy 25 industrial. 50 1 Our area does not need the toxic 2 air, land and water pollution from 3 this facility. I am strongly 4 opposed to the LPDES permit 5 application. 6 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 7 Lionel Bailey. 8 MR. BAILEY: 9 I'd like to speak at the end. 10 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 11 You want to speak at the end? 12 Okay, I'll put you after Mr. 13 Prestenback. Let's see, Kenneth 14 Prestenback. 15 MR. PRESTENBACK: 16 I would like to submit this. 17 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 18 All right. This is - We'll 19 mark this as PI5. 20 MR. PRESTENBACK: 21 My name is Kenneth Prestenback. 22 I reside at 1234 St. James Street, 23 Vacherie, Louisiana. About 3 foot 24 ditch from the Petroplex facility. 25 I didn't want to talk, but I got 51 1 to say something. I'm going to 2 paint a picture to you-all, and it's 3 concerning our environment, as of 4 this month, October. 5 The fog, getting cold weather, 6 the river, and the transportation of 7 ships up and down the river. 8 Petroplex say this is a ideal area 9 to put a tank farm, because of the 10 river. 11 A deep channel that they got in 12 the space where they going to put 13 this site. This is the river 14 channel, the deepest part on the 15 curve, right in the facility. And 16 across from it, on the east side, is 17 a resting area for ships. 18 Four to five to eight ships, I 19 counted crossing the bridge, just 20 sitting there waiting to be 21 transported up to Baton Rouge. 22 Now, look at it at night. Fog, 23 a ship coming up and down the river, 24 and a wharf with a tank full of oil 25 waiting to be discharged the next 52 1 morning, into the tanks. What could 2 happen? 3 A pilot is going strictly by 4 radar. And it could happen exactly 5 what happened in New Orleans. And 6 Lutcher, Gramercy, Kaiser, Colonial, 7 all those intakes they got coming up 8 the river right there, will be shut 9 down. 10 Edgard, 12 miles away, like 11 somebody else stated earlier, all of 12 the intakes going to be - and they 13 will be shutting down the all the 14 intakes in St. John, St. James and 15 Jefferson and St. Charles Parish. 16 And this is - could be 17 something very devastating to our 18 parish. And I mean, I can't sleep 19 at night to see something like that 20 coming around. Because I lived on 21 the river all my life. 22 And this is one thing that can 23 happen, big time. I thank you-all. 24 That's just why I oppose to the site 25 of Petroplex. 53 1 Not Petroplex locating anywhere 2 else, but this area here is bad. 3 This area here is bad. Thank you. 4 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 5 Eva Knight. 6 MS. KNIGHT: 7 Hello. My name is Eva Knight, 8 and I live at 1160 Waguespack Street 9 in Vacherie. I strongly oppose the 10 Petroplex International Tank Farm. 11 I did some homework to see just 12 about how many people have been 13 afflicted with cancer in my area. I 14 began with the end of St. John 15 Parish, the parish line, which is 16 Pratt Lane, and I drove exactly one 17 mile and ended in front of St. James 18 Street, better known as Dr. 19 Waguespack's Lane. 20 The number adds to 39 people. 21 The names of the people afflicted 22 are listed at the end of this sheet. 23 But there may even be more. 24 Now, the cancer's vary from 25 stomach, prostate, breast, thyroid, 54 1 colon, kidney, pancreatic, ovarian, 2 lung, liver, bladder, skin, salivary 3 gland, brain and leukemia. 4 Some of these people have 5 survived, some are still fighting. 6 Unfortunately, some have died. Why 7 are there so many people in such a 8 small stretch of this community 9 afflicted with cancer? 10 And what are these statistics 11 telling us? Is it the chemical 12 plants that are contributing to 13 this? Well, I believe the answers 14 are more than obvious. 15 The plants along our mighty 16 Mississippi River are definitely 17 contributing to this disease. Now, 18 what will happen if Petroplex builds 19 the tank farm on our beloved 20 community? 21 Our drinking water, bathing 22 water, and cooking water, will be 23 even more polluted. And how much 24 more polluted? We still have no 25 answers. 55 1 Some sitting here are victims of 2 cancer. How many more people 3 sitting in this audience will become 4 a victim of cancer? 5 What if you were to walk in the 6 shoes Petroplex? Would you want a 7 tank farm built in your backyard, 8 with stinky smells and pollutants? 9 Would you want your children and 10 grandchildren to live in an area 11 where they can become a cancer a 12 patient? Please, have some 13 consideration for us. 14 I am telling you, as a member of 15 Community Strength, not to build the 16 Petroplex plant in our community. 17 Will you please listen to us? 18 For these reasons, I strongly 19 oppose the Petroplex International 20 Tank Farm (handing). 21 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 22 Enter that as an exhibit? 23 MS. KNIGHT: 24 Yes, sir. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 56 1 This will be marked as PI6. 2 Okay. Van Zeringue. 3 MR. ZERINGUE: 4 Okay. My name is Van Zeringue. 5 I live at 1245 St. James Street, 6 Vacherie, Louisiana. I'm a lifelong 7 resident of Vacherie. 8 My wife and I chose to build our 9 home here some 30 years ago, on St. 10 James Street, and our home site is 11 not quite 200 feet from the eastern 12 boundary of the proposed facility. 13 We chose this location because 14 of the idyllic way of life in 15 Vacherie, and mainly in the river 16 road area. River road community. 17 We raised our three children 18 here, and they have chosen to do the 19 same with their young families. 20 There are several reasons, pertinent 21 reasons, why I'm opposed to the 22 Petroplex International facility. 23 I believe the facility will 24 increase the toxic levels of 25 chemicals, already in our air and 57 1 water. The proposed facility would 2 be too close to residential areas on 3 both western and eastern boundaries 4 of the site. 5 I believe the facility will 6 change the quality of life in these 7 communities for future generations. 8 We do not need the added stress 9 this facility will bring to our 10 area, in the form of pollutants, 11 traffic, and serious safety concerns 12 adherent to any industry. 13 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 14 Excuse me, sir. Whose phone is 15 on? Please, turn it off. And if I 16 have to - Well, I couldn't tell 17 whose it is, but, please turn it 18 off. Thank you. Go ahead, I'm 19 sorry, sir. 20 MR. ZERINGUE: 21 No problem. We do not need the 22 added stress this facility will 23 bring to our area in the form of 24 pollutants, traffic, and serious 25 safety concerns. 58 1 The storage of toxic materials 2 is too close to residential areas, 3 is a grave concern to me. I believe 4 the facility will have a negative 5 environmental and human health 6 impact on the citizens of our area. 7 Further, I feel the increased 8 traffic on our winding river road, 9 as well as the increased river 10 traffic, will greatly stress our 11 area and cause serious safety 12 issues. 13 For these reasons stated, I am 14 strongly opposed to the Petroplex 15 International facility and this 16 LPDES permit application. Thank you 17 (handing). 18 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 19 Eva White. You want that as a 20 exhibit, so we'll mark this as P7 21 and 8. 22 MS. WHITE: 23 My name is Eva White and I 24 reside at 2281 Ballpark Drive. 25 That's in Vacherie. And I'm sitting 59 1 here tonight and I'm listening. 2 And I heard so many of you got 3 up and you told us where you worked, 4 and how many years you worked there. 5 And I kind of wondered was I 6 supposed to be impressed or, you 7 know, what was the deal there, you 8 know? 9 But what you failed to do was 10 offer me any facts, on why you 11 supported the Petroplex plan coming 12 here. Plant coming here. You gave 13 me no facts. 14 You kept telling me that, okay, 15 it's going to offer jobs to my 16 community. I was wondering what was 17 your source of information there? 18 What jobs are you talking about? 19 How many jobs are you talking 20 about? To whom will they be 21 offered? Okay? On the other hand, 22 this gentleman read, when he opened 23 the meeting, and he told us about 24 the outfall. How they plan to 25 discharge this water. 60 1 Facts. Not fabrications. 2 Fabrications we're tired of. We're 3 tired of you feeding the 4 neighborhood the fabrications about 5 how many jobs they are going to 6 offer my people. 7 I really would like to know what 8 jobs you're talking about. Now, 9 when you can give me maybe that 10 information, and supply that 11 information to the public, then 12 maybe we will reconsider our 13 thoughts on Petroplex. 14 Petroplex offers us nothing but 15 destruction. You tell us it's going 16 to be zero degree outfall into the 17 waters. Impossible. Fabrications. 18 And in the same sentence, you tell 19 us, "but the water may be affected. 20 There may be some change." 21 Which is it? And I strongly, 22 and will continue to strongly forbid 23 Petroplex from coming into our 24 community. Thank you. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 61 1 Allen Hymel. 2 MR. HYMEL: 3 My name is Allen Hymel. I live 4 at 1189 St. James Street. I live 5 180 feet from the proposed Petroplex 6 Storage and Blending facility. I 7 have lived in the Vacherie community 8 for over 70 years. 9 I am opposed to Petroplex 10 International. When Larry started 11 today, he said he was a former 12 coach, and he wanted to play by the 13 rules. 14 Forgot to tell you one thing. 15 Rules are made to be broken, and 16 there's a penalty. I've also 17 coached for 30 years. On like a 15- 18 yard penalty, the plant's pay a 19 small fine, and they break the rules 20 over and over again. 21 Everyone wondered why Petroplex 22 would purchase 1,700 acres for a 23 proposed tank farm, like the plains 24 marketing in St. James. Well, come 25 to find out, it's not a tank farm 62 1 storage. 2 It's a large industrial park 3 site, where they can bring in 4 anything they wish after the 5 property is purchased. And they 6 have obtained their air and water 7 permit. 8 Phase I is supposed to be a 68- 9 tank sour crude oil facility, 10 located on 200 acres on the west 11 side of the property, in front of 12 the railroad track. 13 On the other side, the other 200 14 acres on the east side, is supposed 15 to be a buffer zone. For how long? 16 We don't know. You-all guess is as 17 good as mine. 18 Phase II, which is a waste water 19 and other treated contaminated 20 liquid plant proposed. They don't 21 say in front of the track, back of 22 the track, it's your guess. 23 They will discharge waste water. 24 Where? In the Mississippi River. 25 That's our drinking water. And then 63 1 the rest will go in the canals, the 2 ditches, the swamp and eventually in 3 Lac Des Allemands. 4 Now, we know about the 1,700 5 acres purchased. 600 acres are 6 wetlands, swamp. Everyone knows 7 they couldn't use the 600 acres to 8 put tanks. 9 They needed the 600 acres to 10 dump their waste water. In the past 11 months, you have seen nothing but 12 rain in Vacherie. 13 Our canals and ditches are 14 backed up. We have a south wind, 15 water stays. The water, once you 16 dump waste water into ditches, and 17 you have a south wind, the water's 18 not going in the back. 19 It's not going in the canals, 20 it's not going to Lac Des Allemands. 21 It's coming to the front. It will 22 be in the ditches in our backyard. 23 It will flow out when we have a 24 north wind. 25 One thing for sure, water does 64 1 seek its level. Then the opposite 2 is true. In a dry season, when we 3 have north wind, the water will go 4 to Lac Des Allemands. 5 It probably would get there in 6 less than a day. Petroplex will 7 tell you that it's treated water and 8 safe. But we all know about other 9 waste water treatment facilities, at 10 the old factory in Vacherie over 11 here. 12 They dumped it in the ditch, 13 untreated. What they got? Small 14 fine. You will hear people who are 15 in favor of Petroplex facilities, 16 because they want jobs. 17 Well, if you pay close attention 18 to those in favor, they're either 19 one, have talked to investors. 20 Two, your family members are 21 relatives of the people trying to 22 sell the property, which I don't 23 blame, for that price. 24 They're either parish or state 25 politicians, who don't live in this 65 1 community. Or they are contractors, 2 who are promised jobs to build and 3 maintain the plant. All of these 4 jobs are promised already. 5 Other individuals, who were 6 given free meals and a T-shirt, and 7 they were promised jobs. They can't 8 be hired. They can't pass a drug 9 test. 10 And the other people, who were 11 given scholarship for their school 12 or churches. You have not heard 13 from one person, or one member of 14 this community, who lives here, that 15 is in favor of Petroplex. 16 Look ahead, and see what's in 17 Phase III and IV. It will be too 18 late. It will encompass from the 19 bridge in Wallace, to the Vacherie 20 Road. That's property for sale on 21 either side of Magnolia Heights. 22 The property's for sale. 23 You will see things there. Just 24 look in St. James. It started on 25 St. Cecilia. It's all the way to 66 1 St. James High School now. All you 2 have is tanks. 3 Thank God there's just some 4 storage tanks for some of it. I 5 strongly oppose Petroplex destroying 6 our community and our way of life. 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Bryan Chauvin. 9 MR. CHAUVIN: 10 Good evening. My name is Bryan 11 Chauvin. I live at 1187 Simon 12 Street in Vacherie, Louisiana. 13 Which is approximately 1,200 feet 14 from the proposed Petroplex site. 15 I am opposed to the proposed 16 Petroplex International Storage and 17 Blending facility. It is stated 18 that during the preparation of the 19 Petroplex water permit, it has been 20 determined that the discharge would 21 have no adverse impact on the 22 existing use of the receiving water 23 bodies. 24 As with any discharge, however, 25 some changes in the existing water 67 1 quality may occur. Petroplex will 2 have outfall to the Bayou Lac Des 3 Allemands. 4 The lake is not the same as it 5 used to be because of the silting of 6 the canals. This is hurting our 7 fish and crab population. 8 Any amount of pollution will add 9 to the suffering of our fish and 10 crab population. Our lake does not 11 have moving water as the Mississippi 12 River. Over time, the toxic will 13 accumulate to a higher level. 14 Then once Petroplex is up and 15 running it would be too late, the 16 damage will have been done. The 17 permit for the air and water has a 18 certain amount of toxins allowed per 19 year during the normal operations. 20 What if a spill occurs? Since 21 this is not accounted for in the 22 amount, this will hurt our fish and 23 wetlands. I also hunt in the area 24 southeast of the proposed site. 25 I am afraid that this will 68 1 affect the wildlife as well. We 2 should not allow this facility to 3 come into the area and take a chance 4 of hurting our lake, wildlife, and 5 wetlands. 6 The discharge to the river will 7 add to the toxins, and will affect 8 the drinking water of all the people 9 who live downstream. The people 10 downstream are not aware of what 11 Petroplex wants to do. 12 For these reasons, I strongly 13 oppose to the Petroplex 14 International facility. Thank you 15 (handing). 16 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 17 You want that as an exhibit? 18 You want to sign it? Michael 19 Calabro. We'll mark that as PI9. 20 MR. ZERINGUE: 21 Good evening. My name is Matt 22 Zeringue. I'm speaking on behalf of 23 Mike Calabro. Just recently, his 24 father, also Mike Calabro, suffered 25 a major stroke at the hands of 69 1 diabetes and high blood pressure. 2 So although, he's unable to be here 3 with us this evening, because of his 4 family emergency, he thought it 5 imperative to express his unyielding 6 opposition to this reckless 7 proposal. 8 Since tonight you will many 9 issues with regard to the Louisiana 10 Pollutant Discharge Elimination 11 System permit prepared for Petroplex 12 International, along with 13 substantial public sentiment about 14 the overall impression this venture 15 will leave upon our residential 16 community. 17 Over the course of this invalid 18 dialog, we, the individuals that 19 will adversely be affected or 20 impacted by this project, have 21 attempted to present the realistic 22 perspective involved with Petroplex 23 International. 24 Through substantial research and 25 detailed production of fact, the 70 1 Louisiana Department of 2 Environmental Quality has been 3 endlessly briefed on the harsh 4 affect Petroplex International would 5 pose to our community's health, 6 environment and safety. 7 Having already submitted some 33 8 LPDES points of interest, prior to 9 this public event, I ask once again, 10 that you take heed of our sentiments 11 and thoroughly investigate all 12 aspects of commentary submitted. 13 To ignore any part of those 14 details, or to disregard the 15 outpouring of opposition to this 16 unnecessary proposal cannot be 17 tolerated. The flaws that exist 18 within the water discharge permit 19 application are ever present. 20 And I ask that you deny the 21 request, through not only methods of 22 legal justification, but by truly 23 considering those lives that will be 24 forever changed by your ultimate 25 decision. 71 1 Michael Calabro speaking out in 2 opposition, representing Community 3 Strength. His address is 1182 St. 4 James Street, Vacherie, Louisiana. 5 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 6 Are you Matthew Zeringue? 7 MR. ZERINGUE: 8 I am. 9 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 10 You going to speak for yourself? 11 MR. ZERINGUE: 12 Yes, sir. 13 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 14 Well, come on. You're here. 15 MR. ZERINGUE: 16 Let me grab my paper, please. 17 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 18 Does anybody else - That's a 19 misrepresentation, when you put down 20 somebody else's name. If you're 21 going to speak for someone else, you 22 need to let me know. 23 Has anybody else done like Mr. 24 Zeringue? Nobody else? Well, then, 25 whoever that is not here, that 72 1 you're going to speak for, I'm - 2 you can speak for them, but you - I 3 will put that person last. 4 So when we get to you, you just 5 tell me. Okay, now you go ahead. 6 MR. ZERINGUE: 7 All right. My name is Matthew 8 Zeringue. I live at 1156 St. James 9 Street in Vacherie. I'm strongly 10 opposed to this proposal. 11 My property is adjacent to the 12 proposed site of Petroplex 13 International. And for the reasons 14 mentioned below and many others, I 15 am vehemently opposed to this 16 project. 17 The notion that a tank farm 18 would not destroy this peaceful 19 town, or seriously alter our peace 20 of mind, is beyond unrealistic. How 21 could you add this much industrial 22 growth, and not completely alter the 23 foundation of what we know Vacherie 24 to be? 25 Although the proposed site is 73 1 along the river, let us not be so 2 naive to think that South Vacherie 3 will not be affected a great deal, 4 or even the towns of Lutcher and 5 Gramercy. 6 Just as we smell Gramercy 7 Alumina, when the breeze is right, 8 you will smell the sour crude with 9 either a north or south wind. 10 Let us also be assured that the 11 land nearest the river is at a 12 higher elevation, with a slope 13 towards the swamps and Lac Des 14 Allemands. 15 I understand, through research, 16 that exists a 9 foot decline from 17 the river to Highway 3127. Keeping 18 this in mind, we must also realize 19 that the runoff from this facility 20 has but one direction to go. 21 A fact that should concern all 22 of us who care about the 23 preservation of our beautiful lakes 24 and swamps. 25 I have heard Petroplex state, 74 1 with my own ears, that they will not 2 be sending waste water to the lake 3 or the swamp, but instead have 4 chosen to put it in the river, which 5 of course, is our drinking supply. 6 Mentioned in a public notice 7 dated July 16, 2009, for the water 8 permit, the discharge from Outfall 9 002, is made into Bayou Lasseigne, 10 thence into Bayou Lac Des Allemands. 11 The advocate proposes to 12 discharge tank draw waste water, 13 water runoff from equipment pads, 14 maintenance wash water, ship, barge, 15 bilge, ballast, and slop water, 16 compressor condensate, scene 17 condensate, hydrostatic test waste 18 water. 19 Which I was not familiar with, 20 so I did a little research. 21 Hydrostatic test wash water is used 22 to test pipelines for leaks. 23 It is also used to clean 24 pipelines in a piping facility. 25 Once this facility is operational, 75 1 period testing will be done on the 2 pipeline network. 3 Whatever products may have been 4 previously filled with these lines, 5 will be present in varying amounts, 6 and will be flushed with the 7 hydrostatic test water, and will 8 leave the facility through Outfall 9 002. 10 Which dumps directly into Bayou 11 Lasseigne and Lac Des Allemands. 12 This very example of dishonesty, 13 with my community - that my 14 community is forced to deal/live 15 with, if this proposed facility 16 locates here. 17 Where in the definition of "good 18 neighbor" do you find dishonesty? 19 This project boasts of economic 20 development. Which has been proven 21 negative, compared to the adverse 22 affect it will have on the sugarcane 23 industry in our state. 24 But there is also a fishing 25 industry to be concerned. There are 76 1 many people in St. James, St. John, 2 St. Charles and surrounding 3 parishes, that depend upon Lac Des 4 Allemands, and it's surrounding 5 swamps for revenue. 6 How could we overlook those 7 people? If 500 fish in 1,000,000 8 are affected, we say that's a .05 9 percent impact on the fish 10 population, which statistically is 11 nothing. 12 But would you personally take 13 500 fish from a family? A family 14 who is dependant upon that for their 15 income? It's no longer a statistic 16 if it is a person or people who will 17 be affected. 18 When in the name of industry or 19 the almighty dollar we say it's okay 20 to dump pollutants and destroy our 21 lake and swamp lands. By granting 22 this permit, LDEQ is stating just 23 that. 24 The message being sent is that, 25 is this agency dedicated to 77 1 preserving our health and 2 environment, will ignore more less 3 fortunate families hardship, for the 4 benefit and financial gains of a 5 well established business. 6 This cannot be how this agency 7 truly feels. This project is not 8 only going to attack and destroy the 9 wildlife and wetlands, but they have 10 also set their sites upon our 11 drinking water supply. I fail to 12 see the benefit in this. 13 I also do not support the 14 argument that every other plant on 15 the river dumps into it, and 16 therefore we should do the same. 17 Does that make it okay, or any less 18 hazardous to our health? 19 Truth be told, it is only 20 worsening a problem we currently 21 face, with the pollution in the 22 Mississippi River. 23 St. James Parish community 24 received a notification letter from 25 the parish, in the months of October 78 1 and November of 2008, regarding our 2 drinking water, which is infected 3 with contaminants. The parish wants 4 to tell us that there exists no 5 reason for concern. 6 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 7 Your time is up, can you wrap it 8 up? 9 MR. ZERINGUE: 10 I'll reserve the right to come 11 back at the end, please. 12 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 13 Okay. Well, then we'll put you 14 at the end. 15 MR. ZERINGUE: 16 Thank you. 17 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 18 Jane Ockmond. 19 MS. OCKMOND: 20 My name is Jane Ockmond. I live 21 at 1663 Highway 18 in Vacherie, 22 which is approximately 600 feet west 23 from the proposed Petroplex site. 24 I am opposed to the Petroplex 25 International Storage and Blending 79 1 facility. If this facility is 2 allowed to come into our area, it 3 will drastically change the quality 4 of life as I know it today. 5 This facility will bring noise, 6 traffic, odors and hazardous 7 chemicals. We will no longer have a 8 nice, quite, country community, 9 which is the main reason I chose to 10 live there. 11 I will always be afraid of the 12 possibility of an explosion, and 13 have to deal with the poor quality 14 of air that will be a result of this 15 facility. 16 Because of these reasons, I am 17 strongly opposed of the Petroplex 18 International facility. 19 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 20 Donna Glass. Are you going to 21 speak for your sister as well, you 22 said? 23 MS. GLASS: 24 Yes. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 80 1 Are you going to give two 2 different speeches or - 3 MS. GLASS: 4 Yeah, is that okay, or how do 5 you want it? 6 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 7 Well, you didn't sign up a 8 separate one for her, so I'll let 9 you say the whole thing. 10 MS. GLASS: 11 No, I did not do that. 12 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 13 Okay, that's fine. Go ahead. 14 It's just the other one had had 15 somebody else's name signed up and 16 they're not here. So. 17 MS. GLASS: 18 Okay. Hello, my name is Donna 19 Glass. I live at 1154 Simon Street 20 in Vacherie, Louisiana. I am 21 opposed to the Metroplex 22 International Storage and Blending 23 facility . 24 The Metroplex facility is in the 25 middle of two residential areas, sic 1 with my house being about 1,480 feet 2 from the site. The health impact 3 that will generated by Metroplex, 4 with the air and land and water 5 pollution, and toxins, will change 6 the quality of my life and that of 7 the citizens of St. James Parish for 8 generations. 9 The land and water pollutions 10 will change the quality of 11 recreation in Vacherie. We all live 12 and have the ability to fish and 13 hunt so close to home. 14 Metroplex will change this and 15 make it vanish from our parish. 16 Vacherie is a quiet community town, 17 country town, with country values. 18 Metroplex will change the landscape, 19 health and economic value in this 20 quiet town, to a toxic dump. 21 Metroplex is promising the 22 citizens of Vacherie, a state-of- 23 the-art facility. I do not feel 24 like the integrity of Metroplex 25 should be trusted. 82 1 Metroplex has not been 2 forthcoming with answers to 3 questions asked by the citizens of 4 St. James Parish and Vacherie. 5 They have eluded to not fill for 6 the correct permits by saying they 7 are not sure if they will exceed the 8 exposures limits that DEQ has set. 9 DEQ was not forthcoming with the 10 electronic data for the Community 11 Strength to have the time to respond 12 to questions. 13 I hope that the DEQ will take 14 the citizens of St. James Parish 15 seriously in this matter, so that 16 the State of Louisiana will stay the 17 sportsman of paradise. 18 For the reasons stated above, I 19 am strongly opposed to the Metroplex 20 International facility in St. James 21 Parish. I am also speaking for my 22 sister, who is a cancer survivor. 23 Her name is Joanne Vicknair, and 24 her husband is Phillip Vicknair, Sr. 25 They live at 301 East 7th Street in 83 1 Reserve, Louisiana. Joanne Vicknair 2 is totally against Metroplex 3 International Tank Farm from being 4 placed in Vacherie, Louisiana. 5 The placement of this tank farm 6 in Vacherie, or anywhere in the 7 State of Louisiana, poses certain 8 health and economic, environmental 9 disaster. 10 The waste and chemicals that 11 will be dumped into the Lac Des 12 Allemands and into the Mississippi 13 are more than frightening. They are 14 even more than hazardous. 15 There is no way anyone can 16 predict today the effects they will 17 have on the human and animal health. 18 We can only be determined, after 19 years of dumping, and then it is too 20 late. 21 I want Louisiana to remain a 22 sportsman's paradise, where our 23 families are safe from any toxic 24 chemicals, for our children and 25 grandchildren and their children. 84 1 Thank you (handing). 2 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 3 Bruce Harris. We'll make Donna 4 Glass' Exhibit PI10. Joanne 5 Vicknair, PI11. And she will be 6 PI11. I'm sorry, PI12. That's 7 right, 10, 11 and 12. Go ahead. 8 MR. HARRIS: 9 Yeah. Good afternoon. 10 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 11 You need to give your name and 12 address for the Record, please, sir. 13 MR. HARRIS: 14 Bruce Harris, 2452 Church 15 Street, Vacherie, Louisiana. All I 16 got is one comment. I was watching 17 this movie the other day, and I got 18 a question to ask anybody. 19 What is all of us? It's like, I 20 was watching this movie, "What in it 21 for all of us," and you know, I'm 22 trying to support this here. 23 I was watching this movie. Can 24 anybody answer the question, "What 25 in it for all of us?" 85 1 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 2 Sir, this isn't a question and 3 answer format. Like I said - 4 MR. HARRIS: 5 Well, I'm going to get to my 6 point. We all - 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Hang on a second. If you want 9 to make a comment - 10 MR. HARRIS: 11 All right. We all, we all, we 12 all human first. We all human 13 first. It's not no race or nothing. 14 We all human first. 15 It's not no racist conversation, 16 we all human first. Because just 17 like anybody else in the audience, I 18 struggle, you struggle, or whatever. 19 We all human first, you know? 20 So if it don't come, or 21 whatever. But I was watching this 22 movie, "We all human first." So 23 it's not no racial thing and all 24 that. You know, so. You know, so. 25 You know, what I'm trying to 86 1 tell you? You know, everybody got 2 to eat. Everybody got a family to 3 take care of and all that, you know? 4 You know, so. 5 We all that, we all human first, 6 before color and all that. And I'm 7 not racial or whatever. Because I 8 used to work for Randy Becnel and 9 all that. You know what I'm saying? 10 So that's my - that there's my 11 comment. We all human first. 12 Everybody in this building, we human 13 first. That's my all comment I 14 made. We human first. You know? 15 So if it go better for not just 16 me, somebody else or one of your 17 kids, or whatever, it go better for 18 everybody. 19 It's going better for everybody, 20 you know what I'm saying? So that's 21 my comment. All right. 22 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 23 I think since we're at a little 24 breaking point here, we're going to 25 go to the folks who do not live 87 1 within the two-mile area, or work 2 within the two-mile area. What 3 we'll do is take a little, about a 4 10 minute bathroom break. 5 (OFF THE RECORD.) 6 MR. AMATO: 7 Good evening, everybody. My 8 name is Jason Amato. I live at 1168 9 Marquette Drive in Lutcher, 10 Louisiana. I am the St. James 11 Parish Councilman for District 2, 12 which is the Lutcher area. 13 First of all, I do appreciate 14 the LDEQ coming back here tonight 15 for St. James Parish, to hold a 16 second public hearing for Petroplex. 17 I think the two years that I've 18 been on the Parish Council, my 19 position has been consistent. If 20 you want to do business in St. James 21 Parish, you have to follow the 22 rules. 23 And we also ask that the impact 24 of your business, whatever it is, 25 does not negatively impact the 88 1 quality of life for our residents. 2 With that in mind, I do ask our 3 good friends at the LDEQ for follow- 4 up on three questions for me. One, 5 I would ask that you review and 6 approve Petroplex SPCC plan. 7 Of course, SPCC stands for spill 8 prevention control and 9 countermeasure. The purpose of this 10 plan should prevent the discharge of 11 all or other regulated substances 12 into or upon the navigable waters of 13 the United States. This plan shall 14 be made available to the EPA or DEQ 15 for review. 16 Second, I ask for a thorough 17 review of Petroplex's waste water 18 source control procedure, to ensure 19 compliance with the requested waste 20 water discharge permits. 21 And third, finally, I ask for a 22 thorough review and approval of 23 Petroplex's lower Mississippi River 24 water works warning network plan. 25 This plan establishes a response 89 1 mechanism that can constitute 2 emergencies reportable to the 3 Department of Health and Hospitals 4 and to the next downstream water 5 works that use Mississippi River 6 water as it's supply, which for us 7 is the towns of Lutcher and 8 Gramercy. 9 Again, I thank you for your work 10 and I do submit this (handing). 11 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 12 We'll have this marked as PI16. 13 Janet Johnson. 14 MS. JOHNSON: 15 Good afternoon. My name is 16 Janet G. Johnson. I live at 1294 17 Old Vacherie Road in Vacherie. And 18 I do support Petroplex 100 percent. 19 Thank you Petroplex for coming 20 to Vacherie, Louisiana. Even 21 considering us. Because we need 22 you. You are welcome, welcome, 23 welcome. 24 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 25 Brenda Prestenback. 90 1 MS. PRESTENBACK: 2 Good evening. My name is Brenda 3 Prestenback. I reside at 1234 St. 4 James Street, Vacherie. 5 I would like to say that I am a 6 Community Strength member and I am 7 strongly opposed to Petroplex 8 locating at the proposed site. 9 I would like to submit this 10 letter as an exhibit for the Record. 11 Thank you (handing). 12 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 13 Let's see, that will be PI17. 14 Let's see. I'm sorry, I'm at Robert 15 - that looks like -- but I'm sure 16 I'm mispronouncing that. 17 MR. FAUCHEUX: 18 Faucheux? 19 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 20 I'll tell you what we'll do. 21 You live on Millet Avenue in 22 Gramercy? 23 MR. FAUCHEUX: 24 Yes. Faucheux. 25 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 91 1 Faucheux. Oh, okay. It looked 2 like an "I" instead of an "F", 3 sorry. 4 MR. FAUCHEUX: 5 I know I had a bad handwriting, 6 but I thought I did - 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 I know, you know these lawyers 9 and I'm one too so. 10 MR. FAUCHEUX: 11 Good evening. My name is Bobby 12 Faucheux and I live at 748 North 13 Millet in Gramercy, Louisiana. I 14 support Petroplex. 15 We feel that the application 16 submitted by Petroplex International 17 is well within the limits of the 18 discharge permits that are 19 acceptable to DEQ, that have been 20 allowed by other facilities in the 21 area, and that this will be a 22 benefit to the community and a 23 benefit to the State of Louisiana 24 and for all of the people that live 25 here. Thank you. 92 1 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 2 Sorry about that, Mr. Faucheux. 3 Jeffery Dufrene. 4 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 5 I'm not reading nothing. He had 6 to leave. He had to take care of 7 his mother and asked that be 8 submitted (handing). 9 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 10 We'll mark this as PI18. Israel 11 Evans. 12 MR. EVANS: 13 Good evening. My name is Israel 14 Evans, III. I live at 3455 Baytree 15 Street, Vacherie, Louisiana. I have 16 25 plus years chemical operation 17 experience. 18 And I work in these plants up 19 and down this river. And what 20 Petroplex is proposing to do, I am 21 in full support. I am an operator, 22 and anything that's done is done 23 within the records. 24 And I am very support to 25 Petroplex. And I have about 15 93 1 letters of support, if I could read 2 these names off? 3 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 4 Yeah, go ahead. 5 MR. EVANS: 6 Harvey Mitchell, Vacherie, 7 Louisiana; Terrance Harrison, 8 Vacherie, Louisiana; Duane James, 9 Vacherie, Louisiana; Sandra West, 10 Vacherie, Louisiana; Myself, 11 Vacherie, Louisiana; Ariel Evans, 12 Vacherie, Louisiana; Terry Basil, 13 Vacherie, Louisiana; Rachael West, 14 Vacherie, Louisiana; Thadeous Basil, 15 Vacherie, Louisiana. 16 All in support of Petroplex 17 coming here to St. James Parish. 18 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 19 Did you want to submit those? 20 MR. EVANS: 21 (Positive head nod.) 22 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 23 Okay. We're going to make that 24 - I'm going to make this PI19 in 25 globo. Alexander Joseph. 94 1 MR. JOSEPH: 2 My name is Minister Alexander, 3 to most people Alexander Joseph. 4 I've sit here and I've listening to 5 the for and I've listened to the 6 against. 7 However, we have history that we 8 could look at and share with us 9 what's taken place with this 10 chemical plant. As I look around, I 11 see people with, that have children 12 and grandchildren. 13 So we're not looking for what's 14 going to happen tomorrow. We have 15 to look for the future. And 16 Petroplex has no future for us. 17 Far as the jobs concerned, some 18 of us don't have the facts on it. 19 However, if I had the time, I could 20 take you for a beautiful factual 21 ride down memory lane, to show you 22 were Petroplex is not going to help 23 our community. 24 However, at this time, we're 25 looking at, as one lady got up here 95 1 and stated about the cancer, we're 2 looking at health defects in our 3 grandchildren and also in our unborn 4 generation. 5 And in our position, I have 6 grandchildren. That's what we have 7 to look for. And at this time, 8 that's all I have to say. Thank 9 you. 10 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 11 Paul Keller. 12 MR. KELLER: 13 My name is Dr. Paul K. Keller, 14 9490 LA 44, Convent, Louisiana. 15 First of all, I am a resident of St. 16 James Parish. 17 I was the Parish President here 18 the day that they went to the 19 present form of government until 20 1992. I've been involved with the 21 industries of this parish since all 22 those years. 23 But I was asked, about four 24 weeks ago, to look at the Petroplex 25 situation, look at the permit and 96 1 situation, with a group of people 2 that I worked for, Paul Keller and 3 Associates. We did so. 4 This is the data we evaluated 5 (indicating). This is a summary of 6 that data. I want to say something 7 today, because I think we've heard a 8 lot of things in here tonight. 9 We've heard a lot of sympathetic 10 statements. We've heard a lot of 11 statements that cannot be backed by 12 scientific facts. 13 We've heard statements that were 14 very good. But something was 15 neglected tonight. And I want to 16 set that straight before I get to 17 tell you a little bit more about the 18 water quality. 19 When evaluating we're supposed 20 to be worried only tonight about 21 water quality, and about the 22 discharge permit. In fact, the 23 draft discharge permit. 24 And that should be clearly 25 understood because until all the 97 1 conditions of that draft permit are 2 met, no permit will be issued. And 3 the company has to do this before it 4 can be issued. 5 But I saw something in this 6 draft permit, and I saw something 7 that was also done in the air 8 permitting by DEQ. I'm very 9 familiar with DEQ, because two 10 associates of mine were former 11 directors of DEQ. 12 And through the years I've 13 separated myself over the last, I 14 guess, 10 years and have been 15 working with groups in other states. 16 But when I saw how much effort 17 that DEQ had put into this permit, I 18 saw how much data they had looked at 19 from other sources of this size and 20 this nature. 21 How many things they had 22 considered about the discharge areas 23 of the lake and the river. I tell 24 you something, I for one want to 25 congratulate you on one of the most 98 1 thorough jobs I have ever seen DEQ 2 do. 3 Your people have done an 4 excellent job. And because of that, 5 and because I see no evidence that I 6 can find, scientifically, to deny 7 what the conclusion you have come 8 to, I heavily support this 9 conclusion to become, not only a 10 draft permit, but a permit, and it 11 be approved for Petroplex. 12 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 13 Eddie Narcisse. 14 MR. NARCISSE: 15 Good evening. My name is Elder 16 Eddie E. Narcisse from 13205 17 Falgoust Street, South Vacherie, 18 Louisiana. 19 During the months and the years 20 that we've heard about this project, 21 we've met with many of those that 22 are instrumental in trying to bring 23 this project to the westbank. 24 After talking to them, after 25 reviewing the information that was 99 1 given publicly, we came to the 2 conclusion that Petroplex and those 3 managing partners of Petroplex, have 4 diligently taken time to prepare 5 this project. 6 After talking to them, after 7 reviewing the written information, 8 we found them and the project to be 9 of a state of integrity. 10 And with all things, I try to 11 look at everything according to the 12 knowledge of God's Word, that I 13 know. And it doesn't matter where 14 we are in life right now, we must 15 realize that God has much more for 16 us. 17 And God wants to take us to new 18 levels. And the westbank needs to 19 be taken to a new level. We have 20 been held back for too long, by a 21 handful. And it's time for the 22 doors to open up. And it's our 23 season for change. 24 He wants to, and I'm saying, 25 God, through this project. Through 100 1 Petroplex and those other agencies 2 of that media come on this side. 3 God wants to bless us, for us to 4 be a blessing to somebody else. 5 Don't stop our blessing, nor nobody 6 else's. 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Joseph Christy. 9 MR. CHRISTY: 10 My name's Joe Christy. I live 11 up in Baytree, Oubre Street. And 12 I've been living here in this area 13 for about 35 years. 14 And I've worked in some of the 15 areas, the plants and stuff. 16 Especially, the Department of Energy 17 in St. James. Back to this water 18 thing. 19 We - Every time we pumped water 20 to the river, it was - the testing 21 had to be done off site. It was 22 never - it went to a facility off 23 site. 24 And those - they watch that 25 very, very, very closely. And I, 101 1 even back in '99, '92, it was very 2 strict and very precise. I know 3 that you could lose your job if you 4 didn't follow those rules. 5 And I didn't want to lose mine. 6 And when you have a job with 7 insurance, and you got a family to 8 support and take care of, that made 9 me feel real good. A good job, good 10 insurance. 11 I've also felt that - I mean, 12 there's also been times when I 13 didn't have a job and no insurance. 14 And, I didn't like those feelings. 15 And all I can really say is that 16 I support Petroplex, for more 17 reasons than one. The jobs, and not 18 only for the jobs. I think it would 19 be a good thing for the community. 20 We, as the Reverend said, we do 21 need a little help on this side. 22 And thank you, very much. 23 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 24 Wilma Subra. 25 MS. SUBRA: 102 1 Good evening. My name is Wilma 2 Subra. I live in New Iberia, 3 Louisiana. And I'm submitting these 4 comments on behalf of Louisiana 5 Environmental Action Network, 6 Community Strength and O'Neal 7 Couvillion. 8 And these comments are in 9 response to LDEQ's proposed LPDES 10 water discharge permit for the 11 Petroplex International Tank Farm in 12 Vacherie, in St. James Parish. 13 During the public comment period 14 for the LPDES permit for Petroplex, 15 I submitted comments to DEQ dated 16 August 12, 2009. 17 These comments had commitments 18 and contained information on one, 19 Petroplex's failure to provide 20 adequate information. 21 And two, Petroplex submittal of 22 fraud information. And three, 23 LDEQ's failure to adequately review 24 all of the appropriate data during 25 the review of the Petroplex 103 1 application. 2 Reviewing that one more time, 3 Petroplex's failure to provide 4 adequate information, Petroplex's 5 submitting fraud information, and 6 DEQ's failure to adequately review 7 all of the appropriate data during 8 their review process. 9 These comments must be 10 considered during the LDEQ review 11 process for the Petroplex water 12 discharge permit process. 13 The previously submitted 14 comments, included the failure of 15 DEQ to include in the public notice, 16 and their review process, the 17 environmental assessment statement, 18 which is a part of the LPDES water 19 discharge permit process. 20 They didn't consider the 21 environmental assessment statement. 22 They just considered the application 23 from Petroplex. 24 The environmental assessment 25 statement is a critical part of the 104 1 LPDES permitting process, which was 2 omitted by LDEQ. 3 The environmental assessment 4 statement, submitted by Petroplex, 5 is one flawed. The details of the 6 flaws and inadequacies of the 7 environmental assessment statement, 8 submitted by Petroplex, were 9 submitted during the public hearing 10 on March 26, 2009, as a Petroplex 11 synthetic minor air permit 12 application. 13 DEQ must consider my comments on 14 the flawed environmental assessment 15 statement, as a part of this permit 16 process. Then, we have inadequacies 17 in the monitoring parameters for 18 effluent limits and the frequency of 19 monitoring. 20 In the draft LPDES permit for 21 Petroplex, the monitoring 22 requirements consisted of total 23 organic carbon, oil and grease, and 24 ph. These were to be measured once 25 per month from Outfall 001, into the 105 1 Mississippi River, and once per 2 month for Outfall 002 into Lac Des 3 Allemands. 4 The monitoring requirements of 5 once per month for Outfalls 001 and 6 002, are totally inadequate to 7 ensure that the waste water being 8 discharged out of Outfalls 001 and 9 2, are actually in compliance with 10 the inadequate monitoring 11 requirements set forth in the draft 12 permit. 13 The LDEQ states, in the 14 statement of basis, that monitoring 15 frequencies for all outfalls, are 16 based upon office practices for 17 similar discharges and applicable 18 references of general permits. 19 That's how they justify the once 20 per month. The monitoring frequency 21 of once per month, for Outfall 001 22 is not sufficient to evaluate the 23 quality of the discharge water, 24 protect the water quality of the 25 Mississippi River, and ensure that 106 1 the 10 drinking water intakes, 2 within 50 miles down river from the 3 Petroplex outfall, are not receiving 4 contaminated waste water. 5 The Petroplex facility should 6 not have the monitoring frequencies, 7 based on the general permit. The 8 monitoring frequency must be 9 increased to daily, and the grab 10 sample requirements must be changed 11 to 24 hour composite. 12 If these changes are made, the 13 waste water being discharged out of 14 Outfall 001, would be constantly 15 monitored for contaminates and for 16 quality. 17 Outfall 002 should have the 18 monitoring frequencies increased to 19 a grab sample during the first 20 flush, storm water runoff, and daily 21 during discharge events, when the 22 grab sample requirement changed to 23 24 hour composites. 24 Therefore, whenever it's being 25 discharged out of 002, into Lac Des 107 1 Allemands, it will also constantly 2 be monitored. 3 The monitoring parameters of 4 TOC, oil and grease, and Ph are 5 totally inadequate to monitor. But 6 the chemicals that have the 7 potential to be present in Outfall 8 001 and 2. 9 The chemical products and 10 commodities to be received, shipped, 11 stored and blended by Petroplex, 12 according to the application, 13 consist of gasoline, light crude 14 oil, heavy crude oil, ethanol, light 15 petroleum distolits, mid petroleum 16 distolits, fuel oil, heavy residue 17 oils, vegetable oils and biodiesel. 18 Looking for TOC, oil and grease 19 and Ph, just missed all of the 20 compounds that they will be 21 handling. 22 The commodity products and 23 chemicals to be received, shipped, 24 stored and blended by Petroplex, 25 contain toxic chemicals that will be 108 1 released by the facility through 2 leaks, spills, releases and 3 processing. 4 And the contaminants will 5 contaminate the various waste water 6 streams within the facility, and as 7 they are discharged into the 8 Mississippi River. 9 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 10 Ms. Subra, time is up. 11 MS. SUBRA: 12 I'll come back at this point. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 15 Okay. You also failed to give 16 your address, ma'am. If you could 17 give your address? 18 MS. SUBRA: 19 I beg your pardon? 20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 21 She gave the address. 22 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 23 No, she gave the town that she 24 lived in. She didn't give an 25 address. 109 1 MS. SUBRA: 2 My address is 106 Oaklawn Drive, 3 New Iberia, Louisiana. 4 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 5 Thank you, ma'am. 6 MS. SUBRA: 7 And I will submit the document. 8 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 9 You want to do it right now, or 10 do you want to wait until you come 11 back? 12 MS. SUBRA: 13 Yes. Now (handing). 14 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 15 Okay. PI20. Mack Gross. I'm 16 sorry, if I mispronounced your name, 17 sir. 18 MR. GROSS: 19 My name is Mack Gross. I'm not 20 from here, I'm from New Orleans. I 21 live at 1726 Prytania Street, New 22 Orleans, Louisiana. 23 I'm a member of the group 24 selling the property. Naturally, I 25 support the sale of the property to 110 1 Petroplex. 2 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 3 Sir, you need to speak into the 4 mic so they can record you. 5 MR. GROSS: 6 Okay. I support the sale to 7 Petroplex for a lot of reasons. I 8 worked in PetroChem Industry for 35 9 years, offshore for 15 years, and 10 other related industries at 11 PetroChem Industry. 12 I know when you have gas 13 releases and oil releases things 14 happen. Things do happen, it always 15 happens. But everything is 16 monitored. 17 And everything, your soil, your 18 water is always tested to the 19 outflow. Your water is always 20 treated for scrubbers and cleaners. 21 So everything is pretty much 22 controlled. So I totally support 23 the sale to Petroplex. Thank you. 24 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 25 Thad Culley. Did I say your 111 1 name right? 2 MR. CULLEY: 3 Yes, sir. Good evening, 4 everybody. And I'd like to thank 5 Billy Cue for the opportunity to 6 speak (phonetically spelled). 7 My name is Thad Culley. I'm a 8 student attorney with the Tulane 9 Environmental Law Clinic. I'm here 10 tonight representing Ms. Eva White 11 and Mr. O'Neal Couvillion. 12 Ms. White and Mr. Couvillion 13 oppose the draft permit, as it is 14 unlawful for several reasons, which 15 I'll outline. 16 Later this week, we'll be 17 submitting written comments, along 18 with - the Tulane Environmental Law 19 Clinic will be submitting written 20 comments with the Louisiana 21 Environmental Action Network and 22 Community Strength, as well as with 23 Ms. White and Mr. Couvillion. 24 The three main issues I want to 25 highlight tonight. First, LDEQ 112 1 violated state law, when it accepted 2 an incomplete application, and 3 proceeded with the application 4 process anyway. 5 Two, LDEQ violated state and 6 federal law, because it fails to 7 assure that storm water discharges 8 from Outfall 002, will not cause or 9 contribute to the further impairment 10 of Lector Allman (phonetically 11 spelled). 12 Three, LDEQ was not afforded the 13 proper consideration under the 14 Endangered Species Act for federally 15 protected species in the receiving 16 water of the Mississippi River. 17 At this point I was going to get 18 some context, but honestly, you all 19 have given the context. 20 So for the Record, and for my 21 statements, just wish to say this is 22 a large scale facility, put in the 23 middle of a residential area. 24 And this site's going to 25 interrupt, as an outsider, I've been 113 1 to Vacherie twice, to drive along 2 river road, with the sugarcane 3 fields and the plantations. 4 In fact, New Orleans televisions 5 have been broadcasting the upcoming 6 Oak Alley event this weekend. So 7 there is a burgeoning - there is an 8 economy here in the cultural side. 9 But first, LDEQ violated state 10 law when it accepted an incomplete 11 application. And by that, state 12 regulations mandate that LDEQ shall 13 not issue a permit on an incomplete 14 application. 15 This application was 16 substantially incomplete, because in 17 over 50 places, where the applicant 18 was to estimate discharges for a new 19 source, those were left blank. 20 Or not left blank, there was a 21 "not applicable, facility not yet 22 built." Under 2501K5, all new 23 sources are required to estimate 24 their discharges. 25 LDEQ cannot have a clear picture 114 1 and cannot fulfill its 2 constitutional duty as a public 3 trustee, of the water qualities 4 environment of this state, to set 5 appropriate parameters and 6 adequately protect the environment 7 from the discharge. 8 LDEQ has some discretion, but 9 deeming this application complete is 10 an abuse of discretion. 11 In addition, LDEQ does not have 12 the discretion to waive the 13 reporting, or to waive the estimate 14 of certain pollutants in the 15 application. 16 For example, LDEQ may not waive 17 the discharge estimates for toxic, 18 organic compounds and toxic metals. 19 Those are not present in the permit 20 application. 21 This speaks to the larger 22 problem. The incomplete information 23 at the outset, speaks to all other 24 areas that we will be addressing. 25 LDEQ violated state and federal law 115 1 because it failed to assure that the 2 storm water discharges will not 3 cause and contribute to the further 4 impairment of Lac Des Allemands. 5 The reason for that is for a new 6 discharge, into an impaired water, 7 which Lac Des Allemands is, for 8 dissolved the oxygen, and for 9 nonnative aquatic plant life. 10 LDEQ must ensure that it won't 11 cause or contribute. The statement 12 or basis gives a conclusory 13 statement, but it's not justified or 14 supported by any evidence in the 15 Record. 16 There's no scientific basis to 17 fashion the permit. LDEQ does not 18 account for the full range of 19 pollutants that are likely to exit 20 the facility through Outfall 002. 21 As in the permit application, 22 it's very vague of the exact 23 operation of Outfall 002, as storm 24 waters are defined as, "firmament 25 associated with industrial process," 116 1 and storm waters from the entire 2 site. 3 LDEQ must afford the potential 4 that some of the associated 5 pollutants with the handling these 6 petrochemicals, might be present in 7 Outfall 002. Excuse me. 8 When a TMDL has been, that is 9 the "total maximum daily load," has 10 been prepared for an impaired water, 11 the burden shifts to the applicant 12 to show that they have - to show 13 that there are sufficient remaining 14 pollutant load allocations in that 15 water. 16 And that existing discharges are 17 subject to a compliance schedule. 18 LDEQ must not approve the draft 19 permit until it can assure the 20 impact of the discharges will not 21 cause or contribute to the 22 impairment of Lac Des Allemands. 23 And lastly, LDEQ has not 24 afforded the proper consideration of 25 endangered species. 117 1 Consultation with the United 2 States Fish and Wildlife Service is 3 required, because lead is expected 4 to be discharged through Outfall 5 001, and pallet sturgeon are known 6 to exist in those waters. 7 The Fish and Wildlife Service 8 would respond within 30 days, but 9 nothing in the Record suggests that 10 this has occurred. 11 Additionally, LDEQ must provide 12 discharge descriptions to the Fish 13 and Wildlife Service, and those have 14 not been provided to LDEQ. 15 So LDEQ lacks the ability to 16 provide that to Fish and Wildlife 17 Service. 18 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 19 Your time is up. Are you about 20 through? 21 MR. CULLEY: 22 I'll be brief. While the draft 23 permit violates other state and 24 federal laws and regulations, those 25 that we outline in our comments 118 1 written to be submitted later this 2 week. 3 But from what I've said tonight, 4 I respectfully request LDEQ withdraw 5 the draft permit, as it has no basis 6 involved to act on an incomplete 7 application. Thank you, for your 8 time. 9 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 10 I'm probably going to butcher 11 this name. Let's see, Larry 12 Sciacchetano. 13 AUDIENCE MEMBER: 14 He spoke earlier. 15 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 16 Oh, he already did. Okay. Coy 17 Gross. No, okay. We'll pass that 18 one. Patrice Mitchell. 19 MS. MITCHELL: 20 Good evening to all. How you- 21 all doing? My name is Patrice 22 Mitchell at 2432 Church Street. And 23 I want to say good evening to 24 everybody. 25 And I want to say that I'm 119 1 opposed to this facility coming to 2 Vacherie, Louisiana. I live in the 3 parish, but I work at a plant 4 myself. 5 And if you go along the river, 6 on each eastbank or on the westbank 7 of a plant facility, if you go on 8 the other side, around 4:00 or 6:00 9 o'clock in the morning, you can't 10 get through with all the traffic 11 that's going on, on a day-to-day 12 basis. 13 When you come through this 14 Vacherie road, you have the 15 sugarcane, you have peace, you have 16 everything that you need to endure 17 life. What you-all are trying to do 18 is take life from us. 19 My sone has sickle cell. He was 20 born with it. I don't know if you- 21 all know anything about it. It's a 22 disease, there's no cure. 23 You can add things to it and you 24 can take things from it. With this 25 facility coming into the parish, 120 1 you're taking something from him. A 2 quality of life. 3 On a day-to-day basis, he has to 4 take medication everyday. With this 5 facility, you-all haven't given us 6 what's going to be stored in these 7 tanks. 8 It's about a dollar, it's not 9 about life. And all the 10 documentations that we have received 11 lately, with all of those big words 12 that's implanted in there, and the 13 codes, we know nothing still. 14 On each side, that's for and 15 against, still can't tell us what's 16 in the tanks. What's the perimeter 17 line, is starting small. 18 Every project starts off small, 19 but eventually it's going to be a 20 big facility. And you're saying 21 about the jobs that it's going to 22 create, 50 jobs. 23 Hmmm, to do the math on 50 jobs, 24 it's not worth to uproot so many 25 people that's been here for years 121 1 and years. And then, you're doing a 2 buy out program. That's not buying 3 out everybody. 4 I mean if you want to do 5 something, bless, like the guy said, 6 the Lord want to be a blessing? 7 Well, bless everybody. 8 Buy everybody out and then we 9 can all go, you know, and enjoy 10 ourselves somewhere else. You know? 11 Because I took a trip to Vegas, and 12 I can tell you, I can go back again. 13 Just buy me out, if that's the case. 14 But you're doing a perimeter, 15 and you're buying only so many 16 people out or, I don't know if you 17 bought them to the point of they 18 done lost their soul for what you 19 paid for it. We can't be bought. 20 But then you're telling us 21 you're coming anyway because it's 22 going to create jobs, it's going to 23 benefit us. How? 24 You haven't showed us how it's 25 going to benefit us yet. And, I'm 122 1 trying to understand. How is going 2 to benefit us in the long run? 3 I mean the documentations thus 4 far hasn't benefitted us yet. And 5 if you understand what I live with, 6 with my son, with sickle cell, with 7 tubes and needles and transfusions 8 every month, you would understand my 9 plight. 10 And that's why I'm not sitting 11 down and saying I'm for it. 12 Because, if I sit down, then that's 13 saying I'm for it. And I'm against 14 it. 15 So I wish you-all can reconsider 16 this. And if you-all can 17 reconsider, if it's not hazardous, 18 if it's going to benefit so many 19 people, put it in your backyard. 20 If you-all live in Vacherie - 21 Baton Rouge, put it in Baton Rouge. 22 We'll go for that. And that's all I 23 have to say. 24 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 25 Thank you. All right. That's 123 1 all the speakers that I had listed. 2 So for call back, Kyle Prestenback. 3 Same rules apply. 4 MR. PRESTENBACK: 5 My name is Kyle Prestenback, 6 1234 St. James Street, Vacherie. I 7 want to talk a little bit about the 8 community outreach. 9 Petroplex stated in its 10 environmental assessment statement, 11 July 17, 2008, July 18, 2008 and 12 July 25, 2008, August 5, 2008 and 13 August 29, 2008, to discuss the 14 proposed tank farm and its impact on 15 the area. 16 Petroplex make it sound like it 17 was very active in the community. 18 But I would like to set the Record 19 straight. 20 I live by my parents, who live 21 next door too, and all of my 22 neighbors on St. James Street can 23 tell you for a fact, that the only 24 meeting we knew about, or were ever 25 invited to was the meeting on May 1, 124 1 2008, when Petroplex announced that 2 it was proposing to build this 3 facility. 4 Simon Street residents, which 5 border the facility on the west 6 side, were not even invited to 7 attend that meeting. 8 And in that May 1, 2008 meeting, 9 very few questions we asked were 10 answered, because they couldn't 11 answer any questions. The 12 information we received from that 13 day until now, has come from the 14 Petroplex website. 15 The permit applications, our own 16 research, word on the street. Not 17 from Petroplex, and we live right 18 next door to this thing. 19 The other meetings Petroplex 20 claims to have had, must have been 21 held in private, because they were 22 not advertised to us and we knew 23 nothing about them. 24 It appears that they were 25 strategically held with people in 125 1 the Magnolia and Walls communities. 2 The St. Phillip's and Simon 3 Street communities have repeatedly 4 tried to get Petroplex to meet with 5 our communities in a group meeting, 6 but it never happened. 7 That doesn't sound like 8 Petroplex wants to be good neighbors 9 to me. That doesn't sound like they 10 are interested in bridging the gap 11 between industry and the community. 12 I find it ironic that when 13 Petroplex had some of these meetings 14 in the Magnolia and Walls 15 communities, they passed out T- 16 shirts with a logo that read 17 something like, "We're bridging the 18 gap between industry and 19 communities." 20 They have completely alienated 21 the two nearest fence line 22 communities, on each side of the 23 proposed facility. 24 That doesn't sound like they're 25 bridging the gap to me. That 126 1 doesn't sound like smart business to 2 me. 3 Petroplex also claims they have 4 formed a community advisory panel to 5 assist Petroplex in exchanging 6 information with, and addressing 7 questions for the local community. 8 I, as well as my family and 9 almost all of my neighbors, can't 10 name me one person who is on this 11 panel. And you can't get anymore 12 local than what we are. 13 Why wasn't anyone from my 14 community or the Simon Street 15 community asked to be part of this 16 panel since we will be fence line 17 neighbors? 18 Once again, it's only to look 19 good on paper. Petroplex also 20 claims they have hired an assistant 21 community relations director to 22 assist in communications with the 23 local community concerning the 24 facility. 25 Once again, sounds good on 127 1 paper, but I couldn't point her out 2 to you today, and it's been over a 3 year since she was hired. 4 She hasn't been active at all in 5 my community, and I live next door 6 to the proposed tank farm. Once 7 again, it's only to look on paper. 8 You know, it's unfortunate that 9 permit decisions are made, based 10 heavily on information provided to 11 them from industry, to make 12 pertinent decisions, even when the 13 information provided isn't 100 14 percent accurate. 15 And the information provided is 16 just to look good on paper and fill 17 in space on an application. Thank 18 you (handing). 19 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 20 And you're going to submit this? 21 Okay. This will be PI21. Okay, 22 let's see, Matthew Zeringue. 23 MR. ZERINGUE: 24 Again, Matthew Zeringue, 1156 25 St. James Street. Picking up where 128 1 I left off. 2 St. James Parish community 3 received notification letters from 4 the parish in the months of October 5 and November of 2008, regarding our 6 drinking water, which is affected 7 with contaminants. 8 The parish wanted to tell us 9 there exists no reason for concern, 10 yet the State Department of Health 11 and Hospitals had to notify us about 12 our polluted system. 13 The letters informed us that our 14 drinking water, with the byproducts 15 found in our system, as it is today, 16 may lead to adverse health effects. 17 Liver or kidney problems, nervous 18 system effects, and they may lead to 19 an increased risk of getting cancer, 20 which we've heard made mention of 21 several times this evening. 22 Louisiana State Department of 23 Health and Hospitals notified us 24 about this. Now, this is our water 25 at present, and yet another facility 129 1 wants to dump even more into our 2 drinking supply. 3 Not to mention the many 4 different parishes, whose water 5 supply depends on the river. There 6 are 10 municipal drinking water 7 supply sources located within 50 8 miles downstream of this proposed 9 site. 10 A fact which escaped the 11 attention of the Petroplex 12 International permit offer. I've 13 heard a couple of statements tonight 14 about how thorough this design team, 15 this plant project has been. 16 Yet, they missed the fact that 17 10 sites are drawing their drinking 18 water from the river, within 50 19 miles. 20 There are zero locations that 21 use the channel in which the 22 facility waste water will be dumped 23 into for their drinking supply 24 within 50 miles. 25 That statement found on the 130 1 Louisiana Water Pollution Control 2 feed system rating worksheet, Page 3 3, Number 5. 4 Again, this brings to question 5 the integrity of this entire 6 project, and those who represent it. 7 Also, mentioned in the permit, in 8 the statement of basis, Page 3, 9 Section 7, Outfall 001, type of 10 waste water. 11 The interment discharge of tank 12 draw waste water, storm water runoff 13 from equipment pads, maintenance 14 wash water, ship, barge, bilge, 15 ballast and slop water, compressor 16 condensate, scene condensate, tank 17 and equipment wash water, boiler 18 blow down and scene condensate. 19 Hydrostatic test wash water and 20 treated sanitary waste water will 21 leave the facility through Outfall 22 001, as stated in Paragraph C. 23 Under treatment, Petroplex 24 answers is, "none." There will be 25 no treatment to the water I just 131 1 mentioned, before it enters the 2 Mississippi River. In their own 3 words, on their statement, Page 3, 4 Section 7. 5 The facility is free to dump all 6 that is mentioned above, as well as 7 the environmental hazards that will 8 result from washing equipment, such 9 as diesel, engine oil, antifreeze, 10 without having to be treated. 11 How can this not be detrimental 12 to our drinking water supply? 13 Louisiana Pollutant Discharge 14 Elimination System permit prepared 15 for Petroplex International, fails 16 to mention the amount of toxic 17 materials they will be releasing 18 into our waterways. 19 The Louisiana water pollution 20 control fee system rating worksheet 21 is missing some key information 22 regarding this facility. What is 23 the total annual amount of water 24 being discharged from this site? 25 Nothing mentioned. 132 1 With the design work being 2 complete, the engineering firm who 3 models this system, would have to 4 know the amount of waste and wash 5 water that will be produced and/or 6 released from this facility. 7 If they cannot, I do not 8 understand how a permit can be 9 granted before LDEQ has the complete 10 and total picture to base their 11 research and findings on. 12 This appears to be an incomplete 13 proposal, and for that reason alone, 14 the permit should be denied. 15 The future community lies in the 16 hope that LDEQ recognizes what must 17 truly be measured, and base their 18 findings upon actual numbers, rather 19 than assumptions, in regards to what 20 this facility will produce and 21 release into our environment. 22 I have illustrated in the above 23 comments, how Petroplex 24 International cannot and should not 25 be taken on their word. In matters 133 1 of environmental and human health, 2 should anyone be taken on their 3 word? 4 This is the end of my statement, 5 even if I run over a minute. An 6 organization which prides itself in 7 integrity, honesty and thoroughness, 8 for the sake of our environment and 9 our communities, must truly look 10 deep into what Petroplex 11 International has promised and 12 recalled, since the inception of 13 this project. 14 All for support. How well will 15 they represent your organization in 16 the eyes of those who see the truth? 17 Where will the community faith for 18 LDEQ be, for matters of our and 19 Louisiana's healthy future? 20 LDEQ's website states, "a clean 21 state of mind for all environments." 22 Shouldn't there also be mention of a 23 clean conscious? 24 I strongly oppose the Petroplex 25 International proposal for their 134 1 storage and blending facility, for 2 the above mentioned reasons. Thank 3 you (handing). 4 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 5 This will be PI22. I'm running 6 out of exhibit stickers. Not quite. 7 Let's see, Wilma Subra, please. 8 MS. SUBRA: 9 Thank you. As previously 10 stated, my name is Wilma Subra. I 11 live at 106 Oaklawn Drive, New 12 Iberia, Louisiana. Continuing where 13 I left off. 14 The requirements to monitor only 15 TOC, oil and grease and Ph are not 16 adequate to identify the chemicals 17 in the waste water and ensure that 18 contaminated waste water is not 19 discharged from the facility into 20 both the Mississippi River and Lac 21 Des Allemands. 22 Additional monitoring 23 requirements must be added to the 24 permit, to reflect all chemical 25 constituents of the products, 135 1 commodities and chemicals to be 2 received, shipped, stored and 3 blended at the Petroplex facility. 4 The permit limitation for 5 Outfall 001, according to the 6 statement of basis for total organic 7 carbon and oil and grease from 8 Outfall 001 are, "Based on best 9 professional judgment, in accordance 10 with the offices guidance among 11 storm water. 12 Based on a letter dated June 17, 13 1987 from Dale Gibbons of DEQ to 14 Myron Canutson of EPA Region 6" 15 (phonetically spelled). Dale has 16 since retired. 17 Myron Canutson still works at 18 EPA Region 6. The permit 19 limitations of 50 milligrams per 20 liter of the TOC, and 15 milligrams 21 per liter for oil and grease, are 22 based on storm water streams, not 23 industrial waste water streams from 24 operating consistent with large 25 number of toxic chemicals. 136 1 So they base the discharge limit 2 in the Outfall 001, going to the 3 Mississippi River, on storm water, a 4 memo 22 years old. You think we 5 haven't come a little further than 6 that? 7 That's the kind of protection 8 they have set forth for Petroplex to 9 discharge. Little to no protection 10 for the quality of the water in the 11 Mississippi River. 12 My August 12th comments, that I 13 submitted during the public comment 14 period, on the waste water discharge 15 permit, included the topics, "Public 16 notice should have included 17 environmental assessment statement, 18 previous comments on the 19 environmental assessment statement, 20 water intake structure in the 21 Mississippi." 22 Meaning there are 10 water 23 intake structures within 50 miles 24 downstream, that were not considered 25 by DEQ when they were looking at the 137 1 permit application, and when they 2 were drafting the draft permit. 3 The waste water from marine 4 terminal facility was not included. 5 Outfall 002 was storm water, and it 6 was, "characterizes from nonprocess 7 area," and yet it has storm water 8 streams going into Outfall 002, that 9 are from process areas. 10 And then, a large number of 11 defects in the annual rating sheet. 12 So these comments, and the comments 13 I have offered here tonight, in 14 addition, some of the comments I 15 haven't mentioned verbally, they 16 should be used as a basis for denial 17 of the Petroplex LPDES permit. 18 Because the application, the 19 draft permit, are so full of flaws 20 that it is inappropriate to accept 21 this draft permit, and issue this 22 permit to Petroplex by DEQ. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 25 Lionel Bailey. 138 1 MR. BAILEY: 2 Good evening. My name is Lionel 3 Bailey. I reside at 12210 Magnolia 4 Street in Gramercy, Louisiana. And 5 I'm here tonight in support of 6 Petroplex International. 7 I've been told what not to say. 8 I've heard so many different 9 comments. And I want to thank Paul 10 Keller. He really touched my heart. 11 Let me give you a background. 12 I've been involved in the 13 environmental arena for 35 years. I 14 am what is considered a registered 15 environmental manager. 16 And to ascertain that level, you 17 have to tarry in the word a bit. 18 Which means, you have to have some 19 knowledge in the environmental 20 arena. 21 I've worked for industry from 22 Baton Rouge to New Orleans. I've 23 worked as an environmental 24 technician, environmental manager. 25 I've worked at LDEQ, as a 139 1 consultant with some of the 2 agencies. And not once, thank you 3 Keller, have I heard anything 4 scientifically, where anyone in the 5 community that's opposing the 6 project, look at the permit 7 application, look at the proposed 8 permit to be issued, or the basis 9 for the decision. 10 Everybody has made comments 11 regarding, "Not in my backyard." 12 For many, many years, industry have 13 always gone with the path of least 14 resistance. 15 And 99.9 percent of the time, 16 that path has been in a minority 17 community. Not once has it been in 18 a white community. 19 Not in my backyard is a criteria 20 for LDEQ to deny any permit. LDEQ 21 has done a fantastic job with the 22 air permit application and issuing 23 an air permit. 24 They are doing an exceptional 25 job with the water issuing and 140 1 proposed permit. There are 2 guidelines that all industry must 3 adhere to, and to adhere to those 4 guidelines, pollution abatement 5 equipment have to be put in place. 6 Petroplex is no different then 7 any other industry along the river. 8 I much rather have a new facility in 9 my backyard, than have to have one 10 that I have to retro fit, to meet 11 today's guidelines. 12 When you've been in the 13 environmental field as long as I 14 have been, and you leave in your car 15 and you drive along the river, you 16 get disturbed. I've heard things 17 about sugarcane farming. 18 I grew up in Edgard, right down 19 river. And my daddy had a place of 20 business. And we had people that 21 work in the sugarcane industry. 22 And when I was growing up, those 23 guys had a head full of hair. They 24 all died off, and they had one thing 25 in common. They worked for $4 to $5 141 1 an hour in the sugarcane industry. 2 And they were destroyed because of 3 fertilizer. 4 There's an article I want to 5 read. And please bear with me. 6 "Somewhere in our world, a pig is 7 being raised in a confined pen." 8 And this is to put things in 9 perspective people, please. 10 "Packed so tightly with other swine 11 that their curly tails have been 12 chopped off so they won't bite one 13 another. 14 To prevent him from getting sick 15 in such close quarters, he is dosed 16 with antibiotics. The waste 17 produced by the pig, and his 18 thousands of pen mates on a factory 19 farm where they live, goes into 20 manure lagoons that blanket 21 neighboring communities, with air 22 pollution and a stomach churning 23 stench. 24 He's fed on American corn that 25 was grown with the help of 142 1 government subsidies, and millions 2 of tons of chemical fertilizers." 3 Same thing with sugarcane, people. 4 "When the pig is slaughtered, at 5 about five months of age, he becomes 6 sausage or bacon that will sell 7 cheap, feeding an American 8 addiction, to meat that has 9 contributed to an obesity epidemic, 10 currently afflicting more than two- 11 thirds of the population. 12 And when the rains come," 13 sugarcane farming as well, "when the 14 rain come, the excess fertilizer 15 that corrects so much corn from the 16 ground, would be washed into the 17 Mississippi River, and down into the 18 Gulf of Mexico, where we help kill 19 fish for miles and miles around." 20 Let's put things in perspective. 21 What happen in sugarcane fields? 22 Organic or conventional? 23 We have a drinking water supply 24 in Edgard, that is the closing 25 drinking water intake from this 143 1 facility on the westbank of the 2 river. 3 The next one is on the eastbank 4 of the river. No one has spent any 5 time looking at the receiving body 6 of water quality, the Mississippi 7 River, compared to the discharge 8 from Petroplex. 9 We make accusations about, "I 10 don't want it here. I don't want it 11 here." And of course, I support 12 LEAN and Tulane Environmental Law 13 Clinic, because guess what? 14 With there intervention, you 15 won't have any industry. And with 16 that in mind, I want to say this 17 much. 18 If there is no industry, if 19 there is no proposed industry, 20 women, quit wearing your thongs. 21 Quit wearing your stockings. Quit 22 wearing your earrings. Quit getting 23 your pedicure, manicure. 24 Men, don't wear your pajamas. 25 Don't wear your sneakers. Because 144 1 guess what? They all made from 2 industry and the petroleum products. 3 Again, I strongly and 4 emphatically support Petroplex in 5 their effort to locate in St. James 6 Parish. Thank you. 7 MR. KIRKPATRICK: 8 Thank you. Are there any other 9 comments? Going once, going twice. 10 Three times, okay. I would like to 11 remind you that the commentary for 12 this draft water discharge permit 13 for Petroplex International, LLC 14 tank farm ends at 12:30 p.m. Friday, 15 October 16, 2009. 16 All comments received requests 17 for notification of the final 18 decision, and the transcripts from 19 the hearing are processed by the 20 Participation Group and are 21 available on EDMS. 22 The permit writer reviews all 23 comments, and uses any additional 24 information that is appropriate to 25 update the draft permit. 145 1 The names, addresses of all the 2 commentators, speakers and those 3 requesting to be notified of the 4 final decision, are added to the 5 public comment database. 6 A final revision of the draft 7 permit in response to the public 8 comments, are prepared and forwarded 9 to the OES Assistant Secretary for 10 final decision. 11 Upon issuance or denial of the 12 permit, a letter is mailed to all 13 the commentators, speakers and those 14 who requested to be notified of the 15 final decision. 16 The final decision letter 17 includes information regarding the 18 appeal process, the basis of 19 decision and the response to all the 20 public comments received. I 21 received a total of 22 exhibits. 22 If there are no other comments, 23 end. I would like to thank you for 24 your attention and participation in 25 this hearing. 146 1 Let the Record reflect that the 2 time is 8:45 p.m. This hearing is 3 closed. Thank you, very much. You- 4 all have a pleasant evening. 5 (The meeting was concluded at 8:45 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 1 2 R E P O R T E R ' S P A G E 3 I, Tara Torres-Blank, Certified 4 Court Reporter, in and for the State of 5 Louisiana, the officer, as defined in 6 Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure and/or Article 1434(b) of the 8 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, 9 before whom this sworn testimony was 10 taken, do hereby state on the Record: 11 That due to the interaction in 12 the spontaneous discourse of this 13 proceeding, dashes (--) have been used 14 to indicate pauses, changes in thought, 15 and/or talkovers; that same is the 16 proper method for a Court Reporter's 17 transcription of proceeding, and that 18 the dashes (--) do not indicate that 19 words or phrases have been left out of 20 this transcript; 21 That any words and/or names 22 which could not be verified through 23 reference material have been denoted 24 with the phrase "(phonetic)." 25 148 1 Tara Torres-Blank, CCR 2 Certified Court Reporter 3 4 C E R T I F I C A T E 5 6 This certification is valid only for a 7 transcript accompanied by my original signature 8 and original raised seal on this page. 9 That this testimony was reported by me 10 in the Stenomask method (voice-writing), was 11 prepared and transcribed by me or under my 12 personal direction and supervision, and is a 13 true and correct transcript to the best of my 14 ability and understanding; 15 That I am not related to counsel or to 16 the parties herein; am not otherwise interested 17 in the outcome of this matter; and am a valid 18 member in good standing of the Louisiana State 19 Board of Examiners of Certified Shorthand 20 Reporters. 21 22 Tara Torres-Blank 23 (#22012) 24 Certified Court Reporter 25 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25