TO: Mr. Jerry Graves, Jr., Planner, St.

Bernard Parish Government

Ms. Beverly Negri, Community Relations Coordinator, USEPA (Region 6)
Mr. Blaise Guzzardo, Regional Administrator, LDEQ (New OrleansO)

FROM: Matthew Dobbins, Senior Environmental Engineer, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. Meraux
Refinery

CC:Matt Dobbins Mr. Carl Zornes, Community Relations/HR Manager, Murphy Oil
USA, Inc. Meraux Refinery
Mr. Matthew Dobbins, Senior Environmental Engineer, Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Meraux Refinery

DATE: November 9October 30, 2007

RE: MOUSA Response to CitizenCAM Allegations

Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Meraux Refinery

Recently, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Meraux Refinery (MOUSA) has been the subject of several e-
mails and numerous telephone calls to your agencies by a few neighboring citizens in St. Bernard
Parish. After careful consideration, MOUSA felt that the time was appropriate to respond to the
allegations made in these communications. MOUSA responses are boxed in blue font.

MOUSA prides itself on being a good corporate citizen and values its relationship with the Meraux
community. For over a decade MOUSA has, in fact, taken a proactive approach to strengthening
its relationship with the local community and supporting the economic, social and philanthropic
well-being of Meraux and St. Bernard Parish. (may want to mention such activities as the
Community Spirit Award and the formation of a Community Advisory Panel (CAP).)

MOUSA also has a well-established , robust system of receiving, recording and responding to
citizen inquiries and issues related to the operations of its refinery. Typically, MOUSA is able to
respond to citizen concerns promptly and address issues they may have in a mutually agreeable
fashion.

Since May 23, 2007 the Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Meraux Refinery (MOUSA) has been bombarded
with received an inordinate number of calls from three citizens in St. Bernard Parish operating as
Concerned Citizens Around Murphy (CCAM): Ms. Suzanne Kneale of 2114 Corinne Drive (six
blocks west of the refinery), Ms. Karen Harden of 2201 Despaux and Ms. Laura Coleman of 2129
Despaux (two blocks west of the refinery) alleging nuisance conditions such as noise, vibration,
odor, flaring and fear of explosionsear, and flaring. To date, MOUSA has received 65 calls from
themthese area residents. Interestingly,. M Please note that MOUSA had received no0 calls from
them prior to May 23, 2007, when our MOUSA’s Title V air permit renewal application went to
public notice.

MOUSA is committed to responding in a reasonable and respectful manner to these and all local
neighbors. To that end, MOUSA personnel has responded to each of the 65 inquiries and, along
with LDEQ representatives who have been contacted and are also obligated to respond, have
been involved in 16 investigations resulting from these calls – many of which focused on the
same or similar complaints.

Unfortunately, this group of citizens

MOUSA has a well-established, robust system of receiving, recording and responding to citizen
complaints. Normally, MOUSA is able to satisfy citizen concerns promptly. This group of citizens,

1
however, routinely calls LDEQ immediately after calling MOUSA, not allowing us MOUSA an
opportunity to investigate and respond to their claims and alleviate the need for LDEQ
involvement. .
Thus, LDEQ has received numerous calls fromor these people, for which LDEQ is obligated to
investigate. Thus, LDEQ and MOUSA personnel have been involved in 165 investigations
involving many of the same complaints.

In order to provide a clearer context regarding the situation in St. Bernard Parish, it should also
be noted that, at the direction of a federal judge, MOUSA has been engaged in a voluntary Buy
Out program on properties west of the refinery. Ms. Hardin and Ms. Coleman are renters, where
the property owners have declined purchase offers. Ms. Kneale lives seven blocks away, just
outside of the Buy Out Zone, and is not eligible for the Buy Out program. Incidentally, s
In order to provide a clearer context regarding the situation in St. Bernard Parish, it should be
noted that MOUSA has been engaged in a court-mandated voluntary Buy Out program on
properties west of the refinery. None of these callers are eligible for purchase offers. Ms. Hardin
and Ms. Coleman rent from property owners who have declined purchase offers and Ms. Kneale
lives just outside of the Buy Out Zone. In addition, these callers are located to the west of the
facility, whereas the flares are located on the eastern side of the refinery. Since May 23, 2007
MOUSA has received only six calls from two citizens located on the east fence line of the refinery.

MOUSA will continue to act appropriately and will do our best to ensure that all legitimatesincere
inquiries or complaints are responded to in a timely manner. We are, however, concerned that
this particular group of citizens ihas not been completely forthcomingsincere in their motives and,
in fact, is intending to cause undue nuisance to MOUSA.Finally, we wish to remind you of the
concept of nuisance. As you know, it generally agreedA general rule is that an owner may use
his land or property in any manner he sees fit, provided it is used in a reasonable manner. A
nuisance arises whenever an owner uses his property to cause material injury or annoyance to a
reasonable neighbor.

MOUSA would like tois takeing this opportunity to illustrate and respond to their allegations share
some of the communications which have taken place between CCAM and MOUSA (please see
attached e-mails) and to seek guidance and from your organizations on the best course of action
for in order to demonstrate that the members of CCAM are not reasonable neighbors. Below, you
will find several e-mail strings generated by them to government agencies, with our
responses.ensuring that MOUSA is able to continue to operate in a responsible manner while
engaging in productive dialogue with its neighbors.While MOUSA continues to address the CCAM
group’s ongoing list of concerns, we wanted to take this opportunity to share with each of you
some of the communications from and responses to this group of citizens in order to provide a
better understanding of the issues they are raising. We hope you find it useful as you, too, are
contacted by CCAM, and we, of course, will be happy to provide any additional information or
answer any other questions you may have. Our objective is that MOUSA is able to continue to
engage in productive dialogue with its neighbors while still being able to operate in a responsible,
efficient manner.

2
ATTACH MEN T A – MOU SA RES PONS ES TO ALLEG ATIONS IN E-M AIL MESS AGE F ROM
ST RING B ET WE EN CC AM TO a nd M R. JER RY GRA VES , ST. BE RNA RD PAR ISH -
OC TOBE R 16, 2007 r. Jerry Gr av es, St. Bern ard Par ish

Fr om : noboats@aol.com [mailto:noboats@aol.com]
Sen t: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:35 AM
To: J Graves
Su bje ct : Re: White Powder

All night last night on Ohio Street in Chalmette it is like an airport. I'm sure it was worse on
Despaux/Jacob and Mrytle Grove and Walkers Lane.

If you reside in St Bernard Parish, last night would have been a great opportunity to experience
what happens to people when the refinery has faulty equipment. The refinery's compressor
broke last Wednesday. In California and in many other states the refinery would have taken the
hydrocraker off line within 24 hours and made the appropriate repair.

Here in St Bernard, this refinery is still running full processing with a faulty hydrocraker 7 days
later. There is no concern from Homeland Security or Emergency Planning ?? We are being
subjected to unknown amounts of H2S, SO2 and hydrocarbons, the constant sound of an airport
from the flare, the vibrations and the flickering light.

The refinery truck can be seen riding around the neighborhood at night with the windows rolled
up. I have asked them numerous times to look at the flare and hear the airport/airplane noise
from the driveway. They will not get out the truck or out of the street to detect the nuisances.
They claim they are not allowed on the property. Yet DEQ has already determined the noise is
blocked when in the street. DEQ has visited the home and suggested I purchase earphones for
my children so they can sleep at night. Why isnt anyone forcing the refinery to fix the faulty
equipment?

I would be more than happy to meet with you and show you this phenomena, which the refinery
is fully aware but will take no responsibility.

The Public Forums sound like a good idea and I plan on participating , but we will not get the
results we need until our own Parish Authorities enforce the existing laws and place pressure on
DEQ to enforce the Federal Clean Air Act.

We want to apply for the alternative dispute resolution part of our community grant. Who do we
contact to do that?

-----Original Message-----
From: J Graves <jgraves@sbpg.net>
To: noboats@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 9:51 am
Subject: RE: White Powder

Yes, occurrences such as these are going to be great topics of discussion once we start
conducting the CARE forums. I am not sure how familiar you are with the program, but what we
are going to do is conduct a series of public forums where citizens, various government agencies,
and local industry can come together to discuss environmental issues in the parish. The purpose
of the forums will be to ultimately devise a prioritized list of issues. Once we have an idea of the
issues that we want to address, we will then apply for Level 2 CARE funding. Level 2 funding is

3
substantially more than Level 1 and is intended to be expended directly on toxics reduction
measures.

This program is the first of its kind in the parish AND in the State of Louisiana and we are very
excited about it. There have been several delays in getting the project started because we are
really going out of our way to make it the best it can possibly be. The EPA has contracted a third
party to come in and put together a St. Bernard “industry profile.” Once this profile is complete I
will begin contacting local civic organizations, industry, etc. and inviting them to participate in the
forums. We are aiming to conduct the first forum before the end of the year.

In the meantime, if you or anyone else has any questions regarding this program or any other
projects or programs feel free to contact my office at any time.

Jerry Graves, Jr.

278-1032

Fr om : noboats@aol.com [mailto:noboats@aol.com]
Sen t: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:35 PM
To: J Graves
Su bje ct : Re: White Powder

These occurrences need to be investigated by a third party (and NOT DEQ)

Were you able to call the number posted? Would like to share info.

We have been in touch with two other residents with similar but different experiences since June.
The refinery has had countless occasions of the problems with the hydrocraker. The compressors
can not handle the gasses associated with the heavy crude oil from Malaysia. There are no plans
for the use of backup compressors or for any gas recovery systems or systems update, yet the
neighborhood will be subjected to unknown amounts of hydrocarbons and H2S and SO2 each
time. Right now there has been very very large flaring since Wednesday 8pm. It is a compressor
in the hydrocraker. Besides the obvious noise and flickering light there are sickening smells and
the fallout on vehicles, vegetation and homes.

Could this be on the agenda for the EPA CARE community grant?? The residents have already
requested backup compressors, gas recovery systems or systems update, root cause analysis,
more reliability and accountability from the industrial neighbor. The refinery's response was to
ask the residents to build a relationship of trust and to NOT call the DEQ, but to wait until
January for the reinstatement of the CAP Meetings. What would you suggest?

How do we apply / qualify for the alternative dispute resolution part of our community's EPA
Grant?

-----Original Message-----
From: J Graves <jgraves@sbpg.net>
To: noboats@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:26 am
Subject: White Powder

4
St. Bernard Resident:

I got your e-mail address from the nola.com discussion board this morning and was wondering if
you had received any pictures of the white powdery substance everyone keeps talking about. I
have seen the substance mentioned on the discussion board a few times over the last week or so
and I would like to organize those who have seen it so that we can address its source.

I work for St. Bernard Parish Government on a number of environmental affairs and this issue is
certainly of great interest to us. Please send me information that you have or call me at (504)
278-1032. Thanks for your time.

Jerry Graves, Jr.

Planner
SBPG

ATTAC HME NT B – MESS AGE S TR ING AND MOU SA RES PONS ES

Fr om : noboats@aol.com [mailto:noboats@aol.com]
Sen t: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:35 AM
To: J Graves
Su bje ct : Re: White Powder

All night last night on Ohio Street in Chalmette it is like an airport. I'm sure it was worse on
Despaux/Jacob and Myrtle Grove and Walkers Lane.

From October 10 through October 16, the Hydrocracker PSA Tail Gas compressor was shut
down for repairs. During that time, MOUSA received seven calls from only one citizen (Ms.
Suzanne Kneale), complaining of a flame in the flare, noise, odor and vibration. MOUSA
recorded and investigated each complaint and found all of them to be without merit. Our field
investigations included noise monitoring (with a calibrated meter) at several locations along
our fence line and in on several streets west of the refinery (including Ms. Kneale’s street –
Corinne). Our monitoring confirmed that there was no excessive noise (<65 db), showing a
baseline of approximately 50 db. Additionally, MOUSA conducts a daily driving inspection in
the neighborhoods around the refinery, checking for odor or other impacts. During this
period, MOUSA detected no odors, no excessive noise or vibration. MOUSA maintains records
of these inspections and invites you to examine them.

MOUSA provides this example to illustrate the reasonableness of this caller. During the day
ofOn September 7, 2007 a MOUSA employee (Mr. Matthew Dobbins) met Ms. Kneale to
investigate her complaint about a loud noise while out on a walk. The allegation was made at
a vacant lot on Jacob Drive, not at her home. Mr. Dobbins confirmed that there was a new
noise from the refinery. Ms. Kneale vigorously claimed that it was hurting her ears, whereas
Mr. Dobbins felt no discomfort. MOUSA measured 68 db from a noise meter at the same
location, well below the recognized threshold for excess noise. The source was a vacuum
truck being used for maintenance activity on the west side of the refinery that day.

If you reside in St Bernard Parish, last night would have been a great opportunity to experience
what happens to people when the refinery has faulty equipment. The refinery's compressor
broke last Wednesday. In California and in many other states the refinery would have taken the
hydrocraker off line within 24 hours and made the appropriate repair.

5
 From October 10 through October 16, the Hydrocracker PSA Tail Gas compressor was shut
down for repairs. It did not result in a Reportable Quantity release or trigger any upset
notification to LDEQ and State Police. The flare was not very large, as it was not under
significant pressure or flow. The flare was clean (no smoke), as the vent stream consisted of
hydrogen and light hydrocarbons (methane, ethane).

Here in St Bernard, this refinery is still running full processing with a faulty hydrocraker 7 days
later. There is no concern from Homeland Security or Emergency Planning ?? We are being
subjected to unknown amounts of H2S, SO2 and hydrocarbons, the constant sound of an airport
from the flare, the vibrations and the flickering light.

The Hydrocracker operated without any problems during this period. The Hydrocracker PSA
Tail Gas compressor malfunction has not resulted in any emissions of hydrogen sulfide, sulfur
dioxide, hydrocarbons, or smoke. There has been no excess noise or vibrations. Yes, there is
a flame in the North Flare, as it is operating as designed to be a Control Device for the
combustion of waste gases.

The Hydrocracker utilizes high purity hydrogen, heat, pressure and catalyst to crack heavy gas
oils into low-sulfur diesel and intermediates. Because the process is exothermic, Hydrocracker
feedstocks and conditions must be tightly controlled. The PSA section of the Hydrocracker
purifies hydrogen feed to the Hydrocracker, removing residual light hydrocarbons such as
methane, ethane and propane.

Feed to the PSA comes from the Reformer and from purchased hydrogen. Both streams are
free of sulfur compounds. PSA Tail Gas is the rejected stream from the PSA. The PSA Tail Gas
compressor pressures up this stream in order to move it to the Refinery Fuel Gas system for
combustion in refinery heaters and boilers. When this compressor is offline, PSA Tail Gas is
combusted in the flare. Since it is free of sulfur compounds, no sulfur dioxide emissions result
from combustion.

There is no concern from Homeland Security or Emergency Planning ??

MOUSA provides prompt notification of reportable releases to the State Emergency Planning
Commission and the Local Emergency Planning Committee.

We are being subjected to unknown amounts of H2S, SO2 and hydrocarbons, the constant sound
of an airport from the flare, the vibrations and the flickering light.

PSA Tail Gas is free of sulfur compounds, so there are no hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide
emissions resulting from combustion of this stream. Hydrocarbons in the stream are
completely combusted in the flare. MOUSA has ample evidence to prove that there is no
excess noise (i.e. >65 db) from the flaring of this stream, or from anywhere in the refinery,

6
 and MOUSA has found no evidence whatsoever of vibration. MOUSA will readily admit that
there is a flame in the flare, as is designed.

In addition, please note that MOUSA participates in the LDEQ Voluntary St. Bernard Parish
Ambient Air Monitoring program, where LDEQ runs three fixed monitoring stations in the area.
Since its inception on March 19, 2007 MOUSA has not caused a condition that resulted in
elevated readings at any of these stations.

The refinery truck can be seen riding around the neighborhood at night with the windows rolled
up. I have asked them numerous times to look at the flare and hear the airport/airplane noise
from the driveway. They will not get out the truck or out of the street to detect the nuisances.
They claim they are not allowed on the property. Yet DEQ has already determined the noise is
blocked when in the street. DEQ has visited the home and suggested I purchase earphones for
my children so they can sleep at night. Why isnt anyone forcing the refinery to fix the faulty
equipment?

MOUSA has several pro-active programs to detect offsite impacts. Operations Supervisors
routinely patrol the neighborhoods. (On several occasions, these patrols have happened to
coincide with CCAM complaints to the refinery, thus enabling MOUSA to quickly refute their
claims, much to the obvious consternation of the callers.) MOUSA’s has directed its security
contractor to conducts noise monitoring at several locations along our fence line and in on
several streets west of the refinery the neighborhoods. (Our mMonitoring has confirmed that
there has been no excessive noise (<65 db), showing a baseline of approximately 50 db.)
Additionally, MOUSA Environmental personnel conducts a ddaily driving inspections in the
neighborhoods around the refinery, checking for odor or other impacts. MOUSA maintains
records of these inspections and invites you to examine them.

I would be more than happy to meet with you and show you this phenomena, which the refinery
is fully aware but will take no responsibility.

MOUSA has met with CCAM on numerous occasions in an attempt to fully explain such things
as the Title V air permit application, the processes in the refinery, efforts at improving
reliability in the refinery, and future plans of the refinery. The meetings always seem polite
and well-received, yet always result in CCAM immediately sending inflammatory messages
such as this one to government agencies with greatly exaggerated claims. It seems the more
information we provide to this group, the more it gets twisted into untruthful statements and
allegations. While information is theoretically what this group is seeking, it seems that the
more information they get, the more they refute and question the validity of the information
and the more allegations they raise.

The Public Forums sound like a good idea and I plan on participating , but we will not get the
results we need until our own Parish Authorities enforce the existing laws and place pressure on
DEQ to enforce the Federal Clean Air Act.

It is unclear to MOUSA what results CCAM needs. MOUSA makes every effort to comply with
every federal and state environmental regulation, and promptly reports any and all deviations.

We want to apply for the alternative dispute resolution part of our community grant. Who do we
contact to do that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7
-----Original Message-----
From: J Graves <jgraves@sbpg.net>
To: noboats@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 9:51 am
Subject: RE: White Powder

Yes, occurrences such as these are going to be great topics of discussion once we start
conducting the CARE forums. I am not sure how familiar you are with the program, but what we
are going to do is conduct a series of public forums where citizens, various government agencies,
and local industry can come together to discuss environmental issues in the parish. The purpose
of the forums will be to ultimately devise a prioritized list of issues. Once we have an idea of the
issues that we want to address, we will then apply for Level 2 CARE funding. Level 2 funding is
substantially more than Level 1 and is intended to be expended directly on toxics reduction
measures.

This program is the first of its kind in the parish AND in the State of Louisiana and we are very
excited about it. There have been several delays in getting the project started because we are
really going out of our way to make it the best it can possibly be. The EPA has contracted a third
party to come in and put together a St. Bernard “industry profile.” Once this profile is complete I
will begin contacting local civic organizations, industry, etc. and inviting them to participate in the
forums. We are aiming to conduct the first forum before the end of the year.

In the meantime, if you or anyone else has any questions regarding this program or any other
projects or programs feel free to contact my office at any time.

Jerry Graves, Jr.

278-1032

ATTAC HME NT B – MOUS A R ESPO NSES T O ALL EGA TI ONS I N E- MAI L FRO M C CAM
TO M R. JE RR Y GR AVES, ST . BERN ARD P ARISH - OCT OB ER 12, 2007

---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
----
Fr om : noboats@aol.com [mailto:noboats@aol.com]
Sen t: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:35 PM
To: J Graves
Su bje ct : Re: White Powder

These occurrences need to be investigated by a third party (and NOT DEQ)

Were you able to call the number posted? Would like to share info.

We have been in touch with two other residents with similar but different experiences since June.
The refinery has had countless occasions of the problems with the hydrocracker.

MOUSA has experienced some malfunctions in the Hydrocracker, but none that would have an
offsite impact (i.e. RQ release, noise, odor, etc.).

The compressors can not handle the gasses associated with the heavy crude oil from Malaysia.

8
 MOUSA does not process crude oil from our upstream efforts in Malaysia, nor have we
discussed our proprietary crude slate with CCAM. This is yet another example of an
exaggerated, unsubstantiated claim from CCAM. To put it more bluntly, they are just making
this stuff up.

There are no plans for the use of backup compressors or for any gas recovery systems or
systems update, yet the neighborhood will be subjected to unknown amounts of hydrocarbons
and H2S and SO2 each time.

MOUSA is actively pursuing program improvements where we deem necessary and productive.
These are expensive projects which may take months or take years to develop. As you may
be aware, there are many complex issues related to management of change in refinery design
and processesCCAM impatiently fails to appreciate the complexities of refinery design.
Meanwhile, MOUSA has submitted a Title V permit application that will result in reduced
emissions in the refinery, but that permit has been held up by CCAM’s objections..

Right now there has been very very large flaring since Wednesday 8pm. It is a compressor in the
hydrocraker.

The Hydrocracker PSA Tail Gas compressor malfunctioned on 10/10/07. It has not resulted in
a Reportable Quantity release or triggered any upset notification to LDEQ and State Police.
The flare is not very large, as it is not under significant pressure. The flare is clean (no
smoke), as the vent stream consists of hydrogen and light hydrocarbons (methane, ethane).

Besides the obvious noise and flickering light there are sickening smells and the fallout on
vehicles, vegetation and homes.

There is no excess noise from the flaring event (fenceline monitoring <65 db), no odor or
fallout. MOUSA conducts daily neighborhood patrols to inspect for offsite impacts and has
found no evidence of adverse impact.

The allegation of fallout is greatly exaggerated. On behalf of a citizen, Ms. Kneale contacted
MOUSA about the alleged fallout, only to admit that the fallout was limited to a white powdery
substance on one outdoor grill. It was so insignificant that the owner did not contact MOUSA
with a complaint. MOUSA was unable to investigate it because Ms. Kneale contacted MOUSA
after a heavy rain event. MOUSA had no condition which would have resulted in such fallout.
If MOUSA had a release, the impact would probably been more far-ranging than on one grill.

Could this be on the agenda for the EPA CARE community grant?? The residents have already
requested backup compressors, gas recovery systems or systems update, root cause analysis,
more reliability and accountability from the industrial neighbor. The refinery's response was to
ask the residents to build a relationship of trust and to NOT call the DEQ, but to wait until
January for the reinstatement of the CAP Meetings.

MOUSA has discussed with CCAM our Preventative Maintenance, Equipment Reliability, and
Incident Investigation programs. MOUSA is actively pursuing program improvements where
we deem necessary and productive.

9
 MOUSA has not directed any citizens to stop calling LDEQ. MOUSA has a rigorousobust
program of receiving and responding to allegations of neighborhood impact. However, MOUSA
has found it difficult to trust CCAM when, immediately after seemingly productive meetings,
they issue such defainflammatory messages to various agencies.

MOUSA has received 65 calls from these three citizens of CCAM since May 23, 2007. Prior to
that date, we received no calls from them. Most of the calls have been great exaggerations of
events. Some examples of their claims include: “roaring noise”, “bright flame in flare woke me
up”, “vibrating house”, “scared of explosions”, “foul odor”, “loud pop knocked me out of bed”,
“children can’t sleep and we need a note to their school”, “ears hurt”, “huge clouds of smoke
from flares”. Our investigations have refuted all of these claims.

While MOUSA remains committed to investigating all citizen concerns, it is fast becoming
apparent that the majority of claims made from this group are unfounded. Take, for example,
the allegation that we had a pop or explosion that knocked Ms. Kneale out of bed. How could
the refinery generate such a loud noise to disturb someone six blocks away, and not receive a
single call from any other neighbors?

On another occasion, Ms. Kneale complained of a foul odor. When MOUSA pointed out that
the refinery was upwind of her home, she quickly terminated the call.

Additionally, CCAM calls LDEQ with these wild allegations, as well. Since LDEQ is obligated to
investigate all citizen complaints, and MOUSA is obligated to cooperate with LDEQ, both have
endured 165 such investigations due to these calls. The result has been to unnecessarily tie
up resources at MOUSA and LDEQ, essentially adding up to harassment by CCAM.

Refining is a serious endeavor, and MOUSA works very hard to be a safe, clean and productive
facility. MOUSA has run out of patience in dealing with these harassing claims. While MOUSA
looks forward to reconstituting the Community Advisory Panel, MOUSA is wary of inviting
CCAM, as they have clearly demonstrated that they are not reasonable neighbors.Refining is a
serious endeavor, and MOUSA works very hard to be a safe, clean and productive facility. In
the coming months, MOUSA looks forward to reconstituting the Community Advisory Panel
and continuing to engage in productive dialogues about its operations and other issues of
concern in with interested local residents.

What would you suggest?

How do we apply / qualify for the alternative dispute resolution part of our community's EPA
Grant?

ATTACH MEN T C – MOU SA RE SPONS ES TO ALLEG ATIONS IN E -M AIL F ROM CC AM

TO D IAN E RENE E THO MPSON , SUPE RI OR, WIS CONS IN - OC TOBE R 17, 2007

---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: J Graves <jgraves@sbpg.net>

10
To: noboats@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:26 am
Subject: White Powder
St. Bernard Resident:

I got your e-mail address from the nola.com discussion board this morning and was wondering if
you had received any pictures of the white powdery substance everyone keeps talking about. I
have seen the substance mentioned on the discussion board a few times over the last week or so
and I would like to organize those who have seen it so that we can address its source.

I work for St. Bernard Parish Government on a number of environmental affairs and this issue is
certainly of great interest to us. Please send me information that you have or call me at (504)
278-1032. Thanks for your time.

Jerry Graves, Jr.

Planner
SBPG

Fr om : sjrkneale@aol.com [mailto:sjrkneale@aol.com]
Sen t: Sunday, October 07, 20076:55 AM
To: Thompson, Diane Renee
Su bje ct : CCAM - Concerned Citizens Around Murphy (Louisiana)

We are CCAM - Concerned Citizens Around Murphy, a Louisiana neighborhood association formed
since the 2005 Hurricane Katrina and the massive residential crude oil spill at our industrial
neighbors' plant site, Murphy Oil Refinery, Meraux, Louisiana.

As we restore our homes and revitalize our community we are also developing more
comprehensive communications with our industrial neighbor, Murphy Oil and advocacy for
residents in the Chalmette and Meraux neighborhoods surrounding the refinery. We commented
in June 2007 on Murphy's Meraux Refinery Title V Air Permit Renewal and Modification. As in
Wisconsin, the Murphy Meraux Refinery is expanding processes and emissions and attempting to
use the surrounding residential properties for industrial use.

MOUSA met with CCAM on October 1, 2007 to discuss their concerns. MOUSA
explained in great detail the scope of the Title V Permit Renewal application. CCAM
objected to the permit application, the main effect of which has been to slow down
the implementation of needed environmental enhancements.

During the meeting, MOUSA was absolutely clear on two items: the refinery has
no plans to construct process units or tanks in the Buy Out Zone (BOZ), and the
permit renewal does not include any unit expansions and will not result in an
increase in emissions. CCAM’s statement, “…the Murphy Meraux Refinery is expanding
processes and emissions and attempting to use the surrounding residential properties for
industrial use” is simply not true. MOUSA is doing no such thing and has informed CCAM of
this. MOUSA invites anyone to visit the site and see the lack of expansion, including in the
BOZ, which is zoned “R-1 Residential”. That is to say, MOUSA cannot, is not, and will not
construct process units and/or tanks in the BOZ.

The Meraux Refinery did expand in 2003 with a $300 million Clean Fuels Project to
construct the Hydrocracker and its supporting #3 Sulfur Recovery Unit. As with

11
 nearly every project performed in the last decade, this "expansion" was in direct
relationship to new environmental regulations, which was to produce low sulfur
fuels. The alternative was to shut down, as the product slate from the facility
would not meet required specifications.

The current application is referred to as Clean Fuels Project, Phase II, as MOUSA
must make some adjustments to meet low-sulfur fuel specifications that were
updated by USEPA since the design and construction of Phase I.

In the near future, MOUSA will need to add processes to meet new regulations
requiring reductions in gasoline benzene content and further reductions for low-
sulfur fuels. At this time, MOUSA is only in the scoping stages of these refinery
modifications. At the October 1 meeting, MOUSA clearly stated that, after a final
plan had been developed that could be submitted to LDEQ as a permit
modification, MOUSA would be glad to discuss this plan in advance with CCAM.

Regarding emissions changes relative to the permit application currently in public

comment for nine months, MOUSA made it clear to CCAM that the refinery has not
increased emissions. The exact opposite has occurred. The Hydrocracker has
resulted in enormous reductions in emissions, and the pending permit will continue
this trend. For example (permit values) have changed as such (in tons per year):

Pre-Clean Fuels Phase I Phase II

Sulfur Dioxide (tpy) 2251 1736 684
Nitrogen Oxides (tpy) 1972 1424 1220

MOUSA felt that by educating CCAM on the technical aspects of the permit
application and the refinery processes, they would overcome their apparent fears
of the refinery. Their actions to date suggest that that is not the case and that
they are not interested in an open and honest relationship with MOUSA.

We would like to extend membership and support to any resident in the Superior, WI area who is
also interested in sharing their experiences with Murphy Oil Corporation, their support of
neighborhood organizations, their concern for the environment and their knowledge and
comments to the State DEQ and US EPA permit processes. We would hope this extended
chapter of CCAM would bring about a partnership which would be instrumental in implementing
solutions.

St Bernard Parish, Louisiana has recently received an EPA C.A.R.E. Grant (Community Action for
Renewed Environment). Through the upcoming fall forums with residents, industry,
and government officials, we hope to develop similar partnerships that implement environmental
solutions for clean air, clean water, and uncontaminated soil. We would be happy to share our
information with any concerned citizen around the Murphy Oil Superior Refinery.

Hope to hear from residents and other Concerned Citizens Around Murphy in that area soon.

Sincerely,

CCAM - Concerned Citizens Around Murphy

Suzanne Kneale, Officer

12
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2/21802822.doc

13