Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Superior Refinery Community Advisory Panel
April 4, 2002
Attendees: Bobbi Engstrom Germond, Doug Finn, Frank Giesen, Charlie Glazman, Steve Gotelaere, Pat Heiser, Lori Keute, Carol Lindberg, Tad Matheson Tom Strewler, Kaye Tenerelli, Kate Whitby.
Industry Representatives: Dave Podratz, Liz Lundmark, Corey Mead, Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
Guests: Jim Hosch, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Rosie Seymour, Kay McKenzie, John Schraufnagel.
Facilitator: Mary A. Green, Ann Green Communications, Inc.
Minutes: Mary A. Green.
The regular meeting of the Murphy Oil USA, Superior Refinery Community Advisory Panel (CAP) was called to order by facilitator Mary A. Green, beginning at
6:00 p.m., April 4, 2002, at WITC.
Mary welcomed guests and asked all present to introduce him or herself. She asked guests to hold their remarks through the agenda until the panel completed its discussion about the topic.
Handouts were reviewed. The agenda was reviewed, and it was noted that Unfinished Business could be moved before the Plant Update. The minutes were approved with one correction: Kate Whitby was present at the March meeting.
Newton Creek
Dave Podratz presented information regarding Murphy Oil’s work related to Newton Creek. [A copy of his presentation is attached to these minutes for those not present.]
Dave said Newton Creek runs from the refinery to Hog Island. When there is dry weather, most of the water in the creek comes from the plant’s effluent. The water used at the plant is treated in the refinery’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) before it is discharged. The WWTP was installed in 1994.
Dave’s presentation reviewed the history of the creek, Hog Island inlet, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the company and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the company’s work on the creek, joint testing with the DNR, and recent developments.
The history of the creek involves the refinery’s construction in 1951. Dave said during warm, dry weather, the plant is the only contributor to the creek. Prior to data starting with the 1970’s, Jim Hosch said little is known about the creek. Steve Gotelaere said the creek was used to flush human waste to the Bay. Frank Giesen agreed with this history of the creek. Frank also described a scrap yard that was located at Hog Island inlet in years past.
When asked by Frank why the effluent is not sent directly to the Bay to eliminate it from the creek, Dave said Murphy Oil could consider this, but more research is needed to pursue this. Jim said in the past, residents have opposed this because the dilution factor would be higher.
The location of other businesses and transportation routes along the creek were also discussed, including the coal-loading dock and the former crude-loading dock at Hog Island inlet.
Dave said the memorandum of understanding (MOU) committed Murphy to study the creek and set guidelines for determining if further action was needed. He reviewed the data collected and the results found over the years. All details are in the presentation handout. Dave said the results show the creek meets and exceeds the standards set for the creek. Dave explained why some results vary from year to year. He said variations occur because sediment may not be taken from the exact same location on each sampling. Improvements since 1994 have been recorded, and 2001 data show additional changes. He said Section A of the creek is used as the section to compare the other parts of the creek to (reference site) because it was cleaned up and meets the agency’s standards. There was some discussion about the use of reference sites for comparison purposes. Dave and Jim agreed that there are no really good reference sites for Newton Creek. Dave discussed the commitment within the MOU to contribute $200,000 to the clean up of Hog Island Inlet.
Tom Strewler asked if the agency’s standards have been reviewed since they were set. Dave said they have and that is the present situation. Jim Hosch said the agency believes the science has changed and more is known about the compounds found in the sediment. He also said there is some belief that the MOU was a proposal and not an agreement. He added that the agency believes UV light on the compounds causes them to be more toxic. Dave said Murphy believes the information is based upon unproved science and does not use accepted test methods.
Frank asked if Murphy is meeting its discharge standards. Dave said except for occasional permit exceedances, which the CAP discusses, the company does.
Dave and Jim talked about (PAH) polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons contained in the sediments. Dave said PAHs are found in oil and urban runoff and are also produced as a product of combustion. He talked about the potential sources along Newton Creek. Carol Lindberg said even mothballs used to combat skunks have PAHs (naphthalene).
Jim explained the biodiversity found in the sediment. He said three dragon flies were found, which means the creek is showing improvement. However, he said the others found are pollution tolerant.
The DNR plans a cleanup of Newton Creek in the coming years and the potential for sediment movement concerns the agency. He said the agency’s priority is to restore Hog Island inlet, and the creek is a contributor of contaminants to this. He said if all funding is made available, $1.1 million will be spent in the next two years. Jim said Murphy Oil deserves credit because they have helped with contacts for this.
The trip was postponed because of the death of the founder of Murphy Oil Corporation. It will be rescheduled.
Committee Reports
Youth Education – Tad Matheson said Peggy Smith expects to receive an $11,000 grant to sponsor teacher education. She hopes to know more soon. Once information is known, the committee will meet. (Committee members are Lori Keute, Tad Matheson, Jay Mitchell, Liz Lundmark, Kate Whitby, Devin Pacheco). Tom talked about the outreach program at the University and how the CAP might be able to sponsor an education program related to storm drains. He committed to finding out how much this would cost. Lori Keute talked about a water-testing program. [A copy of the class lesson is attached.] She said the CAP could consider promoting this to other classes. The panel agreed to have Lori invite the teacher and her students to the June meeting for a demonstration.
Emergency preparedness – The planning committee is meeting and includes officials and emergency responders. It was noted the committee is working out the details of how the First Call System will work.
Kaye Tenerelli said she was not familiar with the plant’s sirens. Dave said they are tested on the first Tuesday each month. He said maybe there is an opportunity for the refinery to educate near neighbors about the testing siren.
Mary reminded the panel to think about ways it can help promote First Call once plans are in place. She said it might benefit the panel to have a presentation from someone leading the efforts once that happens.
Rosie Seymour encouraged Murphy to sponsor a public meeting to show how the relationship with the company was changed in a positive manner. Dave said maybe the CAP could sponsor something in the fall that would be open to all neighbors. This will be placed on the August agenda.
Communications – Two presentations are scheduled:
· Shrine Club – May 20
Dave and Charlie will present.
· Realtors – May 16 or 23
Frank, Bobbi and a Murphy representative will present.
Mary will contact Bob Browne to remind him of the Lions Club. The panel agreed with Dave in that many of the Chamber members have heard the presentation. Dave will check to see if the CAP could sponsor a Business After Hours with the company.
The school board, school in-service days and the area’s leadership group were added. Tom agreed to check on the presentation to the education groups.
Plant Update
Dave reviewed the refinery performance report since the last meeting. [A copy of the report is attached to these minutes for those not present.] Environmentally, the refinery had no spills. There were two air permit exceedances. The emissions from these caused the refinery to emit about double its normal SO2 from the sulfur plant on those days. There was one water permit exceedance for acute testing. This was thought to be due to treatment chemicals being used in the water treatment system. It killed some of the bugs in the testing. A change will be made to the treatment plant to help control solids and reduce the amount of chemicals required once the DNR approves the change. Two odor complaints were reported. These were related to the treatment plant. To detect odor problems and prevent them from impacting the community, Dave said the plant’s guard who roams the facility now has a checklist that includes what to do if an odor is detected. Dave said he hopes changes to the water permit will eliminate the odor problem.
There were no safety incidents. The employees have worked since April 9, 2001 without a lost time accident.
As for operations, the charge rate is down from last year. The plant is operating an average of 23,000 barrels daily. This is about the lowest rate it can operate at.
There were no additional comments or concerns. Kay did mention a mercury detection program based in the Twin Cities. It involves the use of a mercury-sniffing dog. Carol said the program has been used at the university and she was impressed.
Next Meeting Date and Agenda
The May meeting will include committee and plant updates as well as a discussion about transportation.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m.
Next Meeting Date: Thursday, May 2, 2002
WITC
5:30 p.m. - Dinner
6 p.m. – Meeting
Attachments:
Plant Update
Recycling Article
3 Education Pieces
H20 Presentation Lake Superior Watershed