re: Proposed Graphite Plant for Port Manchac

You’re barking up the wrong tree trying to convince those in here with your arguments. You continue to give unproven statements or emotional pleas, which come off very ignorant.

Not one person in here has said “Build the plant”, yet you’re acting like we are. Have some faith in the system, the government is very much ahead of the curve in regards to environmental impacts than China and India or whatever other polluted manufacturing country you’re trying to compare us to. Facebook is probably a better place to pull on the heart strings of the ill-informed.

Here's the thing. There are many people around this area who do not want a Graphite plant in the middle of Manchac on North Pass. These people include commercial/recreational fishermen, camp owners, Professors, licensed engineers, environmental organizations, and just concerned citizens. We don't really need people explaining how ignorant we are and how we should just accept this plant being given permits by the DEQ. What we need are ideas on how to stop this thing in it's tracks. All you environmental permit geniuses need to provide ideas on how to defeat this whole permit thing.

We don't want 8% salt water in the middle of a fresh water estuary, or 37 tons/year of air borne graphite covering the marsh. And these releases will only increase going forward. Not many around here trust the DEQ to provide the resources to monitor this pollution.

So what if licensed environmental engineers for the opposing groups find errors in the permit application that dispute the company's findings and formally submit these errors to the DEQ? Has the DEQ ever rejected an application after a public review like this?

quote:

---

We don't really need people explaining how ignorant we are and how we should just accept this plant being given permits by the DEQ

---

You can oppose it, no one is telling you to accept it.

quote:

---

We don't want 8% salt water

---

They won't be permitted to release 8% saltwater

quote:

---

fresh water estuary

---

Estuaries, by definition, can't be freshwater.

quote:

---

37 tons/year of air borne graphite covering the marsh.

---

Again, won't be permitted to release 37 tons of graphite to the air.

quote:

---

these releases will only increase going forward

---

No they won't, certainly not permitted.

quote:

---

Not many around here trust the DEQ to provide the resources to monitor this pollution?

---

What about State Police? EPA? NOAA? Don't trust any of them?

The plant is required to monitor its own pollution as part of its license to operate, I don't know the specifics of all that goes into it, so I won't pretend like I do, but falsifying pollution numbers and effluent discharge,or failure to report permit violations is a sure fire way to get the operation shut down and/or potential jail time for those in positions of power.

The company will reapply if they are fixable


Tenfoe- damn son

quote:

---

All you environmental permit geniuses need to provide ideas on how to defeat this whole permit thing. 

---

Some of us are not in the defeating permits business, we are in the make permits obtainable under the constraints of existing regulations and providing operational flexibility... business...
I see some minor fixable issues with the air permit application, but have not even glanced at the LPDES app.
Look, I agree with you, the location of choice is not ideal, but I'm also not one to run around claiming death to the region if this becomes operational.

quote:

---

We need to defeat this permit.

---

This is easy. Here's a step-by-step:

1) Gather all those in opposition to plant;
2) Pool together everyone's savings, to equal the expected profit of the facility for lets say, the next 30 years;
3) Give money to graphite folk to keep them from building facility;
4) Wait in peace until the next facility comes to build on the site, start back at 1.

I think he's just honestly ignorant about industrial processes. This has caused irrational fears of rivers of toxic wastes and black clouds, when in fact he's likely living or working near something far more environmentally damaging already.

OK I'll bite. The company's air permit application (AI 209281) states their stack emissions will amount to 37.5 tons/yr of particulate matter. Half will be PM2.5 and the other half PM10. The concentration of PM2.5 leaving their stack calculates to 12,240 micrograms/cubic meter. That's over 300 times the WHO & IARC upper recommended limits. PM2.5 is a group 1 carcinogen and recent tests in Europe (over 300,000 people) concluded cancer rates increased 36% for every increase of 10 in the PM concentration. The dirtiest smog levels in China cities have reached concentrations of 900.

That many tons (37.5) of graphite raining down on the Manchac marsh seems like a lot. You would think the DEQ would not grant such a permit, but apparently this company had one approved in St. John Parish.

Maybe we can change the Manchac name to 'Black Bottom'.