- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Proposed Graphite Plant for Port Manchac
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:57 am to CypressTrout10
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:57 am to CypressTrout10
quote:obviously LDEQ can alter the terms of what Syrah is currently proposing. It simply an application. And LDEQ actually has some of the most strict regulations as far as state agencies go. I'll wait and see what happens with the permit and then pass judgement.
Syrah has applied to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for air and water permits
0
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:10 pm to upgrayedd
quote:0% chance that any new permit is ever written that allows them to discharge 10% salt into a body of water that is for arguments sake fresh
quote:
The water released will have salt concentration 3x that of ocean water.
There's no way any regulatory agency would allow that.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:10 pm to Citica8
Exactly.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:11 pm to Citica8
quote:
0% chance that any new permit is ever written that allows them to discharge 10% salt into a body of water that is for arguments sake fresh
I could possibly see them maybe doing it in some sort of TWA scenario, but that's still unlikely.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:21 pm to Mark Makers
I don't monitor or watch pollution numbers. Everyone says the worst pollution in the river is from the fertilizer run off from farm lands. Much of this water also goes into the Atchafalaya river and then Atchafalaya swamp. No one mentions high levels of pollution in this area.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:29 pm to upgrayedd
I’m sticking with 0%
The process might produce a solution that in 10% salt as a byproduct, but there is no way that is getting permitted to be pumped into an estuary. You know how much money these plants spend getting the water they pump out cleaner than they pump in?
The process might produce a solution that in 10% salt as a byproduct, but there is no way that is getting permitted to be pumped into an estuary. You know how much money these plants spend getting the water they pump out cleaner than they pump in?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:32 pm to upgrade
quote:
I don't monitor or watch pollution numbers. Everyone says the worst pollution in the river is from the fertilizer run off from farm lands. Much of this water also goes into the Atchafalaya river and then Atchafalaya swamp. No one mentions high levels of pollution in this area.
The part that makes the fertilizer issue a big deal is the algae bloom that causes oxygen deficiency.
As I understand it, it doesn't affect the Atchafalaya the same way as it essentially acts as a giant filter.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:33 pm to Citica8
quote:
I’m sticking with 0%
The process might produce a solution that in 10% salt as a byproduct, but there is no way that is getting permitted to be pumped into an estuary. You know how much money these plants spend getting the water they pump out cleaner than they pump in?
That was another question I had. What is their water source?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:34 pm to Citica8
Someone probably found the proposed salinity concentration for an internal outfall that flows to a treatment process or offsite to a POTW and assumed that’s going to the estuary.
I’m curious now so I’m going to see if anything is on EDMS for this site later tonight
I’m curious now so I’m going to see if anything is on EDMS for this site later tonight
Posted on 12/26/17 at 12:35 pm to upgrade
quote:I’ve heard the same thing, but it’s more than just farmers, the general public does its fair share of spilling gas, oil, pesticides, paints, etc
Everyone says the worst pollution in the river is from the fertilizer run off from farm lands.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 2:38 pm to Citica8
The problem in Louisiana is that we are managing 47% of the agricultural runoff of the lower 48 in the Mississippi River.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 3:18 pm to keakar
This is not a battery plant. This is a graphite processing plant(which is 100% carbon). Even though the graphite will be used in battery production, it's totally different. Battery plants that caused the problems of pollution in the past were lead acid battery plants. Discharges of effluent from any industry have restrictive ranges set up in their permits that they have to adhere to. Parameters like salinity and pH cannot be drastically out of range from the receiving stream waters. The people quoted in the OP link are all known environmental activists trying to scare the hell out everyone.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 3:22 pm to Muice
quote:
I’m curious now so I’m going to see if anything is on EDMS for this site later tonight
AI: 209281
This post was edited on 12/26/17 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 3:34 pm to tenfoe
quote:Among many problems.
The problem in Louisiana is that we are managing 47% of the agricultural runoff of the lower 48 in the Mississippi River.
My comments about the general population contributing its fair share, look at Bayou Manchac which drains most of Baton Rouge to the Amite. An ideas what that water quality looks like?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 3:36 pm to Chuker
Mining purer graphite makes it even more environmentally friendly.
It also uses less resources to make the graphite needed..
It also uses less resources to make the graphite needed..
Posted on 12/26/17 at 4:25 pm to Citica8
Especially since salinity is measured in parts per thousand. Percent is parts per hundred. Sea water is 32-35 ppt which is 3.2 -3.5 %. That means what is reported is 3X the salinity of pure sea water. 0% Chance that gets approved
Posted on 12/26/17 at 4:38 pm to tommy2tone1999
Permit Application on EDMS specifies that the effluent will be passed through reverse osmosis to lower salinity, and then pH will be neutralized prior to discharge.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 4:47 pm to tommy2tone1999
Love how that's not in the article.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 7:14 pm to Citica8
If they are running their waste process water that contains salt through a RO process their will be very little precipitants in it.
I drove by Port Manchac today.
It is inconceivable to me that people are whining about this almost inert little plant given the crap that is stored and processed there today. I bet you there were over 100 IBCs outside of buildings there today.
I drove by Port Manchac today.
It is inconceivable to me that people are whining about this almost inert little plant given the crap that is stored and processed there today. I bet you there were over 100 IBCs outside of buildings there today.
This post was edited on 12/26/17 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 8:13 pm to I B Freeman
I don't have a dog in this fight with this plant happening, just expressing my opinion that there is no chance that with today's EPA and DEQ standards will a new construction plant get a permit that allows them to discharge effluent that is "3x the salt concentration of the ocean" into Pass Manchac or North Pass, especially considering the state of the coast.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News