Here is a chart I made that compares Buckeye's current pollution to what will be expected of them under the permit, administrative order, and ADOC for the pipeline. If Dan has an issue with any of my numbers I would be happy to hear about it and would appreciate a citation for where he gets any alternative information from.
BUCKEYE’S POLLUTION – TODAY AND 9 YEARS FROM NOW
This table shows what is in Buckeye’s discharge today, what their pollution limits would be for 7 years after the proposed permit is issued and then what their limits would be 9 years after the proposed permit is issued. All numbers are the daily maximum allowed unless otherwise stated. I hope my chart doesn't lose its formatting. If it does, go to my website to see it. http://www.cleanwaternetwork-fl.org
Pollutant Today next 7 yrs 7 to 9 yrs 9 to14 yrs
BOD5 lbs/day 14,409 14,409 12,969 12,969
Mg/l 22 mg/l
CBOD unknown none 6,330 lb/day 6,330 lb/day
11 mg/l
Temperature no limit no limit no limit no limit
pH 6.0/8.5 6.5/8.5 min/max
Phenolics .025 mg/l no limit no limit no limit
Dissolved Oxygen
Fenholloway no limit no limit 1.0 to 2.3 April to September
Fenholloway 2.1 to 3.5 2/1 to 3/31 & 10/1 to 11/30
Fenholloway 3.5 to 5.0 Dec. 1 to January 31
Coastal 1.7 to 3.2 April to September
Coastal 3.4 to 5.0 2/1 to 3/32 & 10/1 to 11/30
Coastal 4.0 to 5.0 Dec. 1 to January 31
TSS 11,853 lb/day 50,000 50,000 50,000 lb/day
Turbidity no limit no limit
Oil and grease <5.0 mg/l <5.0 mg/l <5.0 mg/l <5.0 mg/l
Specific Conductance 3,000 umhos/cm none 4,000 none
Total Phosphorus 1.8 mg/l 365 lb/day 365 lb/dayyr aver
Total Nitrogen 9.3 mg/l 1095 lb/day 1095 lb/day yr av
Unionized Ammonia 0.06 mg/l no limit
Ammonia Nitrogen 3.3 mg/l 410 lb/day mo ave
Nitrite unknown none none none
Nitrate unknown none none none
TKN 6.0 mg/l none none none
Orthophosphate unknown none none none
Color, PCU 1,466 401,821 lb/day 401,821lbs/day
Biological Integrity no limit no limit no limit no limit
Chronic Toxicity NOEC 12.5 no limit no limit mixing zone
Transparency no limit no limit
Iron 1.0 mg/l .3 mg/l
Dioxin no limit no limit 10 ppq
AOX .45 kg/kkf no limit no limit no limit
2,4,6 trichlorophenol 6.5 ug/l yr 6.5 ug/l yr ave
Fecal Coliform no limit no limit no limit no limit
Total Coliform 2400 100/ml 2400/100 ml
Enterococci no limit no limit no limit 276/100 ml
Fenholloway
Moderators: bman, Chalk, Tom Keels
-
lindayoung
- Posts: 9
- Joined: August 24th, 2007, 10:32 pm
Well, the formatting was lost unfortunately. If you are really interested, you can probably figure it out, but I sent it to my webmaster and asked her to post it on the website for you.
One thing that I think is very important to all of us, but especially to the fishing community is the issue of dioxin. Dan stated that the fish consumption advisory for dioxin has been lifted for the Fenholloway. This is a great example of how Dan will make a true statement, but it is so misleading. Something as important as dioxin should not be explained in half-truths.
A fish consumption advisory was issued by the Florida Dept. of Health for the Fenholloway back in the 90's after high levels of dioxin were found in the fish. Buckeye has been trying to get it lifted ever since. About 4 years ago, Buckeye's lawyers and the FDEP started putting a lot of pressure on the Dept. of Health to lift the advisory.
Finally the Dept. of Health did lift it and here's how. The threshhold for unsafe levels of dioxin has been set at 1.2 ppt by the US EPA for many years. Over the past few years they have been working to make it even more protective. Florida used the EPA recommendation all these years to set fish-consumption advisories. Then in about 2002, Georgia-Pacific on the St. Johns River was found to be causing high dioxin levels in the fish near Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific and Buckeye put political pressure on the Dept. of Health to change the threshhold for issuing an advisory. So, the number that triggers an advisory was changed from 1.2 ppt to 7.0 ppt and the advisories went away. poof! just like that. There was no public notice, no opportunity to comment, no hearings - nothing. It was just changed and the advisories went completely away.
Did the dioxin go away? no. You can read the statement by EPA in my earlier post (what the experts say). EPA still have the Fenholloway River on the Impaired Waters List for dioxin. The state of Florida found a political fix, but it doesn't make the fish any safer to eat.
I believe that the public has a right to know the truth and it is unethical for Dan Simmons to mislead a community of fishermen to believe that it is now safe for them to feed Fenholloway fish (if there are any in there) to their families.
I have documents that I got from the Dept. of Health to back up everything I have written here. If you would like to see them, let me know where to mail them and I'll send them along to you. thanks, Linda
One thing that I think is very important to all of us, but especially to the fishing community is the issue of dioxin. Dan stated that the fish consumption advisory for dioxin has been lifted for the Fenholloway. This is a great example of how Dan will make a true statement, but it is so misleading. Something as important as dioxin should not be explained in half-truths.
A fish consumption advisory was issued by the Florida Dept. of Health for the Fenholloway back in the 90's after high levels of dioxin were found in the fish. Buckeye has been trying to get it lifted ever since. About 4 years ago, Buckeye's lawyers and the FDEP started putting a lot of pressure on the Dept. of Health to lift the advisory.
Finally the Dept. of Health did lift it and here's how. The threshhold for unsafe levels of dioxin has been set at 1.2 ppt by the US EPA for many years. Over the past few years they have been working to make it even more protective. Florida used the EPA recommendation all these years to set fish-consumption advisories. Then in about 2002, Georgia-Pacific on the St. Johns River was found to be causing high dioxin levels in the fish near Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific and Buckeye put political pressure on the Dept. of Health to change the threshhold for issuing an advisory. So, the number that triggers an advisory was changed from 1.2 ppt to 7.0 ppt and the advisories went away. poof! just like that. There was no public notice, no opportunity to comment, no hearings - nothing. It was just changed and the advisories went completely away.
Did the dioxin go away? no. You can read the statement by EPA in my earlier post (what the experts say). EPA still have the Fenholloway River on the Impaired Waters List for dioxin. The state of Florida found a political fix, but it doesn't make the fish any safer to eat.
I believe that the public has a right to know the truth and it is unethical for Dan Simmons to mislead a community of fishermen to believe that it is now safe for them to feed Fenholloway fish (if there are any in there) to their families.
I have documents that I got from the Dept. of Health to back up everything I have written here. If you would like to see them, let me know where to mail them and I'll send them along to you. thanks, Linda
-
Dwayne Fisherman
- Posts: 15
- Joined: July 5th, 2006, 11:35 am
There have been significant environmental improvements within the Buckeye plant in recent years. These plant improvements have resulted in improved river and gulf water quality. Still, there is more to be done to meet all class 3 (fishable and swimmable) standards within the Fenholloway.
Why should we be thanking you for making improvements when Buckeye started the pollution in the first place?
As a visitor to this site, I feel like a guest in the homes of forum members. I commit to not making this discussion an awkward personal dispute between Ms. Young and me. The issue is how to restore the Fenholloway River to fishable and swimmable standards and, at the same time, improve Gulf water quality.
How exactly are you going to do this? Anything you put into the water is lower quality than what nature has already put there.
Buckeye’s water quality goals are simple but comprehensive: improve plant wastewater quality, improve river water quality and improve water quality in the Gulf of Mexico.
Significant progress has already been made.
A Fenholloway fish advisory has been lifted by the Florida Department of Health. These necessary improvements have cost tens of millions of dollars.
Are you going to eat fish out of this river? I bet not.
Again, why should we feel sorry about money you spent when Buckeye is the cause of the pollution?
A proposed nine-year work plan includes upgrading equipment within the Buckeye plant to further reduce color and nutrients in the wastewater and to increase river oxygen levels; enhancing 6,700 acres of company-owned wetlands to stabilize water flows to the upper Fenholloway; and removing salty wastewater from the freshwater portions of the Fenholloway. This latter provision involves the much-discussed pipeline.
The proposed new wastewater permit for our facility specifically requires a 47 percent reduction in carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, a 58 percent reduction in total nitrogen, a 29 percent reduction in total phosphorous, and an addition reduction in effluent color.
It is incorrect to say this plan of work harms Gulf water quality – it improves Gulf water quality.
This strains your credibility to the breaking point. Putting better quality water in the Gulf means you are putting less crap in the Gulf. NOT improving water quality.
Forgive me for not believing Buckeye is committed to the environment. You are doing quite a bit of spinning yourself, and I doubt you'll see too many fisherman out on the river tomorrow bringing those fish home to their children.
Why should we be thanking you for making improvements when Buckeye started the pollution in the first place?
As a visitor to this site, I feel like a guest in the homes of forum members. I commit to not making this discussion an awkward personal dispute between Ms. Young and me. The issue is how to restore the Fenholloway River to fishable and swimmable standards and, at the same time, improve Gulf water quality.
How exactly are you going to do this? Anything you put into the water is lower quality than what nature has already put there.
Buckeye’s water quality goals are simple but comprehensive: improve plant wastewater quality, improve river water quality and improve water quality in the Gulf of Mexico.
Significant progress has already been made.
A Fenholloway fish advisory has been lifted by the Florida Department of Health. These necessary improvements have cost tens of millions of dollars.
Are you going to eat fish out of this river? I bet not.
Again, why should we feel sorry about money you spent when Buckeye is the cause of the pollution?
A proposed nine-year work plan includes upgrading equipment within the Buckeye plant to further reduce color and nutrients in the wastewater and to increase river oxygen levels; enhancing 6,700 acres of company-owned wetlands to stabilize water flows to the upper Fenholloway; and removing salty wastewater from the freshwater portions of the Fenholloway. This latter provision involves the much-discussed pipeline.
The proposed new wastewater permit for our facility specifically requires a 47 percent reduction in carbonaceous biological oxygen demand, a 58 percent reduction in total nitrogen, a 29 percent reduction in total phosphorous, and an addition reduction in effluent color.
It is incorrect to say this plan of work harms Gulf water quality – it improves Gulf water quality.
This strains your credibility to the breaking point. Putting better quality water in the Gulf means you are putting less crap in the Gulf. NOT improving water quality.
Forgive me for not believing Buckeye is committed to the environment. You are doing quite a bit of spinning yourself, and I doubt you'll see too many fisherman out on the river tomorrow bringing those fish home to their children.
-
What a mess
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 8:35 pm
- Location: Valdosta Ga.
So these fish I have carried home from around rock island and spring warrior are most likely full of dioxin right?
Isn't that just swell I have worked several years to learn this area and love it and it is toxic, poisonous that is just great.
As I had stated in an earlier post govt. making laws and policy to help the people that paid to get them elected, right?
I am I really wrong for thinking they are a bunch of bastards?
Isn't that just swell I have worked several years to learn this area and love it and it is toxic, poisonous that is just great.
As I had stated in an earlier post govt. making laws and policy to help the people that paid to get them elected, right?
I am I really wrong for thinking they are a bunch of bastards?
Yesterday it was taboo today it is normal what the heck will they be doing tomorrow?
-
BAD BEHAVIOR
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: April 25th, 2007, 11:08 pm
- Location: adel/cairo, ga
-
Dubble Trubble
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 2348
- Joined: October 30th, 2005, 8:46 pm
- Location: Thomasville
---We need to self moderate a little---BAD BEHAVIOR wrote:Chalk, Big Tom, somebody please moderate!!! Its gone from a form of useful information to place I dont want to be a part of going!
Although I do not agree with some things from both sides, I think we should ALL pause a minute to remember we are all part of the problem.
You need to think when you turn on the lights in the morning, a power plant somewhere is polluting. When you spray those bugs around your home, you are polluting. When you crank up that big 4 wheel drive to go fishing, you are polluting. I can not even see folks like Ms. Young giving up a car and riding a horse (which would still pollute the air
).And after you get through polluting the air with those beans you had last nite, you probably use some of Buckeyes products to wipe your arse....
This whole "not in my backyard" thing is ridiculous, since the whole earth is our backyard.
Quit pointing fingers and try to help with solutions.......
Dubble
The more I know about something, the more I know that I did not know as much as I thought I knew that I knew.
-
BAD BEHAVIOR
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: April 25th, 2007, 11:08 pm
- Location: adel/cairo, ga
how much does buckeye discharge per day?
how much does buckeye discharge every day?
for how many years?
how much clean water is that buckeye has ruined?
for how many years?
how much clean water is that buckeye has ruined?
-
What a mess
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: October 2nd, 2006, 8:35 pm
- Location: Valdosta Ga.
One thing that I think is very important to all of us, but especially to the fishing community is the issue of dioxin. Dan stated that the fish consumption advisory for dioxin has been lifted for the Fenholloway. This is a great example of how Dan will make a true statement, but it is so misleading. Something as important as dioxin should not be explained in half-truths.
A fish consumption advisory was issued by the Florida Dept. of Health for the Fenholloway back in the 90's after high levels of dioxin were found in the fish. Buckeye has been trying to get it lifted ever since. About 4 years ago, Buckeye's lawyers and the FDEP started putting a lot of pressure on the Dept. of Health to lift the advisory.
Finally the Dept. of Health did lift it and here's how. The threshhold for unsafe levels of dioxin has been set at 1.2 ppt by the US EPA for many years. Over the past few years they have been working to make it even more protective. Florida used the EPA recommendation all these years to set fish-consumption advisories. Then in about 2002, Georgia-Pacific on the St. Johns River was found to be causing high dioxin levels in the fish near Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific and Buckeye put political pressure on the Dept. of Health to change the threshhold for issuing an advisory. So, the number that triggers an advisory was changed from 1.2 ppt to 7.0 ppt and the advisories went away. poof! just like that. There was no public notice, no opportunity to comment, no hearings - nothing. It was just changed and the advisories went completely away.
Did the dioxin go away? no. You can read the statement by EPA in my earlier post (what the experts say). EPA still have the Fenholloway River on the Impaired Waters List for dioxin. The state of Florida found a political fix, but it doesn't make the fish any safer to eat.
I believe that the public has a right to know the truth and it is unethical for Dan Simmons to mislead a community of fishermen to believe that it is now safe for them to feed Fenholloway fish (if there are any in there) to their families.
I have documents that I got from the Dept. of Health to back up everything I have written here. If you would like to see them, let me know where to mail them and I'll send them along to you. thanks, Linda[/quote]
A fish consumption advisory was issued by the Florida Dept. of Health for the Fenholloway back in the 90's after high levels of dioxin were found in the fish. Buckeye has been trying to get it lifted ever since. About 4 years ago, Buckeye's lawyers and the FDEP started putting a lot of pressure on the Dept. of Health to lift the advisory.
Finally the Dept. of Health did lift it and here's how. The threshhold for unsafe levels of dioxin has been set at 1.2 ppt by the US EPA for many years. Over the past few years they have been working to make it even more protective. Florida used the EPA recommendation all these years to set fish-consumption advisories. Then in about 2002, Georgia-Pacific on the St. Johns River was found to be causing high dioxin levels in the fish near Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific and Buckeye put political pressure on the Dept. of Health to change the threshhold for issuing an advisory. So, the number that triggers an advisory was changed from 1.2 ppt to 7.0 ppt and the advisories went away. poof! just like that. There was no public notice, no opportunity to comment, no hearings - nothing. It was just changed and the advisories went completely away.
Did the dioxin go away? no. You can read the statement by EPA in my earlier post (what the experts say). EPA still have the Fenholloway River on the Impaired Waters List for dioxin. The state of Florida found a political fix, but it doesn't make the fish any safer to eat.
I believe that the public has a right to know the truth and it is unethical for Dan Simmons to mislead a community of fishermen to believe that it is now safe for them to feed Fenholloway fish (if there are any in there) to their families.
I have documents that I got from the Dept. of Health to back up everything I have written here. If you would like to see them, let me know where to mail them and I'll send them along to you. thanks, Linda[/quote]
Yesterday it was taboo today it is normal what the heck will they be doing tomorrow?
Re: Fenholloway/Gulf questions - "too salty"
[quote="Dan Simmons
" Key issues with Buckeye’s treated wastewater include color, salinity (more technically referred to as specific conductance), lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the Fenholloway, and nutrients.
The river does not filter out salinity.
The strategy is to remove the plant’s salty wastewater from the freshwater portion of the Fenholloway. Buckeye’s wastewater salinity currently impacts freshwater critters"
Question then: why not desalinate Buckeye's wastewater? wouldn't that help the water quality in the river and in the Gulf?
Panel Focuses On Desal Plant
By Anthony McCartney of The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 10, 2007
TAMPA - To meet Florida's growing need for fresh water, a number of communities will likely turn to a solution that has yet to prove itself in the Tampa Bay area - desalination.
Lessons learned from Hillsborough County's desal plant could prove key to future efforts, officials said during a panel discussion held in downtown Tampa on Monday.
The technology's future in the Tampa Bay area, however, will largely depend on the success of the current plant near Tampa Electric's Big Bend Power Station, said Ken Herd, director of operations and facilities for Tampa Bay Water.
That plant has never met expectations, although Herd told a group of water professionals that by the end of the year, the plant should be turning out 25 million gallons of drinkable water per day.
It is currently producing about 20 million gallons per day.
"The bottom line is we need this project online by the end of the year," Herd told the group assembled for the 22nd Annual Water Reuse Symposium in Tampa this week.
Tampa Bay Water is required to decrease its dependency on groundwater by 2008. The desal plant is only part of the solution; the agency has also developed a reservoir and a surface water treatment system to ensure residents of Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties have enough water.
The surface water and reservoir systems will likely be expanded before Bay area officials sign off on any new desalination efforts, Herd told the group.
The agency still has hopes that a site on the Anclote River will one day become a desal plant - this time with a better source of water.
The Big Bend site has been plagued with problems filtering out not only salt, but also other sediments and microscopic marine life. It siphons water used to cool the Tampa Electric plant, and that water is more brackish than seawater.
The water "is probably some of worst source water we've seen," said Andrew L. Shea, an official with Acciona Aqua, a company that took over the desal project after a previous contractor declared bankruptcy.
Despite the challenges, he also expressed confidence that Tampa Bay's desal plant will eventually work as planned. The stakes are high, he said, "The whole world is watching."
Herd said several other Florida communities - including Fort Myers, Flagler County, Fort Lauderdale and Port Everglades - are investigating desal projects.
Tampa Bay Water has plans for expanding the Big Bend plant so it could produce up to 35 million gallons of fresh water, or building a full-fledged facility at the Anclote River Power Plant.
Because of earlier problems at the Big Bend site, those options remain on the "back burner," Herd told the audience.
"Before we consider another desal plant in this region, we must get this plant up and running for a sustained period of time," he said.
Reporter Anthony McCartney can be reached at (813) 259-7616 or amccartney@tampatrib.com.
Buckeye shouldn't say desalinization is too expensive - it's too expensive not to! Buckeye should be required to decrease its dependency on groundwater too. Why can't the mill re-use the wastewater?
Frog
" Key issues with Buckeye’s treated wastewater include color, salinity (more technically referred to as specific conductance), lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in the Fenholloway, and nutrients.
The river does not filter out salinity.
The strategy is to remove the plant’s salty wastewater from the freshwater portion of the Fenholloway. Buckeye’s wastewater salinity currently impacts freshwater critters"
Question then: why not desalinate Buckeye's wastewater? wouldn't that help the water quality in the river and in the Gulf?
Panel Focuses On Desal Plant
By Anthony McCartney of The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 10, 2007
TAMPA - To meet Florida's growing need for fresh water, a number of communities will likely turn to a solution that has yet to prove itself in the Tampa Bay area - desalination.
Lessons learned from Hillsborough County's desal plant could prove key to future efforts, officials said during a panel discussion held in downtown Tampa on Monday.
The technology's future in the Tampa Bay area, however, will largely depend on the success of the current plant near Tampa Electric's Big Bend Power Station, said Ken Herd, director of operations and facilities for Tampa Bay Water.
That plant has never met expectations, although Herd told a group of water professionals that by the end of the year, the plant should be turning out 25 million gallons of drinkable water per day.
It is currently producing about 20 million gallons per day.
"The bottom line is we need this project online by the end of the year," Herd told the group assembled for the 22nd Annual Water Reuse Symposium in Tampa this week.
Tampa Bay Water is required to decrease its dependency on groundwater by 2008. The desal plant is only part of the solution; the agency has also developed a reservoir and a surface water treatment system to ensure residents of Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties have enough water.
The surface water and reservoir systems will likely be expanded before Bay area officials sign off on any new desalination efforts, Herd told the group.
The agency still has hopes that a site on the Anclote River will one day become a desal plant - this time with a better source of water.
The Big Bend site has been plagued with problems filtering out not only salt, but also other sediments and microscopic marine life. It siphons water used to cool the Tampa Electric plant, and that water is more brackish than seawater.
The water "is probably some of worst source water we've seen," said Andrew L. Shea, an official with Acciona Aqua, a company that took over the desal project after a previous contractor declared bankruptcy.
Despite the challenges, he also expressed confidence that Tampa Bay's desal plant will eventually work as planned. The stakes are high, he said, "The whole world is watching."
Herd said several other Florida communities - including Fort Myers, Flagler County, Fort Lauderdale and Port Everglades - are investigating desal projects.
Tampa Bay Water has plans for expanding the Big Bend plant so it could produce up to 35 million gallons of fresh water, or building a full-fledged facility at the Anclote River Power Plant.
Because of earlier problems at the Big Bend site, those options remain on the "back burner," Herd told the audience.
"Before we consider another desal plant in this region, we must get this plant up and running for a sustained period of time," he said.
Reporter Anthony McCartney can be reached at (813) 259-7616 or amccartney@tampatrib.com.
Buckeye shouldn't say desalinization is too expensive - it's too expensive not to! Buckeye should be required to decrease its dependency on groundwater too. Why can't the mill re-use the wastewater?
Frog