Comments on: Why not use red mud and gypsum waste for NOLA levees? http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:11:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: L. Kondor http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-7441 L. Kondor Sun, 02 May 2010 14:24:18 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-7441 Dears, synthetic gypsum can be turned relatively "simply" to higher value liquid fertilizers. Please contact me, if this solution is of interest. Regards - L. Kondor - Austria e-mail: kondor@kemia.at Dears, synthetic gypsum can be turned relatively “simply” to higher value liquid fertilizers. Please contact me, if this solution is of interest. Regards – L. Kondor – Austria
e-mail: kondor@kemia.at

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: In Defense of Mud « of the garden variety http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-6484 In Defense of Mud « of the garden variety Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:20:56 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-6484 [...] 2. Mud gardening [...] [...] 2. Mud gardening [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Red mud redux | LaCoastPost http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4643 Red mud redux | LaCoastPost Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:44:38 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4643 [...] Why not use red mud and gypsum waste for NOLA levees? [...] [...] Why not use red mud and gypsum waste for NOLA levees? [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Marty Floyd http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4634 Marty Floyd Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:11:42 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4634 There were a number of very well-respected estuarine soil scientists that examined the problem and they were the ones who brought the potential problems to the attention of personal of the state and federal agencies. A site visit to an existing disposal site where the viable of plant growth was to be shown only had plants growing in the cracks that were filled by wind-blown material, not red mud. In addition the scientist flown in from Michigan used data from when the material was directly deposited into the Mississippi River citing species that can gulp air to survive, not having to rely only on gills. So many questions remained that the project was finally shelved. There were a number of very well-respected estuarine soil scientists that examined the problem and they were the ones who brought the potential problems to the attention of personal of the state and federal agencies. A site visit to an existing disposal site where the viable of plant growth was to be shown only had plants growing in the cracks that were filled by wind-blown material, not red mud. In addition the scientist flown in from Michigan used data from when the material was directly deposited into the Mississippi River citing species that can gulp air to survive, not having to rely only on gills. So many questions remained that the project was finally shelved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Anonymous http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4632 Anonymous Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:49:52 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4632 A few minutes of "googling" turned up this link; check out the conclusions; as stated previously--the added material handling and prep costs currently make use of red mud and spent gypsum uncompetitive with virgin clay; permitting and other "access" costs for clay need to rise significantly. Interestingly, permitting is still at DNR and I wonder if they are asking applicants for borrow pit permits for a real analysis of alternatives to proposed projects. http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09062/600r09062.pdf A few minutes of “googling” turned up this link; check out the conclusions; as stated previously–the added material handling and prep costs currently make use of red mud and spent gypsum uncompetitive with virgin clay; permitting and other “access” costs for clay need to rise significantly. Interestingly, permitting is still at DNR and I wonder if they are asking applicants for borrow pit permits for a real analysis of alternatives to proposed projects.

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r09062/600r09062.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Len Bahr http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4631 Len Bahr Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:30:11 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4631 Ed- The infamous red mud project that Ivor van Heerden, Marty Floyd and I have commented on above was a proposed small scale demonstration project to see whether spent bauxite (red mud), acidified to neutralize its high pH, could be beneficially used as a mineral soil supplement for use in dysfunctional brackish and salt marshes. The material was subjected to a wide battery of tests in terms of metals leaching, etc. EPA was the federal sponsor of the project, a number of coastal scientists endorsed it including Ivor, Paul Kemp, myself (and I believe Ron Delaune and the late Bill Patrick, both soil chemists and experts on flooded soils). The opponents included no estuarine soil scientists but they successfully killed the project by insisting on unrealistic test conditions that made it comically cumbersome and expensive. What I am proposing is not to build marshes with red mud but to use it to form the core of critical levees that would otherwise steal limited sediments that are needed for marshes. The potential risk of toxins leaching from the inner core of a levee is miniscule compared to the very real floods that are on the horizon. And this stuff is already being stored in the coast! Ed-
The infamous red mud project that Ivor van Heerden, Marty Floyd and I have commented on above was a proposed small scale demonstration project to see whether spent bauxite (red mud), acidified to neutralize its high pH, could be beneficially used as a mineral soil supplement for use in dysfunctional brackish and salt marshes. The material was subjected to a wide battery of tests in terms of metals leaching, etc. EPA was the federal sponsor of the project, a number of coastal scientists endorsed it including Ivor, Paul Kemp, myself (and I believe Ron Delaune and the late Bill Patrick, both soil chemists and experts on flooded soils).

The opponents included no estuarine soil scientists but they successfully killed the project by insisting on unrealistic test conditions that made it comically cumbersome and expensive.

What I am proposing is not to build marshes with red mud but to use it to form the core of critical levees that would otherwise steal limited sediments that are needed for marshes. The potential risk of toxins leaching from the inner core of a levee is miniscule compared to the very real floods that are on the horizon. And this stuff is already being stored in the coast!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Ed Bodker http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4628 Ed Bodker Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:05:54 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4628 Len, We can and do have undue resistance from regulatory agencies but the same agencies also approve of things that are not sufficently tested. Some years back DOTD bought Florolite (trade name), which was a byproduct from hydrochloric acid production, to use for road bed construction. The consultants who had a great deal of political clout provided DEQ with all sorts of test data that showed it to be a safe product. They also provided DOTD with test data showing it was suitable for road bed construction. It turned into a disaster. No one had sufficiently scrutinized the consultant testing. When the Florolite was put down as a road base in the wetlands near Amilia, acid leached down and concentrated to the point were it killed cypress trees and just about everything else adjacent to the road. The weight of the road bed also changed the physical characteristics of the material which compromised the stability of the road base. The samples of the Florolite taken on the top and outside surface of stockpiles had a 5-6 pH range. Samples taken at the base and the interior of the stockpile were in the 2-3 pH range. Guess where the consultants took their samples. I am only mentioning this because the issue we are discussing here is moving in the direction of political opinions regarding the use of these products. We are talking the politics of policy and it is not likely to get very far unless we can switch the discussion to the merits,liabilities and objectivity of the test data. Its not sexy but if the test data is sufficiently understood by a larger group and delt with and questioned up front and in detail then the opinions will loose political traction. And a more rational approach can be taken. Many think that too much analysis and testing slows down the process. Stripped of politics the opposite is true. Most testing can be accomplished in a short time and will speed up the process if and I stress if it is accurate, sufficient, and objective. Who has the data? Who compiled the data and did the testing? Who is questioning the results? Len,

We can and do have undue resistance from regulatory agencies but the same agencies also approve of things that are not sufficently tested. Some years back DOTD bought Florolite (trade name), which was a byproduct from hydrochloric acid production, to use for road bed construction. The consultants who had a great deal of political clout provided DEQ with all sorts of test data that showed it to be a safe product. They also provided DOTD with test data showing it was suitable for road bed construction. It turned into a disaster. No one had sufficiently scrutinized the consultant testing. When the Florolite was put down as a road base in the wetlands near Amilia, acid leached down and concentrated to the point were it killed cypress trees and just about everything else adjacent to the road. The weight of the road bed also changed the physical characteristics of the material which compromised the stability of the road base. The samples of the Florolite taken on the top and outside surface of stockpiles had a 5-6 pH range. Samples taken at the base and the interior of the stockpile were in the 2-3 pH range. Guess where the consultants took their samples.

I am only mentioning this because the issue we are discussing here is moving in the direction of political opinions regarding the use of these products. We are talking the politics of policy and it is not likely to get very far unless we can switch the discussion to the merits,liabilities and objectivity of the test data. Its not sexy but if the test data is sufficiently understood by a larger group and delt with and questioned up front and in detail then the opinions will loose political traction. And a more rational approach can be taken. Many think that too much analysis and testing slows down the process. Stripped of politics the opposite is true. Most testing can be accomplished in a short time and will speed up the process if and I stress if it is accurate, sufficient, and objective. Who has the data? Who compiled the data and did the testing? Who is questioning the results?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Len Bahr http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4624 Len Bahr Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:43:22 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4624 Marty- With all due respect, in my opinion the problems that you describe reflect exaggerated agency caution that characterizes and stifles all CWPPRA agencies (not just DNR and USF&WS). The long term toxic risk is not exposing red mud to tides, it's the approaching gulf that will ultimately inundate thousands of sites of stored hazardous materials that should warrant serious concerns. The Louisiana coastal Titanic is going down while the agencies deal with their trivial concerns by rearranging the deck chairs! Marty-
With all due respect, in my opinion the problems that you describe reflect exaggerated agency caution that characterizes and stifles all CWPPRA agencies (not just DNR and USF&WS). The long term toxic risk is not exposing red mud to tides, it’s the approaching gulf that will ultimately inundate thousands of sites of stored hazardous materials that should warrant serious concerns. The Louisiana coastal Titanic is going down while the agencies deal with their trivial concerns by rearranging the deck chairs!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Len Bahr http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4623 Len Bahr Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:21:10 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4623 Ivor- I was appalled how an innocuous demonstration project morphed into the most cockamamie, expensive and ridiculous project ever designed by a committee of Breaux Act bureaucrats. No serious coastal scientist opposed the project but passionate agency opponents used arguments that reminded me of the death panel arguments against health care reform. One DNR staffer took his opposition to a religious level; This civil engineer (with no biological background) spent his working hours lobbying the DNR secretary and assistant secretary (both attorneys) against the project and passing out bibles on weekends. He visited the Kaiser plant and took pictures of what he claimed were common egrets with brown patches on their mostly white backs feeding within the red mud storage area. He claimed that the brown spots were evidence of toxic effects. The birds were cattle egrets with normal tan spots. This experience perfectly exposed the irrational underbelly of the Breaux Act process for selecting projects and blew a golden opportunity to partner with a cooperating industry in a precedent-setting effort to add serious heft to help save what the America's Wetland Foundation calls Louisiana's working coast. The most laughable flaw in the "logic" of the opponents of testing red mud for possible beneficial uses (including forming the core of flood levees) is that the material remains stored within coastal impoundments surrounded by - you guessed it, a levee composed of red mud! Ivor-
I was appalled how an innocuous demonstration project morphed into the most cockamamie, expensive and ridiculous project ever designed by a committee of Breaux Act bureaucrats. No serious coastal scientist opposed the project but passionate agency opponents used arguments that reminded me of the death panel arguments against health care reform. One DNR staffer took his opposition to a religious level; This civil engineer (with no biological background) spent his working hours lobbying the DNR secretary and assistant secretary (both attorneys) against the project and passing out bibles on weekends. He visited the Kaiser plant and took pictures of what he claimed were common egrets with brown patches on their mostly white backs feeding within the red mud storage area. He claimed that the brown spots were evidence of toxic effects. The birds were cattle egrets with normal tan spots.

This experience perfectly exposed the irrational underbelly of the Breaux Act process for selecting projects and blew a golden opportunity to partner with a cooperating industry in a precedent-setting effort to add serious heft to help save what the America’s Wetland Foundation calls Louisiana’s working coast.

The most laughable flaw in the “logic” of the opponents of testing red mud for possible beneficial uses (including forming the core of flood levees) is that the material remains stored within coastal impoundments surrounded by – you guessed it, a levee composed of red mud!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Marty Floyd http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878&cpage=1#comment-4622 Marty Floyd Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:09:05 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=12878#comment-4622 The CWPPRA proposal actually had a lot of faults and didn't work. Kaiser would love to give away red mud since everywhere in the rest of the world from Arkansas to Australia requires it to be kept in a permanent hazoudous material landfill because of the potential leaching of materials. The big question by most of the CWPPRA agencies not just two was the use of this type of material in a tidal area unlike confined areas required elsewhere. We have to be careful of what we allow since industry has a lot of things that they would be happy to "give". The CWPPRA proposal actually had a lot of faults and didn’t work. Kaiser would love to give away red mud since everywhere in the rest of the world from Arkansas to Australia requires it to be kept in a permanent hazoudous material landfill because of the potential leaching of materials. The big question by most of the CWPPRA agencies not just two was the use of this type of material in a tidal area unlike confined areas required elsewhere. We have to be careful of what we allow since industry has a lot of things that they would be happy to “give”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>