Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

autonocion.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 272 posts

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#211

Post by dylan604 »

tpmoney wrote: post #201
dylan604 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Tesla also argues that the Eurofins sampling methodology was inappropriate, because the lab placed its sampling equipment in the ditch downstream of the outfall pipe rather than at the outfall itself. The permit requires monitoring at the outfall point, and the company has pointed out that ditch samples can pick up contaminants from sources that have nothing to do with Tesla’s wastewater. > As the article itself s…

My reading is that Tesla's contention is those contaminants are not coming from their pipe, hence the objection to the measurement being taken from somewhere other than the output of their pipe. And while the contaminants may well be coming from Tesla's pipe, given the apparent lack of coordination between the various governmental agencies involved, it seems reasonable to me to say that they need to sample from the p…

Sure, but that's also the same thing someone would say that knows they are leeching contaminants from other parts of their property but are not coming out this output pipe.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#212

Post by cucumber3732842 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #181
Aurornis wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those levels are low enough that they might be coming from the water going into the plant. Arsenic and hexavalent chromium are both naturally occurring substances in low quantities. You can pull uncontaminated water out of the ground in remote locations and detect low levels of arsenic and hexavalent chromium. That hexavalent chromium number would be just barely about California's strict limit for drinking water, but…

Out of curiosity, I checked the water records re: arsenic. Test wells for the region in question have had arsenic levels several times that being discussed here for years. In fact, the water district started failing Federal arsenic standards last summer[0] and has received three formal violation notices. They were nearly in violation a year before the lithium plant even opened. At least in terms of arsenic, the level…

Reading between the lines here the local .gov knows this and didn't mention it specifically or at least they weren't quoted as such.

The journalist got their hands on the report saw "arsenic" and just copypasta'd without understanding the context and now everyone is screeching about something that's less than the local baseline.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#213

Post by [deleted] »

Waterluvian wrote: post #11
porphyra wrote: post #4

Obviously, discharging "dark and murky" polluted water is bad. But some of the figures from the lab report don't seem that terrible: * Hexavalent chromium at 0.0104 milligrams per liter, just above the lab’s reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. It is the substance the Erin Brockovich case was built around. * Arsenic at 0.002…

If I wanted to fall under that reporting limit, can I just dilute my wastewater a bit more?

[deleted]

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#214

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm101 wrote: post #129
phkahler wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If I wanted to fall under that reporting limit, can I just dilute my wastewater a bit more? It said the permit is for up to a certain amount of water per day. If you're at the volume limit there's no way to dilute by just adding more water.

Unless you run it along a ditch so much of the water, and bad stuff, soaks into the soil before "discharge" at the property line.

[deleted]

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#215

Post by bloaf »

ggreer wrote: post #142
Braxton1980 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Eurofins be able to set up monitoring on Tesla's property? What other sources would have similar pollutants to a Lithium factory? It seems pretty specific and if there was some other obvious source why wouldn't Tesla point that out?

Hexavalent chromium can come from many industrial sources, including welding stainless steel. If you go to Tesla's lithium refinery in google maps[1] and follow the drainage ditch along highway 77 (to the northeast) about a half mile, you'll see a company called Tex-Isle Processing. They supply steel pipes and coating services for oil drilling.[2] It could be that one of their manufacturing processes creates hexavale…

Something else to note:

The lab tested for chromium in two ways: one test (ICP) measures all chromium of any kind, and the other measures hexavalent chromium specifically. The ICP test returned a concentration that was an order of magnitude smaller than the hexavalent test (0.0003 vs 0.0104 mg/L). That is to say, the tests contradict each other (because the whole is smaller than the part).

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28055380-j2673-1-uds...

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#216

Post by ethagknight »

didibus wrote: post #208
something765478 wrote: post #91

> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…

Personally, I find all these "do they have the necessary approvals or not" discussions are besides the point that matters. For business, those are red tape, wasted time, and unnecessary bureaucracy. For residents and citizens, what permits were approved or not don't matter, but if we tolerate the pollution cost that results, no matter if it was legally approved or not. I'd rather an article that argues about if this…

The permits are supposed to provide a review of the proposed discharge, usually requires a public notice and review period, and ensures compliance. I assume this Texas permit is typical to that end.

While permits CAN be “just red tape”, permits SHOULD be, and frequently are, the conclusion of an appropriate review process that industry standards are being implemented.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#217

Post by lmm »

unglaublich wrote: post #85
bayindirh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the law is formulated to be convenient for corporations and not to protect the public and/or the environment?

Then we should protest the law.

In some vague abstract sense? Wouldn't protesting specific instances where bad laws are letting companies get away with environmentally damaging practices be more effective? As and when there's a pattern of events that is best addressed by adjusting the law, politicians and voters can figure that out for themselves.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#218

Post by mulmen »

Aurornis wrote: post #147
MisterTea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Air pumps were for catalyst efficiency. The old ones needed extra oxygen molecules floating around for the big stuff (hydrocarbons) to oxidize with until the catalyst was up to operating temp and working at peak-ish efficiency. My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter, only a muffler. It featu…

> My experience comes from driving and working on a 1988 GMC 6000 truck with an anemic 350 small block with a Muncie SM465 behind it. There was no catalytic converter, Catalytic converters were required on most vehicles starting in 1975 in the US and the requirement was expanded to cover all vehicles in the early 80s. Your truck was modified by someone.

I don't think that's right. I believe this is the relevant EPA regulation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title40-vol17/p.... This mentions emission limits but does not require a catalytic converter for medium duty (14,000lb-26,000lb GVWR) trucks like the GMC 6000.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#219

Post by fhn »

something765478 wrote: post #91

> The permit, a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorization known as TPDES, allowed up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day to be discharged into an unnamed ditch that flows into Petronila Creek and from there into Baffin Bay, a longtime South Texas saltwater fishing destination. Ok, so sounds like Tesla got the necessary legal provisions. > What it did not do, explicitly, was grant Tesla t…

Keyword here is TREATED. Now Telsa will probably argue they added a dash of salt which they contend is "treated" wastewater. Billionaires don't care about you or your health.

Re: Tesla's lithium refinery discharges 231,000 gallons of polluted wastewater a day

#220

Post by drak0n1c »

TheJoeMan wrote: post #53

[flagged]

His operation tangibly and physically contributes more to the material advancement of humanity than most of the armchair critics in the comments do - I think that matters more for character allegations. And this first of its kind refinery in America is far better than the alternative of continuing to rely on far dirtier refineries in other countries.

FYI lithium is fine at those levels, and is even biologically beneficial, commonly taken as an OTC daily supplement at much higher doses.

Post reply on HN