proposed Aviation fuel pipeline from Dublin port to Airport

expectationlost

example of the notice https://twitter.com/ImSomeDad/status/586238209459429376 but he is mistaken that DCC wants this, its Fingleton White that want to do it

wtfdublin

Could they have not run this along side the port tunnel if it's going to be so super safe

Gloomtastic!

I believe they've already started digging/laying the pipe in Fairview Park, they must be pretty confident of it going through .......

Peregrine

wtfdublin wrote: »

Could they have not run this along side the port tunnel if it's going to be so super safe

Who are "they"?

And that was almost 2 decades ago.

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I believe they've already started digging/laying the pipe in Fairview Park, they must be pretty confident of it going through .......

Before applying for planning permission? Probably someone else.

John_Rambo

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I believe they've already started digging/laying the pipe in Fairview Park, they must be pretty confident of it going through .......

There's digging going on for a while on the Alfie Byrne road, but they pipes are blue. Not sure, they could have a steel pipe inside them, but they look plastic, and blue.

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Like a gas pipe? Usually Nimby bull**** from people with nothing better to do with their time.....

I don't see the amount of protest people were expecting. I guess they thought there'd be lots of Shell To Sea crackpot antics. Funny, how, in such a more populated area there isn't as much doom, gloom and horror.

artanevilla

Kerosene, ie, jetfuel, won't burn in it's liquid state, it only ignites when it is a vapour and even then it has a high flash point. Gas pipes are a hell of a lot more dangerous and I'd say even sewerage pipes have more chance of igniting.

expectationlost

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/wphappcriteria.display docs are there now ref 2552/15

expectationlost

Concerns over aviation fuel pipeline plan http://www.dublinpeople.com/article.php?id=4869&l=100
variation politicians comments

website for it at www.aviationfuelpipeline.ie easier way to see details

gctest50

wtfdublin wrote: »

Could they have not run this along side the port tunnel if it's going to be so super safe

huge system in the UK for years :

expectationlost

Nearfm: Pat Meehan talks to Tommy Broughan about the proposed Aviation Fuel Pipeline which if goes ahead will run trough residential areas of North Dublin on Near fm’s Northside Today. http://nearfm.ie/podcast/?p=15474

hmmm, really needs to nail his facts, bit of waffle.

first decision due june 2nd

this is in fingal too

confused now whether aviation fuel trucks do go through tunnel or not.

expectationlost

Controversial airport fuel pipeline clears its first hurdle with Fingal council http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-airport-fuel-pipeline-clears-its-first-hurdle-with-council-31279524.html

They have also told the local councils that the transportation of petroleum products by tanker along busy commuter roads raises a number of health and safety issues. They point to a UK study which concluded "that the operation of the proposed pipeline has a significantly lower level of risk".

Permission for Aviation fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport. Granted http://fingalcoco.ie/media/F15A-0141.pdf

http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ Ref F15A/0141

5 objections 4 from people who live on the route in Fingal and Thomas Broughan's objection on behalf of resident in Dulin Bay North
http://documents.fingalcoco.ie/NorthgatePublicDocs/00493482.pdf


https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-05-13a.515&s=aviation+fuel+pipeline#g801

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) Does the Taoiseach share my major concerns and the major concerns of the residents of Clontarf, Clontarf Road, Copeland Avenue and the Malahide Road about the proposed aviation fuel pipeline going from the Dublin docks to the airport? There are major public safety concerns and there is also the issue of loss of jobs to truck drivers in that industry. Will the Taoiseach convey my serious public safety concerns to the relevant authorities, Dublin City Council and the planning authorities? I raise this matter under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Bill.

Enda Kenny (Taoiseach, Department of An Taoiseach; Mayo, Fine Gael)

The Dublin Docklands Development Authority Bill was cleared last week. Deputy Bruton has apprised me of some of the concerns in respect of the proposition mentioned by Deputy McGrath, but it is not listed for legislation.

Bruton bends the boss's ear.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-02-10a.439&s=aviation+fuel+pipeline#g469 Tuesday, 10 February 2015 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications DAA: Chairman Designate

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent) I, too, congratulate Mr. Ó Ríordáin on his reappointment and wish him well. In regard to the proposal for an aviation fuel pipeline to connect Dublin Port with the airport, is the planning application ready for submission and what are Mr. Ó Ríordáin's views on the proposal? What benefits will the pipeline bring and has DAA identified any safety concerns in regard to it? It will take a number of trucks off the road, but they already use the Dublin Port tunnel. I understand similar plans were drawn up several years ago but they were ultimately shelved because the route was very controversial in that the pipeline would pass through residential areas

and Terence asks questions the new DAA isn't briefed on, they never are at these things

Uriel.

Why is it coined as "controversial"? I really hate people sometimes. They'd complain about anything. It's almost like a profession these days.

expectationlost

from the Northside People a few weeks back, just got round to scanning it

you think he might look up about gas installation in coolock before putting it in an ad?

SEPT 23 1989

surely its more dangerous to the public hauling the stuff on the public roads

Atlantic Dawn

Great progress to have the pipeline approved, much safer to have all the trucks off the roads from a road safety and pollution point of view. The very politicians moaning about the pipeline are those that encouraged domestic gas pipelines which are much more of a safety concern if ruptured.

expectationlost

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Great progress to have the pipeline approved, much safer to have all the trucks off the roads from a road safety and pollution point of view. The very politicians moaning about the pipeline are those that encouraged domestic gas pipelines which are much more of a safety concern if ruptured.

approved in Fingal only so far, Dublin City to come.

expectationlost

http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2552/15&theTabNo=2&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=2565497%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=3089796%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=2565497%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Planning Docs Ref 2552/15 Additional Information

eg 10. The applicant is requested to consider providing a comparative risk study between the subject proposal and the recently constructed East Wall Road –Coolock gas line (as also noted by the NRA) and also any similar aviation fuel pipes with the UK etc.

11. Further to the requests above the applicant is requested to clarify and or update the EIS as follows: a) To note that a small portion of open space lands are traversed near the Tolka Bridge. b) To reflect latest published airport travel figures and any related projections for Dublin Airport. c) To indicate any net jobs benefit between jobs created by the proposal and potential loss of jobs from reduced road tanker transportation of aviation fuel etc. d) Details and profile of current road tanker transportation in relation to traffic flows across the day i.e. does the majority of movements take place after the evening rush hour etc. e) To clarify the level of any operational emissions from pumping activity. f) Correct Section 9 chapter of the main EIS Volume in terms of the header misreference to ‘Section 8’. g) Reprint page 36 of the main EIS volume

Directive 1. The Roads & Traffic Planning Division note that National Transport Authority (NTA) have concerns
Directive 10. The applicant is requested to consider providing a comparative risk study between the subject
Directive 11. Further to the requests above the applicant is requested to clarify and or update the EIS as follows:
Directive 2. The applicant is requested to address the concerns of the National Roads Authority(NRA) who are of
Directive 3. It is also noted that the site is near a road scheme objective in the Development Plan for the proposed
Directive 4. The Environmental Health Officer for Air Quality Monitoring & Noise Control(EHO) notes that further detail
Directive 5. DCCs Drainage Division notes that the submission does not highlight the crossing and importance of the
Directive 6. DCCs Waste Management Division while recommending conditions also notes that the EIS does not
Directive 7. It is noted that under the previous An Bord Pleanala permission there were a number of conditions
Directive 8. The applicant is requested to assess the need for additional Block Valves along the route with regard to
Directive 9. The applicant is requested to clarify estimated set backs from residential frontages along the route i.e.

looks like the NRA is going keep em on their toes.

29-May-2015 Fingal County Council granted permission. http://www.fingal.ie/planning-and-buildings/apply-or-search-for-a-planning-application/search-planning-applications-online/searchplanningapplicationsonline/ Ref F15A/0141 with conditions.

expectationlost

PA 2552/15 http://www.dublincity.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2552/15&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=2670023%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=3210466%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=APNID%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=2670023%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Decision: GRANT PERMISSION

Decision Date: 15-Oct-2015
Type Short Desc
Condition 10. Copies of reports detailing site investigations carried out shall be forwarded to the Geological Survey of Ireland for their record.
Condition 12. A Hazardous/contaminated Soil Management Plan shall be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority prior to commencement of any works
Condition 13. A Noise Management Plan relating to the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the project shall be submitted for the written agreement
Condition 14. Prior to commencement of any works on site the applicant shall agree working hours with the planning authority, with any extension to agreed workings to be
Condition 4. This planning permission is granted for a limited period of 10 years from the date of this grant.
Condition 5. The requirements of DCC’s Roads & Traffic Planning Division shall be undertaken as follows:
Condition 6. Prior to commencement of any works on site the applicant shall ascertain the requirements of Iarnrod Eireann including the obtainment of wayleave agreements.
Condition 7. The requirements of DCC’s Drainage Division shall be undertaken as follows:
Condition 8.The requirements of DCC’s Bio-Diversity Officer shall be undertaken as follows:
Condition 9. Archaeology
Condition 1. Standard Permission Condition including Further Information (Please insert date)
Condition 15. C370 Street Cleaning during Demolition and Construction
Condition 11. C660 Construction and Demolition Projects (larger projects)
Condition 2. Section 48 Development Contribution.
Condition C840 Section 49 LUAS C1 Development Contribution

granted permission with conditions


tommy broughan TD talks about international standard for setback distance but doesnt' say what it is http://www.tommybroughan.com/broughan-criticises-council-green-light-for-half-baked-aviation-fuel-pipeline-plan/

Stinicker

What sort of incompetent people in charge didn't include this with the Dublin port tunnel a few years ago?

expectationlost

Stinicker wrote: »

What sort of incompetent people in charge didn't include this with the Dublin port tunnel a few years ago?

theres nobody in charge of it

Stinicker

expectationlost wrote: »

theres nobody in charge of it

The planners and designers and engineers should have foreseen the need to include a fuel pipeline through the Dublin port tunnel going to the Airport, also the Airport authorities should have pushed to get the pipeline integrated into the Port Tunnel Project. If some of the people in charge had brains in this country they'd be dangerous.

expectationlost

Stinicker wrote: »

The planners and designers and engineers should have foreseen the need to include a fuel pipeline through the Dublin port tunnel going to the Airport, also the Airport authorities should have pushed to get the pipeline integrated into the Port Tunnel Project. If some of the people in charge had brains in this country they'd be dangerous.

they are competing projects, the pipeline people tried to get strategic infrastructural designation and failed

Interested Observer

Stinicker wrote: »

The planners and designers and engineers should have foreseen the need to include a fuel pipeline through the Dublin port tunnel going to the Airport, also the Airport authorities should have pushed to get the pipeline integrated into the Port Tunnel Project. If some of the people in charge had brains in this country they'd be dangerous.

Why the hell would the designers and engineers on the port tunnel be worried about a fuel pipeline to the airport? Why would it even enter into their thinking?

Gloomtastic!

The Unaccountables couldn't even get the height right with the port tunnel. Not a hope of them thinking of a fuel pipeline! :rolleyes:

TallGlass

Interested Observer wrote: »

Why the hell would the designers and engineers on the port tunnel be worried about a fuel pipeline to the airport? Why would it even enter into their thinking?

No expert here but it makes sense, might have been a nice route for a fiber optic cable also.

Think its called future proofing.

newacc2015

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

The Unaccountables couldn't even get the height right with the port tunnel. Not a hope of them thinking of a fuel pipeline! :rolleyes:

Are you talking about the companies that gave out the tunnel wasn't high enough after all the planning and designing was done? That these new super trucks were the future? They never took off and it wasn't worth spending tens of millions so a few companies could benefit with slightly cheaper transport costs

cgcsb

The tunnel being too short was a complete fudge. The super trucks were always going to have enormous difficulty navigating Europe's low bridge heights. Not to mention that in Ireland they'd run into trouble within minutes of exiting a motorway.

cherrytaz

TallGlass wrote: »

No expert here but it makes sense, might have been a nice route for a fiber optic cable also.

Think its called future proofing.

There is plenty of fibre optic cable going through the tunnel, primarily used for controlling the M50 Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) elements (VMS signs, CCTV, ANPR, Automatic Incident Detection etc.). and plenty of spare capacity also.

Rojomur

Aftet looking at the proposed route it strikes me as odd as in its so long when a much more direct route would be....
From the port, Tolka quay rd. 600m under the bay to vernon avenue.
Straight up as far as brookwood avenue and on to Artane roundabout.
Over ardlea road and up kilmore past Northside shopping centre.
Up through clonshaugh ind estate and out to M1/M50 roundabout and then on to the airport.1- 2 metre Tunnel boring machines are available now for these small tunnels and they wouldnt be digging up the whole malahide road, a main traffic artery for the city and there wouldnt be as much disruption through housing estates.

Rojomur

This was reported on independent.ie today in business section.

Green light for €20m fuel pipeline under city to airport

Fuel demand at airport results in 15,000 tanker journeys a year.

THE developer of a controversial €20m aviation-fuel pipeline from Dublin Airport to Dublin Port must indemnify Dublin City Council against any environmental damage caused by accidents on the line.

It was one of 33 conditions laid down by An Bord Pleanála in granting planning permission for the 14km project.

Residents living along the route of the proposed line had raised concerns over its safety and possible environmental impact. The pipeline runs through Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council territory. Both councils granted permission for it to go ahead last year.

While the Fingal decision wasn't appealed to An Bord Pleanála, appeals were lodged against the decision of Dublin City Council by residents.

In its decision, the planning board laid down conditions to ensure the safety of the environment and the public. It said the pipe must be used for transporting jet A1 aviation fuel only and the developer must submit a "major accident prevention document" to the council.

Promoted Articles
Why is Forestry the New Feel Good Investment?
Why is Forestry the New Feel Good Investment?
AlternativeAsset.co
The Death Of Skinny Jeans: Women Are Bored With Fashion Retail
The Death Of Skinny Jeans: Women Are Bored With Fashion…
Vocativ
Recommended by
The developer has also been directed to submit details of emergency response procedures and to lodge a deposit with the council to secure environmental restoration in the event of a leak of the pipeline .

The application for the plan said that it would provide "a sustainable and secure means of fuel supply" for the airport.

It said that the pipeline would be the safest way to transport aviation fuel.

Residents from Copeland Avenue, Clontarf, argued that as it was a residential street, it was not appropriate to route "a major piece of infrastructure" through the area. They said the line would introduce an ongoing threat of rupture, leakage and possible ignition for all those living along the route.

They also argued there was a history of damage to high-pressure fuel pipelines in the UK, in spite of safety regulation.

The scheme - a revived version of a plan first approved over a decade ago - would see the pipeline wind its way under heavily populated areas and some of the busiest roads in the country.

The two companies behind the plan - Portlaoise engineering firm Fingleton White, and Dublin-based Reynolds Logistics - point out that current fuel demand at Dublin Airport results in over 15,000 fuel tanker journeys a year being made between it and Dublin Port.

"It is estimated that some 200,000 litres of diesel fuel are used each year by the tankers transporting the fuel, which equates to an annual emission of 500 tonnes of CO2,"