Cement Factory to burn tyres from all over the country

Special Circumstances

moleyv wrote: »

Very true, that is why you look at the whole process, not just the incineration. Exhausts are sent up a smoke stack. Smoke stacks are part of the filtering process, not just a means of getting the smoke higher. The use electrostatic charges to capture the tiny particulates AND heavy metals.

And the example in your link of a cement kiln in the UK was operating without license restrictions.

The limerick plant is already subject to a license and strict monitoring, this will be amended for the proposal if it gets the go ahead.

Also the use of ash within cement is known as GGBS. Its used in very special circumstance due to it's properties. Some projects it was used on a large scale are the Jack Lynch Tunnel in Cork, and although I'm not certain, likely the limerick tunnel.



This is a 'computer says no' argument. Try harder.

Your earlier links too, comments from councillors/TDs, probably rip them apart on other topics, then sing praises when an it suits.

Take waste water treatment for example, Limerick was/is the only city in ROI meeting EPA standards for waste treatment. North Dublin recently had a new plant, but it doesn't treat all the city.

And no, the EPA aren't brushing this under the carpet, they make this public and are constantly trying to bring up the standards.

But then again how is it fixed, major investment, which requires what? Water charges or higher taxes.

A lot of the population are happy to allow untreated waste flow into our rivers and seas AND do what they can to oppose new methods of waste treatment/disposal. They are the biggest risk to our health as a whole.

I say well done to Irish Cement for putting forward something new. I'm happy to let the powers that be decide if its safe and monitor as necessary.

Did you watch the prime time investigates?

The EPA came out of it looking like a quango on par with Irish Water. Incorrect measurement equipment, bizarrely incompetent test methodology, incomplete records of their awesome 24th hotline. Patronising, arrogant and dismissive in their treatment of anyone who would question their "methods" or "findings".

gctest50

Casperbhoy wrote: »

One metric is Green house gases, thats important.
The really bad stuff are toxic emissions like mercury, lead, cadmium and thallium, and other heavy metals. This is the kinds stuff you dont want to inhale

Need to stop burning coal etc then

Coal burned in small stoves :

We find strong evidence for household coal use and lung cancer, limited evidence for cancers of other organs, emerging evidence on developmental effects (lung, skeletal, neurobehavioral, and fetal development), carbon monoxide poisoning ,and endemic diseases (e.g. arseniasis, fluorosis, selenosis)

moleyv

Special Circumstances wrote:

Did you watch the prime time investigates?

I did not watch it, but I read about it afterwards. Its to do with a plant in portlaoise and alleged non follow up on complaints.

The regular testing will be carried out by independent agents and submitted. They have to sign their name to it and would suffer the consequences of any attempts to mislead or massage results.

Are there complaints about the cement factory that are not being investigated?

Special Circumstances

moleyv wrote: »

I did not watch it, but I read about it afterwards. Its to do with a plant in portlaoise and alleged non follow up on complaints.

The regular testing will be carried out by independent agents and submitted. They have to sign their name to it and would suffer the consequences of any attempts to mislead or massage results.

Are there complaints about the cement factory that are not being investigated?

You are 100% sure that what could only be interpreted as collusion or incompetence with that plant is a one off? By one off I mean one plant, not one bungled set of measurements. Or two sets, or 5.


Fair enough, try answering that again after seeing the attitude of whatever figurehead they interviewed.


Btw, it's very good of you to tell me what it was about. By very good I mean very patronising of course. I watched it, and apart from no follow up, loss of records of complaints and general confusion about their role, I saw a lot more. Very worrying scientific methods.

Tim76

Mango Joe wrote: »

These 24 carat fools might well put a Kiln beside a primary school, secondary school, park and playground through stupidity, corruption, ignorance, apathy or simply because their own kids live and are educated elsewhere.....

That plant is located on the South-Western outskirts of the city (about 2 miles from the city centre). Prevailing south-westerly winds will mean that if any harmful toxins are released they could be spread all over the city.

The city & suburbs as a whole should be taking an interest in this planning application and not just the people of Mungret, Dooradoyle & Raheen.

Cookiemunster

Tim76 wrote: »

That plant is located on the South-Western outskirts of the city (about 2 miles from the city centre). Prevailing south-westerly winds will mean that if any harmful toxins are released they could be spread all over the city.

The city & suburbs as a whole should be taking an interest in this planning application and not just the people of Mungret, Dooradoyle & Raheen.

You do realise that the plant has been there for 70+ years don't you? That means that harmful toxins have been spreading over the whole city for 70+ years. I fail to see how this could possibly be worse than what's already there.

Tim76

Mango Joe wrote: »

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/143899/Residents-say-no-to-gasification-plant.html

I note from the article that Cian Prendeville & 3 AAA Councillors voted against the granting of the lease at Gortadroma. Yet John Loftus of AAA has come out in support of the incinerator at Mungret. Why the change of heart AAA?

Tim76

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You do realise that the plant has been there for 70+ years don't you? That means that harmful toxins have been spreading over the whole city for 70+ years. I fail to see how this could possibly be worse than what's already there.

Well that all comes down to which is more detrimental to human health Cookiemunster: the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels or the burning of waste streams such as rubber & plastic. I don't have the data to make a call on that, hence my concern, do you?

Special Circumstances

Cookiemunster wrote: »

You do realise that the plant has been there for 70+ years don't you? That means that harmful toxins have been spreading over the whole city for 70+ years.

The plant has NOT been collecting tyres from the whole island and burning them for the last 70+ years.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I fail to see how this could possibly be worse than what's already there.

Yeah, we get that.

Burning tyres with city downwind could be fine if done properly , if it is constantly monitored correctly and human health is prioritised over financial loss due to work stoppages if the process is not working correctly.

Ultimately you are relying on the EPA to monitor/enforce this, and after seeing the Prime Time Investigates I just wouldn't have any confidence in them. I might let them monitor a junior cert science experiment, next door to the central bank correcting junior cert exam papers.

Special Circumstances

Tim76 wrote: »

I don't have the data to make a call on that, hence my concern, do you?

I think this is the crux of it - sane people just don't assume "yerrah that new waste incinderater blowing this way will probly be fine. Shur tid couldn't be worser".

We want to be convinced that
a) it is safe when working properly and run responsibly.
b) it is safe when run by people trying to maximise profit and "monitored" and "tested" by the guys who were "monitoring" and "testing" that oil recycling plant in the Prime Time report.

Casperbhoy

Tim76 wrote: »

I note from the article that Cian Prendeville & 3 AAA Councillors voted against the granting of the lease at Gortadroma. Yet John Loftus of AAA has come out in support of the incinerator at Mungret. Why the change of heart AAA?

John loftus has been expelled from the aaa

Tim76

Casperbhoy wrote: »

John loftus has been expelled from the aaa

Do u know why?

I'd be interested in finding out the AAA's stance on this development. If they even know about it. It seems to be flying under the radar so far, a lot of people in the area don't even know about the proposal.

zulutango

Tim76 wrote: »

Do u know why?

I'd be interested in finding out the AAA's stance on this development. If they even know about it. It seems to be flying under the radar so far, a lot of people in the area don't even know about the proposal.

He was arguing with somebody in a private Facebook chat and things got heated ...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/councillor-made-facebook-threat-that-ill-cut-your-fg-throat-31478971.html

The AAA had to distance themselves from him then.

Casperbhoy

zulutango wrote: »

He was arguing with somebody in a private Facebook chat and things got heated ...

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/councillor-made-facebook-threat-that-ill-cut-your-fg-throat-31478971.html

The AAA had to distance themselves from him then.

You need to question the suitability and judgement of someone like that to be a public representative.

Is the primetime report available through rte player?

moleyv

Casperbhoy wrote:

Is the primetime report available through rte player?

No, haven't found it anywhere.

Must not have happened.... Only joking.

What type of tests were they? What were they testing? What was wrong with the methodologies? And what qualifies a journalist to know what is correct or wrong. Had they a consultant to assist?

IsabelGL

Hey all, this application has been withdrawn, limerick planning can't cope with such a large document, so this is to be sent to an bord pleannala, did anyone got a hold on environmental impact statement? Planning office said they don't have any of documentation.

Anyone interested in join Facebook page the name is
LAP - limerick against pollution

There's a petition there to, even has an expert opinion as to why this should not go ahead.

moleyv

IsabelGL wrote:

There's a petition there to, even has an expert opinion as to why this should not go ahead.

Do you mind posting what this 'expert opinion' is, and who the expert is. I don't use FB.

I think it would benefit the thread.

Special Circumstances

The line fed to the media seems to be still the implied "good for the environment therefore it must be good for you"... All based purely on CO2 which is the almost the most benign output from any combustion process.

There mustn't be much else good to say about it if a percentage decrease in CO2 is the only publicised "benefit".

IsabelGL

moleyv wrote: »

Do you mind posting what this 'expert opinion' is, and who the expert is. I don't use FB.

I think it would benefit the thread.

Hi, can't post links, I use my log in mostly for partners sites, but if you google CHASE Anthony staines, this would be one of the files an organization in cork (in similar situation) have posts on their website, very interesting stuff, not about the process itself, but about about regulatory bodies and fact that they cannot cope with this type of industry.

Clareman

If you put in the link and just replace the dots with a space I'll edit your post with the proper link

IsabelGL

moleyv wrote: »

Do you mind posting what this 'expert opinion' is, and who the expert is. I don't use FB.

I think it would benefit the thread.

[url]Http://www.chaseireland.org/Documents/EPA submission - Dr A Staines.pdf[/url]

IsabelGL

IsabelGL wrote: »

www chaseireland org/Documents/EPA%20submission%20-%20Dr%20A%20Staines pdf

There's a dot before chase, org and PDF, thanks clareman

Casperbhoy

Chase is bringing An bord planeala to the supreme court as far as i know.

That case will have a huge bearing on the proposed Limerick incinerator

Casperbhoy

Question: If the planning permission is withdrawn, Is it legal to have the application notice still displayed in front of the factory 3 weeks later?

moleyv

Casperbhoy wrote:

Question: If the planning permission is withdrawn, Is it legal to have the application notice still displayed in front of the factory 3 weeks later?

Yes, it means nothing. It has to be displayed from the date of submission (with the newspaper notice being on the date, or a max of two weeks before) and for a min period of 5 weeks (the time for public submissions). A new one must be displayed if there is substantial changes following a request for further information, and the new notice must reflect these significant changes in the description part, along with the same for newspaper notices.

Everywhere is littered with old site notices. As long as they met the above requirements its fine.

Casperbhoy

Irish Cement will be lodging a revised planning application to Limerick City and Council this Wednesday 27th.There will also be a new notice in the paper on Wednesday.

The new application will be for 90,000 tonnes of tyres and other “alternative fuels

Special Circumstances

Casperbhoy wrote: »

Irish Cement will be lodging a revised planning application to Limerick City and Council this Wednesday 27th.There will also be a new notice in the paper on Wednesday.

The new application will be for 90,000 tonnes of tyres and other “alternative fuels

Are they still on the "high temperatures mean no nasty stuff. We'll even reduce that awful CO2. ..you know, that fizzy drink gas" buzz?

http://m.plymouthherald.co.uk/VIDEO-Plymouth-incinerator-pollution-highest/story-29064272-detail/story.html

I guess nox emissions are a bit of an awkward one in Europe, if people realise what they are then they'll have an awkward moment driving their Green party endorsed diesel car.

IsabelGL

Does anyone else find it bit interesting that the quantity of tyres has reduced from 210 000 tons per annum to 90 000 tons on their latest application?!?

Maybe there are trying a softly softly approach? get their foot in the door and then apply for 210 000 tons again?

I've done a bit of research on the amount of end-of-life tyres produced in ireland, per annum it equates to 40 000 tons!

If they are trying to be green by using end of life products, using petcoke has less heavy metals and is a bi-product of crude... So rather then putting petcoke why not incinerate it in cement kilns instead, since they burn at a higher temperature then tyres.

Thoughts?

Tim76

For anyone who wishes to view the application the new reference file number is 16345. Follow the link below and enter the number in the relevant search bar...

http://eplan.limerick.ie/SearchExact

No docs or drawings have been scanned nor uploaded for public view as yet. There is a limited time frame to make a submission/observation so if you do have any concerns they will have to be made known before Tuesday 31/05/16. Link below for advice on doing same...

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/commenting_on_planning_application.html

Anyone who has not made a submission before this date cannot appeal the decision of the council to An Bord Pleanala once made.

Casperbhoy

Just a reminder, next Tuesday is the final day to make an objection!

bmm

screamer wrote: »

Do you know what happens to waste tyres at the moment? they are baled and shipped to China where they are broken down into fuel......
now, sorry, but it's a typical case of NIMBYism, everyone needs the product, wants it, but no one wants to deal with the waste. I think incinerating it in Ireland is far greener than shipping back to China TBH.

There are far better things you can do with waste tyres. They can be ground into pellets and used in all kinds of new products , as well as road surface materials. Burning is the lowest of the low and only results in more toxicity in the air we breathe .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYW5BxOYD10

Boardmaster

https://uplift.ie/irish-cement/

Anyone who feels like objecting.

who_ru

Boardmaster wrote: »

https://uplift.ie/irish-cement/

Anyone who feels like objecting.

seeing as the county council have agreed to the application by Irish cement to build facilities to burn tyres, it would appear that this will go ahead, much to the objection of local people.

Casperbhoy

If there was a non compliance i.e. dioxin release that is caught by a monitoring system.

What would the penalty be for CRH? a small fine or would the facility be shut?

Cookiemunster

who_ru wrote: »

seeing as the county council have agreed to the application by Irish cement to build facilities to burn tyres, it would appear that this will go ahead, much to the objection of local people.

Ever heard of An Bord Pleanala? Anyone who originally objected has 6 weeks from LCCC granting permission to appeal this decision to ABP.

mart 23

Hi

Do CRH burn tyres at their plant in Drogheda ?

Alf Veedersane

mart 23 wrote: »

Hi

Do CRH burn tyres at their plant in Drogheda ?

They're licensed to use 30,000 tonnes as an alternative fuel.

Casperbhoy

they are applying for permission i believe

Alf Veedersane

Casperbhoy wrote: »

they are applying for permission i believe

You can check their license on the EPA website. They already have permission for the Drogheda plant for 30,000 tonnes per annum.

Casperbhoy

There was another blow out over the weekend. The EPA and HSE are investigating

davo2001

Would that explain why my car was covered in dusty crap on Saturday morning?

Casperbhoy

davo2001 wrote: »

Would that explain why my car was covered in dusty crap on Saturday morning?

Yup, the same stuff you were probably inhaling the whole night. Im sure ICL will say that its harmless

The plume usually travels north. Must have been a change in wind direction during the night

Alf Veedersane

Tbf, unless you were sleeping outside, you wouldn't be inhaling it all night.

Pikasso

Funny how 'blowouts' always coincide with those rare northerly winds!!! :rolleyes:

Casperbhoy

Pikasso wrote: »

Funny how 'blowouts' always coincide with those rare northerly winds!!! :rolleyes:

http://plumeplotter.com/mungret/

Special Circumstances

Casperbhoy wrote: »

There was another blow out over the weekend. The EPA and HSE are investigating

:( May as well send the guards in with the phantom breathalysers I'd say.

Thanks for the plume plotter link - I was aware of the site from looking at the Cobh plotter but it didn't have Mungret the last time I looked.

Casperbhoy

Link to live debate on live 95 fm today

https://www.live95fm.ie/on-air/shows/limerick-today/limerick-today-podcasts/april-2017/limerick-today-should-residents-be-concerned-abo/?platform=hootsuite

plumeplotter

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Tbf, unless you were sleeping outside, you wouldn't be inhaling it all night.

I read that typically 70% of outdoor PM2.5 pollution enters the home.

smurfyirl

Living pretty close to the factory and its ridiculous how often my car gets coated with crap from the factory. You walk out in the morning and its covered in a layer of dust.

I dont mean to sound petty about this. But there seem to be about 80 staff at the factory there. Its right beside a huge residential area that affects thousands. 80 people versus the possible health of thousands. It seems a no brainer.

No way should they be allowed incinerate tyres there. I dont care what tonnage limitations they say they will use. They are guaranteed to seek an increase down the line. Im not convinced that the burning will be safe and based on current experience of blowouts, im worried about long term effects.

John_Mc

Casperbhoy wrote: »

There was another blow out over the weekend. The EPA and HSE are investigating

I was wondering if this was the case as my car was covered in it.

Where did you read this?