DOI fails again

[Non-Believer]

7 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Coal tar is classed as hazardous. The options (given that IOM can’t process it) were to ship it off to an approved facility, tip it in landfill or make it safe and bury it onsite. I think it’s a pragmatic solution, although our resident coal tar experts will probably disagree.

During the demolition of the old Pulrose power station, the concrete floor and the ground underneath it, unsurprisingly, were found to be contaminated with heavy fuel oil. The necessary disposal (shipping away) of the material was an "unforeseen component" of the overspend on the project.

If this could be said to be a similar material, then why wasn't it just landfilled or buried onsite too?

[Stu Peters]

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

During the demolition of the old Pulrose power station, the concrete floor and the ground underneath it, unsurprisingly, were found to be contaminated with heavy fuel oil. The necessary disposal (shipping away) of the material was an "unforeseen component" of the overspend on the project.

If this could be said to be a similar material, then why wasn't it just landfilled or buried onsite too?

No idea, before my time and I’m not an expert on the legally acceptable methods of dealing with various types of hazardous waste. Maybe heavy fuel oil is more of a combustion risk or emits more VOC vapour, but I’m only guessing. My point is that this coal tar response is pragmatic, safe and affordable rather than DOI looking for a Rolls-Royce solution, which is the usual complaint.

[Andy Onchan]

22 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think we're back to the game where DoI officials compete to find the most implausible piece of nonsense for Crookall to read out in Tynwald.

You mean like the wrong leaves or snow?

[Non-Believer]

7 minutes ago, Stu Peters said:

No idea, before my time and I’m not an expert on the legally acceptable methods of dealing with various types of hazardous waste. Maybe heavy fuel oil is more of a combustion risk or emits more VOC vapour, but I’m only guessing. My point is that this coal tar response is pragmatic, safe and affordable rather than DOI looking for a Rolls-Royce solution, which is the usual complaint.

I'm just looking at it from the environmental point of view, Stu. If, in time to come, this stuff leaches or contaminates the ground then any sort of rectification might be even more expensive - especially if it involved digging up a by-pass to remove it all? 

[Andy Onchan]

20 hours ago, Gladys said:

I didn't say I would be going down to Ballasalla with a bucket, just that coal tar has some pharmaceutical applications and could this be an option, obviously after extraction and refinement to get the pharmaceutical stuff. 

 

 

This is what's required Glad: https://www.euronews.com/travel/2018/08/20/the-natftalan-bath-oil-azerbaijan-s-slick-beauty-treatment

[CrazyDave]

14 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I'm just looking at it from the environmental point of view, Stu. If, in time to come, this stuff leaches or contaminates the ground then any sort of rectification might be even more expensive - especially if it involved digging up a by-pass to remove it all? 

How is it going to leach or contaminate the ground after it’s been processed?  They aren’t just burying it!!

Its a tried and tested method of disposal/reuse.

[Non-Believer]

11 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

How is it going to leach or contaminate the ground after it’s been processed?  They aren’t just burying it!!

Its a tried and tested method of disposal/reuse.

The only information made available to the public from the DOI to date AFAIK is that "it is to be buried". Presumably you know more in your position?

[quilp]

3 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The only information made available to the public from the DOI to date AFAIK is that "it is to be buried". Presumably you know more in your position?

Info here...

https://www.viaem.co.uk/project/recycling-tar-bound-materials-in-road-surfacing/

Needs to be reprocessed properly. 

[emesde]

This department just seems to be incompetent in everything it touches. The BBC news says haw an ANPR system was introduced  several years ago but hasn't been used for the last few years. 

BBC News - Staff issues mean ANPR cameras not used for 18 months
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-67426132

Probably Crookall won't want to use Anpr cameras and will be told that an app is what we need🙄. 

[Turtleish]

If anyone is interested in the 'contaminated ' heavy oil/tar that was removed from the old gas works in Ramsey when the tanks were demo'd. This is really nasty headache inducing stuff. It was supposed to be shipped off the rock. It wasn't.  Put to one side until forgotten about? 

As for coal tar, I know some right dodgy methods of disposal used by doi this year. 

[CrazyDave]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The only information made available to the public from the DOI to date AFAIK is that "it is to be buried". Presumably you know more in your position?

Erm, I listened to the bit in keys this week that was linked in the article that was posted on this very thread which prompted the discussion.

Edited November 16, 2023 by CrazyDave

[Roger Mexico]

59 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

Erm, I listened to the bit in keys this week that was linked in the article that was posted on this very thread which prompted the discussion.

Link to audio of the question is here:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/playaudio?file=/business/listen/AgainFiles/O-202301-1041a.mp3

I'm not completely convinced that what is said makes complete sense and Chris Thomas's question about whether there was DEFA permission was ignored.  As per quilp's link above (and other sites confirm):

In 2017 a programme of tar bound recycling was introduced, which involves crushing and re-mixing the [coal tar-containing] waste material to make a product called Ultifoam. This material is permissible to use in the lower layers of carriageway construction in accordance with the Specification for Highway Works. The material must be encapsulated so has to be applied as a binder or road base course.

And I assume this is what is being referred to.  But it's not clear if the DoI have the technology and experience to do this properly and will be supervised correctly.  This is particularly important because the carcinogenic effects may be most easily felt during any processing.

Crookall seems to think that the same waste material will be used where it was taken from, but that sounds more haphazardly burying the stuff and there's no guarantee that it will not then be disturbed by following roadworks etc.  And of course it's only a new technique, so how effective it will be anyway may be open to question.

As with so much DoI behaviour the main question is "How much can you trust them?".  It came out the same time that the DoI appear to have misled a planning inspector over waste disposal at Wrights Pit and that in any case the site had been operating illegally.  So expecting them to get a new technique implemented safely may be a bit hopeful.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

7 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And I assume this is what is being referred to.  But it's not clear if the DoI have the technology and experience to do this properly and will be supervised correctly.  This is particularly important because the carcinogenic effects may be most easily felt during any processing.

Presumably that’s the stuff Jimmy Cubbons company mixes up at Poortown Quarry and sells back to the DOI for resurfacing?

Edited November 16, 2023 by Cueey Lewis And The News

[CrazyDave]

9 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Link to audio of the question is here:

https://www.tynwald.org.im/playaudio?file=/business/listen/AgainFiles/O-202301-1041a.mp3

I'm not completely convinced that what is said makes complete sense and Chris Thomas's question about whether there was DEFA permission was ignored.  As per quilp's link above (and other sites confirm):

In 2017 a programme of tar bound recycling was introduced, which involves crushing and re-mixing the [coal tar-containing] waste material to make a product called Ultifoam. This material is permissible to use in the lower layers of carriageway construction in accordance with the Specification for Highway Works. The material must be encapsulated so has to be applied as a binder or road base course.

And I assume this is what is being referred to.  But it's not clear if the DoI have the technology and experience to do this properly and will be supervised correctly.  This is particularly important because the carcinogenic effects may be most easily felt during any processing.

Crookall seems to think that the same waste material will be used where it was taken from, but that sounds more haphazardly burying the stuff and there's no guarantee that it will not then be disturbed by following roadworks etc.  And of course it's only a new technique, so how effective it will be anyway may be open to question.

As with so much DoI behaviour the main question is "How much can you trust them?".  It came out the same time that the DoI appear to have misled a planning inspector over waste disposal at Wrights Pit and that in any case the site had been operating illegally.  So expecting them to get a new technique implemented safely may be a bit hopeful.

TLDNR 

[Roger Mexico]

7 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Presumably that’s the stuff Jimmy Cubbons company mixes up at Poortown Quarry and sells back to the DOI for resurfacing?

Don't think so because it's can't be used for anything near the surface, the whole point is that it's buried in the substrate and left untouched.