Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. I received representation from constituents in the Rossport area who are concerned about the onshore pipe bringing the gas from the Atlantic Ocean to a terminal which has yet to be constructed. These people are concerned about their health and safety. On their behalf, I am demanding more answers from Government as to whether it should take more steps to ensure the health and safety concerns of residents are adequately addressed. I do not believe that is the case at present.

Serious questions need to be answered before I am satisfied that residents are being taken seriously. When I sought answers from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, I was told a quantified risk assessment had been carried out. I refer to the Andrew Johnson report of 28 March 2002. I was also informed that the Department had employed an independent UK consultant to examine the study and independently assess it. I was further informed the Department was happy with the situation. I met the Shell company today. I had been anxious that the company would meet with the residents of the area but because a judicial review is pending, Shell stated it was not in a position to meet them.

I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and I am less than happy with the reply I received. The reply states that a QRA was carried out but does not provide any details. It also made great play of the fact that nobody would be closer than 70 m to the pipeline, in other words that they would be safe in their homes. However, that begs the question of how safe would be a person working on his or her farm at a distance closer than 70 m to the pipeline, or a passer-by or car driver. The Minister stated the risk is very small but it is my contention that a risk exists.

Residents are also concerned about pressure in the pipes. The Minister stated the design is up to 345 bar and that the pressure in the pipeline would be initially 150 bar, reducing over the life of the gas field to less than that. However, that is cold comfort to the local people who are concerned about pressure in the pipeline.

The Andrew Johnson report gives rise to questions. I have serious doubts that this is a QRA because it refers to recommendations that should be included in a QRA and identifies shortcomings that still need to be addressed such as an adequate leakage system. To date no information has come forward relating to a leakage detection system which would be essential. All design recommendations must be included, and if they are not included, which according to the report is the case, then safety cannot be guaranteed.

The report is quite confusing. It refers to a separate QRA which implies that the report in question is not a QRA. The report states that the risk is acceptable provided that certain design recommendations are implemented, but page 19 of the report states that the majority of the design recommendations have been incorporated which implies that some recommendations have not been incorporated. How can this be taken as a complete resolution of the matter? The Government has not addressed the issue properly. Local people deserve to have their fears properly allayed. I question if a QRA has been carried out. I do not accept that the Andrew Johnson report is a QRA. I hope the Minister will answer this question for me.

See this speech in context