Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Many constituents in Dublin Bay North were astonished recently to learn of a proposal by Fingleton White & Co. Ltd. and the Independent Pipeline Co. Ltd. for a 16 km aviation fuel pipeline from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport. The kerosene pipeline route is proposed to pass along the Malahide Road through a densely populated residential region, including East Wall, Fairview, Marino, Clontarf, Donnycarney, Artane, Coolock, Darndale, Ayrfield, Clare Hall and Burnell, along the R139 - the former N32 - and the M1 and up to the airport. The proposal is a major change of route from the 2001 Fingleton White oil pipeline plan of 11.1 km which was to run from the port up East Wall Road, through Ballybough onto Richmond Road and up through Drumcondra and Gracepark Road onto Griffith Avenue and the Swords Road through Whitehall to the airport.

I note the grave concerns and consternation of residents from East Wall, Drumcondra and Whitehall during the planning process on this earlier An Bord Pleanála approved plan, PL 29N. 122692. The same concerns are now shared by my Dublin Bay North constituents.

I understand that no revised version of the 2001 plan has yet been submitted to Dublin City Council but I note that Fingleton White approached An Bord Pleanála in 2009 and 2010 and the board's inspector decided that under section 37B of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006, the new proposal was considered to be strategic infrastructure and that planning applications must be made in the first instance to both Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council. This attempt by the developer to circumvent the democratic local authorities reflects the total lack of consultation by the proposers with residents and public representatives in the densely populated areas now proposed for this kerosene pipeline. With the exception of two poorly publicised briefings in September, none of the dozen or so affected parishes have received information on this proposal. During the earlier 1999 to 2001 planning process significant health and safety issues were raised by residents' groups but amazingly, no environmental impact study was submitted with the proposal. Furthermore, in their brief press releases, the proposers make no mention of an EIS for the current plan.

We are informed that the 200 mm diameter pipeline will be made of continuous welded steel with an outer wall of 12.7 mm and that it will be laid 1.5 m below the road, with 1.2 m of cover. However, there is no explanation whatsoever as to why a much longer route of 4.4 km through densely populated areas is being proposed now rather than simply seeking an extension of the 2001 permission.

With regard to health and safety, in 1999 to 2001 and now, constituents rightly ask why such a pipeline - if needed at all - is not simply brought across open country from Bremore or Drogheda Port down to the airport. A review of accident history in the EU, the US and elsewhere, shows that fuel pipelines can be very hazardous. Even a cursory check on pipelines safety records reveals a disturbing litany of disasters in each decade since the 1960s. In the US there have been many serious oil pipeline incidents on the extensive American oil and gas pipeline networks. In 1976, for example, an oil pipeline ruptured in Los Angeles and killed nine people. Further afield, a 1998 oil pipeline explosion in the Niger delta killed about 1200 people and in 2006 a similar incident outside Lagos killed 200 people. Stricter EU legislation has meant there have been relatively few notable incidents involving oil pipelines in Europe but in 2004 there was a major gas pipeline rupture at Ghislenghein in Belgium where 24 people were killed and 132 seriously injured. It is clear that leak detection systems for oil pipelines arecritical aspects of such infrastructure but in the earlier proposal in this matter and now there is little or no information on such safety mechanisms and standards.

It beggars belief that according to Fingleton White of the six routes allegedly ear-marked by the developers in so called pre­planning discussions the Malahide road route came out as the optimal route. Constituents ask why this pipeline and any such route is needed at all. They correctly point to the presence of the €800 million port tunnel which over the past eight years has diverted heavy commercial traffic, including aviation fuel trucks, out of Dublin Port along the 4.5 km tunnel out past Santry and just 2 km further north along the M1 to Dublin Airport. The port tunnel was planned and developed from 1993 and it is one of the greatest infrastructural projects in the history of the State. Aviation fuel trucks make up 1.5% of the traffic in the tunnel. Maximising its usage of commercial and other vehicles is a core objective of sustainable Dublin transport policy. In both the US and EU legislation there seems to be no safe set-back distance for pipelines from family homes and public facilities.

This kerosene pipeline proposal through densely populated residential districts seems to be a half-baked, ill thought-out, kite-flying exercise by Fingleton White. I believe that no cost-benefit analysis will show that the use of an expensively built and possibly very dangerous oil pipeline through residential areas of Dublin Bay North is more cost-effective and safer for citizens than the existing simple system of oil transport utilising the Dublin Port tunnel which was a key reason for its construction.

See this speech in context