Sir, I refer to Frank McDonald's assessment of the EIS for the proposed Dublin Port Tunnel (July 4th). To date, our group (representing 2,400 households in the Marino area) has only seen photocopies of extracts from the EIS obtained from local public representatives. However, having read through these sections of the report relating to Marino, major omissions, inaccuracies, lack of detailed scientific investigation and knowledge of underground conditions in Marino are immediately evident.
The EIS contains a large number of key words and phrases such as "if", "it is not anticipated", "possibly", "residents may become concerned", "best estimates. This simply is not good enough, and rather than mollify any concerns Marino residents have above risks to their lives, health and properties, the report serves only to increase their unease and worries about this project.
The report goes on to state that if any damage to property is caused, "repair if necessary".
Fire brigade reaction to any problems which may occur are totally unacceptable. If the consultants who carried out the studies for the EIS are unable to furnish definite engineering conclusions with specific guarantees in relation to noise, disturbance, settlement vibration, and safety, then this tunnel should not he built until these criteria can he met.
With regard to the use of the NATM (New Austrian Tunnelling Method) or alternative cheaper methods, this raises a number of questions. The NATM was specifically chosen for this proposed tunnel in 1994 in order to cut costs to £104 million (this current reincarnation of the Eastern bypass was given limited approval by the DTI provided it met a £100 million budget).
The recent British HSE reports contains 97 recommendations under which NATM may proceed safely "provided all 97 issues are taken into account". The cost of incorporating these major design, construction and safety measures is estimated as adding a further £49 million/£50 million to the price tag. Who will pay for this? What budget will the money come from?
Because the tunnel design may radically be changed, does this invalidate this EIS (based on the outdated NATM design)? Should a new EIS based on a specific and viable design/tunnelling method be commissioned? Yours, etc., Hon. secretary, Marino Development Action Group, Annadale Crescent, Dublin 9.