Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the release of the draft I.S. 465 for public consultation last Monday. For a long time, homeowners affected by defective concrete have been calling for the recognition of science. The standard now recognises that pyrrhotite oxidation causes internal sulfate attack, creating deterioration in Donegal homes. It is incredible that the freeze-thaw action potential damage mechanism has been retained in the revised draft document. This despite international research, scientists, the Department of housing and the GSI-commissioned research clearly ruling the presence of mica causing freeze-thaw does not exist in Donegal homes.

I have a number of concerns that need to be addressed in due course but time does not allow this today. The table of options, particularly remediation, that featured in the previous document has been omitted in the revised draft I.S. 465. At first glance, this would appear to be a welcome development because it looks like there is only one solution, namely, full demolition. However, further scrutiny reveals a number of references to partial remediation, which is incredibly concerning. For example, on page 28, section 7.3.1.1 on sample selection, point (c) states: "where part(s) of the structure has been identified for potential retention". In page 39, section 8.2 states: "the chartered engineer shall recommend demolition and rebuild of all affected concrete block building elements to the client in the final [engineer's] report".

My question is twofold. Does this mean that every element, that is, rising walls, inner leaf and outer leaf, is considered separately? If one element of the building does not meet the threshold for removal, does this mean the element will be retained or does it mean the entire house will be demolished? It is unclear. In short, the revised version of I.S. 465 is seeking to provide the options for partial fixes to people's homes. The peer research report supplied by Ulster University and the NSAI is very clear. Severe deterioration of all components is inevitable and it is strongly suggested that these concrete blocks be replaced as part of the remediation solution.

The recent revision of I.S. 465 sets out sulfur levels in their tests of construction materials at 0.3% despite the fact that the European standard EN 12620 specifies a limit of less than 1%. That concrete test would equate to 0.2%. Can the Tánaiste explain why the NSAI recommends using a total sulfur level that is in conflict with EU standards?

I understand these questions are very technical but I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could come back to me with clarity. These standards could have very serious consequences for people building their homes in Ireland.

See this speech in context