Rose Conway-Walsh Questions Engineers on Unreplaced Foundations

Just on Engineers Ireland, are your engineers satisfied to sign off where the foundations haven't been replaced? If the foundations haven't been replaced? Haven't been replaced, so will the engineers sign off so that that can be given to, so that it can act as an assurance for insurance companies? Well, yeah, the engineers will sign off on the work that's been remediated. No, will they sign off on the whole thing, say, with the foundation as a whole? Obviously, you're not signing off on part of a house. So, there's a rebuild, but the foundations haven't been redone. Will members of Engineers Ireland sign off on it? I think that'll be an individual decision. I think the engineer will have to look and see if any testing has been undertaken in those foundations or what condition they are in. They'll have to make a judgment on that. What would your advice be on it, say, as Engineers Ireland, as an organisation? I think our advice would be that, you know, the foundations should at least, once they're exposed, should at least be tested. And if it's not tested, would you say that it should be signed off on or could be signed off on? Well, like I said, the engineer can only sign off on what actually the work they've undertaken. However, you know, it's also, it should be noted, that the materials used in the foundation are quite different than the materials used in blocks. No, I know, well, in some places, like where you obviously have blocks in a foundation as well. But, so, are you saying that a homeowner can be, where the foundation hasn't been replaced, can be in a situation where an engineer won't sign off on the whole project? So, you're signing off on the top part of the house? I wouldn't say the engineer won't sign off on the whole project, but he said he will sign off on the work they have oversight of and have undertaken. So, have any of your engineers signed off on a whole project where the foundations haven't been replaced? I'm not aware, to be quite honest. Yeah. I doubt very much if they would, for their own insurance. And I think therein the problem lies, and therein the problem lies in terms of the gap as well, or part of the gap that homeowners are left with in funding for themselves. I think it's a nonsense to say that you can build, you know, you can build the top half of the house, you can't build the bottom half of the house. Nobody would sign off on it. Insurance companies won't give you insurance on it. It's not mortgageable. And we've had this conversation for I don't know how many years now, and we still haven't got a conclusion on it. I want to ask that... My colleague, John Garrett, might be able to provide more information. Do you want to? Yeah, thanks very much. Go on. Sorry, I can't talk into the back here. I'm a practitioner working on the call face of the situation in Limerick. Yes, I have concerns about foundations on the basis of what the GSI report of Q3 in 2023 or 2024 said, right? They said that there was early signs of internal sulphate attack after 20 years. Yes. If I recall it properly, right? Now, yeah, you've got higher cement content, you've got stronger concrete and all the rest of it in the foundations. But while that doubt is there, I wouldn't sign off on it. Yeah. Yeah. Neither would I if I was an engineer. If I could use the opportunity, Deputy, to come in on a few other points. Yeah, I'll give a bit of extra time. Thank you. Oh, no? Is it? Yeah, totally. Yeah, very good. The life of the scheme, in my opinion, I think you're quite right, Chairman, to say that this project is going to grow legs, right? The life of the scheme, in my opinion, needs to be extended to 50 years for forced applications. And the reason I say that is that when we had that event in Nimerick, Petrolab were very clear on, you know, the risks to property. The current IS, or the current EN 12620, allows 1% total sulphur, right? I know, as a matter of fact, based on the evidence of umpteen houses that I've been involved in the testing of, in Limerick and Clare, the properties in between 0.5% and 0.7% are failing. There was an article in the Irish Independent on this, Irish Independent or Examiner, I'm not quite certain, some time ago on this. Petrolab have produced, and I believe everybody is very familiar with this now, have produced a bar chart of the total sulphur in about 13 counties. It ranges from just over 1%, now I'm doing the best I can here to get my figures right, over 1% in mail where it does not meet the standard, and it goes right down to just under 0.2%. Now, the current NSAI proposal draft talks about, Darlene, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's 0.2%, 0.3%. Petrolab are recommending 0.2%, right? Now, when you see a standard out there that is so clearly wrong, it needs to be revisited. Houses will continue to fail. I also believe that every homeowner needs to be treated, regardless of their geographic location. From what I'm seeing on the ground, every time I see, there's a block that I'm very familiar with in Limerick. It has a very bluish colour, and every time I see that block, I am 99%, and maybe the housing agency might come in on this. I'm very confident that that block will fail. So, in terms of the testing in housing estates, it is taking, I am saying to clients that it is a four-year project to see your house remedied. When I go into somebody's home, oftentimes I'm the first person to bring the bad news, but I also have to bring them hope. It is taking about 13 months from the time that I meet them for the first time to the time they get an offer back from the housing agency. I feel that with a trained eye looking at it on the ground, in a housing estate, for instance, where some demolitions have already been granted, a trained eye could help to reduce the amount of testing in those housing estates, which could reduce that time. 13 months is the average, I'd say, from the time I do it to that. But I'm also allowing time for them to appeal it, and I have appeals gone out December of 2024, which have not been decided on. I think that's totally wrong. No, you're fine. I think it was important to give that time, so I appreciate your practitioner experience. Very close to the ground, and I can see what's coming, Chairman. I have to give Deputy Economy a watch. Thank you. Additional time there. Thank you very much, but I do think that was important, so thank you very much, Mr Gareth, for clarifying that. I just want to go to yourself, Ms Larkin, in terms of aggregating the quarries right now. How can we be certain that blocks that are being produced, that materials that are coming from the quarries right now, without a geologist examining those, that the standards are sufficient, that we're not going to be back here again in 20 years' time? Thank you, Deputy. Before I answer that, if I'd just go back to the point raised by John in terms of the current levels within the draft that we issued for consultation. And just to say, that was one of the items that we received some commentary on, and while the deliberations of the committee are still ongoing, that was never intended to be a threshold per se. Rather, it was guidance, so that matter is under consideration by the committee, just to note that point. And, Deputy, in terms of assurance and confidence on this going forward, I think one of the hidden benefits of this is the programme of research that has been triggered both during the course of the development of IS465, but indeed beyond that, looking towards the continued future performance of building materials. And there's a planned programme of research underway that will look at the performance of houses that have been remediated. Also, that's looking at the aggregates, both the existing aggregates, and indeed, as we move forward, new types of aggregates that are coming forward from industry. So, for me, that's really, really important that we now have this ongoing programme of scientific research that's funnelling into the standards process, and that's advising and updating the standards process. And, of course, the standards are always a reflection of best practice at times. And I understand that, but wouldn't it be reassuring for people, if you had a geologist appointed to the quarries, to have that oversight right now, even just as a cautionary thing, until the research works its way through, and I acknowledge the value of the research that's there, would it not be a sensible thing to do, or an investment to make? So, as part of the other side of the work of NSAI, and our work in certifying the production of concrete blocks and the working around quarries, there are already requirements on quarries to take on petrographic surveys and tests. So, you're satisfied that the standards, as of now, are 100%? I'm satisfied that the standards, as of now, reflect current best practice, that the research is in place, and that we're also bringing that forward in our work and in our engagement at the coal phase with the quarries. Yeah, I know you've let me go. I've just asked, why would there be thresholds? My redress to you has been in 30 seconds. Why would there be thresholds? It's only 27 haven't met the threshold out of 1,800. So, why are we causing all this anxiety around thresholds and having thresholds, and indeed resources that are used up to do those examinations, if only 27 out of 1,800 haven't met it? Sorry, yourself. Yeah, sorry. Sorry, Deputy. Yeah, look, our figures, as I said, is 27 applicants did not meet the damage threshold determination. So, your question is, why are we looking at that? Well, look, I suppose from the housing agency's perspective, our role is very defined, and that's what's set down in the current standard. That's what's set down in the current legislation. So, it's not something I can comment on, I suppose. So, it's a political thing, you see. I think, you know, we argued that there could need to be the thresholds in there to put homeowners through all of the extra stress and everything else. So, it's a political decision that the threshold would be there, and obviously, naturally, you have to work towards what the legislation presents to you. Okay, we'll move on, Deputy. Thank you.