Engineer raises mica redress concerns

A chartered engineer with 50 Donegal clients at various stages of the Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme has spoken publicly of his reservations around the process.

Dr Ambrose McCloskey voiced concern about the fact engineers are being asked to take “relative costs” into account, when making recommendations about remedial options, in an exclusive Inish Times interview.

He said: “There are no other design standards in our office which ask me to take account of ‘relative cost’ in design. Naturally we always strive to provide a cost-effective solution, but it has to be one that will last.

“The Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme is unethical, in my opinion. Engineers should not be directed to recommend these remedial fixes until we see reliable research that tells us it is OK to leave these blocks behind, because, in my opinion, it is not.

“It is possible these remedial options are a long term fix, but having seen several dwellings that have been fixed and seem to be now showing progressive cracking internally, I have my doubts.

“To me it is critical that they get the technical fix right first, before dealing with the many other issues this scheme will entail.”

Dr McCloskey is on the Engineers Ireland IS 465 Register, meaning he has the “necessary direct professional experience, competence and specialist training to assess dwellings in accordance with the requirements set out in IS 465: 2018”.

IS 465: 2018 is the standardised protocol for determining whether a building has been damaged by concrete blocks containing excessive amounts of deleterious materials such as mica.

Dr McCloskey said there was a real frustration in that the Government was sitting on its hands.

“If I had a multi billion euro problem staring me in the face, I would be taking decisive action to see how I could best resolve it. What the State did was to appoint the Expert Panel on Concrete Blocks in 2015. This panel carried out desktop research, interviewed homeowners and reported back with answers in June 2017.

“One of the main recommendations regarding this issue was that there needed to be more detailed research into the problem. There was nothing wrong with what the Expert Panel did. It was a necessary first step.

“However, the Expert Panel did not carry out any testing on any samples. It did not sample any houses. It collated homeowners' views and any available third party data.

“It appears there was a lot of emphasis put on the bad winter of 2010/2011 and it was generally concluded that, the damage got visually much worse after that winter. Hence, a mechanical mechanism of freeze thaw action of blocks with identified high free mica content was considered to be the main issue.”

According to Dr McCloskey there has been a total lack of any co-ordinated research to investigate the exact degradation mechanisms of the blocks.

He believes that, even yet, there is no coordinated approach to try to find out the true cause and exact mechanism to allow engineers to make a more informed assessment.

RELATED

'Long-term structural performance of retained blockwork uncertain' – Engineers Ireland

'Demolition or nothing' – Cllr Frank McBrearty

Submission by Engineers Ireland to the Working Group on the Defective Blocks Grant Scheme

Read the full Submission here

He observed: “The Government does not seem to be interested, which is surprising given the amount it is going to cost to fix the problem. This lack of research testing is hard to believe.

“I cannot understand why the Government did not say to Trinity College Dublin, UCD or any other establishment, 'There is a major problem with these houses in Donegal. We need to set up a department, a body to look into this. We need to sample 30 or 40 of these houses and do accelerated tests on them’.

“They needed to do extensive physical testing involving wetting and drying cycles, freezing and thawing. They also needed to do whatever chemical tests were required in order to get a fuller understanding of what was happening and what deleterious materials were present. That way, engineer assessments could be made based on factual evidence and possibly options other than Option 1 could be recommended with some degree of comfort. By 2021, from 2017 they could have had a really good picture of what it does in the long term.

“As it stands, as unbelievable as it sounds, not a single test result has been produced by the Government. We now hear rumours that some of the testing laboratories are initiating tests of their own accord, but this is not coordinated.

“Instead, the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) wrote a Standard based seemingly on anecdotal evidence and when we start to delve into it, there is nothing definitive to state that what it recommends is going to last. No-one can say for certain. It might last. It might not last.”

Dr McCloskey asserted the Standard's potential shortcomings were acknowledged by its authors.

He explained: “The Standard states: 'The efficacy and longevity of any remedial works options other than Options 1 and Option 2 are as yet uncertain’.

"It goes on to state: 'For anything other than Option 1 and 2, on-going maintenance and monitoring of the dwellings structural condition would be required if Options 3, Options 4 or Option 5 are implemented to assess if / when further structural action should be taken’.

“The standard is wrong here as well, as, in my opinion, Option 2 should be included in the caveats.”

Dr McCloskey believes there should be a change to IS 465: 2018 to include foundation testing in some form.

He said: “These should be at least physically tested as a minimum. I believe the requirement to remove foundations as part of an Option 1 rebuild was removed as a late change to IS 465. I am not sure why.

“I am being asked to go out and assess a certain level of damage and being told in IS 465, that is what you must recommend to your client. However, I am engaged by that client to go out and give them my professional opinion.

“There is a line in the foreword of IS 465 which states: 'Compliance with this Irish Standard does not of itself confer immunity from legal obligations’.

“However, engineers are supposed to follow the standard. If I have to follow this standard and also give my professional opinion there is a conflict.

“What if an engineer follows the standard to the letter of the law and tells a client, 'Your house is not showing enough damage at present to recommend an Option 1 remedial. You are going to have to take down the outer leaf and rebuild it’.

“Then, in five years time, if there is more damage in the house, the engineer will be called back to have a look. The homeowner will naturally, and quite rightly say, ‘You told me that my house would be alright. I employed you in good faith and paid you to sort out the issues with my house’.

“Engineers will then, possibly, have to have to defend themselves in court and if they say they followed the standard, this may not be good enough.”

Dr McCloskey revealed reports were coming back from the geologists saying there were 'high' and 'critical' levels of mica in the houses and a high likelihood of further degradation.

So concerned was Dr McCloskey about IS 465: 2018, he wrote to his fellow engineers in June saying, unless changes were made to the scheme, he would not be taking on any news clients and he would be withdrawing from the Engineers Ireland IS 465 Register.

Dr McCloskey also had input to the Engineers Ireland Submission to the Working Group on the Defective Blocks Grant Scheme. The Working Group is scheduled to submit its report with recommendations to Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Darragh O'Brien, tomorrow (Thursday).

It remains unclear whether the Working Group's report and recommendations will be informed by the submissions it received from either Engineers Ireland or the Donegal Family Representatives.

Dr McCloskey said he had initially become aware of the mica issue in 2012, having looked at a number of affected houses.
He said: “I started assessing the first houses under the Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme in late 2020. It soon became apparent homeowners were not clear what the scheme entailed.

“I believed people needed to know exactly how the scheme was set up so they could make informed decisions on how to progress. I had seen at first hand the stress and anxiety caused to numerous homeowners and did not want to embark on a scheme that would potentially add to this.

“On June 1, 2021 I sent an email outlining my main concerns to all the engineers on the  IS 465 Register asking for their thoughts. Written email dialogue between a number of engineers ensued. I then wrote to all parties (Engineers Ireland, all the registrants, the Minister for Housing, The Secretary General for Housing, the Quality Customer Service Officer, Donegal County Council, Mayo County Council and the Mica Action Group)  outlining my concerns. It was clear at this stage that several other scheme engineers shared the same concerns. I would say now the large majority have the same concerns.

“At a subsequent round-table meeting of engineers, we were told that the Engineers Ireland had been asked, in mid-August, to sit in on a sub-committee with homeowners representatives of the Working Group.

“The Engineers Ireland representatives attending the sub-committee meetings had not carried out any work on the Scheme. They were involved in administration in Engineer Ireland's Dublin headquarters.”

Engineers Ireland was asked two questions: Did the engineers on its IS 465 Register think foundations should be tested and what would they be prepared to stand over in terms of remedial works?

Dr McCloskey said: “Of course foundations should be tested but this was removed from IS 465 at a late revision stage in 2020. And no engineer worth his salt would stand over any remedial option with the current information available. The Engineers Ireland Submission to the Working Group on the Defective Blocks Grant Scheme was sent on September 22.

“As this is a document representing the general views of approximately 30 engineers, it is a watered down version of what several engineers would have sent. It does not necessarily fully represent all engineers’ views. Several active scheme engineers are currently working to provide more information to Engineers Ireland to supplement this submission.

“In terms of IS 465: 2018, engineers are being asked to progress with a standard which asks us to make remedial options based on ‘limited data’. The standard asserts the main cause of the problem in Donegal is freeze thaw action. From our observations, I am not convinced.

“In the majority of homes we are finding the weakest blocks are those internally and above Damp Proof Course, which have never been frozen. As early as 2012, I had also witnessed blocks deep under the ground, which were crumbling and were well below the frost zone.

“This standard asks us to recommend remedial options that, as yet, have no scientific or technical backup and therefore it is really anyone’s guess as to their longevity.

“When an expert geologist examines a block sample and informs us in a report that it contains ‘high’ levels of deleterious material and as such has a ‘high likelihood’ of further degradation, how can we recommend leaving these blocks acting structurally in the home?

“As Engineers we should always recommend a fix that we can stand by and we know of its longevity and let someone else deal with the cost issue or at least the homeowners can make an informed decision.”