Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jan 1988

Vol. 118 No. 4

Adjournment Matter. - Dublin City Air Pollution.

Mr. Doyle

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight and for the attendance of the Minister of State.

Air pollution is at its worst when atmospheric inversion occurs. This is caused by a colder layer of air close to ground level being capped by a layer of warmer air above it. Smoke and other pollutants which normally rise up into the atmosphere out of harm's way and are dispersed by winds cannot penetrate the boundary layer between the two masses. If the inversion persists for several days, smoke concentration caused by domestic coal fires and traffic fumes can reach near lethal levels, especially above large residential areas.

In January 1982 Dublin experienced a very severe and prolonged smog outburst. A study carried out by two consultant physicians at St. James's Hospital showed that mortality rates among patients with respiratory problems were more than twice as high as normal for the month. Dr. Luke Clancy and Dr. Ian Kelly undertook a study which was published in the Irish Medical Journal in 1984 after noticing a marked increase in the number of patients being admitted to St. James's Hospital suffering from respiratory diseases. Their conclusion was that this was due to the severe smog in the city at that time. A subsequent computer analysis of Dublin hospital statistics confirmed that the phenomenon was not just confined to St. James's Hospital. The same sort of pattern was evident in other hospitals throughout the city, with a marked increase in mortality and serious illness among patients with lung complaints.

This problem raised its ugly head again in Dubin on 9 December last year. On that date the meteorological services broadcast its first ever smog warning alert for Dublin. Dublin was surrounded by choking smoke from thousands of coal fires for the second night in succession, with visibility in some of the worst hit areas reduced to 50 yards or less. As the smoke clouded the city a leading respiratory doctor warned that a repeat of the smog of 9 December would double the death rate among the weak and the old. Doctors treating chest patients in St. James's Hospital in the city centre monitored a notable increase in the number being treated for respiratory difficulties.

While the EC limit on pollution level is 250 microgrammes per cubic metre, the following levels were recorded in Dublin up to midnight on 9 December last: Mountjoy Square, 981; Ballyfermot, 823; Rathmines, 676 and Dame Street, 472. The seriousness of these figures can be judged by the fact that the World Health Organisation confirmed that an increase in deaths can be expected when levels reach 500 microgrammes per cubic metre. As the Minister will have noticed, the figure for Mountjoy Square for that night numbered almost double that, at 981 microgrammes.

In London and other major cities measures have long since been implemented to rid the environment of smog. Although it took four years of pressure to achieve, the British Government finally introduced a Clean Air Bill in 1956 and as a result, London smog is a thing of the past and winter visibility in that city has increased by 300 per cent. Since September 1987 we have introduced our own clean air legislation under the Air Pollution Act, 1987. This measure had all-party support. It would have been hard for many who suffered in the smog on 9 December last to believe this but the truth, of course, is that the Act is only enabling legislation and will take some time before it really becomes effective.

The Act gives local authorities power to designate smoke control areas whereas, for example, the burning of certain fuels such as household coal can be restricted or prohibited but before this can be done the local authority has to carry out an exhaustive survey of the area in question and at the end of the day the Minister has to approve any smoke control order. I am pleased to inform the House that Dublin Corporation have undertaken the initial steps in this matter and have carried out a door-to-door survey of 850 households in Ballyfermot which is one of the blackest spots in the city for smoke pollution, with EC limits repeatedly breached year after year.

The survey is designed to establish the pattern of fuel use in the area. Not surprisingly, the survey showed that the vast majority of people in this survey used coal as the main means of heating in the house. I understand that the officials who carried out the survey were very well received by the residents of the 850 houses in Ballyfermot who realised there is a serious problem and they are anxious that something should be done to have it removed.

In Britain and Northern Ireland the Government have given substantial grants to people in the lower income group areas to enable them to change over to smokeless fuel. There is little point in designating an overwhelmingly working class area like Ballyfermot to a smokeless zone without providing people who live there with some incentive to change over to smokeless fuel. This is the main reason I raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight.

I wish now to refer to the Air Pollution Act, section 45, which reads as follows:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make a scheme or schemes for the granting of financial assistance in relation to the whole or part of the cost incurred by the owner as occupier of a premises situated within a special control area in order to enable the premises to comply with the requirements of special control area order or notice under section 44.

The Minister for the Environment has talked in the past about the need for more public awareness of the smog problem in Dublin, urging people to adopt a more positive attitude to buying smokeless coal in preference to ordinary coal. I understand that smokeless coal is about £2 per bag dearer than ordinary bituminous coal and for people living on a limited income the price difference is still too wide. It could be narrowed a bit further by removing VAT at 10 per cent from smokeless coal as proposed by several environmental groups.

It would also help if the State was to give some example in this matter and if people who were to benefit under the free fuel schemes were to be given financial assistance to allow them to buy smokeless fuel. In the last year Coal Distributors Limited have invented a grate for the burning of bituminous coal which has the effect of burning up its own smoke. I understand that two of these fireplaces have been installed by Dublin Corporation, one in a flat and one in a house. They have proved very satisfactory for the residents in these two dwellings. Now I understand that Dublin Corporation are commissioning the IIRS to carry out an examination of the emissions to see what improvement has been made.

If these fireplaces are capable of burning up to 80 per cent of their own smoke as claimed by Coal Distributors Limited, then they would be worthy of consideration. I understand that the installation of such a fire grate would cost, for a backboiler £280 and for the installation of an ordinary grate, £120. Again, this would cause certain problems for people living on lower incomes so it would be necessary to grant-aid the change over so that there would be sufficient numbers changing over to the new appliance to make a real impact. People should also be encouraged to change over to oil and gas heating. Again, this would have to be grant-aided for people on lower incomes.

It is very obvious we have a number of choices in order to remove the threat of air pollution from our atmosphere. We were fortunate that since 9 December last the weather has been excellent but we cannot be complacent about the matter. We could easily experience the same atmospheric conditions as occurred on 9 December last with the same results. I feel there is a grave responsibility on the Government to take action so as to prevent this situation happening again in the city of Dublin or any other city around the country.

The ultimate aim of Dublin Corporation is to designate Ballyfermot as a pilot smokeless control area, using the powers available under the Air Pollution Act which came into effect last September. Clearly, however, this will not be a practical proposition unless the Government give some indication of what grants will be available to enable people to change over to smokeless fuel. I have tabled this motion tonight to highlight this very serious problem and to hear the Government's response, especially in relation to financial matters and grants that can be given in accordance with section 45 of the Air Pollution Act.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I thank Senator Doyle for raising this important issue of air quality in Dublin and for giving me the opportunity to comment on it in some detail.

The Dublin smoke situation is by far the country's most serious air pollution problem and it is arguably the most serious environmental problem of any kind which our capital city now faces. It is by no means of recent origin and its complete elimination, regrettably, is going to take some time. I would assure Senators, however, of our determination to get appropriate and co-ordinated countermeasures under way because of the seriousness of Dublin smoke pollution in itself and because a remedy is enjoined on us by the EC by 1993.

An EC directive with effect from 1983 set ambient air quality limit values for smoke and sulphur dioxide throughout the Community. The Directive, however, recognised that it would take time for remedial measures to be implemented and have effect in areas of high pollution. Subject to these areas being designated by national authorities, it allowed a period of ten years, until 1993, for measures to be completed in these zones. Dublin, together with a large number of other urban areas in the EC, was notified to the Commission as a zone in which the longer period would be required to achieve compliance with these limit values. The difficulty in the case of Dublin related, of course, to smoke rather than sulphur dioxide.

Under the Air Pollution Act, 1987 (Air Quality Standards) Regulations, 1987 (S.I. No. 244 of 1987) — the first regulations made under the new Act — the Minister prescribed air quality standards for smoke and sulphur dioxide, as well as for other pollutants, which are similar to those of the EC directive. Where as in Dublin these new standards are being exceeded, there is now a statutory duty on the local authorities concerned to take appropriate steps, using their powers under the new Act, to secure compliance with the standards.

The recent smog episode in Dublin brought a strong media and public reaction which is also reflected in the raising of this issue here tonight. This reaction was prompted by the inherently serious conditions which parts of Dublin experienced. It was also facilitated, however, by the fact that for the first time Dublin Corporation were able to issue monitoring results from certain stations immediately after the days involved and that the Meteorological Office incorporated this data into their forecasting.

I have already welcomed this earlier availability of representative monitoring data but, in view of some of the inaccurate constructions placed on it, it may be helpful if I explain the way in which EC limit values and the corresponding air quality standards prescribed by the Minister operate. Serious though it was, the December smog episode in Dublin, taken by itself and in isolation, did not breach any EC air quality standard. It is highly probable that by the end of the "air pollution year", that is by 31 March 1988, the episode will have contributed to breaches of these standards but, in itself, it was of insufficient duration to represent such a breach.

There has been much talk of a daily EC smoke pollution limit of 250 cubic milligrammes per cubic metre of air. In fact this is only an input to air quality standards, or a building block in their construction, rather than being on air quality standard in its own right. This level of pollution must be exceeded for at least four consecutive days — something which did not occur in December — before any standard is breached. Alternatively, this level of pollution must be exceeded for at least eight days over a year, something which by definition cannot occur in one week alone.

The lesson from all of this and, indeed, from the reporting requirements of the EC Directive which are yearly ones, is that smoke pollution has to be seen as a long term problem to which coherent long term strategies are the only answer. The sources of Dublin's smoke bear out this analysis.

Approximately 80 per cent of smoke pollution in Dublin has been estimated to come from domestic premises — almost entirely due to combustion of solid fuels; 15 per cent comes from vehicles and some 5 per cent from industrial and commercial premises. The very dispersed nature of Dublin's smoke pollution sources means that the counter-measures required will be extensive and will take time to implement.

How are these alternative arrangements to be put in place? We should not forget that, despite the continuing serious smoke pollution problem, a number of developments already under way will ensure longer term smoke reductions in Dublin. Since 1983, when the relevant EC Directive came into force, use of natural gas in Dublin has increased almost fourfold. Under current policies and incentives, this use is set further to increase and it will become an important element in smoke abatement strategy here in line with the experience of major urban areas elsewhere to which natural gas has been made available.

Use of smokeless solid fuels has also been increasing in Dublin and is now tentatively estimated at possibly as much as 20 per cent of solid fuel use. Much has been made of the higher price of most of these fuels and of the disincentive which this will represent to their wider use. This point needs to be put firmly in perspective. For a start, some smokeless solid fuel is actually retailing more cheaply than top quality bituminous coal. Secondly, even where smokeless fuels are nominally dearer, they will have a higher calorific content considerably offsetting the real difference in price. We have been encouraged by the response of CDL to representations of the Minister that they should use pricing to encourage greater uptake of their reactive smokeless fuel, that is, smokeless fuel suitable for burning in open grates. CDL have now informed me that they have reduced the price of this fuel by 50p per bag.

The strategy envisaged in the Air Pollution Act, 1987, for dealing with severe localised problems is the declaration of so-called special control areas, or smokeless zones, in which intensive remedial measures can be applied. In the circular letter issued by my Department on 31 July 1987, local authorities were advised that, in areas where the relevant EC limit values are being exceeded, they should survey the incidence and casuse of air pollution as well as the systems used for domestic space heating and cooking, industrial and commercial needs etc., giving priority to areas of heaviest pollution. The purpose of such a survey would be to assist local authorities in considering the desirability of special control area orders and the appropriate extent and phasing of these. Dublin Corporation have now completed survey work of this kind in an initial project involving nearly 900 houses in Ballyfermot where the incidence of smoke pollution has overall been the worst in the Dublin area.

Section 45 of the Act permits the making of a State scheme of financial assistance in relation to the costs incurred by occupiers of premises in complying with a special control area order. In view, however, of the considerable preliminary responsibilities of local authorities in this area, as outlined above, and normal budgetary considerations, we have not felt it appropriate as yet to make any announcement of such a scheme. Senators can rest assured, however, that I will bear in mind the views expressed here tonight in our further consideration of this matter. I assure Senator Doyle that I will convey his views to the Minister for the Environment.

I have to remind Deputies that the smoke levels experienced in Dublin during the December episode, unacceptable as they were, had many precedents in recent winters and that more severe episodes were registered early last year. Bringing these under control will require a wide range of co-ordinated measures which on the experience of smoke abatement programmes elsewhere will take several years to complete. We are determined to get these measures moving quickly and effectively.

In regard to supplies of fuel, we need a more co-ordinated approach and if suppliers of fuel would take whatever action they possibly can, we will be in contact with them to ensure, as far as possible, that more smokeless fuel is brought into operation, I agree with the Senator that it is now a matter of urgency and has to be dealt with. I am hopeful that all suppliers will be able to come together and that we will be able to work out a programme which will solve this problem to the benefit of everybody. I would really appreciate that.

Mr. Doyle

I thank the Minister for his reply. He is quite right. The figures I quoted were for one day but if those atmospheric conditions had continued there would have been very serious consequences. I would like to ask the Minister a question in relation to section 45 on financial assistance. Local authorities like Dublin Corporation have very little finance available, even for the running of normal services, and to provide a smokeless zone in Dublin city would require finance from Central Government as indicated in section 45 of the Act. I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister for the Environment the urgency of giving this matter priority because I fear that the problem which arose in December could arise again for a longer period. This could have serious consequences on the health of the citizens and probably, at the end of the day, would cause the Exchequer greater financial strain through the medical services than the creation of a smokeless zone. I ask the Minister to give priority to financial aid for local authorities.

Mr. Connolly

In reply to Senator Doyle, I will convey that point to the Minister for the Environment and will see what can be done in that respect. I appreciate his concern about the health of the people and how serious the situation is. I will bear all the Senator's remarks in mind. We are favourably disposed and I will bring the matter to the Minister's attention as a priority.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 January 1988.