The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA) has strongly denied that the work in progress to decontaminate the former gasworks at the Grand Canal Docks is affecting the health of local residents.
However, one of its scientific advisers conceded yesterday that some people in the area might have experienced "transient" headaches from odours released when two large tar tanks on the 20-acre site were opened up in recent weeks.
Prof James Heffron, a leading toxicologist, said it was likely that mercaptans - organic sulphur compounds used to add a smell to gas - were to blame for the odours, but he stressed that they would not cause serious health effects in low doses.
The former gasworks, which is being prepared by the DDDA for redevelopment, was contaminated by more than a century of town-gas manufacturing. Hazardous materials excavated from the site are being exported for treatment in the Netherlands.
Dr Christopher Chapell, chief scientific adviser to British consultants Parkman Ltd, who are supervising the £25 million-plus programme, said all their air quality monitoring results showed it was "well below any thresholds" indicating a health hazard.
The substances being monitored include cresol, toluene, styrene, xylene, benzene, ammonia and naphtalene, all of which were found to be below detection levels. In the case of dust, higher readings in January were due to the location of monitoring equipment.
However, in order to satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency and local people, further measures were being taken to provide extra covering for stockpiles of material awaiting export as well as additional screening for the main conveyor.
Dr Chapell also said the operations to empty tar tanks on the site and anything else that might cause odours would be confined to periods when the wind was blowing away from nearby housing in Pearse Square, which was most of the time.
Mr Peter Coyne, the DDDA's chief executive, conceded that local people might have experienced headaches or nausea, as some of them have complained. However, he insisted that while the site "may be smelly, even very smelly" the DDDA was confident that there was no danger to public health, as had been confirmed by the results of "rigorous" monitoring carried out by its consultants.
