Tag: Ardrox 666

Five years on from protected disclosures Air Corps whistleblowers still ‘waiting for justice’

IT IS NOW five years since former members of the Air Corps submitted protected disclosures detailing allegations that they became unwell due to their exposure to dangerous chemicals at Baldonnel Airfield.

Since then, whistleblower Gavin Tobin and several of his colleagues have been trying to have their full case heard in the courts. Tobin is currently involved in litigation against the State. That remains in the discovery phase as Tobin waits for more files to be handed over.

Last July (2019), a five-panel Supreme Court hearing unanimously found in favour of Tobin, meaning the State must now disclose documents outlining any chemicals that Tobin may have been exposed to while working at the airfield between 1990 and 1999.

Tobin has been continuing to log what he has described as the untimely deaths of his colleagues. Of the 85 deaths he has cited, five relate to the 1980s seven to the 1990s and the rest have taken place since 2000.

Tobin also contacted then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar in 2017, when Varadkar also held the Defence portfolio. Tobin said: “Subsequent protected disclosures to Varadkar were either ignored or forwarded to then Junior Minister Paul Kehoe.

“Absolutely nothing has been done to provide targeted healthcare for exposed personnel since this date despite damning findings by the HSA which the Department of Defence continue to try to downplay.”

The average age of death of the cases recorded by Tobin stands at 50 years old. Tobin believes the number of deaths from chemical exposure could be as high as 100.

The 2016 HSA report warned the Air Corps it could face prosecution if it did not “comply with advice and relevant legal requirements” about how hazardous substances were managed, among other safety matters.

The HSA’s report stated immediate attention was needed at Baldonnel and that protective equipment must be made available to staff. The necessary equipment should include protective gear for eyes and hands, as well as respirators to protect against inhalation of toxic fumes.

The whistle-blowers in this case alleges there was a disregard for the safety of young Air Corps members. According to an online resource created for those who believe they were affected by the chemical exposure, there was:

  • No meaningful chemical risk assessments.
  • No risk specific health surveillance
  • No Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) issued
  • No chemical health and safety training whatsoever
  • No reporting of health and safety incidents
  • No follow up of unusual illnesses by medical personnel
  • Ignoring dangerous air quality reports
  • Personnel doused in toxic chemicals as pranks (hazing) incidents
  • Highly toxic chemicals disposed of onsite in an unsafe manner

Read full article on The Journal website below…

*****

To be clear, the original Protected Disclosure made in November 2015 was to make Minister Simon Coveney aware that chemical health & safety at the Irish Air Corps was completely sub standard and an ongoing threat to the health of the men & women who worked there & their families. 

The appalling working conditions that Tobin alleges harmed his health in the 1990s still prevailed in 2015. Since his Protected Disclosure his and other whistle-blower allegations of poor chemical health & safety work practices have been vindicated by both the Health & Safety Authority and the “Independent Third Party Investigator” appointed by Minister Paul Kehoe. 

The priorities of the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors are firstly to prevent further unnecessary loss of life amongst survivors and secondly to improve the quality of life of survivors by reducing unnecessary suffering. Both the Royal Australian Air Force & the Armed forces of the Netherlands have offered templates as to how to approach unfortunate workplace chemical exposure issues with competence, fairness, justice & urgency.

At no point have ACCAS nor any of the whistle-blowers sought any legal intervention into ongoing court cases. 

Delay – Deny – Die

French court upholds guilty verdict against Monsanto over poisoning of farmer who used its weedkiller

A FRENCH COURT has upheld a guilty verdict against chemical giant Monsanto over the poisoning of a farmer who suffered neurological damage after using one of its weedkillers.

Irish Air Corps – Non Destructive Testing Facility – 17th December 2007

Cereal farmer Paul Francois has been fighting Monsanto, a former US company which was bought by Germany’s Bayer last year, for the past 12 years. In the first ruling of its kind against Monsanto anywhere in the world, a French court in 2012 found it guilty of poisoning Francois.

He said he began experiencing symptoms including blackouts, headaches and loss of balance and memory after inhaling fumes while using the now-banned weedkiller Lasso.

Monsanto appealed and lost in 2015. However, it decided to go a third round. “I won, and I’m happy, but at what cost?” Francois told reporters after the verdict. He denounced what he called years of “legal harassment” by Monsanto.

‘Not a chemist’

Francois said he fell ill in 2004 after accidentally inhaling fumes from a vat containing Lasso, a monochlorobenzene-based weedkiller that was legal in France until 2007. However, it had already been banned in 1985 in Canada and in 1992 in Belgium and Britain.

He argued that Monsanto was aware of Lasso’s dangers long before it was withdrawn from the French market, and sought damages of more than €1 million for chronic neurological damage that required long hospital stays.

The court in Lyon, southeastern France, rejected the company’s appeal but did not rule on how much Monsanto might have to pay, which will be determined in a separate ruling. It did order the company to pay €50,000 immediately for Francois’s legal fees.

In its ruling, the court found that Monsanto should have clearly indicated on Lasso’s labelling and instructions for use “a notice on the specific dangers of using the product in vats and reservoirs”.

The plaintiff’s assumed technical knowledge does not excuse the lack of information on the product and its harmful effects – a farmer is not a chemist.

Read full article on the Journal website below…

*****

French judges appear to show common sense. The State Claims Agency has managed to successfully argue in an Irish Court that military aircraft mechanics in the Irish Air Corps with ZERO medical training were able to diagnose themselves with chemical injure thus starting the statute clock and allowing a case to be dismissed as statute barred.

The State Claims Agency argued that an Air Corps technician attending a doctor and asking “did chemicals harm me” and doctor replying “maybe or maybe not” means the technician had “knowledge” that the chemicals had  actually harmed him.

As we appeal up the food chain of the Irish Judicial system common sense will prevail against the financial & legal might that is the State Claims Agency.  Right is Might.

Delay – Deny – Die

Dichloromethane – Guide to Hazardous Air Pollutants used by the Irish Air Corps

Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)

Above is a photgraph taken in Irish Air Corps in 2015 of a drum of Dichloromethane. This was in use by the spray paint shop in Baldonnel for stripping paint but was handed out to staff from any other unit that wanted some in containers like soft drinks bottles or milk cartons.

Note : The European Union had banned this chemical 3 years earlier in 2015. The current Health & Safety officer in Baldonnel didn’t know Dichlorometheane had been banned and in fact didn’t even know Dichlorometheane was actually in use as no chemical register was in existance at the time despite being mandatory since 1989.

This was prior to the Irish Air Corps becoming LEADERS in workplace chemical Healh & Safety as “self-declared” recently to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence.

CAS  75-09-2

Hazard Summary

Methylene chloride is predominantly used as a solvent. The acute (short-term) effects of methylene chloride inhalation in humans consist mainly of nervous system effects including decreased visual, auditory, and motor functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases.

The effects of chronic (long-term) exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the central nervous system (CNS) is a potential target in humans and animals.

Human data are inconclusive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride.

Please Note: The main sources of information for this fact sheet are the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR's) Toxicological Profile for Methylene Chloride and EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which contains information on oral chronic toxicity and the RfD, and the carcinogenic effects of methylene chloride including the unit cancer risk for inhalation exposure

Uses

  • Methylene chloride is predominantly used as a solvent in paint strippers and removers; as a process solvent in the manufacture of drugs, pharmaceuticals, and film coatings; as a metal cleaning and finishing solvent in electronics manufacturing; and as an agent in urethane foam blowing. (1)
  • Methylene chloride is also used as a propellant in aerosols for products such as paints, automotive products, and insect sprays. (1)
  • It is used as an extraction solvent for spice oleoresins, hops, and for the removal of caffeine from coffee. However, due to concern over residual solvent, most decaffeinators no longer use methylene chloride. (1)
  • Methylene chloride is also approved for use as a postharvest fumigant for grains and strawberries and as a degreening agent for citrus fruit. (1)

Sources and Potential Exposure

  • The principal route of human exposure to methylene chloride is inhalation of ambient air. (1)
  • Occupational and consumer exposure to methylene chloride in indoor air may be much higher, especially from spray painting or other aerosol uses. People who work in these places can breathe in the chemical or it may come in contact with the skin. (1)
  • Methylene chloride has been detected in both surface water and groundwater samples taken at hazardous waste sites and in drinking water at very low concentrations. (1)

Assessing Personal Exposure

  • Several tests exist for determining exposure to methylene chloride. These tests include measurement of methylene chloride in the breath, blood, and urine. It is noted that smoking and exposure to other chemicals may affect the results of these tests. (1)

Health Hazard Information

Acute Effects:

  • Case studies of methylene chloride poisoning during paint stripping operations have demonstrated that inhalation exposure to extremely high levels can be fatal to humans. (1,2)
  • Acute inhalation exposure to high levels of methylene chloride in humans has resulted in effects on the central nervous system (CNS) including decreased visual, auditory, and psychomotor functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases. Methylene chloride also irritates the nose and throat at high concentrations. (1,2)
  • Tests involving acute exposure of animals have shown methylene chloride to have moderate acute toxicity from oral and inhalation exposure. (3)

Chronic Effects (Noncancer):

  • The major effects from chronic inhalation exposure to methylene chloride in humans are effects on the CNS, such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, and memory loss. (1,2)
  • Animal studies indicate that the inhalation of methylene chloride causes effects on the liver, kidney, CNS, and cardiovascular system. (1,2)
  • EPA has calculated a provisional Reference Concentration (RfC) of 3 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) based on liver effects in rats. The RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
    magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime. It is not a direct estimator of risk but rather a reference point to gauge the potential effects. At exposures increasingly greater than the RfC, the potential for adverse health effects increases. Lifetime exposure above the RfC does not imply that an adverse health effect would necessarily occur. (5)
  • The Reference Dose (RfD) for methylene chloride is 0.06 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/d) based on liver toxicity in rats. (4)
  • EPA has medium confidence in the RfD based on: high confidence in the study on which the RfD is based because a large number of animals of both sexes were tested in four dose groups, with a large number of controls, many effects were monitored, and a dose-related increase in severity was observed; and medium to low confidence in the database because only a few studies support the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). (4)

Reproductive/Developmental Effects:

  • No studies were located regarding developmental or reproductive effects in humans from inhalation or oral exposure. (1,2)
  • Animal studies have demonstrated that methylene chloride crosses the placental barrier, and minor skeletal variations and lowered fetal body weights have been noted. (1,2)

Cancer Risk:

  • Several studies did not report a statistically significant increase in deaths from cancer among workers exposed to methylene chloride. (1,2)
  • Animal studies have shown an increase in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors following inhalation exposure to methylene chloride. (1,2,4)
  • EPA considers methylene chloride to be a probable human carcinogen and has ranked it in EPA’s Group B2.(4)
  • EPA uses mathematical models, based on animal studies, to estimate the probability of a person developing cancer from breathing air containing a specified concentration of a chemical. EPA calculated an inhalation unit risk estimate of 4.7 × 10-7 (µg/m3)-1. EPA estimates that, if an individual were to continuously breathe air containing methylene chloride at an average of 2.0 µg/m3 (0.002 mg/m3) over his or her entire lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a one-in-a-million increased chance of developing cancer as a direct result of breathing air containing this chemical. Similarly, EPA estimates that breathing air containing 20 µg/m3 (0.02 mg/m3 ) would result in not greater than a one-in-a-hundred
    breathing air containing 20 µg/m3 (0.02 mg/m3) would result in not greater than a one-in-a-hundred thousand increased chance of developing cancer, and air containing 200 µg/m3(0.2 mg/m3) would result in not greater than a one-in-ten thousand increased chance of developing cancer. For a detailed discussionof confidence in the potency estimates, please see IRIS. (4)
  • Note the MAX mathamatical/theoretical EPA level above of 200 µg/m3(0.2 mg/m3) equates to 0.05758ppm (parts per million). Dichloromethane was measured in ERF on Wednesday 12th & Thursday 13th July, 1995 at 175ppm. This equates to 607,880 µg/m3(607.88 mg/m3). So the level the EPA use to calculate a one-in-a hundred thousand increased chance of developing cancer were exceeded by the Irish Air Corps by a factor of 3,039. So statistically if a person inhalled the levels that many Irish Air Corps were exposed to 24/7 for a lifetime they would have a 1 in 33 chance of developing cancer as a result.
  • EPA calculated an oral cancer slope factor of 7.5 x 10-3 (mg/kg/d)-1. (4)

Physical Properties

  • A common synonym for methylene chloride is dichloromethane. (1,4)
    Methylene chloride is a colorless liquid with a sweetish odor. (1,6)
    The chemical formula for methylene chloride is CH2Cl2, and the molecular weight is 84.93 g/mol. (1)
  • The vapor pressure for methylene chloride is 349 mm Hg at 20 °C, and it has an octanol/water coefficient (log Kow) of 1.30. (1)
  • Methylene chloride has an odor threshold of 250 parts per million (ppm). (7)
  • Methylene chloride is slightly soluble in water and is nonflammable. (1,6)

Read the full EPA PDF on the above Hazardous Air Pollutant with references below.

*****

Relavance to personnel who served in the Air Corps

  1. Dichloromethane was a  component of Ardrox 666 used in ERF.
  2. Dichloromethane was a component of the Paint Remover 82510 used by the Spray Paint Shop but also by technicians in No3 Sp Wing, BFTS & possibly elsewhere.

There are possibly more chemicals used by the Air Corps that contain Dichloromethane. If you know of some let us know in the comments section. We are not statisticians and our interpretation of the cancer statistics are open to correction.

Safe Handling of Cresols, Xylenols & Cresylic Acids

Introduction

Cresols, xylenols and cresylic acids are hazardous substances and dangerous both to people and the environment if handled improperly. Cresols, xylenols and cresylic acid products produced by Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC are highly versatile materials and are used as intermediates in the manufacture of a wide variety of industrial products such as resins, flame retardants, antioxidants, and coatings. In these and other applications, cresylic acids can be stored, transferred, processed and disposed of safely when proper procedures and safeguards are used. 

“Cresol” refers to any of the three isomers of methylphenol (C7H8O) or combinations thereof. “Cresols” commonly refer to a mixture which is predominantly methylphenol but may also contain lesser amounts of other alkylphenols. “Xylenol” is a common name for any of the six isomers of dimethylphenol (C8H10O) or their various combinations. Material which is predominantly dimethylphenol but which also contains ethylphenols and other alkylphenols may be referred to as “Xylenols”. “Cresylic acid” is a generic term referring to various combinations of cresols, xylenols, phenol or other alkylphenols (ethylphenols, propylphenols, trimethylphenols, etc.). 

Purpose & Scope

The purpose of this document is to provide information gathered through Sasol’s long experience in the safe handling of cresylic acids. It focuses on basic and practical information about working safely with these substances. Additional references are provided and it is strongly recommended that these and others be consulted prior to working with cresylic acids. Please do not hesitate to contact your regional Sasol office if we can be of assistance in the safe storage, handling, processing and disposal of our products.

Hazards

Health Hazards

The primary dangers posed in handling cresylic acids are those resulting from physical exposure. Cresylic acids are highly corrosive and contact with exposed skin or mucous membranes causes severe burns. These burns progress from an initial whitening of the exposed skin to blackishbrown necroses within 24 hours after exposure. Cresylic acids also exhibit anesthetic properties. Therefore, victims frequently misjudge the extent of their exposure when the initial burning sensation rapidly subsides. This can result in prolonged contact, causing toxic effects in addition to the corrosive damage. 

Cresylic acids are readily absorbed through the skin and mucous membranes in liquid or vapor form and act as systemic toxins for which there is no established treatment. Relatively small areas of exposure (e.g. an arm or a hand) can allow sufficient absorption to cause severe poisoning. Progressive symptoms of such poisoning include headache, dizziness, ringing in the ears, nausea, vomiting, muscular twitching, mental confusion, loss of consciousness and, possibly, death from lethal paralysis of the central nervous system. Chronic exposure can lead to loss of appetite, vomiting, nervous disorders, headaches, dizziness, fainting and dermatitis. 

The Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) has established 5ppm or 22 mg/m3 permissible exposure limits (PEL’s) for cresols on an 8-hour time-weighted average basis. OSHA guidelines also indicate that adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) should be employed to avoid skin contact with cresols. Cresylic acids are not listed as carcinogens by OSHA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

Environmental Hazards

Cresylic acids show high acute toxicity towards both fish and aquatic invertebrates and must be prevented from entering surface or ground waters. Depending upon the specific composition, the material may be classified as a marine pollutant. Please refer to the current label and safety datasheet.

Controls for Working with Cresols

Safe storage, handling, processing and disposal of cresylic acids begin long before they ever arrive on-site. Measures necessary to ensure the health and well-being of employees, customers, the community and the  environment include the development of effective administrative and engineering controls designed to specifically address the hazards associated with cresylic acids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is integral to safe handling and should be viewed as the last line of defense against an accidental failure of the administrative and/or engineering controls. 

Administrative Controls

Administrative controls are the foundation of any program designed for safely handling cresylic acids. Every company is unique in how they run their business and establish administrative controls. Those specifically developed for working with cresylic acids should address comprehensive process planning, thorough communication of hazards to employees and extensive training of employees on the proper implementation of all safety measures.

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

All personnel who work with or near cresylic acids must use adequate personal protective equipment (PPE). The extent of the potential exposure and consideration of established permissible exposure limits (PEL’s) should dictate the level of protection necessary. Personnel working with or near lab-scale quantities should always wear safety glasses with side-shields or

chemical mono-goggles, chemical-resistant or impermeable gloves, long-sleeved shirts and trousers as a minimum.

Circumstances such as elevated temperature and pressure or vacuum conditions should dictate if more substantial protection is necessary, including face shields, chemically impermeable outerwear, and breathing protection. Personnel transferring larger quantities of cresylic acids, or working in areas where a line-break could result in similar exposure, should always wear full protective equipment.

Emergency Procedures

Physical Exposure – External

The primary dangers involved in working with cresylic acids are the corrosive and toxic effects resulting from a physical exposure. Studies suggest that the severity of the exposure depends more on the magnitude of the exposed skin area than the concentration of cresylic acid. Therefore, the critical factor in dealing with an external physical exposure to cresylic acids is to minimize the extent and duration of the contact. To this end, the immediate response must be thorough flushing of the exposed areas with copious amounts of running water to remove all the cresylic acid in contact with the skin or eyes. Any contaminated clothing should be removed as quickly and carefully as possible during this process to avoid any additional skin contact.

Any exposed areas will have readily absorbed the cresylic acids and may be evidenced by a characteristic whitening of the skin. After thorough flushing with water, a solution consisting of 2 parts polyethylene glycol 400 to 1 part ethanol (PEG/EtOH) should be liberally applied to any affected skin (avoid contact with eyes), allowed to remain 15 to 30 seconds and then flushed away with fresh running water. Continue the cycling of PEG/EtOH and water for at least 15 minutes and then finish with thorough washing with soap and water. This decontamination procedure reduces the severity of the exposure, but does not completely eliminate damage to the skin or toxic effects. Medical attention should be sought as soon as possible.

Spill Containment & Clean-Up

Spill containment and cleanup of cresylic acids should only be performed by properly trained personnel employing an appropriate level of protective equipment as dictated by the extent of the spill. Small to medium spills on land should be surrounded by and absorbed onto inert clay absorbent and transferred to a disposal container. Larger land-spills should be diverted away from waterways, contained with booms, dikes or trenches, and collected in a vacuum truck. Any residual cresylic acids remaining after vacuuming should be cleaned up using the clay absorbent. All soils affected by the spill should be removed and placed in approved disposal containers.

Water spills are of particular concern due to the acute toxicity of cresylic acids to marine life. Clean up efforts should focus on containing the spill and quickly removing the cresylic acids that settle in deeper areas of the waterway. This can be aided greatly if the flow of water can be slowed or stopped. Further efforts should focus on removing as much of the dissolved cresylic acids as possible from the water using activated charcoal.

The composition and extent of any spill should be evaluated against local guidelines (ex. SARA Title III and RCRA in the U.S.) and reported to the proper agencies, if necessary. Any non disposable clean-up equipment should be thoroughly decontaminated with soap and water after use.

Source : SASOL / USA

Safe Handling of Cresols, Xylenols & Cresylic Acids

 *****

Some significant points to note about Cresylic Acid

Below is a photo taken 10 years ago in the Irish Army Air Corps NDT shop,  part of the Avionics / ERF building complex. Ardrox 666 can be seen spilled on the ground where it was free to leach through a shore onto the grass verge outside. 

  • 25% of fresh Ardrox 666 used by the Air Corps was Cresylic Acid. This percentage was higher in waste Ardrox 666 as Dichloromethane evaporated.
  • That greenish / yellow stain dripping from the extractor fan is also Ardrox 666 from the air.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 26/09/17 – Department of Defence – Chemical Exposure Report

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

547. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will waive legal privilege and publish the Chemical Exposure Report 1994-2005 in the public interest and in the interest of transparency. [40484/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The report referenced by the Deputy was prepared in the context of ongoing legal proceedings. As the release of the report could adversely impact on those proceedings, I will not be releasing the report.

*****

Minister Paul Kehoe must note that there are many personnel who have not taken legal action but whose lives are being regularly threatened by illness flare-ups of pneumonia type illness, hypokalaemia & other incapacitating occurrences such as stroke like symptoms that are currently defying diagnosis

Being able to provide firm evidence of unprotected toxic chemical exposure through dangerous work practices, to treating doctors & consultants, may assist these medical personnel successfully diagnose & treat our colleagues.

The State Claims Agency, who is advising the Minister and his department, does not give a damn whether serving or former personnel live or die and furthermore they couldn’t give two hoots about Minister Kehoe’s political career.

Minister Kehoe needs to be fully aware that not releasing this document will cost lives.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 20/09/17 – Department of Defence – Defence Forces Properties

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

810. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the fact that dangerous chemicals such as ardrox 666 were disposed of for the Air Corps by a company that collected and disposed of all such highly toxic, corrosive and carcinogenic chemicals; and if the amount of chemicals purchased corresponds with the amount sent for safe disposal by the company engaged by the Air Corps to carry out such work in the past 20 years. [39259/17]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

811. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the fact that dangerous chemicals were over the years in a systematic fashion leeched into the soil on lands at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel; if soil and or ground water samples have been taken on the 600 acre site at Baldonnel during the past 20 years; if so, the results of those tests; the action taken to prevent this practice; if decontamination of the soil occurred; and if such practice has now ended. [39260/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 810 and 811 together. As this matter pertains to litigation which is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

No plan to probe missing Irish Army Air Corps Health & Safety reports

The Government says the Defence Forces have no intention of investigating how health and safety reports at the centre of an alleged ‘cover up’ within the Air Corps have gone missing.

The State is facing at least six lawsuits from former Air Corps technicians who suffer chronic illnesses that they say were caused by their working environment at Casement Aerodrome.

All six have seen a toxico-pathologist who has given his medical opinion that their illnesses — including cancer, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and memory loss — were caused by their exposure to harmful chemicals.

Last week the Irish Examiner revealed that health and safety reports arising from inspections of Casement Aerodrome in the 1990s — a period during which the six worked for the Air Corps —cannot be found by military authorities.

Sinn Féin defence spokesperson, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, has told the Dáil that he has seen the reports in question, and that they are critical of health and safety management at Casement Aerodrome at the time.

Mr Ó Snodaigh has questioned whether the disappearance of the documents is part of a cover-up to disguise the fact that the Defence Forces did not follow up on the inspections recommendations.

However, despite confirming that the inspections in question took place, and that the reports arising from these probes cannot be located, Junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe has said there are no plans to look into how or why the documents went missing.

Read more on the Irish Examiner website.

State has plenty of questions left to answer over Air Corps

Health and safety issues in the Air Corps have not gone away. Why is an investigation not underway, Joe Leogue wants to know

Revelations that the Air Corps has doubts over its own health and safety management raises further questions about the State’s treatment of former members who now suffer a litany of illnesses that they claim came as a result of their exposure to toxic chemicals.

Today’s Irish Examiner reveals that an internal Air Corps report from 2014 cast doubt over whether adequate protection was given to technicians who would have worked with cancer-causing solvents on a daily basis. It also states that staff could have ingested the airborne chemical because their tea room was in an adjacent room, and that their clothes could have been contaminated due to their lockers being in the room where the chemical was used.

The Air Corps could not find any records stating its staff had received any training on the dangers of the chemicals they were tasked with using.

The details of this report come a week after this newspaper revealed that the Government “cannot locate” documents that opposition TDs say show that health and safety concerns were raised more than 20 years ago.

The 2014 report’s admissions make the State’s refusal to investigate potential links between the workers’ illnesses and their exposure more inexplicable.

It also calls into question the State’s decision to drag claims made by former staff through the courts.

Read more on the Irish Examiner website.

Report queried Air Corps safety efforts

A 2014 internal Air Corps report into staff exposure to a cancer-causing cleaning agent over a 27-year period has cast doubt on whether the force did all in its power to protect workers’ health.

The document states it is possible staff may have ingested the chemical and suffered other exposures because there was no record that protective measures were in place to mitigate the impact of the toxic solvent.

The time under review in the report — 1980 to 2007 — coincides with the period during which a number of Air Corps staff who are suing the State would have worked at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel.

It is understood the document was prepared for the State Claims Agency, who is defending the case in the High Court.

The report, seen by the Irish Examiner, investigates the working environment in a since-demolished engine workshop building and was published over two-and-a-half years before the Health and Safety Authority raised a number of concerns about conditions in Baldonnel.

In its summary on precautions taken with the Triklone N solvent, the report issued by the Air Corps’ Formation Safety Office asks “can the Defence Forces be found not to have done everything reasonably practicable?”.

Triklone N contains trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen, and is a vapour degreaser that was used to clean engine parts. The report stated that:

  • No records show that personal protective equipment (PPE) was made available to staff.
  • No records exist suggesting that any training on the dangers of using Triklone N took place.
  • Work areas were not segregated and doors to adjoining areas were left open.
  • Workers’ tea room and meeting area were located in an adjoining area, raising the risk of food being contaminated.
  • Workers clothes could have been contaminated as personnel lockers were located in the immediate area where the chemical was used.

Read more on the Irish Examiner website.

Call for healthcare screening for Defence Forces members

Fianna Fáil has called on the Government to establish healthcare screening for members of the Defence Forces, as well as a health package for those who have suffered illnesses as a result of their exposures while working for the State.

The demand comes as it was confirmed Junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe has written to Sinn Féin to confirm that military authorities cannot find inspection reports from the 1990s that raised concerns about the working environment at the Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome.

The confirmation came following attempts by this newspaper to have the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The State is defending itself in a number of legal actions brought against it by Air Corps staff who say they are suffering illnesses as a result of their exposure to chemicals while working at Casement Aerodrome.

Fianna Fáil defence spokeswoman Lisa Chambers was critical of the Government’s approach to the matter.

“It is quite astonishing that the Department of Defence cannot locate these reports given I and others have seen copies of same,” Ms Chambers said.

“Simply saying they cannot be located is not good enough, there needs to be some explanation provided as to how these reports could have conveniently disappeared, given they point to serious health and safety issues at Casement Aerodrome dating back to the early 90s.

Read more on the Irish Examiner website.