Tag: leukaemia

European Commission – Pregnant Worker Directive 92/85/EC

Directive 92/85/EC – Pregnant Workers

Introduced 19th of October 1992

Pregnant woman standing outside on a sunny day

Objective

The objective of this Directive is to protect the health and safety of women in the workplace when pregnant or after they have recently given birth and women who are breastfeeding.

Contents

Under the Directive, a set of guidelines detail the assessment of the chemical, physical and biological agents and industrial processes considered dangerous for the health and safety of pregnant women or women who have just given birth and are breast feeding.

The Directive also includes provisions for physical movements and postures, mental and physical fatigue and other types of physical and mental stress.

Pregnant and breastfeeding workers may under no circumstances be obliged to perform duties for which the assessment has revealed a risk of exposure to agents, which would jeopardize their safety or health. Those agents and working conditions are defined in Annex II of the Directive.

Member States shall ensure that pregnant workers are not obliged to work in night shifts when medically indicated (subject to submission of a medical certificate).

Employers or the health and safety service will use these guidelines as a basis for a risk evaluation for all activities that pregnant or breast feeding workers may undergo and must decide what measures should be taken to avoid these risks. Workers should be notified of the results and of measures to be taken which can be adjustment of working conditions, transfer to another job or granting of leave.

The Directive grants maternity leave for the duration of 14 weeks of which 2 weeks must occur before birth.

Women must not be dismissed from work because of their pregnancy and maternity for the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the period of leave from work.

Annex I – Non exhaustive list of agents and working conditions referred to in Art.4 of the directive (assessment and information)

A. Agents

1. Physical agents where these are regarded as agents causing foetal lesions and/or likely to disrupt placental attachment, and in particular:

(a) shocks, vibration or movement;

(b) handling of loads entailing risks, particularly of a dorsolumbar nature;

(c) noise;

(d) ionizing radiation (*);

(e) non-ionizing radiation;

(f) extremes of cold or heat;

(g) movements and postures, travelling – either inside or outside the establishment – mental and physical fatigue and other physical burdens connected with the activity of the worker within the meaning of Article 2 of the Directive.

2. Biological agents

Biological agents of risk groups 2, 3 and 3 within the meaning of Article 2 (d) numbers 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 90/679/EEC (¹), in so far as it is known that these agents or the therapeutic measures necessitated by such agents endanger the health of pregnant women and the unborn child and in so far as they do not yet appear in Annex II.

3. Chemical agents

The following chemical agents in so far as it is known that they endanger the health of pregnant women and the unborn child and in so far as they do not yet appear in Annex II:

(a) substances labelled R40 (limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect), R45 (May cause cancer), R46 (May cause inheritable genetic damage), and R47 (May cause birth defects) under Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) in so far as they do not yet appear in Annex II;

(b) chemical agents in Annex I to Directive 90/394/EEC (Protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens) ;

(c) mercury and mercury derivatives;

(d) antimitotic drugs;

(e) carbon monoxide;

(f) chemical agents of known and dangerous percutaneous absorption.

B. Processes

Industrial processes listed in Annex I to Directive 90/394/EEC.

C. Working conditions

Underground mining work.

Annex II – Non exhaustive list of agents and working conditions referred to in Art.6 of the directive (cases in which exposure is prohibited)

A. Pregnant workers within the meaning of Article 2 (a)

1. Agents

(a) Physical agents

Work in hyperbaric atmosphere, e.g. pressurized enclosures and underwater diving.

(b) Biological agents

The following biological agents:

– toxoplasma,

– rubella virus,

unless the pregnant workers are proved to be adequately protected against such agents by immunization.

(c) Chemical agents

Lead and lead derivatives in so far as these agents are capable of being absorbed by the human organism.

2. Working conditions

Underground mining work.

B. Workers who are breastfeeding within the meaning of Article 2 (c)

1. Agents

(a) Chemical agents

Lead and lead derivatives in so far as these agents are capable of being absorbed by the human organism.

2. Working conditions

Underground mining work.

*****

The Irish Army Air Corps only started carrying out “adequate” risk assessments in the past year so for 25 years pregnant females at Baldonnel were dangerously exposed to Carcinogens, Mutagens & Teratogens.

Any pregnant females working in proximity to running aircraft or aircraft being refueled, such as in the ramp area, or downwind of the ramp were exposed.

  • Exhaust gasses contain Carbon Monoxide as well as TetraEthyl Lead and other hydrocarbon fumes.
  • AVGAS – 100LL  refuelling fumes contained Gasoline, Tetraethyl Lead, Toluene, Xylene, Ethylbenzene, Cyclohexane, n-Hexane, Trimethylbenzene, Naphthalene and Isopropylbenzene.
  • AVTUR – Jet A1 refueling fumes contain Kerosine, Ethylbenzene, Xylene and Isopropylbenzene.
  • Fuel System Anti Icing additives used by the Irish Army Air Corps included 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol which is a known to cause reproductive and developmental toxic effects.

Furthermore pregnant females working in or entering into Avionics, ERF or Engineering Wing hangar were being exposed to further known Carcinogens, Mutagens and Teratogens including Dichloromethane, Isocyanates & Trichloroethylene to name but a few.

Due to the fact that the working dress & overalls of technicians were (and still are) brought home to be washed in domestic family washing machines it is extremely likely that pregnant spouses & partners of Air Corps personnel were also affected.

This may have lead to miscarriages, stillbirths, lifelong genetic diseases & developmental conditions such as autism in the children of personnel.

European Commission – Young people at work directive (94/33/EC)

Directive 94/33/EC – Protection of Young people at work

Introduced 22nd June 1994

Objective

The aim of this Directive is to lay down minimum requirements for the protection of young people at work.

Definitions

The directive gives legal definitions for the terms “child”, “adolescent”, “young person”, “light work”, “working time” and “rest period”.

Contents

Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. They shall ensure, under the conditions laid down by this Directive, that the minimum working or employment age is not lower than the minimum age at which compulsory full-time schooling – as imposed by national law – ends or 15 years in any event.

This Directive shall apply to any person under 18 years of age having an employment contract or an employment relationship defined by the law in force in a Member State and/or governed by the law in force in a Member State. Exceptions can be adopted by Member States for occasional work or short-term work, involving domestic service in a private household or work regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking.

The Directive defines “young people” as people under the age of 18 and “children” as young people under the age of 15 or who are still in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation. Adolescents are young people between the ages of 15 and 18 who are no longer in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation.

Member States may make legislative exceptions for the prohibition of work by children not to apply to children employed for the purposes of cultural, artistic, sporting or advertising activities, subject to prior authorisation by the competent authority in each specific case; to children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme, provided that such work is done in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authority; and to children of at least 14 years of age performing light work. Light work can also be performed by children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation.

‘Light work’, as defined in the Directive, shall mean all work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and is not such as to be harmful to their attendance at school, their participation in vocational guidance or training programmes approved by the competent authority or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received.

Employers shall adopt the measures necessary to protect the safety and health of young people, taking particular account of the specific risks which are a consequence of their lack of experience, of absence of awareness of existing or potential risks or of the fact that young people have not yet fully matured. Employers shall implement such measures on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the hazards to young people in connection with their work according to Art 6/2 of the Directive. The assessment must be made before young people begin work and when there is any major change in working conditions.

The employer shall inform young people and their representatives of possible risks and of all measures adopted concerning their safety and health.

Member States shall prohibit the employment of young people for:

  • work which is objectively beyond their physical or psychological capacity;
  • work involving harmful exposure to agents which are toxic, carcinogenic, cause heritable genetic damage, or harm to the unborn child or which in any other way chronically affect human health;
  • work involving harmful exposure to radiation;
  • work involving the risk of accidents which it may be assumed cannot be recognised or avoided by young persons owing to their insufficient attention to safety or lack of experience or training;
  • or work in which there is a risk to health from extreme cold or heat, or from noise or vibration.

In addition, the Directive contains provisions relating to working hours, night work, rest periods, annual leave and rest breaks.

Each Member State is responsible for defining the necessary measures applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of this Directive; these measures must be effective and proportionate to the offence.

*****

It appears the Air Corps failed this directive as soon as young people (apprentices) set foot inside the gates of Casement Aerodrome. At the of time this European Commission directive was issued crumbling asbestos on central heating pipework was present in all 4 landings of the old hostel apprentice accommodation. In fact in previous years apprentices were ordered to carry out asbestos removal without any training, PPE or health surveillance. 

Please also note that on the 11th of September 2017 the HSA wrote to the Irish Army Air Corps requesting….

It should be confirmed that the findings of Asbestos Surveys for relevant buildings at the facility, or the corresponding Registers of Asbestos-Containing Materials {ACMs), have been brought to the attention of  building managers and/or incorporated into the building management system. You are referred to relevant HSA published guidance – Practical Guidelines on ACM Management and Abatement, Section 7.

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.

Air Corps controversy: Minister says reports on toxicity at Baldonnel “can’t be found”

At least six people are taking action against the State for alleged exposure to chemicals whilst in the Air Corps.

Reports detailing the levels of toxicity in the air at Baldonnel Airfield have disappeared, The Journal.ie can reveal.

A letter seen by this publication, which was sent to a TD, says two reports into the measurement of potentially dangerous levels of carbon monoxide and other airborne toxins cannot be located by the Defence Forces.

The letter from Paul Kehoe, Minister of State with responsibility for Defence, reads:

“I have now been advised by the military that there was a report on measuring CO (Carbon Monoxide) fumes from aircraft compiled by Forbairt [which later became Enterprise Ireland] in 1995 and a further report on monitoring air contaminants in workshops in 1997 which was also compiled by Forbairt.

“In addition, an internal report was compiled by the Air Corps in 2014 in relation to a litigation case and in 2017, an occupational air survey was carried out by an independent environmental services company.

“Unfortunately, following an extensive search and their having consulted with Enterprise Ireland (which superseded Forbairt), I am advised by the military authorities that it has not been possible to locate the earlier Forbairt reports.”

Read more on The Journal website here.

Air Corps whistleblower meets minister over claims

Junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe has met an Air Corps whistle-blower and saw copies of inspection reports that have raised concerns about conditions in Casement Aerodrome dating back to the 1990s.

Click on above photo to learn about the chemicals therein

The Irish Examiner understands one of four Air Corps whistle-blowers met with Mr Kehoe last week, and showed him copies of documents that have prompted allegations in the Dáil of a ‘cover up’ in the force.

This newspaper revealed yesterday that the Department of Defence refused a Freedom of Information request from the Irish Examiner for the release of the reports on the grounds that it “cannot locate” the documents sought.

Opposition TDs, who also saw the documents, say they raised concerns about Air Corps members’ exposure to toxic chemicals over 20 years ago. The State is defending High Court cases taken by former Air Corps staff who say that they suffer chronic illnesses as a result of working conditions in Casement Aerodrome.

Last October, the Health and Safety Authority threatened the Air Corps with legal action unless it addressed shortcomings that the HSA had identified.

Whistle blowers had previously warned the Government of the dangers. Sinn Féin’s Aengus Ó Snodaigh previously told the Dáil that the reports have been covered-up because of the failure of the Defence Forces to implement the changes that were recommended.

Yesterday he said that both Mr Kehoe and the Department of Defence need to explain why the documents cannot be located.

Read more on the Irish Examiner website.

Casement Aerodrome technical reports “cannot be located”

The Department of Defence said it cannot locate copies of technical reports from the 1990s which raise concerns about health and safety conditions at the Air Corps headquarters in Casement Aerodrome.

It comes after opposition TDs made claims of a “cover-up” and suggested the files may have been destroyed.

The Irish Examiner, in January last, revealed the State is being sued by six former Air Corps staff who claim their chronic illnesses were caused by exposure to toxic chemicals while working at Casement Aerodrome.

We also reported how, last October, the Health and Safety Authority issued a warning to the Air Corps over its management of staff exposure and wellbeing, following protected disclosures from three whistleblowers.

Sinn Féin defence spokesman Aengus Ó Snodaigh told the Dáil, in February, he had “seen health and safety reports going back as far as 1995, all of which pointed specifically to the issues that were addressed in the Examiner newspaper”.

“So this is not a new issue,” he stated at the time.

“This is a cover-up because the military authorities in Casement Aerodrome did not take the required steps; when it was highlighted to them that dangerous chemicals existed, they didn’t take those steps.”

Read more on the Irish Examiner website here.

Two men suing State over Air Corps chemical exposure say they have contracted cancer

Two of the men who are trying to take cases against the Air Corps over claims they were exposed to dangerous chemicals at Baldonnel Airfield say they have contracted cancer since starting the litigation.

The men, who have been attempting to have their case heard since 2013, are just two of six people who have cases which are currently at the ‘discovery’ phase.

One of the men was diagnosed with skin cancer last week. He says he has it in three places on his body – his head, arms and leg.

The other man says he was diagnosed with renal cancer in 2015. A tumour was discovered on his kidney after several visits to his doctor.

The men have maintained that their exposure to a number of chemicals at Baldonnel Airfield has led to them suffering from serious illnesses.

Read more on The Journal website here.