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 14/11/17 – Department of Finance – State Claims Agency

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 129

To ask the Minister for Finance the reason the State Claims Agency did not seek assistance from the Health and Safety Authority immediately when it discovered in 2013 and 2014 that serious and ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation, including lack of risk assessments, lack of chemical training and lack of personal protection equipment, were causing ongoing harm to personnel of all Air Corps ranks and none; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48048/17]

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

The NTMA have advised me that the State Claims Agency did not undertake audits in the Defence Forces in 2013 and 2014.

*****

Mr. O’Snodaigh did not ask about audits in the Defence Forces in this instance.

He asked why the “State Claims Agency did not seek assistance from the Health and Safety Authority immediately when it discovered in 2013 & 2014 that serious and ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation, including lack of risk assessments, lack of chemical training and lack of personal protection equipment, were causing ongoing harm to personnel of all Air Corps ranks and none.”

We wonder is the Minister of Finance also being mislead by the State Claims Agency’s culpability & negligence in this scandal.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 14/11/17 – Defence Forces – Air Corps Equipment

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 531

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason he indicated (details supplied) further to the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 1383 of 7 November 2017, when the question related to the current gloves being used by Air Corps personnel for protection against toxic chemical exposure was found to have been inadequate and if there was an oversight on procurement of health and safety personal protective equipment; and if he now will answer the question posed. [48165/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The Deputy will appreciate that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment in respect of any matters relating to ongoing litigation and I deemed the wording of his previous question to be such as to potentially encroach into the remit of the Courts in relation to the litigation referred to in my reply.

However, I wish to assure the Deputy that I have been advised by the Military Authorities that Air Corps personnel are provided with protective gloves as part of their Personal Protective Equipment which conform to European standards.

I have also been advised that the Air Corps Formation Safety Office selects and approves all gloves for use by all personnel in the Air Corps.

*****

Minister Kehoe must be reminded of the F1-11 Deseal / Reseal scandal in the Royal Australian Air Force whereby thousands of personnel were injured by chemical exposure.

In this scandal the RAAF personnel did have PPE but it was discovered, well after the fact, to be inadequate and in some instances PPE gave only 4 seconds of protection. We strongly urge that Minister Kehoe is not complacent on this issue and that he ensures that the foundations of further injury to Air Corps personnel are not being currently laid.

Minister Kehoe MUST ensure independent oversight of PPE selection or at the very least competent verification that the PPE chosen is adequate for the task .

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 7/11/17 – Defence Forces – Air Corps Equipment

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 1383

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the recent discovery at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel that gloves provided to personnel to protect them from toxic chemical exposure had been found to offer inadequate protection; if harm has been caused to personnel as a result of this inadequate protection; and if there was independent oversight into the process of choosing and purchasing health and safety personal protective equipment. [46383/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The Deputy will be aware that the State Claims Agency is currently managing six claims taken between 2013 and 2016 by former and current members of the Air Corps against the Minister for Defence for personal injuries alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances whilst working in the Air Corps in Baldonnel in the period 1991 to 2006. Given my responsibilities and the fact that the Minister for Defence is the Defendant in these claims, you will appreciate it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment in relation to these cases whilst such litigation is ongoing.

*****

It appears that Minister Kehoe & the Department of Defence have taken to hiding behind the fact that legal cases are ongoing regarding LEGACY Health & Safety failings in the Irish Army Air Corps, in order to avoid answering questions regarding CURRENT Health & Safety failings in the Irish Army Air Corps.

The CURRENT problem of gloves used by spray painters quickly disintegrating in contact with solvents has NOTHING to do with ANY ongoing court cases.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

What are Isocyanates?

An isocyanate is any chemical that contains at least one isocyanate group in its structure. An isocyanate group is a group of atoms containing one nitrogen atom attached by a double covalent bond to one carbon atom, which in turn is attached by a second double bond to an oxygen atom (indicated in structure as -N=C=O). (Do not confuse this with the cyanate functional group which is arranged as –O–C≡N). A chemical containing two such isocyanate groups is called a diisocyanate. Common examples are toluene diisocyanate (TDI), hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) and methylene diphenylmethane diisocyanate (MDI).

Isocyanates (a description which includes diisocyanates) are the raw materials that make up all polyurethane products. Isocyanates react with compounds containing alcohols to produce polyurethane polymers – which are used in polyurethane foams, thermoplastic elastomers and “2 pack” type polyurethane paints to improve the performance, durability and finish of painted surfaces. Jobs that may involve exposure to isocyanates include painting with polyurethane products, foam-blowing and the manufacture of polyurethane products like insulation materials, surface coatings, furniture, foam mattresses, under-carpet padding, packaging materials, laminated fabrics, polyurethane rubber, adhesives and also exposure can occur during the thermal degradation of polyurethane products.

Health Effects

Exposure to hazardous materials may be acute or chronic. Acute exposures refer to single high concentration exposures over shorter periods, while chronic exposures are repeated or continuous exposures over longer periods. Exposures to any toxic material may have either acute, immediate effects and/or chronic, long term health effects.

Inhalation:

Isocyanates are known to have a strong effect on the respiratory tract in some people. It is reported that there is a susceptible group in the population (estimated to be 5-20% of workers who are exposed occupationally) who can become sensitised to Isocyanates. Sensitization is the body’s hyper-reactive (allergy-like) response to a substance which has been touched or inhaled by a susceptible individual. Sensitization may develop as a result of a large single overexposure, for example, from a spill or accident, or from repeated overexposure at lower levels.

Once sensitised, these people, when later exposed to even very low concentrations of isocyanates even at levels below the exposure standard, can react by developing asthma-like symptoms, such as chest tightness, cough, wheezing and shortness of breath. Such attacks may occur up to several hours after cessation of exposure (for example, during the night after exposure) but, if a person is particularly sensitive, the attack can occur earlier or immediately. This sensitisation is essentially irreversible and can prevent any further work for the individual in their job using Isocyanates or any position associated with use of Isocyanates – even at very low levels below the regulated exposure level and that may not affect others. Many spray painters working in smash repair shops have had to leave the industry because they are sensitised to isocyanates.

An individual’s response to isocyanate exposure can be immediate or may be delayed for several years. Asthmatic people are more prone to sensitisation and other adverse reactions. Persons with a history of asthma, allergies, hay fever, recurrent acute bronchitis or any occupational chest disease or impaired lung function is advised against risking exposure to isocyanates. In rare cases, death has occurred from a severe asthma attack after significant isocyanate exposure.

Skin

Isocyanates are also skin irritants (causing inflammation and dermatitis) and there is some evidence that skin exposure can also cause respiratory sensitisation.

Eyes

Isocyanates are an irritant to the eyes. Splashes can cause severe chemical conjunctivitis.

Other Health Effects

Other health effects which have been reported include liver and kidney dysfunction. Some Isocyanate materials are considered to be potential human carcinogens (IARC).

Spraying Isocyanate Paints

Spray painters need to understand the health risks involved in spraying polyurethane paints – these are the two-pack mixes of polyurethane paints and possibly also in the one-pack moisture-cured mixes. These products are widely used in the automotive and other industries because of their excellent gloss, hardness, adhesion and chemical resistance.

The major hazard with spraying polyurethane paints is breathing the mist or aerosol droplets of the paint spray and absorbing the isocyanate and other components into your lungs.

The odour threshold for isocyanates, i.e. the level at which an individual can smell an isocyanate, is typically higher than the allowed exposure limits. In other words, if a painter smells the sweet, fruity, pungent odour of an isocyanate, they are probably already overexposed. That is why the recommended respiratory protection for employees spraying isocyanates is a supplied air respirator and not an air purifying respirator (i.e. filter cartridge style). The issue with use of air purifying respirators is that they will reach a point at which the filter becomes saturated and will no longer capture the isocyanate or other solvents. When that filter breakthrough happens, an Isocyanates overexposure can occur, potentially causing an irreversible sensitization. Use of a supplied air system removes this filter change factor – it does not rely on the painter changing his gas/vapour filters at appropriate intervals.

Note: if isocyanate-containing paint is applied by brush, roller or dipping, in a well ventilated area, there is generally no more hazard than with ordinary paints. These application methods usually do not produce the higher concentrations of isocyanate vapour associated with spraying.

After curing, polyurethane paints contain no free isocyanates and are not hazardous under normal use. However, welding or burning of polyurethane coated surfaces can release a range of contaminants. Gases or vapours evolved can include HDI, TDI, MDI as well as many other compounds (metal fumes, organic gases or vapours, particulates), depending on the original polyisocyanate resin used. When welding or cutting metal coated with a polyurethane coating, a worker may be exposed to a range of these decomposition products which will vary depending on type of process being used to weld or cut, the nature of the base metal and type of coating. Respiratory protection that is suitable for welding applications will also provide suitable respiratory protection in these cases

Source 3M Australia / New Zealand

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/777847O/isocyanates-3m-techupdate.pdf

*****

Some significant points to note from this 3M document.

Exposure can occur when cured isocyanates are heated.
An individual’s response to isocyanate exposure can be immediate or may be DELAYED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
Skin exposure can also cause respiratory sensitisation.
The odour threshold for isocyanates, i.e. the level at which an individual can smell an isocyanate, is typically higher than the allowed exposure limits.
The Air Corps did eventually provide a “supplied air” respirator to spray paint & welding personnel. Unfortunately they sourced the “supplied air” from an old machine compressor located in ERF where the air had previously tested as 3.5 times over the allowed limit for Dichloromethane i.e. allowed limit was 50ppm and sourced air was from a location measured at 175ppm…out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Air Corps Isocyanate Usage

Isocyanates were used by the Spray Paint Shop (Dope Shop) at Baldonnel. For most of the existence of this shop personnel were NOT supplied with ANY PPE. The walls between the Spray Paint Shop and Engineering Wing Hangar & Workshops were not sealed and so isocyanates and other chemicals entered these workplaces whilst spraying was in progress exposing all personnel.

Furthermore if a component could not be removed from an aircraft for spray painting it was spray painted in-situ in Engineering Wing Hangar whilst unprotected line & tech personnel worked in adjoining offices & workshops or on other aircraft in the hangar.

A “waterfall” system with an extractor fan was also present. Personnel spray painted aircraft components toward the waterfall which captured most of the over-spray droplets. Fumes from this waterfall were then extracted by a fan, up a duct and released at approximately 3m height where the prevailing winds then carried the extracted fumes in the doors & windows of Avionics Squadron & Engine Repair Flight exposing further unprotected personnel.

Sensitisation is irreversible and once sensitised it is next to impossible to avoid isocyanates in the modern environment. It is also likely that health effects are suffered beyond the respiratory system & skin for example the gastric & nervous systems.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Suicide, cancer and organ failure – today we list all the alleged victims of the Air Corps chemical scandal

FOR THE LAST year, TheJournal.ie has been covering allegations made by former members of the Irish Air Corps that exposure to harmful chemicals during their careers has led to the untimely deaths of many of their colleagues.

It’s the contention of a number of Air Corps members that the effects of the chemicals contributed to dozens of workers at the Baldonnel Airfield becoming ill.

In a protected disclosure made by one of the workers earlier this year, it has also been alleged that the partners of male members of the force suffered serious fertility issues and a number of miscarriages. Other children, according to the protected disclosure, are living with life-changing illnesses and, in some cases, have died.

Today, after receiving details verified through death certificates of each of those who has passed away, we can publish details of 45 deceased members: their ages, their causes of death and what position they held in the Air Corps.

Read full article on The Journal website below…

http://www.thejournal.ie/air-corps-death-list-3665013-Oct2017/

Delay – Deny – Die

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 24/10/17 – Department of Defence – State Claims Agency

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 437

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of years the State Claims Agency has been auditing the Defence Forces. [44987/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

The State Claims Agency have conducted Health & Safety Management System audits of the Defence Forces since 2006. These type of audits were completed in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015.

*****

It now comes to light why the State Claims Agency are fighting Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors with surprising vigour and happy to let personnel die rather than assist them.

The State Claims Agency, and by association the National Treasury Management Agency, are equally culpable & negligent in the Air Corps toxic chemical scandal which shows their state wide Health & Safety Management System audit regime is built on sand.

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 18/10/17 – Defences Forces – Protected Disclosures

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 38

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on a person’s (details supplied) contention contained within their report on health and safety procedures at Casement Aerodrome that they lacked the powers, experience and competence to investigate the allegations made by the whistleblowers; the reason the scope of a review was so limited despite assurances made by him in Dáil Éireann that the review would adequately deal with the allegations made in the protective disclosures received by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44025/17]

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)

QUESTION NO: 47

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to commission a second review of claims by former Air Corps staff that say their exposure to toxic chemicals from the late 1980s to the early 2000s caused chronic illnesses in view of the fact that the person commissioned to perform the first review (details supplied) has stated that they were not in a position to consider the substances in use or implications for human health arising from such use in view of the fact these issues are outside their competence. [43976/17]

Séan Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 165

o ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason the report into allegations contained within protective disclosures relating to Casement Aerodrome fails to address that staff are at greater risk of serious illness as a result of their service at Baldonnel; and his views on whether these serious matters can only be properly assessed through a thorough health study and survey of current and former members. [44041/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 38, 47 and 65 together.

The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are a priority for me; that is why I ensured that protected disclosures alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances were investigated by an independent third party. The reviewer’s report has indicated that he felt that given the breadth of the remit of the Terms of Reference he commented in general terms on the Defence Force safety regime.

It must be remembered that prior to the receipt of the disclosures, litigation had first been initiated in relation to the subject matter of the disclosures. This therefore complicated the approach to be taken in developing any parallel process. Notwithstanding this significant challenge, I put in place just such a parallel process. In light of the legally complex situation, I believe it was appropriate that an experienced legal professional was appointed.

It was the view of the independent reviewer that the Courts are best placed to examine issues in relation to allegations which were already subject to litigation. This is so given the historic nature of the complaints, and, significantly, that it potentially affects the reputations and good names of individuals. What the report shows is the difficulty in putting a parallel process to the courts in place.

The report also notes that the Health and Safety Authority is the appropriate statutory body to deal with such allegations.

I have furnished the report to those who made the protected disclosures and, before considering any further steps, I will await their views.

Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016, the Air Corps has continued to work with the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) to improve its health and safety regime. I have been informed by the military authorities that the HSA has formally noted the considerable progress made to-date by the Defence Forces towards implementation of a safety management system for the control of hazardous substances. Subject to completion of the improvement plan the HSA investigation is closed. However, it must be noted that in the Air Corps health and safety is a matter of ongoing monitoring, supervision and adjustment.

*****

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 11/10/17 – Department of Defence – Air Corps

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 199

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the recognition in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that the author was not in a position to consider the substances in use or implications for human health arising from such use as these issues are outside their competence. [43179/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 200

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if a comprehensive inquiry will take place into the health and safety regime in the Air Corps and compliance with that regime in a period stretching back over 20 years in view of a review (details supplied). [43180/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 201

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the description of a review (details supplied) by its own author as an informal review; and if a formal review will now take place. [43181/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 202

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the finding of a review (details supplied) by its own author that it is their view that a review of the kind envisaged by the terms of reference is impractical and therefore they can only comment in general terms on the safety regime; the way in which he plans to deal with this identified impracticality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43182/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 203

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review (details supplied) that, in the context of a work environment subject to military discipline in which obedience to the instructions of a superior is a key requirement, there are obvious difficulties for a person raising safety concerns; his further views on the view of the informants in this matter that they were not able adequately to raise safety concerns and that when they did raise concerns these were ignored; and the action that will be taken to address the difficulties and concerns of the informants. [43183/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 204

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review that the Defence Forces need to be able to demonstrate that an adequate system is in place to ensure that safety concerns can be raised by a member of any rank and to show that it has an ethos which makes safety the concern and responsibility of all; and the action he will take to achieve this. [43184/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 205

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on the observation in a review (details supplied) that the military authorities need to ensure that the role of the Health and Safety Authority in relation to workplace safety is understood and that there is an effective system in place to enable persons to raise safety concerns. [43185/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 206

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the military authorities ensure that documentation and records detailing compliance with safety regimes exist and that they are readily accessible to staff as per the observation in a review (details supplied). [43186/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 207

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will authorise an independent and comprehensive health assessment of the informants’ claims and of Defence Forces health and safety records in dealing with hazardous chemicals over the past 25 years. [43187/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 208

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the recognition in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that the author was not in a position to judge whether there is now or was at the relevant time an actual level of exposure which was in fact potentially harmful. [43188/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 209

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the observation in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that all Defence Forces personnel are supposed to receive a routine medical at regular intervals but there appears to have been no special provision for personnel involved in maintenance work or a special alert in relation to persons that may have handled toxic chemicals. [43189/17]

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

QUESTION NO: 210

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he will take in view of the observation in a review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims that risk assessment material which the author saw are not comprehensive enough to provide a clear view of the basis for the assessment made. [43190/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 199 to 210, inclusive, together.

I have made it clear that the health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces is a priority for me and therefore, I ensured that protected disclosures alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances whilst working in the Air Corps in Baldonnel were investigated by an independent third party. I have furnished the report to those who made the protected disclosures and, before considering any further steps, I will await their views. In light of this and given that some of the allegations relate to matters that are the subject of litigation, commenced before the protected disclosures were made, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

*****

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Probe into Air Corps allegations urged

The Air Corps’ failure to protect workers from exposure to cancer-causing chemicals may have affected thousands of people, causing 100 deaths as well as birth defects and miscarriages, the Dáil heard yesterday.

The claim, previously made in a protected disclosure to the Department of Defence, was aired as opposition politicians increased the pressure on the Government to commission an investigation into working conditions at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell.

Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin criticised the Government’s efforts to have whistle-blowers’ claims of health and safety mismanagement adequately investigated after the details of an independent report were reported by the Irish Examiner.

Christopher O’Toole, an independent third-party appointed to review the claims, reported that the kind of probe envisaged by the terms of reference he was given by the Department of Defence was “impractical”, given his own lack of expertise in chemical science and medicine.

However, Mr O’Toole did report that appropriate records that demonstrate the Air Corps complied with health and safety standards “are not readily available”.

Putting questions to junior Defence Minister Paul Kehoe in the Dáil yesterday, Sinn Féin Defence spokesman Aengus O’Snodaigh outlined the litany of allegations against the Air Corps, noting claims of “clusters of highly complicated medical conditions, miscarriages, and birth defects among those who worked in those conditions”.

Read full article on Irish Examiner website below…

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/probe-into-air-corps-allegations-urged-461162.html