CARES ITS DUM 8S DIRECTORNTE ENED + et 7 239 case "0.922 Peat eas
a
WORKPLACE
HEALTH and SAFETY
Ou tet Wecrone
Mr. K Priestley
Acting General Manager,
Standards and Inspection
Dept. of Primary Industry
Brisbane
Fax 239 6292
Iecember 1995
‘There are a number of health and safety concems with the use of this
chemical,PISS 3711S OH 8 S DIRECTORATE «ERED + Gt 7 205 6252 No.9e2 Foaeva8s
‘The Health and Safety Executive in the United Kingdom has
established a ‘ maximum exposure limit’ of 0.5 ppm and the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the U.S.A.
has proposed a standard of 0.1 ppm. Both are occupational limits.
It is considered that such low levels of occupational exposure would
be difficult to achieve given the conditions and the frequency of
‘treatments required. Nevertheless, by stringent application of control,
‘measures, in particular the use of supplied air or full face canister
respirators, adequate protection should be possible, but only where a
high level of compliance can be achieved.
With no specific canister for EDB thef@s Some concern about the
level of protection afforded by canfsterstype respirators, which
points to the supplied air respirator gs the one of choice. As air
compressors in this environment are likely to entrain fumigant or fork
lift exhaust gases, cylinders of medical air are considered the safest
choice of air supply, necessitating-considerable effort to achieve safe
conditions of work.
(Of greater conéefn With EDBis the potential for exposure of other
workers and the general pubic to significant levels of gas.
(Other Workers af lly to be exposed through the off-gassing of the
EDB following fumigation. Forklift drivers, truck drivers, unloaders
and market personnel could be subjected to significant levels without
‘any realisation. Because of the relatively high freezing point of EDB
(9°C ) there is the possibility of quite slow release under cool
conditions and therefore a long chain of exposed people is quite
conceivable.
Finally, there is concem over the levels of exposure to members of
the public from the regular release of gas from these chambers. As
these facilities are all workplaces, this Division has a responsibility
to ensure that their operation does not endanger the health and safety
‘of the general public. For EDB, the risk is such that it becomes
difficult to ensure public health and safety because of the very low
levels of exposure which are considered acceptable for this group.
a0 rie Pee ssi re1235 17:15 DUM 8 S DIRECTORATE cane) + 61 7 259 6252 No.9e2 Peasveas
In conclusion, while it may be possible to set stringent conditions
Which control the exposure of fimigators, it appears much more
difficult to provide the necessary level of protection for other
workers both on and off the place of fumigation. Further, to provide
for the health and safety of the general public in the vicinity of these
facilites, itis likely that separation distances of such magnitude will
bbe required as to make the use of this chemical impractical.
‘Accordingly, for reasons of health and safety, this Division supports
the withdrawal of ethylene dibromide as a furnigant for this control
program.
Dr. David Smith
Principal Medical Officée
Division of Workplace Health and Safety