Workers

Page No. Source Quotes from Decision Documents
659 1 Agency App. M “[the] limited occupational monitoring data..available suggested some occupational exposures were unacceptably high. The Agency was unable to determine whether this was due to the need for further controls or whether inadequate compliance..was responsible”
674 1 Agency App. M “The applicants ..indicate..that workplace exposure monitoring  and quarterly biological exposure testing are carried out. No information on the results relating to the manufacture of Stock Solution was available to the Agency. The Agency expects the results would demonstrate whether or not the precautions taken are sufficient..assuming the company maintains an on-going review of the adequacy of precautions in place..the Agency considers that the controls are adequate to protect workers.”
674 2 Agency App. M “A limited amount of..testing of persons occupationally exposed to 1080 during the manufacture of cereal pellet baits was available..the data indicate that [this] may be associated with non-negligible health risks, which need to be assessed..this does not necessarily mean the other bait manufacturing activities..carried out in factories are necessarily free from similar risks, as no data on this were available… the Agency concluded that the controls relating to the manufacture of baits are sufficient to control worker exposures”
675 1 Agency App. M “A limited amount of..testing of persons occupationally exposed to 1080 during carrot bait manufacture and loading [indicates that this] may be associated with non-negligible health risks..the Agency identified the need for information on [the containment of systems where the toxin is applied to bait]..despite these uncertainties, the Agency considers that the controls are adequate to protect workers”
677 1 Agency App. M “A limited amount of..testing of persons occupationally exposed to 1080 during ground bait operations..[suggests this is] associated with relatively low exposures to 1080, although due to limitations of the monitoring this was not unequivocally demonstrated”
678 1 Agency App. M “The most comprehensive [occupational exposure] report available to the Agency reviewed results from..1998 [to] 2000 by Landcare Research..although the Agency is aware that other investigations have also been carried out” (no other studies described)
679 1 Agency App. M “Detailed description of the subjects was not provided [in the Landcare study on 1080 levels in workers]. Usually in operational health investigations some basic data are provided..such as..[age, nature of duties, nature of protective clothing, lifestyle aspects]..sampling times [were apparently] not in accordance with the Department of Labour..criteria.”
679 2 Agency App. M “The range of values [for 1080 factory workers’ urine samples] which exceeded the Biological Exposure Index [in 10 of 54 samples taken] was 1.33-227 times the BEI..4 out of 9 workers had at least one sample which exceeded the BEI”
680 2 Agency App. M “37 urine samples were taken from workers..in 3 aerial carrot operations..30% exceeded the BEI..9 out of 14 workers had at least one sample above the BEI”
680 1 Agency App. M “[100% of urine samples taken from ground-based workers laying 1080 paste bait] had detectable 1080 concentrations”
681 1 Agency App. M “the report indicates that the possibility of contamination [of 1080 workers’ urine samples] cannot be excluded”
683 2 Agency App. M “One submitter reported that 2 employees..had been seriously exposed to 1080 [and both had developed cancer]..Only by carrying out an epidemiological study involving follow up of the historical workforce would it be possible to assess the significance of such a claim”
683 1 Agency App. M “chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies have been done in laboratory animals” (‘not’ has been omitted)
684 1 Agency App. M “The Agency concluded that there is a limited amount that can be done to address the occupational exposures in an outdoor environment where workers cut open and empty bags into a hopper..it is difficult to control dust [especially] in the vicinity of a helicopter”
685 1 Agency App. M “the Agency concluded that there is a limited amount that can be done to address the occupational exposures in an outdoor environment where workers load possibly dusty material into a hopper as a manual operation”
710 1 Agency App. M “The Agency has concluded that the occupational health risks associated with some 1080 manufacturing and use activities are potentially significant..this relates to factory workers..and field workers loading..treated carrot and cereal..pellet baits onto aircraft hoppers.. [the limited]..data available for review suggested some occupational exposures may be unacceptably high. The Agency was unable to determine whether this was due to the need for further controls”
65 1 Applicants’ references “Some workers monitored during the manufacture of 1080 baits, and during 3 cereal aerial carrot bait operations, had instances of above-BEI exposure..the..source..of exposure..cannot be identified from these results” (Fisher et al., 2002)
65 2 Applicants’ references “The comparatively high concentrations measured in samples from one worker in 2001 and 2002 appear to be the result of contamination” (Fisher et al., 2002)
147 1 Applicants’ references “We recommend further immediate monitoring, at the factories and aerial carrot sites, to ensure that improvements in procedures do reduce the 1080 exposure risk..the risk to worker health needs to be assessed by comparing measured daily exposures with acceptable maximum doses for chronic exposure derived from ongoing animal dietary exposure studies” (O’Connor et al., 2000)
155 1 Applicants’ references “A rabbiter who was repeatedly exposed [to 1080] developed renal failure and other organ damage” (Parkin et al., 1977)
67 1 Committee Decision “it is unclear whether these exposures [of workers to 1080] were due to non-compliance”
67 3 Committee Decision “[when personal protective equipment is used in the manufacture of 1080 formulations] any adverse effects associated with occupational exposure to 1080 will not be significant”
68 1 Committee Decision “monitoring undertaken for [field] workers in ground-based operations indicates there is little risk of exposure to 1080”
68 2 Committee Decision “The Committee acknowledges [there are indications that for field workers] occupational exposure to 1080 from aerial operations is potentially significant”
68 3 Committee Decision “Provided these controls [use of protective equipment and good hygiene] are complied with, the Committee does not consider the occupational health risks [to field workers] to be significant”
128 2 Committee Decision “There is good understanding in the occupational setting for managing the effect”
136 1 Committee Decision “There are no significant beneficial or adverse effects to human health and safety associated with the manufacture and handling of substances containing 1080”
136 2 Committee Decision “These workers [manufacturing and handling 1080 formulations] are voluntarily involved..and are personally responsible for minimising their exposures”
136 3 Committee Decision “The health hazard [1080 exposure identified by high levels of 1080 in urine] only applies to individual workers and is not unrestricted with respect to time nor does it spread in scope outside the immediate area of operation”
137 1 Committee Decision “exposures are only likely to arise when controls..are not complied with..compliance..should ensure adequate protection for workers”
153 2 Committee Decision “Any equipment used to handle 1080 must retain and/or dispense the substance..without leakage”
153 3 Committee Decision “The protective clothing must be designed, constructed and operated to ensure the person handling the substance does not come into contact with it”
197 1 Decision App.B “The Committee..recommends..biological monitoring to monitor..compliance with controls [for workers]”