Comment. The authors of this report identify the American Conferenceof Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) as a regulator. This isnot entirely correct. In the ACGIH booklet (ACGIH, 2001) listing theTLVs and BEIs, their Policy Statement printed inside the front coverexplicitly states that they are to be used as guides for practicingoccupational hygienist and not as legal standards. Many governmentsworld wide have adopted these TLVs with some differences and havemade them regulatory values, e.g., OSHA PELs in USA, Worksafe (asExposure Standards) referenced by Commonwealth and State OH&Slegislation.iii.iv.Enclosure 3. ‘Hazard Risk Assessment – Aerosol Contamination of<strong>Submarine</strong> Atmospheres’ by A. Spurling from the <strong>Submarine</strong> ForceElement Group. Dated 17/2/2003.The Collins <strong>Class</strong> Air Purification Manual (ABR 6105) sets a limit of0.5 mg/m 3 for aerosols. If this value is exceeded then breathingapparatus is required. The philosophy is expressed as ‘can’t discernbetween harmful and non-harmful aerosols in real time, then treat all asharmful’. All submarines (Collins class) have aerosol monitors fitted inthe Main Generator Room. High readings have been obtained onoccasions. Explanations for higher emissions were put forward as wellas steps to reduce high exposures. There is a directive that monitorsmust be on at all times when diesel engines are operating. The HazardRating Index (personnel) is 10 (acceptable with continuous review).Enclosure 4. “MPC Definitions”. No author or date.The definitions agreed upon are consistent with the UK application ofthe terms.a. MPC 90 – if exceeded, reduce below this level within 24 hours.b. MPC 24 – if exceeded, reduce below this level within one hour, andbelow MPC90 within 24 hours.c. MPC 1 hour – a health based emergency level – immediate use ofprotective equipment (EABS, OCCABA) until contaminant level dropsbelow this level then the MPC 24 and MPC 90 guidelines apply.26
Overseas Studies Relating to <strong>Oberon</strong> <strong>Class</strong> <strong>Submarine</strong>s1. Kane & Shergold, (1987), “An Air Quality Assessment Onboard an "<strong>Oberon</strong>"<strong>Class</strong> <strong>Submarine</strong> - HMCS Okanagan”.The study objective was to evaluate the atmospheric concentrations of varioussubstances under operational conditions which included snorting with and without airpurification, the use of oxygen candles and CO 2 removal, reduced pressures andbattery charging emissions. Air monitoring using detector tubes (CO, CO 2 , O 2 , H 2 ,arsine, Freon 12, hydrogen chloride, chlorine), three direct reading instruments for O 2 ,absorption tubes with pumps (stibine, hydrocarbons), syringe grab samples (O 2 , CO 2 ,CO, Freon 12, Methane and hydrocarbons) and 3M passive badges for mercury, werecarried out in a fixed location in the aft and fore compartments and Control Room.Both CO and mercury exposure results exceeded the permissible guideline levels.However the O 2 and CO 2 results demonstrated poor internal air circulation such thatoxygen generation or carbon dioxide scrubbing only appeared to affect local areas.The recommended snorting times in BR 3944 do not achieve the desired results -longer times are necessary. A number of other recommendations are made.2. Severs & Sabiston, (2000), “An Air Quality Assessment Onboard an <strong>Oberon</strong><strong>Class</strong> <strong>Submarine</strong>: MMCS Okanagan”.This is the best paper available in relation to an occupational hygiene survey of the<strong>Oberon</strong> class submarine. It was an update of earlier work done on the same submarine(see Kane & Shergold, (1987)) and to obtain data for future air quality management. Itrepresented a baseline evaluation of submarine air quality under patrol conditions.CO, CO 2 , and O 2 were monitored using calibrated direct reading instruments with 4sampling points in different locations. Arsine, stibine and diesel organic compoundswere collected using absorption tubes and pumps for laboratory analysis. Inhalableairborne particulates were monitored using an aerosol monitor (Data Ram) located forvarying periods in the Engine room, Motor room, and Control room. Ammonia, ozoneand NO x were monitored using Dräger detector tubes. Grab samples were used toobtained hydrogen concentrations. Carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb), which reflects onthe carbon monoxide (CO) exposure, was measured from exhaled air samples from 20volunteers. The Relative Humidity (RH) and temperature was measured using a slingPsychrometer.The reference point for data comparison was BR1326. All contaminants covered inthe study fell within the allowable limits. For contaminants not covered by BR1326 orother military standards, Threshold Limit Values were used. On the basis of CO 2results, the BR1326 prescribed clearance snorting periods are insufficient toeffectively clear the CO 2 levels to ambient conditions. From their observations theactivation of CO 2 absorption canisters did not drop the existing CO 2 levels but thesubsequent rate of accumulation was reduced. Also the Dräger tubes readings wereconsistently 20% less than the Infra Red Monitor, i.e., they underestimate theprevailing CO 2 concentration. A pressure correction may need to be applied to anyreadings that are volume dependent. The data also showed the effect of the blackcurtain on the reduction of air flow and the nullification of the CO 2 absorption system27
- Page 1 and 2: Oberon Class SubmarineOccupational
- Page 3 and 4: ContentsExecutive Summary..........
- Page 7 and 8: There is strong anecdotal evidence
- Page 10: decommissioned) in 1992. The five r
- Page 13 and 14: Ventilation Arrangements(from Kane
- Page 15 and 16: Approach Adopted in this StudyIn or
- Page 17 and 18: Departmental DocumentsDefence Scien
- Page 19 and 20: of diesel-electric propulsion and a
- Page 21 and 22: 4. Gan & Mazurek (~ 2005), “Expos
- Page 23 and 24: to avoid short and long term effect
- Page 25: from the air vents, in excess of 65
- Page 29 and 30: For the compounds identified with *
- Page 31 and 32: pollution by 33%. There is a length
- Page 33 and 34: Air Quality Standards1. In his brie
- Page 35 and 36: Continuous Exposure Guidance levels
- Page 37 and 38: ClothingStandard orders refer to th
- Page 39 and 40: occupational health exposure studie
- Page 41 and 42: Issues of body absorption of diesel
- Page 43 and 44: eading time is 10 minutes. The 0.2
- Page 45 and 46: Comment. This study is cited as the
- Page 47 and 48: • secrecy associated with submari
- Page 49 and 50: 3-methyl hexanedimethylcyclohexane1
- Page 51 and 52: - performance of tasks in cramped c
- Page 53: smoke candles ·torpedo 'hot runnin
- Page 56 and 57: The control room onONYX, looking af
- Page 58: Committee and the University of Que
- Page 61 and 62: Many references were made to a sens
- Page 63 and 64: safety was compromised for speed an
- Page 65 and 66: Health HazardsThe health hazards id
- Page 67 and 68: Psychological• Stress caused by n
- Page 69 and 70: Tar epoxiesJason pistols?berylliumE
- Page 71: Some of the psychological effects i
- Page 75 and 76: Table 3: Rank and job description b
- Page 77 and 78:
Junior SailorsEngineeringTradespers
- Page 79 and 80:
Seaman- maintainerelectricalLeading
- Page 81 and 82:
Table 4: Exposure Profile and Quali
- Page 83 and 84:
DiscussionThis project appears to b
- Page 85 and 86:
in surface vessel engine rooms. The
- Page 87 and 88:
exceeded the guideline of 50 microg
- Page 89 and 90:
ConclusionIn conclusion, the occupa
- Page 91 and 92:
AnnexesAnnex A: The Project TeamAnn
- Page 93 and 94:
Annex B toOberon Class SubmarineOcc
- Page 95 and 96:
locked cabinets at CMVH and accesse
- Page 97 and 98:
THIS PAGE WILL BE DETACHED FROM YOU
- Page 99 and 100:
• What were the specific tasks co
- Page 101 and 102:
List of Documents not AvailableAnne
- Page 103 and 104:
ReferencesLiterature ReviewAdelson
- Page 105 and 106:
Gorman R., Liss G.M., (1985), “Oc
- Page 107 and 108:
McKinnery, W. N., Jr. and Moore, R.
- Page 109 and 110:
Aeronautical and Maritime Research
- Page 111:
111