19-DEC-95 TUE 16:41 DPI AG STDS & PLT HLTH FAX NO. 61 7 2113283 P.02/05 a sy Queensland Statewide Services Divicion Emergency ‘Sin nos ad acy Magnan (CHE Ut Services Fr ralirs lia PAPAYA FRUIT FLY FUMIGATION CHAMBERS ‘RELEASE: OF FUMIGANT FROM CHAMBER Compeny Name, PARGIET-ETA Company Address Contact Person: Telephone: Fen (0803 847 Addren of Prangation Pcie: eae ACIP ‘Real Propesty Descripion of Fastity: NOTB1: — The caloulated distances arn those at which the jairboroe concentration should not exceed Bain spece eesti tern “ ‘NOTE 2; ‘Calculations have boon perfotrned fur cach concemiation of the fomigant and for dap-time releases oor 6 Report Not 2 Page No: lof 2 Brisbenc GL ono Data Received: 14/1295 Report Competed: 15/1293 I crops Data Cofeeted By: lan Ryso, DPI Raport Prepared By: CHEM Unit, QRS : q27 Files Page 1420f 17619-DEC-95 TUE 16:42 DPI AG STDS & PLT HLTH FAK NO, 61 7 2113293 P,03/05, DISCUSSION OF SIMULATION RESULTS ‘The site plan provided shows the location of the nearest residence to be $0 metres from the chamber. At least seven other residecices are within a radius of 1.5 Kilometres from ‘hefty with x age miner of homes epprounatly 3 Kom fom the te All of these distances are significantly less than the calculated distances for ‘Chamber 1. In the case of Chamber 2, the calculated distances are comparable with the distance to the residences 3 sclometres from the ste. These calculated distances comespond to weather conditions typical af North Queensland in summer, that is high temperature (30°C) and humid conditions. For this particular case the furtherest distances to the concentration of concer occur for moderate wind speeds (3 metres/second) and are independent of the degree of cloud over. Ifthe wind speed is significantly higher (approximately 8 metrea/second) the calculated distance is reduced by almost 50%, For releases from Chamber 1, this would reduce the exposure of the residences at a distance of 3 kilometres from the site, but not below the specified acceptable exposure limit of O.0Ippm for 100 seconde. However, in the cage of Chamber 2 the number of residences affected at this cxposure level could be significantly reduced. ‘However, even in the most favourable weather conditions for dispersion of the fumigant, it will ob pou sane tat che posite of th arb reine (upto 1.5 Kdlometres) is leas than the specified acceptable exposure In addition, two ater factors affect the total exposure of the publi to ethylene dibromide. Firstly, the suggested maxizaim exposure ia besed on the total number of releases of the fumigant being no moce than five per day. The proposed operation of the facility ic for four fumigations per day in each chamber, giving a total of eight Aumigations per day for this site. This exceeds tho ‘constraint of fve fumigations per day. Secondly" bperate a fumigation fclty approximmtly 2-2 km trom this ie. At this stage no information régarding this facility has been received from DPI. However, igficheay] EETeiI ue ethane bromide andthe releowe conditions are mala to choca occuring t tis sie, ‘certain residents could be exposed to releases of the fumigant from both facilities. This could cflectively double the number of exposures per day, resulting in a total number of exposures well above the limit of five. ‘Taking all these factors into consideration, itis not possible to meet the exposure guidelines under * any circumstances and therefore ethylene dibromide should not be released from either chamber on this site at any time, Report Not 2 ‘Page No: 2ofa Date Received: 14/1285, Report Completed: 15/1265 Data Callcted By, lan Ryan, DPL Mapert Prepared By: CHAUnt, GES wae Files Page 143 0f 176"95 4:13PM CHEM UNIT (FAX 61 7 2398316) P38 milligrams per cubic metre. On the basis of that data, a respirator must be used when handling the concentrate. Likewise, in theory, it would appear that a respirator must also be used when using the working (400 mg/L) solution. In practice, it is unlikely the saturated vapour pressure will exist in the breathing zone of a worker and hence a respirator would not be required. Dot point 4 should be deleted and replaced with at least 2 separate methods, (j) to address handling the EC and for spraying operations which would include the use of a charcoal cartridge respirator and (ii) where dipping operations are in place and respiratory protection may not be required. It is understood DWH are addressing this in detail. Tf concern was raised about respiratory protection with fenthion in (ii), then a 3M 9913 or a RACAL Delta Nuisance Odour respirator should offer sufficient protection. These are reasonably comfortable to wear and certainly more comfortable than a half face cartridge respirator with charcoal filters. EDB Fact Sheet from NRA Exposure Standards. Any references and comparisons with the exposure standard for methyl bromide should be deleted. EDB Facts (Fax page 10.) ‘The exposure data for EDB is (old) OSHA data and does not appear to take into account the recent cancer classification of EDB. Recent UK Exposure Limit (MEL) is 0.5 ppm (as a TWA value). It is understood that DWHS have other data of this order. A value much lower than the OSHA figures (20 ppm - TWA, 30 ppm for 30 minutes and 50 ppm for 5 minutes) should be adopted. ‘When computer modelling of EDB plumes is performed, zone radii at 10, 1 and 0.1 ppm levels will be calculated. Peter Franklin Scientific Adviser 28 Fle Page 32 of 175