epa.govt.nz€¦ · Web viewFor example, store flammables away from ignition sources, keep...

Report on Submissions

Submissions received on the October 2016 consultation document on the proposed Hazardous Substances (Hazardous Property Controls) Notice

July 2017

of 68

Table of Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................

Background..................................................................................................................................................

Consultation.................................................................................................................................................

Submissions received.................................................................................................................................

Key themes raised in submissions.............................................................................................................

Part 1 – Submission analysis on ecotoxic controls..................................................................................

Proposal 1 – Qualification requirements for users of highly ecotoxic pesticides in certain situations......7

Proposal 2 – Requirement to keep a record when applying ecotoxic substances......................................17

Proposal 3 – Requirements for equipment used to handle ecotoxic substances in workplaces..............23

Proposal 4 – Application of default environmental exposure limits (EELs) to substances”......................25

Proposal 5 – Prohibition on use of ecotoxic substance in excess of environmental exposure limits......27

Proposal 6 – Use of substances ecotoxic to terrestrial invertebrates..........................................................29

Proposal 7 – Use of substances ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates.............................................................33

Proposal 8 – Consolidation of controls to better control off-target effects from hazardous substance...36

Proposal 9 – Prohibition on application of class 9.1 substances directly onto, into or over water...........40

Proposal 10 – Controls to manage risks from ecotoxic substances in workplaces...................................42

Part 2 – Controls on hazardous substances in non-workplaces...........................................................44

Proposal 11 – Restriction on supply and use of certain highly hazardous substances.............................44

Proposal 12 – Controls on hazardous substances used or stored in non-workplaces..............................53

Proposal 13 – Control on stationary container systems for domestic oil burning installations................57

Proposal 14 – Certification of domestic dwellings storing greater than 100kg of LPG..............................60

Appendix 1. List of Submitters..................................................................................................................62

Appendix 2. List of proposals and questions..........................................................................................65

of 68

Introduction1. This submission report presents an analysis of the submissions received on the first public consultation

of the Hazardous Substances (Hazardous Property Controls) Notice (the HPC Notice). The HPC Notice is made under a new Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) power to make EPA Notices under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.

2. The HPC Notice consolidates, updates, and replaces provisions currently in HSNO regulations, group standards, transfer notices, and individual substance approvals. This includes controls that have been routinely imposed or modified on individual substance approvals under sections 77 or 77A of the HSNO Act.

3. The notice will also include a number of new controls that are necessary to ensure all risks that are being managed under the current regime, continue to be managed under the new regime.

4. The notice includes a range of controls to manage risks from the use or storage of hazardous substances in a range of situations. However, they primarily cover two main areas:

controls to protect the environment (whether in a workplace or non-workplace), and

controls to protect people in non-workplaces.

Background5. The proposals in the HPC Notice consultation document were produced as part of a package of Health

and Safety Reforms. These reforms proposed a number of changes to the way that hazardous substances are managed in New Zealand, especially in the workplace.

6. The Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act 1992 was replaced with a new Health and Safety at

Work Act, which came into force on 4 April 2016. A number of regulations have been made under this

new Act, including the HSW Hazardous Substances Regulations. A number of amendments to the

HSNO Act were also made.

7. One of the impacts of these legislative changes is that responsibility for setting controls on hazardous

substances in workplaces that protect people will transfer from the HSNO regime to the new HSW

regime. HSNO will remain responsible for setting controls, in both workplaces and non-workplaces, to

protect the environment, controls on the disposal of hazardous substances, and controls at the top of

the supply chain (e.g. labelling, safety data sheets, packaging). HSNO will also continue to set controls

to manage hazardous substances in non-workplaces.

8. Another key change made to the HSNO Act was that the EPA was given a new power to make EPA

Notices, a new legal instrument for setting controls. EPA Notices are legally binding, and will replace a

number of existing HSNO regulations.

of 68

9. One of these notices is the Hazardous Property Controls Notice. This notice, and several other EPA Notices, will come into force on 1 December 2017 to coincide with the new HSW HS Regulations coming into force.

Consultation 10. The first consultation document on the proposed HPC Notice was released for public consultation on

11 October 2016, with submissions closing on 21 November 2016. The consultation document was made available on the EPA website and was also sent to relevant persons in accordance with section 76B (1)(c) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) 1996.

11. The consultation document was divided into two parts:

Part 1 proposed controls on class 9 (ecotoxic) substances

Part 2 proposed controls to protect the general public from exposure to hazardous substances.

12. The document contained 14 proposals, and asked a total of 53 questions. A list of these proposals and questions is provided in Appendix 2.

Submissions received13. A total of 57 submissions were received representing a wide range of views from central and regional

government agencies, industry groups, non-governmental organisations, private businesses and individuals. A list of submitters is provided in Appendix 1.

14. Thirteen submitters requested that their submissions be reported anonymously.

15. All submissions are available on the EPA website, with confidential information redacted as appropriate.

16. A number of the proposals in the consultation document were not well received by some submitters. Proposals that caused submitters the most concern were further developed by the EPA, and the revised proposals outlined in a second consultation document, released in March 2017.

17. This second consultation also included an exposure draft of the HPC Notice to provide submitters with an opportunity to comment on the wording of the clauses.

of 68

Key themes raised in submissions18. The proposals in the first consultation document that caused the most concern to submitters were:

qualification requirements for users of highly ecotoxic agrichemicals

restriction on the supply and use of certain highly hazardous substances to non-workplaces

controls on the use and storage of hazardous substances in non-workplaces

controls on the storage of LPG in non-workplaces.

19. The main concerns with each of these issues are summarised under separate headings below. More detailed discussion, along with the EPA response, is provided in the main body of this report.

Qualification requirements for users of highly ecotoxic agrichemicals20. A range of qualification options for users of class 9 agrichemicals were proposed. The main concerns

from submitters are discussed below.

The qualification requirements should reflect the level of risk. Specialised spray contractors need

to be more highly trained and experienced than other types of users. Contractors work on multiple

properties, spray more frequently and need to be proficient in a range of application methods

using a variety of different spray equipment. As such, they need to have a greater knowledge and

understanding of different land and crop types in order to identify and manage environmental risk.

Several submitters were concerned that the proposed list of use scenarios and associated

qualifications did not cover substances used in urban pest management (UPM). These submitters

pointed out that many substances used in the UPM industry would not trigger approved handler

requirements under the new HSW Regulations, and they were concerned about falling

competency levels in this area.

There were concerns raised about including GROWSAFE® certification as one of the qualification

options given this is an independent enterprise.

Some concerns were raised with adopting the unit standard approach. There was a view that unit

standards would incur substantial compliance costs for current operators and that such a high

level of qualification was unnecessary for some users, for example farmers. In addition, there is

no ability to ensure continuing knowledge and competence of the unit standard holder as once

gained, a unit standard never requires renewal or updating.

Restriction on the supply and use of certain highly hazardous substances to non-workplaces21. A number of submitters were concerned that the list of classifications proposed to be restricted to

workplace use only was too restrictive. Some submitters thought we should remove certain classifications from the list (e.g. 6.1C, 3.1A) as some substances with these classifications were likely

of 68

to be used in non-workplaces. Others thought we should provide an exemption for certain highly hazardous substances to allow their use in non-workplaces in specific circumstances, or in small quantities.

22. Conversely, several submitters considered that we needed to add other hazard classifications to the restricted list to prevent them from being available to the general public, e.g. substances of class 3.2, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.2 and 4.3.

Controls on the use and storage of hazardous substances in non-workplaces23. We proposed a tiered approach to setting controls to manage the use and storage of hazardous

substances in non-workplaces. When substances were present in non-workplaces in quantities above certain threshold levels listed in the HPC Notice, we proposed that the non-workplace would need to comply with the controls for those substances that are effectively consistent with the requirements of the HSW HS Regulations. This proposal was generally well supported by submitters.

24. Where substances were present in non-workplaces in quantities below those threshold levels, we proposed to include a range of generic controls in the HPC Notice that people would need to comply with. For example, store flammables away from ignition sources, keep explosives locked up.

25. We received both positive and negative feedback on this approach. Several submitters opposed this proposal on the basis that no other regulatory regimes set controls on hazardous substances in non-workplaces. They also pointed out that it would be difficult for consumers to know that such a regulatory requirement existed and that it would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Controls on the storage of LPG in non-workplaces26. A number of submitters considered that the current threshold quantity of 100 kg LPG that triggers the

requirement to obtain a location test certificate is too low. There was also a view that requiring a location test certificate for this quantity of LPG will impose unnecessary costs.

of 68

Part 1 – Submission analysis on ecotoxic controls

Proposal 1 – Qualification requirements for users of highly ecotoxic pesticides in certain situations.Question Number Summary of submitter comment EPA Response

Question 1Are there alternative approaches (to setting qualification requirements for class 9 users) that could be adopted?

Why / why not?

Please provide details where possible.

Nineteen submitters (1, 2, 5, 11, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 38, 40, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56) responded to this question.

A range of comments were provided, some expressing support, some raising concerns and others providing general comment.

General support for proposed approach

Four submitters (1, 5, 19, 31) expressed general support for the proposed approach.

Retention of current approved handler regime

Two submitters (49, 56) advocated retention of the current approved handler control for class 9 substances.

General concerns

Nine submitters (11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 40, 52, 55) had some concerns with the proposed approach. Key concerns included:

Qualifications should be considered for some toxic urban pest control products, if found to be a serious threat to the environment and animals.

The notice should not require people to obtain qualifications from branded organisations, e.g. GROWSAFE®.

The qualification requirement should not apply to consumer products.

Existing HSNO approved handler certificates need to remain valid during a transition period.

The qualification requirements should reflect the level of risk, for example a GROWSAFE® introductory certificate for individuals applying a substance, and a GROWSAFE® advanced certificate for anyone supervising the application of

We acknowledge the range of issues raised by submitters.

Retention of approved handler control

The current approved handler control will no longer be available for class 9 substances after 1 December 2017.

After this date, the test certification regime will have been transferred out of HSNO, and into the new HSW HS Regulations, which has no mandate to set controls on class 9 substances.

To enable a smooth transition to the new HSNO qualification requirements, the HPC Notice will include a grand-parenting provision for people who have current relevant approved handler certificates. This means those certificates will remain valid until the expiry date on the certificate OR until December 2019, whichever occurs later.

Qualifications for urban pest management

Refer to our response under Question 6 below for discussion about including qualification provisions for urban pest management operators in the notice.

GROWSAFE®

With respect to concerns over including

of 68

Question Number Summary of submitter comment EPA Response

agrichemicals by others.

Contractors should require higher qualifications than other users.

General comments

Four submitters (2, 28, 38, 51) provided general comments. These included:

Written approval for all aerial applications should be required to ensure private property is not contaminated through spraying.

The EPA and WorkSafe should work together to provide a single qualification that would apply across both legislative regimes, e.g. a single course with multiple modules covering both HSNO and HSW requirements.

There needs to be a clear definition included in the HPC Notice that defines exactly what constitutes a highly ecotoxic agrichemical.

GROWSAFE® as one of the potential qualification options, we note GROWSAFE® has been involved in certifying users of agrichemicals for almost 25 years, including HSNO approved handlers.

A large number of people in the agrichemical industry already have GROWSAFE® certification so providing this option will avoid these people needing to gain additional qualifications on top of their GROWSAFE® certificate. This will help reduce compliance costs.

In addition, GROWSAFE® now has a larger number of certificates available that cover a wide range of experience / knowledge levels for different types of users. Most of the GROWSAFE® certificates have a five year expiry period, after which time there is a renewal process to assess and confirm people’s on-going competency. This is consistent with the current requirement to renew approved handler certificates.

We therefore consider it is appropriate that the HPC Notice provides for GROWSAFE® certification as an acceptable qualification where relevant.

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposals in this area.

Question 2

What additional benefits can you see resulting from the proposal?

What additional costs can you see arising?

Please provide details where

Seventeen submitters (5, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 40, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56) responded to this question.

Benefits

Eight submitters (5, 24, 25, 31, 33, 40, 47, 55) considered this proposal would result in benefits such as:

o The main benefit is that there would otherwise be a gap to ensure competency of

users of class 9 agrichemicals (as a result of the loss of the test certifier regime to

We note the support received from several submitters.

The EPA has developed these new qualification requirements in awareness of the need to not impose unreasonable compliance costs.

We don’t consider there will be an increase in costs to enforcement agencies as the enforcement

of 68


possible. HSW).

o The proposed control should result in more controlled and effective application of

agricultural compounds.

o Utilising industry led qualification systems will improve consistency and

knowledge with respect to chemical handling practices.

o There is a benefit in replacing the approved handler scheme with a more fit for

purpose scheme.

Three submitters (23, 26, 53) considered there would be no new benefits arising from this proposal.

Costs

Eight submitters (19, 25, 31, 47, 49, 51, 55, 56) considered this proposal would result in costs, including:

o additional costs for enforcement agencies

o additional costs associated with retraining and/or recertification in order to meet

new qualification requirements under two separate pieces of legislation

o costs involved in requiring current operators to gain unit standards

o clean up and public safety costs in situations where there is currently no

compliance monitoring or checking.

One submitter (52) considered there would be no new costs arising from this proposal.

responsibilities for ecotoxic substances are not changing – WorkSafe will remain responsible for enforcing ecotoxic controls in workplaces, and territorial authorities in non-workplaces.

We acknowledge that having different qualification or training requirements under two different regimes (HSNO and HSW) will be a challenge for industry.


Question 3

Do you believe that the proposed list of required qualifications will provide users with the required knowledge and competency to protect the environment?

Are there any other

Eighteen submitters (1, 9, 10, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 38, 40, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56) responded to this question.

General support

Five submitters (1, 10, 19, 25, 53) expressed general support for this proposal, agreeing that the proposed qualifications provided adequate knowledge and competency.

General comments

Two submitters (28, 56) made the following general comments:

The proposed qualifications listed are intended to replace the existing approved handler control for class 9 substances, which will no longer be available post commencement of the new HSW regime.

Our responses to some of the specific concerns are provided under the separate headings below.

Regarding other concerns, refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposals in

of 68


qualifications or requirements that are relevant that should be included as well?

If yes, please provide details.

The proposed qualifications are written around the GROWSAFE® course, and if this is all that is going to be targeted then the proposal is fine. Other courses may also be relevant and need to be considered.

It depends on what practical training and experience is used to supplement the theory training.

General Concerns

Eleven submitters (9, 17, 23, 24, 26, 35, 38, 40, 49, 52, 55) had some concerns with this proposal. General concerns are listed below. Others are listed under specific headings below.

One submitter considered that further discussion and consultation is needed before the final list of required qualifications is determined, and also considered that the proposed list is a substantial increase above current requirements for some users.

One submitter queried how these qualifications would affect a private individual using agrichemicals when undertaking a hobby (i.e. the growing of ornamental plants).

this area.

Qualifications must be relevant to skill level

Two submitters considered that all agrichemical contractors must hold either a registered chemical application accreditation, or be under the direct and immediate supervision of a person who holds that accreditation. Contractors need to be proficient in a range of application methods using a variety of different spray equipment, and have a greater knowledge and understanding of different land and crop types in order to identify and manage environmental risk, and therefore need to be more highly qualified than other users.

Two submitters considered that the qualification requirements should reflect the level of risk, for example a GROWSAFE® introductory certificate was relevant for individuals applying a substance, and a GROWSAFE® advanced certificate was relevant for people supervising the application of agrichemicals by others.

We agree that the qualification requirements should reflect the level of risk. We also agree that contractors need to be more highly trained and experienced than other types of users given they apply pesticides in a much wider range of use situations.

We have therefore amended the proposal to reflect this.


Qualification for pilots We have discussed this matter with the Civil Aviation Authority and agree that the Pilot Chemical Rating

of 68


Three submitters (9, 24, 52) considered that our proposal to require pilots to obtain a National Certificate in Aerial Agrichemical Application was too onerous, and that we should only require the pilot to obtain a Pilots Chemical Rating, as is currently required under HSNO for pilots aerially applying pesticides.

(under Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules) is an acceptable level of qualification to require of pilots. We note that this is the current HSNO requirement for aerial application of pesticides, so the revised proposal maintains the status quo.

We have amended the proposal accordingly.


Presence of qualified person on site

There were conflicting views on whether the qualified person needed to be present at the site where the substance was being applied.

One submitter (55) noted that there is no provision in the notice to allow for people working under more limited supervision to apply agrichemicals. Many regional plans give an option for a lower level of certification such as GROWSAFE Introductory for workers under the supervision of someone with a rural chemical applicators RCA certificate. This enables the RCA to manage the job, advise the workers but not have to be present at all times. This is a more realistic scenario for many spray operations. For example, the farmer using a boom sprayer on a quad bike would not be able to delegate this task to a worker unless the worker was qualified or the farmer was actually ‘present’ during the spray operation.

Two submitters (17, 25) considered the qualified person needed to be present at the site when the substance was being applied, and requested that the proposed clause be amended to require the qualified person to be within eye and ear shot at all times.

We note the differing submitter views on the issue.

We agree that for substances with only class 9 hazards, it is not necessary that the qualified person be on site during the application process.

We have therefore revised the provision proposed in the October consultation document. We will no longer require the qualified person to be present at the place while the substance is being applied provided they:

are available at all times to provide assistance to the person applying the substance, AND

have provided guidance to the person about the application of the substance at the specific place that the substance is to be applied.

However, we note that if the ecotoxic substance triggers any other hazard classification, it will be subject to the training / competency provisions in the HSW Regulations. Further, if the substance is a class 6.1A or 6.1B substance (e.g. vertebrate toxic agents such as 1080 or cyanide) it will also trigger the certified handler requirement under the HSW HS Regulations, which have a requirement that the

of 68


certified handler be present at the place where the substance is being applied.

Question 4

Do you consider that any of the unit standard(s) listed in the table above are not appropriate for the specified application method?


Eleven submitters (10, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 40, 47, 49, 52, 55) responded to this question.

No concerns with list of unit standards

Five submitters (19, 23, 26, 47, 49) considered the proposed list of unit standards was appropriate.

Concerns with list of unit standards

Six submitters (10, 24, 28, 40, 52, 55) had some concerns. Key concerns included:

There is no ability to ensure continuing knowledge and competence of the unit standard holder as once gained, a unit standard never requires renewal or updating

The unit standards proposed for air-blast and boom sprayers (mechanical equipment other than handheld) are significantly higher than current requirements. Similarly the requirements for spray guns and motorised knapsack (motorised handheld) are higher than current requirements

Unit standard 21563 does not cover the principles relevant to the purpose and principles of the HSNO Act. It also does not cover the application of agrichemicals over or near waterways; plant and insect resistance to agrichemical and ecosystems; and its function.

We acknowledge that there are some difficulties with the unit standard approach. Some are currently out-of-date and the process to amend them can be slow. The fact that there is no requirement to renew them is also an issue. Additionally, the “one size fits all” approach means that some standards are possibly set at a higher level than is needed for certain users.

However, we also acknowledge that they provide for national consistency in knowledge and training and are attained by people working towards a higher qualification, such as a National Certificate.

We therefore propose that the HPC Notice provide the option for people to obtain unit standards if they wish. However, we have revised the table of qualifications that was proposed in the first consultation document so that other options such as obtaining one of the GROWSAFE® certificates, is available as an alternative qualification for most use scenarios.


of 68


Question 5

Do you think people who have an approved handler test certificate under the HSW regime for class 6 substances should be exempt from the proposed qualification requirement above?

Will the training provided to approved handlers for class 6 substances under the HSW regime cover environmental risks?

Please provide details.

Twenty-one submitters (2, 5, 10, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 38, 40, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56) responded to this question.

Class 6 approved handlers should NOT be exempt

Fifteen submitters (2, 5, 10, 23. 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 55) considered people with class 6 approved handler1 certificates gained under the new HSW regime should not be exempted from the HSNO qualifications for class 9 substances. These submitters considered it would be unlikely that class 6 training would adequately deal with the adverse environmental effects that may arise from the wide dispersive use of class 9 agrichemicals.

Class 6 approved handlers SHOULD be exempt

Six submitters (19, 38, 49, 50, 53, 56) considered that approved handlers for class 6 agrichemicals should be exempted. These submitters typically had a view that training to obtain a class 6 certificate should cover environmental risks.

Other comments

Two submitters (25, 55) also advocated that existing HSNO approved handler certificates should remain valid during a five year transition period to encourage a smooth transition.

We note the views of the majority of submitters and therefore will not exempt class 6 certified handlers under the new HSW regime from the HSNO qualifications for class 9 substances.

This is because it cannot be guaranteed that any training provided to a person obtaining a class 6 certified handler certificate under HSW will cover off environmental risks, even if that substance is also classified as a class 9. As noted above, the HSW regime does not have authority to set controls to manage environmental risks.

The HPC Notice will include a grand-parenting provision for people who have current relevant approved handler certificates such that they will remain valid until the expiry date on the certificate OR until December 2019, whichever occurs later.


Question 6aAre there any other gaps (re qualification options for users of class 9 substances) that need to be addressed?

Are you aware of any uses of hazardous substances that should be subject to qualification controls that will not be covered by either the

Thirteen submitters (2, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 40, 49, 50, 52, 55, 56) responded to this question.

No gaps identified

Two submitters (40, 49) considered there were no gaps.

Gaps identified

Four submitters (19, 25, 52, 56) identified gaps, including:

The removal of the approved handler control for classes 2 to 5 substances under HSW was a cause for concern and a backwards step for ensuring the safe handling of hazardous substances.

We note the concerns and comments of various submitters

The removal of the approved handler for classes 2 to 5 substances was a decision made by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) when drafting the HSW legislation and is outside the control of the EPA. Controls to protect workers are now set under the new HSW legislation.

We acknowledge that there are issues around compliance and monitoring under the current regime.

1 Approved handlers will be called “certified handlers” under the new HSW HS Regulations

of 68


proposed control, or the approved handler control under the HSW regime?

There is a gap around compliance monitoring.

Fertilisers should be included in qualification requirements under both HSNO and HSW.

The treatment and disposal of waste products and some industrial cleaners and biocides should be considered.

General comments

Seven submitters (2, 23, 24, 26, 28, 50, 55) made general comments.

There is insufficient enforcement of non-compliance. Applicators breaching controls that result in off target contamination should be prosecuted and compensation provided to the victim. This submitter also noted that land based spraying was less likely to result in off target contamination than aerial spraying and GPS should be used with GIS viewers to show off target spraying.

All class 9 ecotoxic effects need to be given more specific attention relating to the long term effects to soil, water, and ecosystems.

This is an area that will require agencies to work together to improve compliance in future. WorkSafe will remain the HSNO enforcement agency for environmental controls in workplaces, and territorial authorities will continue their enforcement role in non-workplaces.

The controls on fertilisers post 1 December 2017 will be the same as they currently are, because this phase of the reform is intended to maintain the status quo as much as possible. Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposals in this area.

Question 6bDo you think urban pest management (UPM) commercial contractors should be subject to qualification controls similar to agrichemical contractors?

The EPA has identified that there is a national certificate for urban pest management. Do you think this is this relevant?


Consider qualification for UPM operators is required

Sixteen submitters (5, 10, 17, 19, 20, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 35, 40, 42, 45, 47) considered that UPM operators should be subject to qualification requirement under HSNO. Comments included:

UPM commercial contractors should be subject to qualifications similar to agrichemical contractors

Several substances used in the UPM industry will not trigger approved handler requirements under the new HSW HS Regulations, and there is a concern about falling competency levels in this area.

The application of toxic substances to the natural environment needs to be appropriately managed and pest control activity needs to demonstrate protection of the

We acknowledge the majority of submitters consider it is appropriate for the HPC Notice to include some form of qualification requirement for UPM operators.

Subsequent to this consultation we talked with a range of stakeholders in the UPM industry, including Careerforce, the Pest Management Association of New Zealand (PMANZ), test certifiers and several training providers in this field, both in New Zealand and in Australia.

Based on these conversations, we have developed a new proposal for qualifications for UPM operators.

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for further details.

of 68


receiving environment.

The substances used by UPM commercial contractors have significant potential to cause harm to humans, non-target animals (domestic and native) and the environment. There is also significant risk of causing unacceptable suffering to target species, particularly if the toxic substances are not used appropriately.

All contractors using 9.1A, 9.2A, 9.3A or 9.4A substances should be required to undertake training including those in pest management, fertiliser application, and animal nutritional products.

Support the requirement to have approved handler or superior qualification to purchase and use pesticides in urban management. This makes it easier for the retailer supplying these products to have confidence that purchasers have the necessary qualifications to handle the products.

Consider qualification for UPM operators is NOT required

Two submitters (2, 33) considered that UPM operators should not be subject to qualification requirements under HSNO. Their reasons were:

It makes it more expensive for people to hire people to kill possums, rats, and feral goats

UPM commercial contractors should not be subject to similar controls - they have sufficient training and knowledge as they hold qualifications relevant to their activities.

What qualification is appropriate?

There were a range of views on what qualification(s) were appropriate. Some submitters considered the National Certificate in Urban Pest Management would be a relevant qualification, but others considered it was too onerous for a national minimum standard, both in terms of cost and time required to gain the qualification. Other submitters suggested that we could specify individual unit standards rather than requiring the full National Certificate.

Proposal 2 – Requirement to keep a record when applying ecotoxic substances

of 68

Question Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 7

Do you support the amendment of the current controls to achieve consistency with the HSW HS Regulations?

Why/why not?

Twenty submitters (1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 19, 20, 25, 28, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

Support / conditional support

Thirteen submitters (1, 5, 10, 18, 19, 31, 33, 39, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52) either fully supported or were generally supportive of this proposal. Comments included:

The need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations is important.

There is an issue with lack of enforcement.

Application records should be required for fertiliser applications.

Wording should be changed from “is likely to enter” to “could enter”. No one is going to apply chemicals if there is a likelihood that it will enter water.

Concerns / comments

Seven submitters (2, 20, 25, 28, 32, 53, 55) did not expressly say whether they supported the proposal but provided comments. These included:

The record should be kept for all agrichemical applications in the workplace, and not limited to applications above 3 kg.

It is not necessary to record the HSNO classification if the HSNO approval number is recorded. The approval number will suffice.

Remove the requirement to record the HSNO approval number and the HSNO classification. Both add compliance costs in terms of time and add no value to the process.

All applications should be electronically tracked to minimise off target effects. Failure to comply should result in an operator losing their certification.

We note there is general support for this proposal, but also acknowledge that some submitters have concerns.

Regarding the 3 kg threshold, this is the current requirement. The intent of this provision is to ensure that records are kept when a substance is used in a way that may result in the environment being exposed to significant amounts of a class 9 substance.

The EPA therefore considers it is appropriate to retain the 3 kg threshold for substances with class 9 classifications only.

Note that if the substance also has certain class 6 or 8 classifications, the HSW HS Regulations will require that a record be kept of any application (refer regulation 13.3 of these regulations).

The EPA acknowledges the need for consistency between the HSNO and HSW requirements and has tried to maintain this wherever possible. However, there are some areas where we have proposed slightly different wording from the HSW regulations and consider these differences are justified. The focus of the HSNO control is on environmental protection, while the focus of the HSW HS regulations is on protection of workers.

Regarding what information should be included in the record, including the HSNO approval number and the HSNO classification, refer to discussion under Question 9 below.

Question 8

What benefits to you think

Fourteen submitters (1, 2, 10, 19, 23, 26, 31, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

With respect to the requirement to keep a record under the HSW HS Regulations for applications of certain class 6 and 8

of 68


could result from the proposal?


Status Quo

Four submitters (10, 23, 26, 53) noted there were no benefits as this proposal was maintaining the status quo.

Benefits

Two submitters (19, 40) identified the following benefits.

The main benefit will be the protection of the environment as this is not being managed under HSW.

It will provide transparency and the ability to understand historical application rates for land use as well as allowing for investigations into soil quality.

General comments

Eight submitters (1, 2, 31, 45, 47, 51, 52, 55) made general comments, including:

It would be advantageous for a PCBU to be able to keep one set of records for both sets of regulations.

Consistency of record keeping requirements will ease compliance.

Better, more extensive, record keeping will aid any investigation and indirectly should promote better/more responsible application.

Any additional compliance cost is outweighed by the risk of not taking the specified factors into account.

substances, we would like to clarify that it is not intended for two separate records to be kept. The intention is that one set of records will suffice for both HSNO and HSW requirements.

Question 9

Is there any additional information that you believe needs to be collated through the record keeping controls of the HPC Notice?


Thirteen submitters (2, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 39, 40, 45, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question. Some considered the level of information in the proposal was at the right level, others thought it was too high, and others thought more information was needed.

Proposed level of information is at right level

Seven submitters (19, 25, 28, 31, 40, 45, 53) considered the proposed level of information was at the right level.

We have considered all submitter comments on this matter, and also took into account the equivalent record-keeping requirement for class 6 and 8 substances in the HSW HS Regulations.

Recording HSNO approval number and classification

We note that the current requirement is that the HSNO classification be included in the record2. However, we agree with

of 68


Consider more information is needed

Four submitters (2, 39, 52, 55) considered additional information needed to be recorded. Comments included:

The frequency of application, and weather condition (especially wind direction and gusts) needs to be included in the reord.

Other weather factors may be relevant and may be required to be kept, for example, humidity and temperature, depending on the type of product used.

The record should include the crop growing stage and the complete tank mixture used.

For aerial applications, the requirements listed within the NZS 4809:2004 Standard in regards to records should be kept. The record should also include the names, dates of notification, location, and landowners/occupiers of sensitive areas that are potentially affected and which are beyond the boundaries of the target property. The record should also include the take-off and stop time for each flight series.

The dose rate of application, e.g. kg/ha, and water rate (litres of spray mix per hectare) should be recorded for non-spot spraying activity, rather than simply the amount of the product. Alternatively, the size of the application area needs to be recorded to enable the rate to be calculated.

Proposed level of information is too high

Two submitters (23, 26) questioned the need to include both the HSNO approval number and the HSNO classification in the record, and were of the view that recording such information was burdensome, costly, and unnecessary. These submitters considered that recording the product name would suffice.

submitters that this is unnecessary and propose to no longer require this.

In its absence, we consider it is appropriate that the HSNO approval number be recorded. This is a lesser burden for the user than the current requirement to record the entire classification. It should also be easier for the user to locate as the approval number as it is required to be on the SDS, which the user must have, and is sometimes on the product label. Inclusion of the HSNO approval number in the record will be important from a compliance / enforcement perspective as it can be difficult for an enforcement officer to determine the HSNO approval number from the trade name.

Regarding the suggestions for additional information to be included in the record, we acknowledge that there may be merit in some of these proposals. However, at this stage of the reform, the focus (for both HSNO and HSW) is on retaining the status quo as much as possible, with only minor changes. Also of note is that making changes to the information requirements at this stage will introduce further inconsistencies between the HSNO and HSW requirements.

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our proposals in this area.

Question 10 Eighteen submitters (1, 2, 7, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 40, 45, 47, 48, 51, We note the range of submitter views on this issue.

2 Refer regulation 6(1)(c) of the 6, 8 and 9 Controls Regulations

of 68


Do you agree that the proposed control (requirement to keep a record of agrichemical applications) should only apply to workplaces?

Why/why not?

52, 55) responded to this question.

Agree control should be relevant to workplaces only

Eight submitters (1, 10, 31, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52) considered that the “records of use” control should apply to workplaces only. Comments included:

Non-workplace use will pose a lower risk due to the significantly lower quantities of substances used.

Homeowners would not likely be aware of this requirement, plus it would be challenging to enforce.

Disagree

Three submitters (2, 40, 55) had concerns about limiting the control to workplaces only. Specific comments included:

This control should be applied to the application of any ecotoxic substance greater than 3 kg, or within 24 hrs on a place where it is likely to enter air or water.

Although using more than 3 kg of product is not common outside of commercial activity, it does pose a risk wherever it occurs. Therefore limitation to workplaces may create some gaps in coverage, for example, lifestyle blocks. There is also a significant amount of use of agrichemicals by volunteers in the conservation sector, which may or may not be captured under the definition of workplaces, but may pose a risk to the environment.

General comments

Seven submitters (7, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 32) did not expressly provide an answer to the question but provided comments. These included:

Time spent on writing up records for each job takes a lot of time out of the day

This requirement should not apply to consumer products

Having two lots of regulations dealing with hazardous substances will

After consideration of these views, we have decided it is appropriate to restrict this control to workplaces only. The reasons for this decision are as follows.

Restricting it to workplaces will ensure consistency with the HSW HS Regulations.

It would be unusual for non-workplace use to exceed 3 kg of substance.

It would be difficult to enforce this provision in non-workplaces.

Home users will be informed of measures they must take for the safe use of the substance through instructions on the product label.

of 68


cause a lack of continuity and create confusion in the industry

Enforcement in non-workplaces will be problematic.

Question 11Should this control only apply to agrichemicals?

Why / why not?

Sixteen submitters (2, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 40, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53) responded to this question.

Apply only to agrichemicals

Three submitters (28, 31, 51) considered the control should apply only to agrichemicals. Their reasons included:

Non-agrichemicals are not applied in the same manner in the same situation.

Agrichemicals are the most routinely applied ecotoxic substances which may result in distribution beyond the application area.

Apply wider than agrichemicals

Thirteen submitters (2, 10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 33, 40, 45, 47, 48, 52, 53) considered the provision should apply more widely than just agrichemicals. Comments included:

Records should be kept whenever any ecotoxic substance is used in a manner that could cause harm to the environment, not just agrichemicals as proposed. For example, vertebrate toxic agents (VTAs), fumigants, fertilisers, veterinary medicines, animal nutritional compounds, and substances used for industrial purposes such as roading, drilling and construction.

This control should not be limited to agrichemicals as this implies that agrichemicals are the only substances that may be responsible for affecting the environment. Industrial chemicals may enter waterways and little is known about their fate or effect on the environment.

We note that the majority of submitters consider this control should apply to a wider range of substances than just agrichemicals.

Our intention at this stage of the reforms is for the record-keeping control to apply to the same range of substances as it currently does under the HSNO regulations.

In practice, this is primarily agrichemicals, but also other pesticides such as VTAs, and fumigants. This control is not currently applied to substances such as timber treatment chemicals, antifouling paints, veterinary medicines, fertilisers or industrial chemicals.

We have therefore revised the wording of this control to capture “9.1A, 9.2A, 9.3A or 9.4A pesticides and plant growth regulators”. A definition of the term “pesticide” is provided to clarify exactly what types of substances are covered by this provision, and those that are excluded. For example antifouling paints are specifically excluded from the definition of “pesticide”.

It is noted that the EPA will retain the ability to add, vary, or delete this provision, under section 77 of the HSNO Act, on a case by case basis as part of the approvals process.

We acknowledge that the proposed notice wording is not completely consistent with the proposed wording in the equivalent HSW HS Regulation which uses the term “biocidal action”. However, it is similar in that it will likely capture the same type of substances.

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our

of 68


proposals in this area.

of 68

Proposal 3 – Requirements for equipment used to handle ecotoxic substances in workplacesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 12

Does the HPC Notice need to include controls on equipment used when handling ecotoxic substances?

Why/why not?

Nineteen submitters (2, 10, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

Support

Sixteen submitters (2, 10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 31, 33, 39, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) supported this proposal. Comments included:

Where equipment has product stored in it, there needs to be controls on the cleaning of that equipment to ensure no residue is spilt into the environment.

The information on the equipment should be accessible, but it may not be practicable for the information to accompany the equipment.

General comment

Three submitters (23, 26, 32) neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal but made the following comments:

Registered chemical applicators will have knowledge of equipment and its use.

This requirement should not apply to consumer products.

We note the support of the majority of submitters.

Regarding the need to include controls on the cleaning of equipment, the intent of this provision is to ensure that equipment is fit-for-purpose and does not leak.

As such, requirements for cleaning equipment are beyond the scope of the current proposal. This is also the approach taken with the equivalent clause in the HSW HS Regulations.

We therefore intend to proceed with the proposal as outlined in the consultation document.

Question 13Do you agree that the proposed control should only apply to work-places?

Why/why not?


Agree control should be relevant to workplaces only

Ten submitters (19, 25, 28, 31, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 55) agreed that this control should apply to workplaces only. Comments included:

The risk to non-workplaces is considerably lower given that they are more likely to use small quantities and potentially lower concentrations. Where Class 9 substances are used in non-workplaces they are likely to refer to instructions on packaging and labelling for guidance to manage the risk.

Enforcement of this control in non-workplaces is likely to be difficult.

We agree with the majority of submitters that this control should be relevant to workplaces only.

We consider that the appropriate means of ensuring home users are informed about safe use of ecotoxic substances is through labelling requirements. It is also noted that it would be difficult to enforce such requirements in domestic settings.

With respect to UPM activities carried out by a commercial UPM operator, the EPA notes that the site where the UPM activity is being carried out is designated a workplace whilst the contractor is there. This includes UPM activities carried

of 68


Disagree

Four submitters (2, 20, 23, 26) consider this control should apply to both workplaces and non-workplaces. Various comments included:

Urban pest management activities also impact on the environment in residential and hospital care areas where there can be pets, ponds, aviaries etc.

The control should be relevant to the home gardener as there is potential for problems to occur. This submitter noted there have been a number of cases where the wrong chemical was applied to lawns for weed control.

out at residential sites.


Question 14Do you support the amendment of the current controls to achieve consistency with the HSW HS Regulations?

Why/why not?


Support

Twelve submitters (10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 31, 40, 45, 47, 51, 52, 55) supported consistency between the HSNO and HSW requirements. There was general agreement that consistency across both regimes makes good sense, and is helpful in achieving compliance and reducing compliance costs.

General comment

Two submitters (23, 26) consider that the PCBU is required to monitor all equipment and the safety of the worker in all industries, and queries the need to amend regulations for this industry only.

We acknowledge the support of submitters and note that this control will be consistent with the HSW HS regulations.


Question 15Is there any additional information that you think should be included?


Three submitters (31, 40, 52) responded to this question.

Two submitters considered no further information was required.

One submitter suggested that the dates of decontamination of equipment be recorded.

We note the suggestion to record the dates of decontamination of equipment. However, this would introduce inconsistency with the HSW HS Regulations and is also beyond the scope of this phase of the reforms.

of 68

Proposal 4 – Application of default environmental exposure limits (EELs) to substances”Question Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 16

Do you agree that the default Environmental Exposure Limit (EEL) values should not be transferred over into the HPC Notice?

Why/why not?

Support no default EEL control


All supported not including default EEL values in the HPC Notice. Specific comments included:

Seventeen submitters supported the calculation of EELs where the ecological data for that substance allows for one to be set.

It could be useful to refer to currently accepted guidelines such as ANZECC Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. Exposure limits need to be more substance specific rather than based on generic default controls.

A more recognisable system of enforcement is good as there is a lack of understanding in the wider community of the current provisions and what they mean.

We note the support of the majority of submitters on this proposal and confirm the default EEL values will not be carried over into the HPC Notice.

Question 17

Do you agree that regulations 33-43 of the Classes 6, 8 & 9 Controls Regulations (setting of EELs using a prescribed methodology) also do not need to be carried over into the HPC Notice given the provision to set exposure limits in section 77B?

Why/why not?

Support no prescribed methodology for setting EELs

Twelve submitters (1, 19, 25, 28, 31, 33, 45, 49, 53, 55) responded to this question.

All supported not including a prescribed methodology for setting EELs in the HPC Notice. Comments include that section 77B sets out the parameters and the requirements for setting EELs, without being prescriptive which allows for a more flexible approach and the adoption of new processes or criteria. Support not transferring regulations 33 to 43.

We note the support of the majority of submitters on this proposal and that the prescribed methodology for setting EELs will not be carried over into the HPC Notice.

of 68


Question 18Do you agree that regulations 11-26 of the Classes 6, 8 & 9 Controls Regulations (setting of acceptable daily exposure values, potential daily exposure values and tolerable exposure limits) also do not need to be carried over into the HPC Notice given the provision to set exposure limits in section 77B?

Why/why not?

Support

Twelve submitters (10, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 45, 49, 53, 55) responded to this question.

All supported not including a prescribed methodology for setting these toxicity values in the HPC Notice. Comments included that section 77B sets out the parameters and the requirements for setting TELs, without being prescriptive which allows for a more flexible approach and the adoption of new processes or criteria. Support not transferring regulations 11 to 26.

We note the support of the majority of submitters on this proposal and confirm that the prescribed methodology for setting these toxicity values will not be carried over into the HPC Notice.

of 68

Proposal 5 – Prohibition on use of ecotoxic substance in excess of environmental exposure limitsQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 19

Do you support the transfer of existing regulations 44, 45 and 47(1) into the HPC Notice?


Support

Ten submitters (5, 19, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 39, 55) supported this proposal, but some concerns were noted, including:

Setting EELs can be difficult. They need to be realistic and achievable and direct consultation with target industry would be required.

There are issues around monitoring and enforcement that need to be addressed.

Oppose

Three submitters (10, 40, 48) opposed this proposal. Comments included:

An EEL must always apply regardless of the application rate.

It is not technically possible to set EELs for all substances as these are mixtures of chemicals and will not have all the same environmental properties.

For consistency, EELs would need to be set for all approved substances containing a particular ingredient.

Reassessment of approved products would be needed to ensure a level playing field with new substances which have EELs set for them.

The EPA needs to consider the use of EU standards or ANZECC guidelines.


The proposal to include a provision that prohibits the use of ecotoxic substance in excess of EELs is a continuation of the status quo.

We therefore intend to proceed with this provision as proposed.

of 68


Question 20What benefits and / or costs do you see resulting from the proposal?

Please give details.

Nine submitters (10, 19, 25, 28, 31, 33, 40, 48, 55) responded to this question.

Status Quo

Three submitters (28, 31, 55) noted there were no costs or benefits as this proposal was maintaining the status quo.

Benefits

Two submitters (33, 40) identified the following benefits arising from the proposal:

assures a safe environment, and decreases the risk of indirect exposure to toxic substances

provides an internationally consistent approach (to setting environmental exposure limits), resulting in improved standardisation.

Costs

Five submitters (9, 10, 19, 25, 33, 48) considered there would be costs arising from the proposal. These included costs associated with:

monitoring and enforcing compliance with EELs.

reassessing approved substances to ensure these are on a level playing field with substances bearing new approvals under the EEL control.

laboratory analysis of environmental samples.

undertaking cost/risk/benefit analysis for specific chemicals.

training territorial authorities’ staff for their role in enforcing these controls.

We acknowledge the costs identified by some submitters are relevant.

However, this proposal retains the status quo of the current requirement and therefore these costs are not “new” to the proposal.

of 68

Proposal 6 – Use of substances ecotoxic to terrestrial invertebratesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 21

Do you support the inclusion of controls in the HPC Notice that address the use of ecotoxic substances to protect terrestrial invertebrates?


Support

All 20 submitters were supportive of the intent of this provision, i.e. that controls should be imposed on users spraying ecotoxic substances to prevent or minimise adverse effects to invertebrate pollinators, especially bees.

However, there were some concerns around the scope of the control, and the specific wording proposed. Some of these concerns are discussed under questions 22 and 25. Other concerns are summarised below.

There are issues around monitoring and enforcement. Regional Councils need to take a more proactive role and they currently aren’t resourced for this.

There needs to be better communication from the beekeeping industry over the siting of beehives.

Definitions for “indoor plots” and “non-contact period” should be provided. A non-contact period of more than 10 days is desirable.

Products which are known to be harmful to terrestrial invertebrates should not be used. If they have to be used, then more stringent controls need to be included in the HPC Notice.

We note that submitters unanimously support the intent of this proposal.

However, we also acknowledge submitters have a number of concerns about the specific wording of the proposed provision, and agree that changes need to be made.

Refer to discussion under Questions 22-25 below, and also to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposals in this area.

Question 22

Do you support the amendment of the proposed control so that it refers to a wider scope of terrestrial invertebrates than just bees?

Nineteen submitters (2, 5, 10, 19, 20, 25, 28, 31, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question. All but one were supportive of the proposal.

Support

Eighteen submitters expressed general support for broadening the scope of the control to protect terrestrial vertebrates other than bees, especially where there is evidence that those pollinators are important for pollination in the target crop.

However, several issues were raised, including:

Acknowledging submitter concerns, we made a number of changes to the wording of the proposed provision that was outlined in the consultation document.

As some invertebrate pollinators are also pests, the clause now refers to protecting “non-target pollinators”.

The wording was also modified to better protect night active pollinators and to take account of the fact that not

of 68


The wording of the proposed control was too broad as it did not allow substances to be applied when plants were in flower.

Some invertebrate pollinators are also pests e.g. white butterflies.

Not all flowering plants are attractive to pollinators (e.g. grasses and cereals).

The proposal does not seem to protect night-time pollinators.

Oppose

One submitter (53) opposed the wider scope proposed, considering it needs further consideration. This submitter noted the control should only be broadened to refer to specific pollinators if there was scientific evidence that they are important for crop pollination or facing extinction. This submitter also made the following points.

It was unrealistic to expect applicators to be able to identify all pollinators before spraying.

Some invertebrate pollinators are also pests.

Not all flowering plants are attractive to pollinators.

Certain pollinators are only active at night and clause 3 (b)(i) does not recognise this.

all flowering plants are attractive to pollinators.

We also note that we retain the ability to vary any of the standard controls in the HPC Notice based on a risk assessment carried out at the time a substance is approved. New controls can also be added if necessary.


Question 23

Do you agree with the proposed change for the control to apply to a smaller area i.e. application plot rather than the larger application area?

Support


Support

All sixteen submitters agreed with the proposal, but some submitters qualified their support. Comments included:

The definition of “application area” needs to be included in the HPC Notice.

The word “plot” implies a small area. Should use the term “direct application area”.

Consistent terminology relating to “place” needs to be used throughout the

We note the support from submitters on this proposal, and also the issues raised.

A definition of “application area” will be included in the HPC Notice.

We will ensure that consistent terminology is used throughout the HPC Notice.


of 68


document.

Question 24

Is it appropriate for the proposed control to contain a clause which enables a non-contact period to be set by the EPA?

Why/why not?


Support

Ten submitters (4, 10, 19, 31, 40, 45, 48, 49, 53, 55) supported this proposal. Comments included:

There will be occasions when exceptions need to be made to allow a biosecurity response to an exotic introduced pest incursion. A clause should be inserted to cover such situations.

The definition of the non-contact period needs to be wide enough to cover the potential risk of exposure to floral resources still containing levels of residues toxic for bees.

The proposed control needs to be supported by robust scientific evidence.

Oppose

Three submitters (2, 23, 26,) did not support this proposal. Reasons included:

Such a control should not be required if the certified people applying the chemicals are applying them correctly.

The proposed control for non-contact periods would be ineffective as each chemical affects terrestrial invertebrates in different ways. The EPA can only impose a blanket control over ecotoxic substances.

Most submitters supported this proposal.

We acknowledge that in a biosecurity response situation, it may be appropriate to exempt substances from complying with the prescribed controls. However, we consider that this is a matter that is outside the scope of the HSNO reform work, and should be addressed outside the HPC consultation process.

As noted above, a number of wording changes were made to this control following this first consultation, including the section relating to setting of a non-contact period.


Question 25

Are there any other matters that you think this control should cover?

If yes, please give details.

Twelve submitters (4, 10, 20, 25, 28, 39, 40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52) responded to this question.

No additional matters required

Five submitters (4, 20, 40, 47, 49) considered there were no additional matters that needed to be covered by this control.

Control should cover other matters

Seven submitters (10, 25, 28, 39, 48, 50, 52) noted a number of additional matters

As noted above, a number of wording changes were made to this control subsequent to this first consultation, including clarifying that “plants” include trees and weeds.


of 68


that should be covered by the control. Comments included:

It should be made clear that the term “plants” include weeds as well as crops.

It may be more appropriate to require specific product approval for substances that are designed to, or trigger, a terrestrial invertebrates toxicity classification, with the EPA then able to set specific controls.

The effects of a substance on hive health should be assessed for all class 9.4 substances.

Notification should be given to registered apiarists that widespread aerial application of agrichemicals is to occur, so they may take evasive action.

Subclause 3 needs revising as some substances could remain harmful even after drying.

The controls should only apply to liquids, mists, vapours, and dusts. Solids made up of particles larger than 0.5 g should be excluded as they do not pose a risk to flower pollinators.

of 68

Proposal 7 – Use of substances ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebratesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 26Do you agree with the proposed controls as a means to reduce harm to non-target organisms?

Why/ why not?

Seventeen submitters (19, 25, 28, 5, 10, 13, 19, 25, 28, 31, 39, 40, 42, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56) responded to this question.

Support

Fourteen submitters (4, 5, 10, 13, 19, 25, 28, 31, 40, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53) agreed with the intent of the proposed controls.

However, a number raised concerns, mainly to the effect that the proposed controls did not go far enough to reduce harm to non-target organisms. Comments included:

The wording of the current provision is too strict to be achievable. The text of the clause requires further work and clarification, especially concerning issues around the need to cover treated seeds to reduce their accessibility to birds.

Some of the definitions to be used in the proposed control require clarification to make it clear what substances will be captured by the provision.

Propose that the control be reworded to focus on protection of “native non-target terrestrial vertebrate populations and domestic animals”. Peer reviewed scientific research shows that the aerial application of 1080 results in benefits to populations of native species despite the loss of a small number of individuals within that population.

The general duty imposed on persons using ecotoxic substances to ensure no adverse effect on non-target species is too onerous. It might not be reasonable or desirable to prevent non-target mortality of feral deer, pigs, rats, or rabbits. Mortality of non-target pest animals would be a positive environmental effect.

The development of species-specific baiting would do more to limit by-kill, reducing the harm to non-target organisms.

Do not support

Three submitters (39, 42, 56) did not agree with the proposed controls. Comments

We note that the majority of submitters support the intent of this control, but also acknowledge there are issues with the wording of the proposed control.

We acknowledge that for some uses it is unrealistic to completely cover treated seeds or granules and have revised the wording of this provision to allow other methods of deterring or preventing birds from foraging on the granules or seeds.

We have also changed the terms used in some clauses to clarify what substances are captured by the relevant provisions.

We do not consider the control should protect only native species and domestic animals. Some introduced non-pest species also have value and should be protected.

We recognise that the conservation goal of wild species is at the population level rather than the individual level. However, it cannot be expected that for each baiting operation, the population dynamic of all potential non-target species be monitored. In addition, individual non-target organisms, have their own intrinsic value irrespective of population dynamics.

We note the merit of species-specific baiting, but also note that species-specific toxins are rare.

Risks to bees due to the use of sugar substitutes in

of 68


include:

The proposed controls do not go far enough and the use of ecotoxic substances should not be permitted at all, due to the suffering they cause to individual animals and their negative impact on the environment. Substances toxic to birds should not be used during the laying season, and, in line with international best practice, users looking to register or obtain use permits for hazardous substances, should be required to undertake an environmental risk assessment to address the risks to the environment that the substance may cause.

The proposed control goes too far, and would adversely affect the Department of Conservation’s poisoning programme aimed at protecting native birds from predators.

Sugar substitutes should not be added to toxic baits as this has resulted in the poisoning of honey bees in the past during 1080 drops.

vertebrate baits will be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis when the substance is approved.

We note that the EPA has a standard requirement

that any changes to a VTA formulation need to be

notified to us, so we can assess whether there are

any changes to the risk profile of the substance.


Question 27Do you agree that treated seed must be required to be coloured blue or green?

Why/why not?

If you think other colours should be allowed, please provide reasons.


Agree

Seventeen submitters agreed that treated seeds should be coloured to differentiate them from non-treated seeds, and coloured in such a way as to make them unattractive to birds.

However, opinions differed on whether treated seeds should be coloured blue or green, as opposed to other colours.

Eight submitters agreed with the proposal that treated seeds should be coloured blue or green.

Comments made by other submitters concerning appropriate colours for treated seeds include:

o Agree that treated seeds should be coloured blue or green, but also

consider that untreated seed should not be coloured blue or green, so that

these can be clearly distinguished from treated seeds.

We note submitter concerns with this proposal and will revise the proposed control to require treated seeds to be coloured in any distinguishable colour, rather than only blue or green.

We retain the ability to vary this control via section 77 of the HSNO Act for specific substances to stipulate a specific seed colour if a risk assessment deems this is necessary.

We consider that birds will be adequately protected by the requirement that the sown seed must be either covered with soil, or some other method used to deter or prevent birds from foraging on the sown seeds.


of 68


o Agree that treated seeds should be coloured for differentiation, but oppose

that they be coloured only blue or green. This would impose significant

costs on industry as many existing seed treatments are not blue or green,

and these would have to be re-formulated.

o Treated seeds coloured other than blue or green should be permitted, as

long as they are not accessible to birds or are completely covered by soil.

o Other colours should be permitted if they have been assessed as being

unattractive to birds.

Disagree

One submitter (30) did not address the question of seeds being coloured, but considered that the proposed control was vague, unnecessary, and poorly worded.

of 68

Proposal 8 – Consolidation of controls to better control off-target effects from hazardous substanceQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 28Do you support the proposal for the consolidation of application parameter restrictions and spray drift management controls into the HPC Notice?

Why/why not?


Support

Sixteen submitters (1, 4, 5, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 33, 40, 44, 47, 49, 52, 55) generally supported the proposal, although in some cases the support was qualified. Comments included:

Support the proposal if application rates, frequencies, and intervals are correctly assessed for each individual chemical.

Support the proposal but consider UPM should be included, preferably though unit standards. They consider that off target movement of pesticides should not be restricted to spray drift. Lateral movement of insecticide via ground application granules or dusts should also be considered.

Support the proposal but request that the notice provides an exemption from complying with this control when undertaking biosecurity response activities.

Support the intent of the proposal, but consider that not enough information is provided to gauge its impact. Further consultation with industry is needed to determine appropriate buffer zones.

Support the proposal in principle, but suggests further discussion and consultation is required to identify its possible impacts on current regional plan requirements.

Oppose

Three submitters (2, 10, 48) oppose the proposal. Comments include:

Agree with the need for consolidated national controls and a good spray drift risk assessment and

management framework. However, the current proposal maintains a status quo which is not

working.

Do not support this proposal. There is a need for one organisation to be responsible for prosecuting

all applicators for non-compliance with rules leading to off target spray impacts. They further

consider that aerial spraying should be banned.

Most submitters supported this proposal.

We note that most of the controls in this section of the notice are a consolidation of current controls

Substances used in UPM activities will be captured by a number of clauses in this section of the notice, e,g. they are covered by the generic control “A person who applies a class 9 pesticide must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the substance does not cause any significant adverse effects to the environment beyond the application area”.

We acknowledge that in a biosecurity response situation, it may be appropriate to exempt substances from complying with the prescribed controls. However, we consider that this is a matter that is outside the scope of the HSNO reform work, and should be addressed outside the HPC consultation process.

Other matters raised by submitters will be looked into as part of the implementation period of this notice.

of 68


Oppose the proposal to set application rates as controls, as these may trigger frequent

reassessments. The EPA should be required to set maximum application rates based on ecotoxic

endpoints rather than setting rates as a control in an approval.

Maybe

Two submitters (23, 26) appear to support the proposal, but consider buffer zone distances should be set by registered chemical applicators with the appropriate skills, rather than EPA staff who have no expertise in this area.

Question 29

Should prescriptive “best practice” restrictions be included in the HPC Notice, or should these be referred to in associated guidance material as examples of measures that may assist compliance with the duty to avoid adverse effects from spray-drift?


Support inclusion in associated guidance material

Nine submitters (4, 10, 20, 25, 28, 31, 33, 47, 53) considered best practice measures should be provided in associated guidance material.

Support inclusion in HPC Notice

Three submitters (5, 19, 40) considered prescriptive best practice restrictions should be included in the HPC Notice.

Support inclusion in both HPC Notice and guidance material

One submitter (52) considered best practice restrictions should be referred to in the HPC Notice and in associated guidance material.

General comments

Four submitters (2, 23, 26, 53) did not directly address the question but provided general comments. These include:

Best practice could include the enforcement of boundary planting, and requiring marker dye in

spray to identify off target spraying.

Best practice should include allowing only registered chemical applicators to apply certain

substances.

Examples of best practice measures should be included in guidance material such as the unit

standard for urban pest management.

We note the range of submitter views on this matter, and acknowledge that the slight majority consider that best practice measures should be provide in associated guidance material.

We agree that guidance material, rather than a legislative instrument, is the best place to have prescriptive measures to aid compliance. Guidance material is much more easily updated, and is more flexible in that it can reference codes of practices, industry standards or guidelines, or other relevant information sources that may not be appropriate to include in legislation.

of 68


Question 30Are there any other spray-drift management options that should be considered for inclusion in the HPC Notice?

If yes, please provide details of these.

Eight submitters (4, 10, 33, 40, 49, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

No other options to be considered

Four submitters (4, 10, 40, 49) considered that there were no other spray-drift management options that need to be considered.

Other options should be considered

Four submitters (33, 52, 53, 55) proposed a range of other options for spray-drift management for possible inclusion in the HPC Notice. These are summarised below.

Recommend that environmental monitoring is undertaken as a way to identify spray-drift.

Recommend that risk management processes around managing spray-drift should be included in

the HPC Notice. These include:

o The product label should advise whether or not the substance can be aerially applied or is

restricted to ground application. This would assist user compliance.

o Australia’s use of mandatory label instructions for aerial or ground applications might be

followed for the HPC Notice. These include:

minimum droplet size for ground boom or aerial applications

wind speed operating range of 3 to 20 kilometres per hour

maximum boom height for ground boom application

nozzle orientation and shut off requirements for orchard or vineyard equipment

not applying the product when there is a surface temperature inversion present

observing downwind no-spray zones from certain identified sensitive areas.

It is unreasonable to apply the buffer zone for the area requiring the greatest protection to all

application situations. Buffer zones for each area requiring protection should be stated.

Additional options such as shelterbelts, and spraying in favourable wind speeds and conditions are

useful mitigation measures to prevent spray drift.

Recommend the development of a database for recording spray drift incidents, so the relevant

agencies can see what the issues are and the extent of the problem.

We note the range of submitter views on this matter, and consider that many of the spray-drift management options identified by submitters are appropriate for inclusion in best practice guidance rather than a legislative instrument.

We agree that including spray drift mitigation options on the product label has merit and we have included some of these requirements in the Labelling Notice.

of 68


Question 31Do you support proposed control 1 “General duty of persons using ecotoxic substances” applying to all ecotoxic substances?

Should it be narrower in its focus and specifically refer to agrichemicals?

Why/why not?


Yes

Thirteen submitters (6, 10, 19, 23, 26, 31, 40, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53) agree that the general duty control should apply to all ecotoxic substances. Comments included:

Managing the handler and the scale of release is sensible, but it should also be considered that at certain small quantities the risks would become negligible. Pack size is therefore a good control and would effectively manage the risks associated with non-work and home use.

Agrichemicals are overregulated already.

The phrase “all reasonable steps” (used in proposed control 1 under “General Duty”) should be defined.

No

Three submitters (2, 25, 28) had concerns with the general duty control. Comment include:

The concept of “general duty” covered by the provision may be difficult to enforce.

We acknowledge this control may be difficult to enforce.

Nevertheless, we consider it is appropriate to include this requirement as it offers enforcement agencies an additional option for enforcement action in cases where there is no clear breach of any other controls.

of 68

Proposal 9 – Prohibition on application of class 9.1 substances directly onto, into or over waterQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 32

Do you believe that there should be a control in the HPC Notice that specifically prohibits the application of hazardous substances directly onto, into or over water?

Twenty-seven submitters (2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 responded to this question.

Support

Twenty-three submitters (2, 4, 6, 10, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55) supported the proposal for a control specifically prohibiting the application of hazardous substances directly onto, into or over water. Comments included:

The control should apply to all ecotoxic hazardous substances, not just to pesticides,

as pesticides are not the only hazardous substances to pose risk to the aquatic

environment.

The definition of water requires clarification. It is difficult to determine if there is

underground water, and many significant agricultural production areas are on land over

deep aquifers. It is impractical to mandate that agricultural products cannot be used in

such situations.

All non-approved discharges to water should be prohibited, in alignment with regional

council planning rules.

Some substances that are designed to be added into or onto water should be

exempted from the control.

There needs to be a clear definition of what constitutes a “pesticide”. Some antifouling

coatings when dried and cured are designed for use in water, so these would need to

be able to comply with the proposed control.

Do not support

Four submitters (30, 41,44, 50) did not agree there should be a control on discharges to water. Their reasons included:

The proposed wording of the control and the definition for water would unintentionally

prohibit vertebrate toxic agents from being aerially applied or laid directly on the

We note the level of support from submitters, and acknowledge the issues raised.

This control is currently added (under section 77A of the HSNO Act) to most pesticide approvals to prohibit their application directly onto, into or over water. We consider it is necessary to retain this control in order to prevent harm to the aquatic environment from the use of highly ecotoxic pesticides.

We consider this control should apply to the same range of substances as it currently does, i.e. class 9.1 pesticides used in horticulture or agriculture, as well as pesticides used in public places, such as verges and public parks. It is not currently applied to substances such as timber treatment chemicals, antifouling paints, VTAs or fumigants and this position will be maintained.

A definition of “pesticide” has now been included in the notice that clarifies exactly what use patterns and substance types are covered under this term. An additional sub-clause has been added to this particular control to specifically exempt it from applying to VTAs and fumigants.

We are also proposing that class 9.1 plant growth regulators be captured by this control.

We still retain the ability to add, delete or vary this control on a case by case basis if it is

of 68


ground as this would constitute an application over ground water.

The provision should specifically exclude class 9.1 pesticides that are consumer

products. These products are considered to be of low risk due to the small volume of

consumer product packs, and the household environments in which they are used.

Recommended maintaining the status quo and adding the controls regarding direct

application onto, into or over water under section 77A of the HSNO Act when the

substance is approved.

appropriate to do so, for example, VTAs and aquatic herbicides.

We also note submitters’ concerns with the word “over” water. The EPA has removed this word from the proposed control.


Question 33Do you think there should be a requirement for the product label to include, where relevant, a statement advising people to not apply substances onto, into or over water?

Twenty-five submitters (2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 42, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

Support

Twenty-three submitters supported the proposal for the product label to convey this information.

Did not address question

Two submitters (30, 32) did not specifically address the question, but noted that:

the proposed control should be deleted for aerial applications of vertebrate toxic agents as application to waterways is in some instances unavoidable.

the proposed control should not apply to consumer products.

We note that the majority of submitters consider that the product label should include, where relevant, a statement advising people to not apply substances onto, into or over water.

We will therefore include such a control in the Labelling Notice.

of 68

Proposal 10 – Controls to manage risks from ecotoxic substances in workplacesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 34Do you agree with the proposal?

Why/why not?



Support

Thirteen submitters (10, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, 31, 45, 47, 48, 51, 55) supported the proposal for controls to manage risks from ecotoxic substances in workplaces. Comments included:

There is a need for consistency in the application of controls under the EPA Notice and the HSW HS regulations.

The control is needed but will be difficult to enforce and monitor. It will fall to territorial authorities to cover gaps in coverage, and they currently lack training and resources for this.

Clear guidance material should be available to ensure compliance with the proposed controls.

General comment

Three submitters (2, 23, 26) did not expressly support or oppose the proposal.


We will ensure that, as much as possible, there will be consistency between the EPA Notices and the HSW HS Regulations.

In terms of enforcement, WorkSafe will enforce ecotoxic controls in workplaces, and territorial authorities will enforce them in non-workplaces. This is essentially maintaining the status quo.

of 68


Question 35Are there any other workplace controls that you consider need to be included in the HPC Notice that relate to protecting the environment?

Seven submitters (2, 20, 25, 28, 31, 45, 47) responded to this question.

Yes

Four submitters (2, 20, 45, 47) considered additional workplace controls are needed in the HPC Notice. Additional controls proposed were:

Requirements for tank wagons and transportable containers equivalent to the HSW HS Regulations.

Urban pest management controls, preferably via the unit standards.

Provisions for employees to have access to information about what chemical sprays they are being exposed to in their working environment

No

One submitter (31) considered no additional controls were needed in the notice.

General comment

Two submitters (25, 28) considered greater secondary containment controls were needed to prevent ecotoxic substances from entering the environment.

We note submitters’ views on this matter.

Regarding the need to regulate tank wagons and transportable containers holding or transporting class 9 substances, we do not consider there will be a “gap” as all Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs), portable tanks or tank wagons used in New Zealand will have been designed and constructed to carry a range of hazardous substances in accordance with UN standards (for transportable containers manufactured overseas) or design and construction certification for tank wagons.

There are no UN standards for transportable containers specifically for class 9 substances.

We therefore consider that the requirements in the

HSW HS Regulations that apply to IBCs, portable

tanks, and tank wagons carrying hazardous

substances other than class 9, will also meet

suitable standards to carry class 9 substances.

We therefore consider it is not necessary for

HSNO to include requirements on top of HSW.

Regarding UPM activities, these will be captured by many of the controls in the notice that set requirements on pesticides. We have also proposed qualification requirements for UPM operators.


of 68

Part 2 – Controls on hazardous substances in non-workplaces

Proposal 11 – Restriction on supply and use of certain highly hazardous substancesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comments EPA Response

Question 36Do you believe that it is appropriate for the supply of highly hazardous substances to be restricted to workplaces?

Twenty-nine submitters (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 38, 41, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55) responded to this question.

Support

Fifteen submitters (3, 5, 10, 17, 19, 21, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 41, 45, 52, 55) support the proposal that the supply of highly hazardous substances be restricted to workplaces, although in some cases this support was qualified.

However, some submitters made a number of comments, including:

Propellant powder, gunpowder and safety ammunition should be exempted.

The provision as proposed would allow for highly hazardous substances to be

used by commercial contractors working in domestic dwellings or public

places, which are designated “workplaces” while the contractor is there. The

submitter believes this risks environmental contamination and human health,

and that such substances should not be permitted to be used in domestic

dwellings or public places, unless there are controls, enforceable by

WorkSafe, to eliminate such risks.

The list of highly hazardous substances proposed to be restricted is very

broad, and recommends further clarification of class 1 substances.

Proposal 11 (b) (requiring written confirmation) is inefficient, and that the issue

in question would be better addressed through labelling or a message on the

product invoice.

Oppose

Fourteen submitters (2, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 38, 47, 51, 53) oppose restricting the supply of highly hazardous substances to workplaces. Their reasons

We note the range of submitter views and concerns about this proposal.

The EPA acknowledges that there may be cases where specific substances with the restricted classifications should be permitted to be sold / used in non-workplaces. An example of this is cement and cement products that are classified as 6.7A. In such cases, we can delete this control from applying to the relevant substance. This can be done either via the group standard, or in the individual substance approval as provided by section 77 of the HSNO Act.

Subsequent to this consultation, further work was carried out to refine the list of substances restricted to workplaces only, and to confirm the threshold values proposed in Table 5 of the consultation document.


of 68


include:

Propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primer should not be

restricted to workplaces only, as these types of substances are typically used

and stored in non-workplaces.

The control is likely to be ineffective, as “workplaces” are often also public

places. It would be more effective to manage “who” has access to the

substance rather than “where” it is delivered.

A home handy person with adequate knowledge should have access to

hazardous substances that facilitate their hobby or home project. This

submitter acknowledges the need for a restriction that prevents persons with

malicious intent from obtaining these substances.

The control is too restrictive. It should make provision for default non-

workplace situation.

This control should allow the use of specific highly hazardous substances in

non-workplaces where their use would be reasonable, e.g. livestock drenches

and companion animal flea products. The use of a quantitative threshold may

be appropriate in these circumstances.

There should be no restrictions on suitably qualified persons handling and

using hazardous substances in non-workplace situations.

Question 37Do you agree with the proposed list of hazard classifications that the EPA intends to place this restriction on?

Twenty-five submitters (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 45, 47, 50, 51) responded to this question.

Agree

Twenty submitters (3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 31, 35, 37, 45, 47, 50, 51) generally agree with the proposed list of hazards classifications. However, several submitters requested exemptions or additions to the proposed list, as noted below:

Request exemptions for:

We note the concerns and suggestions of submitters with respect to this proposal.

As noted under Question 36, subsequent to this consultation further work was carried out to refine the list of substances restricted to workplaces only, and to confirm the threshold values proposed in Table 5 of the consultation document.


of 68


o propellant powder, gunpowder, ammunition (and primers)

o pool chlorine

o some 6.1C, 8.1A and 8.2A substances that are essential to homeowners

e.g. swimming pool and spa chemicals, deck, drain & oven cleaners,

home maintenance, workshop, art and hobby chemicals (welding,

brazing, etching, etc).

o certain veterinary medicines (typically classified by MPI as ‘Restricted

Veterinary Medicines’). These are assigned 6.1 hazard classifications

and, while prescribed by a veterinarian, are administered in a non-

workplace by animal owners.

o small packages of 5.2B catalysts

Request the addition of:

o Class 6.6.A known or presumed human mutagens, class 6.8A known

human reproductive toxicants and class 6.9A substances toxic to target

organs or systems

o all 6, 8 and 9 classes should be included, and trigger levels used to set

controls where necessary.

Other comments:

o Support the list but note it is very broad, and recommend further

clarification of class 1 substances.

o Substances currently exempted should continue to be exempted under

the new control.

Disagree

Four submitters (2, 28, 32, 41) disagreed with the proposed list of hazards

classifications. Reasons include:

Do not support the inclusion of class 6.1C substances in the list. Also query

whether carcinogens mutagens and reproductive toxicants (class 6.6A, 6.8A,

of 68


6.8C, 6.9A) should be included.

This list would make some substances that are available for supply to and use

by household consumers in Australia, unavailable to New Zealand

householders.

The inclusion of class 6.7A and 8.2A classifications on the list will result in an

increased regulatory burden on importers, manufacturers, and suppliers of

these chemicals. They note that class 6.7A substances are currently subject

to approved handler controls at volumes greater than 10 kg or 10 L, and feel

that the proposed change to lower volumes of these substances has not been

justified.

Question 38Do you agree with the proposed list of substances that the EPA that the EPA intends to place this restriction on?

Are there any additional substances you think should be on this list?


Agree

Thirteen submitters (3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 31, 45, 47, 50, 55) agreed with the list of substances that the EPA proposes to restrict to workplace use only.

The support of six of these submitters is conditional upon exemptions being provided for propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers.

One submitter supports the proposed 15 kg limit on gunpowder and

smokeless powder, while 12 submitters consider that the limit for gunpowder

and smokeless powder be increased from 15 kg to 30 kg.

One submitter agrees with the proposed list of substances, but recommends

the addition of Magtoxin (Magnesium Phosphide).

Oppose

Five submitters (4, 6, 10, 38, 48) did not agree with the proposed list. Comments included:

Oppose the proposal as it would encompass many OPC’s not considered

within the scope of APP201045 (which only covers “organophosphate” and




of 68


“carbamate” insecticides for use in plant protection). Suggest the decision to

broadly exclude all organophosphates and carbamates from home use

appears to be based on an apparent lack of benefit rather than presence of

significant hazard. Recommend amending the wording in table 4 to read

“insecticides for use in plant protection”.

The list should be based on risk rather than chemical class.

Enforcement could be an issue.

Question 39Should there be exemptions for some substances listed in Tables 3 and 4 to allow them to be present in non-workplaces in limited quantities, for example substances that are key elements in modelling and/or DIY kits?

If so, which particular classifications / substances do you think are relevant, and what quantity limits do you think should apply.

Please provide your reasons.


All agreed there should be exemptions for some substances listed in Tables 3 and 4 to allow them to be present in non-workplaces in limited quantities. Recommended exemptions are summarised below.

Propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers, as these

are typically used and stored in non-workplaces. Regarding limits:

o No restrictions on quantities or volume for primers

o 15 kg limit for black powder

o 30 kg limit for smokeless propellant powder.

Some 6.1C substances, which could be managed by limiting pack sizes. These would include substances essential to homeowners e.g. swimming pool and spa chemicals, deck, drain and oven cleaners; home maintenance, workshop, art and hobby chemicals.

Substances used by hobbyists, including:

o hydrochloric acid 6.1B (used for concrete etching)

o sulphuric acid (> 10% solution) found in lead acid batteries

o adhesives with 6.1B or C classifications that are used by modellers

o hydrogen peroxide (>60%) which has a 5.1.1A classification and can be

required for some hobby uses.




of 68


o Substances with 3.1A , 5.1.1A, 5.2A/B, 8.2A classifications, in quantities

limited to 100 ml /g (and with an SDS). These classes and amounts

have legitimate non-work uses (e.g. diethyl ether for model aircraft

engines) and catalysts in some adhesives.

5.2B catalysts, polyester resin kits etc. Possibly 6.1C pesticides and 8.1A battery acid etc. Size limit 250g/ml should apply.

Hydrochloric acid (6.1B), used for lowering pH and total alkalinity in swimming pools; avgas, racing gasoline products classified 3.1A; paints classified 6.1C used in non-workplaces, such as car paints.

Certain veterinary medicines containing 3.1A and 6.1 hazard classifications, typically administered in a non-workplace by animal owners. Any threshold applied should be sufficient to allow storage of reasonable quantities in line with the use pattern, e.g. sufficient quantity of drench to treat a typical herd.

Other comments

Regulatory mechanisms such as s77A HSNO Act should be maintained to allow for the varying of this requirement, as substances are identified as being appropriate for use in a non-workplace. This should be a consideration when reissuing existing approvals, to ensure those who hold existing approvals are not disadvantaged.

The concept of “consumer quantities”, discussed in other consultation documents, could be an option for management of smaller quantities in this HPC Notice. However, enforcing any restriction on sales could be difficult, particularly where there is no evidence of training of the purchaser or user of the substances.

Quantity limits need to be introduced for substances for personal use.

Question 40Do you agree with the requirement to place a duty on

Twenty-six submitters (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35, 38, 41, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53) responded to this question.

Agree


As noted under Question 36, subsequent to this

of 68


users to ensure that they do not use highly hazardous substances outside of the workplace?

Nineteen submitters (3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 31, 35, 41, 45, 47, 51, 52) generally support the proposal. Comments include:

The support of seven of these submitters is conditional upon exemptions being provided for propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers.

Agree subject to the restrictions being made less onerous. The submitter notes that there have been many variations to approvals to remove the requirement for an approved handler for 6.1C substances - this would have enabled the general public to purchase these substances. They recommend considering either removing 6.1C or adding a list of exemptions, as this would be consistent with the HSW HS Regulations for approved handlers.

Support the requirement in the case of products with specific hazard classifications, such as explosives or corrosives. However, they do not believe the requirement is practical for products under some of the listed hazard classifications, e.g. veterinary medicines which are typically used in non-workplaces.

Disagree

Seven submitters (2, 18, 21, 25, 28, 38, 53) disagree with the proposed requirement. Reasons include:

The requirement to restrict highly hazardous substances to workplaces only is not necessary if the users have had adequate training in the use of these substances or have an approved handler certificate.

The proposal is an inefficient way of emphasising the need to restrict certain substances to workplaces. It would be more effective to address the issue though labelling and/or through messaging on product invoices.

The concept of “general duty” would be difficult for users in non-workplaces to understand, making the control difficult to enforce.

consultation further work was carried out to refine the list of substances restricted to workplaces only, and to confirm the threshold values proposed in Table 5 of the consultation document.


Question 41 Twenty six submitters (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, We note that the HSW HS Regulations contain a

of 68


Do you agree with the requirement that a supplier should keep a written record of transfers of the restricted substances?

30, 31, 35, 41, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53) responded to this question.

Agree

Nineteen submitters (2, 3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35, 41, 47, 51, 52, 53) agree that suppliers should keep a written record of transfers of the restricted substances. Comments included:

The support of six of these submitters is conditional upon exemptions being provided for propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers.

Record keeping requirements should not be onerous (e.g. sales records such as an invoice should suffice).

Electronic record keeping should be recognised as complying with the control.

Support the requirement in the case of products with specific hazard classifications, such as explosives or corrosives. However, they do not believe the requirement is practical for products under some of the listed hazard classifications, e.g. veterinary medicines which are typically used in non-workplaces.

Disagree

Seven submitters (4, 6, 19, 20, 21, 30, 45) did not agree with the proposal. Reasons include:

The requirement would impose an additional burden on retailers, wholesalers, and distributors of propellants. Regardless, propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers should be exempted from the control.

The proposal covers too many chemicals and would be impractical to implement. The current policy for tracked substances is adequate.

The record keeping requirement is too onerous if it applies to every sale transaction.

The proposal is inefficient. It would be more effective to address the issue though labelling and/or through messaging on product invoices.

similar requirement as this proposal, specifically that“a PCBU with management or control of a workplace (A) where a tracked substance is present may transfer the substance only to another workplace under the management and control of another PCBU (B) and only if A has received written notification that a competent person at the other workplace will accept responsibility for the tracked substance…”(refer regulation 19.7 HSW HS Regulations).

We will endeavour to keep the wording of the HSNO requirement consistent with the HSW regulation.

Suppliers will not need to keep two records, one will suffice for both regimes. Electronic records will be an acceptable means of complying with this control.

One point of difference is that HSNO will require three additional classifications not captured by the HSW HS Regulations (6.1C, 6.7A and 8.2A).

of 68


The control should not be required for non-tracked substances, and a general letter from a buyer should be enough in the case of most substances.

Question 42Are there any other matters that the EPA should consider in respect of the proposed control?


Five submitters (2, 18, 25, 32, 45) provided details of other matters they believed should be considered in respect of the proposed control.

Provisions to ensure the monitoring of compliance are as important as those

ensuring supplier and user responsibility.

Note that the controlled substances licence control currently prevents the

general public from obtaining highly hazardous substances.

Points noted.

of 68

Proposal 12 – Controls on hazardous substances used or stored in non-workplacesQuestion Number Summary of submitter comment EPA Response

Question 43Do you agree with the proposal that the HPC Notice includes generic controls on the safe use and storage of hazardous substances?

Twenty-three submitters (2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 45, 47, 51, 53) responded to this question.

Agree

Twenty-one submitters (2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35, 37, 45, 47, 51, 53) generally agreed with the proposal for generic controls on the safe use and storage of hazardous substances. Comments included:

The support of seven of these submitters is conditional upon exemptions being provided for propellant powder, gun powder, safety ammunition, and primers. These submitters noted that the Arms Act 1983 and Arms Regulations 1992 already cover the safe use and storage of these substances.

The EPA needs to ensure there is a wider communication programme to educate people in non-workplaces on the safe use and storage of hazardous substances.

The storage controls to prevent unintentional exposure and dispersion of chemicals (e.g. via flooding or fire) is of particular importance.

Disagree

Two submitters question the need for safe use and storage controls as there are no such requirements in Australia.

We note the support of the majority of submitters for this proposal.

Regarding the concerns of the firearms community, we note that the focus of the Arms Act and Regulations is on management of the firearm rather than the ammunition, propellant powder or primers etc. This is why these substances are currently controlled under HSNO, and will be controlled under the new HSW HS Regulations where they are present in workplaces.

We acknowledge that there are no regulatory requirements in Australia regarding storage and use controls on hazardous substances in non-workplaces.

However, we note that the current HSNO regulations apply to all places, including non-workplaces. We therefore think it is appropriate that the HPC Notice, in some way, includes controls to manage the risks from the storage and use of hazardous substance in non-workplaces.

We acknowledge that the EPA must work to raise public awareness of this requirement as most people in non-workplaces will almost certainly be unaware of these compliance requirements

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposal and further discussion on this issue.

Question 44Do you agree with the proposed maximum limits of certain hazardous


Submitters had varying views on appropriate maximum limits for certain hazardous

Subsequent to this consultation, further work was undertaken to re-evaluate the list of substance classifications that should be permitted in homes, and also

of 68


substances that can be stored or used in non-workplaces before they will need to comply with the relevant workplace controls in the HSW HS Regulations?

Specifically, do you have any thoughts on what are appropriate quantity restrictions to set for those classifications marked “to be determined” in Table 5. Please provide your reasoning.

substances. Comments included:

Several of the classifications listed in Table 5 should not be permitted to be present in homes as they are either too hazardous, or extremely unlikely to be used in domestic situations (e.g. 3.2B, 3.2C, 4.1.2C, 4.1.2D).

Limit of 50 litres of petrol is too low, needs to be 100 litres as required for the location test certificate.

Agree with 15 kg restriction for propellant powder and gunpowder.

Propose 30 kg limit on smokeless propellant powder.

Propose 30 kg limit on gunpowder.

Propose no limits on safety ammunition and primers.

All class 5 limits are too high.

There should be some quantity restrictions on Class 6, 8 & 9 substances.

Propose exemption from limits for class 5.1.1B veterinary medicines.

5.1.1C covers swimming pool chemicals and should be 200 kg. The proposed limit of 100 kg is too low.

Class 5.1.5B limit should be 100 kg. The proposed limit of 50 kg is too low.

Diesel (3.1D) should have a restriction of 250 L which is the amount used in HSHO legislation.

Propose reducing limits for class 2.1.1A substances from 100 m3 to 20 m3.

Propose reducing limits for aerosols (class 2.1.2A) from 3000 L to 500 L.

Territorial authorities need to be made aware of the restriction so that they can align the requirements of their district plans with the HPC Notice provisions.

General comments

The list of substances and proposed quantities needs to be carefully considered, preferably by a working group.

It is unrealistic to expect consumers to be aware of applicable limits and to

the quantity thresholds that trigger additional requirements (Table 5 in the consultation document).

We agree that some of the classifications listed in Table 5 can be removed and transferred to the list of classifications that are restricted to workplace use only.

The threshold quantities proposed in the consultation document are typically the levels that trigger certification requirements under the current HSNO regulations (either location or approved handler).

Note that if substances are held above the specified threshold limits, they will still be permitted to be held in non-workplaces, they will just be subject to a set of additional controls, essentially the same controls that workplaces would be subject to.

Note that regardless of the final list of substances and threshold limits that appear in the final notice, the EPA has the ability to vary this control, either under s77 when the substance is approved, or in the group standard as relevant.

Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposal, and further discussion on this issue.

of 68


monitor the volumes they have in their households. It is better to set limits on certain targeted substances, e.g. LPG, rather than setting generic limits for all class 1-5 substances.

There was a concern around the enforceability of this control in non-workplaces.

Question 45Do you have any thoughts on what controls should be placed on the storage of hazardous substances in non-workplaces to ensure no harm occurs to people, communities and the environment?

Nineteen submitters (3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 35, 41, 42, 47, 51) responded to this question. Submitter comments included:

There was a concern around the enforceability of this control in non-

workplaces.

Except for some particularly hazardous substances, controls should be

general in nature and easily communicable to and understood by

householders. Suggested controls for inclusion in the notice are:

o toxic and corrosive substances should be locked up

o flammable and toxic substances should be stored in well ventilated area

o flammable substance should be kept away from ignition sources.

The EPA needs to implement an on-going awareness programme to ensure that everyone is aware of the risks from hazardous substances outside of workplaces.

A threshold limit should be set in Table 5 for classes 8.2B and 8.2C.

Class 6.6.A, class 6.8A and class 6.9A substances should be included in

Table 3 or Table 5.

Compliance certification that is in line with existing needs to be considered.

No controls are necessary on safety ammunition, primers, propellant powder

or gunpowder, other than those dictated by the Arms Act.

Fireworks and animal traps also need to be addressed in the HPC Notice. A complete ban on the private sale and personal use of fireworks needed. All animal traps should be prohibited unless they have passed the National

Subsequent to this consultation, further work was undertaken on this provision and a number of changes made.

One of these changes was to introduce a maximum threshold for every class of hazardous substance that will be permitted to be held in non-workplaces. This will address some submitter concerns.

As noted above (under question 44), if substances are held above the specified threshold limits, they will still be permitted to be held in non-workplaces, they will just be subject to a set of additional controls, essentially the same controls that workplaces would be subject to.

Also as noted above (under question 43), we acknowledge that the EPA must work to raise public awareness of this requirement as most people in non-workplaces will almost certainly be unaware of these compliance requirements


of 68


Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) testing criteria.

of 68

Proposal 13 – Control on stationary container systems for domestic oil burning installationsQuestion Number Summary of submitter comment EPA Response

Question 46Do you agree with the proposed controls for domestic oil burning installations?

Why /why not?


Six submitters (2, 19, 25, 28, 31, 45) responded to this question.

Four submitters (2, 19, 31, 45) supported this proposal. Comments included:

o Support as long as the burn-off goes through a purification system and there is no effect

on the environment.

o Support, but consider the requirements should be clearly explained directly in the HPC

Notice rather than by cross-referring to the HSW HS Regulations. Also, the EPA should

approve AS1691 standard3 for use in NZ as this will provide certain safety restrictions

for subsequent installations.

Two submitters considered that there is a need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations and non-workplaces should be treated the same as workplaces.

We note the proposed provision for domestic oil burning installations is the same as the current requirement contained in Schedule 8 of Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 (Gazette Notice 35).

No change to the current requirements is proposed, including retaining the current hierarchy of controls for domestic oil burning installations that are below, or greater than 2,500 L.

Question 47Do you think that the HPC Notice should include controls on burners regardless of the size of the installation, i.e. even for installations less than 60 litres?

Why/why not? Please provide details.

Five submitters (19, 25, 28, 31, 45) responded to this question.

Three submitters considered the legislation should be consistent when it comes to controls on burners irrespective of whether they are a workplace or non-workplace.

One submitter agreed with the proposed controls but felt that they needed to be clearly explained directly in the HPC Notice rather than by cross-referring to the HSW HS Regulations. Installations less than 60 litres should not be considered as it has been established that these have minimal risk.

One submitter considers that burner designs should be required to be approved.

We agree that consistency with HSW HS Regulations should be maintained. These regulations do not have controls on stationary container systems (SCS) less than 60 L that supply a burner. Therefore we propose to adopt the same approach.


Question 48Clause 56, Schedule 8 of Gazette Notice 35 applies to a stationary


All six submitters agreed that the HPC Notice should include a provision to regulate stationary container systems used to provide fuel to an internal combustion engine. Comments included:

We agree that consistency with HSW HS Regulations should be maintained.

The HPC Notice will cross-refer to the relevant part (Part 13) of the HSW

3 Full title is Standard AS1691: 1985 Domestic oil fired appliances – installation. The standard is endorsed by Central Heating NZ as one of many standards that should be given consideration when installing certain appliances. Refer to http://www.centralheating.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/diesel-tank-installation-guide.pdf

http://www.centralheating.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/diesel-tank-installation-guide.pdf

of 68


container system used to provide fuel to an internal combustion engine.

Do we need to include a provision in the HPC Notice to cover off situations where this may be relevant to non-workplaces, e.g. home-owners that have large electricity generators?


The 500 L threshold for domestic installations is excessive and should be reduced to 250 L.

There is a need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations and non-workplaces should be treated the same as workplaces.

regulations for these types of installations.


Question 49Do you think there should be a provision for a person to construct a one-off tank without being a certified fabricator?

Why/why not?



Support

Two submitters (19, 45) supported this proposal. Comments included:

Provided the tanks were made to a standard e.g. AS1692, that should be considered acceptable to the EPA.

There will already be these types of systems in use in non-workplaces that are meeting current requirements, we do not see good reason for changing current requirements.

Did not support

Two submitters (2, 31) did not support this proposal. These submitters considered the certification of the fabricator would provide a level of assurance that the tank was constructed to a high standard.

General comment

Two submitters (25, 28) considered there is a need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations and non-workplaces should be treated the same as workplaces.

We agree that consistency with HSW HS Regulations should be maintained. These regulations do not permit one-off construction by someone other than an approved fabricator. Therefore we propose to adopt the same approach.


of 68


Question 50Do you think that where the tank is greater than 2,500 litres, that the installation should require a stationary container system test certificate?

Why/why not?


Support

All six submitters considered installations with a tank greater than 2,500 L should have a stationary container system test certificate. Comments included:

It is appropriate to ensure all tanks are fit for purpose.

Support the proposal but with a longer recertification period, e.g. 5 or 10 years.

Support the proposal as it needs to be ensured that the risks associated with these

installations are managed appropriately.

Such installations above 2500 L should have some kind of certification from an independent

third party, but only for the new installation, then once issued, the responsibility to maintain at

an acceptable safety level in accordance with the legislation should lie with the owner.

There is a need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations and non-workplaces

should be treated the same as workplaces.

We agree that installations in non-workplaces should be subject to the same requirement as those in workplaces, including the requirement to obtain a stationary container test certificate.

We are proposing a recertification period of five years.


of 68

Proposal 14 – Certification of domestic dwellings storing greater than 100kg of LPGQuestion Number Summary of submitter comment EPA Response

Question 51Do you think non-workplaces holding greater than 100 kg of LPG should be captured by the HSW HS Regulations for the issues of the location compliance certificate?

Why/why not?


Eight submitters (19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 45, 50) responded to this question. A range of views were held, including:

Comments

Support raising the threshold quantity for site certification from 100 kg to 300 kg.

Suggest the certification of LPG installations up to 300 kg be covered under the current gas fitting certification. Most safety checks are completed by the gas fitter using sections 3 to 6 of AS/NZS 5601.4

Given what is actually being checked, for locations holding between 100 kg to 300 kg LPG (e.g. separation distances to openings and drains), requiring certification is a very expensive burden for consumers for little added safety. These simple separation distance requirements can be checked by the gasfitter on initial installation and by the LPG retailer when delivery takes place.

The cost of site certification to customers is not justifiable. On average, it costs $200 - $400 annually for a location test certificate.

Supports the proposal but propose a longer re-certification period, e.g.three to five years.

There is a need to maintain consistency with the HSW HS Regulations and non-workplaces should be treated the same as workplaces.

Homeowners without reticulated gas supply may require more than 100 kg capacity of LPG. The requirement to have a location compliance certificate

We note the range of submitter views on this matter.

We consider that raising the threshold quantity for certification to a level over 100 kg LPG would require a comprehensive risk assessment against all relevant regulatory controls, including the approach taken in workplaces. This is more suited to the reassessment process, and is outside the scope of this phase of the reform.

Subsequent to this consultation, this proposal was further developed, taking into account the cost of obtaining a location test certificate.

We consider that for amounts of LPG between 100 kg and 300 kg, the process that is currently in place for LPG suppliers to carry out a compliance check and install a compliance plaque will provide a simpler more cost-effective approach.

For amounts over 300 kg LPG, we consider that a requirement for a location certificate should remain in place.

We considered whether certification by gas fitters would be adequate, but rejected this as gas fitters do not certify all of the requirements from the HSNO controls

4 This is an Australian/New Zealand standard which has been spilt into parts. AS/NZS 5601.1:2013 deals with gas installations and general installations. Section 3 deals with the means of compliance (general requirements), section 4 addresses materials, fittings and components, section 5 outlines the provisions for installing consumer piping and section 6 addresses the installation of gas appliances. AS/NZS 5601.2:2010 deals with LP Gas installations in caravans and boats for non-propulsive purposes.

of 68


would impose unnecessary extra cost. Refer to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposal and further discussion on this issue.

Question 52Do you think that the liability for obtaining and renewing the location compliance certificate should be placed on the gas supplier or on the person in charge of the site e.g. the homeowner?

Seven submitters (19, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 45) responded to this question. A range of views here held, including:

The liability should be on the LPG supplier as they have the necessary knowledge and expertise. Homeowners cannot be expected to know this type of information.

The liability should be on both the homeowner and the user.

The LPG supplier should have a responsibility to ensure the site is certified before the gas is supplied (as is currently the case).

The liability should be on the tank owner, not the user.

The LPG supplier should not be made responsible for obtaining location compliance certificate.

Subsequent to this consultation, this proposal was further developed

Refer to comments under question 51 above, and to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposal and further discussion on this issue.

Question 53Do you have any other thoughts on how these sites could be managed?

If yes, please explain.

Five submitters (2, 19, 25, 27, 29) responded to this question. A range of views here held, including:

Test certifiers could be used to certify non-workplaces. Domestic sites could still be shown on the WorkSafe website along with workplaces.

A compliance check should be required periodically as occurs under the existing regime.

Compliance with the required provision could be achieved without requiring third party certification. It can be provided through the gas fitter, and ongoing observance and checking by the LPG supplier.

Subsequent to this consultation, this proposal was further developed

Refer to comments under question 51 above, and to the March 2017 consultation document for our revised proposal and further discussion on this issue.

Appendix 1. List of Submitters

Submitter # Name Organisation Organisation Type

1 Alan Barker Dairy NZ Industry group

2 Anonymous

3 Philip CreeganSporting Shooters Association of New

Zealand IncNGO

4 Chaz Forsyth Individual

5 Andrew ShandPublic Health South (Southern District

Health Board)Health agency

6 Anonymous

7 Ann Weaver Safekids Aoetearoa Health agency

8 Anonymous

9 Paul Carkeek Skywork Helicopters (Agricultural) Ltd Private business

10 Mark Ross Agcam Industry group

11 Nick Hanson Federated Farmers of New Zealand Industry group

12 Paul ClarkCouncil of Licenced Firearms Owners

IncNGO

13 Davor Bejakovich Greater Wellington Regional Council Local Authority

14 Dr John Osbourne New Zealand Society of Gunsmiths Inc NGO

15 Dr Anne OsborneFar North Firearms and Shooting

Association IncNGO

16 Dr John OsbourneNew Zealand Armed Constabulary

Force Re-enactment Society IncNGO

17 Population Health Service Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Health agency

18 Dr John Hulston Isotope Consulting Ltd Private business

19 Jack Travis Tauranga City Council Local Authority

20 Peter Dawson TSG Ltd Private business

21 Graham ClarkeGNS Science, Institute of Geological

and Nuclear Science LtdCrown Agency

22 Anonymous

of 68


23 Roger Parton Rural Contractors New Zealand Inc Industry group

24 Anonymous

25 J Hickey & N DebenhamNew Zealand Institute of Hazardous

Substances Management IncNGO

26 Noel Blackwell Individual

27 Victoria Parker Genesis Energy Private business

28 Neil Debenham Altex Coatings Ltd Private business

29 Peter Gilbert LPG Association of New Zealand Inc Industry group

30 Gina Weldon Department of Conservation Central Government

31 Phillip Tse Chemie-Tech Ltd Private business

32 Anonymous

33 Anonymous

34 Garth WylieDirect Selling Association of New

ZealandIndustry group

35 Gray Bamber Regional Public Health Health agency

36 Andrew SaundersPetroleum Exploration & Production

Association of New ZealandIndustry group

37 Janet Connochie Chemsafety Ltd Private business

38 Anonymous

39 Barry FosterApiculture New Zealand Technical

Focus GroupIndustry group

40 Rowan Latham Environment Canterbury Local Authority

41 Rachel Linklater Accord Australia Industry group

42 Dr Arnja DaleRoyal New Zealand Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to AnimalsNGO

43 Anonymous

44 Matthew Hickson OSPRI New Zealand Ltd Industry group

45 Hayley Fletcher WorkSafe Central Government

46 Fleur Matthews/Rob Phillips Environment Southland Local Authority

47 Frank Visser Key Industries Ltd Private business

of 68


48 Anonymous

49 Rory MacLellan Ministry for Primary Industries Central Government

50 John Pascoe Epro Limited Private business

51 Anonymous

52 Anonymous

53 Claire Mills Adama New Zealand Limited Private business

54 Anonymous

55 Matthew DolanNew Zealand Agrichemical Education

Trust Industry group

56 Randal Beal West Coast Regional Council Local Authority

57 Tanea Tangaroa Individual

of 68

Appendix 2. List of proposals and questionsA list of the proposals included in the October 2016 consultation document, and questions asked under each

proposal is provided below:

Proposal 1. Qualification requirements for users of highly ecotoxic agrichemicals in certain situations.

Question 1. Are there alternative approaches that could be adopted? Why/why not? Please provide details

where possible.

Question 2. What additional benefits can you see resulting from the proposal? What additional costs can

you see arising? Please provide details where possible.

Question 3. Do you believe that the proposed list of required qualifications will provide users with the

required knowledge and competency to protect the environment? Are there any other qualifications or

requirements that are relevant that should be included as well? If yes, please provide details.

Question 4. Do you consider that any of the unit standard(s) listed in the table above are not appropriate for

the specified application method? If yes, please provide details.

Question 5. Do you think people who have an approved handler test certificate under the HSW regime for

class 6 substances should be exempt from the proposed qualification requirement above? Will the training

provided to approved handlers for class 6 substances under the HSW regime cover environmental risks?


Question 6. Are there any other gaps that need to be addressed? Are you aware of any uses of hazardous

substances that should be subject to qualification controls that will not be covered by either the proposed

control, or the approved handler control under the HSW regime? Do you think urban pest management

commercial contractors should be subject to qualification controls similar to agrichemical contractors? The

EPA has identified that there is a national certificate for urban pest management. Do you think this is this

relevant?

Proposal 2. Requirement to keep a record when applying ecotoxic substances and the information to be included in that record.

Question 7. Do you support the amendment of the current controls to achieve consistency with the HSW HS

Regulations? Why/why not?

Question 8. What benefits to you think could result from the proposal? Please provide details.

Question 9. Is there any additional information that you believe needs to be collated through the record

keeping controls of the HPC Notice? If yes, please provide details.

Question 10. Do you agree that the proposed control should only apply to workplaces? Why/why not?

Question 11. Should this control only apply to agrichemicals? Why/why not?

of 68

Proposal 3. Requirements for equipment used to handle ecotoxic substances in workplaces.

Question 12. Does the HPC Notice need to include controls on equipment used when handling ecotoxic

substances? Why/why not?

Question 13. Do you agree that the proposed control should only apply to workplaces? Why/why not?

Question 14. Do you support the amendment of the current controls to achieve consistency with the HSW

HS Regulations? Why/why not?

Question 15. Is there any additional information that you think should be included? If yes, please provide

details.

Proposal 4. Application of default of environmental exposure limits (EELs) to substances.

Question 16. Do you agree that the default EEL control should not be transferred over into the HPC Notice?

Why/why not?

Question 17. Do you agree that regulations 33 to 43 of the Classes 6, 8 & 9 Controls Regulations (setting of

EELs using a prescribed methodology) also do not need to be carried over into the HPC Notice given the

provision to set exposure limits in section 77B? Why/why not?

Question 18. Similarly, do you agree that regulations 11 to 26 of the Classes 6, 8 & 9 Controls Regulations

(setting of acceptable daily exposure values, potential daily exposure values and tolerable exposure limits)

also do not need to be carried over into the HPC Notice given the provision to set exposure limits in section

77B? Why/why not?

Proposal 5. Prohibition use of ecotoxic substance in excess of environmental exposure limits.

Question 19. Do you support the transfer of existing regulations 44, 45 and 47(1) into the HPC Notice?

Question 20. What benefits and / or costs do you see resulting from the proposal? Please give details.

Proposal 6. Use of substances to terrestrial invertebrates.

Question 21. Do you support the inclusion of controls in the HPC Notice that address the use of ecotoxic

substances to protect terrestrial invertebrates?

Question 22. Do you support the amendment of the proposed control so that it refers to a wider scope of

terrestrial invertebrates than just bees?

Question 23. Do you agree with the proposed change for the control to apply to a smaller area i.e.

application plot rather than the larger application area?

Question 24. Is it appropriate for the proposed control to contain a clause which enables a non-contact

period to be set by the EPA? Why/why not?

Question 25. Are there any other matters that you think this control should cover? If yes, please give details.

of 68

Proposal 7. Use of substances ecotoxic to terrestrial vertebrates.

Question 26. Do you agree with the proposed controls as a means to reduce harm to non-target organisms?


Question 27. Do you agree that treated seed must be required to be coloured blue or green? Why/why not?

If you think other colours should be allowed, please provide reasons.

Proposal 8. Consolidation of controls to better manage off-target effects from hazardous substances.

Question 28. Do you support the proposal for the consolidation of application parameter restrictions and

spray drift management controls into the HPC Notice? Why/why not?

Question 29. Should prescriptive ‘best practice’ restrictions be included in the HPC Notice, or should these

be referred to in associated guidance material as examples of measures that may assist compliance with the

duty to avoid adverse effects from spray-drift?

Question 30. Are there any other spray-drift management options that should be considered for inclusion in

the HPC Notice? If yes, please provide details of these.

Question 31. Do you support proposed control 1 applying to all ecotoxic substances? Should it be narrower

in its focus and specifically refer to agrichemicals? Why/why not?

Proposal 9. Prohibition on application of class 9.1 pesticides directly onto, into or over water.

Question 32. Do you believe that there should be a control in the HPC Notice that specifically prohibits the

application of hazardous substances directly onto, into or over water?

Question 33. Do you think there should be a requirement for the product label to include, where relevant, a

statement advising people to not apply substances onto, into or over water?

Proposal 10. Controls to manage risks from ecotoxic substances in workplaces.

Question 34. Do you agree with the proposal? Why/why not? Please provide details.

Question 35. Are there any other workplace controls that you consider need to be included in the HPC

Notice that relate to protecting the environment?

Proposal 11. Restriction on supply and use of certain highly hazardous substances to non-workplaces.

Question 36. Do you believe that it is appropriate for the supply of highly hazardous substances to be

restricted to workplaces?

Question 37. Do you agree with the proposed list of hazards classifications that the EPA intends to place

this restriction on? Refer Table 3.

Question 38. Do you agree with the proposed list of substances that the EPA that the EPA intends to place

this restriction on? Refer Table 4. Are there any additional substances you think should be on this list?

of 68

Question 39. Should there be exemptions for some substances listed in Tables 3 and 4 to allow them to be

present in non-workplaces in limited quantities, for example substances that are key elements in modelling

and/or DIY kits? If so, which particular classifications/substances do you think are relevant, and what quantity

limits do you think should apply. Please provide your reasons.

Question 40. Do you agree with the requirement to place a duty on users to ensure that they do not use

highly hazardous substances outside of the workplace?

Question 41. Do you agree with the requirement that a supplier should keep a written record of transfers of

the restricted substances?

Question 42. Are there any other matters that the EPA should consider in respect of the proposed control? If

yes, please provide details.

Proposal 12. Controls on hazardous substances used or stored in non-workplaces.

Question 43. Do you agree with the proposal that the HPC Notice includes generic controls on the safe use

and storage of hazardous substances?

Question 44. Do you agree with the proposed maximum limits of certain hazardous substances that can be

stored or used in non-workplaces before they will need to comply with the relevant workplace controls in the

HSW HS Regulations (Refer to Tables 5 and 6)? Specifically, do you have any thoughts on what are

appropriate quantity restrictions to set for those classifications marked “to be determined” in Table 5. Please

provide your reasoning.

Question 45. Do you have any thoughts on what controls should be placed on the storage of hazardous

substances in non-workplaces to ensure no harm occurs to people, communities and the environment?

Proposal 13. Controls on stationary container systems for domestic oil burning installations.

Question 46. Do you agree with the proposed controls for domestic oil burning installations? Why/ why not?


Question 47. Do you think that the HPC Notice should include controls on burners (likely a requirement to

comply with the relevant parts of Part 17 of the HSW HS Regulation) regardless of the size of the installation,

i.e. even for installations less than 60 litres? Why/why not? Please provide details.

Question 48. Clause 56 of Schedule 8 of Gazette Notice 35 applies to a stationary container system used to

provide fuel to an internal combustion engine. Do we need to include a provision in the HPC Notice (likely a

requirement to comply with the relevant parts of Part 17 of the HSW HS Regulation) to cover off situations

where this may be relevant to non-workplaces, e.g. homeowners that have large electricity generators?


Question 49. Do you think there should provision for a person to construct a one-off tank without being a

certified fabricator? Why/why not? Please provide details.

Question 50. Do you think that where the tank is greater than 2,500 litres, that the installation should require

a stationary container system test certificate? Why/why not?

of 68

Proposal 14. Certification of domestic dwellings storing greater than 100kg of LPG.

Question 51. Do you think non-workplaces holding greater than 100 kg of LPG should be captured by the

HSW HS Regulations for the issues of the location compliance certificate? Why/why not? Please provide

details.

Question 52. Do you think that the liability for obtaining and renewing the location compliance certificate

should be place on the gas supplier or on the person in charge of the site e.g. the homeowner? Or should

the notice provide for either? Why/why not? Please provide details.

Question 53. Do you have any other thoughts on how these sites could be managed? If yes, please explain.

epa.govt.nz€¦ · Web viewFor example, store flammables away from ignition sources, keep...

Documents

Transcript of epa.govt.nz€¦ · Web viewFor example, store flammables away from ignition sources, keep...