ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY DECISION
11 May 2007
Application Code
HRC07001
Application Type
To reassess any hazardous substance under section 63A of the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act)
Applicant
The Chief Executive, ERMA New Zealand
Date Application Received
28 March 2007
Submission Period
28 March 2007 – 30 April 2007
Consideration Date
10 May 2007
Considered by
A Committee of the Authority
Purpose of the Application
To vary the approved handler control where petrol, in quantities
less than 2,000 litres, is stored on a farm of 4 hectares or more.
1 Summary of decision
1.1
The controls on petrol have been varied in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the Act, the HSNO Regulations, and the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the
Methodology) so that petrol may be handled by a person who is not an approved
handler if the petrol is stored and used at a farm of not less than 4 hectares and the
quantity of petrol stored is less than 2,000 L.
2 Legislative criteria for the application
2.1
The application was lodged by the Chief Executive pursuant to section 63A
following grounds for reassessment having been established under section 62 by
the Authority in its decision dated 2 February 2007.
2.2
Under section 63A, the Authority may, following a finding that there are grounds
for the reassessment of a hazardous substance, conduct a modified reassessment of
the substance.
2.3
According to section 63A(1), such a modified reassessment may be carried out
where the Authority considers that the reassessment will involve only a specific
aspect of the approval and the proposed amendment is not a minor or technical
amendment to which section 67A applies.
2.4
According to section 63A(2), the Authority, as a result of a modified reassessment
under section 63A, may vary the controls that attach to a hazardous substance but
may not revoke an approval given to the substance under the Act to import or
manufacture the substance.
2.5
Pursuant to section 63A(6), in deciding whether to approve or decline an
application for a modified reassessment, the Authority must take into account all
the effects associated with the reassessment proposal and the best international
practices and standards for the safe management of the substance.
2.6
This reassessment decision was determined in accordance with section 63A, taking
into account matters to be considered in that section and matters specified under
Part II of the Act. Unless otherwise stated, references to section numbers in this
decision refer to sections of the Act.
2.7
Consideration of the application also followed the relevant provisions of the
Methodology. Unless otherwise stated, references to clauses in this decision refer to
clauses of the Methodology.
3 Application process
3.1
The application was formally received on 28 March 2007.
3.2
In accordance with sections 53(1) and 53A, and clauses 2(2)(b) and 7, public
notification was made on 28 March 2007.
3.3
Various government departments, Crown entities, other agencies and interested
parties, were notified of the receipt of the application (sections 53(4) and 58(1)(c),
and clauses 2(2)(e) and 5) and provided with an opportunity to comment or make a
public submission on the application.
3.4
Submissions closed on 30 April 2007.
3.5
Submissions were received from the following:





Federated Farmers of New Zealand (“Federated Farmers”).
Taranaki Regional Council.
Rayonier Asia Pacific Forest Resources and the NZ Forest Owners
Association Safety and Environmental Committees (“Rayonier”).
Forest Industry Contractors Association (“FICA”).
Horticulture New Zealand (“HortNZ”).
3.6
Comments were also received from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(“MAF”).
3.7
Federated Farmers supports the proposal indicating that the proposed changes
recognise that the approved handler requirement would have imposed significant
compliance costs in return for little benefit.
3.8
Taranaki Regional Council supports the reassessment proposal and agrees that
there is a need for training in the hazards associated with petrol. The Council also
considers the proposal to be sensible and pragmatic and well-founded in terms of
risks. The Council indicates that there have been no environmental incidents
recorded in the Council’s database involving petrol leaking or being spilt on a farm
in the twenty five years that Council staff have been undertaking farm inspections.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 2 of 10
3.9
Rayonier endorses the application but considers that a definition of a farm should
be provided by the Authority and should include a forest. If this is the case then
the same rules will apply to persons working in a forest.
3.10
FICA’s submission mirrors that of Rayonier suggesting that a farm be defined as to
include a forest and that similar arrangements should be made for the mining
industry.
3.11
MAF supports the reassessment proposal and requests that the revision should also
apply to forests and possibly mines.
3.12
The Committee notes that, since these submissions were made, the Agency has
been advised that the Forest Industries Training & Education Council intends to
revise its code of practice so that workers will be able to readily access the
information they need to become approved handlers.
3.13
The Committee considers that reassessment of the approved handler requirements
for the mining industry is outside the scope of the proposal being considered.
3.14
The Committee notes that Rayonier has withdrawn its request to be heard by the
Committee.
3.15
In its submission, HortNZ suggested that the revision should apply to all farms
irrespective of their size. However, following discussions with the Agency, HortNZ
accepts that this suggestion is outside the scope of the current proposal and has
withdrawn is request to be heard by the Committee.
3.16
As Rayonier and HortNZ have withdrawn their requests to he heard in support of
their submissions a hearing was not required to be held.
3.17
The applicant and the submitters were given the opportunity to comment on the
Summary of Submissions and the Agency’s response to the submissions. As a
result, Rayonier and HortNZ provided further comments and these were placed
before the Committee.
3.18
No external experts were used in the consideration of this application (clause 17).
3.19
The following members of the Authority’s Hearings Committee considered the
application (under delegation under section 19(2)(b)): Professor George Clark
(Chair), Ms Helen Atkins and Dr Kieran Elborough.
3.20
The information available to the Committee comprised:
 the application.
 submissions from Fed Farmers, the Taranaki Regional Council, Rayonier,
FICA and HortNZ.
 comments from MAF.
 the Summary of Submissions.
 comments on the Summary of Submissions from Rayonier and HortNZ.
 advice from the Agency on these comments.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 3 of 10
4 Consideration
Purpose of the application
4.1
To vary the approved handler control where petrol, in quantities less than 2,000
litres, is stored on a farm of 4 hectares or more.
Sequence of the consideration
4.2
In accordance with clause 24, the approach to the consideration adopted by the
Committee was to:
 establish whether it is appropriate to conduct a modified reassessment of petrol
under section 63A..
 identify the controls affected by the reassessment proposal.
 identify and assess the effects associated with the proposal to vary the controls
that attach to petrol.
 identify and assess best international practices and standards for the safe
management of petrol.
 evaluate overall risks, costs, and benefits to reach a conclusion.
 approve the variation to the controls.
The requirements of section 63A
4.3
According to section 63A(1), a modified reassessment may be carried out where the
Authority considers that the reassessment will involve only a specific aspect of the
approval and the proposed amendment is not a minor or technical amendment to
which section 67A applies.
4.4
As the proposal relates to changes to the effects of petrol which are likely to be
more than minor, the Committee is satisfied that the amendment proposal could
not be considered as a minor or technical amendment to which section 67A applies.
4.5
Further, as the reassessment only relates to a specific aspect of the approval of
petrol, the approved handler requirements on farms of 4 hectares or more, the
Committee is satisfied that it can properly be considered under section 63A.
Identification of the controls affected by the reassessment proposal
4.6
The control that is the subject of this reassessment is regulation 56(2) of the
Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to 5 Controls) Regulations 2001.
4.7
Under regulation 56(2) petrol that is required to be under the personal control of an
approved handler may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if –
(a)
where the petrol is being handled, (i)
the person has been trained in the hazards associated with the
substance and its safe use and handling, including steps to be
taken in the event of spillage or other emergency; and
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 4 of 10
(ii)
4.8
The Chief Executive is proposing that regulation 56 should apply to petrol as if
after regulation 56(2) the following is inserted:
(3)
4.9
an approved handler is available to provide assistance, is
necessary, to the person at all times while the substance is being
handled by the person.
Notwithstanding regulation 56(2), petrol required to be under the personal
control of an approved handler may be handled by a person who is not an
approved handler if –
(a)
the petrol is stored and used at a farm of not less than 4 hectares
and the quantity of petrol stored is less than 2,000 L; and
(b)
the person has been trained in the hazards associated with the
substance and its safe use and handling, including steps to be
taken in the event of spillage or other emergency.
The effect of this proposal is that persons will be able to handle petrol on farms of
4 hectares or greater without being an approved handler or having an approved
handler available to provide assistance.
Identification of the effects associated with the proposal to vary the
controls that attach to petrol
4.10
The Committee identified the following effects associated with the reassessment
proposal:



The person handling petrol on farms may not be an approved handler.
The person handling petrol on farms is unlikely to have access to an approved
handler.
Changes in compliance costs for farmers.
Assessment of effects
The person handling petrol on farms may not be an approved handler
4.11
The Committee notes that a person handling petrol not being an approved handler
may result in a lack of awareness of the hazards of the product and the potential for
harm to occur to people and/or the environment.
4.12
However, the Committee notes that, while they would not have to be an approved
handler, persons handling petrol on farms must still be adequately trained. The
need for adequate training is also a requirement of the Health and Safety in
Employment (HSE) legislation. The controls imposed previously as well as the
requirements of the HSE legislation means farmers should already be familiar with
the hazards posed by petrol.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 5 of 10
4.13
The Committee also notes that the need for an approved handler or other
comparable certification was not a feature of the previous legislation. Whilst this is
not, in itself, a justification for the current reassessment proposal to remove the
approved handler requirement, it does, particularly in the absence of any history of
significant accidents involving petrol, suggest that the approved handler
requirement may represent a greater level of management than is necessary in the
circumstances.
4.14
The Committee also notes that there is no history or pattern of serious incidents
involving petrol at farms. The Taranaki Regional Council has not recorded any
incidents and the Agency has been unable to find evidence from the farming sector
and fuel companies indicating that the numbers and frequency of incidents
associated with farmers storing and using petrol is significant.
4.15
The Committee also notes that dispensing petrol at farms is relatively
straightforward and akin to self service at a petrol facility, an activity undertaken
daily by the general public at service stations throughout New Zealand. In the case
of farmers, the quantities of petrol dispensed are relatively small, the operation is
carried out relatively infrequently and the quantity dispensed is normally below the
threshold for an approved handler of 100 litres.
4.16
The Committee also notes that fuel stored at a farm of 4 hectares or more is usually
stored at a remote location away from other potentially sensitive areas and is
unlikely to result in a major incident.
4.17
The Committee also notes that where petrol is stored on a farm, there are other
controls in place to manage quantities up to 2,000 litres, including, for example,
provisions to avoid contamination, separation distances from buildings that are
greater than for other hazardous locations and location test certificate checks for
underground storage tanks. For tanks greater than 2,000 litres it is proposed to
maintain the approved handler control.
The person handling petrol on farms is unlikely to have access to an approved
handler
4.18
The Committee accepts that the need for a person handling petrol on a farm to
contact an approved handler urgently is minimal and there are other readily
available sources for information and advice.
4.19
The Committee notes that, the need to have and approved handler available should
be unnecessary if the person handling the petrol is adequately trained. The need for
such training remains part of the HSNO controls and is also a requirement of the
Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) legislation.
Assessment of costs
4.20
In his application, the Chief Executive has carried out a qualitative analysis of the
effects the reassessment proposal will have on costs associated with handling
petrol.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 6 of 10
4.21
The Committee accepts that implementation of the proposal will:

reduce compliance costs for farmers by removing the costs for obtaining a test
certificate.

reduce compliance and enforcement costs by simplifying the regulatory regime.

have a neutral effect on training costs, as farmers will still be required to be
trained.

represent a loss of potential income for test certifiers.

incur an additional (one off) cost of communicating the change and giving
necessary guidance as required.

have a neutral effect on environmental costs, assuming the farmer is adequately
trained and the fuel storage and use is managed appropriately in accordance
with the other HSNO controls (for example, emergency management plans).
4.22
The Committee also notes that there is a potential for increased costs (including
emergency response, and remediation) in the event of an incident that may not
otherwise have occurred if the farmer was an approved handler. However, the
Committee is satisfied that such an event is unlikely, if there is compliance with
other HSNO controls and other legislation (such as HSE).
4.23
The Committee also notes if the current regulatory requirement is unchanged, and
farmers are faced with becoming an approved handler for petrol, there is the
potential “cost” for fuel deliveries to farms to be stopped where the farmer is not
an approved handler or does not have one available. This is likely to result in
significant disruption to the rural sector, with a flow on effect on the New Zealand
economy.
4.24
Overall, the Committee considers that there will be a reduction in costs
(predominantly as a result of reduced compliance costs to the farmer) as a result of
this reassessment proposal.
Assessment of effects on Māori issues and concerns
4.25
From the information provided, the Committee considers that the reassessment
proposal is unlikely to have an impact on the relationship between Māori culture
and their traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora
and fauna and other taonga. This is on the condition that the substance is stored
and used in accordance with all relevant regulations, conditions, and any other
relevant controls applying under other legislation
Identification and assessment of best international practices
4.26
The Committee notes that best international practices and standards for safe
management of petrol were considered at the time petrol was transferred (April
2004). The controls on petrol were amended accordingly to align with best
international practice.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 7 of 10
4.27
In the UK and Australia, a more recent assessment of current use practices
indicates that the training of staff dispensing petrol at service stations is normally
“on the job” and no formal qualifications are expected. There is no certification
required to confirm the person's competence. Activities such as farming would not
be expected to demand a higher standard of management. Therefore, the current
control that requires farmers to be an approved handler for petrol is considered to
be out of step with international requirements and the reassessment proposal will
more closely align future management of petrol on a farm with best international
practice and safe working practices.
5 Conclusion
5.1
The Committee accepts that there are potential benefits in not requiring persons
handling petrol, in quantities less than 2,000 litres, stored on a farm of 4 hectares or
more, to be approved handlers. These benefits primarily relate to a reduction in
compliance costs for farmers.
5.2
The Committee also considers that the requirement that persons handling petrol be
adequately trained in the hazards associated with the substance and its safe use and
handling, including steps to be taken in the event of spillage or other emergency
will ensure that risks to human health and the environment will be adequately
managed.
5.3
Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied that the risks and costs associated with the
reassessment proposal are negligible and that it is evident that the benefits,
principally a reduction in compliance costs, outweigh the costs of the proposal.
6 Decision
6.1
The Committee determines that:
6.1.1
the application meets the criteria for consideration under section 63A..
6.1.2
having considered all the effects associated with the reassessment proposal
and best international practices and standards for the safe management of
petrol, that the controls on petrol should be varied as set out in paragraph
4.8 above so as to remove the requirement that persons handling petrol in
quantities of less than 2,000 L on farms of 4 hectares or more be
approved handlers.
6.1.3
accordingly, the modified control set out in Appendix 1 shall apply to
petrol.
6.2
In accordance with clause 36(2)(b), the Committee records that, in reaching this
conclusion, it has taken into account the criteria of section 63(6).
6.3
It has also applied the following criteria in the Methodology:
 clause 9 – equivalent of sections 5, 6 and 8;
 clause 11 – characteristics of substance;
 clause 12 – evaluation of assessment of risks;
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 8 of 10










clause 13 – evaluation of assessment of costs and benefits;
clause 14 – costs and benefits accruing to New Zealand;
clause 21 – the decision accords with the requirements and regulations;
clause 22 – the evaluation of risks, costs and benefits – relevant
considerations;
clause 24 – the use of recognised risk identification, assessment, evaluation
and management techniques;
clause 25 – the evaluation of risks;
clause 26 – negligible risks;
clause 33 – risk characteristics;
clause 34 – the aggregation and comparison of risks, costs and benefits; and
clause 35 – the costs and benefits of varying the default controls.
Professor George Clark
Chair
ERMA New Zealand Approval Code:
Date 11 May 2007
HRC000001
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Petrol (unleaded)
Page 9 of 10
APPENDIX 1: MODIFIED CONTROL FOR PETROL
Regulation 56 applies to petrol as if after regulation 56(2) the following is inserted:
(3)
Notwithstanding regulation 56(2), petrol required to be under the personal control of an
approved handler may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if –
(a)
the petrol is stored and used at a farm of not less than 4 hectares and the
quantity of petrol stored is less than 2,000 L; and
(b)
the person has been trained in the hazards associated with the substance
and its safe use and handling, including steps to be taken in the event of
spillage or other emergency.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HRC07001
Page 10 of 10