ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY DECISION
20 August 2008
Application Code
HSR08015
Application Type
To import or manufacture for release any hazardous
substance under Section 28 of the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Act 1996 (“the Act”)
Applicant
Bayer New Zealand Limited
Date Application Received
18 February 2008
Submission Period
6 March 2008 - 21 April 2008
Consideration Date
11 August 208
To be considered by
A Committee of the Authority (“the Committee”)
Purpose of the Application
To import or manufacture Chinosol SL as a fungicide
for the control of Botrytis cinerea in the production of
grapevine grafts (Category A).
1 Summary of decision
1.1
The application to import or manufacture Chinosol SL for release is approved
with controls in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the HSNO
Regulations and the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (“the Methodology”).
1.2
The substance has been given the following unique identifier for the ERMA
New Zealand Hazardous Substances Register:
Chinosol SL
2 Legislative criteria for application
2.1
The application was lodged pursuant to section 28. The decision was determined
in accordance with section 29, taking into account matters to be considered in
that section and additional matters specified under Part II of the Act. Unless
otherwise stated, references to section numbers in this decision refer to sections
of the Act.
2.2
Consideration of the application 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 18 February 2008.
3.2
In accordance with sections 53(1) and 53A, and clauses 2(2) (b) and 7, public
notification was made on 6 March 2008.
3.3
Submissions closed on 21 April 2008.
3.4
Various Government departments, Crown Entities and interested parties,
including the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (Agricultural Compounds and
Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Group), the Ministry of Health and the
Department of Labour Work Place Group, which in the opinion of the Authority
would be likely to have an interest in the application, 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.
3.5
No submissions were received.
3.6
The Agency was commissioned to prepare an Evaluation and Review Report
(“the E&R Report”) to aid the Committee in its decision making process. The
E&R Report consists of the Agency’s review of the application and available
data regarding the substance and/or its constituent components. In the E&R
Report, the Agency proposed a suite of controls considered suitable to manage
the risks associated with the release of Chinosol SL and has assessed the
potential risks the substance may pose to the environment, human health, Māori,
community and to the market economy.
3.7
The ACVM Group, the Ministry of Health, the Department of Labour and the
applicant were given the opportunity to comment on the Agency’s Evaluation
and Review Report (“the E&R Report”) and the controls proposed therein. The
applicant indicated that they did not believe any of the controls to be
impracticable or inappropriate.
3.8
No external experts were used in the consideration of this application (clause
17).
3.9
Due to delays in completing the E&R Report, the Authority, with the applicant’s
consent, postponed the consideration of the application until 6 August 2008.
3.10
The following members of the Authority considered the application (section
19(2) (b)): Ms Helen Atkins (Chair), Dr Deborah Read and Mr Richard Woods.
3.11
The information available to the Committee comprised:
 the application; and
 the E&R Report including confidential appendices (with full
formulation data).
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 2 of 17
4 Consideration
Purpose of the application
4.1
The purpose of the application is to import or manufacture Chinosol SL is
intended for use as a dip for the control of Botrytis cinerea in the production of
grapevine grafts at a maximum rate of 670 ml/100 L water. This use is to be
carried out indoors in stainless steel tanks.
4.2
Chinosol SL contains the systemic fungicidal ingredient 8-hydroxyquinoline
sulphate. The intention of this application is to replace an existing wettable
powder (WP) formulation with that of a soluble liquid (SL) for ease of handling.
Sequence of the consideration
4.3
In accordance with clause 24, the approach to the consideration adopted by the
Committee was to:

establish the hazard classifications for the substances and derive the default
controls that are prescribed under section 77 for each classification.

identify potentially non-negligible risks, costs, and benefits.

assess the potentially non-negligible risks and costs. Risks were assessed
in accordance with clause 12, and costs in accordance with clause 13.

consider the adequacy of the default controls, prescribed under section 77,
and exposure limits alongside the assessment of risks and costs to
determine whether those controls or limits should be varied or set and
identify where additional controls need to be applied, under section 77A, to
mitigate any unacceptable risks.

vary and add controls in accordance with sections 77 and 77A.

undertake a combined consideration of all the risks and costs and
determine whether the combined risks and costs are negligible or nonnegligible. The combined risks and costs for this application were
determined to be negligible.

consider the cost-effectiveness of the application of controls in accordance
with clause 35 and sections 77 and 77A.

determine whether it was evident that the identified potential benefits
outweighed the costs.

confirm and set the controls.

approve or decline the application under section 29 and clause 26
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 3 of 17
Hazard classification
4.4
The Agency has classified Chinosol SL as follows:
Hazardous Property
Chinosol SL
Acute Toxicity (Oral)
Skin Irritancy
Mutagenicity
Aquatic Ecotoxicity
Ecotoxicity to terrestrial
vertebrates
6.1D
6.3B
6.6B (Suspected human mutagen)
9.1C (Harmful to the aquatic environment)
9.3B (Toxic to terrestrial vertebrates)
Default controls
4.5
In the E&R Report, the Agency assigned default controls for Chinosol SL
based on its hazardous properties as set out in the HSNO Regulations. The
default controls were used as a reference for evaluation of the application in the
E&R Report. The default controls are listed in section 8 of the E&R Report and
have not been reproduced here.
Identification of the potentially non-negligible risks, costs and benefits
of the substance
4.6
In its evaluation of Chinosol SL the Agency identified potentially significant,
and therefore non-negligible, risks, costs and benefits associated with the
substance.
Potentially non-negligible risks
4.7
The Agency considers that the risks associated with Chinosol SL potentially
non-negligible relate to the substance’s toxic and ecotoxic properties.
Potentially non-negligible costs
4.8
A “cost” is defined in Regulation 2 of the Methodology as “the value of a
particular adverse effect expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms”.
Accordingly, the costs were assessed in an integrated fashion together with the
risks in the Agency’s assessment.
Potentially non-negligible benefits
4.9
A “benefit” is defined in Regulation 2 of the Methodology as “the value of a
particular positive effect expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms”.
Benefits that may arise from any of the matters set out in clauses 9 and 11 were
considered in terms of clause 13.
4.10
The Committee considers that Chinosol SL will provide the following benefits:

The SL liquid formulation will be less dusty during use than the wettable
powder which is currently available.

It will be easier and safer to mix than the current formulation which in
hydroscopic causing occasional caking.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 4 of 17

4.11
The containers can be recycled in the Agrecovery recycling programme.
Overall, the Committee considers the benefits to be derived from the use of
Chinosol SL are potentially significant.
Assessment of the potentially non-negligible risks and costs of the
substance
4.12
4.13
Taking into account the Agency’s assessment of the potentially non-negligible
risks and costs associated with Chinosol SL in New Zealand, the Committee
considers that the risks to the environment are negligible because:

Spillage during manufacture, importation, transport or storage will be
minimal, as although the substance is harmful to the aquatic environment
and toxic to terrestrial vertebrates, any spill would involve small quantities
which would lead to localised effects only.

It will be applied by dip application in an indoor environment limiting its
potential release into the environment.

Any disposal of surplus Chinosol SL will be according to HSNO
requirements and empty containers may be recycled as part of the
Agrecovery scheme.
Taking into account the Agency’s assessment of the potentially non-negligible
risks and costs associated with Chinosol SL in New Zealand, the Committee
considers that the risks to the human health and safety are negligible because:

Bystanders are not likely to be present at the site of use. The substance is
used as a dip rather than a spray minimising the potential for involuntary
exposure of bystanders.

Use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by users handling the
substance will minimise the potential for exposure to Chinosol SL.

It is highly improbable that a user would accidentally ingest a sufficient
quantity of Chinosol SL for acute oral toxicity to result.

Taking into consideration PPE and identification requirements it is highly
improbable that exposure will occur during disposal resulting in adverse
effects.
4.14
Significant adverse impacts on the relationship of Maori to the environment, the
market economy and to society and the community are not anticipated with the
controlled use of Chinosol SL.
4.15
There is no evidence to suggest that the controlled use of Chinosol SL will
provide significant risks to New Zealand’s international obligations.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 5 of 17
5 Risk reduction implications
5.1
The Committee notes that approval of Chinosol SL will enable the user to use a
liquid formulation rather than the currently registered dustier wettable powder.
The Committee considers that the use of a less dusty formulation reduces the
potential for exposure of users mixing and handling the product and
subsequently reduces risks to human health and safety.
5.2
The Committee notes that in November 2006, the European Commission
decided not to include 8-hydroxyquinoline in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and withdraw authorisations for plant protection products
containing this ingredient1. This substance was excluded as no complete dossier
was submitted within the time limit prescribed by the European Commission.
Therefore it was not demonstrated that, under the proposed conditions of use,
plant protection products containing this ingredient satisfy in general the
requirements laid down in Article 5(1) (a) and (b) of Directive 91/414/EEC.
5.3
The Committee notes that, in specific European members states, certain uses of
8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate are allowed to continue until 31 May 2010. These
uses are as follows:
5.4
5.3.1
France - Vine cuttings application.
5.3.2
Greece - Localised soil disinfection in horticulture and Vine cuttings
application.
5.3.3
Spain - Protection of pruning wounds on woody crops, localised soil
disinfection in horticulture and Vine cuttings application.
Given the decision of the European Commission, the Committee notes that this
active ingredient may be considered for reassessment on the ERMA New
Zealand Reassessment Priority List
6 Controls
1
6.1
A number of variations to the default controls for Chinosol SL were proposed in
the E&R Report in accordance with clause 35 and sections 77 and 77A. These
variations and the setting of exposure limits and applications rates are discussed
below.
6.2
Control T1 relates to the requirement to limit public exposure to toxic
substances by the setting of Tolerable Exposure Limits (TELs), which are
derived from Acceptable Daily Exposure (ADE) values. The Committee notes
that based on the proposed use pattern, Chinosol SL do not contain any
components that meet the requirement of Regulation 11(1) (a). As all three
requirements of Regulation 11 are not met, ADEs are not required to be set for
any components of this substance, and subsequently no TELS are set.
European Commission, 2006. Official Journal of the European Union (2006/797/EC).
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_324/l_32420061123en00080010.pdf
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 6 of 17
6.3
Control T2 relates to the requirement to limit worker exposure to toxic
substances by the setting of Workplace Exposure Standards (WESs).No WES
are set for any components of Chinosol SL at this time.
6.4
Control E1 relates to the requirement to set Environmental Exposure Limits.
Until the Agency has developed formal policy on the implementation of section
77B, the Committee determines that no EEL are set for any component of
Chinosol SL and proposes that the default water EEL be deleted.
6.5
Control E2 relates to setting of maximum application rates for a class 9
substance that is to be sprayed or applied to an area of land (or air or water) and
for which an EEL has been set. As Chinosol SL is not to be applied in this
manner the Committee has deleted this control.
Proposed additional controls
6.6
Under section 77A, the Authority may impose as controls any obligations and
restrictions as the Authority thinks fit. Under section 77A(4), the Authority must
be satisfied that, against any other specified controls that apply to the substance,
(a) the proposed control is more effective in terms of its effect on the
management, use and risks of the substance; or
(b) the proposed control is more cost-effective in terms of its effect on the
management, use and risks of the substance; or
(c) The proposed control is more likely to achieve its purpose.
6.7
The Committee considers that the application of a control prohibiting the
application of Chinosol SL into or onto water will be more effective than the
specified (default) controls in terms of their effect on the management, use and
risks of the substance (section 77A(4)(a)).
6.8
The Committee considers that the application of a control restricting the method
of application of Chinosol SL to that specified on the product labels (i.e. by
immersing root stocks and scions) and specifically prohibiting spray application
of Chinosol SL will be more effective than the specified (default) controls in
terms of their effect on the management, use and risks of the substance (section
77A (4) (a)).
6.9
The Committee notes that the specified controls do not address the risks
associated with stationary container systems, nor do they allow for dispensation
where it is unnecessary for any associated pipework to have secondary
containment. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the application of
controls addressing these risks will be more effective than the specified (default)
controls in terms of their effect on the management, use and risks of the
substance (section 77A(4)(a)). Such controls were applied to pesticides on
transfer to the HSNO regime. The Committee considers that these controls are
similarly appropriate for the management of the risks associated with Chinosol
SL and proposes that the following controls should be applied to the substance:
6.9.1
The controls relating to stationary container systems, as set out in
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 7 of 17
Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 (Supplement to the
New Zealand Gazette, 26 March 2004, No. 35, page 767), as amended,
are proposed for this substance, notwithstanding clause 1(1) of that
schedule.
6.9.2
The Committee considers that the following subclauses should be
added after subclause (3) of regulation 36 of the Hazardous Substances
(Emergency Management) Regulations 20012:
(4) For the purposes of this regulation, and regulations 37 to 40,
where this substance is contained in pipework that is installed and
operated so as to manage any loss of containment in the pipework
it—
(a) is not to be taken into account in determining whether a place
is required to have a secondary containment system; and
(b) is not required to be located in a secondary containment
system.
(5) In this clause, pipework—
(a) means piping that—
(i)
is connected to a stationary container; and
(ii) is used to transfer a hazardous substance into or out of the
stationary container; and
(b) includes a process pipeline or a transfer line.
6.10
Under section 77A(3)(b) a proposed additional control may vary another
specified control if this variation is more cost-effective in terms of its effect on
the risks of the substance (section 77A(4)(b)).
6.10.1
2
Control EM12 relates to the requirements for secondary containment of
pooling substances (Regulations 35 – 41 of the Hazardous Substances
(Emergency Management) Regulations 2001). The Committee
considers that the risks associated with the containment of substances
which are not class 1 to 5 substances (i.e. do not ignite or explode) are
less than those associated with class 1 to 5 substances. Consequently
the Committee considers that the secondary containment requirements
of regulations 37 and 38 can be reduced. The Committee considers that
the reduced secondary containment measures specified below are
adequate to manage the risks of a spillage of Chinosol SL. Therefore,
the additional control, which varies the EM12 control, is more costeffective in terms of managing the risks of the substance.
These sub-clauses were applied to pesticides on transfer to the Act.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 8 of 17
6.10.2
Accordingly, the Committee considers that:

the following subclauses should be added after subclause (1) of
regulation 37 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management)
Regulations 20013:
(2)
If pooling substances that do not have class 1 to 5 hazard
classifications are held in a place above ground in containers
each of which has a capacity of 60 litres or less—
(a) if the place’s total pooling potential is less than 20,000
litres, the secondary containment system must have a
capacity of at least 25% of that total pooling potential:
(b) if the place’s total pooling potential is 20,000 litres or
more, the secondary containment system must have a
capacity of the greater of—
(i)
5% of the total pooling potential; or
(ii) 5,000 litres.
(3)
Pooling substances to which subclause (2) applies must be
segregated where appropriate to ensure that leakage of one
substance may not adversely affect the container of another
substance.
and

the following subclauses should be added after subclause (1) of
regulation 38 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management)
Regulations 20014:
(2)
If pooling substances which do not have class 1 to 5 hazard
classifications are held in a place above ground in containers 1
or more of which have a capacity of more than 60 litres but
none of which have a capacity of more than 450 litres—
(a) if the place’s total pooling potential is less than 20,000
litres, the secondary containment system must have a
capacity of either 25% of that total pooling potential or
110% of the capacity of the largest container, whichever is
the greater:
(b) if the place’s total pooling potential is 20,000 litres or more,
the secondary containment system must have a capacity of
the greater of—
(i)
5% of the total pooling potential; or
3
These sub-clauses were applied to pesticides on transfer to the Act.
4
These sub-clauses were applied to pesticides on transfer to the Act.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 9 of 17
(ii) 5,000 litres
(3)
Pooling substances to which subclause (2) applies must be
segregated where appropriate to ensure that the leakage of one
substance may not adversely affect the container of another
substance.
Proposed modification of controls
6.11
Under section 77, the default controls triggered for the substance may be varied.
Under section 77(3), controls may be substituted or added. Under section 77(4),
controls may be substituted or deleted. Under section 77(5), where a substance
triggers more than one hazard classification, controls may be combined.
6.12
The Committee considers that the following controls may be combined under
section 77(5) for Chinosol SL as they relate to the same requirements:
6.13

Controls T4 and E6 which relate to requirements for equipment used to
handle hazardous substances.

Controls D4 and D5 which relate to requirements for disposal of Chinosol
SL.
The intended use of Chinosol SL is not consistent with the requirements of
control E4. This control is therefore not applicable to Chinosol SL.
7 Overall evaluation of risks and costs
7.1
On the basis of the risk assessment, and taking into account the controls
imposed, including the additional controls set under section 77A, the Committee
considers that Chinosol SL poses negligible risks to the environment and to
human health.
8 Review of controls for cost-effectiveness
8.1
The Committee considers that the proposed controls are the most cost-effective
means of managing the identified potential risks and costs associated with this
application in accordance with clause 35(a) and sections 77 and 77A.
8.2
The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the proposed controls as
set out in the E&R Report (clause 35(b)). In response, the applicant indicated
that they did not believe any of the controls to be impracticable or inappropriate
9 Comparison of risks, cost and benefits
9.1
As the Committee considers that the risks to the environment and human health
are negligible with the controls in place, clause 26 applies and the Committee
may approve the manufacture or import for release of Chinosol SL it is evident
that the benefits associated with the substances outweigh the costs.
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 10 of 17
9.2
As there are potentially non-negligible benefits associated with the import or
manufacture of Chinosol SL, the Committee is satisfied that it is evident that the
benefits associated with the substances outweigh the costs
10 Recommendations
10.1
The Committee recommends that, should inappropriate or accidental use,
transport or disposal of Chinosol SL result in the contamination of waterways,
the appropriate authorities, including the relevant iwi authorities in the region,
should be notified. This action should include advising them of the
contamination and the measures taken in response.
11 Environmental User Charges
11.1
The Committee considers that the application of controls to Chinosol SL will
provide an effective means of managing risks associated with this substance. At
this time no consideration has been given to whether or not environmental
charges should be applied to this substance as an alternative or additional means
of achieving effective risk management.
12 Decision
12.1
The Committee determines that Chinosol SL should be classified as follows:
• 6.1D acute toxicity
• 6.3B skin irritation
• 6.6B mutagenicity
• 9.1C aquatic toxicity
• 9.4B terrestrial invertebrate ecotoxicity.
12.2
Pursuant to section 29 and clause 26, the positive effects (benefits) of the
substance outweigh the adverse effects (risks and costs).
12.3
The application for importation or manufacture and release of the hazardous
substance Chinosol SL, is thus approved with controls as listed in Appendix 1.
12.4
In accordance with clause 36(2) (b), the Committee records that, in reaching this
conclusion, it has applied the balancing tests in section 29 and clause 26.
12.5
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;
 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;
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 11 of 17





clause 24 – the use of recognised risk identification, assessment,
evaluation and management techniques;
clause 25 – the evaluation of 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.
signed
Helen Atkins
Date:
Chair
ERMA Approval Code
HSR007962
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
20 August 2008
Page 12 of 17
APPENDIX 1: CONTROLS FOR CHINOSOL SL
Note: The control explanations as listed below have been provided as guidance only and do
not have legal standing. Please refer to the regulations for the requirements prescribed for
each control and the modifications listed set out in section 5 of this document.
Table A5.1: Controls for Chinosol SL– codes, regulations and variations
Control Regulation6 Topic
Variations
Code5
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001
T1
11-27
Limiting exposure to toxic
No ADE or TEL values are required
substances
to be set for Chinosol SL.
T2
29, 30
Controlling exposure in places of
No WES is set for any components of
work
Chinosol SL at this time.
T4/E6
7
Requirements for equipment used to Controls T4 and E6 are combined.
handle hazardous substances
T5
8
Requirements for protective clothing
and equipment
T7
10
Restrictions on the carriage of
hazardous substances on passenger
service vehicles
E1
32-45
Limiting exposure to ecotoxic
No EEL values are set at this time for
substances
Chinosol SL and the default EELs are
deleted.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001
I1
6, 7, 32-35,
36 (1)-(7)
General identification requirements
Regulation 6 – Identification duties
of suppliers
Regulation 7 – Identification duties
of persons in charge
Regulations 32 and 33 –
Accessibility of information
I3
9
I8
14
I9
18
Regulations 34, 35, 36(1)-(7) –
Comprehensibility, Clarity and
Durability of information
Priority identifiers for ecotoxic
substances
Priority identifiers for toxic
substances
Secondary identifiers for all
hazardous substances
Note: The numbering system used in this column relates to the coding system used in the ERMA New Zealand
Controls Matrix. This links the hazard classification categories to the regulatory controls triggered by each
category. It is available from the ERMA New Zealand website www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources and is also
contained in the ERMA New Zealand User Guide to the HSNO Control Regulations.
6
These Regulations form the controls applicable to this substance. Refer to the cited Regulations for the formal
specification, and for definitions and exemptions. The accompanying explanation is intended for guidance only .
5
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 13 of 17
Control
Code5
I11
Regulation6
Topic
20
I16
25
I17
I18
I19
26
27
29-31
Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic
substances
Secondary identifiers for toxic
substances
Use of Generic Names
Use of Concentration Ranges
Alternative information in certain
cases
Variations
Regulation 29 – Substances in fixed
bulk containers or bulk transport
containers
Regulation 30 – Substances in
multiple packaging
I20
36(8)
I21
37-39, 47-50
Regulation 31 – Alternative
information when substances are
imported
Durability of information for class
6.1 substances
Documentation required in places of
work
Regulation 37 – Documentation
duties of suppliers
Regulation 38 – Documentation
duties of persons in charge of places
of work
Regulation 39 – General content
requirements for documentation
Regulation 47 – Information not
included in approval
Regulation 48 – Location and
presentation requirements for
documentation
Regulation 49 – Documentation
requirements for vehicles
I23
41
I28
46
I29
51-52
I30
53
Regulation 50 – Documentation to
be supplied on request
Specific documentation requirements
for ecotoxic substances
Specific documentation requirements
for toxic substances
Duties of persons in charge of places
with respect to signage
Advertising corrosive and toxic
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 14 of 17
Control
Code5
Regulation6
Topic
Variations
substances
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
P1
5, 6, 7 (1), 8 General packaging requirements
Regulation 5 – Ability to retain
contents
Regulation 6 – Packaging markings
Regulation 7(1) – Requirements
when packing hazardous substance
Regulation 8 – Compatibility
Regulation 9A and 9B – Large
Packaging
P3
Packaging requirements for
substances packed in limited
quantities
P13
19
Packaging requirements for Chinosol
SL
PS4
Schedule 4
This schedule describes the
minimum packaging requirements
that must be complied with when a
substance is packaged in limited
quantities
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
D4
8
Disposal requirements for
D5
9
[Substance]
D6
D7
D8
9
Regulations 19(2) and 19(3) only
apply.
Controls D4 and D5 are combined
10
11, 12
13, 14
Disposal requirements for packages
Disposal information requirements
Disposal documentation
requirements
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001
EM1
6, 7, 9-11
Level 1 emergency management
information: General requirements
EM6
8(e)
Information requirements for toxic
substances
EM7
8(f)
Information requirements for
ecotoxic substances
EM8
12-16, 18-20 Level 2 emergency management
documentation requirements
EM11
25-34
Level 3 emergency management
requirements – emergency response
plans
EM12
35-41
Level 3 emergency management
The following subclauses shall be
requirements – secondary
added after subclause (3) of
containment
regulation 36:
(4)
For the purposes of this
regulation, and regulations 37 to 40,
where this substance is contained in
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 15 of 17
Control
Code5
Regulation6
Topic
Variations
pipework that is installed and
operated so as to manage any loss of
containment in the pipework it—
(a) is not to be taken into account
in determining whether a
place is required to have a
secondary containment
system; and
(b) is not required to be located in
a secondary containment
system.
(5)
In this clause, pipework—
(a) means piping that—
(i) is connected to a stationary
container; and
(ii) is used to transfer a hazardous
substance into or out of the
stationary container; and
(b) includes a process
pipeline or a transfer line.
The following subclauses are added at
the end of regulation 37:
(2) If pooling substances which do
not have class 1 to 5 hazard
classifications are held in a place
above ground in containers each
of which has a capacity of 60
litres or less—
(a if the place’s total pooling
potential is less than 20,000
litres, the secondary
containment system must have
a capacity of at least 25% of
that total pooling potential:
(b) if the place’s total pooling
potential is 20,000 litres or
more, the secondary
containment system must have
a capacity of the greater of—
(i) 5% of the total pooling
potential; or
(ii) 5,000 litres.
(3) Pooling substances to which
subclause (2) applies must be
segregated where appropriate to
ensure that leakage of one
substance may not adversely
affect the container of another
substance.
The following subclauses are added at
the end of regulation 38:
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 16 of 17
Control
Code5
Regulation6
Topic
Variations
(2) If pooling substances which do
not have class 1 to 5 hazard
classifications are held in a place
above ground in containers 1 or
more of which have a capacity of
more than 60 litres but none of
which have a capacity of more
than 450 litres—
(a) if the place’s total pooling
potential is less than 20,000
litres, the secondary
containment system must have
a capacity of either 25% of
that total pooling potential or
110% of the capacity of the
largest container, whichever is
the greater:
(b) if the place’s total pooling
potential is 20,000 litres or
more, the secondary
containment system must have
a capacity of the greater of—
(i) 5% of the total pooling
potential; or
(ii) 5,000 litres
(3)
Pooling substances to which
subclause (2) applies must be
segregated where appropriate to
ensure that the leakage of one
substance may not adversely affect
the container of another substance.
EM13
42
Level 3 emergency management
requirements – signage
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagons and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004
Regulations 4 to 43
The Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagons and Transportable Containers)
where applicable
Regulations 2004 prescribe a number of controls relating to tank wagons and
transportable containers and must be complied with as relevant.
Section 77A Additional Controls
The controls relating to stationary container systems as set out in Schedule 8 of the Hazardous
Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 (Supplement to
the New Zealand Gazette, 26 March 2004, No. 35, page 767), as amended, shall apply to this substance,
notwithstanding clause 1(1) of Schedule 8.
Addition of subclauses after subclause (3) of Regulation 36 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency
Management Controls) Regulations 2001 (control EM12).
Addition of clauses after Regulation 37 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management
Controls) Regulations 2001 (control EM12).
Addition of clauses after Regulation 38 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management
Controls) Regulations 2001 (control EM12).
The method of application of Chinosol SL shall be limited to that stated on the product label, i.e. by
immersing root stocks and scions. Chinosol SL is not to be sprayed
Chinosol SL shall not be applied into or onto water
ERMA New Zealand Decision: Application HSR08015
Page 17 of 17