submissions relating to group standards

(1)

Implementation of GHS 7

Analysis of the

submissions relating to group standards

OCTOBER 2020

(2)

Analysis of the submissions relating to group standards

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) consulted on the intention to adopt the Globally

Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, Revision 7 (GHS 7) in October 2019.

The EPA followed up with a second consultation between June and August 2020 that identified the requirements of adopting GHS 7. The adoption of GHS 7 will require updates to the EPA notices and all existing approvals and group standards.

This document contains a summary of relevant comments from submitters regarding the proposal to update the group standards to incorporate GHS 7, the EPA responses and recommendations to those comments, and appendices containing verbatim comments from submitters. This information was provided to a decision making committee to inform their decision to issue a new set of group standards that incorporates GHS 7.

We have decided to release this document at this point in the interest of transparency to ensure the EPA’s advice to the decision making committee is made public prior to the decision, expected to be early October 2020.

This document will be removed once the completed submission analysis report and the full submissions are released, which will contain the same content.

The submitters’ responses to each question and the EPA’s recommendations are summarised in Table 1. A list of the group standards which have been updated as a result of submitters’ responses and internal identification of errors is provided in Table 2.

The verbatim comments from the submitters regarding the group standards are in Appendices 1 and 2.

Updated versions of the group standards listed in Table 2 are also available on the EPA website. These versions have updated EPA branding but, other than the changes made as a result of submissions, are materially the same as the group standards included in the June 2020 consultation.

(4)

Table 1: EPA Response to Submissions

Proposal/Question Submitter responses EPA response and recommendation

Do you have any comments regarding the list of proposed GHS 7 classifications included in the scope section of any group standard?

One submitter suggested the addition of the classification

“designed for biocidal action” for the “Active Ingredients for Use in the Manufacture of Agricultural Compounds” group standard.

The EPA made a deliberate decision to not add “designed for biocidal action” to this group standard on the basis that the active ingredients themselves are not released directly into the environment. Rather, it is the formulated products that are used in the environment, and the classification “designed for biocidal action” will be added to these products if it is warranted.

One submitter requested that the Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards be expanded in scope to include gases that are single chemicals and not mixtures.

The EPA notes that this matter is outside the scope of the current proposal to implement GHS 7. Allowing single component gases into the Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards is a policy change that needs to be further investigated and consulted on as a separate matter.

One submitter noted that although the Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards mention that the substances need to be gases under pressure, they do not specifically list the four gases under pressure hazard classifications being adopted by the EPA. They recommend that these hazard classifications be specifically listed in the scope of these group standards as they are mandatory hazards.

The EPA agrees with this submitter and has amended Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards accordingly.

Two submitters noted that people may have trouble

assigning the correct GHS skin corrosive classification based on safety data sheet (SDS) information, especially in cases where a substance was assigned a skin corrosive Category 1 with no breakdown into 1A, 1B or 1C. These submitters were concerned that a straight mapping exercise could result in NZ having different GHS classifications for skin corrosives

The EPA notes that the GHS classifications skin corrosive Categories 1A, 1B and 1C directly map to the current HSNO classifications of 8.2A, 8.2B and 8.2C respectively. Further skin corrosive Categories 1A, 1B and 1C directly map to UN Packing Groups I, II and III respectively in the same way that 8.2A, 8.2B and 8.2C directly map to UN Packing Groups I, II and III respectively. Therefore there should be no new difficulties in assigning corrosive classifications under the GHS classification system than under the current HSNO classification system. Further, the EPA is not aware of

(5)

Proposal/Question Submitter responses EPA response and recommendation than overseas jurisdictions such as the European Union if

they are based on different classification criteria.

any regulator that assigns skin corrosive Category 1 with no breakdown into 1A, 1B or 1C.

One submitter requested further information regarding whether labels will need to differ from Australia with the inclusion of the terrestrial ecotoxicity hazard classifications.

The EPA notes that the Hazardous Substances Labelling Notice 2017 includes an alternative compliance provision (clause 31) for some jurisdictions including Australia. However, this alternative compliance provision only covers certain labelling requirements (refer clause 31(1)), and ALL labels (including those on substances from the nominated overseas jurisdictions) need to include some New Zealand specific label information. This additional information includes information on terrestrial ecotoxicity hazards.

One submitter recommended that aerosol Category 3 should be an optional hazard classification for the Cosmetic Products Group Standard.

The EPA agrees with this and has amended this group standard accordingly.

Submitter comments regarding any of the proposed name changes of any group standard

Three submitters requested that the group standards include the approval number as part of their name, especially on the EPA website to aid searching.

The EPA agree this would provide useful information for stakeholders and will ensure the approval number is included in the name of each group standard in the website search list.

One submitter suggested that any embalming product group standard that allows for carcinogenic hazards within their scope should include the term “carcinogenic” in the name of all the relevant group standards.

The EPA notes that as a rule, the name of group standards reflect the mandatory primary hazards (“must include”) in the group standard. In the case of many of the embalming products group standards, the

carcinogenic hazard classifications included in their scope are optional subsidiary hazards (“may include”) and therefore the term “carcinogenic”

is not included in their name.

Two submitters suggested including the specific GHS Category (including their number) for each hazard

classification in the name of the group standards to clarify the

The EPA considers users should not be using the name of the group standard to determine whether a substance can be covered by that particular group standard. Users need to check the scope of the group

(6)

particular group standard. The scope also contains other information that does not directly relate to the hazard classifications of the substance, such as exclusions.

One submitter suggested renaming the Dental Products (Oxidising Liquids and Solids) Group Standard to Dental Products (Oxidising) Group Standard for ease of reference.

The EPA does not agree with this name change, as the group standard does not include oxidising gases. The EPA therefore recommends maintaining the change as proposed in the consultation document.

Submitter comments regarding any of the proposed changes to the definitions in any group standard

No submitters commented on any proposed changes to definitions.

The EPA recommends maintaining the changes proposed in the consultation document.

One submitter noted in response to this question that they had made a general comment regarding aspiration hazards later in their overall submission.

The EPA notes this comment is not specific to group standards and is therefore, outside the scope of this particular discussion.

Submitter comments regarding the proposal to add aerosol Category 3 as a mandatory primary hazard to the “non- flammable aerosol” group standards

Four submitters agreed with the proposal, with no submitters disagreeing.

The EPA recommends maintaining the change as proposed in the consultation document.

Two submitters correctly identified that the difference in the definition of aerosols between HSNO and GHS 7 means that mapping aerosol classifications from HSNO to GHS 7 is not straightforward.

Under HSNO, there is only one classification for aerosols, 2.1.2 A. This classification is triggered when the aerosol contains greater than 45% of flammable components. The flammable aerosol group standards require the 2.1.2A hazard classification, while the “non-flammable aerosol” group standards only require the substance to be an aerosol.

Under GHS 7, there are three aerosol classifications, Category 1 and Category 2, which are both defined as flammable, and Category 3, which is defined as non-flammable. The flammable aerosol group standards require the aerosol Category 1 or Category 2 hazard classifications while the “non-flammable aerosol” group standards require the aerosol Category 3 hazard classification.

The threshold required to trigger GHS 7 aerosol Category 1 or Category 2 is greater than or equal to 1% of flammable components. This threshold is

(7)

significantly lower than the threshold of 45% for the HSNO classification 2.1.2A. Due to this difference, some substances which were previously correctly assigned to the “non-flammable aerosol” group standards will, going forward, be classified as Category 1 or Category 2 and will therefore be required to be assigned to the flammable aerosol group standards.

The EPA acknowledges that, after GHS implementation, some aerosols will be covered by a different group standard than they are currently. The EPA will provide guidance to importers and manufacturers to assist the re- classification and re–assignment of aerosols to the correct group standard.

The EPA notes that there will be a four year transitional period to make any required changes to the labelling or safety data sheets of affected substances.

Submitter comments regarding the proposed amendment to the

“Gases Under Pressure Mixtures” group standards to clarify that these group

standards apply to “gases under pressure” as defined in the Act

One submitter agreed with this proposal. However, one submitter noted that the four gases under pressure

classifications were not specifically listed in the scope of the Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards, and requested that the wording of the scope be modified to list them.

The EPA notes that the scope of these group standards state that a substance covered by that group standard must be a “gas under pressure”, a term defined in the HSNO Act as including the four

classifications (compressed gas, liquefied gas, refrigerated liquefied gas, and dissolved gas).

However, we agree that listing the four specific gases under pressure classifications would be useful to users of these group standards. We therefore propose to amend the wording in the scope of Gases Under Pressure Mixtures group standards to list the four gases under pressure classifications.

(8)

Proposal/Question Submitter responses EPA response and recommendation Submitter comments regarding

the proposal to add the

classifications “hazardous to soil organisms”, “hazardous to terrestrial vertebrates” and

“hazardous to terrestrial invertebrates” to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards

Seven submitters supported this proposal with no submitters disagreeing.

One submitter suggested that the three hazard classifications were too broad and could be further broken down to provide more information to users.

The EPA notes that this suggestion is out of scope of the group standard decision making process, but has been taken into account in other aspects of the consultation process.

One submitter requested further information regarding whether labels will need to differ from Australia with the inclusion of the terrestrial ecotoxicity hazard classifications.

The EPA notes that the Hazardous Substances Labelling Notice 2017 includes an alternative compliance provision (clause 31) for some jurisdictions including Australia. However, this alternative compliance provision only covers certain labelling requirements (refer clause 31(1)), and ALL labels (including those on substances from the nominated overseas jurisdictions) need to include some New Zealand specific label information. This additional information includes information on terrestrial ecotoxicity hazards.

Submitter comments regarding the proposal to add the classification “designed for biocidal action” to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards

Five submitters supported the proposal The EPA recommends maintaining the change as proposed in the consultation document.

One submitter noted that the definition of agrichemical in NZS 8409—2004 includes "a detergent or sanitizer used in an agricultural context" and queried how this related to the classification “designed for biocidal action”.

The EPA notes that the definition of agrichemical in the EPA Hazardous Substances Hazard Classification Notice is independent of the definition of agrichemical in NZS 8409—2004 standard. The definition of

agrichemical in the Hazard Classification Notice does not include detergent or sanitizers.

Given the classification “designed for biocidal action” is restricted to agrichemicals, detergent or sanitizers will not be assigned this classification.

(9)

Proposal/Question Submitter responses EPA response and recommendation One submitter considered that the “designed for biocidal

action” classification should be removed, especially for relatively “benign” substances such as plant growth regulators that do not have other ecotoxicity classifications.

The EPA acknowledges this submitter’s comments, but we also acknowledge that there are minimal default controls associated with the classification “designed for biocidal action”. However, the benefit of assigning this classification to agrichemicals (including plant growth regulators) that are not intrinsically ecotoxic is that it gives the EPA an opportunity to assess the nature of any environmental risks and apply additional controls if necessary.

Submitter comments regarding the proposal to add metallic corrosive Category 1 as an optional primary hazard in corrosive group standards

Eight submitters supported this proposal. The EPA recommends maintaining the change as proposed in the consultation document.

One submitter suggested adding the metallic corrosive Category 1 hazard classification to all group standards as a subsidiary hazard, as is the case with the eye corrosive Category 1 hazard classification.

The EPA considered adding the metallic corrosive Category 1 hazard classification to all group standards as a subsidiary hazard but rejected this option on the basis that metallic corrosive Category 1 requires UN Packing Group III, which is the same packing group required for skin corrosion Category 1C. Eye corrosive Category 1 is considered a less significant hazard and does not require UN Packing Group III. On balance, we considered it was more appropriate that metallic corrosive Category 1 be classed as an optional primary hazard, in the same manner as skin corrosion Category 1C.

Submitter comments regarding the proposal to add the sales restriction clause back into the Gas Under Pressure Mixtures (Toxic [6.1], Flammable,

Corrosive) Group Standard 2017 (HSR002539)

No submitters made substantial comments regarding this proposal while two agreed with it.

(10)

Proposal/Question Submitter responses EPA response and recommendation Submitter comments regarding

the proposal to correct the cross- referencing error in clause 1 (3) in Schedule 1 of the Dental Products (Subsidiary Hazard) Group Standard 2017 (HSR002558)

No submitters made substantial comments regarding this proposal while one agreed with it.

Other submitter comments regarding group standards

Two submitters noted that the definition of aerosols have an upper limit of 1000 mL and enquired if that limit could be increased.

The EPA notes that changing the capacity limit of aerosol dispensers covered by the aerosol group standards is outside the scope of this work to apply the new classification system. Importers or manufacturers of any aerosol greater than 1000 mL capacity will need to approach the EPA for a Part 5 approval. Any change to this is a policy matter and will need to be consulted on as a separate matter. Of note is that the upper limit of 1000 mL is designed to be consistent with the standard AS 2278.1—

2008 “Aerosol containers Metal aerosol dispensers of capacity 50 mL to 1000 mL inclusive”, which is referred to under Health and Safety at Work legislation (reg 15.25 of Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous

Substances) Regulations 2017).

A submitter identified a typographical error in the header of the Cleaning Products (Subsidiary Hazard) Group Standard.

The EPA notes that following the re-branding of the group standards onto a new template, this typographical error is no longer present.

A number of additional typographical or minor errors within the group standards were identified internally during the consultation period

These errors have been corrected in the relevant group standards (See Table 2)

Submitters requesting hearing Two submitters requested a hearing, and subsequently withdrew their request.

The EPA contacted both these submitters to discuss and better understand their concerns. Following these discussions, the EPA proposed a course of action that addressed these submitters’ main concerns such that they withdrew their request for a hearing.

(11)

Table 2: Group standards that have been updated post- consultation

As a result of matters raised during consultation, and errors (primarily typographical) identified by the EPA, we are proposing to make changes to the following 17 group standards.

Group standard Reason for change Change Aerosols Flammable Carcinogenic Group

Standard

Typographical Removal of the word “flammable” from the hazard classifications “aerosol Category 1” and

“aerosol Category 2” as listed in the scope of this group standard.

Aerosols Flammable Corrosive Group Standard

Typographical Removal of the word “flammable” from the hazard classifications “aerosol Category 1” and

“aerosol Category 2” as listed in the scope of this group standard

Aerosols Flammable Group Standard Typographical Removal of the word “flammable” from the hazard classifications “aerosol Category 1” and

Cosmetic Products Group Standard Typographical Removal of the word “flammable” from the hazard classifications “aerosol Category 1” and

As a result of consultation

Addition of subsidiary classification “aerosol Category 3”

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Acutely Toxic Corrosive Group Standard

Addition of the four mandatory gases under pressure hazard classifications

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Acutely Toxic Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Flammable Acutely Toxic Corrosive Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Flammable Acutely Toxic Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Flammable Group Standard

(12)

Group standard Reason for change Change Gases Under Pressure Mixtures

Oxidising Gases Acutely Toxic Corrosive Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Oxidising Gases Acutely Toxic Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Oxidising Gases Group Standard

Gases Under Pressure Mixtures Subsidiary Hazard Group Standard

Internally identified error

Removal of the optional hazard

“carcinogenicity Category 1 or Category 2”

from the list of subsidiary hazards. The inclusion of this optional hazard was a transcription error that was introduced when this group standard was amended to apply GHS classifications.

NOS Acutely Toxic Carcinogenic Group Standard

Typographical Correct excluded substance “gas under pressure” to “gases under pressure” and remove the definition of “gas under pressure”

NOS Acutely Toxic Corrosive Carcinogenic Group Standard

Typographical Correct excluded substance “gas under pressure” to “gases under pressure” and remove the definition of “gas under pressure”

NOS Corrosive Group Standard Typographical Correct excluded substance “gas under pressure” to “gases under pressure” and remove the definition of “gas under pressure”

NOS Subsidiary Hazard Group Standard Typographical Correct excluded substance “gas under pressure” to “gases under pressure” and remove the definition of “gas under pressure”

(13)

Appendix 1. Submitter responses on the proposed changes to Group Standards

The following tables show all comments relating to Questions 4 – 15 of the consultation document, which relate to changes to the group standards.

Proposal 3 – Proposed changes to group standards (Questions 4-15)

Question 4 - Do you have any comments regarding the list of proposed GHS 7 classifications included in the scope section of any group standard?

Submitter Number

Submitter Name Submitter Comment

6 Greater Wellington

Regional Council

We support adding the classification ‘designed for biocidal action’ to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards but note that it has not been included in the Group Standard ‘Active Ingredients for Use in the Manufacture of Agricultural Compounds’, which could encompass some active ingredients of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides etc.

7 Chemsafety Ltd

Is there a group standard that covers non-hazardous gases under pressure mixes. Is there a possibility that single gases under pressure that do not have an approval (whether hazardous or not) will be missed as the gases under pressure mixtures require two or more gases.

13 Fire and Emergency New Zealand

See Appendix 2.

15 Technical Compliance Consultants Ltd

No Issue.

18 SMoses Consulting Ltd

As per my previous comment regarding skin corrosives, there could be issues with companies trying to assign products to corrosive group standards where the overseas SDS states skin corrosive Cat 1, or skin corrosive Cat 1A, as they will not fit the scope, even though the product is a packing group II or III. There may need to be an additional comment under the scope section of group standards covering corrosives that mentions packing group.

(14)

25 [Redacted] [REDACTED] supports updating all approvals with GHS 7 and strongly recommends that it is done in a manner that avoids any product displacement in terms of continued lawful entry.

26 Yates New Zealand

Inclusion of ‘hazardous to soil organisms/terrestrial vertebrates/terrestrial invertebrates’ classifications. In general, we support the simplification of these classifications (old 9.2 / 9.3 / 9.4). The challenge however is that as an ANZ

manufacturer and supplier of products we would need to have separate packaging for the NZ market to incorporate the additional warning statements and pictograms that are not required for Australian market, adding complexity and cost.

Additionally as home garden pack sizes and labels are generally quite small, our preference would be to not have these statements and pictograms on our ANZ labels. Can consideration be given to removing the requirement for pictograms, while still retaining the warning statements on products?

28 Accord Australasia

Cosmetic Products Group Standard The Aerosol Category 3 (non-flammable) classification should be included in the scope. This will allow cosmetic products that are non-flammable aerosols such as shave gels and spray-on moisturisers to be assigned to this.

33 Responsible Care NZ

As per previous comment regarding skin corrosives, there could be issues with companies trying to assign products to corrosive group standards where the overseas SDS states skin corrosive Cat 1, or skin corrosive Cat 1A, as they will not fit the scope, even though the product is a packing group II or III. There may need to be an additional comment under the scope section of group standards covering corrosives that mentions packing group. NZ industry has worked extremely well with the alignment of PGs and HSNO sub-classes, and this is set to change, which will require significant

downstream re-thinking during classification, and applying controls in the work space.

(15)

Question 5 - Do you have any comments regarding any of the proposed name changes of any group standard?

7 Chemsafety Ltd Not a name change, but note that the Embalming products acutely toxic, corrosive group standard does permit carcinogenic hazards (such as formalin) but carcinogenic is not reflected in the name, this is an inconsistency.

No Issue.

With the Toxic 6.1 group standards some companies have incorrectly assigned 6.1D and 6.1E substances to these as they haven’t understood the scope. It may be beneficial given the name change to include Cat 2 and 3 in the name (most Group Standards don’t include 6.1A or Cat 1), i.e. Acutely Toxic Cat 2 & 3 rather than just Acutely Toxic to help avoid misassignment.

20 [Redacted]

According to 2020 Proposed Group Standards, HSNO numbers are still included in the document title. We suggest to keep the HSNO numbers on the searching page as well to enable easy and efficient search.

https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consultations/open-consultations/ghs-implementation-consultation-2/proposed-group- standards/

21 Interchem Agencies Ltd We prefer the group standard name to include the Approval number as they currently have.

28 Accord Australasia

The name of The Dental Products (Oxidising Liquids and Solids) Group Standard could be simplified to Dental Products (Oxidising) Group Standard for ease of reference.

The HSNO approval numbers should be retained in The titles visible on The search page to simplify searching, particularly where categories have a number of Group Standards available.

31 New Zealand Food and We do not have issues with the title changes.

(16)

With the Toxic 6.1 group standards some companies have incorrectly assigned 6.1D and 6.1E substances to these as they haven’t understood the scope. It may be beneficial given the name change to include Cat 2 and 3 in the name (most Group Standards don’t include 6.1A or Cat 1), i.e. Acutely Toxic Cat 2 & 3 rather than just Acutely Toxic to help avoid misassignment.

Question 6 - Do you have any comments regarding any of the proposed changes to the definitions in any group standard?

No Issue.

31 New Zealand Food and Grocery Council

We have not so far identified any issues.

33 Responsible Care NZ A general comment regarding ‘Aspiration Hazard’ introduction across the transition process is placed in the summary points field at the end of this submission.

(17)

Question 7 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to add aerosol Category 3 as a mandatory primary hazard to the “non-flammable aerosol” group standards?

3 [Redacted] We needed this as to align with our major trading partners.

7 Chemsafety Ltd It is an idea that makes sense. Can something similar be done for gases under pressure that are non-hazardous.

No Issue.

The mapping of aerosols from HSNO to GHS is not straightforward. Aerosols under GHS are categorised differently to HSNO. Under HSNO we only have one category for aerosols, flammable aerosol 2.1.2A which only applies where 45% or more of the ingredients are flammable. Under GHS there are 3 different categories that consider not only the percentage of flammable components (≥85%, >1% and ≤1%) but also the heat of combustion. The result of this is that a proportion of GHS Cat 2 aerosols containing less than 45% of flammable ingredients would not have been captured as flammable aerosols under HSNO and would be classed as non-flammable aerosols and would therefore be Cat 3 under this proposal.

If all aerosols with a current 2.1.2A classification are now assigned Cat 1, and all aerosols with less than 45% of flammable ingredients are to be assigned a Cat 3 this will put us grossly out of sync with the GHS aerosol classifications. The reality is that some of our 2.1.2A products will fit GHS Aerosol Cat 2 and some of our non-flammable aerosols will also meet Cat 2 criteria.

23 Department of

Conservation

Appears to be consistent with GHS 7.

24 Chemie-Tech Limited Agree.

We have not been advised of any issues with the proposed change.

(18)

The mapping of aerosols from HSNO to GHS is not straightforward. Aerosols under GHS are categorised differently to HSNO. Under HSNO there is one category for aerosols, flammable aerosol 2.1.2A which only applies where 45% or more of the ingredients are flammable. Under GHS there are 3 different categories that consider not only the percentage of flammable components (≥85%, >1% and ≤1%) but also the heat of combustion with thresholds of 20 kJ/g and 30 kJ/g. The result of this is that a proportion of GHS Cat 2 aerosols containing less than 45% of flammable ingredients would not have been captured as flammable aerosols under HSNO and would be classed as non-flammable aerosols and would therefore be Cat 3 under this proposal. If all aerosols with a current 2.1.2A classification are now mapped across / assigned to Cat 1, and all aerosols with less than 45% of flammable ingredients are to be assigned a Cat 3 this will put us grossly out of sync with the GHS aerosol classifications. The reality is that some of our 2.1.2A products will fit GHS Aerosol Cat 2 and some of our non-flammable aerosols will also meet Cat 2 criteria.

More work is required at individual substance level before this transition can proceed, as this must be correct and accurate. We must get it right the very first time as this transition will have a significant impact on the workplace. There is considerable Compliance Certification in the Aerosol space, and as such will require remedial training to ensure the significant change that will result will be well understood at the outset. The looming re-writing of the Hazardous Substance Regulations to align with the new GHS framework will also have a definite knock-on effect in many areas including Aerosols, and as such any technical error with Aerosol classification placement has potential for significant and

unnecessary industry upheaval. This will go on to create unnecessary expense, and frustration elevated further than it is already, with the continuous changes inflicted since the inception of the Pike River Task Force and subsequent Statutory and Regulatory changes. Just saying… :-) Hey we are just the Messenger here!!

(19)

Question 8 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposed amendment to the “Gases Under Pressure

Mixtures” group standards to clarify that these group standards apply to “gases under pressure” as defined in the Act?

No Issue.

23 Department of

Conservation -

No, if the definition as defined in the act is consistent with the intention of GHS 7 and ensures appropriate controls are applied.

24 Chemie-Tech Limited Agree.

We have not been advised of any issues with the proposed change.

33 Responsible Care NZ Clarification is required for surety.

Question 9 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to add the classifications “hazardous to soil

organisms”, “hazardous to terrestrial vertebrates” and “hazardous to terrestrial invertebrates” to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards?

6

Greater Wellington Regional Council

We support adding the classifications "hazardous to soil organisms", "hazardous to terrestrial vertebrates" and "hazardous to terrestrial invertebrates" to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards. These classifications are more informative than the previous classification of ‘ecotoxicity’, and we would rather see specific detail in this category.

No Issue.

(20)

23

Department of Conservation

I support the proposal to add the above ecotoxicity classifications which are missing in GHS 7, as it will improve environmental hazard awareness and management. However, the proposed terrestrial ecotoxicity hazard categories consolidate current categories which range from very ecotoxic to slightly harmful so consequently there is a loss of information available to the user who may not be aware that the category includes substances with a potential for a high degree of off target impact. Substances hazardous to aquatic environments are either acute or chronic and are classified into a range of hazard classes. A similar system could be used for terrestrial environmental hazards. Current characteristics of hazard classes such as very ecotoxic and ecotoxic could be used as a basis for subclasses and ensure that controls are consistent for individual terrestrial ecotoxic substances.

24 Chemie-Tech Limited Agree with the proposal.

26

Yates New Zealand Similar response as to Question 4: Will require updates to ANZ product labels e.g. fertiliser group standard (HSR002571) products which do not require these statements and pictograms in Australia. Seek clarification on using GHS ecotox pictograms and warnings on labels, as in Australia these are not required, and home garden labels have limited space. Our preference would be to include the warning statements (not the pictograms) and continue to have common labels for the Australian and New Zealand markets.

29 [Redacted] This appears to be a reasonable solution to this issue. If these classifications are to be totally removed this could create issues with inappropriate controls or products being incorrectly matched to existing approvals.

30 UPL New Zealand

Limited

This will be necessary to maintain status quo, so we support this proposal.

We have not identified issues with the proposals for these group standards.

33 Responsible Care NZ Support this inclusion to ensure we maintain the existing level of environment protection ensemble.

(21)

Question 10 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to add the classification “designed for biocidal action” to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards?

6 Greater Wellington

Regional Council

We support adding the classification "designed for biocidal action" to the list of permitted subsidiary hazards in selected group standards. This is an important classification and should be included where it is relevant.

7 Chemsafety Ltd Definition of agrichemical includes "a detergent or sanitiser used in an agricultural context as defined in NZS 8409—2004"

- how does this relate to classification designed for biocidal action.

No Issue.

22 NZAET Support the inclusion of a 'designed for biocidal action'.

23 Department of

Conservation

Not all category 9.1D substances are classified as hazardous to the aquatic environment but have the potential to be environmental hazards, I therefore support the proposal or alternative another class of chronic hazards to the aquatic environment which contains the equivalent of unclassified 9.1D substances.

26 Yates New Zealand We request clarity regarding relatively ‘benign’ substances, e.g. plant growth regulators that do not have other ecotox class 9 classifications? Suggest that this classification 9.1 D (designed for biocidal action) be removed.

We have not identified issues with the proposals for these group standards.

33 Responsible Care NZ Adds to the clarity of the description and decision making.

(22)

Question 11 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to add metallic corrosive Category 1 as an optional primary hazard in corrosive group standards?

7 Chemsafety Ltd

Table 5 - Issue of class 8.1A - the proposed amendment addresses the issue of class 8.1A by making it an option in the corrosive group standards. There are few controls for 8.1A substances, so would it make more sense to take the approach that has been done for 8.3A - to allow 8.1A across all group standards, and keep the corrosive group standard for those that are 8.2. Agree that 8.1A substances that are not 8.2 do need to be included.

8 allnex New Zealand Very good improvement. I had a product where no group standard applied and it was actually a relief when a component became corrosive to skin and we could use the Corrosive group standard.

10 [Redacted]

[REDACTED] supports the proposed change to add metallic corrosive Category 1 as an optional primary hazard in corrosive group standards. This would ease the assigning of group standards that are corrosive to metal but not corrosive to skin.

This will make several products much easier to assign with minimal label changes.

19 [Redacted] This is long overdue. This should have been added long ago and I fully agree with the proposal.

23 Department of

Conservation

Some pesticide formulations (appendix 6) are metallic corrosive category 1 substances but are not covered under a group standard. In such cases it may be more appropriate to manage such substances under individualised additional controls, rather than in the corrosive group standard so I support the proposal.

28 Accord Australasia The proposed changes are supported. This will resolve a longstanding issue for some bleach-based cleaning products that are classified as corrosive to metals but are not classified as corrosive to skin.

30 UPL New Zealand

Limited

Yes, we were the company that identified this gap, and consider it would be the most appropriate way of dealing with a small number of substances that currently fall between the cracks.

(23)

Question 12 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to add the sales restriction clause back into the Gas Under Pressure Mixtures (Toxic [6.1], Flammable, Corrosive) Group Standard 2017 (HSR002539)?

Submitter Name Comment

No issue.

33 Responsible Care NZ Support the intent.

Question 13 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposal to correct the cross-referencing error in clause 1 (3) in Schedule 1 of the Dental Products (Subsidiary Hazard) Group Standard 2017 (HSR002558)?

No issue.

Question 14 - Do you have any comments regarding the proposed changes to the three veterinary medicine group standards regarding the more consistent use of the term “veterinary medicine active ingredient”, and the proposed changes to the wording of clause 8 in HSR100758 and HSR100759?

15

Technical Compliance

No issue.

(24)

24 Chemie-Tech Limited

Agree with the proposal.

Question 15 - Do you have any other comments regarding any of the proposed changes to any of the group standards?

14 3M New Zealand

Any chance of a group standard to cover adhesives under pressure in cylinder larger than 1 litre. (i.e. in containers too large to comply with an aerosols group standard). Alternatively any chance of making it clearer that the surface coating group

standards may be applied to this type of product. Typically the kind of product that may be classified UN3501 for dangerous goods transport. Refer adhesives in cylinders in attached brochure.

15

Technical Compliance Consultants Ltd

Aerosols greater than 1000mL should be considered. There are plenty of compressed chemicals on the market that are sprayed onto surfaces – adhesives, lubricants, etc. Some of these are in canisters greater than 9kg (similar to a common LPG cylinder in size). The propellants can be flammable or non flammable and with the adoption of GHS these compressed gases will need to be considered, leaving the products unlikely to fit into any other group standard. The common UN numbers used for these chemicals are 3501-3505.

24 Chemie-Tech

Limited

The discussion paper clause 87 states there is a 1:1 conversion between subclass 2.1.2. and Flammable aerosols. There is a need to reclassify flammable aerosols into category 1 or category 2.

If you have any other comments, please write them here

14 3M New Zealand HSR002530. Cleaning Products (subsidiary Hazard) Group Standard: footer on p2 should be October 2020 not October 2021.

19 [Redacted] Thanks for the opportunity to comment on Metallic Corrosive - Category 1.

(25)

Appendix 2. Submitter 13 (Fire and Emergency NZ) comments on Question 4

Scope: These comments relate to the application of the gases under pressure classification to substances that are gasses under pressure, such substances are approved under group standards and several individual approvals (listed in Table 1 below).

Preferred outcome: gases under pressure classifications should be assigned to the relevant individual approvals and group standards. That gases under pressure are not classed as non- hazardous if they only meet the classification criteria for a gas under pressure and are not otherwise hazardous.

Background context: Fire and Emergency responds to fires and hazardous substance emergencies involving gases under pressure that are not otherwise hazardous to the public and first responders.

These substances can present a hazard to our personnel because they are under pressure. We also own over 8000 breathing apparatus (BA) cylinders filled with compressed air which form a critical part of a firefighter’s personal protective equipment and which would be impacted by this change. We consider that appropriate regulatory standards, starting with correct classification, help ensure the safety of people in our industry and others.

Commentary on the proposal

We note that both the original consultation document (pg. 11-12) and the Submission Analysis Report (pg. 25) indicate that the EPA intends to adopt the GHS classifications for gases under pressure. Fire and Emergency supports this position. However, these classifications have not been applied to the gases under pressure group standards or the relevant individual approvals listed in Appendix 6.

We consider that this classification should be applied to:

• All of the Gas Under Pressure Mixture Group Standards

• HSR001458 – Compressed Air

And, that this classification is likely to be applicable to some or all of the individual approvals for gases and gas mixtures listed in Table 1 – which are otherwise classified as non-hazardous.

Rationale for Fire and Emergency Position

Classification of these products as gases under pressure, where they meet the relevant criteria, ensures that users recognise that the gas is regulated as a hazardous substance and manage them accordingly. If the gas is deemed non-hazardous on SDS or other documentation, then people are likely to assume that no hazardous substance requirements apply to these substances, including requirements set by other regulatory regimes, such as the Resource Management Act - Regional, District and City Plans, that use the HSNO definitions and classifications to regulate hazardous substances.

Not classifying gases under pressure according to the GHS 7 classifications adopted may also mean that these products are left off sites’ inventories and emergency response plans – both of which are important information sources used by firefighters to identify critical hazards before or during emergencies. Identifying these hazards is important because pressurised gas tanks, cylinders or systems can cause significant damage and fatal injuries during a fire or other emergency if not

(26)

pressurised tank is involved in a building fire it is standard practice to have firefighters dedicated solely to cooling the tank to prevent an explosion and associated shrapnel damage.

In other situations, the uncontrolled discharge of an otherwise non-hazardous pressurised gas can cause hazards that are not recognized in the HSNO or GHS system such as:

• Low oxygen atmospheres

• Cryogenic hazards

• Fog generation – which affects visibility

Fire and Emergency considers that correctly classifying hazardous substances is a critical first step to ensuring that these hazards are identified in an emergency. Good hazard identification helps us to prevent incidents getting worse and enables us to protect our people and the public. Therefore, we request that the EPA applies the compressed gas classification to the applicable group standards and individual approvals.

We note that this would also improve consistency with the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, that include regulations relating to gases under pressure, and the Dangerous Goods for Transport rules for land and maritime transport.

Regulation of non-hazardous substances

All of the gases listed in Table 1 and compressed air are classed as non-hazardous in Appendix 6.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) only regulates hazardous substances. If substances are officially deemed non-hazardous we query whether they can be regulated under the HSNO Act and subsequently under other regulatory regimes, because other regulatory regimes cross reference the HSNO Act when defining a hazardous substance. One consequence of these substances becoming un-regulated is that key controls would not apply; for example, Disposal Notice Cl 13: Disposal requirements for compressed gas in a gas container, and Hazardous Property Controls Notice Cl 32: Filling of SCUBA2 cylinders.

There is undoubtedly a public interest in ensuring that pressurised gases are packaged, labelled, managed, and disposed to a certain standard, and the hazards they pose are provided for in the GHS7 framework. Therefore, regulating these substances by classifying them appropriately has social benefits and potentially non-tangible economic benefits in the form of prevented injuries and damage.

(27)

(28)

Further information

More information about the EPA and the regulation of hazardous substances is available on our website at www.epa.govt.nz or by contacting us directly.

Email

[email protected] Phone

+64 4 916 2426 Postal address

Environmental Protection Authority Private Bag 63002

Wellington 6140 New Zealand Physical address Level 10

Grant Thornton House 215 Lambton Quay Wellington 6011 New Zealand

submissions relating to group standards

Implementation of GHS 7

Analysis of the