EPA STAFF EVALUATION AND REVIEW REPORT
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides 16 October 2012
www.epa.govt.nz 2
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Executive Summary
Background information
1. The Agricultural Reassessment Group (ARG) has applied for the modified reassessment of a number of substances containing metsulfuron-methyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine or triclopyr triethylamine salt. 2. The ARG are seeking the removal of controls which prohibit or restrict the application of the substances onto or into water. 3. The removal of these restrictions will allow the members of the ARG and others to apply the substances onto or into water to control aquatic pest plants.
Requirements of the Act
4. Under section 63A(6) of the Act, the Authority may approve or decline an application for reassessment under this section as it considers appropriate after taking into account: (a) all the effects associated with the reassessment; and
(b) the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances. Assessment of the effects associated with the reassessment
5. The application contained sufficient information for the staff to undertake a limited assessment of the effects of the substances when applied onto or into water from a scientific and technical perspective. A lack of data on the chronic effects of the substances and their formulations in the aquatic environment impacted the assessment. Consequently the staff have taken a precautionary approach to the risk assessment and proposing controls for the application of these substances onto or into water.
6. Potential adverse effects of applying the substances into or onto water include:
• Risks to the health of people who undertake contact recreation i.e. swim, kayak etc., within the treatment area;
• Risks to the health of people who or consume food or drinking water taken from within the treatment area;
• Risks to aquatic organisms and/or sediment dwelling organisms in the aquatic environment;
• Risks to terrestrial plants exposed to irrigation water taken from the treatment area; and
• Risks to the relationship between Māori and the environment.
7. The staff have considered these risks and propose controls necessary to manage these potential adverse effects.
October 2012 3
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
8. Benefits of the reassessment will include:
• Enhancing and maintaining biodiversity where pest plant monocultures threaten vulnerable habitats; • Reducing the impacts of aquatic pest plants on agricultural production; • Reducing the impacts of aquatic pest plants on irrigation systems; • Reducing the impacts of aquatic pest plants on flood control schemes; • Reducing the impacts of aquatic pest plants on commercial and recreational fisheries; • Protecting power generating infrastructure; • Managing impacts on tourism activities such as jet boating, diving and kayaking; and • Reducing the impacts of aquatic pest plants on social, recreational and cultural practices.
9. The staff consider that there are significant benefits to New Zealand from the control of aquatic pest plants. In addition, the staff consider that agrichemical control, using the substances included in this application, has a number of benefits when compared with other means of controlling aquatic pest plants.
Best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances
10. The staff have referred to the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances during the reassessment process, thereby meeting the requirements of section 63A(6)(b) of the Act.
Submissions
11. Twenty-eight submissions were received. Fourteen submissions were in support of the application, eight were opposed and six did not indicate one way or another. Eight parties have requested to be heard at a hearing.
12. A summary of the submissions is included as Appendix B. The submitters raised a number of issues to which the ARG and the staff of the EPA have responded.
Controls
13. The staff consider that the application of additional controls is necessary to manage the risks associated with the application of the substances onto or into water. The proposed controls cover the following:
• Setting of TELdrinking water and EELwater values and maximum application rates; • Requirements to obtain a permission before use; • Approved handler requirements; • Protection of food-producing marine farms; • Restrictions on the use of water for irrigation; • Restrictions on swimming; • Restrictions on food gathering;
October 2012 4
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
• Restrictions on taking water for consumption; • Notification requirements; • Protection of whitebait and elvers; • Monitoring requirements; • Prohibitions on the use of nonylphenol ethoxylates onto or into water; and • Restrictions on the area of a static water body treated in one application.
Conclusion
14. The staff consider that there may be risks associated with the application of the substances included in this reassessment onto or into water, but that with the proposed additional controls in place that these risks could be managed. The staff note that there are significant benefits associated with the application of the substances onto or into water for the purpose of controlling aquatic pest plants. It is, therefore, recommended that the reassessment of the substances included in this application be approved, with the exception of the substance GF-2574 which should be declined on the basis of insufficient data.
October 2012 5
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 2
Table of Contents ...... 5
1. Summary ...... 6
2. Background ...... 6
3. Process, consultation and notification ...... 8
4. Submissions ...... 9
5. The requirements of section 63A of the Act ...... 12
6. Assessment of the effects associated with the reassessment ...... 13
7. Controls ...... 18
8. Best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances ...... 26
9. Overall evaluation and recommendation ...... 26
Appendix A: Interested Parties List ...... 27
Appendix B: Summary of Submissions ...... 32
Appendix C: Applicant’s response to submission ...... 75
Appendix D: Risk Assessment ...... 94
Appendix E: Revised controls applying to the substances ...... 147
Appendix F: References...... 216
October 2012 6
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
1. Summary
Application Code APP201365 Application Type To reassess any hazardous substance under section 63A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (“the Act”)
Application Sub-Type Modified reassessment
Applicant The Agricultural Reassessment Group (ARG)
To seek the modification of controls on a number of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl or Purpose of the application triclopyr triethylamine as the active ingredient, to allow their use over water to control aquatic pest plants
Date Application Received 3 July 2012
Submission Period 31 July 2012 –11 September 2012
Submissions received 28 submissions were received.
Hearing date 31 October 2012
2. Background
2.1. The Agricultural Reassessment Group (ARG) has applied for the modified reassessment of a number of substances containing metsulfuron-methyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine or triclopyr triethylamine salt.
2.2. The ARG comprises the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Department of Conservation (DOC), Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), 12 Regional Councils and Mighty River Power (MRP).
2.3. The approved substances included in this reassessment are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: List of approved substances
Name of Substance HSNO Approval Number
Water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg HSR000232 metsulfuron-methyl (Substance A)
Water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg HSR000242 metsulfuron-methyl (Substance B)
Water dispersible granule containing 200 g/kg HSR000238 metsulfuron-methyl (Substance A)
Water dispersible granule containing 200 g/kg HSR000245 metsulfuron-methyl (Substance B)
Emulsifiable concentrate containing 100 g/litre HSR000373 haloxyfop-[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester
October 2012 7
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Soluble concentrate containing 250 g/litre HSR000521 imazapyr as the isopropylamine salt
MSF 600 HSR000063
Ignite HSR002431
Garlon 360 HSR007690
Scorp EC HSR008025
Crest 520 HSR100054
Unimaz 250 SL HSR100098
GF-2574 HSR100379
2.4. The majority of the approvals for the substances in Table 1 include controls which restrict or prohibit the application of the substances onto or into water1. The exception is for Ignite, which is restricted to use as a herbicide.
2.5. The ARG are seeking the removal or modification of these controls to allow the substances to be applied onto or into water to control aquatic pest plants.
2.6. The ARG have described the intended use patterns of the substances containing the various active ingredients onto or into water as outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Proposed use patterns
Metsulfuron- Haloxyfop-R- Imazapyr Triclopyr
methyl Methyl isopropylamine triethylamine
Maximum 21 g active 750 g ai/ha 2 kg ai/ha 1.98 kg ai/100 L Application Rate ingredient water (a.i.)/100 L water
Maximum Three times per Two times per Two times per Two times per Application year year year year Frequency
Minimum 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days Application Interval
Application Area Area sprayed Area sprayed Area sprayed Area sprayed with 100 L water with 100 L water with 100 L water with 100 L water is 2500 m2 is 2500 m2 is 2500 m2 is 2500 m2
Application Knapsack and Knapsack and Knapsack Knapsack Method(s) aerial aerial
1 The term ’water‘ means water in all its physical forms, whether flowing or not, and whether over or under ground, but does not include water in any form while in a pipe, tank or cistern or water used in the dilution of the substance prior to application
October 2012 8
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
3. Process, consultation and notification
3.1. Grounds for reassessment were established under section 62(2)(c) of the Act by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in its decision dated 20 February 2012. Additional grounds for reassessment were established under section 62(2)(a) of the Act by the EPA in its decision dated 28 June 2012.
3.2. The application was lodged by the ARG pursuant to section 63A of the Act on 3 July 2012. Following formal receipt, additional information about the proposed use patterns of the substances was requested from the applicant in accordance with section 52 of the Act. A timeframe waiver was applied (with the applicant’s consent), in accordance with section 59 of the Act, to allow additional time for the applicant to respond to the information request. As a result, the requirement to publicly notify the application within 10 working days of receipt (section 59(1)(a) of the Act) was extended by 10 working days. Public notification occurred on 31 July 2012.
3.3. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Labour Group), the Ministry for Primary Industries (ACVM Group), the Ministry of Health and the Department of Conservation were considered to be departments likely to have an interest in the application. Consequently they were notified of the application, in accordance with section 53(4)(b) of the Act, on 31 July 2012 and invited to comment by 11 September 2012. No comments were received.
3.4. An application summary was also sent to a list of interested parties, as listed in Appendix A, who had indicated that they wished to be notified directly of this type of application.
3.5. The application was publicly notified on the EPA website on 31 July 2012 and subsequently advertised in the Dominion Post, the New Zealand Herald, the Christchurch Press, the Otago Daily Times, Northern Advocate, Northland Age and the Waikato Times on 1 August 2012.
3.6. Twenty-eight submissions were received. Fourteen submissions were in support of the application, eight were opposed and six did not indicate one way or another. Eight parties have requested to be heard at a hearing.
3.7. The ARG applied to waive the requirement to hold a hearing not more than 30 working days after the close of submissions. All submitters were contacted to seek their consent to the waiver, with 19 submitters (including all eight parties who had indicated they wished to be heard) indicating their consent. No submitters indicated that they had any objection to the waiver. As a result, the requirement to commence a hearing no more than 30 working days after the close of submissions (section 59(1)(d) of the Act) was extended by five working days. The hearing will be held on 31 October 2012.
3.8. In preparing this report, the staff took into account:
• The application form; • The submissions; and • The applicant’s response to the submissions.
October 2012 9
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Information review
3.9. The application contained sufficient information for the staff of the EPA (“the staff”) to undertake a limited assessment of the application of the substances onto or into water from a scientific and technical perspective. This was after a further information request was made for information about the proposed use patterns of the substances. A lack of data on the chronic effects of the substances and their formulations in the aquatic environment impacted the assessment. Consequently the staff have had to take a precautionary approach when undertaking the risk assessment and proposing controls for the application of these substances onto or into water.
3.10. The staff note that GF-2574 contains the active ingredient aminopyralid. No information has been provided by the ARG or submitters about any potential effects of the application of substances containing aminopyralid onto or into water. It is also noted that the manufacturer of this substance (Dow Agrosciences) is opposed to the application of this substance onto or into water due to concerns about the potential adverse effects of the substance in the aquatic environment.
4. Submissions
4.1. A Summary of Submissions is included as Appendix B attached to and forming part of this report. Full copies of the submissions are available on the EPA website.
4.2. The submissions received raise a number of issues associated with the application of these substances into or onto water as outlined below:
4.2.1. Risks to animals, including shellfish, eels, fish, birds, frogs, snails and bees, from the presence of the substances in water. In some cases a lack of data relating to the likelihood and nature of adverse effects amplified the concern.
4.2.2. Risks to non-target plants/crops including pasture and other desirable plants and risks to the organic status of crops potentially exposed to the chemicals, either directly or via irrigation water.
4.2.3. Other risks to the environment and/or people ranging from endocrine disruption, to risks to the health of swimmers from application of the substances onto or into water.
4.2.4. The need for additional research into potential non-target effects of application of the substances onto or into water, because information on the risk was absent.
4.2.5. The issue of resistance management that could occur from allowing the application of the substances onto or into water, which would potentially increase the development of chemical resistant weeds and lead to the requirement for higher doses of the various chemicals to maintain control of growth.
October 2012 10
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
4.2.6. Risks to the cultural practices of Māori that may result from the application of these substances onto or into water. These arise when using water for healing, teaching babies to swim and the breaking-in of horses. Interference in the mauri of waterways was also raised.
4.2.7. The relationship between the impacts of the application and the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) was highlighted.
4.2.8. Economic risks relating to negative impacts of the use of the substances on ecotourism, honey production and organic businesses.
4.2.9. Potential impacts on New Zealand’s international obligations, including the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
4.2.10. The need for additional consultation/notification as part of any permission conditions and criticism of the consultation that had been conducted as part of the application process.
4.2.11. Submitters also proposed a variety of controls that may address the issues and effects of the proposal to allow the application of the substances into or onto water. These included;
• restricting application of the substances to certain pest plants in certain areas;
• requiring applicators to have specialised training;
• monitoring requirements;
• the use of permissions; and
• limitations on application methods.
4.2.12. Alternative means of control of aquatic pest plants, ranging from mechanical control to biocontrol and the use of alternative chemicals.
4.2.13. Two submitters claimed that a history of non-compliance with HSNO controls by members of the ARG. They were concerned that any controls imposed as part of the reassessment would not be complied with.
4.2.14. One submitter challenged the legality of EPA decision making in regards to the grounds for this application, a related special emergency application and this application for modified reassessment.
4.3. The submissions also identified potential benefits associated with the control of aquatic pest plants. A number of these have been included in the benefits section of this report (see section 6.11).
October 2012 11
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Applicant’s response to the submissions
4.4. The applicant’s draft response to the submission is attached as Appendix C attached to and forming part of this report. The response is in two parts, one from Angus McKenzie (Latitude Planning Services), the second from Paul Champion (NIWA).
Staff response to the submissions
4.5. The staff response to the issues raised in the submissions is set out below:
4.5.1. The staff acknowledge that there are a number of data gaps relating to the effects of the substances on non-target animals in the aquatic environment. However based on the risk assessment conducted using the data available and the application of additional controls, including monitoring requirements, the concerns raised by the submitters will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
4.5.2. Specific issues raised by the National Beekeepers Association (NBA) regarding the risks to bees posed by adjuvants which may be tank mixed with the aquatic herbicides are considered by the staff to be outside the scope of this reassessment. Adjuvants are not included in either the grounds or the application for reassessment itself.
4.5.3. Risks to non-target plants and other aspects of the environment will be addressed within the risk assessment section of this report (see section 6).
4.5.4. Risks to human health, including swimmers, will also be addressed within the risk assessment section of this report (see section 6).
4.5.5. The staff note the subjective nature of risks to cultural practices. Individuals and groups have the right to determine for themselves what constitutes a risk to their particular cultural practices. The relationship between Māori and the environment and the staff perspective of the impact of this application on that relationship is discussed in more detail later in this report.
4.5.6. The staff acknowledge the requirement under the Act for all persons exercising powers and functions under the Act to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). The advice to the decision makers included in this report will take this requirement into account.
4.5.7. The economic risks to ecotourism etc identified will be considered as part of the assessment of effects for this application.
4.5.8. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is cited by both a submitter, who believes the application of the substances will be a threat to this agreement, and also by the applicant group who believe that the removal of aquatic pest plants is a key element of maintaining the biological diversity of New Zealand and hence supports this agreement. The risks to New Zealand’s international obligations are discussed later in this report.
October 2012 12
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
4.5.9. The staff will consider the controls, conditions and restrictions suggested by the submitters during the development of proposed controls and conditions for the substances included in this application.
4.5.10. The staff will consider ongoing requirements for consultation during the development of controls and conditions on any approval. The EPA is also taking steps to review consultation processes for applications, especially in regards to iwi engagement.
4.5.11. The staff note the significant level of benefits identified by the submitters and have included this in the assessment of benefits (see section 6.11).
4.5.12. The staff consider that the ability to use the substances included in this application onto or into water will provide another option for controlling aquatic pest plants, but that this does not prohibit other methods of aquatic weed control. However, the staff note that agrichemical control may have a number of benefits when compared to other means of control.
4.5.13. The staff would encourage additional research into the effects of the substances on the aquatic environment when applied onto or into water.
4.5.14. The substances included in this application are already approved for use in terrestrial environments. It is considered that allowing the application onto or into water will not increase the risk of the development of resistant weeds.
4.5.15. While the issue of historical non-compliance with HSNO restrictions on application of the substance onto or into water may be a valid concern, it is not considered appropriate to address this matter within the context of processing this application for reassessment.
4.5.16. The EPA considers that it has acted within the legal framework of the HSNO Act in all decisions relating to this reassessment, including the related special emergency application, and will continue to do so.
5. The requirements of section 63A of the Act
5.1. Under section 63A(1) of the Act, a modified reassessment may be carried out where the reassessment will involve only a specific aspect of an approval and the proposed amendment is not a minor or technical amendment to which section 67A of the Act applies.
5.2. The staff consider that─
(a) a reassessment of the substances under section 63 of the Act is not appropriate because the reassessment will involve only a specific aspect of the approvals (i.e. the prohibition or restriction of application of the substances onto or into water); and
(b) the amendment is not a “minor in effect” or minor or technical amendment to which section 67A of the Act applies (i.e. allowing the application of the substances onto or into water is not considered a minor in effect or minor or technical amendment, as the
October 2012 13
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
removal of the restriction may result in a significant increase in risks, especially in the aquatic environment).
5.3. Under section 63A(6) of the Act, the EPA may approve or decline an application for reassessment under section 63A of the Act, as it considers appropriate, after taking into account:
(a) all the effects associated with the reassessment; and
(b) the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances.
6. Assessment of the effects associated with the reassessment
6.1. The staff have undertaken an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits associated with the reassessment. Assessment of risks and costs
6.2. A “cost” is defined in Regulation 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Methodology) Order 1998 (“the Methodology”) as “the value of a particular adverse effect expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms”. Thus, these have been assessed in an integrated fashion together with the risks of the adverse effects.
6.3. The staff have undertaken a quantitative and qualitative risk assessment of the human health and environmental effects associated with application of the substances into or onto water. A summary of this assessment is provided below in Tables 3 and 4. The detailed assessment is included in Appendix D attached and forming part of this report. The risk assessment is confined to the application of the substances onto or into water, as the risks to human health and the environment associated with the remaining lifecycle stages of the substances were addressed in the original assessments of the substances.
Table 3: Assessment of risks to human health from application of the substances onto or into water.
Metsulfuron- Haloxyfop-R- Imazapyr Triclopyr Formulations
methyl methyl isopropylamine triethylamine
Risks to Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable May be acute swimmers risks due to the presence of hot-
October 2012 14
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
spots within the treatment area2.
Risks from Acceptable at Only Acceptable at Only acceptable May be acute drinking treated levels below acceptable levels below 9 greater than 21 risks due to the surface water 0.04 mg/l greater than 21 mg/l days after presence of hot- days after treatment spots within the treatment treatment area.
Risks from fish Not available Not available Acceptable Acceptable Unknown – consumption insufficient data to assess
Table 4: Assessment of risks to the environment from application of the substances onto or into water.
Metsulfuron Haloxyfop- Imazapyr Triclopyr Nonylphenol Formulations
-methyl R-methyl isopropylamine triethylamine ethoxylates
Risks to High risks to High risks to High risks to High risks to Very high risks Insufficient aquatic fish, aquatic fish, aquatic fish, aquatic non-target data to assess organisms invertebrates invertebrates invertebrates aquatic plants and non- and non- and non-target target target aquatic plants aquatic aquatic plants at low plants rates of interception
Risks to Insufficient Risks Insufficient data Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient sediment data to identified for to assess data to assess data to assess data to assess living assess similar organisms compound (haloxyfop- ethoxyethyl)
Risks to High risks High risks High risks High risks Insufficient High risks terrestrial data to assess plants from
2 The treatment area is the immediate area surrounding the aquatic pest plants to which the substances have been applied.
October 2012 15
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
irrigation water
6.4. This assessment has indicated that additional controls are necessary to manage the risks to human health and the environment for the application of the substances onto or into water.
Relationship of Māori to the Environment
6.5. The potential effects on the relationship of Māori to the environment have been assessed in accordance with clauses 9(b)(i) and 9(c)(iv) of the Methodology and sections 6(d) and 8 of the HSNO Act. A summary of this assessment is provided below in Table 5. The full assessment is included in Appendix D.
Table 5: Summary of effects on relationship of Maori to the Environment
Consultation Principles of and Mātauranga Treaty of Engagement and Tikanga Kaitiakitanga Taha Hauora Waitangi with iwi/ Māori (Tiriti o Māori Waitangi)
Use of permission Moderate Minor adverse Minimal effect Minor adverse Assessment control will adverse effect effect is is highly effect is likely address is unlikely unlikely probable concerns
6.6. The staff conclude that in many cases the risks to the relationship between Maori and the environment can be managed by the application of appropriate controls.
Risks to international obligations
6.7. The ARG has identified two international environmental conventions that they consider relevant to this application:
• The Convention of Biological Diversity 1992; and
• The Ramsar Convention 1971.
Convention of Biological Diversity
6.8. The Convention of Biological Diversity has three main goals:
1. The conservation of biological diversity; 2. The sustainable use of components of biological diversity; and
October 2012 16
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources.
Article 8(h) of the convention states “prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species.”
Ramsar Convention
6.9. The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran 1971) promotes the conservation and wise use of wetlands by national action and international cooperation. The convention has been increasing its emphasis on invasive species, and as of the Conference of the Contracting Parties 1999, COP7, Resolution VII.14, Invasive species and wetlands, the convention urges member parties to “develop and apply appropriate tools for the prevention, control and eradication of alien invasive incursions.”
Conclusion
6.10. The staff consider that the use of the substances included in this application for control of aquatic pest plants will support New Zealand’s commitment to these conventions. The staff have not identified any risks to any other international obligations.
Assessment of benefits
6.11. The applicant and submitters have identified a number of benefits associated with the application of the substances onto or into water. The majority of these benefits relate to the benefits of aquatic pest plant control. These include:
• Enhancing and maintaining biodiversity where pest plant monocultures threaten vulnerable habitats. Pest plants often out-complete native plants and their presence can significantly and detrimentally alter the natural ecology of an area.
• Reducing the impact of aquatic pest plants on agricultural production. Many of the aquatic weeds targeted by the chemicals included in this application spread from water onto land. This can have a direct impact on pasture and crop production as well as impacting on livestock where these weeds are toxic or harmful to stock (e.g. alligator weed). Output losses caused by impacts on primary production are estimated at $1.15 billion annually.
• Reducing the impact on irrigation systems. Infestations of pest plants in irrigation and drainage systems can inhibit water flow within these systems thereby degrading their effectiveness.
• Reducing the impact on flood control schemes. Flood control schemes can be overwhelmed by pest plant infestations. In some cases the presence of dense concentrations of pest plants can divert river flows into vulnerable areas and exaggerate flooding occurrences (e.g. Dargaville township being undermined by diversion of the Wairoa
October 2012 17
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
River due to presence of a dense concentration of Manchurian Wild Rice on the opposite bank of the river).
• Reducing the impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. The presence of pest plants can not only impact the availability of a variety of fish, it can also physically restrict access to waterways.
• Protection of power generating infrastructure. Power generation in New Zealand is heavily reliant on hydro-generation systems. The presence of aquatic pest plants can negatively impact the power generating capacities of these systems, as well as threatening key infrastructure.
• Managing impacts on tourism activities such as jet boating, diving and kayaking. As previously mentioned, the presence of aquatic pest plants may restrict access to waterways. In addition, aquatic pest plants may foul equipment. They may also diminish the aesthetic appeal of waterways which may result in a decline of uptake of beneficial water-based activities.
• Reducing the impact on social, recreational and cultural practices. Swimming, washing and food gathering are just some of the activities that may be negatively impacted by the presence of aquatic pest plants. In addition to restricting access to waterways, the spread of pest plants may take over and destroy habitat where whanau once gathered food and other resources. In some cases this has significantly reduced iwi association with their tupuna awa and associated waterways.
6.12. The staff consider that these benefits are very likely to be realised through the control of aquatic pest plants. The staff also consider that the magnitude of the benefits will be high. Consequently, it is considered that there will be significant benefits to New Zealand from the control of aquatic pest plants.
6.13. The applicant has provided information about other means of aquatic weed control (section 6 of the application document). This is intended to demonstrate the benefits of chemical control using the substances included in this application versus alternative methods. This comparison also includes the use of alternative chemicals. The applicant identified the following alternative methods:
6.13.1. Mechanical removal. This method typically involves an excavator removing the plant from its location and disposing of it at an appropriate site. This method has proven to be impractical in many cases due to the aquatic nature of sites and limited access. In addition there are a number of risks associated with mechanical removal, including:
- Increased risk of seed and plant fragment spread downstream when infestations not fully cleared;
- Increased risk of plant spread through contaminated machinery;
- Health and safety risks to machinery operators; and
October 2012 18
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
- Risk of pest plants appearing and spreading beyond disposal sites.
6.13.2. Manual removal. Hand weeding is useful in controlling small, localised infestations where aquatic plant infestations do not exceed one square metre. Beyond small scale infestations, manual removal is very resource intensive and also carries a number of risks, including: - Increased risk of plant spread through fragments and seeds on equipment; and - Health and safety risks to personnel in aquatic environments.
6.13.3. Agrichemical control. There are a limited range of substances approved for use into or over water in the New Zealand for the control of aquatic pest plants. The substances that are approved all include the active ingredients; - Diquat - Endothal - Glyphosate.
Both diquat and endothal based substances are specifically used for the control of submerged aquatic pest plant species and are not suitable for aquatic pest plants that inhabit the surface of the waterways. Glyphosate based agrichemicals are approved for use over water but have been found to be less effective in the control of aquatic pest plants, often requiring several spray applications before taking effect. Glyphosate is particularly ineffective in the control of aquatic pest plants such as alligator weed, Manchurian wild rice, Senegal tea and spartina.
6.14. The staff consider that agrichemical control, using the substances included in this application, is more likely to achieve the benefits of controlling aquatic pest plants than other means of controlling aquatic pest plants. It is therefore concluded, that there will be significant benefits to New Zealand from the application of the substances onto or into water.
7. Controls
7.1. When the substances were originally approved by the EPA, a set of controls was applied to each substance. These controls form the basis of the controls set out as Appendix E attached to and forming part of this report. As a result of the staff’s evaluation of the effects of application onto or into water (see Appendix D), the following exposure limits and modifications to the controls on the substances are proposed. The setting of exposure limits
7.2. Tolerable Exposure Limits (TELs) can be set to control hazardous substances entering the environment in quantities sufficient to present a risk to people. Application of the substances included in this reassessment onto or into water may result in the presence of the substances in drinking water at levels which are likely to cause adverse effects to human health. The staff consider it is necessary to restrict the concentration of the substances that may be present in drinking water to protect human health. The staff have considered information about the
October 2012 19
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
toxicity of each of the different substances and derived values that are considered protective of human health (see Appendix D for more detail). Consequently the following TEL values are proposed in Table 6 for components in the substances included in this application:
Table 6: TEL values
Metsulfuron- Haloxyfop-R- Imazapyr Triclopyr methyl methyl isopropylamine triethylamine
TELDRINKINGWATER 0.04 mg/L 0.0021 mg/L 9 mg/L 0.1 mg/L
7.3. The default controls allow the setting of Environmental Exposure Limits (EELs) to control hazardous substances entering the environment. Application of the substances included in this reassessment onto or into water may result in the presence of the substances in water at levels which are likely to cause adverse effects to aquatic organisms and other parts of the environment. The staff consider it is necessary to restrict the concentration of the substances that may be present in water to protect the environment. The staff have considered information about the ecotoxicity of each of the different substances and derived values that are considered protective of the environment (see Appendix D for more detail). Consequently following EEL values are proposed in Table 7 for components in the substances included in this application.
Table 7: EEL values
Metsulfuron- Haloxyfop-R- Imazapyr Triclopyr methyl methyl isopropylamine triethylamine
EELWATER 0.0084 µg/L 0.884 µg/L 0.18 µg/L 59 µg/L
7.4. The default controls require the EPA to set an application rate for an ecotoxic substance that is to be sprayed on an area of land (or air or water) and for which an EEL has been set. The staff considered the rates specified by the ARG and has used these as the maximum rates within its quantitative risk assessment. The application of the substances at rates exceeding these values would result in an undetermined risk to the environment. Consequently the following maximum application rates are proposed in Table 8 for components in the substances included in this application, when those substances are applied into or onto water.
Table 8: Proposed application rates
Metsulfuron- Haloxyfop-R- Imazapyr Triclopyr
methyl Methyl isopropylamine triethylamine
Maximum 0.084 kg ai/ha 750 g ai/ha 2 kg ai/ha 7.92 kg ai/ha Application Rate
Maximum Three times per Two times per Two times per Two times per Application year year year year Frequency
October 2012 20
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Minimum 30 days 30 days 30 days 30 days Application Interval
Modifications to the controls
7.5. The staff note that the ARG are not seeking unlimited approval to apply the substances onto or into water. Rather they are seeking restricted approval that limits who may apply the substances onto or into water, where and under what circumstances.
Permissions
7.6. The staff consider that such restrictions will help to manage the potential risks associated with the application of the substances onto or into water. This will be achieved by limiting the application of the substances onto or into water to persons who have demonstrated they have the processes in place to mitigate the risks of any adverse effects. It will also ensure that the substances are only applied onto or into water where clear benefits have been demonstrated (e.g. a particular aquatic pest plant is present at significant levels). In recognition of this, the staff consider that the requirement to obtain a permission under section 95A to apply the substances onto or into water is warranted. Permissions would only be granted to those persons who had demonstrated the necessary skills, knowledge and need to apply the substances onto or into water.
7.7. The staff further note that requiring users to obtain a permission under section 95A will help to ensure that relevant site-specific considerations about the application of the substances onto or into water can be addressed via conditions on the permission. Examples of conditions on any permission may include local notification and consultation requirements, identification of the target aquatic pest plant(s) and exclusions from sensitive sites, details of the operation that are to be notified, and parameters for monitoring requirements.
7.8. The staff consider that the use of permissions would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances and has proposed the following control:
No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Approved Handlers
7.9. The current controls for some of the substances included in this application include requirements for substances to be under the control of an approved handler during use of the substances. The staff consider that this requirement should be extended to include application of the substances into or onto water. Accordingly, the following control has been substituted for Regulation 9(1) of the Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001:
October 2012 21
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
“(1). This substance must be under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water”
7.10. The substances “Emulsifiable concentrate containing 100 g/litre haloxyfop-R-isomer as the methyl ester”, Ignite and Scorp EC are classified as 9.1B aquatic ecotoxicants. This means that there is no default requirement for the substances to be under the control of an approved handler. The staff consider that the following control should be added to these substances, as the lack of chronic aquatic organism data for the substances means that the adverse effects of the substances may be greater than the known adverse effects of the substances 3:
“(1). This substance must be under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water.
(2) However, the substance may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if– (a) an approved handler is present at the place where the substance is being handled; and (b) the approved handler has provided guidance to the person in respect of the handling; and (c) the approved handler is available at all times to provide assistance, if necessary, to the person while the substance is being handled by the person.
(3) Clause (1) is deemed to be complied with if, in the case of the aerial application of the substance, the person who carries out the application has a current pilot chemical rating in accordance with Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules”.
7.11. In addition, the staff consider that specific training in use of aquatic pesticides needs to be obtained prior to application of the substances onto or into water. The staff consider that GROWSAFE training to the level of Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand” [or an equivalent level of proficiency] would meet this requirement. Accordingly, application of the following control is proposed:
This substance may only be applied or used onto or into water by, or under the direct supervision of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
3 section 77(3)(a)
October 2012 22
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Buffer Zones
7.12. The submission from Aquaculture New Zealand (AQNZ) raised concerns about potential adverse effects of the substances on food-producing marine farms. AQNZ recommended imposing a buffer zone of 500 metres for application of the substances onto or into water. The staff support this proposal and consider that the following proposed control would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrigation Water
7.13. The staff consider that there may be significant risks to non-target plants and crops if the substances are present at sufficient concentrations in water used for irrigation. It is, therefore, considered necessary to impose restrictions on water used for irrigation. The staff consider that the following proposed control would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used
for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage
7.14. The staff consider that there may be significant risks to the health of people who swim within the treatment area immediately after application of the substances. It is, therefore, considered necessary to impose restrictions on swimming within the treatment area for a period of time after application of the substance. The staff consider that these restrictions should be in place for five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application, where application of the substance is to a static water body. The staff consider it is necessary to impose additional signage requirements to communicate these restrictions.
7.15. The staff consider that there may be significant risks to the health of people who consume fish or other food that has been exposed to the substances when they are applied onto or into water. The staff consider that a withholding period for food gathering within the treatment area is necessary. The staff consider that these restrictions should be in place for five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application, where application of the substance is to a static water body. The staff consider it is necessary to impose additional signage requirements to communicate these restrictions.
October 2012 23
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
7.16. The staff consider that there may be significant risks to the health of people who consume drinking water sourced from an area which has been treated with the substances. The staff consider that a withholding period for the taking of water for human consumption from the treatment area is necessary. The staff note that the withholding period will vary depending on whether the substance is being applied to a static water body or a flowing water body. The staff consider that these restrictions should be in place for five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application, where application of the substance is to a static water body. The staff consider it is necessary to impose additional signage requirements to communicate these restrictions.
7.17. The staff consider that the following proposed controls would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following:
• Swimming is prohibited;
• Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and
• The taking of water for consumption is prohibited.
The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notification
7.18. Given the level of interest in the use of the substances onto or into water and the potential impacts on the wider community, the staff consider that a requirement to notify interested parties prior to application of the substances onto or into water is necessary. The specific parties to be notified may be identified via a condition in any permission issued for the use of the substances onto or into water. The staff consider that the following proposed control would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
October 2012 24
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Advice Note: It is envisaged that:
(a) Interested parties might include, for example, owners of adjacent land where the substance is applied onto or into water that is used by their stock for drinking water or local iwi who gather food from the water [etc]; and
(b) Details of the operation that are to be notified might, for example, include the treatment dates, relevant restrictions on the use of the water [etc].
Migration
7.19. The staff consider that there may be significant risks to whitebait and elvers from application of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl onto or into water. This is most relevant during their migrating periods. Therefore, the staff consider it necessary to prohibit application of the substances onto or into water during the periods when migration of whitebait or elvers is occurring. The staff consider that the following proposed controls would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
This substance may not be applied onto or into water where whitebait or elvers may be present during the period of 1 August to 30 November.
Monitoring
7.20. The staff consider that, due to a lack of information about potential adverse effects to the aquatic environment, a control requiring monitoring of incidents, including accidental by-kills, following application of the substances onto or into water, is necessary. In addition, the staff consider that where the results of this monitoring indicate the occurrence of accidental by-kill, then this should be reported to the EPA. The requirement for monitoring is consistent with international best practice for aquatic weed control programmes. The staff consider that the following proposed controls would be more likely to achieve their purpose than other controls, in terms of their effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
October 2012 25
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Nonylphenol ethoxylates
7.21. The staff have identified potential risks to the aquatic environment from the presence of nonylphenol ethoxylates in any substance applied onto or into water. These risks relate to the chronic toxicity and persistence of nonylphenol ethoxylates in the aquatic environment. It is therefore considered necessary to protect organisms within the aquatic environment from harm by prohibiting the presence of nonyl phenol ethoxylates within any substance applied onto or into water. This is consistent with the approach of other international regulators. The staff consider that the following proposed control would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if:
(a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or
(b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Static Water Bodies
7.22. Treatment of aquatic plants can result in oxygen loss in water from decomposition of dead plants. This loss can cause fish suffocation. Therefore to minimise this risk, the staff consider it is necessary to restrict the percentage of a water body that may be treated in one single application and to allow time for the oxygen levels in a water body to recover before additional applications of the substances. International best practice has indicated that limiting the application area to 33% of a static water body is protective of dissolved oxygen levels in a static water body. Therefore, the staff consider that the following proposed controls would be more likely to achieve its purpose than other controls, in terms of its effect on the management, use and risks of the substances:
The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body.
If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Garlon 360
7.23. The staff note that the existing controls for Garlon 360 include the following restrictions on application of the substance onto or into water:
This substance shall not be applied to salt water bays or estuaries, unimpounded rivers or streams, or to ditches or canals used to transport irrigation water. It shall not be applied where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land. It shall not be applied to drinking water, or water intakes used for human consumption.
October 2012 26
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
7.24. The staff consider that this control is unnecessarily restrictive and will inhibit the ability of users to gain benefits from the application of the substance onto or into water to control aquatic pest plants. Therefore, this control should be removed and replaced with controls which are consistent with other substances that are intended for application onto or into water. The staff consider that the substituted controls identified above in this section (section 7) will manage the risks associated with the application of Garlon 360 onto or into water.
8. Best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances
8.1. To meet the requirement in section 63A(6)(b) of the Act to consider best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances, the staff considered assessments for the use of the substances onto or into water conducted by the following regulators:
• The United States Environmental Protection Authority; and
• The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.
8.2. The staff consider that as the proposed controls for the use of the substances onto or into water are consistent with best international practice and standards then this reassessment will meet the requirements of section 63A(6)(b) of the Act. 9. Overall evaluation and recommendation
9.1. The staff consider that there was sufficient information to conclude that there are risks associated with the application of the substances included in this reassessment onto or into water, but that with the proposed additional controls in place these risks can be managed.
9.2. The exception is GF-2574, where insufficient information was available to undertake an assessment of the use of the substance over water and the manufacturer of the substance indicted their objection to the use of the substance onto or into water.
9.3. The staff note that there are significant benefits associated with the application of the substances onto or into water for the purpose of controlling aquatic pest plants.
9.4. It is, therefore, recommended that the reassessment of the substances included in this application be approved, with the exception of the substance GF-2574, which should be declined on the basis of insufficient data.
October 2012 27
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix A: Interested Parties List
Aakland Chemicals (1997) Limited Adria Crop Protection Aerosol Association of Australia (Inc) Afton Chemical Corporation AgBio Research Limited AGCARM Incorporated Agmax Industries Limited AgPro AgResearch Limited AgriSource Agronica New Zealand Limited Allied Petroleum Ltd APD Limited (Auckland Plastics and Design) AR and JA Drysdale Limited Auckland City Council Baldwins Intellectual Property BASF New Zealand Limited - Head Office Bay of Plenty Regional Council Bayer New Zealand Limited Beef + Lamb New Zealand BOC Gas and Gear - Penrose Bomac Laboratories Limited BP Oil / Castrol Oil New Zealand Limited Braesby Farm Chancery Green ChemADVISOR, Inc Chemagro New Zealand Limited Chemical Solutions Limited Chemsafety Limited Clean Earth Community and Public Health Department of Conservation Donaghys Dow AgroSciences (Australia) Limited DuPont (New Zealand) Limited Eco Research Ecolab Pty Limited Educhem Limited EIT (formerly Eastern Institute of Technology) Environment Bay of Plenty Environment Canterbury Environment Southland Environment Waikato Environs Holdings Limited
October 2012 28
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Evans Turf Supply Far North District Council Farmoz Pty Ltd Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Incorporated) Fish and Game Eastern Region Fruitfed Supplies Limited (PGG Wrightson Ltd) Gisborne District Council Goughs Power Systems Grayson Wagner Company Ltd Greater Wellington Regional Council Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand GroSafe Hauraki Maori Trust Board Hawkes Bay District Health Board Hawkes Bay Regional Council Horizons Regional Council Huakina Development Trust IMCD New Zealand Limited Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Kaipara District Council Kati Huirapa Runanga ki Puketeraki Kawerau District Council Kenso Corporation Kiwicare Corporation Limited Land Information New Zealand Landcorp Farming Limited Lincoln University Lowndes Associates MacLeod Trading Partnership Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd Mana Whenua Ki Mohua Maniapoto Maori Trust Board Marlborough District Council MAS Engineers Ltd Massey University Matta Products Ltd Maximize Consultancy Mighty River Power Ministry for Primary Industries Ministry for the Environment Ministry of Science and Innovation Molloy Ag Spraying Ltd MSD Animal Health National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand Nelson City Council Nelson Marlborough District Health Board
October 2012 29
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
New Zealand Bee Industry Group - Federated Farmers New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) New Zealand Customs Service New Zealand Flower Growers Association New Zealand Meatworkers Union New Zealand Society of Gunsmiths Inc New Zealand Starch Limited Ngai te Ahi Ngai Tukairangi Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Ngati Makino Nga Puhi Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Tribal Trust Board Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Ngati Awa Ngati Hurunga o Te Rangi Ngati Kuta RMU Ngati Pikiao Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Limited Ngatiwai Trust Board Northland District Health Board Northland Regional Council Nufarm New Zealand Limited Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand Inc Omataroa Rangitaiki No 2 Trust Ongarahu Environment Care (OEC) Orica Chemicals Orion Crop Protection Otago Polytechnic Otago Regional Council Pacific Growers Supplies Limited Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand PharmVet Solutions Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) Poultry Industry Assn of New Zealand (Inc) Proctor and Gamble Australia Pty Ltd Public Health Unit, Hawke's Bay District Health Board QEC Quality Environmental Consulting Ltd Rainbow and Brown Limited Rangitikei District Council Ravensdown Fertiliser Rebain International (New Zealand) Reckitt Benckiser Redox Proprietry Limited Renovo Technologies Ltd Rentokil Initial Limited
October 2012 30
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Repo Consultancy Responsible Care New Zealand (RCNZ) Sawmill Workers Against Poisons (SWAP) Science Media Centre Scion Sigma Aldrich Site Safe New Zealand Inc Sustainability Council of New Zealand Syngenta Crop Protection Limited Taheke Hapu Resource Management Roopu Tai Tokerau Organic Primary Producers Society (Inc) Tairawhiti District Health Takuahi Research and Development Ltd Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc Taranaki District Council Taranaki Regional Council Tasman District Council Te Ara Rangatu o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Te Arawa Lakes Trust Te Atiawa Manawhenua ki te Tau Ihu Trust Te Ihutai Hapu Charitable Trust Te Kaahui o Rauru Te Kotahi Research Institute Te Kotuku Whenua Consultants Te Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga Inc Te Pataka Matauranga Charitable Trust Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi Te Runanga o Kaikoura Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu HSNO Committee Te Runanga o Ngati Hikairo ki Tongariro Te Runanga o Ngati Hine Te Runanga o Ngati Kuia Te Runanga o Turanganui Kiwa Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Te Runanga o Whaingaroa Te Runanga-a-iwi o Ngati Kahu Te Runanga o Moeraki Te Runanga o NgatiRehia Te Runanga o Otakou Inc. Te Runanga O Taranaki Whanui ki te Upoko o te Ika a Maui Te Runanga o Te Rarawa Te Runanga o Turanganui Kiwa Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga/ Te Roopu Huihuinga Hauora Inc Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea Inc Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngapuhi Te Whare Waananga o Awanuiarangi
October 2012 31
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Technical Compliance Consultants Ltd Tegel Foods Ltd Television New Zealand The Eden Park Trust The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited The New Zealand Society for Risk Management Inc Tiakina te Taiao Limited TMP Consultancy Tuhoe Tuawhenua Trust Tuhourangi Runanga a Iwi Tui Trust University of Auckland University of Otago University of Waikato Waihopai Runaka Inc Waikato District Health Board Waikato Raupatu River Trust Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Limited Waikato Regional Council Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganuin Incorporated West Coast Regional Council Williams & Kettle Fruitifed Supplies Workplace Compliance Services Ltd Yates, a division of Dulux group Pty Ltd Zelam Limited 108 private individuals
October 2012 32
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix B: Summary of Submissions Summary of Submissions Modified Reassessment of Substances containing Metsulfuron-methyl, Haloxyfop-R-Methyl, Imazapyr Isopropylamine and Triclopyr Triethylamine
Index of Submitters Submission Desired Application Submitter Submitter Organisation Wants to be Heard? Number Decision SUBMISSION102579 Colin Johnston Aquaculture New Zealand No Not Indicated
SUBMISSION102580 Poto Davies Ngati Koroki Kahukura Trust Yes Decline
SUBMISSION102594 Rob Cross Kapiti Coast District Council No Approve
South Island Eel Industry Association Inc, and North Island SUBMISSION102595 Bill Chisholm Yes Decline Eel Enhancement Company Ltd
SUBMISSION102596 Chris Hale CG Hale Ltd No Approve
Gordon Stephenson SUBMISSION102597 No Approve CNZM
SUBMISSION102598 Philip Hart Forest and Bird - Waikato No Approve
SUBMISSION102599 Graeme Anderson No Decline
SUBMISSION102600 Ann Thompson Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Incorporated) No Approve
SUBMISSION102601 Don McKenzie Northland Regional Council - Whangarei No Approve
October 2012 33
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
SUBMISSION102602 Meriel Watts Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand No Decline
SUBMISSION102603 Pedro Jensen New Zealand Biosecurity Institute No Approve
SUBMISSION102604 Wayne Bennett No Approve
SUBMISSION102605 Marie Brown National Wetland Trust of New Zealand No Approve
SUBMISSION102606 Don MacLeod National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand Yes Not Indicated
SUBMISSION102607 Matt Osborne Fish and Game Eastern Region No Not Indicated
SUBMISSION102608 Rangi Mahuta Huakina Development Trust No Not Indicated
Cheri Van Schravendijk- SUBMISSION102609 Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganuin Incorporated Yes Not Indicated Goodman
SUBMISSION102610 Randall Milne Environment Southland No Approve
Advisory Committee for the Waikato Regional Environment SUBMISSION102611 Joyce Birdsall No Approve (ACRE)
Bob Tait And Raewyn SUBMISSION102612 Friends of the Earth NZ Yes Decline Sendles
SUBMISSION102613 Wayne Holton-Jeffreys Environment Canterbury No Approve
SUBMISSION102614 Te Tui Hoterene Nga Tirairaka o Ngati Hine Yes Decline
SUBMISSION102615 Jackie Pou Yes Decline
SUBMISSION102616 Malibu Hamilton Te Ngaru Roa a Maui Yes Decline
SUBMISSION102617 Leo Koppens No Approve
SUBMISSION102618 Richard Ball Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu No Not Indicated
SUBMISSION102619 Peter Weir New Zealand Forest Owners Association No Approve
October 2012 34
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submissions
Submitter Submission
Risks to Animals
The environmental assessment for this application details only quantitative data on toxicity to bivalve molluscs of one compound, namely the ethoxyethyl form of haloxyfop; this compound also had a recommendation to avoid harvesting shellfish for 5 days following administration, indication potential for bioaccumulation in filter feeders.
Whilst this application does not include the ethoxyethyl form of haloxyfop, it does list a related compound (albeit of projected lower toxicity) and a number of other compounds with no indication of a LC50, LOEC or NOEC, nor information on the bioaccumulation potential in bivalve molluscs.
It is accepted that the proposed compounds would have generally lower impacts that haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl; however, the downstream
Aquaculture New effects of bivalve production (either direct toxicity, food safety or algal toxicity) have not been assessed specifically by the expert Zealand (AQNZ) ecotoxicity rapporteur. Marine bivalve farming is exquisitely sensitive to contaminants entering marine waters directly or impinging on marine waters from freshwater flow-off. The capacity of such contaminants to:
• Directly affect bivalve health; • Impact on the algal populations that provide feed for cultured bivalves; and
• Adversely affect the food safety of the molluscs
needs to be considered. The advantages of controlling aquatic pests is recognised, but there should be downstream recognition of food producing primary industries that could be affected.
October 2012 35
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Previous lab tests of haloxyfop-R-methyl demonstrate a high toxicity to fish and elvers. The application explains that this substance is chemically different to what was lab tested, and field tests demonstrate much lower toxicity to elvers. Dilution would also be a factor in its lower toxicity.
Commercial eel fishers reject these assumptions, principally because there have been no long-term field tests of haloxyfop-R-methyl, including its long-term toxicity and persistence in eels. While this might be an arduous task, the applicant is reminded that New Zealand’s commercial eel industry contributes over 6 million dollars of export revenue, and employs over 200 full-time equivalent workers. Any toxic residues found in the flesh of export eels would most certainly shut down this industry, and adversely affect New South Island Eel Zealand’s clean-green image (which is also an important component of the eel fishery). Industry Decision requested: Haloxyfop-R-methyl should not be allowed to be used in aquatic environments, except for limited time periods, in Association Inc, specific discrete areas, where there is a biosecurity emergency and where no alternative herbicide is available for specific waterweed and North Island eradication. Eel Enhancement Company Ltd Metsulfuron-methyl is known to remain persistent in the environment in alkaline waters, even slightly alkaline waters. Most New Zealand waterways are slightly alkaline. Therefore, this substance will not break down in New Zealand waterways, and will remain highly persistent in the aquatic environment. Commercial eel fishermen oppose the use of substances with a high environmental persistence, especially where there is an absence of long-term toxicity and bioaccumulation information. It is not clear, from the application documents, why it is necessary to use metsulfuron-methyl on any of the aquatic pest plants listed. The other substances applied for, or existing registered substances such as Aquathol K, are likely to be able to eradicate those pest plants listed in Table 1. Hence, there appears to be no need for this substance to be used in water under any circumstances. Decision requested: Metsulfuron-methyl is declined for use in aquatic environments.
Fish and Game Spraying where long established wide coverage pest plants are to be targeted in large scale drain, lake or river margin programmes,
October 2012 36
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
New Zealand, have the potential to cause significant effects to the trout fisheries and waterfowl population. Large scale application reduces available Eastern Region food and cover resource for fish species and waterfowl and during certain periods relocation is not possible resulting in potential deaths.
Of greater significance is the timing of spray programmes. The spraying of the listed herbicides at certain periods (principally throughout the spring time) will likely result in harmful effects on sports fish and game birds. Juvenile fish (trout and native species) and elvers would be affected directly by the toxicological effects of these herbicides and by loss of food source. Waterfowl, ducklings would be affected directly due to loss of habitat (vegetation die off) and food source (toxicity).
We are very concerned for the significant issues that this application raises regarding kaiawa and their potential to have long term impacts on Ngati Hine.
Given that the birds within Ngati Hine drink and catch their food in rivers and swamps we consider them to be at risk of negative impacts from the application. There is insufficient information in the proposal to say otherwise. Ngati Hine considers that a precautionary approach to impacts on birds must be taken.
Nga Tirairaka o We are deeply concerned with the potential impact these chemicals may have on frogs. Their delicate, semi-permeable skin allows Ngati Hine them to absorb moisture and air from the environment. There is insufficient information in the proposal to say otherwise. Ngati Hine considers that a precautionary approach to impacts on frogs must be taken.
Given the vulnerable nature of lizards, this application is considered have a potentially significant negative impact on them. There is insufficient information in the proposal to say otherwise. Ngati Hine considers that a precautionary approach to impacts on lizards must be taken.
Pupu harakeke (flax snails) have highly sensitive skin which may be impacted by the chemicals in question. It is considered that the impacts of this application on pupu harakeke are significant. There is insufficient information in the proposal to say otherwise. Ngati
October 2012 37
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Hine considers that a precautionary approach to impacts on snails must be taken.
The NBA Technical Committee wishes to raise in this submission some technical issues that the application overlooks and seeks from the EPA information on how they will deal with these issues. The two main concerns with respect to this application;
1. Safety to honey bees in the environment.
2. The NBA is particularly concerned about the adjuvants used with the herbicides in this application, especially surfactants and their environmental effects. The data in this application does not refer to what is actually in the spray tank which is sprayed into the environment. It discusses what is in the herbicide packet only.
Summary
The National • The NBA Technical Committee wished to advise the EPA that there is very clear documented evidence that some surfactants Beekeepers are ecotoxic to bees.
Association (NBA) • The NBA Technical Committee would like to see this application updated with the product mixture that will be in the spray tank and applied to the noxious weed. The assessment of this application should not be based on the herbicide active ingredient alone (as in Appendices C and D of the application).
• The NBA Technical Committee would like to see that the same ecotoxicological assessment applied to pesticides be applied to spray tank adjuvants, in particular surfactants used with pesticides and foliar nutrient products.
• The NBA Technical Committee believes that agriculture and horticulture surfactants should not be permitted for widespread and dispersive use when approved using Group Standard HSR002503. • Applying the above three requirements will make this a safer environment for the honey bee.
October 2012 38
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Risks to non-target plants/crops
It is noted in the application that one of the herbicides intended for use over water is also used to selectively control most grasses Federated (Haloxyfop-R-methyl). It is unclear whether the other herbicides also affect pasture species, or in fact, any plant that could be Farmers intentionally planted by farmers in the riparian margin. Farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, are encouraged to manage their riparian margins by setting aside agreed areas and then planting them with appropriate plant species.
Effects on organic crops downstream of these sprays could potentially compromise the accreditation for these growers and affect our Friends of the reputation as a clean green nation. We would like to know if Metsulfuron Methyl accumulates once it is in the waterways? Will some Earth NZ plants bioaccumulate these chemicals? Applications should be staged to check the effects long term.
Nga Tirairaka o The swamps of Ngati Hine are very significant not only culturally but also environmentally for the region and the nation. However, the Ngati Hine majority of our swamps are pockets amongst farmland and therefore we consider that they are all vulnerable to the use of the chemicals according to the application.
It is considered that due to the lack of information presented in the application there could be significant negative impacts on the swamps of Ngati Hine. Organic farmers within the Ngati Hine catchments use water for farm irrigation and are dependent on organic standards which do not look well on chemicals flowing through waterways on organic lands.
Other Risks to the Environment/People
Graeme Haloxyfop and Triclopyr are suspected endocrine disruptor chemicals. Anderson
October 2012 39
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Pesticide Action Risks to the aquatic ecosystem as a whole have not been properly assessed, especially those to microbial communities; nor have the Network Aotearoa risks to wetlands downstream of application. Microbial communities underpin the entire aquatic ecosystem balance, and are New Zealand fundamental to ecosystem health. It is entirely unacceptable to spray the proposed herbicides directly into aquatic environments.
Many of the households draw their water directly from waterways within their locality. And due to the socio-economic situation of Ngati Hine people living in the kainga (home, address, residence, village, habitation, habitat) we do not wish to place further burden on them by requiring them to purchase water tanks, filters or manage their water takes according to the potential spraying of chemicals proposed in the application.
Therefore this application will be a significant negative impact on Ngati Hine.
Nga Tirairaka o Another common cultural practice is to teach our babies to swim in our waterways. This practice is carried out in summer. The baby is Ngati Hine thrown into the river continuously until they through sheer instinct begin to swim on their own. During this process babies can swallow water. All adults bought up in Ngati Hine have been taught to swim in this way. We consider this as a significant cultural practice which is at risk by this proposal. New parents are unlikely to follow on with this cultural practice with the threat that chemicals may have been sprayed over our waterways. The potential impact will be that our babies will not learn to swim and will be at high risk of drowning due to the high number of waterways we have throughout our lands, throughout the year. The proposal will therefore have a significant negative impact on Ngati Hine.
You cannot do this to us and the aquatic environments we live in. Under no conditions and circumstances will this be acceptable. These pesticides have significant damaging and harmful effects to human health, wildlife and the aquatic environment. It is mass Jackie Pou poisoning without consent. 5. Current process is a human rights abuse, environmental health abuse, a Maori indigenous rights abuse and HSNO Act 1996 abuse
5.1. It's a straight out human rights abuse and an environmental health abuse, Maori indigenous rights abuse and HSNO Act abuse for
October 2012 40
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
the applicants the ARG and the EPA to attempt to poison our waterways, aquatic environments, kaimoana and us like this for 20 years, and to try and 'modify' the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and control approvals for over 40 poison pesticide products, pertaining to their registered and approved use and regulatory hazard information. Very toxic and ecotoxic substances are included and some very high concentration poisons too. It is also a huge change from the status quo and which threatens our public health and safety, our wellbeing and the wellbeing of our whanau, our future generations and the unborn, our kaimoana, the health of the waterways and aquatic life and organisms, the air, as well as birds and insects for 20 years.
5.2. Affected Maori, hapu and whanau of the harbours, rivers, streams and land, and our traditional values, perspectives and concerns for our taonga were excluded from the vital actual determination and decision making processes which preceded this one in APP201213 Decided 17 Feb 2012 and APP201378 Decided 28 June 2012. Grounds for reassessment. For such an important issue such as this, it breaches the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840/Treaty of Waitangi 1840, Te Whakaputanga 1835/Declaration of Independence 1835 and the HSNO Act sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 and this is an utter disgrace and is unacceptable. The March 2012 Consultation with 'Iwi' was poor. Out of the 7 responses, Maori concerns on adverse human health effects and to the aquatic environment, kaimoana, spray drift, algae, watercress, Cultural Impact Assessment requests and poor consultation etc concerns were dismissed and minimised. And Maori were deliberately left out of the determination and decision making.
5.3. Spraying these hazardous poisons by helicopter, airboat and ground spraying into or onto our aquatic environments for 20 years and up to 3 times a year in some cases, will have an adverse effect on the health and safety of indigenous people, all people, the unborn, the future generations, the aquatic environment, the air within and surroundings through natural spray drift, wildlife and kaimoana and will put us all at unacceptable risk for the benefit of the chemical manufacturer corporations.
Despite the answers to the questions posed by Waikato Tainui by the the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Te Ngaru a Maui (NIWA), (Appendix B) TNRM remain concerned by the potential for adverse effects into and onto land and waterways. Section 11 of the (TNRM) application document outlines the risks to inanga, elvers, kaimoana and non target species. The potential for adverse effects for human
October 2012 41
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
health and taonga species for Maori are significant.
Several years ago DoC got granted consent for the use of haloxyfop to spray spartina in the Kawhia, Aotea and Whaingaroa harbours. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and label stated that the product was Teratogenic. While is stated that this application is for haloxyfop-r-methyl and is less toxic, TNRM are highly concerned with its use and more particularly as it may still have adverse effects to human health and aquatic lifeforms.
Risks to Cultural Practices/Values
Water is a primary health aid for Ngati Hine for the prevention and remedy of health problems. It is used as a restorative and tonic, for injuries, to relieve pain, for minor burns, to reduce fever, to induce perspiration, as a diuretic, as an eliminative, as an antiseptic, laxative, emetic, to raise body temperature, as a stimulant, anesthetic, sedative, antispasmodic, to relieve thirst, for buoyancy and for mechanical effects. The use of the proposed chemicals will stop all of the above practices within Ngati Hine. This will lead to a significant negative impact on the health of Ngati Hine people; spiritual degradation, loss in culture across generations and a loss of an important aspect of our relationship to water. Nga Tirairaka o This application could negatively impact on Te Orewai by polluting the waterways from which this hapu derive their name with Ngati Hine chemicals that are disliked by the hapu and other hapu. This would lead to a degradation of cultural value for the name Te Orewai.
The hapu of Te Orewai is estimated at 15,000-20,000. Therefore this impact is considered by Ngati Hine as significantly negative.
The impact that the application has on the papakainga of Ngati Hine (ancestral lands) is that by allowing the use of chemicals over our waterways our cultural value for these ancestral lands will be degraded. Although Ngati Hine maintains the majority of our lands, nationally Maori land ownership sits at around 4%. Degrading the cultural significance of papakainga is a significant impact that this application poses.
October 2012 42
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Traditionally tapu restrictions are placed on waterways to protect their sacred nature. The proposed use of chemicals over waterways in Ngati Hine will impede the use of tapu restrictions in a manner which will negatively impact on the spiritual significance of the waterways and the culture of Ngati Hine. Any use of chemicals in our waterways will stop a number of traditional ceremonies. This will have dramatic negative impacts on Ngati Hine and will potentially drive up the negative health statistics amongst Maori who reside within our territories.
To denigrate taniwha is an offense in the culture of Ngati Hine. This application will have a significant negative impact on the culture of Ngati Hine by using chemicals over areas of the river which are held to be significant due to the activities of tuna paea in the area.
The significant negative impact will be the de-valuing of Ngati Hine culture, a loss of intergenerational exchange and degrading of spirituality.
Our horses are broken-in in the rivers and swamps of Ngati Hine. This cultural practice is at risk as horse owners will not wish to expose their horses to toxic chemicals. This application poses potential risks of a change in culture whereby Ngati Hine will need to adapt under already extreme pressure within modern society to forego cultural practices passed to them by grandparents. As above, impacts will be on intergenerational exchange, time spent between grandchildren and grandparents, loss of social institutions, etc.
There is little expressed in the application about whether the chemicals will permeate into puru tuna (freshwater aquifers) within Ngati Hine. But we consider there to be a major risk if they do.
The application poses a threat to our language by narrowing the use of language and degrading the spiritual and cultural meanings of the words.
The application does not express whether the use of the chemicals may impact on the behaviour of the aquatic species referred to in the maramataka used by Ngati Hine. If they do then there would be a significant negative effect on the knowledge systems of Ngati
October 2012 43
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Hine, and the implementation of our knowledge systems which could result in negative social impacts.
Impact on the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti)
The impacts that this application has on the principles of Te Tiriti are significant. Our rivers and harbours are traditional taonga to us and our local hapu/whanau are affected with this modified reassessment agenda, and the presumption is that the Crown owns or has all the rights to our coastal and freshwater rivers, streams and harbours. Therefore they have the right to apply killer, hazardous, chemical aquatic poisons to our waters and kaimoana for their own agendas and they also bypass and ignore the local whanau hapu as well. Tikanga, our kaitiakitanga and hapu sovereignty and proprietary rights are ignored. Nga Tirairaka o The interim report on the freshwater and geothermal energy claim (WAI2358) was findings are that, the claim is genuine, that Maori Ngati Hine proprietary rights over bodies of water were guaranteed to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi; with the closest English equivalent in 1840 being “ownership”, and the closest modern day equivalent being “residual property rights.
We believe that we have demonstrated that Ngati Hine is a high contender for water ownership and that any assertion of the government albeit through the EPA of having the right to allow people to use chemicals over our waterways without our permission is an absolute breach of Te Tiriti.
It could be argued that because Maori were deliberately excluded in the vital decision making processes which preceded this application, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti O Waitangi were not taken into account and were breached, thereby invalidating the EPA's decisions for granting Grounds for reassessment in the first place to the applicants in APP201213. Jackie Pou 5.7. This new attempt at poisoning us and our aquatic environments (and with multiple poisons) goes right against the HSNO Act's Purpose and relevant principles and matters, the Precautionary principle of the Act and against the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty Of Waitangi as well.
October 2012 44
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Economic Risks
Eco-tourism within Ngati Hine catchments is also a favourable choice of enterprise for some Ngati Hine families that includes horse trekking, pig hunting, treks, wananga on forest and water cultural values, etc.
Honey is currently a growth market with the majority of graduates from the apiary course that Te Rarawa being from Ngati Hine. It is common to see most land blocks with at least a dozen hives. Most are small scale producing honey for the wider whanau. However some land blocks have commercially viable potential with landowners currently considering setting up production factories, joint ventures etc. An example of the small scale production potential of Ngati Hine landowners supplying honey to companies such as Comvita could be quantified at an average of $30 per hive per ha for average non-medical grade honey supply. This does not include the potential for apprenticeships (3 year valued at $30,000 plus, employment and production of added value products controlled by Nga Tirairaka o landowners as many contracts offer quarterly quality control to assist business start ups. The Taumarere catchment itself is estimated Ngati Hine at 50,000 ha. There are some large land trusts such as the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust who own 5,500ha on behalf of its beneficiaries. Rongoa is another organic business carried out in Ngati Hine. Tohunga rongoa gather rongoa plants and other species from lands and waterways to produce healing tinctures, baths, balm, etc which they sell amongst Ngati Hine and further afield. There are currently thirty people enrolled in our local rongoa course running out of Motatau Marae with at least half of the students supplementing their income on local rongoa.
The above paragraphs demonstrate the organic businesses based within Ngati Hine ancestral lands that the use of chemicals over our waterways would have a negative impact on. Due to the economic impacts that this application will have on Ngati Hine businesses we consider these to be significant.
October 2012 45
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Risks to International Obligations
This year a Ngati Hine delegation will be attending the Conference of Parties 11 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Our attendance to the Conference is based on our experience and traditional knowledge in relation to biodiversity.
Articles 8(j) and 10(c) of the Convention refer to the need to protect traditional knowledge and customary activities in relation to biodiversity. The New Zealand government has ratified the Convention.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has sought the Nga Tirairaka o advice of Ngati Hine in its attendance to the Convention and the United Nation’s review of 8(j). Ngati Hine Ngati Hine will also have autonomous speaking rights at the Conference assigned from the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. We will no doubt bring our experiences of this proposal to light at the Conference.
It is the opinion of Ngati Hine that this application, as demonstrated above, will impact negatively on customary activities and the retention of traditional Ngati Hine knowledge in relation to biodiversity and therefore that the government and the Environmental Protection Authority is obliged to ensure that this does not take place.
Proposed Controls/Conditions/Restrictions
Given that there is no data available on the toxicity and food safety implications of close application of the agrichemicals to bivalve farms, AQNZ requests the commissioners to consider the merit of consent conditions to prevent the use of agrichemicals within a safe Aquaculture New buffer from food producing marine farms. A distance of 500m was suggested for haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl and in absence of conflicting Zealand (AQNZ) evidence, it seems reasonable to specify that distance at this time until monitoring of effects on bivalve health and food safety are presented.
Ngati Koroki Ngati Koroki Kahukura seeks the following conditions:
October 2012 46
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Kahukura Trust 1) Ngati Koroki Kahukura would like consent conditions that ensure that there are no non-target effects from the use of these chemicals. 2) Ngati Koroki Kahukura would like consent conditions that ensure that any residue left post application does not bio-accumulate and/or cause negative effects on the environment, flora or fauna. 3) Ngati Koroki Kahukura would like conditions of the consent to include a targeted and specific project that requires the consent holders to regularly investigate alternatives to the chemicals proposed in the consent application(s). This includes a review of emerging technologies regarding using chemicals that have a lesser impact, the use of biocontrols (subject to adequate investigation), etc. The project should also comment on the feasibility of alternative technologies. This is similar to condition(s) in the 1080 reassessment.
Federated Farmers therefore submits that, as will all spraying operations, spray drift will need to be managed. It is expected that those Federated carrying out the spraying are aware of their obligations regarding handler certificates, Growsafe Accreditation and regional council Farmers bylaws. Federated Farmers also submits that any rotting vegetation as a result of spraying will need to be managed as it is likely to add to the nutrient loading of the waterways which could then be falsely attributed to farmers.
The application provides a robust assessment of the toxicology and ecotoxicology impacts of the agrichemicals and the risks associated with their use. The NZBI considers that the benefits of pest plant control significantly outweigh the risks of the use of the The New Zealand agrichemicals over water. We recognise that all staff and contractors that undertake aquatic weed control must be appropriately Biosecurity certified and have been trained in risk management techniques. This will enable trained operators to apply agrichemicals in aquatic Institute (NZBI) situations effectively whilst minimising adverse environmental effects. On a site by site basis operations are subject to resource consents that set limits on concentration rates, set controls for spray drift minimization and the avoidance of water takes and provide for adequate consultation.
October 2012 47
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
We urge that the use of the herbicides be strictly controlled and accompanied by ongoing monitoring. Monitoring of impacts will ensure that risks to indigenous wetland and other aquatic environments are minimised as far as practicable, while still realising the potential of National Wetland the herbicides to improve the health and function of the ecosystem until such time as less toxic options become available. Monitoring Trust of New of impacts including non-target effects could for part of a research programme, to be potentially funded by the interagency group that Zealand has applied, should assess a representative sample of control operations and assess ecotoxicity to non-target species and residual effects on the ecosystems.
To ensure the use of these herbicides avoid or minimize negative and harmful effects to the trout fishery and waterfowl populations, a Fish and Game condition should be included requiring compulsory prior consultation be undertaken with Fish & Game, by all applicants, at least six New Zealand, weeks prior to any spray programmes becoming operative. This would allow for a review of the timing of spray applications in relation Eastern Region to crucial trout rearing and duckling fledging periods. This condition should also include a means of conflict/dispute resolution mediation when spray applications lead to adverse ecological effects for these species.
Advisory It does not appear that there has been extensive research on the effects of these substances on our native fish and plants. Grant Committee for the consent for the use of these chemicals to the organisations which form part of the AGR with the following conditions: Waikato Regional 1. The effects of their use over water is monitored on a regular basis and should any sign of adverse effect to fish or beneficial Environment plant life be detected by that monitoring, then the application of the particular herbicide is to cease.
(ACRE) 2. The use of these chemicals is a ‘last resort’ method of control, where other non-chemical methods have failed.
APPROVED HANDLERS
Te Ngaru a Maui Of concern is that applicators need only have attended GrowSafe training to the level of Registered Chemical Applicator, with the (TNRM) inclusion of the Level 4 ‘Aquatic Strand’, or have at least 50 hours proven experience in discharging agrichemicals for aquatic weed control. (Clause 12 a,b,c Conditions pg 65). TNRM consider that is inadequate considering the hazardous nature of the chemicals and
October 2012 48
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
require stronger provisions to give certainty that all applicators are managed effectively and correctly certified.
CONTROLS
The proposed conditions advanced by the applicants are inadequate and unworkable. 2 Each of the chemicals may have slightly different concentrations that must not be exceeded (a) but all have the same qualifier in (b) shall not be discharged at a rate that exceeds the practical limits necessary to enable total coverage of the aquatic pest plant at each location. (emphasis added)
TNRM are highly concerned that relying on an applicator that may have more the 50 hours proven experience in discharging agrichemicals for aquatic weed control does not engender confidence nor provide certainty that adverse effects will not take place.
Additionally practical limits has not been described or defined and therefore leaves the amount to be used as an open limit which is totally unsatisfactory. TNRM are also highly concerned with the condition 12 (a) In accordance with the manufacturers’ label directions, with the exception of directions limiting use over water;( emphasis added)
While it is recognised that the applicants are seeking permits to use these chemicals, it is also clear that they are intending to ignore the crucial MSDS and labels from the manufacturers with some of the MSDS and labels clearly stating that the chemicals are not to be used over or into water.
Furthermore; TNRM raise the issue of recording keeping in condition 9- 13 and state that this application to use chemicals over or into water potentially pose a significant risk. Condition 10 outlines that the permission holder shall provide the EPA with the information if requested and any incidents, including accidental by-spills, shall be reported (including time, date, and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of herbicide occurring.
Again the conditions are weak and appear unworkable or have double meaning. On one hand all the information will only be supplied to the EPA if requested and yet any spills are to be reported within a week.
October 2012 49
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
TNRM will argue that due to risk that the chemicals pose, ALL nationwide applications and operations should be placed on the EPA website much like the 1080 data base so a record could be publically available to monitor.
Additionally the conditions are devoid of real substance and should include any distances from houses, location, operators, agrichemical concentrations and application rates, pre-operational reporting, post-operational reporting and monitoring, off target drift prevention, site notices, notifications and reporting of new infestations.
If the applicants are seeking to limit the RMA compliance costs and timeframes and enable efficient responses to newly discovered aquatic pest plant infestations as above, there should be consistent national baseline controls set to allow that to take place. Additional regional conditions can still reflect local environments.
3.6 In those situations such as Southland, where, as a result of two decades of control, Spartina has been reduced to relatively few, isolated, sites (if not individual remnant plants) we urge that if haloxyfop-R-methyl is approved for use, hand-held wiper techniques rather than spraying be used, so as to reduce to an absolute minimum (if not preclude) impact of the active ingredient on susceptible native species. We also urge that the application of haloxyfop-R-methyl be restricted to those times of the day when the tide is out and hence target plants are exposed on mudflats, and to those times of the year when inanga and elvers are not migrating through the
Te Runanga o estuarine system. Ngai Tahu 3.7 We note that dense infestations of some weeds can actually provide a useful habitat for some aquatic species and that the sudden removal of the weeds by spraying may deprive these species of this habitat. Accordingly, we support the staged removal of these infestations so as to allow native plants to re-establish and so to provide a continuous benign environment.
3.8 We request that the controls imposed must include specific requirements regarding where, when and how spraying may be undertaken, and on the form post-application monitoring should take (frequency, location and water contamination, as well as impacts on native wildlife).
October 2012 50
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
The application requests the substances applied be made available for a number of existing, and potentially future, aquatic pest plant species. The application does not, however, define which substance should be used to control which species. This should be provided in Table 1 of the application, where the pest plant and its response rating is provided, but not the response method. Table 1 needs an additional right-hand column which outlines the particular herbicide which can be used to control/eradicate each pest plant species.
Decision requested: Approval should only be given for the use of specific herbicides in water to control specific aquatic pest plant species. Approval should not be given for general or widespread use of the substances applied for.
South Island Eel It is known that Aquathol K (already registered for use in water, and subject to section 95A permission controls) can control most of the Industry species listed in Table 1, with the possible exception of Phragmites and Manchurian Wild Rice. The application fails to explain why the Association Inc, additional substances are needed to control all species listed in Table 1. Further, Diquat is registered for use in water, and is often and North Island used for general suppression of aquatic weeds for management purposes. These two substances (Aquathol K and diquat) have been Eel Enhancement extensively tested for long-term toxicity in New Zealand waterways, and have been proven to be effective against aquatic weeds, with Company Ltd no bioaccumulation problems or long-term toxicity issues to fish, invertebrates or aquatic habitats in general. Decision requested: The substances applied for should not be allowed for general use against aquatic weeds. They should only be allowed to be used on specific pest plants, in circumstance where diquat or Aquathol K cannot control or eradicate these pest plant species
Aquathol is subject to additional controls under section 95A of the HSNO Act. All of the substances applied for are more toxic in aquatic environments than Aquathol K, so should also be subject to section 95A permissions. Decision requested: All substances applied for be subject to section 95A permissions.
National Wetland Controlling the plant pests that invade our wetlands and other aquatic environments requires a range of tools, including herbicides, but Trust of New we do note that such methods have known negative impacts. Therefore we request that the usage be restricted in areas where
October 2012 51
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Zealand significantly naturally occurring indigenous vegetation communities are likely to be substantially adversely affected. Such protection may not exist in all of the relevant regional or district plans.
Consultation
South Island Eel Commercial eel fishers would like to be consulted on all section 95A permissions applied, for these substances. Industry Association Inc, and North Island Eel Enhancement Company Ltd
Paragraph four under section 2.3 – Conditions (pg 4), within the application states that “the applicants are all subject to the Resource Management Act requirements on a region by region basis. At present all regional plans require resource consent for the discharge of agrichemicals over water. Resource consents will include conditions that manage localized effects of spraying programmes and the conditions (of the application) should not seek to duplicate these controls”. Fish Game have serious concerns with this statement as it Fish and Game is misleading to infer that consultation will occur with potentially affected parties under a resource consent process should permission New Zealand, be given to use the listed herbicides over water. Within numerous applicants’ regional council plans (not all were reviewed), should Eastern Region these herbicides be given approval for use over water, and the pest plants targeted are listed within the regional pest plant strategy or national accord, then spraying would then become a permitted activity, not requiring resource consents or any consultation. For example; Bay of Plenty Regional Council Water and Land Plan – Rule 16: Permitted- Discharge of Aquatic Herbicide Over Water for Weed Control.
The one failing condition within most councils permitted activities is (similar to) “the aquatic herbicide shall be discharged in a manner
October 2012 52
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
that is consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions”. All the listed herbicides applied for within this application have current manufacturer’s instructions not to use over water. However, it is clearly stated on page 65 of the application, point 12a “in accordance with the manufacturers label directions, with the exception of directions limiting use over water”. Consequently permission (should it be granted) would override any regional council rule conditions (as with BOPRC – Rule 16c) and would then become a permitted activity as previously stated, not requiring resource consent processes and consultation. Without consultation Fish & Game would not have the opportunity to view any proposed spray programme and discuss with any of the applicants’ options that could be explored to avoid or minimize harmful affects to any trout fishery or waterfowl populations within the target area. Some solutions may be as simple as a request to delay a programme by four weeks to enable the duckling population to gain enough growth to reach flying capabilities so they could move from the affected area.
We seek that should approval be given to the listed herbicides to be used over water to control pest plants, a condition be included in the permission, to require compulsory consultation with Fish & Game, New Zealand detailing any proposed spraying programme prior to implementation, to ascertain if avoidance or minimization of harmful affects to any trout fishery or waterfowl populations can occur.
The acceptance of a control tool does not rest on science alone. History already tells us that the successful implementation of any pest control programme requires a sophisticated level of community engagement that empowers the affected community within the decision- making process. At the very least, there should be some form of communication and information exchange with local people. Waikato Tainui Te Lack of appropriate engagement is the largest concern for Waikato-Tainui within this process.
Kauhanganui The emergency application to use metsulfuron-methyl for alligator weed control in the Ruahorehore Stream referred to a consultation Incorporated process undertaken by the Waikato Regional Council in broader resource consent to discharge herbicides over water (cl. 3.32: p 7). Permissions were noted as having been received from a number of roopu who all affiliate to Waikato-Tainui. It was disappointing that the EPA decision-makers took the permissions given by these roopu and marae as justification to then allow the application to go ahead within the Ruahorehore Stream near Waihi (cl. 3.34; p7). If a check had been undertaken by the decision-makers prior to
October 2012 53
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
finalization of their decision, it would have been noted that these roopu and marae did not have the mandate to speak for the tangata whenua of that particular area.
What effectively occurred here was a misguided homogenization of tangata whenua values, perceptions and needs within the EPA process. Permissions made by tangata whenua associated with the Waikato-Tainui affiliated marae and Trusts, were not only taken out of the context from which those decisions were needed to be made, but it was also unnecessarily derisive, and impinged on the mana and kaitiakitanga of the tangata whenua within the affected area.
Unfortunately the above situation brings into question the faith that tangata whenua can hold in a process that pitches the decisions of one iwi against another.
In the past the Trust has provided its consent for chemical use over water to combat the spread of Alligator Weed.
• Consent was not given lightly.
• Consent was given for a single issue and related to a specific locality.
• Consent was given on the understanding that we would be notified when the spraying would occur and kept informed of the success or failure of the spray programme. Huakina It is great concern that we noted in the River Trust submission that permissions granted by the Trust (and other) were used as Development justification to allow an application in another rohe – Ruahorehore Stream near Waihi. Actions such as those can have lasting Trust consequences for intertribal relationships. One issue, one permission, one locality. Don’t do it again. One size does not fit all. Conclusion • Huakina supports further exploration of the matters if concern noted in paragraph 46 of the Waikato River Trust submission. • Any permissions provided by Huakina are application specific and are not to be used to support or justify any other applications unless written permission has been gained from Huakina.
October 2012 54
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Initial consultation was undertaken with the applicant’s consultant Latitude Planning Services (LPS)after being informed by the EPA through the National Maori network that application for reassessment for the four chemicals in APP201365 were being undertaken. Various emails were exchanged.
LPS provided me with supplementary information Date: 14 March 2012 that gives the background to the current APP201365 /EPA which states that since October 2011, the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) in conjunction with Department of Conservation, Waikato/Auckland Fish and Game Council and the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) have been preparing a joint resource consent application under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) for the use of agrichemicals within aquatic environments for the selective control of aquatic pest plants.
Also that the main purpose of the resource consent application is to limit the RMA compliance costs and timeframes and enable efficient responses to newly discovered aquatic pest plant infestations. Additionally it is proposed that a region wide consent will Te Ngaru a Maui supersede some 20 area-specific resource consents held by the applicants with consultation on the region wide consent application in December 2011 plus submissions due at the end of March 2012.
During that process LPS replied to information requests from me and Waikato Tainui on various aspects of the application. Additionally NIWA responded to the information requests by Waikato Tainui due to the technical nature of the requests. Subsequently a meeting was at held 1 June 2012 at Waikato Regional Council offices with a range of issues being discussed.
Of concern is that meeting is noted in the application on Page 27 with me representing Tainui Awhiro. I did not attend the meeting as a representative of Tainui Awhiro. That position is held by Angeline Greensill who is the hapu spokesperson and is noted so on the Kahui Mangai site.
Of note is that several Iwi responded in Table 7 in the summary of iwi consultation (pg 26- 28) with concerns that needs to be recognised.
It is disappointing that consultation does not extend into fair and open dialogue with the applicants or their consultant particularly as the
October 2012 55
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
HSNO Act 1996 sec 4,5,6, 8 is clear.
There is no mention in the conditions of how the applicants will engage or report with hapu and Iwi, nor is there any consideration of how they will comply with sec 8 HSNO Act 1996 that state they shall take into account the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi of active protection of Maori taonga, act reasonably, honourably and in good faith.
Benefits of aquatic weed control
Haloxyfop-R-methyl is required to control highly invasive Manchurian Rice Grass in the ecologically significant Te Harake Wetland Kapiti Coast Complex in the Kapiti District. The inability to use this herbicide over water would make the control of this environmental weed virtually District Council impossible. This weed poses a serious threat to this regionally significant wetland.
We wish to support the above application for use of the four chemicals to control pest plants in aquatic situations. Pest plants such as Spartina, Manchurian Wild Rice and Alligator Weed have the potential to cause problems in our aquatic environments potentially CG Hale Ltd impacting drainage, power generation, farming and recreational activities. Often chemical control is the only feasible or economic method of control available to authorities. When used under consent conditions they present far less danger to the surrounding environment that the pest plants they are controlling.
Gordon I support APP201365. For the use of the four chemicals in carefully managed situations. Stephenson
Waikato Branch We are strongly in favour of efforts being made to control spartina and alligator weed etc, but note the control mechanisms in the use of of Forest and Bird the herbicides must be adhered to. The Waikato region will benefit greatly if these pest plants are controlled.
Federated Farmers are supportive if the use of the four actives stated in this application, APP201365, for the control of aquatic weeds. Federated Farmers in the regions specified are impacted by these weeds encroaching on pasture and we note that most of the weeds targeted
October 2012 56
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Farmers are not palatable to stock and nor do they provide the right nutrition. Some are poisonous. While it is expected that most of this growth will occur within the riparian margin, and therefore not likely to be used for grazing, encroachment into useful pasture cannot be ruled out.
The four active ingredients, haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl and triclopyr triethylamine are required to control aquatic pest plants. To be effective the herbicides which contain the active ingredients are required to be applied over or into water. The use of these herbicides has several important benefits for NZ’s environment and more specifically, the Northland regional economy;
1. Improving the availability of effective control tolls that target a range of New Zealand’s worst weeds including Manchurian Wild Rice, spartina and alligator weed which are established in Northland and elsewhere in New Zealand. Northland 2. Protecting the rural economy from invasive pest plants impacts such as the loss of productive land and interference with flood Regional Council control and power infrastructure.
3. Protecting key public amenity and environmentally sensitive areas from invasive pest plants such as important wetlands, salt marches and recreational waterways.
4. Achieving core biosecurity outcomes for New Zealand.
5. Allowing for improved collaboration between agencies to achieve more effective pest plant control. 6. The herbicides are safe to use in aquatic environments and the risk from NOT controlling these weeds is severe.
The NZBI supports this application to allow the use of the four substances for the control of pest plants in aquatic situations. The NZBI The New Zealand believes the successful reassessment of the four agrichemicals for use over waterways will provide the following benefits: Biosecurity 1. It will improve the availability of effective control tools for a range of New Zealand’s worst pest plants including Manchurian wild Institute (NZBI) rice, Spartina and Alligator weed.
October 2012 57
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
2. It will protect the rural economy from invasive pest plant impacts such as loss of productive land and interference with flood control and power infrastructure.
3. It is help protect key public amenity and environmentally sensitive areas from invasive pest plants.
4. It will help achieve core biosecurity outcomes for the country.
5. It will enable improved collaboration between agencies to achieve more effective pest plant control.
PEST PLANT THREATS
Introduced plants, plant pests and plant diseases pose a serious and on-going threat to New Zealand’s native plants and trees, agricultural and horticultural crops and plantation forests. A key objective for biosecurity within New Zealand is to provide doe the effective and efficient control of pest plant threats that have the potential to significantly impact the country’s economy and environment. At a national level, there are a number of National Interest Pest Response aquatic pest plants which present significant threats to these values. Some of the plants are well established and need to be actively managed to ensure their impacts are minimised.
STRATEGIC NEED FOR EFFECTIVE CONTROL TOOLS This modified reassessment application will allow the continued access to agrichemical control tools that are fundamental for the effective and efficient control of aquatic pest plants. Effective alternatives for the management of aquatic pest plants do not presently exist, yet research within the wider biosecurity industry into alternatives such as biocontrol is ongoing.
Aquatic weeds infestations can ruin the aesthetic appeal of lakes, rivers and wetlands. Weeds interfere with recreational opportunities – swimming, boating, fishing and other recreational activities can be restricted. The impact of pests on New Zealand’s terrestrial Wayne Bennett biodiversity is widely recognised. In the same way introduced freshwater weeds can complete with native plants and animals, modifying their habitat and reducing food sources. Currently terrestrial weeds along riparian margins are difficult to control because of
October 2012 58
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
a lack of available herbicides suitable for a situation where drift or overspray onto water is unavoidable. Some aquatic weeds have the potential to invade terrestrial environments as well and early control of these is more economical. Approval of this application will:
1. Improve the availability of effective control tools for a range of New Zealand’s worst pest plants including Manchurian wild rice, Spartina and Alligator weed.
2. Protect the rural economy from invasive pest plant impacts such as loss of productive land and interference with flood control and power infrastructure.
3. Protect key public amenity and environmentally sensitive areas from invasive pest plants.
4. Allow improved collaboration between agencies to achieve more effective pest plant control.
The National Wetland Trust is of the view that the risks posed by the use of the chemicals as proposed are outweighed by the ecological damage being incurred daily form the invasions of exotic weeds in aquatic environments. Approval of the use as outlined in National Wetland the application would assist councils and other wetland managers in protecting key wetlands and other aquatic environments from the Trust of New serious aquatic plant pests that degrade their ecological function and character. Zealand While we note that the impacts of the herbicides that form the subject of the application have known deleterious effects, we accept that the broader positive outcomes of their careful use are likely to outweigh those impacts at this time.
The National The NBA supports the intentions of the applicants to seek more effective remedies to eliminate introduced noxious aquatic weeds. The Beekeepers NBA strongly supports any measures to improve biosecurity and the uniqueness of our environment and eliminate noxious pests and Association (NBA) plants.
Fish and Game The current available herbicides for use over water are not the most effective or most selective choices for good control of many pest New Zealand, plant species. Fish & Game recognise that have more selective and powerful herbicides would allow better management of emergent
October 2012 59
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Eastern Region aquatic pest plants.
Pest plants and animals have long been recognised by the marae whanau as a contributing cause to the decline in health and Huakina wellbeing of our waterways. The spread of plant pests have also taken over and destroyed habitat where whanau once gathered food Development or other resources, we have stopped visiting those places. This has reduced our association with our tupuna awa and associated Trust waterways.
At a national level, Environment Southland believes the successful reassessment of the four agrichemicals for use over waterways will provide the following benefits:
1. It will improve the availability of effective control tools for a range of New Zealand’s worst pest plants including Manchurian wild rice, Spartina and Alligator weed.
2. It will protect the rural economy from invasive pest plant impacts such as loss of productive land and interference with flood control and power infrastructure. 3. It is help protect key public amenity and environmentally sensitive areas from invasive pest plants. Environment 4. It will help achieve core biosecurity outcomes for the country. Southland 5. It will enable improved collaboration between agencies to achieve more effective pest plant control. Environment Southland believes the benefits of using these substances to control aquatic pest plants far outweighs the risks they present in aquatic environments. Southland is fortunate that the region is largely free of the aquatic pest plants listed in this application.
1. Under the RPMS for Southland, Spartina is classified as an Eradication Pest Plant. The primary objective is to support the Department of Conservation’s programme to eradicate Spartina in Southland. The programme to control Spartina began over 30 years ago when local ornithologists noted a decrease in wading birds inhabiting the New River Estuary. This was attributed to loss of habitat caused by the spread of Spartina within the estuary. In 1984 a flood event inundated much of Invercargill City and other parts of the
October 2012 60
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
region. At the time over 800 hectares of the New River Estuary was infested with Spartina. Spartina was identified as one of the causative factors contributing to the flooding which severely impacted upon the infrastructure of Invercargill and many of its residents. When the Department of Conservation was formed in 1987, they took over management of the programme to remove spartina from New River Estuary and other estuaries and waterways in the region. Local eradication of Spartina has been achieved for seven estuaries and waterways to date. Spartina is still present in the New River Estuary, but at significantly reduced levels - estimated to be < 1 hectare infested with scattered individual plants. Two factors have resulted in a very successful programme to date. The first was developing aerial and ground application methods to control large areas of spartina; the second was an effective herbicide that could successfully kill spartina in an estuarine environment. After a number of trials, the herbicide assessed to be most effective was Haloxyfop-P-methyl - the prior formulation of one of the substances in this application. It is almost certain the programme would not have achieved the results to date without the ability to use herbicides containing Haloxyfop for Spartina control in Southland.
2. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is also an Eradication Pest Plant under the RPMS for Southland. The main objectives are to prevent its spread and ensure all sites are destroyed on an annual basis for eradication to be successful. To date, Purple loosestrife has not been found invading wetlands in the region as it has in other parts of NZ. However, should it turn up in wetlands we believe it has the potential to cause serious negative impacts on wetland habitat for fish and bird species as well as exclude native plant species. For the eradication programme to succeed we need to have the ability to use appropriate herbicides in wetland situations. As mentioned in the application, Metsulfuron methyl and Triclopyr triethylamine are two herbicides recommended for controlling Purple loosestrife.
3. In 2007 the aquatic pest plant Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot's feather) was first discovered in Southland. It is not included in the RPMS for Southland as it wasn't known to occur in the region when the RPMS was developed. Parrot's feather is a bottom-rooted perennial mat-forming plant that forms dense floating mats which can clog waterways. It is widely distributed throughout NZ but fortunately was found contained within ponds on two properties in Southland. In one instance herbicide treatment was necessary for control. The herbicide used contained the active ingredient Triclopyr triethylamine - one of the substances included in this application.
October 2012 61
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Control of Parrot's feather using this herbicide has been successful and it will be possible to eradicate it at this site as long as we have the ability to use the herbicide over water.
As well as having the ability to control existing aquatic pest plants in the region, Environment Southland wants to be able to respond to any new discovery of aquatic pest plants that turn up - such as Parrots feather in 2007. In order to do this, we require effective herbicides that can be used over water to be available. This rationale is why Environment Southland became part of the ARG and is supportive of the application.
Advisory ACRE supports the application with some reservations. However, we feel on balance that the benefits outweigh the possible negative Committee for the effects. We are concerned about the effects the spread of the target aquatic plants are having on our waterways and estuaries, and it Waikato Regional seems evident that other means of control have not proven effective. Environment (ACRE)
Waikato Tainui Te Pest plants and animals have long been recognised by Waikato-Tainui as key contributing factors in the decline and the health of our Kauhanganui Awa Tuupuna, our wetlands, lakes, coastlines and ngahere. Incorporated
The application provides access to agrichemical tools that are critical for the effective control and eradication of aquatic pest plants throughout the Canterbury Region, and indeed New Zealand. The key benefits of effective aquatic pest plant are as noted within the
Environment application and will locally be enacted by the many plans and rules as in our proposed Land and Water Regional Plan (pLWRP). Canterbury To highlight how this example will work in practice, the following rule is proposed within the pLWRP and reflects the importance of this application to our pLWRP:
5.25 The discharge of an agrichemical, or agrichemical equipment or container washwater, into or onto land,
October 2012 62
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
including the bed of a lake, river or artificial watercourse, in circumstances where a contaminant or water may
enter water is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
1. The agrichemical and application technique or method is approved for use under the Hazardous Substances and
New Organisms Act 1996;
The weeds targeted are very invasive and pose a huge threat to our waterways. The official reports show that these herbicides are Leo Koppens safe in aquatic environments and the risk from not controlling the weeds is severe.
3.2 We accept that the weeds which are the focus of this application, when present in extensive infestations, have serious environmental impacts on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. They also have economic impacts, such as on power generation. The weeds may damage sensitive ecosystems and negatively impact on native plants and animals and cultural values at many sites throughout New Zealand including sites within the Ngai Tahu takiwa (Spartina, for instance, diminishing Caspian tern nesting sites and other wading bird feeding grounds in Southland estuaries). Te Runanga o 3.3 We accept that mechanical methods to control and/or eradicate new infestations of these weeds are impractical, leaving chemical Ngai Tahu control and biological controls the only feasible options. Recent studies by Landcare Research show that “the alligator weed beetle (Agasicles hygrophila), and moth (Arcola malloi) provide good control of the weed on static water bodies in warmer parts of the country. However, they are not able to control terrestrial infestations of the weed or aquatic infestations that are regularly flooded or situated in cooler parts of the country” (see What’s new in biological control of weeds, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, p.7, Issue 61, August 2012).
New Zealand The NZFOA recognises the importance of effective biosecurity management to protect the industry’s forests and trade. The NZFOA Forest Owners supports the strategic intent of the reassessment application as it seeks to retain access to biosecurity tools that are critical for the Association effective control of aquatic pest plant threats. Through its Forest Biosecurity Research Strategy, the NZFOA recognises that biosecurity
October 2012 63
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
(NZFOA) response capability is important to the forest industry both to protect forests and to provide assurance to trading partners that products are free of biosecurity-threat organisms.
The New Zealand forestry sector relies on herbicides for cost-effective weed management. Pest plant management is a key factor in maximizing forest yields and protecting forest health. Forest owners use a number of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl or triclopyr triethylamine as the active ingredient, to control invasive weeds and other pest plants on their land, and occasionally in riparian areas alongside ephemeral and permanent streams.
Alternative Methods of Control
All efforts should be made for physical removal/management of pest plants before releasing any chemical broadly into an aquatic Graeme environment. Power companies have the resources and money to control pest plants in hydro systems using mechanical means, why Anderson is the ratepayer picking up this one in a manner that has implications for wildlife?
Waikato Tainui Te Waikato-Tainui aspires to zero-use of chemicals to control pests. In order to reach this aspiration though, leadership is required at the Kauhanganui national level to invoke and support greater innovations into the development of a different suite of tools and/or methods. Incorporated
We recommend the following:
1. Physical removal of the plant and all fragments to a land fill is the best method and better land and riparian management is preferred Nga Tirairaka o such as livestock exclusion, maintaining riparian planting to lower nutrient run-off and light, rather than the use of chemical sprays Ngati Hine which require frequent follow up. (Council, Pest Management, 2012)
2. Improved farm management to avoid pest plant incursion and spread.
Te Runanga o If it can gain funding, Landcare Research plans to introduce further biological control agents to attack the weed in these difficult areas.
October 2012 64
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Ngai Tahu We urge that an effort be directed towards biological control in cases where it may be feasible. The failure to mention this option is a shortcoming of the application. We urge that research funding be directed to explore further biocontrol options in situations where eradication of the weed is not being attempted.
Additional Research
Graeme Oppose the application or at the very least demand that they pay for a study to prove conclusively that there is no, or very little non- Anderson target effects.
It appears the tests for these chemicals are lab based and no real life situation or limited tests have been completed. No field tests Friends of the have been undertaken for haloxyfop-R-methyl. The dilution and mixing rates are unknown as well as the downstream effects. A Earth NZ precautionary approach with a trial, real life test would therefore be advisable prior to wide spread application.
3.4 There are obvious and considerable benefits in controlling the nominated weeds. While the risks to non-target species seem low and/or transient, we have serious concerns over the toxicity of haloxyfop-R-methyl to inanga, elvers and the young of other freshwater fish, and to molluscs and other freshwater, and estuarine invertebrate species, despite the assertion that ‘the potential effect is considered to be no more than minor’ (application p. 45). The point is that no field trials have been undertaken to assess the potential effects of haloxyfop-R-methyl on these or other native species. This is a significant gap in the database. The applicant’s assertion that Te Runanga o this formulation of haloxyfop will be safer than the previously used formulation (haloxyfop-ethoxylethyl) may be correct, but in the Ngai Tahu absence of any hard evidence, the claim does not convince us.
3.5 Accordingly, we oppose the use of haloxyfop-R-methyl for the control of Spartina and Manchurian Wild Rice until such tests have been undertaken and demonstrated to be harmless to populations of non-target native species at planned use patterns. In situations such as those in the Tasman/Nelson region, where the approximately 100 ‘sites’ of Spartina are each less than 0.5 sq. m, if not just single tillers, and the Southland region, where the ‘sites’ in the coastal estuarine systems are equally limited and individual remnant
October 2012 65
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
plants are being targeted, we accept that environmental impacts will be extremely small.
Resistance Management
It's also common knowledge that weeds get resistant to herbicides and pesticides repeatedly used, and as stated on the current
pesticide product Material Safety Data Sheets and Label documents under "Resistant Weeds" or "Resistance Management". This is what has happened here in NZ with the government's illegal use of prohibited pesticides for aquatic weeds for years. So much stronger Jackie Pou dose concentration and more expensive pesticide products are used, as planned for in this grand 20 year chemical poisoning agenda. There are 40 separate toxic and ecotoxic, poison pesticide products involved in this application. It's a 20 year Win-Win for the chemical corporation manufacturers who benefit.
History of Non-compliance
4. HSNO Act 1996 Compliance
4.1 The Regional Councils, DoC and MAF, all of their commercial contractors and Approved Handlers are all required to comply with this key legislative change on application of pesticides into/onto water and to also comply with the HSNO Act registered use approval, and the hazards regulations and controls for all of the pesticide products they use, particularly for aquatic use. Compliance with the HSNO Act is mandatory. Jackie Pou 4.2. Therefore any Regional Council, DoC and MAF Regional or District RMA Plans and Weed or Pest Programmes, Public Notices, and any Resource Consents which state to apply &/or spray any pesticide into or onto water which is prohibited for this use under the HSNO Act Key Legislative Change 2006, all go against the HSNO Act regulations and compliance obligations also for the substance hazards, and are in effect illegal and invalid under the Act. Same with any Spartina or Alligator weed or other Weed Programme Notices of intention to spray within the harbours, rivers and streams in NZ which were issued. Illegal HSNO Act Offences have been or
October 2012 66
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
are being committed. The HSNO Act is the governing legislation for hazardous substances and new organisms use in New Zealand.
4.3. Their Approved Handlers are required to be knowledgeable on the key legislative change and to be competent in the use of specific hazardous toxic, ecotoxic and other hazardous properties, hazard class, subclasses and categories of the substances in these pesticide products, before they can use them. Also, to be knowledgeable on the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and controls for each pesticide product they use and to comply with the HSNO Act and the current MSDSs and Labels which must also comply with the key legislative change. The specific hazard classes, subclasses and categories they are qualified and competent to use have to be stated on their HSNO Approved Handler Test Certificates eg Hazard Class 9.1A (very high acute aquatic hazard) or 6.1A very high acute toxic hazard etc. Growsafe have issued HSNO invalid AH Test Certificates which don't state the specific hazard classes they can use on their Approved Handler Test Certificates. It used to be that they had to have competently used the specific hazardous substance hazard class, subclass and category (eg 9.1A etc) for 2 years before gaining the AHT Certificate.
4.4. All Approved Handlers who have applied and sprayed these prohibited pesticides into or onto water have been committing Offences against the HSNO Act. Either they weren't authentically qualified to use the hazardous substances in the first place under the Act (invalid Approved Handler Test Certificate and Test Certifier), or/& they used them knowingly going against the HSNO Act Key Change, HSNO Act approval regs and controls for the pesticide product they used, the current MSDS and Label docs for the products which must comply with the key change, and the chemicals NZIoC and CCID information too.
4.5. These illegal uses by the Regional Councils, MAF, DoC and co under the HSNO Act have been openly disclosed in the application, and by the EPA, and also in the other 2 applications for Grounds for reassessment, before this current application. Because they've all been doing it for years and this year too, they think that's OK but it's not at all. The compliance legislation is the HSNO Act 1996.
5.6. Untrustworthy and dishonest - The current Applicants' and the EPA's assurances of proposed controls and conditions to minimise risks are ridiculous and meaningless given that the Regional Councils, DoC, MAF and their unqualified Approved Handlers have been disregarding and not complying with the regulations and controls and have been committing Offences against the HSNO Act for years
October 2012 67
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
and this year too, with their illegal aquatic weed spray programmes applying haloxyfop pesticides for Spartina and metsulfuron pesticides for alligator weed etc. And their HSNO Act invalid Plans, Programmes, Resource Consents, Spray Notices and Approved Handlers to do so. They took no notice of the HSNO Act compliances for our protection and the aquatic environments. They cannot be trusted. Neither can the EPA & ERMA who have condoned these HSNO Act Offences for years. It's an abuse.
5.9. Offences committed against the HSNO Act by the Regional Councils, (MAF) and DoC have been disclosed in this application, for their illegal use and spraying of hazardous substance haloxyfop and metsulfuron pesticides into or onto water for Spartina and alligator weed etc. It's also disclosed by the EPA. And also disclosed by them all in the grounds for reassessment applications too APP201213 and APP201378. The HSNO Act compliances and approval regulations and controls for the use of these hazardous pesticides into or onto water mean nothing to them.
5.11. Combined collusion and dishonesty - I have come across this dishonesty and collusion between the Regional Councils, DoC, MAF and the EPA during the health and safety investigations I initiated into these HSNO Act Offences and non-compliances in late March this year with the Dept of Labour/OSH HSNO Act enforcers. They have all tried to fob me off with lies, more lies and invalid excuses. The EPA took over the investigations in April, dragging them on for months. The DoL has to report to them. I am still complaining and seeking justice and the truth.
No information was forthcoming during the consultation on the illegality of current use of chemicals for pest weed control by WRC, Doc and others. In particular those substances were being applied onto or into water which is a prohibited activity.
It is of major concern that all parties to the large application nationwide have been potentially operating illegally for many years under Te Ngaru a Maui the guise of resource consent approval and outside the gambit of the HSNO Act 1996. In particular that these substances were being applied onto or into water which is a prohibited activity.
TNRM have raised concern in relation to the application and in particular to the fact that WRC and others have acted outside the gambit of the HSNO Act 1996 potentially for many years. The knowledge does not bring confidence that the applicants will comply in
October 2012 68
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
the future.
Legality of Decision Making
2.3. You cannot legally change the registered for land use approval and the HSNO Act approval hazard regulations and controls for each hazardous substance pesticide product, and you aren't even trying to. Therefore you cannot legally change anything else under the HSNO Act pertaining to that registered only use, and the HSNO Act hazard regulations for the substances, dodgy modified reassessment and prior illegal grounds for reassessment applications included, and which would illegally change or attempt to illegally change or 'modify' the legal use approvals and regulations for which they are registered and approved for in New Zealand This would be inconsistent with the HSNO Act approvals and regulations for their registered approved use in NZ, and the prohibitions or restriction compliances put in place for health and safety to protect us all and the waterways and aquatic environment. It goes against the HSNO Act 2006 Key legislative change too. These significant toxic and ecotoxic hazards for the substances are also sourced from international best practices and stated on each of the products current product Material Safety Data Sheet and Label documents for Jackie Pou each product, HSNO approvals and controls and on the chemicals NZIoC and CCID databases too. 5.4. Under whose authority was it decided in the APP201213 decision document 4.9. Maori issues and concerns, that the EPA has no concerns from a Maori perspective regarding the applicant’s wish to determine whether there are grounds for the reassessment of the substances? (40 poison pesticides). Was it a group which is contracted to and funded by the EPA? An EPA organisation? Since when have they been the voice and authority for affected local Maori, and hapu and whanau o Aotearoa? Or was it the EPA Chair herself?
5.5. It could be argued that because Maori were deliberately excluded in the vital decision making processes which preceded this application, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti O Waitangi were not taken into account and were breached, thereby invalidating the EPA's decisions for granting Grounds for reassessment in the first place to the applicants in APP201213. Although one would think that the disclosed illegal significant change of use which was cited in APP201213 as grounds for reassessment of the hazardous substances would invalidate this anyway - Decision doc, see 4.1 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. (And 4.6. has to be compliant with the
October 2012 69
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
HSNO Act not the other way around). See 4.7. 4.8. also - No other factors were considered relevant (such as admitted Offences committed against the HSNO Act, the huge change and risk this would bring from the 20 year mass poisoning without consent agenda, the damage to the waterways, and deliberately excluding Maori in the application process...).
They even roped in Minister David Carter to put his 'Declared special emergency-Hat' on for that small patch of alligator weed, 3 more sprayings allowed until Feb 2013 EPA decision - APP201443 August 8. And Waikato DoC continued spraying banned haloxyfop for Spartina saying it was allowed (Agpro haloxyfop 100) along with the colluding EPA, even though it's not. It's hard to believe it all. Affected local Maori were excluded from the determination and decision process and not even consulted. Now that's a disgrace and an abuse. They sprayed prohibited poison pesticide Associate 600 WDG into the stream. How can there be a sudden emergency when
they've been illegally spraying the metsulfuron poison on alligator weed in the Waikato waterways down there for years, even in the Ruahorehore stream and have been monitoring it for years as stated in the WRC's own documents.
And according to their press release they were supposed to have stopped their aquatic weed spraying in Dec last year.
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/6156/tr07-07b.pdf
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/7293/RPMS%20Annual%20Report%20Final%20August%202011.pdf http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1207/S00633/waikato-playing-key-role-inaquatic-weed-spraying-efficiency.htm
6. Modified Reassessments sec 63A HSNO Act
6.1. Modified reassessments are not decided on under any section of the HSNO Act (EPA information). Therefore any EPA 'specialist decision making committee' would not be making a legal decision under the Act. They are determined under section 63A only. This dodgy current application is for a Modified Reassessment of 40 hazardous toxic and ecotoxic substance pesticide products all named in the 3 applications; APP201213, APP201378 and APP201365. Sec 63A(1)(a) concentrates on only a specific aspect of the approval like the additional Sec 77 controls. But there are also the aquatic hazards and toxic hazards sourced from international best practices which can't be ignored. And this specific aspect is crucial to the protection of the people, kaimoana and aquatic life, organisms and the
October 2012 70
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
aquatic environment of NZ. It would also involve 40 current product MSDSs and Labels, and Haznotes if available as well as the HSNO controls and the matching NIoC and CCID for all the chemicals, substances and all other hazardous ingredients in the products and their MSDS and Labels too.
6.2. Full reassessments (sec62 & sec 63) would apply to the pesticide substances and for everyone, all users of the substances.
7. Permissions sec 95A HSNO Act
7.1 HSNO Act section 95A permissions are the goal of APP201365. They have to be consistent with the approvals of the substances. These dodgy permissions go against the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and controls for each product as well as the manufacturers MSDSs and Labels hazard class regulatory information and directions source from international best practice. The applicants and the EPA are expecting section 95A permissions which aren't consistent with the approvals of the substances. They are seeking to modify the additional controls just for themselves, but these hazardous substances in the pesticides also have very toxic and very toxic ecotoxic hazard classes which would prohibit their application into or onto water and these are hazard regulations and controls. Further more detailed hazard class information for the chemicals in the pesticide products is on the NZIoC and the CCID online and on the EPA's website.
7.2. Sec 95A(1) permissions apply if the Authority approves a substance subject to an obligation referred to in section 77A(2)(a), namely that, before using a substance, a person must obtain a prior permission under this section for the general or particular use of the substance. This would mean that everyone in NZ who uses the substance or the pesticide products involved (40 of them), has to obtain a prior permission before they can use the substance. These pesticide products are used by the public and farmers, forestry workers, market gardeners and orchardists etc nationwide. That's why we have multiple pesticide poison residues on our fruit, vegetables and dairy products in NZ.
7.3. Sec 95A(3)(a) - As for the adverse effects involved in the use of the substance which the Authority must consider in sec 95A(3)(a),
October 2012 71
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
these adverse effects identified already prohibit or restrict the substances use into or onto water as in the MSDSs and Labels, international best practice, the HSNO controls and the NZIoC and CCID. Plus the applicants never stated all the adverse effects for each product in their applications. See some of them below in Pesticide Products.
7.4. Sec 95A(4) - The Authority may grant a permission subject to any conditions it may specify in the permission that are consistent with the approval of the substance. Again these HSNO approvals and hazard regulations prohibit their application and spraying into or onto water.
7.5. And nowhere in sec 95A does it say that the holders can go against the MSDS and Label document directions and Regulatory information for the use of the substance or pesticide. It doesn't say that the EPA can delete any Regulatory compliance controls for the hazardous substances either.
8. HSNO Act and the application
8.1. The guidelines for writing a submission say that the Decision making committee can only consider the effects associated with the application and not effects or matters that do not relate to the HSNO Act, yet the applicants application document consists of pages and pages of matters and effects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the HSNO Act. 8.2. In fact the only information applicable of theirs really is the information asked for in the specific questions on the Official Application Form under sec 63A and which are answered in their specific parts of their application document and appendices, amongst all the other
vast, inapplicable information. However, a decision under Sec 63A cannot be made under any section of the HSNO Act so it is virtually invalid. Just like the illegal change of use of the substance grounds granted in APP201213 decision doc. As well as the silly reference made also in there by the EPA to a proposed significant change of use grounds, that hasn't theoretically happened yet. The information has to show and relate to how a significant change of use has come about or is being used, and it would have to be legal under HSNO I'd imagine, and also not a fictitious predetermined change of use. Unless of course it's the significant illegal change of use disclosed (for many years) you mean and which was decided on as well. And just like the invalid sec 95A permissions being sought and which I
October 2012 72
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
see in the application document have already been drawn up to detail! (does every user in NZ now need a sec95A permission before they can legally use the pesticide products named now? lol). And how's that for a very pre-determined decision, invalid and illegal as it is. And before the submissions process has even finished.
8.3. The applicants and the EPA are also expecting to get away with not complying with the manufacturers products MSDS and Label directions and Regulations and regulatory information (sourced from international best practice) on prohibiting their use into or onto water (and prohibiting spraying over water or allow to drift over an aquatic environment)! They would also go against their own HSNO Act legislation and regulations compliance via a decision which isn't even made under any section of the HSNO Act ie sec 63A Modified Reassessment. And deliberately harm and damage the aquatic environment, kaimoana and locals by applying and spraying some highly toxic and highly ecotoxic poisons into or onto the harbours, rivers and streams.
8.4. This new attempt at poisoning us all and our aquatic environments goes right against the HSNO Act's Purpose and relevant principles and matters, the Precautionary principle of the Act and goes against the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty Of Waitangi for Maori as well.
9. Prior Grounds for reassessment applications APP201213 and APP201378 9.1. APP201213 decided 20 February 2012 Grounds for reassessment under sec 62(2)(c), invalidly on information showing a significant prohibited (illegal) change of use of the substances haloxyfop and metsulfuron (admitted Offences against the HSNO Act by the Regional Councils, DoC and MAF, as in this application) should be revoked now. Otherwise the EPA will be shown to agree with and condone the applicants and other Regional Councils disclosure of committing Offences against the HSNO Act 1996. The other
feeble attempt at a fictitious significant change of use (proposed) doesn't stack up either.
9.2. Maori and issues and concerns to Maori were not considered and included in the determination and decision making process for such an important issue affecting our ancestral waterways and other taonga and which puts us and our water and kaimoana at risk from the toxic and ecotoxic effects of the pesticides which is a direct breach of the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840/Treaty of
October 2012 73
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
Waitangi 1840, Te Whakaputanga 1835/Declaration of Independence 1835 and sec 8 of the HSNO Act 1996. "Issues and Concerns to Maori" Grounds for reassessment application Decision document for APP201213 - 4.9. The EPA has no concerns from a Māori perspective regarding the applicant’s wish to determine whether there are grounds for the reassessment of the substances. 20 Feb 2012 Chair Helen Atkins.
9.3. APP201378 decided 28 June 2012 Grounds for reassessment was the EPA's application to itself. Decided under sec 62(2)(a) "Significant new information relating to the effects of the substances has become available". However, the legislation doesn't say that sec 62(2)(a) of the HSNO Act says "Significant new information relating to the effects of the substance or organism has become available". That means 1 substance, not many substances (5 or more hazardous categories, 40 products). Invalid? Maybe 5 separate applications?
9.4. Again Maori and issues and concerns for Maori were not included in the determination and decision making for this important issue and where the use of the poisons into or onto our waterways and the air puts us at risk to our health and safety and the safety of our families. Spraying poisons into the water we get our kaimoana and watercress from is inexcusable. It pollutes te mauri o te wai. Significant risk, harm and damage will be put on our unborn and our future generations as well. "The committee has considered Maori perspectives when determining whether there are grounds for reassessment of the substances." Chair Helen Atkins 28 June 2012. This should be revoked as well. Otherwise the EPA will be seen as poisoners of the indigenous people and their kaimoana harbours, rivers and streams, excluding them in the determining and decision making and also as condoning the Regional Council, MAF and DoC's significant illegal change of use of the substances and which the same Chair decided for in APP201213 as well as for the fictitious use.
Conclusion -
If the government seriously wanted to control and eradicate aquatic weeds without using poison chemical pesticides, then they would find natural and ecofriendly ways to do this, which are also in line with our tikanga and values and perspectives around cherishing our taonga and not to poison our people, whanau and unborn and future generations and threaten their health and safety, or our treasured
October 2012 74
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Submitter Submission
waters and land and our much loved kaimoana. Toxic and ecotoxic chemical pesticides get overused and the weeds get resistant and can also fragment and spread and a cycle gets set up and perpetuated where more and stronger poisons are used. These poisons enter the food chain and ecosystems. Spraying them into waterways is unacceptable. The only opposition to this 20 year unethical and illegal agenda for mass poisoning without consent is a total opposition to it because the AGR and Regional Councils, MAF and DoC cannot be trusted as they blatantly offend against their own legislation the HSNO Act, and don't stick to compliance controls and regulations governing their use of poison pesticides into water and with the collusion of the EPA. Maori rights are ignored. The EPA decision making committee Chairs do not have our best interests at heart, nor our aquatic environments. They serve other interests as does the ARG.
October 2012 75
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix C: Applicant’s response to submission
ANGUS MCKENZIE - RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS Application for modified reassessment of substances containing metsulfuron-methyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine or triclopyr triethylamine. Date: 10 October 2012 A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS 1) The evidence of Mr Simmons, Mr Briden and Mrs Herrera describes the strategic objectives of the application, the economic, cultural and social benefits and the positive effects associated with control of aquatic pest plants, and the scope of the activities proposed in the application within the context of the broader biosecurity activities undertaken by the applicant group.
2) In summary, the application proposes to modify controls on all 13 substances set out in Table 1 below.
Substance Active Ingredient HSNO Approval # Emulsifiable concentrate Haloxyfop-R-methyl HSR000373 containing 100 g/L haloxyfop-R as the methyl ester Ignite Haloxyfop-R-methyl HSR002431 Crest 520 Haloxyfop-R-methyl HSR100054 Scorp EC Haloxyfop-R-methyl HSR008025 Water dispersible granule Metsulfuron-methyl HSR00232 containing 600 g/kg metsulfuron- methyl (Substance A) Water dispersible granule Metsulfuron-methyl HSR000242 containing 600 g/kg metsulfuron- methyl (Substance B) Water dispersible granule Metsulfuron-methyl HSR000238 containing 200 g/kg metsulfuron- methyl (Substance A) Water dispersible granule Metsulfuron-methyl HSR000245 containing 200 g/kg metsulfuron- methyl (Substance B) MSF 600 Metsulfuron-methyl HSR000063 Soluble concentrate containing Imazapyr isopropylamine HSR000521 250 g/L imazapyr as the isopropylamine salt Unimaz 250SL Imazapyr isopropylamine HSR100098 Garlon 360 Triclopyr triethylamine HSR007690 GF-2574 Triclopyr triethylamine HSR100379
The modifications are sought to additional controls (imposed under Section 77 of HSNO) on 11 substances containing the active ingredients metsulfuron-methyl, Imazapyr isopropylamine and Haloxyfop-R-methyl that state “The substance shall not be applied onto or into water.”
4) Modifications are also sought on the additional control on 2 substances containing Triclopyr triethylamine that states; “This substance shall not be applied to salt water bays or estuaries, unimpounded rivers or streams, or to ditches or canals used to transport irrigation water. It shall not be applied where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land. It shall not be applied to drinking water, or water intakes used for human consumption.”
October 2012 76
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
5) The modification proposed to the existing controls on all 13 substances is; “The substance shall not be applied onto or into water, except where a person/persons holds an approved permission under Section 95A of the HSNO”.
6) The modifications essentially seek to retain the current restrictions on the use of the substances over water but, where specific circumstances exist, provide a mechanism to allow for the consideration of permissions under Section 95A of HSNO as set out in the application.
7) Should the modifications proposed to the substances be approved, the application requests the issue of permissions for each of the substance to all members of the applicant group. The permissions are sought for a 20 year period. This timeframe is based on the typical duration of national pest plant eradication programmes such as the Ministry for Primary Industries/Northland Regional Council programme for Manchurian wild rice control in the Northland Region.
8) The application does not seek the imposition of further controls to manage the risks of using the substances over water. It is proposes that any identified risks be managed through imposition of conditions on the permissions. The reasons for this approach are;
i. The existing controls on the substances adequately manage the risks related to the terrestrial use of the substances. The imposition of additional controls related to aquatic use is likely to cause confusion regarding the HSNO status of the substances and is likely to increase compliance risks regarding their use.
ii. Permissions allow for the imposition of region and area specific conditions where relevant for example to take account of species migration, nesting seasons etc. The revisions will not apply on a national basis.
iii. Permissions will allow the applicants and/or the Environmental Protection Agency to cost- effectively review conditions, make changes where these may be required and limit the need to apply for full modified reassessment application.
iv. Permissions with conditions allow the applicant group to clearly articulate the HSNO risk management requirements to contractors and staff.
MATTERS OUTSIDE A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION 9) The submission of The National Beekeepers Association raises a number of concerns regarding the use of adjuvants in association with the herbicides subject of the application. The submission states that evidence exists that some adjuvants are ecotoxic to bees and requests further ecotoxicology analysis be undertaken by the applicants into the impacts of adjuvants, particularly surfactants used with herbicides and foliar nutrient products.
10) As noted in Section C above, the application does not include any proposed modifications to adjuvants. I therefore conclude that the consideration of the impacts of adjuvant is outside the scope of the application and cannot be taken into account in any decision making. The E and R report concurs with this view.
11) I note that the discharge of adjuvants in association with the herbicides subject of the application, into or onto water, is invariably subject to resource consent requirements under the operative Regional Plans for all Regions in New Zealand. These requirements for resource consent
October 2012 77
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) allow the consideration of the potential adverse effects of the use of adjuvants over water under the Resource Management Act.
C. HISTORIC NON COMPLIANCE 12) The submissions from Jackie Pou and Te Ngaru Roa a Maui raise concerns regarding alleged historic breaches by members of the applicant group under HSNO in reference to the spraying of both haloxyfop-R-methyl and metsulfuron-R-methyl over water for aquatic pest plant control. The submissions question the validity of any decision on the application in light of this alleged non- compliance. The Pou submission also queries the validity of the EPA’s decision to approve the Grounds for Reassessment application.
13) I note that these submissions are made against the background of Department of Labour investigations into historic agrichemical spraying of the pest plants spartina, Manchurian wild rice and alligator weed in the Northland and Waikato Regions. I also note from the further information provided to the EPA on 5 October 2012 by Mrs Pou in reference to her submission, that the Department of Labour investigations (Letter to Mrs Pou dated 13 August 2012) are now complete within both Regions, as all spraying operations using the agrichemicals subject of the application has ceased.
14) The strategic need for the applicants to obtain all appropriate statutory approvals under HSNO for the discharge of the agrichemicals over water is clearly set out in Section 2 of the application report. The application report summarises the historic use of herbicides in the control aquatic pest plants in New Zealand and provides details on the historic approval of resource consents for this purpose. The evidence of Mr Simmons and Mr Briden states that securing HSNO compliance for aquatic pest plant control programmes undertaken by the applicants is a key objective of the application. The applicants have therefore made no attempt to conceal any issues of non- compliance under HSNO and have submitted the application to the EPA in a proactive step to address the statutory requirements of HSNO.
15) Setting aside the above, any previous non compliance with HSNO does not preclude the ability of the EPA to make a decision on the current application. Whilst the historic compliance issues raised in the submissions from Jackie Pou and Te Ngaru Roa a Maui maybe relevant to a decision on the application in terms of Section 63A requirements to take account of “all the effects associated with the reassessment”. The applicants consider that these effects are not significant, as the compliance issues have been addressed through a separate process and the application seeks approval to ensure that all statutory requirements under HSNO are met.
16) The applicants concur with the EPA’s assessment on the issues raised in Jackie Pou submission regarding the legality of the approval of the Grounds for Reassessment application and agree that the basis for the decision is sound and does not preclude a decision being made on the application. I note that the applicant group has been guided by the EPA in all process aspects related to the Grounds for Reassessment application.
D. APPLICATION CONSULTATION PROCESSES 17) Section 9 of the application report summarises the approach and findings of the consultation and engagement process undertaken by the applicant group prior to the submission of the application. This process included contacting approximately 200 tangata whenua organisations and the registrants of the 18 substances proposed for modification and requesting their views on the risks, costs and benefits of the proposed modifications.
October 2012 78
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
18) The submissions of Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated (Waikato Tainui), Huakina Development Trust, Te Ngaru a Maui and Nga Tirairaka O Ngati Hine all raise concerns with the adequacy of the consultation and iwi engagement undertaken in reference to the application.
I duly note that the application report does not capture the details of the consultation undertaken on the application at the EPA’s Environmental Management Hui on 1-3 August 2012. Table 2 is therefore provided below as an updated summary of all consultation undertaken on the application.
Consultation Process Details Timing Responses Written consultation Letter to 200 iwi 3 March to 31 March 9 Responses received – 7 organisations and 14 2012 requesting further Registrants information on application. March and April 2012 – Applicants respond to all requests further information. Hui with Ngati Hine Meeting to discuss details 3 April 2012 10 April - Ngati Hine Representative of modified reassessment request via the EPA that application. the applicant group fund a Cultural Impact Assessment on proposals. 20 April - Request declined as outside national interest of application. Hui with Waikato-Tainui Meeting to discuss both 1 June 2012 15 June – Follow up and Te Ngaru Roa a Maui region wide consent in information and meeting representatives. Waikato and modified minutes provided to all reassessment parties. application. 18 June – Response from Waikato-Tainui raising further queries. 29 June – Applicant response to queries. National Environmental Presentation to National 1-3 August 2012 Debate on Management Hui Hui. issues/concerns at hui. 31 August 2012 - Applicants follow up with responses to issues raised at Hui for circulation to hui members.
20) The consultation process described in Table 2 has been endorsed by the EPA as appropriate to meet the relevant requirements of HSNO, notably the key matters relevant to the purpose of the Act (Section 6) and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Section 8).
21) I note paragraph 28 of the submission states “that Waikato-Tainui was first made aware of the application via the EPA National Maaori Network”. In reference to this I note that Waikato Tainui has been engaged in discussions with the Waikato Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries and Fish and Game
October 2012 79
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Auckland/Waikato on the preparation of a region wide consent in the Waikato Region since November 2011 and that these discussions have been linked with discussions on the modified reassessment application. The engagement has included the following key steps;
i) Written correspondence in October 2011 proposing a hui and site visit to view the proposed operations in the field. ii) Undertaking a site visit with Waikato-Tainui representatives in November 2011 and a meeting in December 2011 to discuss the potential for Waikato Tainui to be involved as co-applicants on the region wide consent. iii) Written support of the intent of the resource consent proposals was received from Waikato- Tainui in December 2011, but the offer to become co-applicants was declined. iv) Further hui with Waikato-Tainui and Te Ngaru Roa a Maui representatives to discuss both the resource consent and modified reassessment application in June 2012 and the provision of additional information in response to queries raised.
22) Both the Waikato Tainui and Huakina Development Trust submissions raise concerns regarding the consultation processes undertaken in reference a recently approved emergency application for the discharge of metsulfuron-R-methyl into the Ruahorehore Stream, near Waihi in the Waikato (EPA APP ref 201443). This emergency application has been considered and approved by the EPA under a separate process and is therefore not pertinent to a decision on the application.
23) In reference to requests in the submissions of Waikato Tainui and Huakina Development Trust for ongoing engagement with iwi regarding aquatic pest plant control operations, I note that the region wide consent proposes a number of conditions requiring the applicants to consult with iwi before and after any control operations. This consultation will include discussions on sensitive locations that should be avoided during operations and location specific restrictions that may be appropriate. The draft conditions proposed as part of the region wide consent will be presented in evidence. The applicant group sees this approach as appropriate to address the need for ongoing engagement with iwi. The applicant group do not consider it appropriate to require separate reporting process for the HSNO application.
RISKS TO CULTURAL PRACTICES AND VALUES 24) The submission of Nga Tirairaka O Ngati Hine raises a number of concerns regarding the potential for the spraying of agrichemicals into water to impact the cultural practices and values of Ngati Hine in particular;
• Stopping the use of water as a primary health aid for the prevention and remedy of health problems. • Impacts on the mana of the Te Orewai hapu that derives it names from waterways with the Ngati Hine rohe. • Degradation of the cultural value of ancestral lands by allowing the use of poisons. • Impeding the use of tapu restrictions over water and impacting Taniwha. • Impacts on use of the water to break in horses. • Narrowing the use of language related to a loss of connection with the water. • Impacts on historic knowledge systems.
October 2012 80
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
25) The risks to the cultural practices identified by Ngati Hine are acknowledged by the applicant group and it is also acknowledged that no person presenting evidence on the behalf of the group is appropriately qualified to provide comment on the specific cultural practices of Ngati Hine within its rohe, or the significance of the impacts on these practices to Ngati Hine.
26) However it is important to note that these practices identified with the submission are specific to the rohe of Ngati Hine which sits entirely within the Northland Region. The modified reassessment application has been submitted on a national basis is only one part of approval process that also requires the applicants to obtain resource consent/s for the discharge of agrichemicals over water. In the case of the Ngati Hine rohe the Northland Regional Plan requires resource consent for any discharge of agrichemicals over water as a discretionary activity.
27) I note that the Northland Regional Council is currently preparing a region wide resource consent for the control of aquatic pest plants using the substances subject of the application. This consent will be assessed under the Resource Management Act 1991 which elevates the consideration of effects on Maori cultural practices to matters of national importance in Part II, Section 6 which requires a consenting authority to recognise and provide for “the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taaonga”. The consideration of effects on cultural practice under the RMA is more stringent than the requirements of Section 6 of HSNO. Given the concerns raised are local to the rohe of Ngati Hine, the applicant group consider that the specific cultural concerns of Ngati Hine can be addressed through the RMA processes and avoided, remedied or mitigated through conditions.
28) Within the last two years, the total area of aquatic pest plants treated with agrichemicals within the Ngati Hine rohe has been estimated by the Northland Regional Council at less than 50m2. This control has been undertaken with using handheld spraying techniques and has involved the discharge of two knapsacks for Manchurian wild rice control. The scale of this control within the rohe is not considered significant in reference to the concerns raised.
29) Regarding human health risks raised in the submission eg using water for healing and swimming and effects on horses (swimming), the evidence of Mr Champion examines the toxicology of the substances in reference to humans and concludes any potential toxicology impacts are likely to be negligible. ECONOMIC RISKS 30) The submission of Ngati Hine raises concerns about the potential impacts to organic businesses, honey businesses and ecotourism businesses contained with its rohe arising from the use of agrichemicals over water.
31) Section 5 of HSNO requires decision makers to recognise and provide for “the maintenance and enhancement of the capacity of people and communities to provide for their own economic, social and cultural well-being and for the reasonable foreseeable needs of future generations.” Section 6 of HSNO requires decision makers to take account of “the economic and related benefits and costs of using a particular hazardous substance”. I consider based on the weight of evidence provided in the application, that the effective control of aquatic pest plants assists the capacity of communities to provide for their economic, social and cultural well-being and I also consider economic benefits of the proposed modifications significantly outweigh the economic risks.
October 2012 81
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
32) The application report and the evidence of Mr Simmons and Mr Briden clearly outlines the benefits of aquatic pest plant control for the wider New Zealand economy. Stated examples include;
i. Protecting agricultural industries comprising 24% of the Waikato Region’s economy and generate approximately $2.2 billion in GDP annually. Aquatic pest plants are a quantified threat, with the potential impact of alligator weed infestations alone is estimated to be $6.8million annually to the regional economy in terms of loss of productive land, impacts on irrigation and flood control and habitats and amenity.
ii. Protecting flood control schemes as impede water flow and the ability to efficiently reduce water levels through drainage. The effects of soil erosion and flooding can be severe, affecting land stability, water quality and land productivity, and ultimately the well-being of communities.
iii. The Waikato river has eight dams and nine hydroelectric power stations that generate around 13% of New Zealand's total electrical generating capacity1. This infrastructure is at risk from aquatic weeds species which can block inlets and power turbines. The potential costs in terms of loss production from closure of any one site as a result of aquatic pest plants impacts has been estimated at $100,000 per day.
33) I also note the submission in support of the application from Environment Southland states that large infestations spartina within the New River Estuary were identified as one of the causative factors contributing to flooding in the city of Invercargill in 1984. The regional economic impact of such an event is likely to have been significant.
The priorities for the control of all aquatic pest plants in New Zealand are set through the National and Regional Pest Management Strategies prepared under the Biosecurity Act. Preparation of these documents requires a robust assessment of the costs of control and an assessment of whether the benefits of the control outweigh the costs. All of the aquatic pest plants targeted with the agrichemicals subject of the application have been assessed through this process and the benefits of their control has been assessed to outweigh any costs. This assessment has included an analysis of the costs/benefits of a do nothing approach. Based on this analysis the applicant group considers the economic benefits of aquatic weed control to be significant. 35) As noted in paragraph 26 above, the rohe of Ngati Hine sits entirely within the Northland Region and the reported levels of aquatic pest plant control within the rohe are minor, therefore any economic impacts arising from the proposals likely to be localised and no more than minor in nature compared to the significant benefits of the application. The balancing of costs/risks and benefits is a key consideration in determining whether the effects of application under Section 63A of the HSNO Act are acceptable. I consider that the application benefits significantly outweigh the costs regard to this evaluation. 36) It is also noted that all of the economic activities stated in the submission are predominately terrestrial based. The substances subject of the application are approved for terrestrial use in New Zealand and it is therefore difficult to see the distinction between the potential economic risks of the current use pattern opposed to that proposed.
G. PROPOSED CONTROLS/CONDITIONS/RESTRICTIONS 37) The following submissions make comments in reference to imposition of controls/conditions and limitations on the modifications proposed; i. Aquaculture New Zealand ii. Ngati Koroki Kahukura Trust iii. Fish and Game New Zealand, Eastern Region (Fish and Game)
October 2012 82
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
iv. Federated Farmers v. The New Zealand Biosecurity Institute vi. National Wetland Trust of New Zealand vii. Advisory Committee for the Waikato Regional Environment viii. Te Ngaru a Maui ix. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu x. South Island Eel Industry Association and North Island Eel Enhancement Company Ltd. xi. National Wetland Trust of New Zealand
Below I address the comments of Fish and Game, these comments are supported by the evidence of Mr Champion.
39) The Fish and Game New Zealand submission requests the imposition of condition/s that require compulsory consultation with Fish and Game New Zealand prior to undertaking any proposed spray programme. Fish and Game are concerned with avoiding effects on any trout fishery or waterfowl populations. The submission includes an interpretation of the Resource Management Act requirements related to the discharge of agrichemicals over water and suggests that approving the application will result in the activity becoming permitted under regional plans.
40) I wholly differ in my interpretation of the Resource Management Act requirements and maintain as stated in the application that all regional plans currently require resource consent for the discharge of the agrichemicals over/into water, largely due to the fact that the proposed use of the agrichemicals does not accord with the manufacturer’s instructions. The application does not seek to in anyway change manufacturer’s instructions related to the discharge of the agrichemicals as these guide the terrestrial application of the products. Indeed, such a change is well beyond the scope of the application. The applicants further acknowledge that it would be entirely inappropriate for any changes to the manufacturer’s instructions as a result of this application as these products proposed for modification are suitable for terrestrial use and should only be used over water for the specific purpose of controlling aquatic pest plants.
41) The link drawn by the submission to the conditions proposed “overriding” the requirements of the Resource Management Act is incorrect. All of the applicants must ensure that the requirements of both the RMA and HSNO are met. Permission under one Act does not alleviate the need to obtain approval under another Act. As stated above, the manufacturer instructions will not change as a result of the application and therefore resource consent requirements stand.
42) Fish and Game’s concerns regarding the timing and the scale of spray operations on a regional basis are acknowledged by the applicant group. In this regard, the application report clearly sets out the intentions of the group to manage such effects through resource consents on region by region basis where local context can be adequately addressed. This remains the position of the group and it is not appropriate to duplicate resource consent requirements through the application. An example of the consultation required as part of the conditions proposed in reference to the Waikato region wide consent will be presented at in evidence.
October 2012 83
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
PAUL CHAMPION- RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS Application for modified reassessment of substances containing metsulfuron-methyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine or triclopyr triethylamine. Date: 10 October 2012 A. SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES 1) Information on the ecotoxicology, risks to aquatic and wetland flora and fauna and environmental fate of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine and glyphosate isopropylamine was sourced from Specimen Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets for each product, websites collating environmental information (e.g., EXTOXNET), published scientific literature and unpublished New Zealand studies. References to information used can be found in Appendices C and D of this modified reassessment application. These are titled “Review of ecotoxicology and environmental fate of four herbicides used to control aquatic weeds” and “Comparison of herbicides with glyphosate” respectively. Specific references used in response to the submissions analysed are listed in section J.
B. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS 2) This section discusses information on the active ingredients contained in the products submitted for reassessment. This information is presented in Appendices C and D of the “Application for Modified Reassessment of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996”.
3) Triclopyr triethylamine and imazapyr isopropylamine have very good environmental specifications. Their registration for aquatic plant control in the USA indicates that these are suitable products for this aquatic use in New Zealand.
4) Metsulfuron-methyl has low toxicity to animals (mammals, birds and aquatic organisms), but is highly toxic at low concentrations to some non-target vascular plants and algae. Field studies have shown that these impacts are transitory. Although this product is relatively stable in water with alkaline pH, dilution effects would soon reduce concentrations below toxic levels.
5) Haloxyfop-R-methyl is more toxic than the other herbicides, although most information, especially from New Zealand comes from a more toxic earlier formulation. To date, extensive use of haloxyfop-R-methyl to control spartina and Manchurian wild rice has provided no evidence of long- term damage to the ecology of sites where this product has been applied.
6) Some formulations of the herbicide glyphosate isopropylamine are permitted to control vegetation where contamination of water may occur. The toxicology and environmental fate of this product is compared with the four herbicides to be considered at this hearing in Points 7 – 10.
7) Glyphosate isopropylamine is more persistent in the aquatic environment than haloxyfop-R- methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine and triclopyr triethylamine. Metsulfuron-methyl is stable under neutral or alkaline conditions, but breaks down rapidly under acid conditions.
8) Glyphosate isopropylamine has similar mammalian and avian toxicity to metsulfuron methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine and triclopyr triethylamine. Haloxyfop-R-methyl is more toxic to mammals. Glyphosate isopropylamine has similar or higher fish toxicity to all four herbicides but is less toxic to the aquatic invertebrate Daphnia.
October 2012 84
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
9) Glyphosate isopropylamine has higher toxicity to the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata than metsulfuron methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine and triclopyr triethylamine, but less than haloxyfop-R-methyl.
10) Glyphosate isopropylamine has lower selectivity to non-target angiosperms than metsulfuron methyl, haloxyfop-R-methyl and triclopyr triethylamine, but similar to imazapyr isopropylamine.
11) Neither glyphosate isopropylamine nor the other herbicides currently registered for aquatic use; endothall dipotassium and diquat dibromide, adequately control the pest plants alligator weed, Manchurian wild rice, phragmites, purple loosestrife, sagittaria, Senegal tea and spartina.
12) In my opinion, the threats posed by the weed species targeted for management using these products is far greater and more enduring than the impacts arising from the use of haloxyfop-R- methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine. Their use for the purposes stated in the application is seen as appropriate.
C. MATTERS RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS 13) I note that 19 of the 26 submissions recognise the problems caused by and the benefits of controlling aquatic and wetland pest plants.
14) I will respond to the following matters raised in submissions:
• Risks to aquatic animals. • Risks to non-target plants/crops. • Risks to the aquatic environment. • Risks to human health. • Risks of pest plants developing resistance to herbicides. • Alternative methods of aquatic and wetland pest plant control. • Additional research required.
15) References used in these responses are listed in section K. .
D. RISKS TO AQUATIC ANIMALS 16) In response to the submission of Aquaculture New Zealand concerning the toxicity of herbicides, especially haloxyfop-R-methyl, to bivalve molluscs, bioaccumulation potential, and impact on algal populations:
17) Haloxyfop-R-methyl is the only herbicide likely to be used adjacent to marine areas where aquaculture occurs. It is used to control the pest plants spartina and saltwater paspalum that grow in estuaries areas rather than open coastal areas. No data could be found on toxicity of other herbicides to molluscs.
18) Roper et al. (1996) state “Shellfish could accumulate residues up to twice the ambient water concentrations. However, the levels in the shellfish would diminish very rapidly (by about 50% per day)”.
October 2012 85
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
19) Roper et al. (1996) investigated the impacts of haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl (an older more toxic haloxyfop formulation compared with the -R-methyl formulation). This herbicide was applied at a concentration of 1000 mg/L. They noted that haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl rapidly dissociated to haloxyfop acid in sea water. Haloxyfop acid is considered to be 1000 times less toxic than the ester.
20) Maximum levels of contamination by haloxyfop measured in the channel draining the treated area was 35.79 μg/L. This was a combination of haloxyfop ethoxyethyl ester (4.32 μg/L) and haloxyfop acid (31.47 μg/L)). Thus the maximum concentration of haloxyfop measured in the channel draining the treated area i.e. in sea water, was five orders of magnitude less than the rate applied to spartina plants.
21) Roper et al. (1996) found that all wedge shellfish survived application of haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl at the 1000 mg/L rate (the rate applied to spartina) or less exposed over a 96 hour period. However all wedge shellfish were killed at rates equivalent to the herbicide concentrate (100 g/L) and also at 10 g/L (ten times the concentration applied in the field).
22) Burial tests of this species showed that burial after exposure to haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl concentrations of 1000 mg/L and higher, impeded the ability of wedge shells to cover themselves up to 30 minutes after exposure to herbicide. At this concentration more than half the number of organisms had buried after 5 minutes. This compares with 90% burial of untreated animals. Higher concentrations of haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl apparently killed the shellfish, consistent with the acute toxicity experiment reported in paragraph 21.
23) Maximum concentrations of haloxyfop measured in the channel were more than four orders of magnitude below levels where observable toxic effects were noted on fauna.
24) While the toxicity of haloxyfop to algae (a major food source for bivalve molluscs) is assessed as possibly very toxic, published Inhibition Concentration estimated to cause a 50% reduction in growth (IC50) for the common test green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata are between 1.08 and 24.7 mg/L. IC50 values are at least three orders of magnitude above measured concentrations in sea water. Toxic effects of haloxyfop-R-methyl on algae are therefore likely to be transitory and application of this herbicide to be of little long term impact on shellfish food.
25) In conclusion, I find that haloxyfop-R-methyl is the only herbicide likely to be applied in the proximity of bivalve aquaculture operations and that the concentrations of this herbicide likely to be encountered in sea water are most likely be at a concentration where no direct toxicity to molluscs would occur, while impacts on planktonic algae are likely to be transitory and application of this herbicide to be of little long term impact on shellfish food.
26) In response to the submission of South Island Eel Industry Association concerning the long- term toxicity and persistence of haloxyfop-R-methyl in eels, and environmental persistence long- term toxicity and bioaccumulation of metsulfuron-methyl. The submission also queried the use of the herbicides where herbicides such as Aquathol K are likely to be able to eradicate pest plants:
27) Haloxyfop-R-methyl is regarded as practically non-toxic to the test fish fathead minnow, bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout, with a 96 hour Lethal Concentration estimated to cause a 50% mortality (LC50) with a maximum toxicity in bluegill sunfish of 548 mg/L and minimum toxicity of greater than 1 g/L for fathead minnow and greater than 0.8 g/L for rainbow trout. This compares with toxicity of the haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl formulation with values of 0.54 mg/L, 0.28 mg/L and 1.8 mg/l for fathead minnow, bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout respectively (EXTOXNET 1995).
October 2012 86
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
28) Using the levels of haloxyfop contamination measured by Roper et al. (1996) these exceeded the LC50 values by up to 85 times.
29) Toxic effects were not observed in caged eels, inanga, cockabullies and shrimp or other biota by Roberts (1992) reported in Roper et al. (1996) exposed to haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl application to control spartina.
30) A study of bioaccumulation of haloxyfop-methyl in bluegill sunfish reported in Roper et al. (1996) showed that haloxyfop and its breakdown products were quickly cleared (excreted) once placed in clear water. It is therefore unlikely that significant bioaccumulation of haloxfop occurs in fish.
31) Appendix C of the application states that metsulfuron-methyl is persistent in alkaline waters. Field measurements of metsulfuron-methyl reported in Champion et al. (1997) showed maximum concentrations of this substance were 0.36% (0.18 mg/L) that of the herbicide mix applied one hour after application to a drain. After 6.5 hours levels were 0.01 mg/L and no trace of metsulfuron- methyl was measured after that time. In this situation dilution of metsulfuron-methyl rapidly reduced the concentration of this chemical below detectible levels.
32) There is no evidence of bioaccumulation. Metsulfuron-methyl is broken down quickly and eliminated from the body. In rats, the excretion half-lives ranged from 9 to 16 hours and 23 to 29 hours for rats administered low and high doses, respectively (EXTOXNET 1993).
33) As discussed in paragraph 11, herbicides permitted for use in water (or where contamination of water may occur) such as endothall (the active ingredient of the herbicide Aquathol K) do not provide adequate control of alligator weed, Manchurian wild rice, phragmites, purple loosestrife, sagittaria, Senegal tea or spartina. Metsulfuron-methyl is currently used to effectively manage alligator weed and sagittaria, with eradication achieved at several sites.
34) In conclusion, I find that the concentrations of haloxyfop-R-methyl likely to be encountered in water are most likely be at a concentration where short-term or no direct toxicity to fish occur and there is no evidence of significant bioaccumulation. Concentrations of metsulfuron-methyl are likely to be below detectible levels within one day of application with no evidence of bioaccumulation. The pest plants considered in this application are not adequately controlled using herbicides currently permitted for use in water.
35) In response to the submission of Fish and Game New Zealand concerning large scale application of herbicides and impacts of vegetation loss on trout fisheries and game birds:
36) The rationale behind the reassessment application for use of the four herbicides is to enable early control and eradication of the priority pest plants once they are detected. Thus, long established and wide coverage pest plants would not be targeted for control by these products. As noted in the evidence of Mr McKenzie, the discharge of the agrichemicals included in the application to water is subject to resource consent requirements on a region by region basis under theResource Management Act. Potential adverse effects of the scale and intensity of spray operations is assessed through these processes and limited through conditions.
October 2012 87
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
37) In response to the submission of Ngati Hine concerning the toxicity of herbicides on birds, frogs, lizards and flax snails:
38) As stated in paragraph 1, Appendix C of the application presents a summary of all available information on the ecotoxicology, risks to aquatic and wetland flora and fauna and environmental fate of substances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine and glyphosate isopropylamine was sourced from Specimen Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets for each product, websites collating environmental information (e.g., EXTOXNET), published scientific literature and unpublished New Zealand studies.
39) Regarding toxicity to birds; all four herbicides have low toxicity to mallard duck, but there is no information on their toxicity to native bird species.
40) Likewise I could find no information on their toxicity to frogs, lizards and terrestrial snails, either those species native to New Zealand or otherwise. However, all four herbicides are currently permitted for use in terrestrial situations. It is likely that all these organisms, with the possible exception of Australian bell frogs, would be exposed to the use of these products under current use patterns not related to this submission.
41) In conclusion, I find all four herbicides have low mallard toxicity, but there is no data on a range of native and introduced fauna. Most of these species are likely to be exposed to impacts of these herbicides applied under current controls regulating their use.
E. RISKS TO NON-TARGET PLANTS/CROPS 42) In response to the submission of Federated Farmers of New Zealand concerning the impact of herbicides on non-target pasture and riparian plants:
43) By definition these herbicides are phytotoxic (toxic to plants). The herbicide haloxyfop-R-methyl is only toxic to grasses; the herbicides metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine are mainly toxic to dicotyledonous (broad-leaf) species; imazapyr isopropylamine affects a wide range of plants.
44) As such, these herbicides are likely to affect pasture and riparian plant species if they are applied directly onto these areas. Haloxyfop-R-methyl is likely to damage most grasses, with the exception of tolerant species such as Chewing’s fescue; the herbicides metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine would damage clovers and broad-leaf weeds such as buttercups and thistles and a range of woody species; imazapyr isopropylamine would affect a wide range of pasture and riparian species.
45) Each herbicide would be used to control a specific aquatic or wetland weed and application would target that weed, with herbicide application optimised to cause minimal off-target damage.
46) Lack of suitable control methods to manage weeds such as alligator weed and Manchurian wild rice are likely to lead to these species invading pasture, especially in riparian areas, eventually replacing the majority of other desirable plants. Additionally, species like alligator weed are toxic to some livestock.
47) In conclusion, I find all four herbicides will potentially damage some non-target desirable plants if applied directly onto them. Targeted application should cause minimal off-target damage and this is likely to be minor compared to effects caused by pest plants in the absence of control.
October 2012 88
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
48) In response to the submission of Friends of the Earth New Zealand concerning persistence and accumulation of metsulfuron-methyl in the aquatic environment and in plants:
49) I refer to paragraphs 31 and 32 of my evidence regarding persistence and accumulation of metsulfuron-methyl in the aquatic environment.
50) Metsulfuron-methyl is rapidly taken up by plants at the roots and on foliage. The chemical is translocated throughout the plant, but is not persistent. It is broken down to non-herbicidal products in tolerant plants, while it is toxic to susceptible plants.
51) I conclude that, metsulfuron-methyl does not persist or accumulate in the environment or in plants at toxic levels.
52) Management to mitigate possible contamination of organic farming operations that have water takes downstream of herbicide applications will be discussed by Mr. McKenzie
53) In response to the submission of Ngati Hine concerning impacts to swamps and organic crops:
54) The comments presented in paragraphs 43 to 47 and 49 to 52 are pertinent to this submission and I conclude that significant negative effects on swamps are unlikely.
55) Management to mitigate possible contamination of organic farming operations that have water takes downstream of herbicide applications will be discussed by Mr. McKenzie
56) Without active management, the pest plant species targeted for eradication using the four herbicides in this application are likely to invade and displace the majority of native plants completely changing their natural character.
F. RISKS TO THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 57) In response to the submission of Pesticides Action Network Aotearoa NZ concerning risks the whole aquatic ecosystem, especially microbial communities:
58) I have not carried out an assessment of impact of the four herbicides on soil microorganisms. All four herbicides are currently permitted for use in terrestrial situations. It is likely that all soil organisms, including microorganisms, would be exposed to the use of these products under current use patterns.
59) Ecotoxicology studies on microscopic planktonic algae, give IC50 values for the common test green algae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata between 1.08 and 24.7 mg/L, with all but metsulfuron- methyl less toxic than glyphosate isopropylamine (IC50 value of 5.56 mg/L), a herbicide permitted for use where contamination of water may occur. However, these herbicides are much more toxic to other algal species with IC50 values, with toxicity up to four orders of magnitude greater than those reported for P. subcapitata.
60) Field observations of phytoplankton community response to metsulfuron-methyl range from slight reduction in cyanobacteria numbers at herbicide concentrations of 1 mg/L, with rapid recovery to pre-treatment levels and no discernible change of other species.
October 2012 89
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
61) I could find no information on the toxicity of the four herbicides to other wetland and aquatic microbial communities.
62) In conclusion, toxicity of the four herbicides to microscopic algae is similar to the herbicide glyphosate isopropylamine and toxic impacts in the field, if observed, are minor and transitory. I cannot comment on potential toxicity to other microorganisms.
63) In response to the submissions of Jackie Pou and Te Ngaru Roa aa Maui on general concerns relating to the environment:
64) Appendix C of the “Application for Modified Reassessment of substances containing haloxyfop- R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996” outline the toxicity and environmental fate of the four herbicides, with concerns relating to persistence of metsulfuron-methyl and toxicity to some non-target plants at low concentrations and also the higher toxicity of haloxyfop-R-methyl compared to the other herbicides. However, field studies have failed to reveal any long-term damage to aquatic ecosystems where they have been applied.
65) In my opinion, the threats posed by the pest plant species targeted for management using these products are far greater and more enduring than the impacts arising from the use of haloxyfop-R- methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl, triclopyr triethylamine.
G. RISKS TO THE HUMAN HEALTH 66) In response to the submission of Aquaculture New Zealand concerning food safety of bivalve molluscs:
67) Roper et al. (1996) assessed the health risk posed to humans by consumption of shellfish exposed to haloxyfop herbicide application. Based on a bioaccumulation factor of 2, estimated for shellfish, maximum concentration of haloxyfop in filter-feeding shellfish would be 70 ng/g of shellfish flesh (twice the maximum concentration measured in sea water). Even assuming a concentration of tissue haloxyfop of 1000 ng/g, a total daily intake of 450 kg of shellfish would be required for a 75 kg human to show any measureable toxic effect (reduced body weight and increased liver weight over a protracted period) assuming the physiology of humans is similar to test mammals (rats and mice).
68) They conclude that published toxicity data indicate there is little health risk attributable to haloxyfop ingestion that would result from people eating shellfish and I concur with this conclusion.
69) In response to other submissions concerning general human health risks:
70) Appendix C to this submission states “Acute oral toxicity of haloxyfop-R-methyl to rats has a 96 hour lethal dose estimated to cause 50% mortality (LD50) value of 393 mg/kg. Chronic effects do occur at lower concentrations with teratogenic and reproductive effects reported for haloxyfop ethoxyethyl in rats at 10 – 50 mg/kg body weight and kidney damage reported in adult rats at doses of 100 mg/kg/day”.
71) Assuming the physiology of rats and humans are similar, bystander exposure to concentrations that are either acutely or chronically toxic are most unlikely. Roper et al. (1996) measured maximum haloxyfop concentrations in water of 35 μg/L. This concentration ingestion is more than three orders
October 2012 90
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) of magnitude above the minimum observable effect in a 3.5 kg infant and significantly more for adults.
72) Mammalian toxicity of the other three herbicides is much lower, with LD50 values of 2574 mg/kg for triclopyr triethylamine and an excess of 5000 mg/kg for metsulfuron-methyl and imazapyr isopropylamine. There was little or no evidence of chronic effects of these herbicides at the highest rates tested.
73) Currently Garlon™ 360 (the formulation of triclopyr triethylamine permitted for use over water) cannot be applied directly to un-impounded rivers or streams, salt water bays or estuaries, where run-off may flow onto agricultural land, canals or ditches used to transport irrigation water or water for human consumption. There are no restrictions for livestock watering, recreational water use or swimming. Management to mitigate possible contamination of drinking water takes downstream of herbicide applications will be discussed by Mr. McKenzie. In conclusion, I find there would be minimal risk of human toxic effects relating to this application for use of the four herbicides to control specified pest plants where contamination of water may occur.
H. RISKS OF PEST PLANTS DEVELOPING RESISTANCE
74) In response to the submission of Jackie Pou concerning the development of herbicide resistance:
75)There is documented evidence of herbicide resistance to the herbicides metsulfuron and imazapyr. These herbicides block the production of the enzyme acetolactosynthase (ALS) and resistance arises from selection pressure exerted by prolonged use of herbicides.
76) Resistance is most likely to occur where the same herbicide is used repeated over the same area. Resistance is most likely to develop in annual species with a high seed output and short life span, predominantly in intensively managed arable crops. This may allow for the selection of populations of the plant with the ability to produce this enzyme.
77) To date only one instance of ALS resistance has been documented in New Zealand. This involved the annual crop weed chickweed which had become resistant to the herbicide chlorsulfuron, a herbicide in the same chemical group as metsulfuron-methyl.
78) All of the target species relevant to this application are relatively long-lived perennial plants and many (like alligator weed) do not produce seed or are more reliant on vegetative spread (like spartina) in New Zealand. There are no known examples of herbicide resistance developing in any of these species.
79) Dr. Trevor James (Senior Scientist, AgResearch Limited, Hamilton) states “There is almost no chance of herbicide resistance developing in the situations that the application seeks to address” and I concur with his statement.
October 2012 91
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF AQUATIC AND WETLAND PEST PLANT CONTROL 80) In response to submissions concerning alternative methods of control, I will discuss manual, mechanical and biological control, habitat manipulation and strategies to prevent plant pest spread.
81) Part of NIWA’s freshwater biosecurity research programmes seeks to research and make available techniques that provide for smarter use and choice of existing aquatic herbicides and/or natural solutions. This is driven by the fact that natural solutions to aquatic weed control are increasingly sought, as are smarter use herbicide guidelines to increase efficacy, reduce costs and minimize environmental load.
82) I therefore support the aims and aspirations of many of the submitters in trying to limit the addition of herbicides and other contaminants into aquatic and wetland systems. Unfortunately our research programme has limited current research funding, which has reduced our capability to achieve these goals.
83) I provide an assessment of the alternatives to chemical control and their relevance for eradication programmes in the paragraphs below.
84) Manual control is a highly effective method of eradicating all pest plants at the first stages of a weed incursion. All plant material including underground parts must be carefully removed without fragmentation and, especially where a species can produce seed, a long term follow-up programme to ensure all regrowth is removed. In my experience, this method of control is usually only effective in sites where the weed covers an area less than 1 m2 and even then it is difficult to ensure all plant parts are removed in aquatic/wetland situations. Risks include fragmentation and further dispersal of the weed by water movement and safety issues for personnel.
85) Mechanical control using diggers, harvesters, mowers etc. are not advocated for eradication programmes due to the risks of fragmentation (as discussed above) and also the transportation of weed fragments as contaminants on the machinery. These methods often cause significant damage to surrounding vegetation and may provide colonisation sites for other weeds. It is however, a useful method of reducing plant biomass.
86) Biological control agents have been introduced for the control of alligator weed, but none of the other pest plant species targeted in this application. Unfortunately the current agents of alligator weed control are less tolerant of winter temperatures than the plant itself and so only temporary control of aquatic (not terrestrial) areas affected by this plant are achieved where high densities of this plant occur. Thus the current agents are of little value in eradication programmes and have done little if anything to slow the spread of this plant. I work collaboratively with the Landcare Research biological control group (e.g. Paynter & Champion 2011) and fully endorse the funding of their research programme, with the opportunity to reduce the impacts of pest plants already well- established in New Zealand. However, in my experience biocontrol rarely, if ever, is a useful eradication tool.
87) Habitat manipulation includes such methods as lining areas with opaque material (such as black polythene or weed mat) and retiring riparian areas from grazing and shading areas by planting. Covering plants for several months has proved effective with some plants, but in the case of alligator weed, plants survived under weed matting for several years. Maintaining these covers in dynamic flood-prone habitats is also difficult and sediment build-up on top of these mats can provide ideal
October 2012 92
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) substrate for weed re-establishment. Unfortunately most of the pest plant species targeted in this application are highly invasive and are likely to persist under the shade of other vegetation, or indeed out-compete other vegetation. Again I refer to the power point showing photographs of infestations of these species.
88) All of the pest plant species targeted in this application and unwanted organisms under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and are therefore banned from propagation, sale and distribution. Pest plants are spread by water movement, contamination of fishing nets, boats and trailers, diggers, top soil, dumping of contaminated lawn clippings and garden waste, as well as ornamental plantings. Surveillance for these high risk plants is already undertaken by many of the applicant organisations and early detection allows an opportunity to manually remove small pest plants or at least minimise the amount of herbicide required, also reducing the likelihood of further spread by stem fragmentation and dispersal by water movement.
89) I therefore acknowledge that there are alternative methods to chemical control of the pest plants targeted in this application, but unless detected at an early stage, use of one of the four herbicides submitted for reassessment currently provide the only effective control against a range of aquatic pest plant species within New Zealand conditions.
J. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REQUIRED
90) In response to the submission of Graeme Anderson concerning the requirement for further testing for non-target effects:
91) Appendix C to this submission summarises the available research information on the ecotoxicology, risks to aquatic and wetland flora and fauna and environmental fate of the four herbicides. None of the experimental field trials or operational experience with the use of these substances to control aquatic and wetland pest plants have demonstrated more than transitory impacts on non-target species. Much of this research has been funded by the applicant organisations including Waikato Regional Council, Northland Regional Council, Department of Conservation and Ministry for Primary Industries.
92) In the absence of no more than minor impacts found in these studies, I do not support the recommendation for further research trials unless specific concerns not covered in past research are deemed to need further investigation.
93) In response to the submission of Friends of the Earth New Zealand and Ngai Tahu concerning the toxicity and environmental fate of haloxyfop-R-methyl:
94) While no research field trials studying the impact of haloxyfop-R-methyl on aquatic environments have been undertaken, the findings of Roper at al. (1996) using the more toxic (by a factor of greater than three orders of magnitude) ethoxyethyl ester formulation of haloxyfop are very relevant to this application. They noted that although some toxic effects are likely for benthic organisms directly sprayed as part of the herbicide application, dilution by tidal flushing will reduce these effects, so only a temporary decline in the density of the most sensitive species would occur. Direct toxic effects of haloxyfop-R-methyl spray are likely to be significantly less than observed impacts of the ethoxyethyl ester formulation.
95) Concentrations of haloxyfop measured in water by Roper at al. (1996) were well below those known to be toxic. Both haloxyfop ethoxyethyl and R-methyl rapidly dissociate into the parent
October 2012 93
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) haloxyfop acid in solution so toxic impacts of water contaminated by either formulation would be essentially similar after a short period.
96) The submission of Mr. Ball accepts that environmental impacts of haloxyfop-R-methyl will be extremely small in estuarine habitats of Tasman/Nelson and Southland due to the low density and numbers of spartina plants remaining after a concerted eradication programme over past years. This is similar to the situation in many North Island spartina sites. Therefore the environmental load anticipated as a result of proposed control of this species is likely to be extremely low.
97) Based on the above, I consider any further field study is unlikely to provide any additional benefit to past studies, in the knowledge that no more than minor impacts have been found in previous studies.
K. REFERENCES USED Champion, P.D.; Nipper, M.; MacKay, G.C.; Wilcock, R.J.; Williams, E.K.; Martin, M.L. (1997). Monitoring the effect of the herbicide metsulfuron methyl in Kaipara District. NIWA Client Report KDC70201, Hamilton. E X T O X N E T (Extension Toxicology Network) (1993). Pesticide Information Profiles: Metsulfuron methyl. (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/metsulfu.htm) E X T O X N E T (Extension Toxicology Network) (1995). Pesticide Information Profiles: Haloxyfop. (http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/haloxyfo.htm) Paynter, Q.; Champion, P. (2011). Prospects for classical biocontrol of aquatic weeds in New Zealand. Presented to Biosecurity Bonanza, Wellington (6th June). Roberts, R. (1992). Toxic impacts from spraying Spartina anglica with Gallant – monitoring spray trials and the 1992 spraying programme in Waimea Inlet, Nelson. Nelson-Marlborough Regional Council. Roper, D.S.; Mills, G.N.; Wilcock, R.J.; Weatherhead, M.A. (1996). Spartina control and eradication using Gallant herbicide: an assessment of environmental effects. NIWA Client Report DOC60205, Hamilton.
October 2012 94
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix D: Risk Assessment Human health risk assessment
Worker (operator) risk assessment
The staff note that quantitative risk assessments for operators applying the approved herbicidal substances covered by this reassessment containing the active ingredients haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron methyl and triclopyr triethylamine have already been carried out. From the operator exposure perspective, the application over/onto water does not result in different health hazards than the existing application methods for the approved formulations. All appropriate control measures to keep the risks to operators within acceptable limits are therefore already in place and should also address the risks from use over/onto water.
Quantitative bystander risk assessment
Due to the proposed use of the substance over/into water, the staff considered additional potential risks to bystanders exposed to the substances as a result of swimming, drinking both potable and treated surface water and consumption of aquatic organisms such as fish from water bodies where the substances have been applied. To the staff’s best knowledge, measured data related to typical analytical levels detected in fish from recently treated water have only been reported for triclopyr triethylamine (more specifically for the parent compound triclopyr), and imazapyr isopropylamine. Additionally, no analytical levels have been found for any of the four proposed active ingredients in watercress, shellfish, eels or any other river food generally consumed in New Zealand.
As no data was provided by the applicant or found on the label of the different formulations for the likely concentration in water following application, a dilution factor was calculated for the exposure and risk assessments for swimmers and bystanders exposed to treated surface water to account for the water volumes in which the different formulations are applied onto. The factor takes into account the amount of water used for the dilution of the active ingredients (400 L), the area where the application takes place (1 hectare), and an assumed depth of 0.5 metres to account for low-lying areas where children may be able to swim or where water for drinking purposes may be accessed. For the purposes of the exposure and risk assessments, these initial concentrations are considered to remain constant and no flow has been taken into account.
The calculations presented in the following tables concerning all four active ingredients for estimated exposures and risk assessments are based on time spent swimming ranging from 0.5 to 3 hours and body weights of 22 kilograms and 70 kilograms for 6-year-old children and adults respectively. Concerning swimmer exposure through ingestion and dermal contact with sediment, no data have been found by the staff related to actual values present in sediment and therefore no exposure or risk assessment has been carried out for these routes.
October 2012 95
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Staff considered the appropriate health criteria to use in the assessment of the health risk to bystanders from these exposure routes. Staff have been using the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) to assess bystander risks because this toxicity endpoint is derived from a sub-chronic study and is considered reasonably precautionary (assuming a daily exposure of up to 90 days) whereas an acceptable daily intake (ADI) is used to reflect a daily life-time exposure. Therefore, for swimming in water to which these formulations have been applied onto, an AOEL has been used for risk determination. In the case of consumption of surface water taken for drinking, staff consider it more appropriate to use the ADI value as if surface water were taken for daily consumption over the period of a lifetime. The use of the ADI is consistent with methodology of the New Zealand Ministry of Health used to derive the maximum acceptable value (MAV) for residues in drinking water. However, the staff acknowledge that the use of an ADI for risk determination seems highly precautionary because the maximum number of applications during a period of one year is 2 to 3 times, with a 30- day minimum application interval and the implicit gradual reduction of herbicide concentration with time.
Triclopyr triethylamine A dilution factor of 8E-05 and the maximum application rate of Kg19800 mg/L were used to calculate an immediate expected concentration in water of 1.584 mg/L, which was used for the exposure and risk assessments for bystanders. This concentration of the active ingredient is considered an immediate level in water, without taking into account the flow in the water body, and hypothetically maintained at this concentration for chronic exposure and risk determination. Under real world conditions the concentration of triclopyr triethylamine following application to water would be expected to decrease on a daily basis. Therefore, the risk calculations presented in this assessment represent conservative scenarios.
Triclopyr triethylamine toxicological endpoints (ADI, AOEL) Available NOAEL ADI/ Key international (LOAEL) Uncertainty AOEL Staff’s systemic Remarks toxicological mg/Kg factors mg/Kg modifications effect endpoints bw/day bw/day Increased relative kidney weight combined 2-year with dietary study EFSA ADI* in rats/No microscopic 3 100 0.03 NA (for triclopyr) degenerative evidence of changes in carcinogenic the potential descending part of the proximal
October 2012 96
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
tubule
Very slight to slight diffuse degeneration of proximal EFSA AOEL* tubule cells in 13-week the 5 100 0.05 NA dietary study (for triclopyr) descending in rats part of the renal medulla (male and female rats)
*http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/56r.pdf
Swimming
The exposure and risk assessments regarding persons exposed to triclopyr triethylamine-treated water by swimming via oral, dermal and inhalation routes are presented in the table below.
Triclopyr triethylamine oral exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water)
Water Water Total Daily oral RQ Weight Exposure Age conc. ingested exposure dose (mg/Kg (AOEL = (Kg) duration (h) (mg/L) (mL) (mg) bw/day) 0.05)
0.5 25 0.0396 1.80E-03 0.036
1 50 0.0792 3.60E-03 0.072 6 22 2 100 0.1584 7.20E-03 0.144
3 150 0.2376 1.08E-02 0.216 1.584 0.5 25 0.0396 5.66E-04 0.011
1 50 0.0792 1.13E-03 0.023 Adult 70 2 100 0.1584 2.26E-03 0.045
3 150 0.2376 3.39E-03 0.068
The oral exposure is derived from the following equation, which is also used for the three other active ingredients:
Oral dose (mg/Kg bw) = ExposureSwimming time (hours) x Water ingested per hour of swimming (mL) x concentration in water (mg/mL)/(body weight (Kg)
October 2012 97
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Triclopyr triethylamine dermal exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Daily Permeability Exposure Body RQ Water conc. Flux rate Age Weight dermal coefficient duration surface (AOEL = (mg/L) (mg/cm2/h) (years) (Kg) dose (cm/h)* (h) (cm2) 0.05) (mg/Kg/day)
0.5 3.17E-05 6.34E-04
1 6.34E-05 1.27E-03 6 22 8800 2 1.27E-04 2.53E-03
3 1.90E-04 3.80E-03 1.584 1E-04 1.58E-07 0.5 2.04E-05 4.07E-04
1 4.07E-05 8.15E-04 Adult 70 18000 2 8.15E-05 1.63E-03
3 1.22E-04 2.44E-03 * https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0410015.pdf.
Parameters are derived from the following equations, which are also used for the three other active ingredients: Flux rate = water concentration (mg/L) x permeability coefficient* (cm/hour)/1000 The units given in the document in the link above for the flux rate are mg/cm2/hour (the division by 1000 is to convert from L (dm3) to cm3. Total exposure = hours of exposure x body surface area x flux rate *The permeability coefficient of a chemical compound is its rate of migration through the skin, derived from either experimentally measured or predicted values.
Triclopyr triethylamine inhalation exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5- metre deep body of water) Daily Vapour Water Inhalation RQ Conversion Weight Exposure inhalation pressure conc. rate (AOEL factor† (Kg) (min) dose (mmHg)* (mg/L) (L/min) = 0.05) (mg/Kg/day) 3.271E- 30 1.64E-07 06 6.542E- 60 3.27E-07 06 22 40 1.308E- 120 6.54E-07 05 1.963E- 1.26E-06 1.584 0.0015 180 9.81E-07 05 1.670E- 30 8.35E-08 06 6.682E- 70 60 65 3.34E-07 06 6.682E- 120 3.34E-07 06
October 2012 98
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
1.002E- 180 5.01E-07 05 * https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0410015.pdf † Conversion factor takes into account the concentration of triclopyr triethylamine in water as a unitless constant and actual temperature (30°C) in degrees Kelvin. For further details see: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0010044.pdf (Vol 2, Section 5, p38). Note that this document is approximately 14 megabytes in size.
The total exposure to bystanders is determined by the three above exposure routes combined, which is mostly dominated by oral consumption. Despite this, the risks derived from the three routes of exposure from swimming are within acceptable levels.
Drinking Water and Fish Consumption
The exposure and risk assessment for ingestion of potable water containing triclopyr triethylamine used the maximum acceptable value (MAV) for triclopyr, i.e. the highest concentration of triclopyr in water that, on the basis of present knowledge, is considered not to cause any significant risk to the health of the consumer over 70 years of consumption of that water. MAVs are set by the New Zealand Ministry of Health in the Drinking-Water Standards (revised in 2008), which can be found in http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/nz-drinking-water-standards-00.html. The MAV is 0.1 mg/L for triclopyr daily exposure.
For the exposure and risk assessment for fish ingestion the staff decided to use 0.2 mg/Kg as a typical analytical level detected in fish from recently treated water as reported by Petty, 1998 (Petty, D.G. et al. 1998. Aquatic Dissipation of the Herbicide Triclopyr in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. Technical Report A-98-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) as used in https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0410015.pdf.
Triclopyr triethylamine – Drinking treated surface water (assuming application per hectare on a non- flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Oral Water conc. Ingestion Oral dose Weight (Kg) Exposure ADI RQ (mg/L) Rate (L/day) (mg/Kg/day) (mg/day)*
22 1 1.584 0.072 2.40 1.584 0.03 70 2 3.168 0.045 1.51
*Assuming drinking water intakes of 1000 mL for a 6 year-old child and 2000 mL for an adult.
The staff note that the oral exposure after drinking treated surface water is approximately 16 and 32 times higher than the MAV for a child and adult consumption pattern, respectively. However, it is extremely conservative to consider that the concentration of triclopyr triethylamine remains unchanged in the surface water for a lifetime of exposure. A 95% dissipation in water is estimated after 14 days following a maximum application use rate of 6 pounds a.i./acre (6.72 Kg a.i. /ha) based
October 2012 99
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) on data found in Washington State’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Assessments of Aquatic Herbicides for Triclopyr (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0410015.pdf). The table below takes into account the changes in concentration after dissipation.
Triclopyr triethylamine – Drinking treated surface water (assuming application per hectare on a non- flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water and a 95% dissipation in water 14 days following application) Oral Water conc. Ingestion Oral dose Weight (Kg) Exposure ADI RQ (mg/L) Rate (L/day) (mg/Kg/day) (mg/day)*
22 1 0.0792 3.6E-03 0.12 0.0792 0.03 70 2 0.1584 2.26E-03 0.075
*Assuming drinking water intakes of 1000 mL for a 6 year-old child and 2000 mL for an adult.
The staff consider that risks to bystanders drinking treated surface water after at least 14 days following application are reduced to acceptable levels. Controls considering restrictions for water consumption after application should consider this dissipation period.
Triclopyr triethylamine – Fish consumption Weight Fish meal Exposure Dose ADI RQ Age (Kg) (Kg)* (mg) (mg/Kg/day)
6 22 0.06 0.012 5.45E-04 0.02 0.03 Adult 70 0.4 0.08 1.14E-03 0.04
*Based on USEPA, 1989 fish consumption data.
Based on the above exposure data, consumption of fish exposed to triclopyr triethylamine after application of a comparable rate to that considered in this reassessment (6.72 Kg a.i. /ha vs. 7.92 Kg a.i./ha) is below the levels of concern for both child and adult consumption patterns.
Acute toxicity profile The undiluted triclopyr triethylamine containing substance is classified for acute toxicity as 6.1E or 6.1D (Oral)/8.3A/6.5B. Based on the acute toxicological profile of the product, the most significant adverse effects are oral toxicity, severe eye damage, and skin sensitisation. However, the staff note that although the substance in its undiluted form is classified as an acute oral toxicant, eye corrosive, and skin sensitiser, before the substance is applied to water it is substantially diluted to a spray concentration and then once applied it will be further diluted by the large water volume in the treated water body it will bind to vegetation, undergo degradation and incorporation into sediment. This decrease in the amount of triclopyr triethylamine in the treated water means less substance available for exposure, thus decreasing the potential for oral toxicity, eye corrosiveness and skin sensitisation as well as systemic toxicity.
October 2012 100
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Conclusions for triclopyr triethylamine • Based on the proposed application rates, risks for swimmers are considered within acceptable levels with exposure being dominated by accidental oral consumption during swimming. Despite estimates showing RQs below the level of concern, a precautionary exclusion from the sprayed area for a period of 5 days that would allow sufficient dissipation of triclopyr hotspots is recommended. • Considering a MAV of 0.1mg/L triclopyr triethylamine in drinking water, risks are above the level of concern for bystanders using treated water for consumption purposes after application. Oral exposure after drinking treated surface water with triclopyr triethylamine is approximately 16 and 32 times higher than the MAV for a child and adult consumption pattern, respectively. A restriction of at least 21 days for direct water uptake for such purposes is recommended, along with buffer distances of the application from lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning potable water intake for human consumption. • A Tolerable Exposure Limit (TEL) has already been for drinking water for triclopyr triethylamine has been set at 0.1 mg/L. • Consumption of fish based on approximate intakes of 60 and 400 grams of edible fish parts for children and adults, respectively, is within acceptable levels of risk based on the proposed application rates and American studies on triclopyr concentrations in fish. The staff note however, that significant data gaps exist concerning levels of triclopyr triethylamine in other edible freshwater species in New Zealand. • The staff recommend that in order to minimise the risks based on the acute toxicological profile of formulations containing triclopyr triethylamine as an active ingredient, a restriction for entry to the sprayed area should be imposed to allow sufficient dissipation of triclopyr hotspots.
Metsulfuron Methyl A dilution factor of 8E-05 and the maximum application rate of Kg210 mg/L were used to calculate an immediate expected concentration in water of 0.0168 mg/L, which was used for the exposure and risk assessments for bystanders. This concentration of the active ingredient is considered an immediate level in the water, without taking into account the flow in the water body, and hypothetically maintained at this concentration for chronic exposure and risk determination. Under real world conditions the concentration of metsulfuron methyl following application to water would decrease on a daily basis. Therefore, the risk calculations presented in this assessment represent conservative scenarios.
Metsulfuron methyl toxicological endpoints Available NOAEL ADI/ Key international (LOAEL) Uncertainty AOEL Staff’s systemic Remarks toxicological mg/Kg factors mg/Kg modifications effect endpoints bw/day bw/day
2-year oral EFSA ADI* 22 100 0.22 NA carcinogenicity rat study
October 2012 101
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
EFSA AOEL 90-day oral rat 70 100 0.7 NA (systemic)* study
*See SANCO website at (http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm)
Swimming
The exposure and risk assessments regarding persons exposed to metsulfuron methyl-treated water by swimming via oral, dermal and inhalation routes are presented in the table below.
Metsulfuron methyl oral exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water)
Water Water Total Daily oral RQ Weight Exposure Age conc. ingested exposure dose (mg/Kg (AOEL = (Kg) duration (h) (mg/L) (mL) (mg) bw/day) 0.7)
0.5 25 0.00042 1.91E-05 2.73E-05
1 50 0.00084 3.82E-05 5.45E-05 6 22 2 100 0.00168 7.64E-05 1.09E-04
3 150 0.00252 1.15E-04 1.64E-04 0.0168 0.5 25 0.00042 6.00E-06 8.57E-06
1 50 0.00084 1.20E-05 1.71E-05 Adult 70 2 100 0.00168 2.40E-05 3.43E-05
3 150 0.00252 3.60E-05 5.14E-05
Metsulfuron methyl dermal exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Permeabilit Exposur Water Flux rate Body Daily oral RQ y Age Weight e conc. (mg/cm2/ surface dose (AOEL coefficient (years) (Kg) duration (mg/L) h) (cm2) (mg/Kg/day) = 0.7) (cm/h)* (h) 2.40E- 0.5 1.68E-06 06 4.80E- 1 3.36E-06 06 6 22 8800 9.60E- 0.0168 5.00E-07 8.40E-09 2 6.72E-06 06 1.44E- 3 1.01E-05 05 1.54E- Adult 70 0.5 18000 1.08E-06 06
October 2012 102
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
3.09E- 1 2.16E-06 06 6.17E- 2 4.32E-06 06 9.26E- 3 6.48E-06 06 *http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/120904_Metsulfuron.pdf
Metsulfuron methyl inhalation exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Vapour Water Exposure Inhalation Daily oral RQ Conversion Weight pressure conc. duration rate dose (AOEL factor† (Kg) (mmHg)* (mg/L) (min) (L/min) (mg/Kg/day) = 0.7) 4.69E- 30 3.29E-20 20 9.39E- 60 6.57E-20 20 22 40 1.88E- 120 1.31E-19 19 2.82E- 180 1.97E-19 19 2.25E-15 0.0168 1.593E-05 2.40E- 30 1.68E-20 20 4.79E- 60 3.36E-20 20 70 65 9.59E- 120 6.71E-20 20 1.44E- 180 1.01E-19 19 *http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/120904_Metsulfuron.pdf † Conversion factor takes into account the concentration of metsulfuron methyl in water as a unitless constant and actual temperature (30°C) in degrees Kelvin. For further details see: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0010044.pdf
The total exposure to bystanders is determined by the three above exposure routes combined. The risks derived from the three routes of exposure by swimming are all negligible and within acceptable levels.
Drinking Water
The exposure and risk assessment for ingestion of potable water containing metsulfuron methyl utilised the guideline value for metsulfuron methyl as set by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6. 2011.. The staff have chosen this value due to the lack of a MAV in the drinking-water standards for New Zealand and the similarity of assumptions used in the derivation of the Australian guidelines which include:
- the use of a NOAEL based on a long-term study
October 2012 103
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
- 70 Kg as the average weight of an adult
- 0.1 as a proportionality factor based on the assumption that 10% of the ADI will arise from the consumption of drinking water
- 2L/day as the estimated maximum amount of water consumed by an adult
- 100 as the safety factor applied to the NOAEL derived from animal studies, which incorporates a factor of 10 for interspecies extrapolation and 10 for intraspecies variation
Based on human health concerns according to the guideline mentioned above, metsulfuron methyl in drinking water should not exceed 0.04 mg/L.
Metsulfuron methyl – Drinking treated surface water (assuming application per hectare on a non- flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Water Ingestion Oral Oral dose Weight (Kg) concentration Rate Exposure ADI RQ (mg/Kg/day) (mg/L) (L/day) (mg/day)*
22 1 0.0168 7.64E-04 3.47E-03 0.0168 0.22 70 2 0.0336 4.80E-04 2.18E-03
*Assuming drinking water intakes of 1000 mL for a 6 year-old child and 2000 mL for an adult.
The staff note that the oral exposures after drinking treated surface water are below the Australian MAV for both child and adult consumption pattern. It is also extremely conservative to consider that the concentration of metsulfuron methyl remains unchanged in the surface water for a lifetime of exposure. Exposure and risk determinations due to consumption of fish or other food sources are not possible due to the current lack of data available on metsulfuron methyl levels in edible freshwater species.
Acute toxicity profile Three different acute toxicological profiles are observed for the five proposed undiluted formulations containing metsulfuron methyl, these are 6.3B/6.4A, 6.1D (Oral)/6.3B/6.4A, and 6.3A/6.4A. Based on these profiles, acute oral toxicity, skin and eye irritation are the most significant adverse effects. However, the staff note that although the substances in their undiluted form are classified as acute oral toxicants, eye and skin irritants, before the substance is applied to water it is substantially diluted to a spray concentration and then once applied it will be further diluted by the large water volume in the treated water body it will bind to vegetation, undergo degradation and incorporation into sediment. This decrease in the amount of metsulfuron methyl in the treated water means less substance available for exposure, thus decreasing the potential for oral toxicity, skin and eye irritation.
October 2012 104
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Conclusions for metsulfuron methyl • Based on the proposed application rates, risks for swimmers are considered within acceptable levels. Despite estimates showing RQs below the level of concern, a precautionary exclusion from the sprayed area for a period of 5 days that would allow sufficient dissipation of metsulfuron methyl hotspots is recommended. • Considering an Australian MAV of 0.04 mg/L metsulfuron methyl in drinking water, risks are within acceptable levels for bystanders using treated water for consumption purposes after application. • Based on the MAV, a Tolerable Exposure Limit (TEL) for drinking water for metsulfuron methyl has been set at 0.04 mg/L. • Significant data gaps exist for metsulfuron methyl concentrations in edible freshwater species. • The staff recommend that in order to minimise the risks based on the acute toxicological profile of formulations containing metsulfuron methyl as an active ingredient, a restriction for entry in the sprayed area should be imposed to allow sufficient dissipation of metsulfuron hotspots.
Haloxyfop-R-methyl A dilution factor of 8E-05 and the maximum application rate of 1875 mg/L were used to calculate an immediate expected concentration in water of 0.15 mg/L, which was used for the exposure and risk assessments for bystanders. This concentration of the active ingredient is considered an immediate level in the water and hypothetically maintained at this concentration for chronic exposure and risk determination. Under real world conditions the concentration of haloxyfop-R-methyl following application to water would decrease on a daily basis. Therefore, the risk calculations presented in this assessment represent highly conservative scenarios.
Haloxyfop-R, methyl ester toxicological endpoints Available NOAEL ADI/ Key international (LOAEL) Uncertainty AOEL Staff’s systemic Remarks toxicological mg/Kg factors mg/Kg modifications effect endpoints bw/day bw/day
Increased 2-year incidence of EPA 0.03 100 0.0003 NA study in hepatocellular mice tumours
2-year rat study and two EFSA ADI* Liver effects 0.065 100 0.00065 NA generation study in rats
One year EFSA AOEL* 0.5 100 0.005 NA dog study
*http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1348.pdf
October 2012 105
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Swimming
The exposure and risk assessments regarding persons exposed to haloxyfop-R-methyl-treated water by swimming via oral, dermal and inhalation routes are presented in the table below.
Haloxyfop-R-methyl oral exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water)
Water Water Total Daily oral RQ Weight Exposure Age conc. ingested exposure dose (mg/Kg (AOEL = (Kg) duration (h) (mg/L) (mL) (mg) bw/day) 0.005)
0.5 25 0.00375 1.70E-04 0.03
1 50 0.0075 3.41E-04 0.07 6 22 2 100 0.015 6.82E-04 0.14
3 150 0.0225 1.02E-03 0.20 0.15 0.5 25 0.00375 5.36E-05 0.01
1 50 0.0075 1.07E-04 0.02 Adult 70 2 100 0.015 2.14E-04 0.04
3 150 0.0225 3.21E-04 0.06
Haloxyfop-R-methyl dermal exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Flux Permeability Exposure Body Daily oral RQ Water concentration rate Weight coefficient duration surface dose (AOEL (mg/L) (mg/ (Kg) (cm/h)* (h) (cm2) (mg/Kg/day) = 0.005) cm2/h)
0.5 1.80E-04 0.04
1 3.60E-04 0.07 22 8800 2 7.20E-04 0.14
3.60E- 3 1.08E-03 0.22 0.15 6.00E-03 06 0.5 1.16E-04 0.02
1 2.31E-04 0.05 70 18000 2 4.63E-04 0.09
3 6.94E-04 0.14
* http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic_Tables/pdf/params_sl_table_run_MAY2012.pdf
October 2012 106
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Haloxyfop-R-methyl inhalation exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5- metre deep body of water) Vapour Water Inhalation RQ Conversion Weight Exposure Daily dose pressure conc. rate (AOEL = factor† (Kg) (min) (mg/Kg/day) (mmHg)* (mg/L) (L/min) 0.005) 4.539E- 30 2.27E-08 06 9.079E- 60 4.54E-08 06 22 40 1.816E- 120 9.08E-08 05 2.724E- 180 1.36E-07 05 1.95E-05 0.15 1.42E-04 2.318E- 30 1.16E-08 06 4.637E- 60 2.32E-08 06 70 65 9.273E- 120 4.64E-08 06 1.391E- 180 6.96E-08 05
* http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/JMPR/Download/95_eva/haloxy.pdf † Conversion factor takes into account the concentration of haloxyfop-R-methyl in water as a unitless constant and actual temperature (30°C) in degrees Kelvin. For further details see: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0010044.pdf
The total exposure to bystanders is determined by the three above exposure routes combined. The risks derived from the three routes of exposure are within acceptable levels.
Drinking Water
The exposure and risk assessment for ingestion of potable water containing haloxyfop-R-methyl utilised the guideline value for haloxyfop as set by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6. 2011.The staff have chosen this value due to the lack of a MAV in the drinking-water standards for New Zealand and the similarity of assumptions as mentioned in item 4.2.2.2.
Based on human health concerns according to the guideline mentioned above, haloxyfop in drinking water should not exceed 0.001 mg/L.
Haloxyfop-R-methyl – Drinking treated surface water (assuming application per hectare on a non- flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Water Ingestion Oral Oral dose Weight (Kg) concentration Rate Exposure ADI RQ (mg/Kg/day) (mg/L) (L/day) (mg/day)*
22 1 0.15 6.82E-03 22.73 0.15 0.0003 70 2 0.30 4.29E-03 14.29
October 2012 107
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
*Assuming drinking water intakes of 1000 mL for a 6 year-old child and 2000 mL for an adult.
The staff note that the oral exposure after drinking treated surface water is 150 and 300 times higher than the Australian MAV for a child and adult consumption pattern, respectively. The risks derived from these exposures are above the levels of concern and should be appropriately addressed with stricter controls when compared to the other three active ingredients. To the staff’s best knowledge there is no data regarding haloxyfop-R methyl dissipation in water in order to determine accurately the length of the restrictions for direct water uptake or buffer distances of the application from potable water intakes. Therefore, on the precautionary basis of the available dissipation data for triclopyr triethylamine, the staff recommend a restriction period of at least 21 days. However, the staff note that it is extremely conservative to consider that the concentration of haloxyfop remains unchanged in the surface water for a lifetime of exposure. This statement takes into consideration that the maximum number of applications for haloxyfop is 2 times a year with a minimum interval of 30 days.
Exposure and risk determinations due to consumption of fish or other food sources are not possible due to the current lack of data available on haloxyfop-R-methyl levels in edible freshwater species.
Acute toxicity profile Four different acute toxicological profiles are observed for the four proposed undiluted formulations containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, these are 6.4A, 6.1E (Oral)/6.4A, 6.1E (Oral)/6.1E (Inhalation)/6.3B/6.4A, and 6.1D (Oral)/6.3B/6.4A. Based on these profiles, acute oral toxicity, skin and eye irritation are the most significant adverse effects. However, the staff note that although the substances in their undiluted form are classified as acute oral toxicants and skin and eye irritants, before the substance is applied to water it is substantially diluted to a spray concentration and then once applied it will be further diluted by the large water volume in the treated water body it will bind to vegetation, undergo degradation and incorporation into sediment. This decrease in the amount of haloxyfop-R-methyl in the treated water means less substance available for exposure, thus decreasing the potential for oral toxicity, skin and eye irritation.
Conclusions for haloxyfop-R-methyl • Based on the proposed application rates, risks for swimmers are considered within acceptable levels. Despite estimates showing RQs below the level of concern, a precautionary exclusion from the sprayed area for a period of 5 days that would allow sufficient dissipation of haloxyfop- R methyl hotspots is recommended. • Considering an Australian MAV of 0.001 mg/L haloxyfop-R methyl in drinking water, risks are above the level of concern for bystanders using treated water for consumption purposes after application. Oral exposure after drinking treated surface water is 150 and 300 times higher than the Australian MAV for a child and adult consumption pattern, respectively. No data is available on dissipation of haloxyfop-R methyl in water in order to account for a specific reduction of the concentration in water. A restriction of at least 21 days for direct water uptake for such purposes is recommended on the precautionary basis of the dissipation rates available for
October 2012 108
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
triclopyr triethylamine, along with buffer distances of the application from lakes, reservoirs or ponds that contain a functioning potable water intake for human consumption. • A Tolerable Exposure Limit (TEL) for drinking water has been previously set for haloxyfop-R- methyl at 0.0021 mg/L. The staff note that for risk assessment purposes there is no significant difference between the TEL set and the Australian MAV used. • Significant data gaps exist for haloxyfop-R methyl concentrations in edible freshwater species in New Zealand. • The staff recommend that in order to minimise the risks based on the acute toxicological profile of formulations containing haloxyfop-R methyl as an active ingredient, a restriction for entry in the sprayed area should be imposed to allow sufficient dissipation of haloxyfop-R methyl hotspots.
Imazapyr isopropylamine A dilution factor of 8E-05 and the maximum application rate of 5000 mg/L were used to calculate an immediate expected concentration in water of 0.4 mg/L, which was used for the exposure and risk assessment for bystanders. This concentration of the active ingredient is considered an immediate level in the water and hypothetically maintained at this concentration for chronic exposure and risk determination. Under real world conditions the concentration of imazapyr isopropylamine following application to water would decrease on a daily basis. Therefore, the risk calculations presented in this assessment represent conservative scenarios.
Imazapyr isopropylamine toxicological endpoints Available NOAEL ADI/ Key international (LOAEL) Uncertainty AOEL Staff’s systemic Remarks toxicological mg/Kg factors mg/Kg modifications effect endpoints bw/day bw/day
1-year dog feeding study/This dose was used as an No LOAEL endpoint for USEPA short, was risk intermediate, long demonstrated assessment and chronic toxicity with imazapyr 250 100 2.5 NA based on endpoint for risk at doses up to skeletal assessment 250 muscle mg/Kg/day effects seen in dogs with structural analog imazapic
*http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-128821_29-Sep- 06.pdf
October 2012 109
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Swimming
The exposure and risk assessment parameters regarding persons exposed to imazapyr isopropylamine-treated water by swimming via oral, dermal and inhalation routes are presented in the table below.
Imazapyr isopropylamine oral exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water)
Water Water Total Daily oral RQ Weight Exposure Age conc. ingested exposure dose (mg/Kg (AOEL = (Kg) duration (h) (mg/L) (mL) (mg) bw/day) 2.5)
0.5 25 125.00 4.55E-04 1.82E-04
1 50 250.00 9.09E-04 3.64E-04 6 22 2 100 500.00 1.82E-03 7.27E-04
3 150 750.00 2.73E-03 1.09E-03 0.4 0.5 25 125.00 1.43E-04 5.71E-05
1 50 250.00 2.86E-04 1.14E-04 Adult 70 2 100 500.00 5.71E-04 2.29E-04
3 150 750.00 8.57E-04 3.43E-04
Imazapyr isopropylamine dermal exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5- metre deep body of water) Flux Permeability Exposure Body Daily oral RQ Water concentration rate Weight coefficient duration surface dose (AOEL (mg/L) (mg/ (Kg) (cm/h)* (h) (cm2) (mg/Kg/day) = 2.5) cm2/h) 1.79E- 0.5 4.48E-06 06 3.58E- 1 8.96E-06 06 22 8800 7.17E- 2 1.79E-05 2.24E- 06 0.4 5.60E-05 08 1.08E- 3 2.69E-05 05 1.15E- 0.5 2.88E-06 06 70 18000 2.30E- 1 5.76E-06 06
October 2012 110
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
4.61E- 2 1.15E-05 06 6.91E- 3 1.73E-05 06 *http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a.pdf
Imazapyr isopropylamine inhalation exposure (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5- metre deep body of water) Vapour Water Inhalation Daily oral RQ Conversion Weight Exposure pressure conc. rate dose (AOEL factor† (Kg) (min) (mmHg)* (ppm) (L/min) (mg/Kg/day) = 0.005) 3.23E- 30 8.07E-10 10 6.46E- 60 1.61E-09 10 22 40 1.29E- 120 3.23E-09 09 1.94E- 180 4.84E-09 09 9.75E-08 0.4 4.74 1.65E- 30 4.12E-10 10 3.30E- 60 8.24E-10 10 70 65 6.59E- 120 1.65E-09 10 9.89E- 180 2.47E-09 10 * http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a.pdf † Conversion factor takes into account the concentration of imazapyr-triethylamine in water as a unitless constant and actual temperature (30°C) in degrees Kelvin. For further details see: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0010044.pdf
The total exposure to bystanders is determined by the three above exposure routes combined. The risks derived from the three routes of exposure are all negligible and within acceptable levels.
Drinking Water and Fish Consumption
The exposure and risk assessment for ingestion of potable water containing imazapyr isopropylamine utilised the guideline value for imazapyr as set by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6. 2011.. The staff has chosen this value due to the lack of a MAV in the drinking-water standards for New Zealand and the similarity of assumptions as mentioned in previously. Based on human health concerns according to the guideline mentioned above, imazapyr isopropylamine in drinking water should not exceed 9 mg/L.
For the exposure and risk assessment for fish ingestion the staff decided to use 0.636 mg/Kg as a typical analytical level detected in fish (Lepomis macrochirus, bluegill) from recently treated water as
October 2012 111
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) reported by Entrix, 2003.as used in the 2012 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Imazapyr: Review for Use in Lakes & Ponds in Massachusetts.
Imazapyr isopropylamine – Drinking treated surface water (assuming application per hectare on a non-flowing 0.5-metre deep body of water) Water Ingestion Oral Oral dose Weight (Kg) concentration Rate Exposure ADI RQ (mg/Kg/day) (mg/L) (L/day) (mg/Kg/day)*
22 1 0.4 0.018 0.01 0.4 2.5 70 2 0.8 0.014 0.005
*Assuming drinking water intakes of 1000 mL for a 6 year-old child and 2000 mL for an adult. The staff note that the oral exposures after drinking treated surface water with imazapyr isopropylamine are below the Australian MAV for a child and adult consumption pattern, respectively.
Imazapyr isopropylamine – Fish consumption Weight Fish meal Exposure Dose ADI RQ Age (Kg) (Kg)* (mg) (mg/Kg/day)
6 22 0.06 0.038 1.82E-02 0.01 2.5 Adult 70 0.4 0.254 1.14E-02 0.005
*Based on USEPA, 1989 fish consumption data.
Based on the above exposure data, consumption of fish exposed to imazapyr isopropylamine after application of similar rates is below the levels of concern for both child and adult consumption patterns.
Acute toxicity profile Two different acute toxicological profiles are observed for the two proposed undiluted formulations containing imazapyr isopropylamine, these are 6.3B/6.4A and 6.3A/6.4A. Based on these profiles, skin and eye irritation are the most significant acute adverse effects. However, the staff note that although the substances in their undiluted form are classified as skin and eye irritants, before the substance is applied to water it is substantially diluted to a spray concentration and then once applied it will be further diluted by the large water volume in the treated water body it will bind to vegetation, undergo degradation and incorporation into sediment. This decrease in the amount of imazapyr isopropylamine in the treated water means less substance available for exposure, thus decreasing the potential for skin and eye irritation.
Conclusions for imazapyr isopropylamine • Based on the proposed application rates, risks for swimmers are considered within acceptable levels. Despite estimates showing RQs below the level of concern, a precautionary exclusion from the sprayed area for a period of 5 days that would allow sufficient dissipation of imazapyr isopropylamine hotspots is recommended.
October 2012 112
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
• Considering an Australian MAV of 9 mg/L imazapyr isopropylamine in drinking water, risks are within acceptable levels for bystanders using treated water for consumption purposes after application.
• Based on the MAV, a Tolerable Exposure Limit (TEL) for drinking water for imazapyr isopropylamine has been set at 9 mg/L. • Consumption of fish based on approximate intakes of 60 and 400 grams of edible fish parts for children and adults, respectively, is within acceptable levels of risk based on the proposed application rates and American studies on imazapyr concentrations in fish. The staff note however, that significant data gaps exist concerning levels of imazapyr isopropylamine in other edible freshwater species in New Zealand.
• The staff recommend that in order to minimise the risks based on the acute toxicological profile of formulations containing imazapyr isopropylamine as an active ingredient, a restriction for entry in the sprayed area should be imposed to allow sufficient dissipation of imazapyr isopropylamine hotspots. Qualitative bystander risk assessment
The risks to bystanders exposed as a result of drift during knapsack application are deemed to be low due to the reduced likelihood of exposure to the herbicidal formulations in this reassessment in comparison to their use for general herbicide use on land. The staff consider that risks are appropriately managed by the existing controls for the substances.
The staff consider that it is highly unlikely that aerial application of the haloxyfop-R-methyl and metsulfuron methyl formulations over the surface of water for aquatic weed control would lead to significant risks to bystanders due to spray or vapour drift, provided that the same controls that are already in place for the approved formulations are used. This is supported on the fact that large droplets are required for aerial application, which will reduce spray drift compared to the finer agricultural crop spray mist.
October 2012 113
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Quantitative ecological risk assessment
Environmental fate and ecotoxicity endpoints used for risk assessment purpose
Haloxyfop-R-methyl ester (CAS#72619-32-0) (ester) and haloxyfop-R (CAS#95977-29- 0) (acid)
Persistency in aquatic and terrestrial environment Test results (e.g % Klimisch Test Test type degradation, DT ) - score Reference method 50 Days (1-4) ester:
DT50 water 0.19-0.28 d
DT50 whole system 0.18-
0.24 day Aquatic biodegradation 2 EFSA 2009a acid:
DT50 water 31.5-54.6 d
DT50 whole system 39.2- 51.7 day
ester: 20 days Aqueous photolysis half-life (DT50) 2 EFSA 2009a acid: 12 days
ester: pH 4 stable
Hydrolysis half-life (DT50) pH 7 43 days 2 EFSA 2009a pH 9 0.63 day acid: pH 7 and 9 stable
ester : no data due to rapid hydrolysis into Adsorption/desorption acid 2 EFSA 2009a
acid : Kd 0.31-1.59 mL/g
ester: 0.001-0.6 day
Aerobic half-life in soil (DT50) acid: 9-20.5 days 2 EPA substance database (average = 14 days)
Anaerobic degradation in soil ester: < 2 days 2 EFSA 2009a (DT50) acid: 588 days
Conclusion on persistency: Haloxyfop-R- methyl ester is readily biodegradable into the acid which is not readily degradable in the aquatic environment. The substance is not persistent in soil and mobile based on the data on the acid.
October 2012 114
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Bioaccumulation Klimisch Test results (e.g Test type Test method score Reference log Pow, BCF) (1-4)
Partition coefficient ester 4.3 2 EPA substance database octanol/water
The bioconcentration factor for the acid was determined to 17.0 and hence the potential for Fish bioconcentration test 2 EFSA 2009a bioaccumulation in the food chain also from the metabolite is considered as low.
Conclusion on bioaccumulation: There is potential that the ester is bioaccumulative. However the ester dissipates very fast from the water phase and the acid has a low potential for bioaccumulation. Therefore the staff consider the overall potential for bioaccumulation in the food chain to be low.
Aquatic toxicity Test results Test type (e.g Klimisch Test Test species and LC(D) , score Reference method 50 duration EC50, (1-4) NOEC) – mg/L
Fish ester:
ester: Lepomis macrochirus Acute 96 hr LC50 0.0884 2 EFSA 2009a acid: Oncorhynchus mykiss acid: >50
Fish ester: ester: Oncorhynchus mykiss 28 days NOEC 0.0052 2 EFSA 2009a acid: Pimephales promelas acid: 0.86
ester: > Invertebrates Acute 48 hr EC50 12.3 2 EFSA 2009a (Daphnia) acid: > 100
ester: Invertebrates chronic 21 d NOEC 0.509 2 EFSA 2009a (Daphnia) acid: 9.6
EC50 Algae ester: 120 hr ester: Navicula pelliculosa ester: 1.72 Acute acid: 96 h 2 EFSA 2009a acid: Pseudokirchneriella acid: 47.2
subcapitata
Aquatic plants (Lemna minor) Acute 14 d EC50 ester: 3.1 2 EFSA 2009a
October 2012 115
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
acid 5.4
Conclusion on aquatic classification: 9.1A
Soil toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch (e.g LC(D) , Test species Test method and 50 score Reference EC50, NOEC) – duration (1-4) mg/kg soil
14 day LC50 ester: EPA substance ester: 134,3 database Earthworm Acute EC50= LC50/ 2 acid: 41.5 10 acid: EFSA 2009a
Conclusion on soil classification: the ester is not classified as 9.2 based on earthworm data. No data on non target plants are available.
Terrestrial vertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and score Reference method LC(D)50) duration (1-4) – mg/kg bw/d
Rat (M) Acute oral LD50 300 2 EPA substance database
ester: 1159 Bird (bobwhite quail) Acute LD50 2 EFSA 2009a acid: 414
Conclusion on terrestrial vertebrate classification: 9.3B
Terrestrial invertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and Score Reference method LC(D)50, duration (1-4) EC50) - µg/bee
48hr oral ester: >100 and contact EPA substance database
LD50 Bees Acute 2 48 hr oral EU Pesticide Properties acid >100 LD50 Database
Conclusion on terrestrial invertebrate classification: substance is not classified as 9.4
October 2012 116
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Imazapyr isopropylamine (CAS#81334-34-1) The acid and salt moieties for imazapyr are expected to behave similarly. Therefore test results of the acid are also mentioned in the list of endpoints when data on the salt are not available. Available studies on aquatic and terrestrial organisms indicate that the salt is not more toxic than the acid.
Persistency in aquatic and terrestrial environment Test results (e.g % Klimisch
Test type Test method degradation, DT50) - score Reference Days (1-4) EPA Substance no Aquatic biodegradation 2 database stable, >120 days US EPA 2006
Aqueous photolysis half-life (DT50) 3-5 days 2 US EPA 2006
Hydrolysis half-life (DT50) stable 2 US EPA 2006
EPA substance Adsorption/desorption Koc = 8.81 2 database
Aerobic half-life in soil (DT50) stable 2 US EPA 2006
Anaerobic degradation in soil stable 2 US EPA 2006
Conclusion on persistency: substance is persistent in aquatic and terrestrial environment. Upon direct application or indirect release into surface water, photolysis is the only identified mechanism for degradation.
Bioaccumulation Test results Klimisch Test Test type (e.g log score Reference method Pow, (1-4) BCF) Partition coefficient log Kow 2 EPA Substance database octanol/water 0.22
A log Kow was transformed Fish bioconcentration test using a BCF ~ 3 2 EPA substance database regression- derived equation
Conclusion on bioaccumulation: substance is not considered bioaccumulative.
October 2012 117
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Aquatic toxicity Test results Test type (e.g Klimisch Test Test species and LC(D) , score Reference method 50 duration EC50, (1-4) NOEC) – mg/L Fish Acute 96 h LC50 > 100 2 US EPA 2005 (Rainbow trout)
Fish full life cycle, 28 NOAEC 118 2 US EPA 2005 (Fathead minnow) days
Invertebrates Acute 48 h EC50 >100 2 US EPA 2005 (Daphnia magna)
Invertebrates 21 d Chronic 97.1 2 US EPA 2005 (Daphnia magna) NOAEC
11.5 Algae (expressed (Pseudokirchneriella Acute EC50 in acid 2 US EPA 2005 subcapitata) equivalents a.e.)
0.018
Aquatic plants (expressed Acute EC50 in acid 2 US EPA 2005 (Lemna gibba ) equivalents a.e.)
Conclusion on aquatic classification: 9.1A
Soil toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch (e.g LC(D) , Test species Test method and 50 score Reference EC50, NOEC) – duration (1-4) mg/kg soil
EC25 = 0.00135 plant (cucumber) vegetative vigor 2 US EPA 2005 mg ae/ kg soil
Conclusion on soil classification: 9.2A
October 2012 118
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Terrestrial vertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and score Reference method LC(D)50) duration (1-4) – mg/kg bw/d
Rat Acute oral LD50 4,800 2 EPA substance database
acid Bobwhite quail Acute oral LD50 2 US EPA 2005 >2,150
Sub acute acid Bobwhite quail LD50 2 US EPA 2005 dietary >5,000
Conclusion on terrestrial vertebrate classification: substance is not classified as 9.3
Terrestrial invertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and Score Reference method LC(D)50, duration (1-4) EC50) - µg/bee
Honey bee acute 96 hour > 100 2 EPA substance database (Apis mellifera) contact LD50
Conclusion on terrestrial invertebrate classification: substance is not classified as 9.4
Metsulfuron methyl (CAS 74223-64-6)
Persistency in aquatic and terrestrial environment Test results (e.g % Klimisch
Test type Test method degradation, DT50) - score Reference Days (1-4)
DT50 water 81-148 Aquatic biodegradation 2 EU 2000 DT50 whole system 105- 175
light has no effect on degradation of Aqueous photolysis half-life (DT50) 2 EU 2000 metsulfuron methyl in water
o EPA substance At pH 5, 25 C DT50 = 22 days 2 database Hydrolysis half-life (DT50) o EPA substance At pH 7, 25 C DT50 stable 2 database
October 2012 119
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
o EPA substance At pH 9, 25 C DT50 stable 2 database
Koc = 4-60 mg/L (mean Adsorption/desorption 2 EU 2000 39.5)
DT50 23-29 days (2 lab, 22 oC soils) Aerobic half-life in soil (DT50) 2 EU 2000 o lab, 25 C DT50 20-51 days
Anaerobic degradation in soil ND
Conclusion on persistency: metsulfuron methyl is persistent in aquatic environment and moderately persistent
in soils. It is mobile in the terrestrial environment based on the Koc.
Bioaccumulation Test results Klimisch Test Test type (e.g log score Reference method Pow, (1-4) BCF)
Partition coefficient At pH 7, log Pow = 2 EPA substance database octanol/water 25oC -1.7
A log Pow was transformed Fish bioconcentration using a BCF = 0.6 2 EPA substance database test regression- derived equation
Conclusion on bioaccumulation: metsulfuron methyl is not bioaccumulative
Aquatic toxicity Test results Test type (e.g Klimisch Test Test species and LC(D) , score Reference method 50 duration EC50, (1-4) NOEC) – mg/L Freshwater Acute 96 h, static, > 150 2 EPA substance database Fish LC50 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) NOEC (21 Chronic 68 2 EPA substance database days)
Invertebrates Acute EC50 (48 h) > 150 2 EPA substance database
(Daphnia magna) Chronic NOEC (21 150 2 EPA substance database
October 2012 120
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
days)
Algae
(S. capricomutum) acute ECb50 (72 h) 0.045 2 EPA substance database
Aquatic plants Static, EC50 Acute 0.0004 (96 h) 2 EPA substance database (Lemna minor)
(Lemna Gibba) Chronic NOEC 0.00016
Conclusion on aquatic classification: 9.1A
Soil toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch (e.g LC(D) , Test species Test method and 50 score Reference EC50, NOEC) – duration (1-4) mg/kg soil 16 day Rice seedling EPA substance EC25 = 0.0011 2 (Oryza sativa) emergence database test
EPA Substance Earthworm >1,000 2 database
Conclusion on soil classification: 9.2A
Terrestrial vertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and score Reference method LC(D)50) duration (1-4) – mg/kg bw/d Acute LD50 > 2,510 2 EPA substance database
> 5,620 Mallard duck Dietary LC50 2 EPA substance database ppm
Reproductive NOEC 1,000 ppm 2 EPA substance database
Conclusion on terrestrial vertebrate classification: the substance is not classified as 9.3.
October 2012 121
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Terrestrial invertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and Score Reference method LC(D)50, duration (1-4) EC50) - µg/bee Contact Acute > 25 2 EPA substance database Bees LD50 Acute Oral LD50 > 44.3 2 EPA substance database
Conclusion on terrestrial invertebrate classification: the substance is not classified as 9.4
Triclopyr triethylamine (Triclopyr TEA) (CAS 57213-69-1) Triclopyr triethylamine rapidly dissociates in water to triclopyr acid within one minute. Triclopyr acid is a weak acid which will dissociate completely to the triclopyr anion. Therefore triclopyr anion will be the predominant moiety present in the environment when products containing the triethylamine salt is used. Therefore the staff has used data on the acid/anion as well.
Persistency in aquatic and terrestrial environment Test results (e.g % Klimisch
Test type Test method degradation, DT50) - score Reference Days (1-4)
30-day study at acid: DT50 whole system 142 EPA substance Aquatic biodegradation 2 24.5°C days database
EPA substance Aqueous photolysis half-life (DT50) acid: 0.36 days 2 database
triclopyr TEA hydrolysis very rapid to triclopyr EPA substance Hydrolysis half-life (DT50) 2 acid and triethylamine. database The acid is stable
EPA Substance Adsorption/desorption acid :Koc = 40.54 2 database
acid: 6-69 days EPA substance Aerobic half-life in soil (DT50) 2 database
EPA Substance Anaerobic degradation in soil acid:stable 2 database
Conclusion on persistency: triclopyr triethylamine hydrolyses rapidly to triclopyr acid which is not rapidly
degradable in aquatic and terrestrial environment. Triclopyr acid is mobile in soil based on the Koc.
October 2012 122
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Bioaccumulation Test results Klimisch Test Test type (e.g log score Reference method Pow, (1-4) BCF)
Partition coefficient 0.7 2 EPA substance database octanol/water
BCF whole Fish bioconcentration test fish 0.51- 2 EPA substance database 1.1
Conclusion on bioaccumulation: substance is not considered bioaccumulative.
Aquatic toxicity Test results Test type (e.g Klimisch Test Test species and LC(D) , score Reference method 50 duration EC50, (1-4) NOEC) – mg/L Acute 96 hour flow Fresh 120 2 EPA substance database Fish through LC50 water (Pimephales promelas) 28 day Chronic 104 2 EPA substance database NOEL
Static 48 Acute 132.9 2 EPA substance database Invertebrates hour EC50
(Daphnia magna) 21 day Chronic 80.7 2 EPA substance database NOEL
Algae 5.9 Acute, 7d EC50 2 US EPA 1998 (Anabaena flos-aquae) (a.e. 4.1)
Aquatic plants Acute, 14 8.8 EC50 2 US EPA 1998 (Lemna gibba)) d (a.e. 6.1)
Conclusion on aquatic classification: 9.1B a.e. = acid equivalent
October 2012 123
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Soil toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch (e.g LC(D) , Test species Test method and 50 score Reference EC50, NOEC) – duration (1-4) mg/kg soil Seedling EPA substance Soybean EC25 = 0.012 2 emergence database
Conclusion on soil classification: 9.2A
Terrestrial vertebrate toxicity Test results Test type Klimisch Test (e.g Test species and score Reference method LC(D)50) duration (1-4) – mg/kg bw/d Rat Acute 1847 2 EPA Substance database
Mallard duck Acute oral 14 day 2055 2 US EPA 1998 (Anas platyrhynchos)
subactue Bobwhite quail 11 622 2 US EPA 1998 dietary
Conclusion on terrestrial vertebrate classification: 9.3C
Terrestrial invertebrate toxicity Test Test type results Klimisch Test Test species and (e.g LC(D)50, Score Reference method duration EC50) - (1-4) µg/bee
Honey bee Acute oral > 100 2 EPA Substance database (Apis mellifera) and contact
Conclusion on terrestrial invertebrate classification: substance is not classified as 9.4
October 2012 124
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Literature review on the ecotoxicology and environmental fate of the four herbicides by applicant The applicant provided a report (NIWA 2012) which refers to other publications regarding the four active ingredients. This report provides a brief summary of relevant literature, including unpublished reports on the ecotoxicology and environmental fate of the substances included in this application. EPA staff received a few of the unpublished reports. EPA staff highlight the most important statements and publications from this report below.
Haloxyfop-R-methyl ester: the substance controls a range of emergent grasses and does not appear to control non-grasses including sedges and rushes. The majority of the publications are related to the proposed substance haloxyfop-R-methyl ester (CAS number 72619-32-0) but don’t provide data on haloxyfop-R-methyl. One publication refers to haloxyfop and its toxicity to elvers, inanga and freshwater shrimps. This substance was highly toxic to elvers and inanga. Another publication stated that the use of haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl for the control of spartina is likely to cause some toxic effects on benthic organisms. “A temporary decline in the density may occur but the communities would recover”. Also haloxyfop residues were estimated in shellfish. Shellfish located within 100 m of a sprayed area are likely to have measurable residues of haloxyfop. This will diminish over time. Therefore a five day ban on shellfish harvesting within 500 m of the treated area was suggested by the authors. Further a test was carried out with the formulated product Gallant containing 100 g haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl per litre on marine bivalve Macomona liliana and the amphipod Chaetocorophium cf. lucasii. Amphipods were killed at concentrations ≥10 mg a.i./L. Bivalves survived the 96 hour test after an application with 900 g a.i./ha. This rate inhibited the ability of 90% of M. liliana tested to bury within a 30 minute period.
Imazapyr-isopropylamine: This substance is practically non toxic to mammals, mallards, fish and aquatic invertebrates. It is highly toxic to a range of monocotyledons and dicotyledons.
Metsulfuron methyl: This substance is practically non toxic to mammals, birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates. No evidence of adverse effects to non target vegetation was found in the Waikato Delta. However the author referred to other tests in which two Lemna species and Ceratophyllum demersum were adverse affected. [Note EPA: actual application rates were not mentioned in the report].
Toxicity testing was carried out with the formulation Escort containing metsulfuron-methyl (600 g ai/Kg) on freshwater and marine alga, long finned eel elver and short finned eel and oyster embryo. Escort was tested at several concentrations ranging from 0.0001 up to 1000 mg product/L, not all concentrations were used for all test species. No toxicity was found to elvers up to 1000 mg product/L. Freshwater alga had an EC50 value of 0.0864 mg product/L, marine alga EC50 of 0.3709 mg product/L, oyster embryos EC50 of 0.0122 mg product/L. Escort (8-10.5 g/100 L) was applied in drains and water samples were collected before and after application from downstream end of the treated section. Immediately after application metsulfuron-methyl was detected in the drain water, after a day no substance was detected anymore. The water flow had effectively flushed the substance out of the sample area. Samples taken at the time of application and stored in aquaria
October 2012 125
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) showed little change of concentration. This confirms the long persistence of the substance in water. Irrigation of kumara or squash plants with water contaminated with Escort (0.3 mg/L) would be expected to cause a loss of yield.
Another test was carried out with Escort (600 g metsulfuron-methyl/Kg) to control Alligator weed and potential effects of spraying on aquatic plants or fauna. The application rate was not stated in the report. The effects of the application on spawning activity and egg viability of whitebait could not be determined (late spawning season). No effects on the fauna (macroinvertebrates and fish) were observed. However it was reported that juvenile grey mullet died at all in situ trial sites. No adverse effects on inanga, short-finned eels and shrimps were observed in the situ trial sites. The authors advised to monitor possible effects on inanga spawning and the estuarine habitat.
Triclopyr triethylamine: This substance is practically non toxic to mammals, birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates. It is highly toxic to a range of predominately dicotyledons. A field trial was carried out using triclopyr TEA (2 and 4 Kg ai/ha, assumed maximum concentration in water 1.3 mg/L), endothall and dichlobenil to control parrot’s feather. No mortality of caged eels and inanga was found one day after treatment.
Risk assessment methodology
Methods used to assess environmental exposure and risk differ between environmental compartments (Table 1).
Table 1 Reference documents for environmental exposure and risk assessments Environmental exposure Risk assessment
(GEN)eric (E)stimated Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment (E)nvironmental (C)oncentration Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Aquatic organisms Model Version 2.0 – 01 August Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered 2002 and threatened Species Effects Determinations – 23 January 2004
Guidance on information requirements and Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.10: Sediment organisms Chapter R.16: Environmental Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response Exposure Estimation, Version: 2 - for environment – May 2008 May 2010
Soil persistence models and EU registration. The final report of the Soil organisms, work of the Soil Modelling Work SANCO/10329/2002 rev 2 final. Guidance invertebrates (macro- group of FOCUS (FOrum for the Document on terrestrial ecotoxicology under invertebrates) Co-ordination of pesticide fate Council Directive 91/414/EEC- 17 October 2002 models and their USe) – 29 February 1997
Terrestrial organisms, Guidance document on regulatory testing and risk assessment procedures for plant
October 2012 126
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
invertebrates (non-target protection products with non-target arthropods. From ESCORT 2 Workshop – 21/23 arthropods) March 2000
Guidance of EFSA. Risk assessment to birds and mammals – 17 December 2009. 4 Terrestrial vertebrates EFSA calculator tool - 2009 (birds) SANCO/4145/2000 final. Guidance Document on risk assessment for birds and mammals under Council Directive 91/414/EEC- 25 October 2002
Technical Guidance Document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC Guidance of EFSA. Risk assessment to birds and on Risk Assessment for new notified mammals – 17 December 2009 substances, Commission Secondary poisoning Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on EFSA calculator tool - 2009 Risk Assessment for existing and biomagnification SANCO/4145/2000 final. Guidance Document on substances, Directive 98/8/EC of risk assessment for birds and mammals under the European Parliament and of the Council Directive 91/414/EEC- 25 October 2002 Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market – Part II - 2003
Aquatic risk assessment
For Class 9 substances, irrespective of the intrinsic hazard classification, the ecological risk can be assessed for a substance by calculating a Risk Quotient (RQ) based on an estimated exposure concentration. Such calculations incorporate toxicity values, exposure scenarios (including spray drift, leaching and run-off, application rates and frequencies), and the half-lives of the component(s) in water. For the aquatic environment, the calculations provide an Estimated Environmental
Concentration (EEC) which, when divided by the L(E)C50 or a NOEC, gives a RQ acute or chronic.
If the RQ exceeds a predefined level of concern, this suggests that it may be appropriate to refine the assessment or apply the approved handler control and/or other controls to ensure that appropriate matters are taken into account to minimize off-site movement of the substance. Conversely, if a worst-case scenario is used, and the level of concern is not exceeded, then in terms of the environment, there is a presumption of low risk which is able to be adequately managed by such things as label statements (warnings, disposal). The approved handler control can then be removed on a selective basis.
Levels Of Concern (LOC) developed by the USEPA (Urban and Cook, 1986) and adopted by EPA determine whether a substance poses an environmental risk (Table 2).
4 www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1438.htm
October 2012 127
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Table 2 Levels of concern as adopted by EPA New Zealand Endpoint LOC Presumption Aquatic (fish, invertebrates)
Acute RQ ≥ 0.5 High acute risk
Acute RQ 0.1 - 0.5 Risk can be mitigated through restricted use
Acute RQ < 0.1 Low risk
Chronic RQ ≥ 1 High chronic risk
Plants (aquatic and terrestrial)
Acute RQ ≥ 1 High acute risk
Modelling
Estimated environmental concentration in a static water body The staff used the following model to estimate the environmental concentration in treated water based on the standard chemical equation for first order chemical reactions. This model was previously used by the EPA (ERMA) to estimate the concentration of another herbicide to be used into/onto water. For the use in a static water body (lake, pond) no dilution is assumed and the amount of water used per ha (400 L/ha as provided by applicant) is used.
Estimated environmental concentration (EEC)
= -kt C(t) C(0) x e
Where:
C(t) is the concentration of the substance at time t (days)
C(0) is the initial treatment concentration of the substance k is the first order rate constant for the degradation of the substance
[ k= ln2/ DT50]
The staff used the DT50 value of the biodegradation in water/sediment systems to cover all possible mechanisms of degradation. This is in line with the User Guide to the Thresholds and Classification under the HSNO Act of the EPA.
As a worst case situation the staff assumed that 100% of the substance will reach the water body. However, there will be interception by the weeds. The staff used a foliar interception rate of 40% in grasses based on a review of retention values from pesticide application throughout the world [ Linders et al (2000)]. Further for the weed Spartina treated with imazapyr a foliar interception rate of 75% has been proposed based on empirical results for a dense canopy [Patten 2003]. Spartina is one of the pest weeds in New Zealand. Therefore the staff will use this interception rate as well. Furthermore the staff used also the percentage that will reach the water body by drift after aerial
October 2012 128
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) application for terrestrial uses based on the GENEEC model (13%). The latter is an under estimation of the risks due to the proposed use pattern but is included to provide a broader picture of the possible risks. In reality the interception will be within the range of 40 to 75% depending on the weed species and the density of the canopy.
The treated plants will collapse into the water. It is not known how long it takes to collapse into water and how rapid the substance degrades in the foliage. Therefore there is uncertainty around the concentration that enter the water body via the weeds.
In addition to this conservative approach for the application location the staff also calculated the concentration in water assuming a water body with a depth of 30 cm. This depth is often used in aquatic modelling. This approach is more realistic to areas adjacent to the application location.
Haloxyfop–R-methyl
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of haloxyfop-R-methyl and haloxyfop-R following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 750 g ai/ha (= 1.875 mg ai/L based on 400L water per ha ). Day EEC (mg/L)
% 100% 60% 25% 13% reached ester Acid ester acid ester acid ester acid water body 0 1875 1875 1125 1125 469 469 244 244
1 104 1850 62.6 1110 26 463 13.6 241
2 - 1825 - 1095 - 457 - 238
3 - 1801 - 1081 - 451 - 234
7 - 1707 - 1024 - 427 - 222
28 - 1288 - 773 - 322 - 168
-= not relevant, ester degrades in acid within 1 day
Calculation of acute risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Acute risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with haloxyfop-R-methyl
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7
Ester
fish (LC 50= 0.0884 1176 - 708 - 294 - 154 - mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 8 - 5 - 2 - 1 - >12.3 mg/L)
October 2012 129
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Acid
fish (LC 50 >50 37 34 22 20 9 9 5 4 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 19 17 11 10 5 4 2 2 >100 mg/L)
-= not relevant, ester degrades in acid within 1 day
Calculation of chronic risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Chronic risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with haloxyfop-R-methyl species RQ (EEC/ NOEC)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 28 day28 day 28 day28
Acid fish (NOEC= 0.86 1498 899 374 195 mg/L)
daphnia (NOEC = 134 81 34 18 9.6 mg/L)
Staff also calculated the risk quotients assuming a water body of 30 cm depth. The maximum application rate is 750 g ai/ha resulting in 0.25 mg/L in a water body of 30 cm on day 1.
Table: Acute risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with haloxyfop-R-methyl without crop interception on day 1 and a water body of 30 cm depth
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
ester
fish (LC 50= 0.0884 2.83 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 >12.3 0.02 mg/L)
acid
fish (LC 50 >50 mg/L) 0.005
daphnia (EC 50 >100 0.0025 mg/L)
Haloxyfop-R-methyl is very toxic to aquatic organisms, fish are a very sensitive group. For all scenarios without dilution the acute and chronic risk quotients exceed the level of concern, meaning there is a high risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates at the application location. Assuming a water body of 30 cm the acute risks to fish still exceed the level of concern at day 1 independent the crop interception (RQs ranges from 0.3-2.83).
October 2012 130
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Aquatic plants and algae are more sensitive to the substance than other aquatic species. Haloxyfop- R-methyl controls grass species and is selective to other monocotyledonous non-grass species such as sedges and rushes. The staff consider the risks to non target aquatic grass species high.
The applicant provided a report (NIWA 2012) which refers to other publications (see section 5.1.5). One publication refers to haloxyfop and its high toxicity to elvers, inanga and freshwater shrimps. The toxicity of haloxyfop-R-methyl is not known. Given the information above and the uncertainty for the proposed substance the staff recommend taking the precautionary approach and mitigating this possible risk through restrictions.
Imazapyr isopropylamine
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of imazapyr isopropylamine following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 2000 g ai/ha (= 5000 mg ai/L based on 400L water per ha). day EEC (mg/L)
% reached 100% 60% 25% 13% water body 0 5000 3000 1250 650
1 4971 2983 1243 646
2 4943 2966 1236 643
3 4914 2948 1229 639
7 4802 2881 1200 624
28 4253 2552 1063 553
Calculation of acute risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Acute risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with imazapyr isopropylamine
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7
fish (LC 50>100 50 48 30 30 12 12 6 6 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 50 48 30 30 12 12 6 6 >100 mg/L)
October 2012 131
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Calculation of chronic risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Chronic risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with imazapyr isopropylamine species RQ (EEC/ NOEC)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 28 day28 day 28 day28 fish (NOEC= 118 36 22 9 5 mg/L)
daphnia (NOEC = 44 26 11 6 97.1 mg/L)
Staff also calculated the risk quotients assuming a water body of 30 cm depth. The maximum application rate is 2 Kg ai/ha resulting in 0.67 mg/L in a water body of 30 cm.
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of imazapyr isopropylamine following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 2000 g ai/ha without crop interception on day 1 and a water body of 30 cm depth
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
fish (LC 50>100 0.0067 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 >100 0.0067 mg/L)
For all scenarios without dilution the acute and chronic risk quotients exceed the level of concern, meaning high risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates at the application location. Assuming a water body of 30 cm the acute risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates are considered low at day 1.
Aquatic plants and algae are more sensitive to the substance than other aquatic species. Therefore the risks to non target aquatic plants are high.
A best case situation is when the substance rapidly breaks down due to sunlight (photolysis) with a half-live of 5.3 days. This is, however, not considered realistic because of crop interception, shading by the water edge and the weeds and the water depth. Even in this situation the acute RQs (range 3 to 20 for the different crop interceptions on day 7) exceed the level of concern for fish and aquatic invertebrates at application location.
It is reported that the formulated product Arsenal (contains nonylphenol ethoxyylate component) has a greater toxicity to fish comparable to the active ingredient itself. LC50 value for trout is 20.7 mg ae/L and for bluegill sunfish 40.7 mg ae/L (Cohle and McAllister 1984).
US EPA applied the following label requirements for products containing imazapyr applied to aquatic sites. ‘ This product is toxic to plants. Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen loss from decomposition of dead weeds. This loss can cause fish suffocation. Therefore to minimise this hazard treat 1/3 up to 1/2 of the water area in one single operation and wait at least 10 to 14 days between
October 2012 132
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) treatments. Begin treatment along the shore and proceed outwards in bands to allow fish to move into untreated areas.
The use of treated waters on irrigated crops within 120 days of treatment is prohibited.’
Another mitigation measure in flowing water bodies is ‘ apply while travelling upstream to prevent build up of the concentration of this substance in water’.
Metsulfuron methyl
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of metsulfuron-methyl following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 84 g ai/ha (= 210 mg ai/L based on 400L water per ha). day EEC (mg/L)
% reached 100% 60% 25% 13% water body 0 210 126 53 27
1 209 126 52 27
2 208 125 52 27
3 208 125 52 27
7 204 123 51 27
28 188 113 47 24
Calculation of acute risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Acute risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with metsulfuron-methyl
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7
fish (LC 50>150 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 >150 mg/L)
Calculation of chronic risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Chronic risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with metsulfuron-methyl species RQ (EEC/ NOEC)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 28 day28 day 28 day28 fish (NOEC= 68 2.8 1.7 0.6 0.4
October 2012 133
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
mg/L)
daphnia (NOEC = 1.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 150 mg/L)
Staff also calculated the risk quotients assuming a water body of 30 cm depth. The maximum application rate is 84 g ai/ha resulting in 0.028 mg/L in a water body of 30 cm.
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of metsulfuron-methyl following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 84 g ai/ha without crop interception on day 1 and a water body of 30 cm depth
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
fish (LC 50>150 0.00019 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 >150 0.00019 mg/L)
With the assumption that 100% or 60% of the substance reaches the water body the risk quotient exceeds the level of concern, meaning there is a high acute risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Aquatic plants and algae are more sensitive to the substance than other aquatic species. Therefore the risks to non target aquatic plants are high.
If 25 or 13% of the substances reaches the water body the risks can be mitigated through restricted use. Assuming a water body of 30 cm the acute risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates are considered low.
The chronic RQs exceed the level of concern for fish assuming 100% and 60% of the substance reaches the surface water. For Daphnia the level of concern is exceeded if 100% reaches the surface water. Taking a water body of 30 cm depth into account the chronic risks are low.
The applicant provided a report (NIWA 2012) which refers to 2 monitoring reports (NIWA 1994 and 1997) regarding the formulation Escort containing metsulfuron-methyl (600 g ai/Kg) (see section 5.1.5). No toxicity was found to elvers up to 1000 mg product/L. High toxicity was found to fresh water and marine alga and oyster embryo. Irrigation of kumara or squash plants with water contaminated with Escort (0.3 mg/L) would be expected to cause a loss of yield. In another test using Escort (application rate not known) caged eels, inanga and freshwater shrimp did not show mortality during and after application. However juvenile grey mullet died.
October 2012 134
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Triclopyr triethylamine
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of triclopyr triethylamine following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 7.92 Kg ai/ha (= 19 800 mg ai/L based on 400L water per ha). day EEC (mg/L)
% reached 100% 60% 25% 13% water body 0 19800 11880 4950 2574
1 19704 11822 4926 2561
2 19608 11765 4902 2549
3 19512 11707 4878 2537
7 19135 11481 4784 2488
28 17271 10362 4318 2245
Calculation of acute risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Acute risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with triclopyr triethylamine
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7 day 1 day7
fish (LC 50=120 164 159 99 96 41 40 21 21 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 148 144 89 86 37 36 19 19 =132.9 mg/L)
Calculation of chronic risk quotients using the calculated expected environmental concentrations
Table: Chronic risk quotients (RQ) for fish and Daphnia after application with triclopyr triethylamine species RQ (EEC/ NOEC)
% reaches water 100% 60% 25% 13% body day 28 day28 day 28 day28 fish (NOEC= 104 166 100 42 22 mg/L)
daphnia (NOEC = 214 128 54 28 80.7 mg/L)
October 2012 135
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Staff also calculated the risk quotients assuming a water body of 30 cm depth. The maximum application rate is 7.92 Kg ai/ha resulting in 2.64 mg/L in a water body of 30 cm.
Table: Estimated environmental concentration of triclopyr triethylamine following a treatment at the maximum application rate of 7.92 Kg ai/ha without crop interception on day 1 and a water body of 30 cm depth
species RQ (EEC/ LC50 or EC50)
fish (LC 50=120 0.022 mg/L)
daphnia (EC 50 0.020 =132.9 mg/L)
For all scenarios without dilution the acute and chronic risk quotients exceed the level of concern, meaning high risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates at the application location. Assuming a water body of 30 cm the risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates are considered low. Aquatic plants and algae are more sensitive to the substance than other aquatic species. Therefore the risks to non target aquatic plants are high.
The applicant provided a report (NIWA 2012) which refers to a publication regarding a field trial for the control of parrot’s feather using triclopyr TEA (2 and 4 Kg ai/ha), endothall and dichlobenil. No mortality of caged eels and inanga was found.
Compliance Services International published an assessment of the environmental impact of the aquatic herbicide triclopyr [CSI 2001].They concluded that triclopyr triethylamine appears to be safe to fish, invertebrates, algae and many species of USA native aquatic macrophytes for use in controlling aquatic and wetland weeds in a concentration of 2.5 ppm [ Note: NZ 2.64 ppm assuming 30 cm water depth]. The use of 6.6 ppm may adversely impact Onchorhynchus salmon species. Although triclopyr is not considered to be bioaccumulative shellfish (crayfish and clams) tend to bioaccumulate the substance at levels somewhat higher than fish. Estuarine bivalves like Crassostrea virginica (eastern oyster) and similarity sensitive invertebrates are likely to be at risk from treatments with triclopyr (assessed were 2.5, 4.4 and 6.6 ppm).
The product Garlon 360 (active ingredient triclopyr triethylamine) is approved in New Zealand for the use in aquatic environment. The current approval has the following restrictions. It shall not be applied to salt water bays or estuaries, unimpounded rivers or streams, or to ditches or canals used to transport irrigation water. It shall not be applied where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land. It shall not be applied to drinking water, or water intakes used for human consumption. Water treated with Garlon 360 must not be used for irrigation for 120 days or until water residue levels are determined to be less or equal to 1 ppb. The substance shall not be tank mixed with other herbicides when undertaking spray application over water, or circumstances where the substance may drift onto water. When applied over water this substance may only be tank mixed with surfactants which do not contain alkylphenol ethoxylates. The applicant requests to delete or amend some of these controls.
The applicant provided toxicity data with the formulated product Garlon 360. The substance is more toxic to estuarine organisms than to freshwater species.
October 2012 136
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Treatment of flowing water The Washington Department of Ecology reviewed a number of reports of the use of an herbicide in canals and flowing water [Washington State Department of Ecology (2001)]. They noted that degradation of the substance is slower due to the rapid passage of treated water over any particular area of sediment (i.e. microorganisms are not exposed for long enough to facilitate adaptation). Therefore dilution is a more significant process in reducing concentrations.
The dilution factor is dependent on the flowing rate which will differ per water body and time of year. Specific data of the treated locations are not available. The Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment (EC 2003) recommends a default dilution factor of 10 for effluent entering surface water assuming complete mixing of effluent in surface water.
Even with this dilution factor the acute risks for fish and invertebrates are still high after application of haloxyfop-R-methyl and imazapyr assuming an interception of 40 to 75% by the canopy. The risks after application of metsulfuron methyl and triclopyr triethylamine in flowing water are considered to be low. Taking also a water body of 30 cm depth into account the acute risks after an application with haloxyfop-R-methyl are still not negligible.
Additional concerns The environmental risk assessment is based on the active ingredients of the formulations only due to a lack of aquatic toxicity data on most of the formulated products. It is known that non-active components of formulations (eg surfactants, emulsifiers) may be more toxic to aquatic organisms than the active ingredient. This is a significant data gap and prevents an adequate environmental assessment of the formulated products used. International best practice is to assess formulated products for use in aquatic environments.
There is substantial data and international consensus to justify a serious concern due to toxicity and reproductive effects in aquatic organisms for the nonylphenol ethoxylates’ surfactants in formulations destined for aquatic use. Also, the degradation product nonylphenol is resistant to natural degradation in water (EC, 2003; EPA, 2010). The staff therefore recommend that all formulated products containing nonylphenol and/or nonylphenol ethoxylates should not be applied onto/into water.
There is no information about the toxicity of the surfactants added to the spray solution. It is known that they may be toxic to aquatic organisms.
Hardly any information is available about the toxicity to marine/estuarine living species.
October 2012 137
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Sediment risk assessment
Hardly any data is available about the toxicity of the substances to sediment living organisms.
Some data on haloxyfop ethoxyethyl is available (this substance is not included in this reassessment)(see section 5.1.5). The use of haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl for the control of spartina is likely to cause some toxic effects on benthic organisms. A temporary decline in the density may occur but the communities would recover. The author of this publication suggested a five days ban on shellfish harvesting within 500 m of the treated area.
Further a test was carried out with the formulated product Gallant containing 100 g haloxyfop- ethoxyethyl per litre on marine bivalve Macomona liliana and the amphipod Chaetocorophium cf. lucasii. Amphipods were killed at concentrations ≥10 mg a.i./L. Bivalves survived the 96 hour test after an application with 900 g a.i./ha. This rate inhibited the ability of 90% of M. liliana tested to bury within a 30 minute period.
In fast flowing water bodies the staff consider the risks to sediment living organisms low because the exposure will not be long enough to cause adverse effects. In slow flowing and static water bodies sediment living organisms may be at risk.
Terrestrial risk assessment
In general the staff consider the risks to the terrestrial environment of the proposed use onto water the same as the risks of the already approved use of these substances in terrestrial environments.
Given the proposed use the staff consider that specific attention should be given to the risks to non target terrestrial and aquatic plants and the use of irrigation water over crops.
Further there may be a risk to bees. The substances themselves are not hazardous to bees under the HSNO Act. However, the surfactants that are recommended to add to the spray solution may cause adverse effects to bees. It is known that several surfactants increase bee mortality [Goodwin 2000].
Identification of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances, components, contaminants, or metabolites
None of the proposed substances are considered to be bioaccumulative. Based on the potential to bioaccumulate the substances do not meet the criteria for PBT or vPvB.
Under the HSNO Act the substances are not readily biodegradable in aquatic environment.
October 2012 138
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Summary and conclusions of the ecological risk assessment
Due to data gaps there are significant uncertainties in the ecological risk assessment:
• The environmental risk assessment is based on the active ingredients due to a lack of aquatic toxicity data on most of the formulated products. It is known that non-active components of formulations (eg surfactants, emulsifiers) may be more toxic to aquatic organisms than the active ingredient. This is a significant data gap and prevents an adequate environmental assessment of the formulated products used. • There is no information about the toxicity of the surfactants added to the spray solution. It is known that they may be toxic to aquatic organisms. • Hardly any information is available about the toxicity to marine/estuarine and sediment living species. • The applicant provided a report which refers to other publications regarding the four active ingredients. This report provides a brief summary of relevant literature, including unpublished reports on the ecotoxicology and environmental fate of the substances included in this application. The level of detail in the report was not sufficient to make an adequate assessment. However a few of the original reports were provided to the EPA which was very helpful.
Conclusions Aquatic environment Based on the data on the active ingredients only the staff concluded the following for the aquatic environment.
In a static water body (without dilution) the acute and chronic risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates are high after application with haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine and triclopyr triethylamine despite interception of the weeds at application locations.
Taking also a water body of 30 cm depth and dilution into account the acute risks after an application with haloxyfop-R-methyl are not negligible. The toxicity of haloxyfop-R-methyl to elvers, inanga and freshwater shrimps is not known. Given the information on haloxyfop and the uncertainty for the proposed substance the staff recommend taking the precautionary approach and mitigating this possible risk through restrictions.
Assuming a water body of 30 cm the risks of imazapyr isopropylamine and triclopyr triethylamine to fish and aquatic invertebrates are considered low. However, a formulated product containing imazapyr and a nonyl phenol ethoxylate has a greater toxicity to fish than the active ingredient itself.
The risks of metsulfuron-methyl can be mitigated through restricted use when there is sufficient weed interception, however if that is not the case the risks are high. Assuming a water body of 30 cm or taking dilution into account the risks to fish and aquatic invertebrates are considered low. Data of a formulated product containing metsulfuron-methyl indicated adverse effects to oyster embryo and grey mullet fish.
October 2012 139
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Due to a lack of data the possible risks to sediment living organisms are not quantitatively assessed. In fast flowing water bodies the staff consider the risks to sediment living organisms low because the exposure will not be long enough to cause adverse effects. In slow flowing and static water bodies sediment living organisms may be at risk.
Treatment of aquatic weeds can result in oxygen loss from decomposition of dead weeds. This loss can cause fish suffocation. Therefore to minimise this hazard treat 1/3 of the water area in one single operation and wait at least 7 days between treatments.
The potential for bioaccumulation in the food chain is considered to be low for the proposed substances. They are not rapidly degradable in aquatic environments.
Terrestrial environment The staff consider the risks to the terrestrial environment of the proposed use onto water the same as the risks of the already approved use of these substances in terrestrial environment.
However, risk mitigation measures are needed to protect non target terrestrial and aquatic plants also regarding irrigation water.
Further the use of surfactants may increase adverse effects to aquatic organisms and bees. These risks should be mitigated as well.
Also the possible adverse effects for using treated water for stock drinking water should be addressed.
Additional Matters
There is substantial data and international consensus to justify a serious concern due to toxicity and reproductive effects of nonylphenol ethoxylates’ surfactants in formulations destined for aquatic use. Also, the degradation product nonylphenol is resistant to natural degradation in water. The staff therefore recommend that all formulated products containing nonylphenol and/or nonylphenol ethoxylates should not be applied onto/into water.
October 2012 140
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Relationship of Māori to the Environment
The potential effects on the relationship of Māori to the environment have been assessed in accordance with clauses 9(b)(i) and 9(c)(iv) of the Methodology and sections 6(d) and 8 of the HSNO Act.
This section of the report begins by providing an overall comment about the consultation with Māori undertaken by the applicants. The consideration of effects in this section is specific to cultural effects though recognises that many of the effects addressed in other parts of this report (e.g. effects to native flora and fauna) are critical to the relationship of Māori to the environment. For this reason the assessments provided in this section have incorporated consideration of the assessments and proposed controls outlined in other parts of the report.
Consultation
Consultation with Māori occurs in order to give effect to sections 6(d) and 8 of the HSNO Act. These sections require decision makers under the Act, to specifically take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga. In addition, decision makers are required to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi).
Accordingly, the EPA policy on consultation with Māori requires that consultation be undertaken by the applicant in the first instance, and should lead to the effective exchange of information between applicant and iwi/Māori body as appropriate. The purpose of consultation in this context is to lead to the provision of information to the decision maker to enable it to evaluate risks, costs and benefits and make informed decisions in accordance with its legal duty under the HSNO Act.
The EPA provided advice to the applicants about the nature and scope of the consultation required for this application noting that the use of substances on or in water is of particular importance and interest to iwi/Māori. The advice took into account information provided by the applicants relating to their assessment of Regional Plans nationwide which noted (pg 34 of the application) that ‘the activities subject to this application are generally assessed under Regional Plans as discharges to water. In all current regional plans, resource consents are required for the use of the subject agrichemicals over water’. Staff considered it more useful and appropriate for use in a local and regional context to be the subject of specific consultation at that level.
The consultation process undertaken by the applicants is outlined in section 9 of the application and included the distribution of information nationally requesting feedback and comment. Where respondents required further information or raised questions about the application, such was provided. In addition the applicants met specifically with Waikato-Tainui representatives and others either at the request of the consultee, or as part of the Waikato region-wide consent process under the RMA.
October 2012 141
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Several submitters noted concern at the consultation process for this application considering it inadequate to enable ‘a pragmatism that can only be reached when local people are making decisions about their local environments’ (Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc). Further submitters felt that the consultation showed a lack of respect for established engagement processes; provided inadequate information on which to base a consideration of the effects; and did not provide a fair and open opportunity for dialogue (Ngā Tirairaka o Ngāti Hine, Te Ngaru roa ā Maui).
Staff acknowledge these concerns and agree that the timing and nature of the consultation could have been more responsive to the needs of specific tāngata whenua groups. On considering the proposed controls identified in this report staff consider this concern could be addressed if users were required to obtain a permission from the EPA under section 95A before being able to use the subject substances. In establishing the permissions regime the EPA can require specific conditions relevant to providing for appropriate engagement or consultation with iwi/Māori. This will ensure that relevant site-specific considerations about the use of the substances onto or into water can be addressed on a case by case basis. Mātauranga and tikanga Māori
Mātauranga Māori is a system of knowledge and understanding about beliefs relating to creation and the relationships between entities. It is developed, like other bodies of knowledge, through experience and is organised primarily through whakapapa (meaning ‘to lay one layer upon another’) - the genealogical descent of all things (Barlow 1996). It is this relationship or whakapapa that determines the way people behave in the context of their environmental ethical practices.
Tikanga is a set of ethics expressed as customs and traditions handed down through generations. They are developed as a result of experience and determine the process, protocol, plan or method for dealing with specific circumstances and relationships. Any decision or practice that is in conflict with tikanga jeopardises well-being, relationships and the integrity of people and the environment, and carries with it consequences that must be managed.
Being established through experience, the knowledge and accepted practice of tāngata whenua is specific to the attributes and qualities of those people and their environment. The unique and long standing relationship between tāngata whenua and their associated waterbodies is well recognised and is referenced extensively in documents including legislation, case law, and a vast array of reports including by the Waitangi Tribunal. Such documents and reports provide testament to the depth of relationship, knowledge and practice developed between tāngata whenua and the waterbodies with which they associate. They also reflect the importance of water to history, behaviour, survival, spiritual well being, economic well being and everyday life.
This relationship is highlighted in submissions by iwi/Māori to this application. The submission by Ngā Tirairaka o Ngāti Hine quotes a range of references to the importance of the connection between its people and its waterways including to the maintenance of its knowledge, language and practices. The history of Ngāti Hine, as with every other iwi and hapū in the country, is told through its peoples connections and interactions with every hill, mountain, beach, lake and waterway. The Ngāti Hine
October 2012 142
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) submission provides a small insight to the influence the many and varied waterways in the Ngāti Hine rohe (region) had and continue to have on the history, wellbeing and everyday reality and life of Ngāti Hine people. By way of example the submission notes that several of its more than 200 known papakainga names originate from events related to local waterways.
Ngā Tirairaka o Ngāti Hine raises concern that the use of substances of this kind on or in waterways degrades the cultural and spiritual value and standards inherent in its relationships, knowledge and practices. As with many other iwi, the strength and mana of Ngāti Hine stems from water – a sacred resource and taonga. Other submitters too noted concern about the degradation of this important connection between Māori and their waterways by the use of substances on or in water.
The staff acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in submissions about the potential for the use of these substances on or in water to adversely effect mātauranga and tikanga Māori. Staff also acknowledge the similarly adverse effect posed by the pest plants, particularly in regions where they are widely and densely dispersed. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu noted that the weeds ‘when present in extensive infestations, have serious environmental impacts on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems’. They also noted that ‘the weeds may damage sensitive ecosystems and negatively impact on native plans and animals and cultural values at many sites throughout New Zealand’. Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated noted that ‘pest plants and animals have long been recognised by Waikato-Tainui as key contributing factors in the decline of the health and wellbeing of our Awa Tuupuna, our wetlands, lakes, coastlines and ngahere’. Huakina Development Trust considered that ‘the spread of plant pests has also had an impact on the interaction that our whanau once had with their waterways. As plant pests have taken over and destroyed habitat where whanau once gathered food or other resources we have stopped visiting those places. This has reduced our association with our tupuna awa and associated waterways’.
In highlighting these issues, submitters have also noted that because of these effects and the effects posed by the use of substances to manage pest plants, that tāngata whenua should be more involved in the development of pest management strategies. Though agreement may be reached for the use of the subject substances in some situations, in others their use will not be appropriate from a mātauranga and tikanga Māori perpective.
Staff agree that in order to reduce the adverse effects of using these substances on mātauranga and tikanga Māori, that tāngata whenua should be more involved in local and regional decision making for their use. The imposition of a permissions regime will support this involvement and the EPA will be able to monitor its effectiveness.
On considering the information, the effects of the substances, the effects of the pest plants and the proposed controls the staff conclude a minor adverse effect to mātauranga and tikanga Māori is likely.
October 2012 143
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Kaitiakitanga
The role of Māori as kaitiaki has been formally recognised in legislation as guardians and/or stewards of New Zealand’s natural resources. However, for iwi/Māori the responsibility is much greater and invovles an acceptance of the duties and obligations inherited from their tūpuna (ancestors). As tūpuna managed the resources for the sustenance of future generations in times gone by, the present generation of kaitiaki must similarly ensure future generations are suitably provided for both physically and spiritually.
A key responsibility of kaitiakitanga is the maintenance and enhancement of the mauri (life giving principle) of natural resources to ensure their sustainability and availability in the future. Understanding the whakapapa relationships of the natural world and the dynamics of mauri and tapu are criticial to the success of kaitiaki in their role. The EPA protocol Incorporating Māori Perspectives in Part V Decision Making notes that mauri is unable to protect itself from unnatural changes to the environment, although it may have the ability to mend and heal given the appropriate time and conditions. Such conditions include rahui (placing restrictions on specific areas or species), the imposition of tapu (deeming sites, activities or species under the highest level of protection) and appropriate ritual practices.
Submitters to this application, and to previous applications involving the use of substances on land or water, raise concern that the use of the herbicides on or in water may adversely effect the mauri of those waterways and the native and valued species associated with them. If a correlation is to be made to the physical impacts of substances of this kind to waterways and species, then the lack of data provided by the applicant relating to the effect these herbicides may have on non-target species is cause for concern. The physical implications of this information gap is addressed elsewhere in this report. The potential for adverse effect to the mauri of native and valued species, ecosystems and waterways caused by the use of these substances remains unknown. This places increased pressure on kaitiaki in terms of their ability to continue to oversee the wellbeing of the natural resources within their region.
Some submitters contended that the precautionary principle requires that in the absence of data, the possibility of adverse effect was sufficient to exclude the use of the substances completely. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu noted that they ‘oppose the use of haloxyfop-R-methyl for the control of Spartina and Manchuran Wild Rice until such tests have been undertaken and demonstrated to be harmless to populations of non-target native species’. Others also expressed the need for further research both related to the effects of these substances but also to finding more suitable alternatives. Several submitters also noted the need for improved monitoring with some considering that monitoring regimes should include local cultural health experts. In one example Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated suggested that ‘local kaitiaki work with agencies and marae and hapū during the pre-control planning phase, supporting and facilitating agency consultation with local kaitiaki, monitoring the application / use of a jointly agreed tool, and assisting in the evaluation process post-control’.
October 2012 144
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
The staff acknowledge the issues and concerns raised by submitters and consultees relating to the impact of the use of aquatic herbicides on the role of kaitiaki. The staff also recognise that the gaps in information relating to the impact of the substances on taonga (including the physical and spiritual health and wellbeing of native and valued species and waterways) are cause for significant concern amongst kaitiaki. This lack of information makes fulfilling the role of kaitiakitanga more difficult, particularly given the concerns for the intergenerational costs involved in protecting taonga.
Staff also note the points raised in submissions about the impact of the plant pests themselves on the role of kaitiaki and to the health and wellbeing of tūpuna awa and their associated species. Having considered this information (including the relevant information from other sections of this report) the staff consider a moderate adverse effect to kaitiakitanga to be likely. However when taking into account the proposed controls - particularly the permissions control, staff consider there will be a real opportunity for pest management agencies to work more closely with kaitiaki Māori at a local and regional level to support kaitiaki responsibilities and activities. If this control is applied the staff consider a moderate effect from the use of these substances on the role of Māori as kaitiaki to be unlikely. Taha Hauora
The protocol Incorporating Māori Perspectives in Part V Decision Making describes health and wellbeing, with regard to outcomes of significance to Māori as, the protection and enhancement of: • Taha wairua: the spiritual health and wellbeing obtained through balance with nature and the protection of mauri • Taha whanaunga: the responsibility and capacity to belong, care for and share in the collective • Taha hinengaro: mental health and wellbeing and the capacity to communicate, think and feel
• Taha tinana: physical health and wellbeing.
On considering the health and wellbeing of Māori from the use of these substances, the staff recognise the holistic nature of hauora. In particular the importance of protecting the productivity and life-sustaining quality of water is a key concern for iwi/Māori and some submitters noted the potential for the use of substances on or in water to be a significant risk to this outcome. Water quality, management, ownership and use issues have been highlighted in recent years by iwi/Māori, confirming the importance and value of the relationships between iwi and hapū to the waterways in their regions. It retains this value for a number of reasons, not least of which is its role in maintaining the health and wellbeing of its people. For example Ngā Tirairaka o Ngāti Hine note a number of health and wellbeing related uses of the waterways in their rohe including tohu (messengers of things to come), river food sources, use in rongoa, and ceremonial practices associated with both physical and spiritual wellbeing.
The staff note the issues raised and on considering all the available information, including the health risk assessment section of this report, that a minor adverse effect to taha hauora to be unlikely. This is based on the extremely low frequency of use of the substance, the existing controls in place, and a range of the additional controls proposed in this report. Of particular relevance is the controls relating to the use of permissions (and its required notification and consultation), increased provisions relating to signage and exclusion of use for specified periods.
October 2012 145
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi) This application has been assessed in accordance with section 8 of the HSNO Act which requires all persons exercising functions under the Act to ‘take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi)’. In previously established case law5 the obligation to ‘take into account’ is not intended to be higher than other relevant factors but to give it whatever weight is appropriate in the circumstances. If the appropriate matters had been to take into account then they must affect the discretion of the decision maker.
No single point of reference defines the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi). They are constantly evolving as the Treaty is applied to particular issues and new situations. Given the issues raised by this application the staff consider the principles of partnership, participation and protection to be relevant to this assessment.
The principle of partnership has been usefully regarded as a key overarching tenet from which other key principles have been derived. The Court of Appeal has referred to the Treaty relationship as akin to a partnership, emphasising the duty on the parties to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith. The Waitangi Tribunal has emphasised the equal status of Treaty partners, and the need for accountability and compromise in the relationship6.
Similarly participation refers to the ability of Māori to be integrally involved in the decision making and activities of relevance and importance to them. In the Ngāwha Geothermal Resources Report, the Waitangi Tribunal noted that if Māori Treaty rights are to be fulfilled then ‘before any decisions are made by the Crown or those exercising statutory authority on matters that impinge upon the rangatiratanga of a tribe or hapū over their taonga, it is essential that full discussion with Māori take place’7. The Tribunal has also previously recommended that ‘environmental matters, especially as they may affect Māori access to traditional food resource and mahinga kai also require consultation with Māori people concerned’8.
The Crown’s duty of active protection is a central principle that was first raised by the Waitangi Tribunal and then affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the 1987 Lands’ case and encompasses the Crown’s obligation to take positive steps to ensure Māori interests are protected9. In the Ngāwha Geothermal Resources Report the Court of Appeal noted that this duty ‘is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable’. The Tribunal also noted in the same case that the Crown cannot avoid its Treaty duty of active protection by delegation to local authorities or other bodies (whether under legislative provisions or otherwise).
A number of the submissions from Māori to this application raised concern about the consultative effort undertaken by the applicants. This concern was focussed not only on the lack of appropriate consultation for the HSNO Act application, but also in relation to the ongoing relationships iwi/Māori have with councils and other biosecurity agencies in their regions. Waikato-Tainui in particular noted
5 Bleakley v Environmental Risk Management Authority [2001] 3 NZLR 213, R v Westminster City (1990) and Haddon v Auckland Regional Council (1993) 6 Te Puni Kōkiri (2001) 7 Waitangi Tribunal (1993) “Ngāwha Geothermal Resources Report” pp101-102 8 P.McDonald (September 1991) “Consultation with Iwi” Planning Quarterly pp8-10 9 Te Puni Kōkiri (1991)
October 2012 146
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365) disappointment at the consultation given the nature of the joint management agreements in place with councils in their area.
The consultation approach is discussed elsewhere in this report. In terms of considering the impact to the principles of the partnership, participation and protection the staff acknowledge the concerns and implications for Māori of not being appropriately invovled in decision making and activities related to the management of their taonga. Other sections of this report have noted that the potential for adverse effect from the use of these substances on taonga of significance to iwi/Māori are in some cases non-neglible. Conversely this report has also highlighted a range of significant benefits, including to the ongoing health and wellbeing of taonga Māori (waterways and their associated flora and fauna species). On balance the staff conclude that the recommendations and controls proposed in this report are consistent with the principles outlined above.
However there is significant scope for opportunities for Māori engagement throughout the decision making and management of pest plants to be improved. The staff recommend and strongly urge biosecurity agencies to engage with affected tāngata whenua groups early in the development of pest management strategies, regulatory activities and management. The proposed control regarding the establishment of a permissions regime will enable the EPA to monitor this point over time.
Given this assessment we anticipate a minimal effect on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Tiriti o Waitangi) to be highly probable.
October 2012 147
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix E: Revised controls applying to the substances
1. Notes: The controls for this substance apply for the indefinite duration of the approval of this substance. 2. Please refer to the Hazardous Substances Regulations 10 for the requirements prescribed for each control.
Table 9: Controls for Water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg metsulfuron-methyl (Substance A) (Approval Number HSR000232) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.04 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in “Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.0084 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is:
10 The regulations can be found on the New Zealand Legislation website; http://www.legislation.co.nz
October 2012 148
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
0.084 kg ai/ha, a maximum of 3 times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
October 2012 149
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM11 25 – 34 Level 3 emergency management
October 2012 150
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
requirements: duties of person in charge, emergency response plans
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler This substance may only be applied or used onto or into requirements (including water by, or under the direct supervision of, an test certificate and approved handler who has undergone specialised qualification training in the application of hazardous substances to requirements) water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the
October 2012 151
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 10: Controls for Water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg metsulfuron-methyl (Substance B) (Approval Number HSR000242) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.04 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in
October 2012 152
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
“Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.0084 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.084 kg ai/ha, a maximum of three times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
October 2012 153
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
October 2012 154
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler This substance may only be applied or used onto requirements (including test or into water by, or under the direct supervision of, certificate and qualification an approved handler who has undergone requirements) specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Additional controls Code Regulation Description Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the
October 2012 155
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
October 2012 156
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Table 11: Controls for Water dispersible granule containing 200 g/kg metsulfuron-methyl (Substance A) (Approval Number HSR000238) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.04 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in “Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.0084 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.084 kg ai/ha, a maximum of three times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an
October 2012 157
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I8 14 Priority identifiers for toxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I20 36(8) Durability of information for class 6.1 substances
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
I30 53 Advertising corrosive and toxic substances
October 2012 158
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
October 2012 159
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited.
October 2012 160
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 12: Controls for Water dispersible granule containing 200 g/kg metsulfuron-methyl (Substance B) (Approval Number HSR000245) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.04 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this
October 2012 161
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in “Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.0084 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.084 kg ai/ha, a maximum of three times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
October 2012 162
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
D7 11, 12 Information requirements for
October 2012 163
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
manufacturers, importers and suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used (including test certificate and onto or into water by, or under the direct qualification requirements) supervision of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
October 2012 164
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more
October 2012 165
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 13: Controls for Emulsifiable concentrate containing 100 g/litre haloxyfop-R-methyl as the methyl ester (Approval Number HSR000373) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to 5 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
F2 Reg 8 Restrictions on the carriage of flammable substances on passenger service vehicles
F6 Regs 60 – Requirements to prevent 70 unintended ignition of class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1 substances
F11 Reg 76 Segregation of incompatible substances
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.0021 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in “Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of
October 2012 166
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.84 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security 1) This substance must be under the requirements for certain ecotoxic control of an approved handler when the substances substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water. (2) However, the substance may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if – (a) an approved handler is present at the place where the substance is being handled; and (b) the approved handler has provided guidance to the person in respect of the handling; and (c) the approved handler is available at all times to provide assistance, if necessary, to the person while the substance is being handled by the person. (3) Clause (1) is deemed to be complied with if, in the case of the aerial application of the substance, the person who carries out the application has a current pilot chemical rating in accordance with Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules.
October 2012 167
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I5 11 Priority identifiers for flammable substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I13 22 Secondary identifiers for flammable substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I25 43 Specific documentation requirements for flammable substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
October 2012 168
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
D2 6 Disposal requirements for flammable substances
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM9 17 Additional information requirements for flammable and oxidising substances
and organic peroxides
EM10 21 – 24 Fire extinguisher requirements
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
October 2012 169
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management Regulations 35-42 of the 41 requirements: secondary containment Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 The following subclauses are added after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used (including test certificate and onto or into water by, or under the direct qualification requirements) supervision of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the
October 2012 170
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 9 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description This schedule prescribes the controls relating to secondary containment. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 9 Schedule 9 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 10 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for the adverse effects of unintended ignition of class 2 and 3.1 flammable substances. The requirements of this Sch 10 Schedule 10 schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
October 2012 171
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Whitebait 77A This substance may not be applied onto or into water where whitebait or elvers may be present during the period of 1 August to 30 November.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
October 2012 172
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Table 14: Controls for Soluble concentrate containing 250 g/litre imazapyr as the isopropylamine salt (Approval Number HSR000521) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of imazapyr: TELs TELdrinking water= 9 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of Workplace Exposure Standards: work through the setting of WESs. Under regulation 29(2) of the Hazardous Substance (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001, the Authority adopts as workplace exposure standards for this substance, and each component of this substance, any applicable value or values specified in the document described in “Workplace Exposure Standards”, published by the Department of Labour, September 2010, ISBN 978-0-478-36002- 8. Also available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/ pdf/wes2010.pdf
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of imazapyr:
EELs EELwater= 0.18 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 2 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive
October 2012 173
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
October 2012 174
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management The following subclauses are added 41 requirements: secondary containment after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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
October 2012 175
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
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.
October 2012 176
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
The following subclauses are added at the end of regulation 38: (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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the
October 2012 177
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Additional controls Code Regulation Description Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
October 2012 178
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 15: Controls for MSF 600 (Approval Number HSR000063) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.04 mg/L
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of metsulfuron-methyl:
EELs EELWATER = 0.0084 µg metsulfuron- methyl /L
EELSOIL = 0.52 µg of metsulfuron-methyl/kg dry wt soil
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The following maximum application rates in application areas are set for use of the substance in the terrestrial environment: Handgun spray: 35g per 100L
Knapsack application: 5g per 10L
October 2012 179
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Boom spray: 500g/Ha
The maximum application rate for application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.084 kg ai/ha, a maximum of three times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements
October 2012 180
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
October 2012 181
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited;
October 2012 182
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 16: Controls for Ignite (Approval Number HSR002431) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL is set for haloxyfop-p- substances through the setting of methyl:
TELs TELDRINKINGWATER – 0.0021 mg/l (based on a 70 kg person consuming 2 L of water per day)
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of The following WESs are set: . WES(skin ) work through the setting of WESs. COMPONENT B TWA = 100 ppm or 606mg/m3
October 2012 183
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
STEL = 150 ppm or 909 mg/m3 . WESCOMPONENT F TWA = 3 ppm or 7.5mg/m3 STEL = 6 ppm or 15 mg/m3
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl:
EELs EELwater= 0.84 µg/L
The following EEL is set for this substance:
EELSOIL - 1 µg/kg of dry weight soil.
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security 1) This substance must be under the requirements for certain ecotoxic control of an approved handler when the substances substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water. (2) However, the substance may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if – (a) an approved handler is present at the place where the substance is being handled; and (b) the approved handler has provided guidance to the person in respect of the handling; and
October 2012 184
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
(c) the approved handler is available at all times to provide assistance, if necessary, to the person while the substance is being handled by the person. (3) Clause (1) is deemed to be complied with if, in the case of the aerial application of the substance, the person who carries out the application has a current pilot chemical rating in accordance with Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I8 14 Priority identifiers for toxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
I30 53 Advertising corrosive and toxic substances
October 2012 185
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM11 25 – 34 Level 3 emergency management
October 2012 186
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
requirements: duties of person in charge, emergency response plans EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management The following subclauses are added 41 requirements: secondary containment after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training
October 2012 187
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Additional controls Code Regulation Description Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Whitebait 77A This substance may not be applied onto or into water where whitebait or elvers may be present during the period of 1 August to 30 November.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was
October 2012 188
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 17: Controls for Garlon 360 (Approval Number HSR007690) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to 5 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
F1 7 General test certification requirements for hazardous substance locations
F2 8 Restrictions on the carriage of flammable substances on passenger service vehicles
F3 55 General limits on flammable substances
F5 58, 59 Requirements regarding hazardous atmosphere zones for class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1 substances
F6 60 – 70 Requirements to prevent unintended ignition of class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1 substances
F11 76 Segregation of incompatible substances
F12 77 Requirement to establish a hazardous substance locations if flammable substances are present
F14 81 Test certification requirements for facilities where class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 or 3.1 substances are present
October 2012 189
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
F16 83 Controls on transit depots where flammable substances are present
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of Triclopyr: TELs TELdrinking water= 0.1 mg/L
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of No WESs for this substance are set at this work through the setting of WESs. time.
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of triclopyr:
EELs EELwater= 59 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 7.92 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
October 2012 190
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I2 Reg 8 Priority identifiers for corrosive substances
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I5 11 Priority identifiers for flammable substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I10 19 Secondary identifiers for corrosive substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I13 22 Secondary identifiers for flammable substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I20 36(8) Durability of information for class 6.1 substances
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I22 40 Specific documentation requirements for corrosive substances
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I25 43 Specific documentation requirements for flammable substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
October 2012 191
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I30 53 Advertising corrosive and toxic substances
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P5 11 Packaging requirements for flammable
liquids
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
P14 20 Packaging requirements for corrosive
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
D2 6 Disposal requirements for flammable substances
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
October 2012 192
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM2 Reg 8(a) Information requirements for corrosive substances
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM9 17 Additional information requirements for flammable and oxidising substances
and organic peroxides
EM10 21 – 24 Fire extinguisher requirements
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management Regulations 35-42 of the 41 requirements: secondary containment Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 The following subclauses are added after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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;
October 2012 193
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto or (including test certificate and into water by, or under the direct supervision of, an qualification requirements) approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 9 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls relating to secondary containment. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 9 Schedule 9 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
October 2012 194
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Schedule 10 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for the adverse effects of unintended ignition of class 2 and 3.1 flammable substances. The requirements of this Sch 10 Schedule 10 schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
October 2012 195
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 18: Controls for Scorp EC (Approval Number HSR008025) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to 5 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
F2 Reg 8 Restrictions on the carriage of flammable substances on passenger service vehicles
F6 Regs 60 – Requirements to prevent 70 unintended ignition of class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1 substances
F11 Reg 76 Segregation of incompatible substances
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl:
TELs TELdrinking water= 0.0021 mg/L
The following ADE and PDE values are set for haloxyfop-R-methyl: ADE = 0.0003 mg/kg bw/day
PDEfood = 0.00024 mg/kg bw/day
PDEdrinking water = 0.00006 mg/kg bw/day
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of The DoL WES values for Component A2 in work through the setting of WESs. Scorp EC are adopted.
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
October 2012 196
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl: EELs EELwater= 0.84 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 Reg 9 Approved handler/security 1) This substance must be under the requirements for certain ecotoxic substances control of an approved handler when the substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water. (2) However, the substance may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if – (a) an approved handler is present at the place where the substance is being handled; and (b) the approved handler has provided guidance to the person in respect of the handling; and (c) the approved handler is available at all times to provide assistance, if necessary, to the person while the substance is being handled by the person. (3) Clause (1) is deemed to be complied with if, in the case of the aerial application of the substance, the person who carries out the application has a current pilot chemical rating in accordance with Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules.
October 2012 197
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I5 11 Priority identifiers for flammable substances
I8 14 Priority identifiers for toxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I13 22 Secondary identifiers for flammable substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I25 43 Specific documentation requirements for flammable substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
I30 53 Advertising corrosive and toxic substances
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
October 2012 198
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
D2 6 Disposal requirements for flammable substances
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM9 17 Additional information requirements for flammable and oxidising substances
and organic peroxides
October 2012 199
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
EM10 21 – 24 Fire extinguisher requirements
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management The following subclauses are added 41 requirements: secondary containment after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved
October 2012 200
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 9 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls relating to secondary containment. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 9 Schedule 9 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 10 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for the adverse effects of unintended ignition of class 2 and 3.1 flammable substances. The requirements of this Sch 10 Schedule 10 schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Additional controls Code Regulation Description Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration
October 2012 201
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Whitebait 77A This substance may not be applied onto or into water where whitebait or elvers may be present during the period of 1 August to 30 November.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
October 2012 202
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Table 19: Controls for Crest 520 (Approval Number HSR100054) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to 5 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation F2 Reg 8 Restrictions on the carriage of flammable substances on passenger service vehicles
F6 Regs 60 – Requirements to prevent 70 unintended ignition of class 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.1 substances
F11 Reg 76 Segregation of incompatible substances
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl:
TELs TELdrinking water= 0.0021 mg/L
The following ADE and PDE values are set for haloxyfop-R-methyl: ADE = 0.0003 mg/kg bw/day
PDEfood = 0.00024 mg/kg bw/day
PDEdrinking water = 0.00006 mg/kg bw/day
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of No WES values are proposed for any work through the setting of WESs. components of Crest 520 at this time.
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of haloxyfop-R-methyl: EELs EELwater= 0.84 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 0.75 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E4 50, 51 Controls relating to protection of
October 2012 203
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
terrestrial vertebrates
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 Reg 9 Approved handler/security 1) This substance must be under the requirements for certain ecotoxic control of an approved handler when the substances substance is – (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied onto or into water. (2) However, the substance may be handled by a person who is not an approved handler if – (a) an approved handler is present at the place where the substance is being handled; and (b) the approved handler has provided guidance to the person in respect of the handling; and (c) the approved handler is available at all times to provide assistance, if necessary, to the person while the substance is being handled by the person. (3) Clause (1) is deemed to be complied with if, in the case of the aerial application of the substance, the person who carries out the application has a current pilot chemical rating in accordance with Part 61 of the Civil Aviation Rules.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I5 11 Priority identifiers for flammable substances
October 2012 204
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I8 14 Priority identifiers for toxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I13 22 Secondary identifiers for flammable substances
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I17 26 Use of generic names
I18 27 Requirements for using concentration ranges
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I20 36(8) Durability of information for class 6.1 substances
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I25 43 Specific documentation requirements for flammable substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
I30 53 Advertising corrosive and toxic substances
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
PG3 Schedule 3 Packaging requirements equivalent to
October 2012 205
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
D2 6 Disposal requirements for flammable substances
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
EM9 17 Additional information requirements for flammable and oxidising substances
and organic peroxides
EM10 21 – 24 Fire extinguisher requirements
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management The following subclauses are added 41 requirements: secondary containment after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (4) For the purposes of this regulation, and regulations 37 to
October 2012 206
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description
Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers.
October 2012 207
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 9 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls relating to secondary containment. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 9 Schedule 9 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Schedule 10 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description This schedule prescribes the controls for the adverse effects of unintended ignition of class 2 and 3.1 flammable substances. The requirements of this Sch 10 Schedule 10 schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and
October 2012 208
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
• The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Whitebait 77A This substance may not be applied onto or into water where whitebait or elvers may be present during the period of 1 August to 30 November.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
Table 20: Controls for Unimaz 250 SL (Approval Number HSR100098) – codes, regulations and variations. Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8, and 9 Controls) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
T1 11 – 27 Limiting exposure to toxic The following TEL values are set for substances through the setting of imazapyr: TELs TELdrinking water= 9 mg/L.
T2 29, 30 Controlling exposure in places of No WESs are set for UNIMAZ 250SL at work through the setting of WESs. this time.
October 2012 209
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
T4 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
T5 8 Requirements for protective clothing and equipment
T7 10 Restrictions on the carriage of toxic or corrosive substances on passenger service vehicles
E1 32 – 45 Limiting exposure to ecotoxic The following EEL values are set for substances through the setting of imazapyr:
EELs EELwater= 0.18 µg/L
E2 46 – 48 Restrictions on use of substances The maximum application rate for in application areas application of this substance onto or into water is: 2 kg ai/ha, a maximum of two times per year with a minimum application interval of 30 days.
E5 5(2), 6 Requirements for keeping records of use
E6 7 Requirements for equipment used to handle substances
E7 9 Approved handler/security Regulation 9(1) is replaced by: requirements for certain ecotoxic (1) This hazardous substance must be substances under the personal control of an approved handler when the substance is— (a) applied in a wide dispersive manner; (b) used by a commercial contractor; or (c) applied into or onto water.
Hazardous Substances (Identification) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
I1 6, 7, 32 – Identification requirements, duties of 35, 36(1) – persons in charge, accessibility, (7) comprehensibility, clarity and durability
I3 9 Priority identifiers for ecotoxic substances
I9 18 Secondary identifiers for all hazardous substances
I11 20 Secondary identifiers for ecotoxic substances
October 2012 210
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
I16 25 Secondary identifiers for toxic substances
I19 29 – 31 Additional information requirements, including situations where substances are in multiple packaging
I21 37 – 39, 47 General documentation requirements – 50
I23 41 Specific documentation requirements for ecotoxic substances
I28 46 Specific documentation requirements for toxic substances
I29 51, 52 Signage requirements
Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
P1 5, 6, 7(1), 8 General packaging requirements
Criteria that allow substances to be P3 9 packaged to a standard not meeting Packing Group I, II or III criteria
P13 19 Packaging requirements for toxic
substances
Packaging requirements for ecotoxic P15 21 substances
Packaging requirements equivalent to PG3 Schedule 3 UN Packing Group III
Packaging requirements as specified PS4 Schedule 4 in Schedule 4
Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Regulations 2001
Code Regulation Description Variation
Disposal requirements for toxic and D4 8 corrosive substances
Disposal requirements for ecotoxic D5 9 substances
D6 10 Disposal requirements for packages
Information requirements for D7 11, 12 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
Documentation requirements for D8 13, 14 manufacturers, importers and
suppliers, and persons in charge
October 2012 211
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation
Level 1 information requirements for EM1 6, 7, 9 – 11 suppliers and persons in charge
EM6 8(e) Information requirements for toxic substances
Information requirements for ecotoxic EM7 8(f) substances
12 – 16, 18 Level 2 information requirements for EM8 – 20 suppliers and persons in charge
Level 3 emergency management EM11 25 – 34 requirements: duties of person in
charge, emergency response plans
EM12 Regs 35 – Level 3 emergency management The following subclauses are added 41 requirements: secondary containment after subclause (3) of regulation 36: (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.
The following subclauses are added at the end of regulation 37: (2) If pooling substances which do not have class 1 to 5 hazard
October 2012 212
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
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: (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
October 2012 213
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
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.
Level 3 emergency management EM13 42 requirements: signage
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Personnel Qualifications) Regulations 2001 Code Regulation Description Variation AH 1 4 – 6 Approved Handler requirements This substance may only be applied or used onto (including test certificate and or into water by, or under the direct supervision qualification requirements) of, an approved handler who has undergone specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water. This must be at least to the level of GROWSAFE Registered Chemical Applicator with inclusion of the Level 4 optional “Aquatic strand”, unless the approved handler has completed specialised training in the application of hazardous substances to water to an equivalent level under an equivalent training programme.
Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagon and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 Code Regulation Description Tank 4 to 43 as Controls relating to tank wagons and transportable containers. Wagon applicable
Schedule 8 of the Hazardous substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004
Code Regulation Description
This schedule prescribes the controls for stationary container systems. The requirements of this schedule are detailed in the consolidated version of the Sch 8 Schedule 8 Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Schedule Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004.
October 2012 214
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Additional controls Code Regulation Description
Permission 77A No person may apply or otherwise use this substance onto or into water, unless that person first obtains a permission from the Authority under section 95A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Marine Far 77A This substance shall not be applied onto or into water within 500 metres of any food producing marine farm.
Irrig W 77A The substance shall not be applied onto or into water in such a manner as to cause water used for irrigation to contain the substance at a concentration exceeding any EELwater that applies to the substance.
Signage 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water shall ensue that signage is erected and maintained at identified access points in the vicinity of the application area to notify the public that application of a herbicide onto or into water is being undertaken and state the following: • Swimming is prohibited; • Gathering of food from the waterway (including fishing) is prohibited; and • The taking of water for consumption is prohibited. The signs shall be erected a minimum of two days prior to the operation and remain in place a minimum of five days after application, where application of the substance is to a flowing water body, and a minimum of 21 days after application where application of the substance is to a static water body. The signs must be capable of being read at a distance of at least five metres.
Notificati 77A The person applying the substance onto or into water will identify interested parties in their application for a permission under section 95A of the HSNO Act and will notify interested parties of details of the operation at least five working days prior to each application of the substance.
Monitoring 77A The person in charge of any application of the substance onto or into water will undertake monitoring of the presence of any accidental by-kills, including fish, eel and invertebrate species. This monitoring will be undertaken at least 48 hours after each application.
Reporting 77A A record of the results of this monitoring shall be held by the person in charge and made available to the EPA on request. Any instances of accidental by-kills, shall be reported (including the time, date and location monitoring was undertaken) to the EPA within a week of the application of the substance onto or into water occurring.
Nonylpheno 77A The substances covered by this approval shall not be applied onto or into water if: a) they contain nonylphenol ethoxylates as a component of their formulation; or b) they have been tank mixed with surfactants which contain nonylphenol ethoxylates.
Treatment 77A The substance shall not be applied, in any single application, onto or into more
October 2012 215
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
than 33% of the surface area of any static water body. If applications of the substance onto or into any static water body, taken cumulatively, arrive at more than 33% of the surface area of the water body, the substance shall not be applied to the water body for at least 7 days after the last application.
October 2012 216
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
Appendix F: References
1. Australian Government - National Health and Medical Research Council (2011). Australian Drinking Water Guidelines: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh52_aust_drinking_water_gui delines_update_120710_0.pdf.
2. Cohle P; McAllister W. (1984). Acute Toxicity of Arsenal Herbicide to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Static Acute Toxicity Report #32180. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio- Chemistry Laboratories
3. Compliance Services International (2001). Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Aquatic Herbicides Volume 5 Triclopyr; study no 00713, Ecology Publication Number 04-10-015
4. Compliance Services International (2001). Herbicide Risk Assessment for the aquatic plant management final supplement environmental impact statement, appendix D volume 2 Endothall, February 2001 publication number 00-10-044.
5. EC (2003). Directive 2003/53/EC Of The European Parliament and of The Council of 18 June 2003 amending for the 26th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (nonylphenol, nonylphenol ethyoxylate and cement).
6. EC (2003). Technical guidance document on risk assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market – Part II.
7. ECHA (2008). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.10: Characterisation of dose [concentration]-response for environment.
8. ECHA (2008). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.11: PBT assessment.
9. ECHA (2010). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.16: Environmental Exposure Estimation.
10. EFSA (2005). Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triclopyr, Sections 2.3 and 2.5.
October 2012 217
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
11. EFSA (2009a). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticides risk assessment of the active substance haloxyfop-P (haloxyfop-R) EFSA Journal 2009; 7(10):1348.
12. ENTRIX, INC. for the Washington State Department of Agriculture (2003). Ecological Risk Assessment of the Proposed use of the Herbicide Imazapyr to Control Invasive Cordgrass (Spartina spp.) in Estuarine Habitat of Washington State: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/final_pesticide_permits/noxious/risk_assessme nt_Imazapyr.pdf,
13. EPA Substance Database.
14. EU (2000). Review report for the active substance metsulfuron methyl, 7593/VI/97-final, 14 August 2000.
15. EU Pesticides Database: http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm
16. Goodwin RM, McBrydie HM (2000). Effects of surfactants on honey bee survival; New Zealand Plant protection 53:230-234.
17. Joint FAO/WHO meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR): http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/jmpr/en/
18. Keckemet, O. (1980). Endothal-potassium and environment. Proceedings of the 1980 British Crop Protection Conference – Weeds. Pp. 715-722.
19. Linders, J., J. Mensink, G. Stephenson, D. Wauchope, and K. Racke. (2000). Foliar interception and retention values after pesticide application. A proposal for standardized values for environmental risk assessment. Pure Appl. Chem. 72:2199-2218.
20. Massachussets Department of Environmental Protection (2012). Imazapyr: Review for use in Lakes & Ponds in Massachussetts: http://www.mass.gov/agr/pesticides/aquatic/docs/imazapyr.pdf
21. New Zealand Ministry of Health (2008). Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (Revised 2008).
22. NIWA (1994). The environmental effects of Alligator weed spraying in the lower Waikato river delta, report no. EVW005, May 1994
23. NIWA (1997). Monitoring the effect of the herbicide metsulfuron-methyl (Escort) in Kaipara district, report no KDC70201, June 1997
24. NIWA (2012). Review of ecotoxicology and environmental fate of four herbicides used to control aquatic weeds in the Waikato Region, Project EVW12211 May 2012
October 2012 218
Application for the modified reassessment of aquatic herbicides (APP201365)
25. Patten, K. (2003). Persistence and non-target impact of imazapyr associated with smooth cordgrass control in an estuary. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 41:1-6.
26. Petty, D.G.; Jesting, K.D.; Madsen, J.D. Skogerboe, J.G.; Haller, W.T. and Fox, A.M.; Houtman, B.A. (1998). Aquatic Dissipation of Herbicide Triclopyr in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Technical Report A-98-1.
27. Urban D. J. and Cook N. J. (1986). Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure: Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC, USA.
28. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. for the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2005). Metsulfuron Methyl – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report.
29. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc for the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2011). Imazapyr – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report.
30. US EPA (1998). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Triclopyr; EPA 738-R-98-011 October 1998.
31. US EPA (2005). Level I Screening ecological risk assessment for the reregistration of imazapyr.
32. US EPA (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) imazapyr; EPA738-R-06-007 2006.
33. US EPA (2010). Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates Action Plan Summary: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/np-npe.html
34. US EPA (2012). Regional Screening Level (RSL) Chemical-specific Parameters Supporting Table April 2012.
35. Veith G.D., Defoe D.L. and Bergstedt B.V. (1979). Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals on fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 36, 1040-1048.
October 2012