DECISION
Date 13 March 2012
Application code APP201153
To import into containment any new organism under section Application type 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited Applicant (NIWA)
Date application received 21 December 2011
Consideration period 23 February 2012 to 13 March 2012
Considered by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
To hold 13 aquatic plant species in containment for scientific Purpose of the application research purposes
Blyxa aubertii Blyxa japonica Butomus umbellatus Egeria najas Elodea nuttallii Lagarosiphon cordofanus
The new organisms approved are Lagarosiphon madagascariensis Myriophyllum sibiricum also known as Myriophyllum exalbescens Myriophyllum heterophyllum Najas indica Najas tenuifolia . Najas marina
Ottelia alismoides also known as Ottelia japonica
www.epa.govt.nz 2
Decision: APP201153
1. Summary of decision
1.1 Application APP201153 to import into containment 13 aquatic plant species for scientific research purposes is approved, with controls set out in the Appendix.
1.2 The organisms approved for importation are the new organisms described in control 1 2. Legislative criteria for application
2.1 The application was lodged under section 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act).
2.2 The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). The consideration followed the process described in the decision path for applications to import new organisms into containment under section 45 of the Act (EPA Decision Path Protocol, Figure 12). 3. Application process
Application Receipt
3.1 The EPA considered that it had sufficient information to assess the application. To the extent the application may not meet any legislative information requirements, the EPA waives these requirements.
Notification
3.2 The EPA has discretion as to whether to publicly notify an application to import into containment any new organism. The application was not publicly notified because no exceptional circumstances warranting public notification were identified, and significant public interest in this application was not anticipated.
3.3 As required by the Act and Methodology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and Department of Conservation (DOC) were notified and provided with the opportunity to comment on the application. DOC had no comments on the application. Comments from MAF were taken into consideration.
Information available for the consideration
3.4 The information available for the consideration comprised: The application form; Internal EPA advice; and Comments received from MAF/DOC.
3
Decision: APP201153
4. Sequence of the consideration
4.1 In its consideration of the application as per the requirements in the Act and the Methodology, the EPA considered whether: The application is for one of the purposes specified in the Act. The EPA is satisfied that the new organisms (NOs) can be adequately contained and the controls set provide for matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act. The beneficial effects of having the NOs in containment outweigh the adverse effects of the NOs (after taking into account all the effects of the NOs, the ability of the NOs to escape from containment and their ability to establish undesirable self-sustaining populations and the ease with which the NO could be eradicated of it established an undesirable self-sustaining population). 4.2 Each point is addressed in the following sections of this decision.
4.3 The application was considered on 23 February 2012. The EPA adjourned the consideration of the application until 8 March 2012, to seek additional information on:
reproductive strategies of each plant species; particularly around the size, longevity of seeds and pathways of seed escape; containment of seeds disposed in the soak hole; and disposal of seeds (new organisms) in the soak hole.
5. Purpose of the application and scope of the approval
5.1 The applicant (NIWA) seeks approval to import into containment 13 aquatic plant species (described in control 1, Table 3) for scientific research. These species are ornamental aquatic plants that are in the international aquarium and pond trade but are not present in New Zealand. The approval will allow NIWA to conduct research on these NOs in a secure containment facility, in order to assess the potential to become weeds in the New Zealand environment. It will also allow NIWA to develop appropriate management responses for biosecurity should there be an incursion in the future.
5.2 The EPA noted that the use of this approval has not been limited to the applicant. Therefore other persons could use this approval provided that their intended imports comply with the approved organism description (control 1) and meet the purpose of this approval (for scientific research), and the NOs are maintained as per the containment controls placed on this approval. As this approval is not limited to the applicant, control 5 has been imposed requiring any person using this approval for the first time to notify the EPA and the MAF Inspector responsible for supervision of their containment facility of their intention to do so in writing.
4
Decision: APP201153
5.3 The EPA noted that Najas marina is listed as an unwanted organism and notifiable organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The applicant is required to seek MAF approval before carrying out any research on an unwanted organism.
5.4 The EPA is satisfied that the purpose of this application falls within the scope of section 39(1)(h) of the Act: such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit, being research.
6. Adequacy of the containment regime
6.1 To evaluate the adequacy of containment, the EPA assessed the ability of NOs to escape from containment by considering: the biological characteristics of the NOs that relate to containment; the containment regime; and the potential pathways for the escape of the NOs from the containment facility.
Biological characteristics of NOs that relate to containment
6.2 The EPA notes that the 13 aquatic plant species are adapted to living submerged or partially submerged in freshwater. These plants are susceptible to drying out and can only grow in water or in soil that is permanently saturated with water, and are reliant on water for structural support.
6.3 The EPA notes that the NOs reproduce largely by fragmentation and through specialised stems (rhizomes, stolons, and tubers), and also sexually, where floral pollination results in seed formation. In this form of vegetative reproduction, a portion of the the plant or specialised stem (rhizome) or roots is broken off (fragmented) and carried by water to other areas where the plant fragments grow into new plants. Plant fragments may also be dispersed by birds, animals and/or boats and transported. For those NOs that reproduce sexually, pollination may occur in the water (submerged), or in the air for those species whose flowers mature at or above the water surface. The resulting seeds are small ranging from 1 to 7 mm and fruit are indehiscent i.e. fruit that do not open at maturity in a defined way but rely on predation or decay to release the seeds.
6.4 The EPA considers the approved description of the NOs in control 1 is defined enough to allow people to know whether the organisms they wish to import are covered under this approval.
The proposed containment regime
6.5 The EPA considered that the 13 NOs are to be imported into containment and must therefore be held within a defined containment facility (control 7). The EPA considered that within a containment facility there will be one or more containment areas (specified places and/or conditions) that will be suitable for containing these NOs. The EPA impose controls 8 and 9 relating to containment areas. The EPA
5
Decision: APP201153
requires all reasonably practicable measures be taken to ensure that people entering and exiting containment areas do not compromise containment of the new organisms (control 10).
6.6 The EPA noted that NOs may be moved between containment areas within a containment facility, or be moved between containment facilities (with appropriate approval under the Biosecurity Act 1993). Therefore the EPA imposes controls 11 and 12, relating to moving NOs.
6.7 Controls 13-16 relate to access to the containment facility, including requiring that all entrances be lockable, and locked when not in active use, and all reasonably practicable measures be taken to prevent unauthorised entry into the facility and accidental or deliberate release of NOs.
6.8 Controls 17 and 18 require that any waste or equipment that may carry or contain a NO, or heritable material from a NO, must be treated or decontaminated (killing the NOs and any heritable material) prior to waste disposal or equipment being used for another purpose or removal from the containment facility.
6.9 Control 19 requires that all persons entering the containment facility must be instructed on containment practices relevant to their responsibilities. This includes members of the public who visit the facility, who may be instructed verbally or through signs about areas that they may or may not access; and staff who will have a higher level of training about the specific containment requirements for those NOs.
6.10 Contingency plans, outlining actions to be taken in the event of a breach of containment or other unexpected event, are required to be documented (control 20), and implemented if there is reason to believe a NO has escaped or been released from its containment area (control 21). In addition, the containment facility must maintain the capability to eradicate any NOs in the event of escape (control 20).
6.11 Inspection and monitoring of containment areas is important in maintaining containment and therefore regular inspections (control 22) are required, along with ad-hoc inspections following any events that could compromise the containment regime (control 23). Any faults must be remedied immediately to mitigate any breach of containment (control 24).
6.12 MAF is the enforcement agency for containment facilities and HSNO Act controls. Inspection and monitoring is carried out by MAF, and control 25 requires that the containment facility and all relevant documentation (control 4) be accessible to MAF. The person in charge of the facility is also required to notify MAF of any breach of containment as soon as possible (control 6).
6.13 The EPA considers that the proposed containment regime (controls) provides for the matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act.
6
Decision: APP201153
The potential pathways for escape of NOs from the containment facility
6.14 The EPA looked at the likely pathways of escape of the imported NOs and assessed these pathways in light of the requirements of the Standard, the organism description (control 1) and the proposed containment regime (Table 1).
6.15 The EPA noted that the NOs may reproduce vegetatively (plant fragments, rhizomes, bulbils) and sexually (pollen and seeds). Plant fragments may be dispersed by water or carried attached to birds, animals or equipment. Pollen and seeds may be dispersed by water where pollination occurs in the water, or by water, air and insects where pollination occurs above or on the water surface.
6.16 The EPA noted that fish and water fowl such as mallards have been shown to be involved in the movement of Najas marina seeds between waterways (Agami and Waisel 1986; Agami and Waisel 1988) and considered the potential for waterfowl (ducks) as a pathway of escape for NOs (whole plants, plant fragments, fruit and seed). Therefore, the EPA imposed an additional control requiring that waterfowl are kept out of the containment facility to prevent the removal of NOs (control 26).
6.17 The EPA considered whether any seeds produced above the water surface could escape containment by wind dispersal or by flying insects such as hover flies. The EPA noted that these seeds do not possess features that are characteristic of wind dispersed seeds such as wings, feathery structures or fine hairs. There is no evidence that flying insects such as hoverflies carry these seeds. If seeds are produced, these will be contained in the culture tanks and disposed as part of the waste water.
6.18 The EPA noted that the applicant proposed the use of an underground soak hole within the containment facility as a means of disposing waste water containing seeds and plant fragments. The soak hole is underground, several metres deep and wide (concrete lined) with a gravel base overlaying the soil and has been operational for several years without any problems.
6.19 The EPA noted that a soak hole could be used as a means of disposing waste water used in cultivating aquatic plants. The EPA considered that the facility would have operational procedures to ensure containment (control 9) and contingency plans (control 20) to ensure that the soak hole does not overflow, and if it was to occur, the contingency plans would be implemented (control 21).
6.20 The EPA considered the potential for seeds to escape from the soak hole should the facility cease to operate as a containment facility and the soak hole no longer monitored. To ensure that none of these seeds escape containment, the EPA imposes an additional control requiring a plan be included in the facility documentation to ensure that no NOs remain in the soak hole (control 27).
7
Decision: APP201153
Table 1 Assessment of potential pathways of escape
Potential pathways of escape Assessment
Escape during transport to and from the containment Highly improbable as the containment regime has facility. specific requirements for moving NOs (control 11).
Highly improbable as the containment regime requires that effective procedures be established to prevent unauthorised access to the facility, along with signs indicating restricted access and entrances being locked except when in active use (controls 13 to 16). The containment regime requires that operational Escape due to accidental or deliberate removal by staff procedures be established to ensure that NOs are or unauthorised persons contained and do not escape containment through incorrect handling or disposal of wastes (controls 2, 4, 17 and 18). Furthermore, persons entering the facility are to be instructed on the containment practices relevant to that individual’s responsibility (control 19).
Highly improbable as the containment regime requires that containment areas (specified place and/or conditions ) be designed and constructed to contain the approved organisms, in addition to operational procedures required to ensure that heritable material cannot be removed by water, air, insects or birds (Controls 4, 8, 9 and 26). The EPA also considered that it was highly improbable that escape of pollen from these NOs would lead to establishment of new plants or hybrids in the environment because there are no receptive flowers from the same species outside containment. Escape of heritable material (plant, pollen or seeds) via There are also no related native species growing in water, air, insects or birds. New Zealand except for Myriophyllum species, for which there are five native Myriophyllum species. Although two Myriophyllum hybrids have been recorded in North America, M. heterophyllum x M. pinnatum and M. spicatum x M. sibiricum (Moody and Les, 2002; EPPO, 2010), none of those parental species are present in New Zealand. Therefore it is highly improbable that the escape of water-borne Myriophyllum pollen would lead to hybridisation due to the absence of any parental plant in addition to containment requirements to ensure all heritable material is killed prior to disposal of waste water (control 17).
8
Decision: APP201153
Highly improbable as the containment regime requires that procedures are established to ensure that no accidental or unintended removal of aquatic plants or their heritable materials occur. The EPA considered that accidental or unintentional removal of aquatic plants or their heritable materials from containment could occur through incorrect Escape in waste water tipped down a drain without disposal of waste (including waste water) or biological being treated. material in untreated waste or equipment used for Escape on untreated equipment or waste. aquatic plants. To clarify requirements, controls 17-18 require that any waste, biological material or equipment that may carry or contain a NO, or heritable material from a NO, must be treated (killing NOs and heritable material) prior to waste disposal or equipment being used for another purpose or removal from the containment facility.
Highly improbable as the containment regime (controls 20 and 21) requires that containment Escape by improper handling of spills and wastes. facilities have contingency plans to deal with these events (accidental spillage of liquid cultures within the Escape following natural disaster (flood, earthquake). facility, or breaches of containment through accident, deliberate action, natural disaster, fire, theft, sabotage or any other event).
Conclusion on adequacy of the containment regime
6.21 After taking into account the ability of the NOs to escape containment given their biological characteristics the containment regime (Appendix) and the potential pathways of escape (Table 1), the EPA concludes that it is highly improbable that the NOs would be able to escape from containment. The EPA considers that the containment regime imposed provides for the matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act.
7. Ability of the organisms to establish a self-sustaining population and ease of eradication
7.1 The EPA considered the ability of the NOs to establish undesirable self-sustaining populations should the organisms escape containment, and the ease of eradication of such populations.
7.2 The EPA notes that all these aquatic plant species have the ability to form self-sustaining populations, to varying extents, and is dependent on the following:
escape from containment and reaching a suitable aquatic habitat;
9
Decision: APP201153
suitable climatic conditions; plant’s ability to compete with other established aquatic plants in the environment for space and resources.
7.3 The EPA considered that it is likely that these aquatic plant species could survive in water temperatures found in New Zealand and this is the reason that this application has been made. The EPA notes that other aquatic plant species (belonging to the same plant families) that have been imported through the aquarium and pond trade have become established in New Zealand.
7.4 The EPA considered however that it is highly improbable that the NOs could both escape from containment and form an undesirable self-sustaining population.
7.5 The EPA considered that in the highly improbable event that the NOs escape containment and form self-sustaining populations, plant eradication would depend on the nature of the escape (deliberate or unintended) and depend on surveillance of likely habitats to identify such plant populations. Eradication is very unlikely to occur once these plant species become established as weed populations.
8. Identification and assessment of potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects (risks, costs and benefits)
8.1 The EPA identified and assessed the potentially significant risks, costs and benefits of having the NOs in containment in the following areas of impact: the environment, human health and safety, Māori and their culture and traditions, the market economy, and society and the community (Table 2).
8.2 The EPA was interested in the views of tangata whenua regarding the disposal of seeds in wastewater in the soak hole, specifically, seeds (new organisms) entering and remaining in the soak hole and therefore possibly the groundwater. The applicant was advised to consult with local iwi and no concerns regarding this matter were raised. The EPA is satisfied that the applicant has initiated this process and there is an ongoing commitment towards this relationship.
8.3 The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects were negligible.
8.4 The EPA considered that the benefits from importing these aquatic plant species were non- negligible. Therefore the benefits having the NOs in containment outweigh the risks.
10
Decision: APP201153
Table 2 Assessment of potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects from the NOs Magnitude, Potentially significant effect: likelihood, significance Potentially significant adverse effects on the environment through NOs causing: displacement of native aquatic plants and potentially any native species that feed on native aquatic plants;
deterioration of waterways, lakes and ponds, and the surrounding habitat; Magnitude: Minor to ecological changes of freshwater habitats. moderate The EPA considered the potential for the NOs to cause adverse effects on the Likelihood: Highly environment was dependent on escape from containment and establishment of a improbable population in a suitable aquatic environment. The likelihood of both events occurring was considered as highly improbable. Significance: The EPA considered that although the magnitude of the potential adverse effects on Negligible the environment ranged from minor to moderate, the likelihood of those effects is limited by containment and therefore is highly improbable. The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects on the environment are negligible.
Magnitude: Minimal Potentially significant adverse effect on human health and safety through occupational Likelihood: Highly exposure as containment limits exposure of NOs to staff handling. This effect is improbable negligible because training requirements and no direct threat to human health from these NOs has been identified. Significance: Negligible
Potentially significant adverse effects on Māori culture and traditions are dependent on the escape of NOs from containment and formation of self-sustaining populations. No potentially significant effects were identified after taking into account the containment None identified regime (Appendix). The likelihood of NOs escaping from containment and forming a self-sustaining population was considered as highly improbable.
Potentially significant adverse effects on society and community through NOs infesting waterways, lakes and ponds resulting in reduced and impaired recreational opportunities (such as swimming, boating, fishing). Magnitude: Minimal to moderate The EPA considered that this adverse effect was dependent on NOs escaping from containment and establishing weed populations in waterways, lakes or ponds. The Likelihood: Highly likelihood of both events occurring was considered as highly improbable. improbable The EPA considered that the magnitude of the potential adverse effect ranged from Significance: minor to moderate but the likelihood of this occurring was limited by containment and Negligible therefore highly improbable. The EPA concluded that the potential adverse effects on society and community are negligible.
Potentially significant adverse effects on market economy:
No potentially significant adverse effects were identified after taking into account the None identified containment regime (Appendix).
11
Decision: APP201153
Beneficial effects: The applicant noted that the import of these NOs would enable NIWA to: Magnitude: Minimal to moderate carry out research to provide data on growth characteristics of these NOs under New Zealand conditions, in order to assess the invasive potential of these NOs to Likelihood: Highly become weeds in New Zealand and to develop appropriate management likely responses should this occur in the future. Significance: Non - train front line environmental staff (DOC, regional councils) on identification of negligible potential pest plant species within a secure contained facility.
9. Decision
9.1 The EPA is satisfied that the application is for a valid purpose, the NOs can be adequately contained (Appendix), and the beneficial effects of having the NOs in containment outweigh the adverse effects of the NOs.
9.2 Therefore application APP201153 is approved, with controls.
Helen Atkins 13 March 2012 Chair, Decision Making Committee Environmental Protection Authority
Approval code(s): NOC100101 - NOC100113
12
Decision: APP201153
Approval numbers for organisms in application APP201153
Organism Approval code
Blyxa aubertii L.C. Rich NOC100101
Blyxa japonica Ascher. and Gürke NOC100102
Butomus umbellatus L. NOC100103
Egeria najas Planch. NOC100107
Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) NOC100105
Lagarosiphon cordofanus Casp. NOC100104
Lagarosiphon madagascariensis Casp. NOC100108
Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov NOC100110
Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx NOC100106
Najas indica (Willd.) Cham. NOC100112
Najas tenuifolia R. Br. NOC100111
Najas marina L. NOC100109
Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. NOC100113
13
Decision: APP201153
References
Agami M, Waisel Y 1986. The role of mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) in distribution and germination of seeds of the submerged hydrophyte Najas marina L. Oecologia 68: 473-475.
Agami M, Waisel Y 1988. The role of fish in distribution and germination of seeds of the submerged macrophytes Najas marina L and Ruppia maritima L. Oecologia 76: 83-88.
EPPO 2009. Myriophyllum heterophyllum (Haloragaceae) Watermil foil. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) 2011. http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/invasive_plants/Myriophyllum_heterophyllum.htm Retrieved 30 January 2012.
Moodly ML, Les DH 2002. Evidence of hybridity in invasive watermilfoil (Myriophyllum) populations. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:14867–14871.
14
Decision: APP201153
Appendix: Controls required by this approval
The new organisms approved for importation into containment under this approval are subject to the following controls:
1. This approval is limited to the importation into containment for scientific research purposes, of the following new organisms (the approved organisms):
Table 3 The approved organisms description Organism
Blyxa aubertii L.C. Rich
Blyxa japonica Ascher. and Gürke
Butomus umbellatus L.
Egeria najas Planch.
Elodea nuttallii (Planch.) St. John (western waterweed)
Lagarosiphon cordofanus Casp.
Lagarosiphon madagascariensis Casp.
Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov (northern watermilfoil) also known as Myriophyllum exalbescens Fern
Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx (variable or two leafed watermilfoil)
Najas indica (Willd.) Cham.
Najas tenuifolia R. Br.
Najas marina L. (spiny naiad)
Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. (duck-lettuce) also known as Ottelia japonica Miq.
Compliance with these controls
2. The approved organisms must be contained.
3. The person in charge of the containment facility must ensure that the controls in this approval are complied with.
4. The person in charge of the containment facilty must ensure that there is documentation specifying how the controls in this approval will be complied with.
Notification
5. The person in charge of the containment facilty must ensure that the EPA and MAF Inspector are notified in writing when this approval is used for the first time.
15
Decision: APP201153
6. The person in charge of the containment facilty must ensure that the MAF Inspector is notified of any containment breach within 24 hours.
Defining the containment facility
7. The containment facility must be clearly defined in the containment facility documentation, including a map showing the location and boundaries.
Containment areas
8. The containment facility documentation must define the containment areas for the approved organisms.
9. Containment areas must be designed, constructed and maintained to contain the approved organisms.
Entering and exiting containment areas
10. Persons entering containment areas must enter and exit the containment area in a way that does not compromise the containment of the approved organisms.
Moving new organisms
11. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent the escape of the approved organisms during any movements within or from the containment facility.
12. The approved organisms may only be removed from a containment area for a reasonably necessary purpose.
Access to the containment facility
13. All containment facility entrances must clearly identify the facility as being a containment facility.
14. The containment facility must not have more than 20 entrances.
15. All containment facility entrances must be lockable and be locked when not in active use.
16. All reasonably practicable measures must be taken to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the containment facility.
Treatment of waste
17. Any waste or biological material that may contain the approved organisms, or heritable material from the approved organisms, must be treated to ensure that the approved organisms or any heritable material is killed prior to disposal.
18. Any equipment that may harbour the approved organisms, or heritable material from the approved organisms, must be treated to ensure that the approved organisms or any heritable material is killed prior to being used for another purpose or removed from the containment facility.
16
Decision: APP201153
Training
19. All persons entering the containment facility (including contractors, staff, students, visitors, and volunteers) must be instructed on the containment practices of the containment facility relevant to the responsibility of those persons.
Contingency plans
20. The person in charge of the containment facilty must ensure that there are documented contingency plans for the recapture and/or eradication of the approved organisms outside of the containment area and/or containment facility and that the contingency plan can be implemented.
21. The contingency plan must be implemented if there is reason to believe that the approved organisms have escaped or been released from containment.
Inspection and monitoring
22. The containment facility must be inspected and monitored at reasonable intervals given the nature of the approved organisms being contained, to ensure that containment has not been compromised and to identify any remedial maintenance requirements.
23. Containment areas must be inspected as soon as possible after any event that could compromise containment, such as an Act of God (such as flood, earthquake), or an unauthorised attempt to enter the containment facility or a containment area.
24. Faults in containment must be remedied as soon as possible, including taking interim measures as are necessary to mitigate any breach of containment.
25. The person in charge of the containment facilty must ensure that the MAF Inspector has access to the containment facility and all relevant documentation for the purpose of inspection and monitoring.
Additional controls 26. Water fowl must be kept out of the containment facility.
27. In the event that the containment facility ceases to be a containment facility, the facility’s documentation must include a plan to ensure there are no NOs in the soak hole.
Interpretation of controls
In the controls, unless otherwise specified below, a word has the same meaning as it is defined in the HSNO Act (if any).
Unless the context otherwise requires:
Breach means escape of organism(s), unauthorised entry to the facility or containment area, and/or the structural integrity of the facility being compromised.
17
Decision: APP201153
Containment area means the specified place and/or conditions within the containment facility designated for a specified new organism.
Containment facility means a defined place approved by MAF, in accordance with section 39 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, for holding new organisms.
Contingency plan means a plan devised for a specific situation where things could go wrong. It contains information, tasks and procedures that are necessary for timely decision-making and response to an unexpected event, or situation where the preferred plan fails.
Documentation means written or electronic records.
EPA means the Environmental Protection Authority.
Heritable material means viable biological material, including gametes and spores, arising from the organism that can, without human intervention, regenerate the organism or reproduce a new generation of the same species of the organism.
MAF means Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Maintenance means the process of maintaining (preserving or providing for the preservation of) or continuing a state of good repair.
Person in charge of the containment facility means the person who has managerial and financial delegation to ensure that the HSNO Act controls are complied with.
Treat (in respect of waste) means to kill all new organisms and heritable material.
Waste means unusable or unwanted substances or materials (including water, liquids, and solids).