evatech

Safety Management Services
Nelson, New Zealand

AgriBusiness. Issue 69. May/June 2008 HSNO-Series.  Bruce Evans 

Are we equally worried about HSNO as an expired WOF?

 

Parallels are drawn between WOF’s for cars and HSNO compliance.

 

Regular readers of this column will know that it’s primary focus is on the ‘new’ HSNO Legislation which for agricultural chemicals should all be ‘done and dusted’ by now. There are however still lots of labeling and information provision left to be completed by the proprietors of thousands of mixtures like paint, surfactants, household and dairy cleansers etc. These products were transferred last into the HSNO regime under the Group Standards process. This is a procedure where the proprietor instead of ERMA decides which HSNO classifications best match the hazards of their product. The proprietors of these mixtures have the responsibility to record their calculation process and publish their decisions on labels and safety data sheets [SDS]. The whole range of HSNO controls including Approved Handlers, tracking and storage etc flow from those proprietor decided classifications.

Those controls are expected to be put in place by the person in charge of the supplier store who in turn will fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour that we reported on in the last issue. For those who haven’t read that story, the Department had found the need to enter into some ‘negotiated agreements’ with some companies as the first step in recognising that doing nothing about HSNO was not an option. (Negotiated agreements are similar to compliance orders except that they are issued following agreement with the user to take action and comply.) If they fail to comply, a formal compliance order is issued and can result in prosecution. The negotiated agreements and HSNO Compliance orders effectively put on notice the person in charge of the errant operation to get on with HSNO compliance including the safe and effective storage of ‘mixtures’.

Compliance orders, WOF's and Location Certificates:

Compliance orders have a similar parallel for vehicle owners, where the Police issues infringement notices or fines and prosecutions under the Transport Regulations. An Infringement Notice issued for not having a current WOF has some direct parallels under HSNO where a Location Test Certificate or a ‘LTC’ instead of a ‘WOF’ is required if the storage site triggers enough Class 1-5 substances.

Recently I was in the process of renewing a LTC for a customer who was ‘chewing my ear’ about a sizeable fine he had just paid for not having a current WOF on his wife’s car. The customer was relaxed about the need for current and up to date WOF’s as he saw that his wife’s road safety depended upon having one. Indeed he said that he had changed garages to a more expensive one that made him feel more secure in the caliber and quality of the WOF test. His beef was about the size of the fine; but then he grudgingly admitted that because it hurt financially he would never let a WOF lapse again.

The same customer had problems with his HSNO LTC renewal because of a series of linked issues:

There are lots of parallels between the reasons for the valid vehicle WOF story above and the situation that commonly exists for HSNO compliance.

Do we need a six monthly check on compliance?

As has been expressed in these articles before there almost seems a need for six-monthly LTC checks as yearly renewals reveal that ‘somehow’ the good housekeeping that prevailed 12months previously has ‘gone out the window’. I continue to be amazed at how incompatible classes and tracked products can be put in the wrong areas in spite of managers seemingly aware of what should happen. The common threads in most of the poor practice that sets in between LTC renewals, is high staff turnover; and a real lack of ‘on-job’ training to follow-up the Approved Handler training. Line managers do not seem to be setting sound work-practices, and trained Approved Handlers are not sharing their knowledge with other new or un-trained staff; either that or the Approved Handlers have not been a part of a workplace forum to share their knowledge and work out HSNO procedures.

Is an Approved Handler Certificate enough? 

There is a very commonly held belief that the only staff training that is required is the Approved Handler session held away from work and that ”oh thank goodness it’s five-years away before it comes up for renewal”. For Approved Handler training to be effective in complicated multi-hazard outlets that are Vet Clinics, and rural retail stores etc there needs to be regular ‘on-the-job’ training to build on the original Approved Handler course. Start with a workplace session in the first few weeks following the classroom training whilst the issues are still fresh in the trainees mind.

Transport information required since 1999:

There simply isn’t enough space to work through all the issues listed above but since we are talking transport in this article. Many suppliers of agrichemicals are still confused over what’s needed for Dangerous Goods [DG’s] compared to Hazardous Substances. All they need remember is that they have legally defined duties under the Land Transport Rule 2005 as a consignor. Just one of those ‘Transport’ duties has since 1999 been the supply of Emergency Response Information for practically every sale of a DG. This is not the same as the level 2 requirement for information required under the HSNO Regulations. While you are untangling the difference have a guess which compliance agency is most likely to catch you out for not supplying information: The Police or DoL?