evatech
Safety Management Services
Nelson, New Zealand
AgriBusiness. Issue 68. Mar/Apr. 2008 HSNO-Series. Bruce Evans
HSNO compliance grumbles
Grumblers complain about a lack of compliance activity from compeitors.
Readers may remember I have previously remarked on the number of grumblers who complain about their competitors’ perceived inaction when it comes to HSNO compliance.
They point out that they themselves have invested in training staff and ensuring their own compliance yet the other guy down the road appears to be getting away with doing nothing, with few if any costs.
Well, those companies may well be interested to know that a substantial number of non-compliant operations have recently come to the attention of the Department of Labour (DoL). It of course was hearing grumbles too, from other industries, and upon a closer look, the department found the need to enter into ‘negotiated agreements’ with some companies as the first step in recognising that doing nothing 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. A compliance order can invoke a significant demand such as stopping the process - often a very expensive option!)
Negotiated agreements might sound like wet bus ticket reprimands but they are about as heavy as compliance seems to come at this early stage of HSNO implementation.
The negotiated agreements and possibly HSNO Compliance orders as well effectively put on notice the person in charge of the errant operation to get on with HSNO compliance in a timely manner.
Maybe those who want the guy down the road to become compliant may see more effective action once the powers of the insurance industry are fully mobilised.
Insurance companies getting nervious:
I couldn’t help but notice the large numbers of insurance assessors and risk advisors working for the insurance industry attending a recent Test Certifier’s compliance-training course on flammable substances.
Perhaps their industry is heeding a call from ERMA to beef up compliance monitoring and to withhold insurance unless errant operations comply with HSNO regulations.
Maybe some of the perceived foot-dragging on compliance has its roots in the crazy situation that exists with Class 6, 8 and 9 substances not requiring a Location Certificate whilst Classes 1 to 5 do.
This results in situations like large scale fertiliser works having millions of litres of Class 8 acids on site without triggering a Location Certificate while a few litres of Class 3 being used in the lab does.
I had a case recently where the proprietor of a site refused to bund his isolated Class 8 acid storage area because it’s not required to achieve the location Certificate for the site.
The Class 3 product in another area has been effectively dealt to and that area complies with HSNO.
The original drafter of this mystifying part of HSNO Law was the Ministry for the Environment. It at least is prepared to admit that bit of HSNO doesn’t work too well and is now calling for suggestions on how best to handle it, as it will require a law change.
Perhaps those who have grumbled about slow compliance uptake and who want compliance action may have some ideas on effective Class 6-9 management. Neil Cooper at MFE will be pleased to hear from you.
ERMA has also been doing a bit of its own grumbling:
At recent Test Certifier meetings around the country ERMA told us there are only 3000-odd current Location Test Certificates for premises where they would have expected there to be at least 10,000 by now. While farmers have turned up in good numbers to their Approved Handler courses ERMA reckon they are also at least 10,000 short of certificated handlers across the country.
There are reputed to be approximately 30-40,000 agrichemical approved handlers who have AH Test Certificates. This makes agriculture a pro-active industry in HSNO terms when you compare it to other industries struggling to coming to grips with the new laws.
I wish I could have shared with you the outcome of auditing the quality of those 40,000 Certificates but Test Certifiers are still awaiting outcomes 13 months after the first 100 or so scripts were called in for ERMA auditing. I don’t know what if anything can be read into the fact that auditing of Test Certifier procedures and Certificates takes so long.
One thing has become clear in the meantime about Approved Handler Certificates issued for agrichemical suppliers and users. Their Certificates will need to better reflect the different useage patterns. A farmer’s agrichemical AH Certificate covering storage means exactly that - ‘on-farm’ storage and a “Limited to on farm storage” statement must be carried on the Certificate.
This will better differentiate the ‘Supplier’ who has quite different storage challenges and therefore his training and Certificate will need to reflect the difference.
Perhaps all will become clear on these issues at a ERMA Agrichemical Workshop for Test Certifiers organized for late April.