Welcome to the first issue of the compliance certifier update for this year.

The change in the regulations last December brought decisions by a few people who had been test certifiers since the dawn of HSNO; Michael Gray, Mike Nankivell, Harry Flannigan, Mike Hermansson and Keith Broome decided to hang up their certifier hats.

These certifiers have made significant contributions in terms of technical knowledge and certification businesses to the hazardous substances industry. Their support and contribution to the certification regime is acknowledged. We wish them all the best in their retirement, whatever that may hold.

In other news sadly Alistair Waters passed away in December and we acknowledge the loss to his family and friends.

HSPNZ wishes to express their deepest sympathies on the passing of our inaugural President Jack Travis last Wednesday night. There is nothing which can be said to lighten his loss, and we know that most of you will have happy memories of better times. Jack was one of the founding members of HSPNZ and worked tirelessly on behalf of our organisation to create what we have today. As part of that legacy he has succeeded in bringing together a group of (largely) strangers and competitors to form a united and cohesive group who are now working together to achieve a common cause. 

For that we are truly grateful. 

We will each remember Jack for different reasons and for me personally that includes his generosity, both in his time for a chat and a guiding hand where needed. His memorial will be held at the City Church, Otumoetai, Tauranga at 10.30am on Friday 6th April. Our prayers and thoughts go out to his family, he will be sadly missed.

Jack left HSPNZ this email, dictated to his wife. This was to be passed on to all certifiers wanting change and a united society with HSPNZ.

An Unscheduled Turn of Events - Thoughts from the outgoing President
 
First and foremost, I would like to thank you for the many kind and encouraging messages. I was blown away by your comments and feel proud to have worked alongside you and shared the odd beer with so many of you.
 
Your support has made the HSPNZ a formidable force and I am confident that the new President, Peter Menzies will advance the institute in future years.
 
My vision was to provide a credible voice that linked government departments, industry and test certifiers to the betterment of everyone’s interests. We have risen to every challenge and been rewarded with a unified approach to HSNO.
 
It astounds me that I have been granted the time to put these thoughts together when my diagnosis is so final.
 
So farewell workmates, friends, professional colleagues and supporters.

Jack Travis

WorkSafe would also like to acknowledge Jack’s sheer determination in the first year of HSPNZ in the role of president. 

It’s time for another round of workshops in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The workshops will be held as follows:

• Wellington – Tuesday 8 May, at the Miramar Golf Club
• Christchurch – Thursday 10 May, at the Commodore Hotel
• Auckland – Wednesday 16 May, at the Holiday Inn Auckland Airport (30 attendee maximum)
• Auckland – Thursday 17 May, at the Holiday Inn Auckland Airport (30 attendee maximum)

The content of the workshops will include a business systems training session from IANZ, the WorkSafe auditing process (mandatory under the new HS regulations) and our process for dealing with complaints, discussions about performance standards and technical and regulatory questions. An agenda will be available soon.

Please RSVP to kate.studd@worksafe.govt.nz with your preferred date and location. We’re looking forward to seeing you there.

There has been a couple of recent situations where compliance certifiers have been unable to visit locations or sites – for example in the aftermath of Cyclones Fehi and Gita.

You must not issue a location certificate (conditional or otherwise) for sites you have been unable to visit. When the Performance Standard for locations is finalised this will be mandatory. 

Conditional location compliance certificates can be issued when there are minor non-compliances with the prescribed requirements. A certifier being unable to visit a site is not a minor matter relating to the location.

If you are faced with this situation and the PCBUs current certificate is about to expire, the approach to take is to email healthsafety.notification@worksafe.govt.nz with the reason you are unable to issue a certificate at this time.

Please state the name and address of the PCBU explaining the reasons and the expected date you will undertake a site visit.

In cases where a PCBU decides to change things at a site you have previously assessed and certified, such as adding an exchange LPG cage, a new DG store or additional hazardous substances, the duty lies on the PCBU to ensure that their certification is appropriate. 

Depending on the nature of the change(s) a new compliance certificate may be required and in this case the certifier must do a full re-assessment of the site and cannot rely on the previous inspection.

The full re-assessment must include site plans and emergency response procedures which reflect and incorporate the changes. A new location compliance certificate would then be issued for the site, reflecting the changes. 

The original certificate cannot be revoked.  

Workplaces holding LPG are assessed against the HSW (Hazardous Substances) Regulations and the compliance certificates are issued under those regulations. A compliance certificate must reference the HS Regulations on the certificate and the information must be entered into our Register for Compliance Certificates.

Non-workplaces holding over 300kg of LPG are assessed against the EPA Hazardous Properties Control Notice and HSNO certificates are issued under the HSNO Act. A HSNO certificate must reference the HSNO Act (specifically clause 28 of the HPC Notice) on the certificate and a copy must be sent to the EPA.

We have received queries about certain types of places and whether they are a workplace, such as maraes. Additional information and guidance will follow soon.

A change in the regulatory requirement is the capacity of secondary containment systems for intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), as defined in chapter 6.5 of the UNRTDG.

Secondary containment provisions are prescribed in regulations 10.33 (classes 3 and 4), 12.16 (class 5.1.1), 12.41 (class 5.2) and 13.33 (classes 6 and 8) and require the capacity of the secondary containment to be based on the pooling potential. In the example of a hazardous substance location holding eight 1,000 litre IBCs this now requires 100% of pooling potential which is 8,000 litres of secondary containment.

Regulation 39 in the previous Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations required containers holding over 450 litres to be provided with secondary containment, with capacity equal to at least 110% of the largest container. In the example of a hazardous substance location holding eight 1,000 litre IBCs this equated to 1,100 litres of secondary containment.

This is a deliberate change from HSNO and there is no provision for a transition from the HSNO requirements to those under HSW (HS) Regulations. 

The HS Regulations were amended by the addition of clause (1A) to regulations 10.33, 12.16 and 12.41 and clause (1B) to regulation 13.33 in regard to portable tanks (as defined in chapter 6.7 of the UNRTDG). Portable tanks require the secondary containment system to have a capacity of at least 110% of the largest tank. IBCs are not portable tanks.

The orginal HS Regulations made in June were amended prior to 1 December. Please ensure that the copy you refer to has 'Reprint as at 1 December 2017' on the front cover. The amended version is available online and contains important amendments. 

Regulations 11.11 (non-hazardous substance locations) and 11.29 (hazardous substance locations) cover the requirements for cabinets which hold class 3.1 substances.

One significant difference between these regulations is that clause 4.9.7 from AS 1940 – 2004 is only required for hazardous substance locations (regulation 11.29). Clause 4.9.7 relates to the exclusion of ignition sources from the area 3 metres measured laterally from the cabinet and 1 metre above any opening in the cabinet. 

At hazardous substance locations, cabinets holding class 3.1 substances must be at least 3 metres apart and there are limitations on the amount of Class 3.1 substances that can be held on each floor of a building. 

When a hazardous area is required for a class 2 or 3 substance, and the location requires a compliance certificate, under regulation 10.34(1)(d) the compliance certifier is required to verify that the hazardous area has been established in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 60079.10.1:2009 or a relevant safe work instrument (their is currently none), and that the hazardous area is documented (depicted on a plan). 

A compliance certifier is also required under regulation 10.34(1)(i) to verify that regulation 10.26(4) is complied with. This regulation has an additional requirement that the hazardous area is maintained. The compliance certifier is expected to sight the electrical certificate of compliance (CoC), or in the case of sites established more than four years ago the electrical periodic assessment report/certificate as part of the assurance that the hazardous area is maintained.

Tables 1 and 2 in Schedule 10 of the Hazardous Substances Regulations have the wording, 'oxygen in discrete cylinder or tank 200 m3'.

This reflects the wording used in the EPA decision for approval HSR001029 and can be read as 'oxygen in cylinder(s) or tank(s) to a combined capacity of 200 m3'. The word discrete is not intended to mean a single cylinder or tank.

The wording in regulation 17.57(7) is a direct lift and shift from the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004. A tank attached to a burner does not require a SCS (stationary container system) compliance certificate if it does not have a service tank and has a capacity of less than 60 litres for class 3.1 substances supplying a burner or substances approved by the EPA for use as burner fuel.

A tank supplying a burner with a capacity of 60 litres or greater will therefore require a SCS compliance certificate. 

There are three performance standards for compliance certifiers which are currently being drafted, as enabled by regulation 6.43. Draft versions of these performance standards will be made available to all compliance certifiers as part of the consultation process.

The first one off the rank will be Compliance Certification – Information and Process Requirements which will be released this month for consultation. The Locations and Certified Handler performance standards will be available for consultation in the next few months. The Stationary Container Systems performance standard will be the next one released for consultation. 

There will be 20 working days for you to provide feedback through the consultation process. 

Please note that the EPA performance standards have no regulatory standing but in the interim continue to provide useful guidance, particularly the assessment sheets contained in the appendices.

We are working on the development of a safe work instrument (SWI) for the validity period of stationary container system compliance certificates. This is currently being drafted and compliance certifiers will be consulted. In the meantime you must apply the validity periods specified in regulation 17.92.

A day box is used for temporarily holding daily requirements of explosives at a workplace. It is not used for permanent or long term storage and should not be confused with a readily moveable container.  

A day box is not a readily movable container for the purpose of regulations 9.19 and 9.20. Consequently a day box does not require compliance certification.  A day box is defined in AS 2187.0 as being a container used at the worksite for holding daily requirements for explosives - the operative word being daily.  At the end of the working day when the certified handler leaves the site the explosives are removed.

There is some confusion with the mention of day box in HSNOCOP55-1, Storage of Explosives. Whilst HSNOCOP 55-1 stated that a readily movable container may be used as a day box or as a container while transporting explosives, this is not the same as a day box being a readily movable container. Further, HSNOCOP 55-1 has no regulatory standing under the Regulations. We are assessing the option of a Safe Work Instrument to replace those parts of HSNOCOP55-1 that were not incorporated into the Regulations.   

For the purposes of securing explosives, regulation 9.18(4) states that it is sufficient for the explosives to be under the personal control of a certified handler. Regulation 9.3(6) provides for the explosives to be secured in a container at a hazardous substance location or designated use zone when not under the control of a certified handler.  

Transporting explosives in a day box, while under the direct control of a certified handler, is common industry practice. Other options are also followed, such as containerised loads and transport in closed vehicles. Vehicles transporting explosives must meet the requirements of regulation 9.48(1)(b). Regulation 9.49 specifies how the vehicle may be constructed when carrying quantities greater than 50 kg (gross weight). Neither of these regulations make reference to a day box.  

If a container is used as a permanent (on-going) store for explosives, then it should not be referred to as a day box. A permanent explosives store (such as a readily moveable container or a magazine) requires compliance certification.  

In summary, a day box used for temporarily holding daily requirements of explosives at a workplace, including transporting those explosives to and from the workplace, does not require compliance certification.