HRE09001 Hazardous Substances Consideration Committee

Consideration Paper – HRE09001 Modified Reassessment of LPG, Propane and Butane Page 1 of 62

HRE09001

Hazardous Substances Consideration Committee

TOPIC: Consideration of Application for the Modified Reassessment of

LPG, Propane and Butanes

Introduction

1 The LPG Association of New Zealand Inc (LPGA) is seeking the modified reassessment

of the substance identified as Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). As the definition of LPG

may include 100% propane, 100% butane or 100% isobutane1, these substances are also

included in the reassessment. Please note that the term LPG as used in this document

also refers to propane, butane and isobutane.

2 The substances were approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act

1996 (―the Act‖) via the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic

Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 (as amended) and have the following HSNO Approval

Numbers:

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Approval No: HSR001009

Propane Approval No: HSR001010

Butane Approval No: HSR000989

Isobutane Approval No: HSR001003

3 The application document proposed the following modifications to the approvals for the

identified substances:

2.1 An increase in the threshold for the requirement for location test certificates from

100 kg to 300 kg;

2.2 The replacement of the default requirement for spray cages over tank wagons

carrying LPG which are parked for longer than one hour, with a risk assessment

using section 12 of AS/NZS 1596 for each storage premises;

2.3 The replacement of the separation distances for cylinder and tank storage of LPG

as specified in the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled

Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 with those specified in AS/NZS 1596;

2.4 The removal of the fire extinguisher requirements for storage of > 50 kg of LPG

in domestic property;

2.5 The removal of the aggregation requirement for separation distances for

vaporisers; and

2.6 The removal of the stationary container system certification requirements for

LPG and transfer of any requirements not covered by Pressure Equipment,

Cranes, and Passenger Ropeways (PECPR) Regulations 1999 to the location

certification requirements.

1 Please note that isobutane was unintentionally omitted from the application to determine grounds for

reassessment, but is considered to be covered by the definition of LPG and therefore has been included in this

application for reassessment.


Legislative Criteria for the Application

4 Unless otherwise stated, references to section numbers in this report refer to sections of

the Act and clauses to clauses of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms

(Methodology) Order 1998 (―the Methodology‖).

5 In its decision dated 5 December 2008 (Application Number: RES07007), the Authority

determined that there was significant new information relating to the effects of the

substances and that this information constituted grounds for their reassessment (section

62(2)(a)). Consequently, the applicant was able to make an application for the modified

reassessment of the substance.

6 The application was Formally Received on 25 September 2009 in accordance with

section 63A on the basis that─

(a) a reassessment of the hazardous substances under section 63 is not appropriate

because the reassessment will involve only specific aspects of the approvals; and

(b) the amendments are not minor or technical amendments to which section 67A

applies (i.e. a change is use is not considered a minor or technical amendment).

7 The Authority may approve or decline an application for reassessment under this section,

as it considers appropriate, after taking into account (see section 63A(6)):

(a) all the effects associated with the reassessment; and

(b) the best international practices and standards for the safe management of

hazardous substances.

8 When making their decision, the Authority must follow the decision path outlined in

Appendix 1.

Notification and Consultation

9 The Minister for the Environment was advised of the application2 and given the

opportunity to ―call-in‖ the application3. This action was not initiated.

10 The Department of Labour (Workplace Group) was identified as having a specific

interest in the application and was provided with a copy of the application.

11 Other Government departments, Crown agencies and other interested parties, as listed in

Appendix 2, were provided with a copy of the application summary and given the

opportunity to comment or to make a submission.

12 The application was publicly notified on the ERMA New Zealand website on 8 October

2009 and subsequently advertised in The Dominion Post, the New Zealand Herald, the

Christchurch Press and the Otago Daily Times4.

2 section 53(4)(a)

3 section 68

4 section 53


Submissions

13 Thirteen submissions were received. A summary of submissions is attached as

Appendix 3. The summary of submissions includes the applicant‘s response to the

submissions.

14 Three parties initially requested to be heard in support of their submissions, but all three

withdrew their requests after additional discussions with the Agency.

EVALUATION

15 To enable the Agency to consider all the effects associated with the proposed

reassessment, the Agency has undertaken an assessment of the risks, costs and benefits

associated with the proposed modifications to the approval of the substances. The

Agency has taken into consideration the information provided by the applicant in its

application, submissions received on the proposed amendments and the applicant‘s

responses to those submissions.

Increasing the Threshold for Location Test Certification

Applicant‘s Proposal

16 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the location certificate trigger

limit (threshold) be increased from 100 kg to 300 kg. The applicant provided a report

which it considers provides new information about the risks associated with the storage

of LPG and considers that this information supports an increase in the threshold for

location test certification requirements. The report concludes that the risks associated

with LPG cylinder operations in New Zealand are extremely low and in fact the largest

area of risk is the delivery of the cylinders rather than the location of the cylinders.

17 The applicant indicated that the risks of increasing the threshold are that those issues

covered by the location certificate will not be adhered to for installations between 100 kg

and 300 kg of LPG storage. The applicant identified that these requirements are that the

cylinders have to be 2 metres away from an area of high intensity land use (such as a

house/building) or have the walls of the building behind the cylinders and to 2 metres

either side of the cylinder be fire resistant or have a fire resistant covering and that there

is no opening into the building below the top of the cylinder and within 2 metres of any

cylinder.

18 The applicant proposed that these risks can be addressed via two proposals: 1) a multi-

cylinder code of practice for cylinder installations of more than 2 X 45kg cylinders, for

use by Gas Fitters and the LPG Industry and 2) a compliance/check sheet for

installations up to 300kg. The applicant has not indicated when these documents will be

available.

19 The applicant considers that increasing the threshold to 300 kg would result in savings

for over 3,700 consumers. At an annual cost for a location certificate of between $100

and $400 it will save consumers around $925,000 using an average cost of $250 per

certificate.


Submitter Response

20 A number of submitters indicated that they had concerns about the level of compliance

of existing LPG storage sites and expressed concerns about the ability of the LPG

Industry to self regulate. The submitters indicated that they believed the removal of the

requirement for independent checks by Test Certifiers (carried out before the issuing of a

location test certificate) for facilities storing less than 300 kg of LPG would result an

increase in unsafe facilities and result in an increased risk to human health (including

that of firefighters who may need to visit these facilities) and to the environment.

21 The Department of Labour (DoL) indicated they did not support the proposal as written.

They suggested that as an alternative, the 100 kg threshold should be retained, but with a

test certificate renewal period for installations up to 300 kg of three to five years.

Applicants Response to Submitters

22 In response to the submissions, the applicant indicated a wish revise the proposal. The

revised proposal would retain an initial check by a test certifier for installations greater

than 100 kg, but subsequent independent test certification would only be required where

storage quantities were in excess of 300 kg. The applicant advised that it believes that

leaving compliance checking to the industry is a valid option because:

Industry are aware of all installations, rather than only those that have been

issued with a location test certificate;

It is in the interest of the industry to ensure ongoing safety of consumer

installations; and

Once the responsibility for checking compliance has been passed to the

industry this will remove the confusion of responsibility under the current

system where the industry has no legal, or agreed responsibility to ensure

compliance.

Agency‘s Evaluation

23 The Agency notes that the MWH report submitted by the applicant discusses the

international requirements for LPG storage in comparison with the current requirements

in New Zealand, but does not provide an analysis of the relative incident rates in the

different jurisdictions. The Agency considers that the provision of information that

indicated that jurisdictions with higher thresholds demonstrated a no greater rate of

incidents would have supported the applicant‘s proposal.

24 The Agency considers that the recently enacted Gas (Safety and Measurement)

Regulations 2010, which now require a Gas Fitter to have a gas installation approved up

to the cylinder valve outlet, will address a number of the non compliance issues raised by

the submitters. All gasfitting is required to be certified by a qualified and licensed

certifier. Certification is carried out by a craftsman gasfitter or a person holding a

certificate of exemption to certify particular gasfitting, as authorised by the Plumbers

Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. This Board has a statutory function to ensure that all

certifiers maintain an adequate level of competence either as a craftsman gasfitter or

exemption holder.


25 The Agency considers that any proposal to allow an element of industry self-regulation

must be balanced with increased accountability. An example of increasing the level of

accountability is the addition of a legal requirement which makes it an offence for a

supplier to deliver the substances to a non compliant site.

Agency Recommendation

26 The Agency recommends:

The location test certificate threshold for LPG, propane and butanes remain

at 100 kg;

For installations containing < 300 kg of the substances subsequent

compliance checking may be conducted as set out in an approved code of

practice or by a test certifier; and

The addition of a requirement that it is an offence to deliver LPG, propane

or butanes to a location that does not have a valid location test certificate.

Tank Wagon Parking Requirements


27 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the default requirement of spray

cages over all tank wagons carrying LPG which are parked for longer than 1 hour be

removed and replaced by a risk assessment using section 12 of AS/NZS 1596 for each

storage premises.

28 The applicant considers that the removal of the blanket requirements and replacement

with a risk assessment at each site would mean that spray cages would only be required

where the risks assessment indicated that this was necessary. Moving to a risk

assessment for all sites could result in potential savings on those sites that have no need

for a spray cage.

Submitter Response

29 Submitters indicated that they had concerns about the content of any risk assessment and

suggested a number of factors that should be considered, including adjoining land use.

The DoL indicated that they did not believe that the existing HSNO requirements were

onerous to comply with and questioned the suitability of the risk assessment processes in

AS/NZS 1596 as identified by the applicant.

Applicants Response to Submitters

30 The applicant‘s response to the submissions indicated that they would seek agreement

with ERMA New Zealand regarding the content of any risk assessment.


31 The Agency considers that providing alternatives to the default requirements for spray

cages is appropriate, as long as the alternative methods address and control the risks

associated with parked tank wagons that contain LPG, propane or butanes.



32 The Agency recommends that the variation to Regulation 42 of the Hazardous

Substances (Tank Wagons and Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 as stated in

the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer

Notice 2004 is not applied to the approvals for LPG, propane and butanes and that the

following variation be added:

“Regulation 42 of the Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagons and Transportable

Containers) Regulations 2004 applies to road tank wagons containing liquified

petroleum gas, propane or butane as if the following subclauses were inserted after

subclause (5):

(6) When a liquefied petroleum gas tank wagon with a capacity of 12,000 litres or

greater is parked for a period of time greater than one hour, fire fighting facilities

must be provided, such facilities must include a spray system capable of

delivering water to the exposed surfaces of the tank at a rate of 600 litres per

square metre per hour, and equipped with an automatic spray system that—

(a) detects fire; and

(b) starts delivering water to the tank; and

(c) can be manually controlled from a safe location,

provided that the tank wagon is parked whilst containing liquefied petroleum gas

in gaseous form only, a hydrant system equipped with a monitor or equivalent

means to direct water to all sides of the tank need only be provided.

(7) the Authority may vary the requirements of subclause (6)─

(a) by approving a code of practice under section 79 of the Act that specifies

requirements equivalent to those specified by subclause (6); or

(b) upon application by the person in charge of a location at which a tank

wagon containing liquefied petroleum gas is parked.

(8) when considering whether to grant an application made under (7)(b), the

Authority must have regard to─

(a) the separation distance between the tank wagon and an area of high

intensity land use or an area of low intensity land use (as the case may be);

and

(b) any hazards located within the site where the tank wagon is parked; and

(c) the exposure of the tank wagon to or from any other property; and

(d) the available water supply; and

(e) the likely response time and available resources of the local units of the

New Zealand Fire Service; and

(f) any other matter the Authority thinks fit.”


Separation distances for cylinder and tank storage


33 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the separation distances for

cylinder and tank storage of LPG from AS/NZS 1596 replace those stated in the

Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer

Notice.

34 The applicant considers that AS/NZS 1596 represents international best practice and

therefore the adoption of the separation distances in this standard would result in no

increase in risk. As AS/NZ 1596 is already used by industry for many issues, the

applicant considers that changing to the separation distances in AS/NZS 1596 would add

simplicity to the regime.

Submitter Response

35 One submitter noted that AS/NZS 1596 is called up in some District Plans or conditions

of Resource Consents which causes conflict with the existing HSNO requirements.

Other submissions suggested that the impact of the change in the separation distances on

the other parts of the transfer notice must be considered before approving the adoption of

the separation distances in AS/NZS 1596.


36 The Agency has undertaken an analysis of the impact of adopting the separation

distances for cylinder and tank storage of LPG from AS/NZS 1596. This analysis can be

found in Appendix 4.

37 The Agency notes that the requirements specified in Table 4.1 of AS/NZS 1596 for

separation distances from cylinders appear to be stricter than those required by Table (2)

of clause 30 of Schedule 10 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and

Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004. Therefore, adoption of the values in

Table 4.1 of AS/NZS 1596 would mean that a number of existing installations would

become non-compliant and result in compliance costs. As the increased compliance cost

is not deemed to be balanced by a clear benefit, the Agency considers that Table 4.1

AS/NZS 1596 should not be adopted. Industry are, however, welcome to use the stricter

separation distances in Table 4.1 of AS/NZS 1596 should they wish to do so.


38 Based on its analysis, the Agency recommends that the separation distances from tanks

identified in Table (3) of clause 30 of Schedule 10 of the Hazardous Substances

(Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 are not

applied to the approvals for LPG, propane and butanes. These values will be replaced

with the separation distances as specified in Table 6.1 of AS/NZS 1596. This

amendment does not include the adoption of the values for tanks with vapour draw-off,

as specified in Table 6.1 of AS/NZS 1596, as HSNO does not allow for this eventuality.


Fire extinguisher requirements for domestic properties


39 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the requirement for a fire

extinguisher at locations where more than 50 kg of LPG should not be applied to

domestic properties, rather it should be limited to places of work. This was the case

prior to 2004 and the applicant believes that the original concept was adequate.

40 The applicant considers that there has been a large increase in domestic LPG facilities

over the last 10 years and that there is no evidence of incidents involving fire on or

around such installations and therefore there is no incident information to support the

requirement. Furthermore, should such an incident occur, householders are not trained

in the use of fire extinguishers on LPG fires and therefore any attempt by an untrained

householder to fight such a fire would result in an increased risk of harm to the

householder.

41 In addition, the applicant considers that the requirement is unenforceable as the vast

majority of domestic LPG installations have a capacity under the current 100 kg trigger

for a location test certificate and are therefore not checked for compliance with the fire

extinguisher requirement, the existence of which is completely unknown to the domestic

consumer. The domestic consumer may only be aware of their legal liability in the case

of something going wrong, when they may be faced with an insurance issue.

42 The applicant considers that limiting the requirement to workplaces would result in

significant cost savings for domestic consumers. The removal of this unnecessary

requirement would mean a reduction in the compliance costs associated with the use of

LPG.

Submitter Response

43 While the majority of submitters supported limiting the requirement to workplaces, the

New Zealand Fire Service submitted that it considered that fire extinguishers are useful

tools to control a fire and in their view they should be present. The Fire Service also

considers that the costs associated with the purchase of a fire extinguisher are not

significant. However, the Fire Service noted that fire extinguishers should only be used

to fight a fire in certain circumstances.


44 The Agency considers that the amendment to Regulation 21 of the Hazardous

Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 that was enacted in 2004 was

not intended to remove the limitation of the fire extinguisher requirements to places of

work. The Agency considers that this was an unintended consequence of the

amendment. Furthermore, the Agency considers that while the presence of a fire

extinguisher at locations were greater than 50 kg of LPG is advisable, making this a legal

requirement for domestic properties cannot be justified on a cost/benefit basis.


45 The Agency recommends that the approvals for LPG, propane and butanes be amended

so that the requirements of Regulation 21 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency

Management) Regulations 2001 are limited to a place of work where more than 50 kg of

the substances are present.


Aggregation of Separation Distances for Vaporisers


46 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the requirement in clause 55(4)

of Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic

Substances) Transfer Notice 2004, that separation distances for vaporisers be based on

the aggregate capacity of vaporisers, should be removed. The applicant advises that

AS/NZS 1596 states that aggregation is not required and each vaporiser has to comply

with the relevant separation distances based on their individual capacity.

47 The applicant indicated that there are a number of existing installations that do not

comply with the current HSNO requirement for aggregation. The applicant considers

that alignment with AS/NZS 1596 in this matter will avoid significant costs associated

with alterations to those installations, without any measurable decrease in safety.

Submitter Response

48 With the exception of the submission from the New Zealand Fire Service, the

submissions indicated support for the proposal. The New Zealand Fire Service

submission provided no specific reasons for their opposition to the proposal.


49 The Agency considers that separation distances based on the individual capacity of each

of the vaporisers are sufficient to manage the risks and that alignment with AS/NZS

1596 in this matter will result in reduced compliance costs for existing installations.


50 The Agency recommends that the approvals for LPG, propane and butane be modified so

that clause 55(4) of Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and

Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 does not apply to these substances.

Stationary Container System Certification Requirements


51 In the application document, the applicant proposed that the requirement for stationary

container system certification, as specified in Regulation 91 of Schedule 8 of the

Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer

Notice 2004, is not applied to LPG, propane and butane. The applicant proposed that

any requirements not already covered by the Pressure Equipment, Cranes and Passenger

Ropeways (PECPR) Regulations 1999 be transferred to the location certification

requirements.

52 The applicant considers that many of the requirements captured by stationary container

system certification are already adequately addressed by the PECPR Regulations and that

those requirements that are not captured, may be addressed by addition to the location

certification requirements.

53 The applicant considers that removing the stationary container system requirements for

the substances will not result in an increase in risk and will result in a reduction in

significant costs to industry.


Submitter Response

54 The DoL submitted that since Test Certifiers who issue stationary container system

certificates can also issue location test certificates and that certification for a site may be

combined and efficiencies to be gained would be minimal. The DoL also suggested that

providing an exemption for LPG would be inconsistent with how other substances stored

in tanks were managed under Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous

Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 and that this would create

additional complexities inside the HSNO control framework.


55 The Agency has undertaken an analysis of those requirements of the stationary container

system certification that have equivalent requirements under the PECPR Regulations and

identified those that do not. This analysis can be found in Appendix 5. Based on this

analysis, the requirements of stationary container system certification (as specified in

Regulation 92 of Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and

Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004) that will require transfer to the

location test certificate are as follows:

92(2)(b)(viii) the separation requirements specified in Part 5;

92(2)(b)(ix) fire fighting systems;

92(2)(b)(xi) plans specified in clause 81;

92(2)(e) if the stationary container system includes a vaporiser, the vaporiser

complies with clause 55; and

92(2)(j) records specified in clause 81.

56 The Agency considers that the removal of the requirement for a stationary container

system certificate for LPG, propane and butane will provide significant cost savings to

industry. Those provisions not already covered by the PECPR Regulations may be

transferred to the location test certification requirements without compromising the

safety of the installations.


57 The Agency recommends that the approvals for LPG, propane and butane be amended to

remove the requirement for stationary container system certification and that those

requirements not covered by the PECPR Regulations be transferred to the location test

certification requirements for the substances.

Best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous

substances

58 Before the Authority can approve amendments to the approval of a substance, they must

take into account─

―The best international practices and standards for the safe management of the hazardous

substances.‖


59 The grounds provided by the applicant included a review of international LPG controls,

notably:

(a) In the United Kingdom, storage locations and equipment must be installed by a

certified Gas Fitter. Appliances must be approved under the EU Gas Appliances

Directive. No licensing requirements were identified other than small retail and

commercial sites being subject to inspection by fire service officers. Facilities

greater than 25 tonnes are subject to the Control of Major Accident Hazards

(COMAH) regulations.

(b) In Australia, individual States provide their own legislation although substantively

based on AS/NZS 1596. In Queensland the legislation deals with the workplace

and not domestic installations. There is no obligation for the occupier to hold a

licence if the quantity is below the minor storage limit of 250 kg.

In New South Wales compliance with the legislation is required where there is 300

kg connected for use, and 150 kg when not in use. In Southern Australia and

Tasmania, a licence is required where the quantity exceeds 250 kg. In Victoria

holders of LPG in excess of 2,500 kg are required to notify the authorities.

(c) In the USA, LPG is managed under national fire legislation (NFPA 58) although

individual States may require notification, typically where the quantity exceeds

3,500 kgs. There is no requirement for licensing.

(d) The review included Japan and Singapore. The former has a high use of LPG.

LPG cylinders are not allowed indoors and most households have are fitted with

automatic monitoring systems. The latter seems to be based on the US system.

60 The proposed amendment to the location test certification requirements for the

substances will mean that the New Zealand requirements are not inconsistent with other

jurisdictions.

61 The applicant advises that no other jurisdiction requires a blanket requirement for spray

cages over parked tank wagons. All require a risk assessment approach. Therefore, the

proposed amendment will more closely align with international best practice.

62 The separation distance requirements in AS/NZS 1596 for cylinder and tank storage and

vaporisers are used throughout Australia and are based on international standards for the

management of LPG.

63 The applicant indicated that they were not aware of any other jurisdiction that regulates

fire extinguisher requirements for domestic installations. Therefore the removal of this

requirement would be in line with international best practice.

64 The stationary container system certification requirements that will be amended, so they

are either covered by the PECPR Regulations or transferred to the location test

certificate. This will maintain the existing standard.

65 The Agency considers that all the proposed amendments are consistent with best

international practice and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances.


Transitional period for implementation of new controls

66 The Agency considers that it will not be practical for the proposed new controls to be

introduced immediately. Hence the Agency proposes a transitional period to avoid

unnecessary compliance costs.

67 The Agency proposes that a six month ‗transitional‘ period should apply before the

proposed control variations come into effect (this period commencing on the date of the

Authority‘s decision on any variations to the controls)

CONCLUSION

68 The Agency recommends the following regarding the approvals for LPG, propane and

butane:

1. Location test certification:

(a) The location test certificate threshold for LPG, propane and butane remain at

100 kg;

(b) For installations containing < 300 kg of the substances subsequent

compliance checking may be conducted as set out in an approved code of

practice or by a test certifier; and

(c) The addition of a requirement that it is an offence to deliver the substances

to a location that does not have a valid location test certificate.

2. Tank wagon requirements:

The variation to Regulation 42 of the Hazardous Substances (Tank Wagons and

Transportable Containers) Regulations 2004 as stated in the Hazardous Substances

(Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 is not

applied to the approvals for LPG, propane and butane and a revised requirement

which allows alternatives to spray cage requirements is added.

3. Separation distances for cylinder and tank storage:

The separation distances identified in Table (3) of clause 30 of Schedule 10 of the

Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances)

Transfer Notice 2004 are not applied to the approvals for LPG, propane and

butane. These values are replaced with the separation distances as specified in

Table 6.1 of AS/NZS 1596. This amendment does not include the adoption of the

values for tanks with vapour draw-off as specified in Table 6.1.

4. Fire extinguisher requirements for domestic properties:

The approvals for LPG, propane and butane are amended so that the requirements

of Regulation 21 of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management)

Regulations 2001 are limited to a place of work where more than 50 kg of the

substances are present.

5. Separation distances for vaporisers:

The approvals for LPG, propane and butane are modified so that clause 55(4) of

Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic

Substances) Transfer Notice 2004 does not apply to these substances.


6. Stationary Container System Certification

The approvals for LPG, propane and butane are amended to remove the

requirement for stationary container system certification and those requirements

not covered by the PECPR Regulations are transferred to the location test

certification requirements for the substances.

69 The Agency recommends that a six month transition period be applied for

implementation of the changes to the approvals of the substances.


APPENDIX 1 DECISION PATH


APPENDIX 2 - Parties Notified A G (Andy) Miller & Co Limited

A to Z Diving

AA Solutions Limited

AberGas Ltd

Accreditation Limited

Adventure Dive (Rotorua) Limited

Adventure Dive Gisborne

Adventure Education Hawkes Bay (Dive Centre)

Adventure Watersports

A-Gas Australia P/L

Agribusiness Training Ltd

Agriculture New Zealand

Agriculture New Zealand, PPG Wrightsons Ltd

Air and Power Centre-1997 Limited t/a Air and Power Toolshed

Air Liquide New Zealand Limited

Air Matters Limited

Air Products and Chemicals Inc

Air Technology Limited

Airfabrico Ltd

Airflowe Ltd

Airtech International Inc

Allan Autogas Limited

Allgas Products

ANZIGA

AsureQuality Limited - Head Office

Australia New Zealand Industrial Gas Association

B and B Plumbing

B.O.C. Gases

Barrier Gas Limited

Bay Dive and Fishing Tackle

Benchmark Building Supplies

Blenheim Dive Centre

BOC Gases New Zealand Limited

BP Oil New Zealand Limited

Bunnings Limited T/A Benchmark Building Supplies

Can Train Limited

Canterbury Cylinder Testing

Capital Dive Services Ltd

Cascades Dive

Cathedral Cove Dive Ltd

Certified Limited

Chemsafety Limited

Christchurch City Council

Chubb NZ Limited

Coastal Cylinder Testing

Collievale Enterprises

Contract Air Ltd

Contract Environmental Limited

Cook 'N' With Gas

Cornerstone Industry Training Limited

Coromandel Fish & Dive

CSL Technical and Training Services

C-Test Limited/Imtest Laboratory Ltd

Cylinder Test Laboratory Gisborne


Cylinder Testing Services

Dangerous Goods Compliance Ltd

Department of Conservation

Department of Labour

Dive and Ski HQ

Dive Centre Ltd

Dive Connection

Dive HQ

Dive Kaikoura

Dive Otago Limited

Dive Picton

Dive Supplies 2002 Limited

Dräger Safety Pacific Pty Ltd

Earth2Ocean

Eastern Bay Cylinders

Eastern Institute of Technology

Educhem Limited

Elgas Limited

Emery Holding 2002 Limited t/a Rockgas Greymouth

En Gaston

Envirocom (NZ) Limited

Enviroservices (2002) Limited

Evatech

Evonik Degussa Peroxide Ltd

Fire Corp Industries NZ Ltd

Fire Extinguishers Limited

Fire Protection Southland

Firewise

Firework Professionals Limited

Furmanite New Zealand Limited

G.B Invercargill LTD

Gage Services Limited

Gas & Petrochemical ITO

Gas & Pipeline Services

Gas & Tool Direct

Gas & Tyre Centre Limited T/A Greerton Service Station

Gas & Tyre Services

Gas Appliance Suppliers Association

Gas Association of New Zealand Incorporated

Gas Company Wanaka Ltd T/A Rockgas Wanaka

Gas Eketahuna Limited

Gas 'n' Gear

Gas New Brighton

Gas Pro

Gas, Fire & Cylinder Services

GasCo

Gasoline Alley Services Limited

Gasworkz Limited

GBI Gas Company Limited

Geils Gas Cylinder Test Station

Global Dive

Go Deep Scuba Ltd

Greater Wellington - The Regional Council

Grow and Spray Ways Limited

Grow Protech Limited

Hamilton Plumbing Co Ltd


Hawkes Bay Gas Supply

Haz Subs Certifications Limited

Haz Subs Services Limited

Haz-Answers New Zealand Limited

Hazardous Substances Inspection Services

Hazbar Certification Ltd

HazEnviro Solutions Ltd

HazKnow Limited

HAZSUB Systems

Haz-Subs Solutions Limited

Hope International

Hulmegas

Independent Consultancy Services Limited

Inferno Consultants

International Accreditation New Zealand

John Bennett & Dale Garrick T/A Eastern Gas & Hire

JohnsonDiversey Australia Pty Ltd

JohnsonDiversey New Zealand Limited

Kajes Petroleum Waiheke Ltd T/A Rockgas Waiheke

Kelly Tarltons Underwater World

Kwikill Limited

Land Based Training

Liquigas Limited

LPG & Safety Consultants

LPG Association of NZ (Inc.)

Luxfer Gas Cylinders

M J Nankivell HazTec Ltd

Mander Plumbing Limited

Marlborough Cylinder Testing

Marua Road GAS

Massey University

Master Drive Services Ltd

Master Plumbers & Gasfitters ITO

Mico Plumbing & Pipelines

Mincorp Agencies (Tergo Industries)

Ministry of Economic Development – Energy Safety Division

Ministry for the Environment

Ministry of Health

Mitre 10 (NZ) Ltd

Mount Dive Shop

National Gas Limited

Natural Gas Corporation

Nelson Fire Protection Limited

New Plymouth Underwater Limited

New Zealand Army

New Zealand Defence Force

New Zealand Fire Service

New Zealand Gaskets Limited

New Zealand Police

New Zealand Retailers Association Inc.

New Zealand Underwater

NGC Kapuni Gas Treatment Plant

North Canterbury Gas Ltd

Nova Fire Safety Services Ltd

Nova Gas Limited T/A Hulmegas

NZ Sea Adventures Mana/Dive Spot


OH & S Services Limited

On Gas Limited

Orakei Dive Shop

Peak Risk Management Limited

Peebles Owen Westburn Limited T/A BP Gas City

Peggemma Properties

PK Gas Services

Placemakers

Plant and Platform Consultants Ltd

Plumbing World

Porirua Cylinder Testing Laboratory

Port Fitzroy Dive Station

Pro Cylinder Testing Ltd

Prowin Company Limited t/a Gas Mt Roskill

QEC Quality Environmental Consulting Ltd

Quality and Safety Management Limited

R.K. Service Station Limited T/A Gas Swanson

Ray lambert Plumbing Ltd

Richmond Sports Power

Rockgas

Ron Richdale Fire Equipment Services Limited

Royal New Zealand Airforce

RSM Consultants

Safety Solutions Ltd

Snells Beach Dive and Fish

Southern Aqua Adventures

Southern Gas Services Limited

Southern Monitoring Services Limited

Southland District Council

Splash Gordon Limited

Sportsworld Whakatane Ltd

Stirlings Dive Shack

T and L Testers

Tairua Dive and Fishinn

Tank Inspection and Certification Limited

Tank Test Laboratories Limited

Taranaki Regional Council

Tauranga Cylinder Testing

Technical Strategy Group Limited

The Australian Gas Association

The Dive Connection (2003) Limited

The Dive Doctor

The Dive Inn

The Gasman NZ Limited

Timaru Plumbing and Gas Centre

TMR Limited

Total Automation Ltd

Twizel Plumbing Supplies

Underwater Sports

Underwater World/ Performance Diver NZ Ltd

Vector - Wellington Office

Vector Gas

VT Fitzroy Limited

Wanganui Gas

Watco Plumbing Limited

Westland Diver Services


Whangamata Plumbing & Drainage

Whitianga Sports Centre Ltd

Wilson & Choat Plumbing Limited

Work Injury Care Limited

Wormald

Wormald Cylinder Test Station

Worthington Cylinders GmbH

Zip Plumbing Supplies


APPENDIX 3

Summary of Submissions

Modified Reassessment of LPG, Propane and Butane (Application Number HRE09001)

Index of Submitters

Submission # Submitter Organisation Requesting to be

heard

1 Debbie Fielder Institute of Refrigeration, Heating and Air Conditioning

Engineers of New Zealand (IRHACE)

No

2 Harry Flannigan Test Certifier No

3 Jack Travis Tauranga City Council No

4 Dick Thornton-Grimes New Zealand Fire Service No

5 Kevin Bailey LPG & Safety Consultants Ltd No

6 Gayle Smith BOC Ltd No

7 Jim Mackness Test Certifier No

8 Michael Farrier ─ No

9 Rex Alexander Envirocom (NZ) Ltd Yes

10 Rob Milner Roma 25 Ltd No

11 Kim Comben Department of Labour No

12 Kevin Daly Contact Energy Ltd Yes

13 Peter Hallett New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) Yes


Submissions

Submitter Support/

Opposed

Submission LPGA Response

Location Test Certification Threshold

IRHACE Support No specific comment

Harry

Flannigan

Opposed I think the LPGA request to exclude up to 300 kgs of LPG from controls is

ridiculous, considering the recent fires and explosion fatalities with this

product. There would not have been more than this amount involved in the

cool store explosion considering the ratio of 270/1 and vol/air ration of

28/30 to 1. If anything I would recommend the controls be stricter and

require controls at 45 kgs.

The only recent significant fire and explosion relating to

LPG was the Hamilton cool store fire, which did not

involve the storage of LPG, but the use of LPG in a

system, which is completely outside the matters

considered for this application.

Tauranga

City Council

Opposed I think that the trigger for a Location cert should remain at 100 kg.

New

Zealand Fire

Service

Opposed The document advises on page 29 that the data records (2001 - 2003)

appear to be comprehensive and the accuracy of incident rates is relatively

good. We content the data is inaccurate and for a third of data period used

owing to industrial action by fire fighters throughout 2001.

We note the UK HSE's publication "Reducing Risks, Protecting People"

advises on the risk values in the document "We must also stress that these

criteria are merely guidelines to be interpreted with commonsense and are

not intended to be rigid benchmarks to be complied with". The risk

frequencies used from this document are for workplaces that impact

society, not for societal risk per se, i.e. a residential rate in isolation.

LPG hazards indicate cylinders don't normally BLEVE. This is incorrect;

our experience is that cylinders do BLEVE. Fire fighters do report such

instances but this may not form part of a fire report for cause and origin

We do not believe industrial action by the Fire Service

in 2001 would have reduced information of 45kg LPG

cylinder incidents. Either the Industry would have

known or OSH would have been informed.

There is no single universally accepted definition of

societal risk. The planning method alluded to by

submitters is design for use in assessing safety risk at

major hazardous installation affecting the adjacent

populations. This method is not appropriate for

assessing risks at numerous sites involving relatively

small quantities of LPG.

The MWH report is very clear on how risks were

calculated in the report.


purposes when conducting a fire investigation.

In the main LPGA application para (d) makes the implicit connection

between a control being unenforceable and thus a contributory factor for

the removal of that control in this case a fire extinguisher at a residential

address. This stance undermines the argument put forward to removing test

certification and increasing training competent person who effectively

becomes the only oversight upon installation. If a safety control that by

implication is not enforced becomes even more unenforceable how does

this provide greater safety?

The hazard exposure and risk assessment of what is at risk completely

omits emergency responders. This is essential against an already low level

of test certification compliance. No thought is given on what further

deregulation and oversight may mean for to the very people who will have

to end up tackling the problem we see the LPGA submission creating.

There is no information in the document on what the effect is of putting

larger stores of LPG as NZ moves towards a medium and high density

housing context. Such storage can take place now but frequently a home

will have 90kg. With the LPGA encouraging the move to ever higher

quantities (up to 300kg) of LPG a risk and cost benefit should be included.

In this way the risk assessment is neither systematic nor complete as per

ERMA publication ER-TG-05-02 03/09.

Appendix 1 is out of date and out of step with international thinking in a

number of areas, for example "LPG compared to reticulated natural gas...

the intrinsic hazard....is more flammable and explosive than LPG". The

more recent ICL report finds "Because of its greater density and its

flammability in air at lower concentrations, LPG presents a greater hazard

than natural gas."

The document ―Reducing Risks, Protecting People‖

gives some UK examples of risks expressed with respect

to the entire (UK) population, see Table 2 on page 78,

which includes ―Gas incident (fire, explosion or carbon

monoxide poisoning)‖ quoted as having a risk of 1

(death) in 1,350,000 people. Note this risk is not limited

to small installations of LPG only, so cannot be directly

compared to the figures quoted in the MWH report for

New Zealand, but illustrates the presentation of risk to

society as whole in the form of odds, which can be

translated directly into an annual average risk figure

(Response from MWH).

We have no information regarding bleves of LPG

cylinders. We do not believe either DOL or ERMA have

this information either, so must question this statement.

Our argument is not only that the current requirements

are poorly complied with, but that this level of non

compliance has clearly not resulted in incidents.

Therefore a no cost system implemented by the Industry

to replace an expensive system which is not being

complied with will not reduce safety. Also having the

Industry take responsibility for this checking would

provide complete coverage of all sites rather than just

those which have applied for a location certificate and

therefore increase safety for these currently non

certified sites.

After speaking to the Fire Service I believe their real

concern is one of having knowledge of whether there are

hazardous substances used on a site that they have been


In effect the LPGA is requesting deregulation of the LPG installations with

a trust us approach and the use of competent persons. The Fire Service

accepts the ICL inquiry is for a larger fixed installation but unequivocal

about the need for oversight "A verification scheme would, I think, have

averted this disaster". NZ already has just such a scheme it is called a test

certificate.

Since 2006 the Hazardous Substance Advisor (HSA) for the Auckland Fire

Region has been conducting inspections of hazardous substance locations

under Section 29 of the Fire Service Act 1995. In this time there have been

505 documented inspections. The 2nd most frequent reason for

recommending a test certificate is because a location has over the trigger

threshold for LPG. ERMANZ itself has previously acknowledged the low

level of test certification compliance (30 - 40%) against what was predicted

out of the transition from the old Dangerous Goods regime to HSNO. The

LPGA does not address how deregulation against an already low base of

compliance will lead to increased compliance. The Fire Service is

concerned that the removal of independent verification for the storage of

significant quantities of LPG where the market becomes the sole regulator

(unless an incident occurs in which it is too late) and can only lead to a

"race for the bottom" in which the lowest common denominator prevails.

called to. Whether the installation is certified or not, the

Fire service will not have this information. This could

be covered by the Industry providing the Fire Service

with this information.

Also there will not be an automatic move to more

cylinders on sites, as cylinders cost money both for the

Industry and the customer. An increase to storage will

only occur if needed.

This is a reference to an incident involving degraded

LPG piping running through a factory and has no

relevance to the storage of LPG in 45kg cylinders other

than the heavier than air nature of LPG.

Again the inquiry relates to LPG in piping and as we

understand it is the UKLPGA which is undertaking a

survey of LPG Installations, not the HSE. The storage of

LPG cylinders in the UK does not require certification

by a Test certifier and still does not following this

inquiry.

This illustrates that customers are not complying with

the requirements of HSNO compared to the old DG

license requirements which we believe is a result of the

increased cost of a location certificate which is required

every 12 months.

We believe our proposal for the Industry to run the

compliance checking in future is an entirely valid

option. Firstly the Industry knows about all installations

rather than just what has been issued with a location

certificate, secondly it is in the interests of the Industry

to ensure the ongoing safety of consumer installations


and thirdly once the responsibility for checking

compliance has been passed to the Industry this removes

the confusion of responsibility under the current system

where the Industry has no legal, or agreed responsibility

to ensure compliance.

The Industry has made attempts to check whether

installations they supply have location certificates , but

ERMA were unable to supply this information to the

Industry because of privacy issues.

LPG &

Safety

Consultants

Ltd

Opposed The LPG industry has a long history of using 45 kg cylinders for fuel

supply to a wide range of users. Twin packs (2 x 45 kg) have been very

common and rely on the gas fitter to ensure compliance with NZS 5261 Gas

Installations. We are still finding installations today that do not comply

with this standard. As recently as 13 November 2009 we were requested to

carry out an inspection of a large country resort in Martinborough. There

are 16 twin pack installations on site and 9 of those installations were built

on top of drains and all installations have been signed off by the gas fitter

as being correct. Even though the site has 1,440 kg of LPG present they are

all twin pack installations on separate buildings and therefore the site does

not require a location test certificate. We have been to a similar site in

Franz Joseph where the gas supplier and gas fitter have established 20

separate and independent twin pack installations on the site just so they

would not have to take out a location test certificate. If the gas suppliers

and gas fitters are able to do this with twin pack installations they will find

a way to install multiple 300 kg installations and no one will know they

exist.

We have a rest home client in Auckland with 23 LPG installations on site

ranging from 3 to 6 cylinders at each location. The gas supplier had given a

draft copy of the proposed LPGA checklist to the cylinder delivery driver

so they could inspect all of the installations. Each installation was signed

off as being correct and fully compliant with the requirements of the

Hazardous Substances Transfer Notice 2004. They even placed little

Using multiple twin pack installations is acceptable

under the ERMA guidelines for commercial premises.

Each twin pack is isolated from the others and

consequently can be treated as separate installations.

The suggestion that these multiple twin packs will

suddenly all become multiple 300kg, is not logical

because of the increased costs for the supplier and

customer. If any change resulted it is more likely to be

an amalgamation of the existing twin packs. Also this

could easily be remedied by an ERMA guideline

limiting the total amount of LPG on a site before a

location certificate is required.

We very much doubt/dispute the proposition that the 20

twin pack installations were decided on just to avoid a

the need for a location certificate. It is far more likely

that the individual cabins on the site are more cost

effectively served by having 20 cylinder locations rather

than one large one and then being faced with

reticulating the LPG. Again cylinders will not

proliferate for no logical reason

The check sheet is still being developed and driver

training has not commenced on the new system, so


stickers on each installation saying it had been audited and was fully

compliant. When we inspected the site to issue a location test certificate,

16 of the installations did not comply, the installations were within 2

metres of doorway openings into the various buildings, some were on top of

drains, some in front of windows, there was no fire resistant material

behind and 2 metres either side of the cylinders and there were electrical

fittings within the hazardous area zones.

The level of compliance varies between the LPG suppliers: some are

proactive and will not deliver any cylinders without the customers holding

a location test certificate. At the other extreme is a gas supplier that does

not care about compliance, they are only interested in the cylinder rental

fees. They do not actively tell the customer to obtain a location test

certificate and leave it up to a test certifier to try and find the installation. I

am currently training a new test certifier in Auckland and even he has given

up trying to get compliance on this suppliers sites, so far we have had 100%

non compliance on their sites, the majority of these are between 4-6

cylinders, the ones that will fall outside the requirements if the threshold is

raised. This gas supplier frequently delivers the cylinder to the customer‘s

front gate and tells them to connect up the cylinders without giving them

any guidance. At periods when they have staff away they will double up

the cylinders at each location and tell the customer to connect the cylinders

themselves. This occurs at Christmas time, we found one of our customers

having 40 cylinders on site in addition to the 20 on the location test

certificate all because the gas supplier did not want to make deliveries over

the Christmas period. Another gas supplier boasts that they estimate at

least 90% of their sites are non compliant and very few have location test

certificates, they do not tell their customers to get the certificates.

I do not think that the drivers will report any non compliant installations.

The majority of cylinder delivery drivers are self employed contractors who

must deliver a certain quantity of cylinders each day or be penalized. After

speaking to a number of drivers, both company and self employed, they say

they will not have time to fill out check sheets and when they have reported

judging the proposal on this one early attempt is unfair.

The majority of drivers are employed by the LPG

suppliers, for those that are contracted this requirement

will be added to the contract requirements.


substandard installations in the past nothing gets done to fix them.

The LPGA has proposed the training of gas fitters to do the inspection

work, most of the gas fitters are on loyalty payments to gas suppliers, so

there is no way they will report substandard work to the gas supplier that

pays them.

On Monday this week (16 November) we had a site referred to use by an

opposition gas supplier, the site had 4 x 45 kg cylinders in a cage against a

car wash lean-to. The cylinders were used to decant fill smaller cylinders

for camper vans. On investigation the installation did not meet the cylinder

filling station requirements, there were no scales on site to weigh the

cylinders, the staff did not have any training, there were no approved fillers,

no approved handler and the gas supplier was annoyed we had found the

site and now has a lot of remedial work to do.

Some of our customers do not want to see the threshold increased, they do

not place any reliance on the gas supplier to check the installation, and are

more than happy with an independent third party inspection such as that

undertaken by a test certifier. Problems have arisen were test certifiers

have given very poor and very expensive service which has put a lot of

people off obtaining a location test certificate. An example is a school in

Auckland we have recently certified. There are 10 x 45 kg cylinders on

site; our quote for the work was $281.25; Auckland certifier‘s charges were

$750.00 (mileage extra), $1,000 and $1,200.

I do not believe the LPG threshold should be raised to 300 kg. The LPG

industry has demonstrated by its own actions it is not ready to put any

credible inspection or auditing system in place. There are still a large

number of installations that are non compliant, one company estimates this

to be as high as 30,000 sites, and the gas suppliers do not care, they see

compliance with HSNO as a hindrance to their business. If the threshold is

raised to 300 kg there should still be some form of third party inspection to

ensure there is full compliance with the HSNO requirements. They are not

We do not agree with the logic of this argument. The

gasfitter is a qualified competent person. If properly

informed of HSNO requirements they will follow agreed

procedures. We have been in contact with the Master

Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers NZ and they have

agreed to make their members aware of the LPGA multi

cylinder code of practice and will include it in their

upskilling courses. We will also be talking to the ITO to

include it in the core gasfitter training.

Our proposal to increase the location certificate

quantity does not include filling sites.

Agree high fees are putting customers off obtaining a

location test certificate. Our proposal will mean that at

least the below 300kg installations will be at least

checked for compliance by the Industry.

The Industry does care and systems to check customer

compliance have been tried. The advantage of an

Association agreement is that all the suppliers will be

agreeing to carry out the same checking process which

means it is far more likely to be followed through.

At the meeting we have all the industry represented and

we disagree with this estimate.


that difficult to comply with. Over the past 5 years at items we have found

it frustrating dealing with this industry and may times have seriously

looked at giving up due to the lack of co-operation from the gas suppliers to

ensure installations are compliant and certified. If the threshold is raised

this situation will only get worse due to the current large number of non-

compliant installations.

I am prepared to give photographic evidence of these sites should you

require this.

BOC Ltd Support No specific comment

Jim

Mackness

Opposed My issue is with Item 1 - "To increase location test threshold from 100kg to

300kg".

I refer first to the Building Industry and leaky homes where pressure on the

Building Industry in the past I suggest resulted in a reduction of basic

standards and rules which ultimately lead to many "leaky building"

problems. The costs and heart ache involved in this must be considerable.

I also refer to the recent "Hamilton Icepack" incident and loss of life. This

horrendous accident I understand involved only 400kg of LPG with such

devastating effect.

There is no doubt that LPG as well as being a commonly used substance, is

also a highly hazardous substance having the potential to be extremely

dangerous even in small quantities.

Test Certifiers are currently employed by Owners / Companies who have

quantities of on-site LPG in excess of the threshold level of 100kg. They

advise on the safe storage, use, and general requirements of the Hazardous

Substance and New Organism Act and Regulations (HSNO). When

satisfied with compliance the Test Certifier issues a "Site Certificate".

This is not relevant to this discussion as it did not

involve any LPG storage systems or certification of such

systems. It involved the use of LPG in an installation

and would not have been certified under the current

regime. It would also not be included in our proposed

increase to the trigger limit.

This will all be covered by the Gasfitter and the LPG

Supplier.


Reasons for opposing change to the threshold level:

1. Raising the level to 300kg of LPG would mean a site with less than that

quantity would not require the services and expertise of a Test Certifier

or require a Site Certificate.

2. A site of only LPG below the proposed threshold level of 300kg (i.e. no

other hazardous substances on-site), would never receive Test Certifier

safety checks or advice.

This I suggest must put staff and public safety at risk. Persons on-site

safety is of paramount importance.

3. Raising the threshold level must be a lowering of standards in a similar

manner to that of the Building Industry and "leaky buildings". Not a road I

suggest ERMA should consider going down.

4. 100kg of LPG has been the trigger level for years in both current and

past legislation. This has worked well, is recognized throughout the

country, and is to my knowledge a level that is satisfactory to industry.

Recommendations

1. That the LPG threshold level of 100kg remain as is:

2. That "Test Certifier's" qualified by ERMA for Class 2 products be

the only persons able to issue "Site Certificates" for LPG.

Michael

Farrier

Opposed Insufficient information has been provided to justify the proposed increase

of the test certification thresholds. Current storage and use practices have

not been considered and the current level of governance of users by the

suppliers has not been evaluated. Any review of threshold requirements

should be based on a review of current New Zealand practice rather than a

review of incidents involving LPG. If international practices and

regulations are to be considered as justification, the current outcomes of

their application of them and the associated enforcement also needs to be

reviewed.

From information received in other submissions it is

clear that the current system is not working. The

industry is offering to check on all installations whether

certified or not.


No data has been provided to indicate the current situation in New Zealand

regarding use and storage.

Based on my experience of current LPG cylinder storage practices on

operating sites, practices are generally poor on sites with little appreciation

of the properties of LPG and no guidance has been provided to the

customer by the supplier. Until all LPG suppliers make an effort to ensure

that clients are complying with current HSNO requirements for LPG no

change should be made.

The LPG Association MWH report is based on a limited period of incident

data up until December 2005. There has been at least one significant

explosion incident involving a small quantity of LPG since 2005. It is also

unfortunate that no reference has been made to the original hazard

assessment work conducted in New Zealand by the Liquid Fuels Trust

Board. This was subject to a number of peer reviews and public

consultation. One report No. LF 5006 Liquids Fuels Trust Board Project

650/02/1 ―Risk Assessment of Future LPG Facilities in New Zealand, Sept

1984, provides a sound background on which to consider present day risks.

I would also like to refer ERMA a paper that reviewed domestic explosions

from small LPG containers in the United Kingdom (Domestic Explosion

Hazards from Small LPG Containers, S Ames and D Crowhurst, J. of

Hazardous Materials 19 1988) that is worthy of consideration in regard

general domestic use of LPG and also aerosol cans. I have not referred to

the Wakelin report (2004) – it may have been considered in that report.

In respect to reference in the paper to Societal Risk, I believe that this has

been used out of context of its normal use. The term ―Societal Risk‖ has

been developed as a land use planning tool and the assessment of the risk to

the surrounding population from a single event (accident). In my opinion

the assessment of societal risk based on a number of events over time is not

appropriate. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to refer to it as the

annual risk of death of risk of death in New Zealand population from LPG

use.

Not sure what is being asked for here.

Suppliers provide MSD‘s to their customers and will

explain any issues if asked.

Cool store incident not relevant.

The LFTB covered the major LPG storage facilities in

NZ such as the Liquigas Depots and not relevant to 45kg

installations.

There is no single universally accepted definition of

societal risk. The planning method alluded to by

submitters is design for use in assessing safety risk at

major hazardous installation affecting the adjacent

populations. This method is not appropriate for

assessing risks at numerous sites involving relatively

small quantities of LPG.


Before a decision is made to increase the threshold of LPG the gas industry

needs to demonstrate that they can support LPG users in ensuring that LPG

cylinders are stored and used in an appropriate manner. In my visits to well

over 50 sites in recent times I have seen few examples that this is occurring.

Just to use one specific issue as an example, the storage of LPG cylinders is

often in a location that drains to an adjacent storm water drain.

The MWH report is very clear on how risks were

calculated in the report.

The document ―Reducing Risks, Protecting People‖

gives some UK examples of risks expressed with respect

to the entire (UK) population, see Table 2 on page 78,

which includes ―Gas incident (fire, explosion or carbon

monoxide poisoning)‖ quoted as having a risk of 1

(death) in 1,350,000 people. Note this risk is not limited

to small installations of LPG only, so cannot be directly

compared to the figures quoted in the MWH report for

New Zealand, but illustrates the presentation of risk to

society as whole in the form of odds, which can be

translated directly into an annual average risk figure

(Response from MWH).

This is because there is currently no legal requirement

on the LPG supplier and no Industry agreed process. .

Envirocom

(NZ) Ltd

Opposed We are strongly opposed to any increase in test certification limits until:

The level of compliance with the HSNO controls on LPG cylinder

installations in excess of 100 kg improves dramatically – non

compliance on first inspection has remained about 30% nationally;

and

NZS 5261 is re-written to reference the Controls in Gazette Notice

Number 25; it currently applies to and gives examples of two

cylinder installations (90 kg) only; and

Gas Fitters receive sufficient training in the Controls for

installations over 100 kg; we continually find 1 meter separations

to building operations ― because it is in NZS 5261‖; and

There is a greater level of self compliance in the industry; and

Poor compliance because of cost of certificates.

The Industry through the LPGA is producing multi

cylinder COP to cover this issues.

Multi cylinder COP will cover this.


That the increased level of compliance is reflected in dramatic

reductions in callouts for the NZ Fire Service. LPG is still by far

the single most responded to hazardous substance facility incident

category.

The LPGA has in addition to submitting to ERMA to raise the Test

Certification trigger limit to 300 kg, also circularized every Territorial

Local Authority in the country requesting a similar increase for District

Plan Resource Consent triggers. In other words they would intend there be

no control at all for LPG cylinder locations below 300 kg other than an

acceptance of Standards, and the knowledge (or lack of) of gas fitters. As

we indicated in our submission that knowledge is dangerously substandard

for anything over 100kg and often also for 2 x 45 kg installations for which

there is no excuse, the information being extensively detailed in the gas

fitters‘ own Standard NZS5261. We believe this action by the LPGA

compounds the problem of achieving compliance with HSNO and adds

further weight to the importance of our submission.

These are related to 9kg cylinders with very few 45kg

related incidents.

Correct LA‘s should not be getting involved in HSNO

issue for such small quantities .This is not relevant to

increasing the HSNO trigger limit.

Roma 25 Ltd Opposed It is my opinion that the submission by the applicant LPGA would not

provide a continuance of basic safety standards which over the years has

proved to be successful.

As a HSNO advisor working with a ERMA appointed Test Certifier, and

we are an active company involved in daily audit processes of LPG

installations, I have concern that any eroding of proven safety standards and

processes will not provide the continuance of compliant/safe/acceptable

installations for residential –commercial – industrial clients.

I can say this as I have over 38 active years workforce experience within

this LPG industry and other HSNO workplaces and would have concern if

the existing legislation was to be altered to appease the LPG Association

and their members.

I do not support the application by LPGA or their submission for change to

the HSNO legislation currently in place

The proposal is not asking for a reduction in safety

standards rather the Industry is asking for reduction in

compliance cost which is itself a barrier to compliance.

The industry will then provide compliance checking for

its customers at no cost.


Please refer to the information relating to the failure of the Aquaknect

flexible connections and the non disclosure of these matters by the LPGA

and industry to the ERMA and appointed Test certifiers/advisors of this

faulty equipment.

This example is an indication of what will occur when there is no checking

authority or on site audit of LPG installations.

Also refer to email discussions between myself –Mr Tony Smith Senior

Tech officer-Min of EE and Mr Travis Team Leader HSNO E Officer.

It is imperative that a robust on site audit process be maintained for LPG

installations >100kg and in this respect the ERMA must not allow any

reduction of the safety standards which are currently in place to occur.

Refer to photos for examples of serious non compliance.

We liaised with Energy Safety on the recall and liaised

with ERMA. The Industry contacted all potentially

affected customers to ensure all were informed and a

0800 number was arranged to organize replacement.

This is irrelevant to our proposal.

Department

of Labour

Opposed It is somewhat disconcerting to see the MWH report attached the

application being somewhat dated, furthermore some of the accident data

was based on the period between 2001 – 2003 with no real explanation as

to why this particular period was chosen given that report was drafted in

late 2005/early 2006. It is considered that the findings and

recommendations do not really provide an up to date snapshot of the

industry. Currently the LPG industry in New Zealand has and is undergoing

large changes since the MWH report was written. There have been two new

recent entrants into the New Zealand market one of which specialises in the

insitu filling of LPG cylinders utilising LPG Bobtail tankers, cylinder

exchange and the other which is focusing a cylinder swap scheme for 9 kg

cylinders. Whilst there has been insitu filling of cylinders in New Zealand

previously there now appears to be a more vigorous approach being taken

in respect of this system of supply.

It is noted from the MWH report that the incident rate in respect of the

storage in LPG cylinders connected to supply systems is very low, (part of

which they attribute to the robust approval processes for cylinders and

The original report was prepared in 2007 and access to

meaningful safety data was not available past 2005.

However the report fundamentals would not have

changed as incidents involving 45kg cylinders have

remained extremely low.

You rightly point out that we restricted evaluation

to periods over which adequate data reporting was

available. However, contrary to your response, our

original study was commissioned in 2005 and

reported in Feb 2006, which further explains why

there is no more recent data used in our study.

(response from MWH)

Drivers filling insitu cylinders are trained fillers and


valves) however, it was pointed out that that there have been leaks at

cylinder storage sites which have been attributable to failing flexible

connections between the cylinder and the changeover valve/regulator. One

of the critical aspects in managing such events at the storage location is to

ensure that the cylinders are appropriately located in the first instance thus

minimising the potential for a greater consequence event to occur. With the

rising probability that a greater number of locations will be filled ―in situ ―

and there will be a vapour discharging as result there is a greater incentive

to ensure that the supply containers in the system are in fact appropriately

located especially as the storage quantities increase.

What is predictable if the trigger quantity that requires a hazardous

substance location is increased is that there will be a corresponding

increase in the storage of cylinders at locations from two to in all likelihood

six or larger capacity cylinders will be introduced that will ultimately

replace the existing 45kg fleet over time. The increase in cylinders or the

introduction of greater capacity cylinders may provide for a greater source

of potential leakage points and a greater volume of gas that can be

discharged at the storage point if a leak should occur.

From discussing this proposal with Test Certifiers there is concern in that

for installations over 100kg that do currently require a Location Test

Certificate there have been a number of installations that did not comply

with the HSNO requirements in respect of their location. It has to be noted

that the HSNO Gazette Notice No 35 requirements are more generous in

respect of location distances than what the previous Dangerous Goods

(Class 2- Gases) Regulations permitted. Whilst the LPA Association

proposal is to ensure that installers and suppliers will be provided with

Codes of Practice and a Checklist to ensure the installations are compliant

(industry self regulation) it will remove the independent third party

checking that occurs at present with appropriately ERMA accredited Test

Certifiers.

A direct shift of the trigger quantity to 300 kg will ultimately mean a large

approved handlers and are therefore better qualified to

check compliance for these installations than normal

cylinder delivery drivers.

It will be arguably safer to have a single 250kg cylinder

than 6 x 45kg cylinders as there is only a single

connection and valve. These are very common in

Australia and have proved as safe if not safer than 45kg

cylinders.

There will be no wholesale move to more cylinders as

discussed earlier and will depend on operational

requirements


number of installations will not be given an independent check prior to

their commissioning. It is considered critical that the installation be located

correctly in the first instance.

Comparisons have been made in the MHW report with the controls

required in other countries namely Australia, Japan, Singapore, United

Kingdom and the USA. Whilst it is considered making comparisons with

other nations on occasion can be helpful; it may also be detrimental if the

environment/systems are different to New Zealand conditions. Taking the

United Kingdom as an example there does not appear to be a large LPG

45kg cylinder market for static supply cylinders as they have a developed

supply infrastructure with natural gas reticulation and hence the reason for

the lack of controls regarding licensing therefore is it considered

inappropriate to make such a comparison.

The country New Zealand would align to most in respect of the storage and

distribution of LPG would be Australia. The MWH report infers that there

is no checking/licensing of LPG cylinders below 250 kg in New South

Wales, South Australia and Tasmania. It should be noted that at least in

New South Wales, fixed installations do have compliance plates attached

which would indicate that that some form of checking has occurred on the

installation incidentally this also applies to installations of less than 100 kg.

It is accepted that the usage rate of LPG in gas burning systems has

increased in recent times particularly with the introduction of continuous

flow hot water systems, raising the trigger quantities before a Location

Certificate is required does not alter the hazards associated with the use of

LPG in such circumstances. The industry does make the point that there

will be a resulting saving in compliance costs by increasing the trigger

level, however this must offset as to what is happening in the currently

evolving market in New Zealand.

The proposal to increase the trigger level to 300kg before a test certificate

is required is not accepted. As an alternative, what would be acceptable

UK has approx over 1 million 45 kg cylinders. Also Aus

has more than 1 million and Japan has countless 45kg

cylinders.

There is no lack of control on compliance in the UK

there is simply another way of achieving it through

Industry. Comparing our systems with other is valid and

we are not looking to reduce standards simply another

means of checking compliance.

These are for gasfitting compliance and not HSNO

compliance.

Given the submissions on our application, the

Association recognises the logic in having an initial


would be to retain the current level at 100kg and then vary the renewal

period for installations up to 300 kg with a three or five yearly renewal

period. This would significantly reduce compliance costs yet a level of

auditing to ensure that installations had been installed in accordance with

regulatory standards.

check of the installation by an independent Test

Certifier to reassure the Fire Service, Test Certifiers

and the DoL of initial compliance. However

following this initial certification there is very little

reason to insist on further certification unless

storage quantities are increased over 300kg or if the

physical surroundings are changed such that

separation distances can no longer be achieved. The

trigger for this can come from the industry checking

ongoing compliance of all installations. We believe

this is a sensible outcome which retains initial

certification but reduces ongoing consumer costs

while not compromising safety.

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support There is considerable expense for Location certificates for domestic or

commercial cylinder users and this can be prohibitive and force a user to

use another energy source or to operate with inadequate cylinder storage

leading to vaporisation, pressure drop or gas supply problems in the winter.

Other countries do not have this requirement and the checks carried out by

the Test Certifiers add little value given that the installation is installed by a

gasfitter in the first instance and the gas supplier will alert the owner to any

observed deficiencies.

New

Zealand

Professional

Firefighters

Union

Opposed No specific comment. We believe the concerns of the Fire service centre

around whether they know if LPG cylinders are going to

be encountered on site. As mentioned previously a

location certificate does not of itself inform the Fire

Service if LPG is present on a site. It should also be

remembered that all that is checked for a location

certificate for an installation between 100 and 300kg is

the distance from a drain, distance from an opening into

a building and whether the building material behind the

cylinders is fire resistant. None of these issues would be

critical to fire fighters fighting a house fire. From the

statistics LPG cylinders may be involved in fires but do

not cause fires. Also we believe our plan B proposal


should take care of the concerns as the initial

installation will be checked for compliance by a Test

Certifier.

Tank Wagon Parking Requirements

IRHACE Support No specific comment.

Tauranga

City Council

Support No specific comment.

New

Zealand Fire

Service

Opposed No specific comment.

BOC Ltd Support No specific comment.

Michael

Farrier

Opposed The report No. LF 5006 Liquids Fuels Trust Board Project 650/02/1 ―Risk

Assessment of Future LPG Facilities in New Zealand, Sept 1984 has been

referenced in this submission however details of how the new (current)

assessment of the risk compares with that presented in the report is not

included. There is substantial NZ literature related town planning and LPG

storage in regard to societal risk assessment and acceptance in the 1980‘s.

These include reports and papers by the Ministry of Works and

Development Town and Country Planning Division by Professor Roger

Keey.

If the spray cage requirement is to be removed for parked tank wagons

containing LPG, a land use planning framework needs to be established in

regard to societal risk and its acceptance (this is issue is currently being

reviewed by the HSE in the UK). Additional issues that need to be

considered in regard to parked tankers are security, availability of fire

fighting response (and water supply), seismic stability, wind direction in

respect to the exposed population and the tank wagon maintenance and

certification regime. Sensors are often provided at fixed installations to

provide an early indication of a leak of an LPG vessel. This is unlikely to

be the case in regard to a parked road tanker.

The risk assessment criteria can be agreed with

ERMA/DoL based on AS/NZS 1596.

Our request is to remove the blanket requirement and

introduce risk assessment for each site. The content of

assessment could be agreed with ERMA.

Australia removed the blanket requirement over 15

years ago as the systems were never used and

maintenance costs were very high for no sensible safety

outcome.

Envirocom Support We conditionally support the LPG Association suggestion to remove the


(NZ) Ltd requirement for spray cages over all tank wagons where they are parked for

longer than 1 hour. Our support is conditional on:

Recognition of (risks posed to) the adjoining land use; to be

determined by the territorial local authority with regard to land use

zoning under s31 of the RMA, they being cognizant of and

understand the risks associated with those hazards.

The deletion of spray cages shall have the support in writing of the

Location test Certifier and ERMA.

The default position should be that spray cages are required.

Department

of Labour

Opposed This proposal is not supported as it is considered that the current HSNO

controls are not onerous to comply with. Spray cages are only required by

for tank wagons in excess of 12,000 litres water capacity and specifically

for those that contain product otherwise a hydrant system equipped with a

monitor would suffice.

As detailed in the supporting information on this issue it is recommended

that Section 11 and appendix O of AS/NZS 1596 be followed. Section 11.1

requires that Section 11 is read in conjunction with the forward to the

standard. The forward states that the installation has to be addressed as

whole; sound engineering design also reduces the probability for leaks and

greater isolation distances help to minimise the impact on the tank of an

adjacent fire which in turn may reduce the need for water protection.

Appendix O in respect of its application applies to installations of more

than 50 kL capacity. It is not clear how from the information provided in

appendix 2 of the Application how many of the parking areas would be in

the category with onsite storage of over 50kl. Therefore its actual relevance

in applying it as model to tank wagon parking areas would indeed require

extra consideration regarding its suitability.

Reference is made in the application that Tankwagon would present less of

a risk than a stationary container system due to transfer points being

connected to the system such as cylinder filling and automotive fill points

All road tankers are over 12,000 litres. Spray cages

about $20,000 each park.

AS/NZS 1596 Section 11 does apply to lesser quantities

and multi parking facilities.


and when the tank wagon is parked valves would be in a closed condition.

What was overlooked is that there is a greater presence of combustible

material on a Lpg Tank wagon e.g. Tyres, wiring, flexible hoses all of

which will add to the thermal loading on the tank in the event of a fire

occurring whereas with a stationary container system the presence of

combustible material at the tank is negligible.

The LPG Road Tank Wagon Parking Risk Assessment (appendix 3) to the

application in section 4.3 makes reference the Chief Inspector of

Dangerous Goods issuing guide lines for the parking of LPG tank wagons.

The statement at the end of the Guideline transcript; ―There were no

requirements for a spray cages to be installed at road tankwagon parking

facilities.” is incorrect as the guidance note in subparagraph (k) does in

fact refer to regulation 78 of the Dangerous Goods (Class 2 Gases)

Regulations 1980 which requires a fixed water spray system over tanks

with a water capacity greater than 12.000 litres. Regulation 78 was

amended in 1987 to include a water spray. It has to be noted that at the

time there was also an allowance made for tank wagons that are nominally

empty to be afforded protection by the installation of a hydrant and

monitors this approach would have only been applied to fixed tanks in rare

situations. These requirements have been place for nearly twenty years it

surprising that the industry expresses some dismay that the were not

consulted with the amendment to the Gazette Notice in 2007. This

amendment merely corrected an omission from the controls that should

been occurring in the first place.

The data provided in respect of the time it would take for a tank to BLEVE

is consistent with actual events that have occurred overseas. When it is

considered that such a catastrophic failure can occur within 10- 20 minutes

of a fire occurring at a tank then surely any additional protection that may

be provided by a water spray on larger Stationary Containers has to be

beneficial in assisting the Emergency services in responding to and

controlling such an event.

Parts of the Industry were not aware of the requirements

and obviously parts of the DG regime ware also not

aware as DG license were issued for sites without spray

cages.

Engineering controls separation distances many other

ways to control risks.

Spray cages are not required as of right in NFPA 58 or

AS/NZS 1596.

We have many sites were tankers are parked without

spray cages and have had no incidents.


New Zealand has been very fortunate to date with the management of LPG

in that there has never been a BLEVE, this in all likelihood has been due to

ensuring the relevant regulatory standards are adhered to and maintained.

The recent Tamahere Icepak explosion and fire demonstrated what a

relatively small release (when compared to what could escape from a

tankwagon) of LPG can do.

The requirements of Section 11 and appendix 0 of AS/NZS 1596 appear to

be designed to take a preventative approach in respect of minimising the

consequences of a fire near an LPG storage facility and if a fire event does

occur rely on a response from the fire service to control the situation when

they arrive, given the relatively short time they have for a response before a

major event could occur it is surely preferable on larger tanks to take the

additional precaution of providing tank cooling. Furthermore in it is stated

in appendix O that if there are additional storage tanks on the site or other

Flammable materials these would require a separate evaluation over and

above than what is detailed in the procedure for evaluation in Appendix O.

It is considered that is this application for a variation was to succeed it

would decrease the current standard that applies and therefore is

considered not to be acceptable.

All aspects of each parking facility will be taken

account of in the risk assessment for which the content

can be agreed with ERMA.

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support The requirement for spray cages over LPG road tankers should be risk

based. There is a need on occasions to be able to park tankers overnight on

sites which are not dedicated tanker parks when driving hours or weather

dictate. In these cases it is not always possible to provide water sprays as

the land is owned by other parties who do not want a cage permanently

erected on their site.

New

Zealand

Professional

Firefighters

Union


Separation Distances for Cylinder and Tank Storage



Tauranga

City Council


New

Zealand Fire

Service



Michael

Farrier

Support Separation distance requirements should be considered in regard to

applicable management systems and controls under the HSNO regime. It

would be appropriate to ensure that AS/NZS 1596 requirements integrate

with all other HSNO requirements so that there is a level playing field

when managing LPG and controlling the associated hazards.

The Dunedin City Council made a land use planning decision in regard to

the LPG depot adjacent to the new stadium which has already compromised

some of the earlier planning advice in regard to separation distances and

societal risk of LPG storage and distribution. Is it appropriate for an LPG

depot to be 200 meters distant from a location where up to 30,000 people

may gather? I doubt whether planning permission would be granted for a

LPG Distribution Depot within 200 meters of an existing sporting stadium

because of the societal risk.

This situation should not be allowed to occur again; separation distances

should not be considered in isolation of land use planning requirements,

societal risk and essential services.

The original Liquigas LPG Depots in New Plymouth, Auckland,

Christchurch and Dunedin were established in accordance with world best

practice – engineering design and planning requirements should not be

compromised so as to increase societal risk.

Envirocom

(NZ) Ltd

Opposed The adoption of the separation distances in AS/NZS 1596 for tanks

suggested by the LPGA is not supported. The adoption of the separation

distances in AS/NZS 1596 for LPG cylinders suggested by the LPGA is not

supported.

Department Opposed The immediate concern regarding this is why was not an alignment sought It was 2008 and our application just covered the


of Labour in respect of AS/NZS 1596 2008 rather than the 2002 as detailed in the

application. Furthermore appendix 3 appears to go further in certain areas

and appears to be over and over above what being asked for in the original

application in that the application appeared to be seeking to amend the

storage distances for cylinders as required by table (2) Clause 30 in

Schedule 10 and table (3) Clause 30 Schedule 10 for tanks. Assuming that

that the LPG Association application is intending to cover all the aspects of

isolation distances associated with cylinder and tank storage then this

would present a substantial conflict with what is currently required by the

gazette notice and a more detailed analysis would be required as to the

acceptability of the proposal.

Furthermore it is stated in the application that the AS 1596 2002 contains

significant new information, what the significance of this new information

is does not appear to have been detailed in the application. As previously

stated AS/NZS 1596 has been revised and new version was published in

2008. If the Application request is considered in its entirety it may already

be out of date due a newer version of the standard superseding what has

been presented to date.

If Tables 4.1 and 6.1 are to be considered in isolation then consideration

should be given the proposal the only area of concern would be in respect

of lower first two line lower quantities in the respective tables and this may

impact on the other parts in the Gazette Notices.

In summary the given the current information provided the Proposal could

only be accepted in part.

differing separation distances covered in tables 4.1 and

6.1.

HSNO regs are so complicated that most people other

than test certifiers cannot use them AS/NZS 1596 is a

far more useable document.

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support AS/NZS 1596, The Storage and Handling of LP Gas, defines the isolation

distances for LPG and there is a need to align the gazette version to line up

without NZ standard to avoid conflict. AS/NZS 1596 is called up in some

District Plans or conditions of Resource Consents so this conflict is

difficult to resolve. The differences appear minor, therefore adopting the

requirements of AS/NZS 1596 would not appear onerous.

New Opposed No specific comment.


Zealand

Professional

Firefighters

Union

Fire Extinguisher Requirements


Tauranga

City Council


New

Zealand Fire

Service

Opposed Fire extinguishers are useful tools to control a fire and the fire service view

is that they should be present. This may be more so for rural locations

where LPG installation may be more prevalent and a volunteer brigade may

take longer to attend. Having such equipment may mitigate a fire in the

following circumstances.

When everyone has been evacuated and accounted for at a safe

meeting place.

When the fire service has been called.

When it is safe to do so considering the size and location of the

fire.

Access to the fire is unrestricted and a safe retreat is possible at all

times.

Remember life is more important than property, don't put yourself

or others at risk.

If the cost of a fire extinguisher (LPGA quote $30) by the LPGA's assertion

is such a significant barrier to entry for the installation of LPG or moving to

higher storage quantities than 50kg, we believe the cost of upgrading from a

9kg cylinder to a 45kg cylinder or the installation cost would be more than

$30? This undermines the benefit and safety case of the LPGA.

It might be a good idea but to make customers legally

liable if they don‘t have one is just not sensible. It is

unenforceable and consumers would only be aware of

their liability in the case of something going wrong

when they may well be faced with an insurance issue.


Envirocom Support We agree with the suggestion of the LPGA to remove the requirement for


(NZ) Ltd fire extinguishers for LPG (in any quantity) in domestic settings.

Department

of Labour

Support No specific comment

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support Whilst we support the idea of home owners having a fire extinguisher in

their home this is not a legal requirement. We do not support making this

a condition when storing more than 50 kg of LPG as this adds cost and

infers it should be used for LPG emergencies. We would not encourage

domestic users to attempt to fight an LPG related fire. Instructions in an

emergency are to call the Fire Brigade and evacuate. Attempting to use the

fire extinguisher could be dangerous unless home owners are specifically

trained to deal with LPG fire fighting. This is where the Fire Brigade is

required.

New

Zealand

Professional

Firefighters

Union


Separation Distances for Vaporisers


Tauranga

City Council


New

Zealand Fire

Service



Envirocom

(NZ) Ltd

Support We agree with the suggestion of the LPGA to remove the aggregation

requirements for separation distances for vaporisers.

Department

of Labour

Support No specific comment

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support Adopt the wording of AS/NZS 1596 which uses the isolation distance of

each individual vaporiser rather than the aggregated total.

Stationary Container Certification


Tauranga Support No specific comment.


City Council

New

Zealand Fire

Service



Envirocom

(NZ) Ltd

Opposed We do not support the suggestion of the LPGA to remove the need for

SCSC and transfer the requirements to the Location Test Certificate.

Department

of Labour

Opposed It is considered that the parts of Schedule 8 that require Stationary Tank

certification are in fact intrinsic matters that relate to the tank system as

whole and thus the installation should be appraised under the Stationary

Container process. The augment that the regime imposes additional costs

on the industry does not have merit. Test Certifiers who can issue

stationary certification can also issue Location Test Certificates. ERMA

has accepted that the certification for a site may be combined, thus

providing efficiencies in the Test Certification process. The PECPR

regulations address the requirements for the pressure integrity of the

Stationary Container System not the overall installation layout and safety

systems incorporated into the Container design.

Furthermore it is stated in the application that in addition to reducing costs

it will also reduce complexity. Again it is difficult to see how the

complexity will be reduced as the requirements will remain the same. It

could be considered that the requirements in schedule 10 for tank isolation

distances be transferred into schedule 8 and thus be made part of the

Stationary Container Certification process. However it is considered the

efficiencies to be gained would be minimal.

Finally making changes as proposed would then not be consistent in respect

of how other substances stored in tanks managed inside schedule 8 and

therefore this would create additional complexities inside the HSNO

control framework. On this basis the proposal is not supported.

There is no need for a separate stationary container

certificate should be a combined process.

What we are suggesting is that the location and fire

fighting sections of the stationary container certificate

be moved into the location certificate. The Stationary

Container certificate will become the PECPR certificate.

So before the location certificate is issued a current

PECPR certificate will be required.

The LPG Industry can only focus on LPG issues and

there should be enough flexibility in the Regulations to

allow substance specific options.

Contact

Energy Ltd

Support All LPG tanks are pressure vessels under PECPR regulations and are

inspected annually or bi-annually by specialised pressure vessel engineers

under Regulations enforced by OSH. The current requirement for tanks to


also be inspected by a Test Certifier under the HSNO regulations provides

little or no value, but comes at a significant cost to industry. It is also

unworkable in practice as the Test Certifiers will not issue their Test

Certificates until they sight the PEPCR certificate. As the PEPCR

certificate is not available for approx one month from the date of the

inspection and the Test Certifier requires a similar time to inspect and issue

the certificate, the site will operate with an expired Stationary Container

Certificate for up to two months. Also because the Test Certifier will only

issue the Stationary Container Certificate for the period of the PEPCR

certificate typically this only runs for ten months from date of receipt. The

current requirement for LPG tanks is clumsy and unworkable and provides

no use outcome, therefore we support moving the few checks not already

covered by PEPCR inspection across to the Location Certificate inspection

and dropping the requirement for Stationary Container certification for

LPG tanks.

New

Zealand

Professional

Firefighters

Union


Other/General

IRHACE Support The LPGA submission, while not focusing on LPG as a refrigerant, has

obviously been thoroughly researched by the LPG Association and we

therefore expect that any additional risks have been thoroughly assessed as

well.

New

Zealand Fire

Service

Opposed The Fire Service opposes the LPGA application on the grounds that the

submission does not reflect current thinking. The LPGA submission has

completely omitted the risk to emergency responders. The recent ICL

inquiry by Lord Gill (UK) contradicts the LPGA submission.

The removal of test certification and basic fire safety measures (fire

extinguishers) is counterproductive to addressing already low levels of

compliance and providing some basic fire response and this application will

not reduce the incidence or consequence of fire or provide communities


with any greater protection.

The Fire Service requests that ERMA New Zealand retains all current

HSNO test certification and controls relating to LPG, butane and propane

and rejects the LPGA submission in its entirety.

BOC Ltd Support BOC supports this modified reassessment. It brings NZ into line with

international standards and codes.

Michael

Farrier

N/A I request that ERMA New Zealand:

Require additional information to be collated on existing LPG cylinder

management practices and ask that LPG suppliers set and example by

enforcing a Code of Practice under the current requirements before

increasing the threshold storage level.

Look at establishing societal risk criteria requirements in New Zealand by

which land use planning requirements can be considered in a consistent

manner. These should take into account site security, emergency

evacuation, and fire protection response, etc.

Consider the requirement of LPG tank wagon parking in regard to all

applicable factors; not only stand-alone separation distances.

Ask that the applicant demonstrates that a fair comparison has been made

in their submissions in regard to overseas practice and the management

system and controls that apply in the jurisdiction.

Envirocom

(NZ) Ltd

N/A It is our considered opinion from many years of undertaking site

inspections, training of personnel, attendance at incidents, and our

collective very close association with this industry from our previous

disparate and very related backgrounds that the LPG Association‘s risk

assessment is flawed or at best paints a picture of the industry that bears

little relationship to the reality out there on the ground.

We wish the submission hearing panel to take note of the photographs

attached to our submission. The level of non compliance with not only the


HSNO controls but the previous and now repealed Dangerous Goods

legislative Controls should be immediately obvious. Most of those

illustrated have now been resolved, but such mistakes continue.

New

Zealand

Professional

Firefighter

Union

(NZPFU)

We request that ERMA New Zealand:

Leave intact or strengthen all safety regulations/issues related to LPG and

not to relax or lessen the existing regulations as sought by the LPG

Association. Already there is anecdotal evidence that

compliance/enforcement of existing regulations is well below what ought to

be expected, the NZPFU don‘t see how relaxing of LPG regulations further

will better protect the public and Firefighters.


APPENDIX 4 - Impact of adopting the separation distances for cylinder and tank storage of LPG

from AS/NZS 1596

Separation of Tanks Boundary of Controlled Zone

LPG Density 0.537 g/ml

Water

capacity of

tank (kL)

Area of high

intensity land use

(metres)

Protected Works Area of low

intensity land

use (metres)

Public Place

Column 1 Column 2 AS/NZS 1596 AS/NZS 1596

– vapour

draw-off

Column 3 AS/NZS 1596 AS/NZS 1596

– vapour

draw-off

0.5 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50

1 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00

2 4.25 6.00 4.50 3.50 4.00 3.00

5 8.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.50

8 9.80 10.00 6.00 6.20 6.00 4.00

10 11.00 11.00 11.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

20 15.00 15.00 15.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

50 17.00 17.00 17.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

100 21.00 20.00 20.00 12.00 11.00 11.00

200 28.00 25.00 25.00 14.00 12.00 12.00

500 28.00 42.00 42.00 14.00 22.00 22.00


Issues Definitions

High intensity land use

Low intensity land use

area of high intensity land use— (a) includes— (i) an area of regular habitation; and (ii) a structure made of or containing combustible materials that would sustain a significant fire; and (iii) a high density traffic route; but (b) does not include a small office constructed of non-combustible materials associated with a hazardous substance location that is used by persons authorised to be at the location by the person in charge of that location

area of low intensity land use— (a) includes— (i) an area where any person may be legally present occasionally; and (ii) a public park or reserve; and (iii) a traffic route of low or medium traffic density; but (b) does not include an area of regular habitation

Protected place

Public place

Any of the following: (a) A dwelling, place of worship, public building, school or college, hospital, theatre or any building or open area in which persons are accustomed to assemble in large numbers, whether within or outside the property boundary of the installation. (b) A factory, office, workshop, store, warehouse, shop or building where people are employed, except a building used for the storage and handling of LP Gas. (c) A vessel (e.g. a ship) lying at permanent berthing facilities. (d) Any storage facility for dangerous goods outside the property boundary of the installation, except those defined as minor storages in other Standards or regulations.

Any place, other than private property, open to the public and including a street or road. Parking areas for commercial and public buildings are not considered public places.




For high intensity land use, above 270,000 L the separation distances required by AS/NZS 1596 are greater than those set by HSNO, although it must be recognised that these are large tanks. Between 15,000 L and 270,000 the distances required by AS/NZS 1596 are less than HSNO, varying by between 0% and 10% (25m v 28m). In the range 0 to 10,000 L there is a agreement for tanks between 1,000 L and 10,000 L, however, for tanks less than 500 L HSNO requires an additional 0.5 m separation (2m cf 1.5 m). In this range, AS/NZS 1596 also allows a significant reduction in separation distance where there is a single tank used only for vapour withdrawal. HSNO does not allow for this eventuality.

Minimum distance to an adjacent tank AS/NZS 1596 requires the separation to be the diameter of the largest tank, however, it also says that a tank that has no other tank within 8 m of it may be considered

a single tank. If tanks are located end to end the larger of 3m or twice the diameter of the largest tank. Clause 6.2.2(c) of AS/NZS 1596. HSNO specifies the diameter of the largest tank, or at least 1 m if the largest tank is less than 10,000 L or 2 m if of a greater capacity.



For low intensity land use, above 250,000 L the separation distances required by AS/NZS 1596 are greater than those set by HSNO, although it must be recognised that these are large tanks. Between 50,000 L and 250,000 the distances required by AS/NZS 1596 are less than HSNO, varying by between 0% and 16% (12m v 14m). In the range 0 to 10,000 L there is a reasonable agreement for tanks between 1,500 L and 10,000 L, however, for tanks less than 1,500 L HSNO requires up to an additional 1 m separation (3m cf 2 m at 2,000 L). In this range, AS/NZS 1596 also allows a significant reduction in separation distance where there is a single tank used only for vapour withdrawal. HSNO does not allow for this eventuality.


Separation of Cylinders from Boundary of Controlled Zone

LPG Density 0.537 g/ml

Aggregate

quantity of

liquefiable gas

in cylinders

only (kg)

Area of high intensity

land use (metres)

Protected

Works

Area of low

intensity land

use (metres)

Public Place

Column 1 Column 2 AS/NZS

1596

Column 3 AS/NZS 1596

100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

300 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

500 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00

537 2.02 3.00 2.00 1.50

1000 2.33 3.00 2.00 2.43

1342 2.56 4.50 2.00 3.00

2,000 3.00 5.03 2.00 3.00

3222 3.81 6.00 2.41 3.00

5,000 5.00 7.10 3.00 3.83

6444 5.58 8.00 3.29 4.50

10,000 7.00 8.43 4.00 4.71

50,000 8.00 12.83 5.00 7.13

64440 15.00 15.00 8.00 8.00





Distances Distances required by AS/NZS 1596 are greater than those in the legislation. As a consequence locations that currently compliant may not conform in the future. These facilities will have to be subject to transitional conditions.

Controls where quantities are less than 1,000 kg

There is no suggestion that controls on fire resistance and fire resistance rating of walls behind the cylinders specified in HSNO be changed.


APPENDIX 5

LPG Facility Test Certificate for Stationary Container System Schedule 8 – Elements Requiring Transfer

The facility must have a tank that has a water capacity of greater than 500 litres.

92 (2) Requirements for test certificate

(a) the stationary container system is—

(i) suitable for service with a specified hazardous substance, or specified substances, without leakage

of the substance, for all reasonably foreseeable operating pressures, temperatures, stresses and

loadings;

Pressure Equipment, Cranes and

Passenger Ropeways (PECPR)

Regulations 1999.

Clause 92 (5) (a)

(ii) constructed of materials that are compatible with any hazardous substance that the system is

likely to contain;

PECPR Clause 92 (5) (a)

(b) if the stationary container system includes a stationary tank, the stationary tank complies with the requirements specified in this Schedule relating to

(i) tank design; PECPR Clause 92 (5) (b)

(ii) tank construction; PECPR Clause 92 (5) (b)

(iii) tank installation; PECPR Clause 92 (5) (b)

(iv) pressure management; PECPR Clause 92 (5) (b)

(v) emergency pressure management; PECPR Clause 92 (5) (b)

(vi) the level indicator requirements specified in clauses 13 and 36 Clauses 13 and 36 are not relevant

(vii) lightning and stray current protection; Not applicable as far as Part 4 is

concerned, but is referenced in

AS/NZS 1940

(viii) the separation requirements specified in Part 5; Yes



(ix) fire fighting systems; Yes, if >12,000 L

(x) the marking requirements under clause 77; Not applicable. Clause 77 (a)

(xi) the requirements relating to plans under clause 81; Covered by the location test

certificate

(c) if the stationary container system includes a stationary tank with integral secondary containment,

the stationary container system complies with regulation 39 or 40 as applicable of the Hazardous

Substance (Emergency Management Regulations) 2001;

Not applicable, no secondary

containment for class 2.1.1A

(d) if the stationary container system includes a stationary tank that contains a [class 3.1D, or] class

6, or class 8, or class 9 hazardous substance that is not also a class 2, or class 3 [other than class

3.1D], or class 4, or class 5 hazardous substance, the stationary container system complies with

the requirements of Part 4 of the Hazardous Substances Emergency Management) Regulations

2001

Not applicable.

(e) if the stationary container system includes a vaporiser, the vaporiser complies with clause 55; Yes, but very few vaporisers.

These are to be checked as

approved by ERMA New Zealand,

and that separation distance criteria

is met.

(f) if the stationary container system complies with Part 13; Not applicable

(g) if the stationary container system includes a burner, the burner is—

(i) approved in accordance with clause 68; and

(ii) installed in accordance with clause 71; and

Not applicable. An approval for a

burner is confined to class 3.1

substances.

(h) pipework complies with requirements for—

(i) design, construction, and installation; and PECPR Clause 96 (6) (a)

(ii) operation, inspection, testing, and maintenance; and PECPR Clause 96 (6) (a)

(iii) installation of transfer point pipework in accordance with clause 75; and Questionable, although very few

ship to shore pipelines. In Gazette



Notice 35 clause 75 did not apply

where equipment was subject to

PECPR. A subsequent amendment

continued the requirement for

pipework including transfer lines.

The amendment did not address

Clause 75 which is specific to a

ship to shore transfer line.

However, this clause does not

specify any design criteria for LPG

pipework

(i) the requirements for valves in clause 75 are complied with; and Yes, very few. Valves are covered

by clause 76, not 75. See also

comment above (h) (iii)

(j) the records specified in clause 81 are available; and Already asked in (b) (xi) above.

May mean clause 82. Essentially

covered by the location test

certificate

(k) any repairs or alterations carried out comply with the requirements of Part 18. PECPR Clause 92 (5) (c)

Clause 96 (6) (9)

Date post:	27-Mar-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

HRE09001 Hazardous Substances Consideration Committee

Documents