submission for app201365 to the epa wellington submitter ... · hsno act have been openly disclosed...

Submission for APP201365 to the EPA Wellington Jackie Pou PO Box 6 Rawene 0443 [email protected]

1

Submission for APP201365 to the EPA Wellington Submitter: Jackie Pou PO Box 6 Rawene 0443 [email protected] September 11 2012 I am an affected party and I oppose this application totally and seek for it to be declined by the EPA, due to many reasons mainly concerning the HSNO Act 1996. I wish to be heard in support of my submission. Further evidence will be submitted by me prior to the hearing. I also request a copy of Nga Kaihautu's Report and a copy of the E & R Report. As there are 40 separate pesticide products involved in this application and the other 2 reassessment applications, I request the missing 29 current MSDSs and also any available, current Label documents and Haznotes for all of these products. The hard copies can be posted to me at the above address & also emailed to me. If there are more than 40 products involved then please disclose these to us all and also post and email them to me too. Please also email me upon receipt of my email submission. My reasons for the EPA to decline this application for modified reassessment are: 1. Legal &/or lawful action and hapu and community opposition action 1.1. The reasons I give for the EPA to decline this current illegal application and proposed illegal change of use under the HSNO Act to apply and spray these toxic and ecotoxic poison pesticides into or onto water in our kaimoana waterways will be taken into account and acted upon in any necessary legal &/or lawful action to be taken against the applicants and the EPA.

SUBMISSION102615


2

1.2 It will be noted that the EPA and the applicants will have received and considered this information, reasons and references outlined in my submission. 1.3 These reasons will also be taken into account for any legal &/or lawful actions undertaken by affected Maori, hapu and whanau of the harbours, rivers and land, and opposition action to stop this from happening to us and our taonga. And also of the wider communities who oppose this proposed change of use which will see the government 'authorities' poisoning us, our whanau, our future generations, our ancestral waterways and aquatic environments, our kaimoana and wildlife for 20 years with multiple marine pollutants which are also toxic or very toxic to humans. 1.4. You cannot do this to us and the aquatic environments we live in. Under no conditions and circumstances will this be acceptable. These pesticides have significant damaging and harmful effects to human health, wildlife and the aquatic environment. It is mass poisoning without consent. 1.5. It's also common knowledge that weeds get resistant to herbicides and pesticides repeatedly used, and as stated on the current pesticide product Material Safety Data Sheets and Label documents under "Resistant Weeds" or "Resistance Management". This is what has happened here in NZ with the government's illegal use of prohibited pesticides for aquatic weeds for years. So much stronger dose concentration and more expensive pesticide products are used, as planned for in this grand 20 year chemical poisoning agenda. There are 40 separate toxic and ecotoxic, poison pesticide products involved in this application. It's a 20 year Win-Win for the chemical corporation manufacturers who benefit. 1.6. And it's also a desperate attempt for the Regional Councils, MAF, DoC and co and the EPA to try and 'legalise' (illegally) what they've been doing under the HSNO Act 1996 illegally to us and our waterways here in NZ for years, and still are this year. 2. HSNO Act 1996 Registered and approved use of these pesticides 2.1. These toxic and ecotoxic pesticide products are registered and approved under the HSNO Act for land use only in NZ and they are prohibited from being applied into or onto water under the Act, and under best international recommendations and practices due to the aquatic and toxic hazards. They are classified Marine Pollutants and Environmentally Hazardous Substances. Some of the very ecotoxic products are also not allowed to be sprayed over or allowed to drift over an aquatic environment (product MSDS, Label). These pesticides are also biological hazards which are toxic or very toxic to humans, wildlife, the soil, plants, the aquatic environment, aquatic life and organisms. Some of the products have a

SUBMISSION102615


3

very high, acute aquatic ecotoxic hazard class 9.1A which would prohibit their use into/onto water (and other aquatic hazard classes which do too) regardless of the additional controls. The HSNO Act prohibition of applying and spraying them into/onto water was and is to protect the public's health and safety, the unborn and the future generations, the kaimoana, the water, the aquatic environment, wildlife and the air within and beyond it. 2.2. Under the HSNO Act - ecotoxic means capable of causing ill health, injury, or death to any living organism toxic means capable of causing ill health in, or injury to, human beings effect includes— • (a) any potential or probable effect; and • (b) any positive or adverse effect; and • (c) any temporary or permanent effect; and • (d) any past, present, or future effects; and • (e) any acute or chronic effect; and • (f) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with

other effects 2.3. You cannot legally change the registered for land use approval and the HSNO Act approval hazard regulations and controls for each hazardous substance pesticide product, and you aren't even trying to. Therefore you cannot legally change anything else under the HSNO Act pertaining to that registered only use, and the HSNO Act hazard regulations for the substances, dodgy modified reassessment and prior illegal grounds for reassessment applications included, and which would illegally change or attempt to illegally change or 'modify' the legal use approvals and regulations for which they are registered and approved for in New Zealand This would be inconsistent with the HSNO Act approvals and regulations for their registered approved use in NZ, and the prohibitions or restriction compliances put in place for health and safety to protect us all and the waterways and aquatic environment. It goes against the HSNO Act 2006 Key legislative change too. These significant toxic and ecotoxic hazards for the substances are also sourced from international best practices and stated on each of the products current product Material Safety Data Sheet and Label documents for each product, HSNO approvals and controls and on the chemicals NZIoC and CCID databases too. 3. HSNO Act 1996 Key Legislative change on application of pesticides into or onto water

SUBMISSION102615


4

3.1. The Hazardous Substances (Pesticides) Transfer Notice was issued in 2004 and ammended in 2006. The key change, made in 2006, prohibits the application of any pesticide onto or into water, unless the pesticide contains as its active ingredient glyphosphate, diquat, s-methoprene or Bacillus thuringiensis (sub-species israeiensis) and the pesticide is under the control of an approved handler. 4. HSNO Act 1996 Compliance 4.1 The Regional Councils, DoC and MAF, all of their commercial contractors and Approved Handlers are all required to comply with this key legislative change on application of pesticides into/onto water and to also comply with the HSNO Act registered use approval, and the hazards regulations and controls for all of the pestcide products they use, particularly for aquatic use. Compliance with the HSNO Act is mandatory. 4.2. Therefore any Regional Council, DoC and MAF Regional or District RMA Plans and Weed or Pest Programmes, Public Notices, and any Resource Consents which state to apply &/or spray any pesticide into or onto water which is prohibited for this use under the HSNO Act Key Legislative Change 2006, all go against the HSNO Act regulations and compliance obligations also for the substance hazards, and are in effect illegal and invalid under the Act. Same with any Spartina or Alligator weed or other Weed Programme Notices of intention to spray within the harbours, rivers and streams in NZ which were issued. Illegal HSNO Act Offences have been are are being committed. The HSNO Act is the governing legislation for hazardous substances and new organisms use in NZ. 4.3. Their Approved Handlers are required to be knowledgable on the key legislative change and to be competent in the use of specific hazardous toxic, ecotoxic and other hazardous properties, hazard class, subclasses and categories of the substances in these pesticide products, before they can use them. Also, to be be knowledgeable on the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and controls for each pesticide product they use and to comply with the HSNO Act and the current MSDSs and Labels which must also comply with the key legislative change. The specific hazard classes, subclasses and categories they are qualified and competent to use have to be stated on their HSNO Approved Handler Test Certificates eg Hazard Class 9.1A (very high acute aquatic hazard) or 6.1A very high acute toxic hazard etc. Growsafe have issued HSNO invalid AH Test Certificates which don't state the specific hazard classes they can use on their Approved Handler Test Certificates. It used to be that they had to have competently used the specific hazardous substance hazard class, subclass and category (eg 9.1A etc) for 2 years before gaining the AHTCertificate. 4.4. All Approved Handlers who have applied and sprayed these prohibited pesticides into or onto water have been committing Offences against the

SUBMISSION102615


5

HSNO Act. Either they weren't authentically qualified to use the hazardous substances in the first place under the Act (invalid Approved Handler Test Certificate and Test Certifier), or/& they used them knowingly going against the HSNO Act Key Change, HSNO Act approval regs and controls for the pesticide product they used, the current MSDS and Label docs for the products which must comply with the key change, and the chemicals NZIoC and CCID information too. 4.5. These illegal uses by the Regional Councils, MAF, DoC and co under the HSNO Act have been openly disclosed in the application, and by the EPA, and also in the other 2 applications for Grounds for reassessment, before this current application. Because they've all been doing it for years and this year too, they think that's OK but it's not at all. The compliance legislation is the HSNO Act 1996. 5. Current process is a human rights abuse, environmental health abuse, a Maori indigenous rights abuse and HSNO Act 1996 abuse 5.1. It's a straight out human rights abuse and an environmental health abuse, Maori indigenous rights abuse and HSNO Act abuse for the applicants the ARG and the EPA to attempt to poison our waterways, aquatic environments, kaimoana and us like this for 20 years, and to try and 'modify' the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and control approvals for over 40 poison pesticide products, pertaining to their registered and approved use and regulatory hazard information. Very toxic and ecotoxic substances are included and some very high concentration poisons too. It is also a huge change from the status quo and which threatens our public health and safety, our wellbeing and the wellbeing of our whanau, our future generations and the unborn, our kaimoana, the health of the waterways and aquatic life and organisms, the air, as well as birds and insects for 20 years. 5.2. Affected Maori, hapu and whanau of the harbours, rivers, streams and land, and our traditional values, perspectives and concerns for our taonga were excluded from the vital actual determination and decision making processes which preceded this one in APP201213 Decided 17 Feb 2012 and APP201378 Decided 28 June 2012. Grounds for reassessment. For such an important issue such as this, it breaches the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840/Treaty of Waitangi 1840, Te Whakaputanga 1835/Declaration of Independence 1835 and the HSNO Act sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 and this is an utter disgrace and is unacceptable. The March 2012 Consultation with 'Iwi' was poor. Out of the 7 responses, Maori concerns on adverse human health effects and to the the aquatic environment, kaimoana, spray drift, algae, watercress, Cultural Impact Assessment requests and poor consultation etc concerns were dissmissed and minimised. And Maori were deliberately left out of the determination and decision making.

SUBMISSION102615


6

5.3. Spraying these hazardous poisons by helicopter, airboat and ground spraying into or onto our aquatic environments for 20 years and up to 3 times a year in some cases, will have an adverse effect on the health and safety of indigenous people, all people, the unborn, the future generations, the aquatic environment, the air within and surroundings through natural spray drfit, wildlife and kaimoana and will put us all at unacceptable risk for the benefit of the chemical manufacturer corporations. 5.4. Under whose authority was it decided in the APP201213 decision document 4.9. Maori issues and concerns, that the EPA has no concerns from a Maori perspective regarding the applicant’s wish to determine whether there are grounds for the reassessment of the substances? (40 poison pesticides). Was it a group which is contracted to and funded by the EPA? An EPA organisation? Since when have they been the voice and authority for affected local Maori, and hapu and whanau o Aotearoa? Or was it the EPA Chair herself? 5.5. It could be argued that because Maori were deliberately excluded in the vital decision making processes which preceded this application, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti O Waitangi were not taken into account and were breached, thereby invalidating the EPA's decisions for granting Grounds for reassessment in the first place to the applicants in APP201213. Although one would think that the disclosed illegal significant change of use which was cited in APP201213 as grounds for reassessment of the hazardous substances would invalidate this anyway - Decison doc, see 4.1 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. (And 4.6. has to be compliant with the HSNO Act not the other way around). See 4.7. 4.8. also - No other factors were considered relevant (such as admitted Offences committed against the HSNO Act, the huge change and risk this would bring from the 20 year mass poisoning without consent agenda, the damage to the waterways, and deliberately excluding Maori in the application process...). 5.6. Untrustworthy and dishonest - The current Applicants' and the EPA's assurances of proposed controls and conditions to minimise risks are ridiculous and meaningless given that the Regional Councils, DoC, MAF and their unqualified Approved Handlers have been disregarding and not complying with the regulations and controls and have been committing Offences against the HSNO Act for years and this year too, with their illegal aquatic weed spray programmes applying haloxyfop pesticides for Spartina and metsulfuron pesticides for alligator weed etc. And their HSNO Act invalid Plans, Programmes, Resource Consents, Spray Notices and Approved Handlers to do so. They took no notice of the HSNO Act compliances for our protection and the aquatic environments. They cannot be trusted. Neither can the EPA & ERMA who have condoned these HSNO Act Offences for years. It's an abuse. 5.7. This new attempt at poisoning us and our aquatic environments (and

SUBMISSION102615


7

with multiple poisons) goes right against the HSNO Act's Purpose and relevant principles and matters, the Precautionary principle of the Act and against the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty Of Waitangi as well. 5.8. Only 11 product MSDSs were provided in the Appendix, not all current, and no important, available, current product Label documents and Haznotes were provided. So there are nearly 30 missing product MSDS. And important product Label documents (if available). That's unacceptable. The products are also of different concentrations of the same hazardous substance and some of them are very high and much more hazardous and dangerous than the lower strength toxic and ecotoxic poison products. Some of the very high toxic and ecotoxic products have no ecotoxicological data determined yet have data and hazards which prohibit their application into or onto water. The products themselves are included in a reason below and illegal use products. Full disclosure has not been given about the substances or the products. 5.9. Offences committed against the HSNO Act by the Regional Councils, (MAF) and DoC have been disclosed in this application, for their illegal use and spraying of hazardous substance haloxyfop and metsulfuron pesticides into or onto water for Spartina and alligator weed etc. It's also disclosed by the EPA. And also disclosed by them all in the grounds for reassessment applications too APP201213 and APP201378. The HSNO Act compliances and approval regulations and controls for the use of these hazardous pesticides into or onto water mean nothing to them. 5.10. These regulations and controls and legislative compliances were put in place to protect us and the environment and aquatic life. They were and are very important protective measures. Alleged ignorance and mistaken belief is no excuse. HSNO Act complaince relating to Resource Consents, Regional Plans, District Plans and the RMA's government information has been available for many years to them and they have managers who ought to know it, and it's is freely available online for the public. They are required to be knowledgable and competent on the use of the pesticides they use, and their hazards, regulations and controls, particularly for aquatic use. Also they have to know and comply with the HSNO Act Key Legislative Change in 2006 on application of pesticides into or onto water, especially Approved Handlers. 5.11. Combined collusion and dishonesty - I have come across this dishonesty and collusion between the Regional Councils, DoC, MAF and the EPA during the health and safety investigations I initiated into these HSNO Act Offences and non-compliances in late March this year with the Dept of Labour/OSH HSNO Act enforcers. They have all tried to fob me off with lies, more lies and invalid excuses. The EPA took over the investigations in April, dragging them on for months. The DoL has to report to them. I am still complaining and seeking justice and the truth.

SUBMISSION102615


8

5.12. One investigation is into the Northland Regional Council and DoC for their illegal use and spraying of Gallant NF haloxyfop and Gallant Ultra 520 haloxyfop pesticides into or onto water and our kaimoana waterways in Northland (since 2007 here, including this year). Illegal spraying carried on this year. I received a letter dated 31 August 2012 from the DoL. The NRC lied and said to the investigator - "Following review of the original investigation the Northland Regional Council has confirmed to the Ministry that they have only used Agpro Haloxyfop 100 for the control of Spartina. The Northland Regional Council appears to have also obtained the correct consents for the application and use of this product. Further advice provided by the EPA to the Ministry confirms the Northland Regional Council has been working within the HSNO controls for Agpro Haloxyfop 100. The Ministry will not be taking any further action at this time with regard to this event." That's a web of lies and collusion. False on all counts. Typical dishonesty and collusion together to cover up Offences. Shocking really. 5.13. The other investigation is into the Waikato Regional Council (MAF) and DoC for their illegal use and spraying into or onto water and waterways with haloxyfop pesticides and metsulfuron pesticides, as was disclosed in their application APP201213 which was Step 1 in this current process, and an application for all the Regional Councils. Illegal spraying was carried on this year too. They told the investigator they used and use Agpro haloxyfop 100 pesicide for Spartina and this can be applied onto or into water under HSNO (it can't) and which the EPA agreed with even though it was an 'oversight' on their part, that the WRC became aware at the end of 2011 of their mistaken belief on the profhibited use of these pesticides... and did they all forget about the key legislative change for pesticides in 2006? And the HSNO controls too? Agpro haloxyfop 100's Label information says it is the first type below (EC.... 100g/litre...). EPA information -

"There are two pesticide substances containing Haloxyfop-R, methyl ester approved for use in New Zealand under HSNO: • Emulsifiable concentrate containing 100 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester • Suspension concentrate containing 17 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester and 500 g/litre terbuthylazine

SUBMISSION102615


9

These substances are not approved for application onto or into water. Further information is from our information sheet: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/ER-IS-33-2.pdf There are also two products approved for manufacturer and export only: • Liquid containing 450 - 550 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester • Liquid containing 100 - 150 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester These two substances are not approved for use in New Zealand." EPA information on Resource Consents and Gallant products used for Spartina -

"4. A Resource Consent cannot do anything that is contrary to the HSNO controls. i.e. it cannot approve the use of a substance if HSNO does not allow for that use.

Under HSNO, neither of the above Gallant products can be applied onto or into water. If any person is applying this substance onto or into water, this is a breach of the HSNO controls and becomes an issue of non-compliance. Compliance of HSNO controls is the responsibility of the Department of Labour. You can contact the Department of Labour on: 0800 209020."

Also, the WRC and DoC's illegal use of metsulfuron methyl pesticide into Waikato waterways for 8 years for alligator weed was also not addressed. Because they wouldn't voluntarily stop illegally spraying haloxyfop or metsulfuron when told to by the enforcement officer they rigged up a fake special emergency to carry on spraying banned metsulfuron into a Waikato stream, even though they've been spraying the poison illegally down there for years, and have been monitoring and spraying that particular stream too. They even roped in Minister David Carter to put his 'Declared special emergency-Hat' on for that small patch of alligator weed, 3 more sprayings allowed until Feb 2013 EPA decision - APP201443 August 8. And Waikato DoC continued spraying banned haloxyfop for Spartina saying it was allowed (Agpro haloxyfop 100) along with the colluding EPA, even though t's not. It's hard to believe it all. Affected local Maori were excluded from the determination and decision process and not even consulted. Now that's a disgrace and an abuse. They sprayed prohibited poison pesticide Associate 600 WDG into the stream. How can there be a sudden emergency when

SUBMISSION102615


10

they've been illegally spraying the metsulfuron poison on alligator weed in the Waikato waterways down there for years, even in the Ruahorehore stream and have been monitoring it for years as stated in the WRC's own documents. And according to their press release they were supposed to have stopped their aquatic weed spraying in Dec last year. http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/6156/tr07-07b.pdf http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/PageFiles/7293/RPMS%20Annual%20Report%20Final%20August%202011.pdf http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1207/S00633/waikato-playing-key-role-in-aquatic-weed-spraying-efficiency.htm 6. Modified Reassessments sec 63A HSNO Act 6.1. Modified reassessments are not decided on under any section of the HSNO Act (EPA information). Therefore any EPA 'specialist decision-making committee' would not be making a legal decision under the Act. They are determined under section 63A only. This dodgy current application is for a Modified Reassessment of 40 hazardous toxic and ecotoxic substance pesticide products all named in the 3 applications; APP201213, APP201378 and APP201365. Sec 63A(1)(a) concentrates on only a specific aspect of the approval like the additional Sec 77 controls. But there are also the aquatic hazards and toxic hazards sourced from international best practices which can't be ignored. And this specific aspect is crucial to the protection of the people, kaimoana and aquatic life, organisms and the aquatic environment of NZ. It would also involve 40 current product MSDSs and Labels, and Haznotes if available as well as the HSNO controls and the matching NIoC and CCID for all the chemicals, substances and all other hazardous ingredients in the products and their MSDS and Labels too. EPA information current application - Note to editors: The EPA is responsible for regulating hazardous substances and new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. Specialist Decision-Making Committees are appointed by the EPA to manage decisions under HSNO.

My comment - Yep, Specialist Yes-Men and Yes-Women prepared to do the deed for the chemical manufacturers direct benefit and to ignore and dismiss Maori perspectives, concerns and issues under the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 - Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840 and to put everyone at unacceptable risk and harm and pollute and poison our aquatic environments and kaimoana illegally by spraying these 40 poisonous pesticides into our harbours, rivers and streams and the air within them for 20 years and by helicopter, airboat or ground spray, up to 3 times a year and without our consent. 6.2. Full reassessments (sec62 & sec 63) would apply to the pesticide

SUBMISSION102615


11

substances and for everyone, all users of the substances. 7. Permissions sec 95A HSNO Act 7.1 HSNO Act section 95A permissions are the goal of APP201365. They have to be consistent with the approvals of the substances. These dodgy permissions go against the HSNO Act approvals, regulations and controls for each product as well as the manufacturers MSDSs and Labels hazard class regulatory information and directions source from international best practice. The applicants and the EPA are expecting section 95A permissions which aren't consistent with the approvals of the substances. They are seeking to modify the additional controls just for themselves, but these hazardous substances in the pesticides also have very toxic and very toxic ecotoxic hazard classes which would prohibit their application into or onto water and these are hazard regulations and controls. Further more detailed hazard class information for the chemicals in the pesticide products is on the NZIoC and the CCID online and on the EPA's website. 7.2. Sec 95A(1) permissions apply if the Authority approves a substance subject to an obligation referred to in section 77A(2)(a), namely that, before using a subtance, a person must obtain a prior permission under this section for the general or particular use of the substance. This would mean that everyone in NZ who uses the substance or the pesticide products involved (40 of them), has to obtain a prior permission before they can use the substance. These pesticide products are used by the public and farmers, forestry workers, market garderners and orchadists etc nationwide. That's why we have multiple pesticide poison residues on our fruit, vegetables and dairy products in NZ. 7.3. Sec 95A(3)(a) - As for the adverse effects involved in the use of the substance which the Authority must consider in sec 95A(3)(a), these adverse effects identified already prohibit or restrict the substances use into or onto water as in the MSDSs and Labels, international best practice, the HSNO controls and the NZIoC and CCID. Plus the applicants never stated all the adverse effects for each product in their applications. See some of them below in Pesticide Products. 7.4. Sec 95A(4) - The Authority may grant a permission subject to any conditions it may specify in the permission that are consistent with the approval of the substance. Again these HSNO approvals and hazard regulations prohibit their application and spraying into or onto water. 7.5. And nowhere in sec 95A does it say that the holders can go against the MSDS and Label document directions and Regulatory information for the use of the substance or pesticide. It doesn't say that the EPA can delete any Regulatory compliance controls for the hazardous substances either.

SUBMISSION102615


12

8. HSNO Act and the application 8.1. The guidelines for writing a submission say that the Decision making committee can only consider the effects associated with the application and not effects or matters that do not relate to the HSNO Act, yet the applicants application document consists of pages and pages of matters and effects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the HSNO Act. 8.2. Infact the only information applicable of theirs really is the information asked for in the specific questions on the Official Application Form under sec 63A and which are answered in their specific parts of their application document and appendices, amongst all the other vast, inapplicable information. However, a decision under Sec 63A cannot be made under any section of the HSNO Act so it is virtually invalid. Just like the illegal change of use of the substance grounds granted in APP201213 decision doc. As well as the silly reference made also in there by the EPA to a proposed significant change of use grounds, that hasn't theoretically happened yet. The information has to show and relate to how a significant change of use has come about or is being used, and it would have to be legal under HSNO I'd imagine, and also not a fictitious predetermined change of use. Unless of course it's the significant illegal change of use disclosed (for many years) you mean and which was decided on as well. And just like the invalid sec 95A permissions being sought and which I see in the application document have already been drawn up to detail! (does every user in NZ now need a sec95A permission before they can legally use the pesticide products named now? lol). And how's that for a very pre-determined decision, invalid and illegal as it is. And before the submissions process has even finished. 8.3. The applicants and the EPA are also expecting to get away with not complying with the manufacturers products MSDS and Label directions and Regulations and regulatory information (sourced from international best practice) on prohibiting their use into or onto water (and prohibiting spraying over water or allow to drift over an aquatic environment)! They would also go against their own HSNO Act legislation and regulations compliance via a decision which isn't even made under any section of the HSNO Act ie sec 63A Modified Reassessment. And deliberately harm and damage the aquatic environment, kaimoana and locals by appying and spraying soem highly toxic and highly ecotoxic poisons into or onto the harbours, rivers and streams. 8.4. This new attempt at poisoning us all and our aquatic environments goes right against the HSNO Act's Purpose and relevant principles and matters, the Precautionary principle of the Act and goes against the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty Of Waitangi for Maori as well. 9. Prior Grounds for reassessment applications APP201213 and APP201378

SUBMISSION102615


13

9.1. APP201213 decided 20 February 2012 Grounds for reassessment under sec 62(2)(c), invalidly on information showing a significant prohibited (illegal) change of use of the substances haloxyfop and metsulfuron (admitted Offences against the HSNO Act by the Regional Councils, DoC and MAF, as in this application) should be revoked now. Otherwise the EPA will be shown to agree with and condone the applicants and other Regional Councils disclosure of committing Offences against the HSNO Act 1996. The other feeble attempt at a ficticious significant change of use (proposed) doesn't stack up either. 9.2. Maori and issues and concerns to Maori were not considered and included in the determination and decision making process for such an important issue affecting our ancestral waterways and other taonga and which puts us and our water and kaimoana at risk from the toxic and ecotoxic effects of the pesticides which is a direct breach of the principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840/Treaty of Waitangi 1840, Te Whakaputanga 1835/Declaration of Independence 1835 and sec 8 of the HSNO Act 1996. "Issues and Concerns to Maori" Grounds for reassessment application Decision document for APP201213 - 4.9. The EPA has no concerns from a Māori perspective regarding the applicant’s wish to determine whether there are grounds for the reassessment of the substances. 20 Feb 2012 (Shucks! same Chair who loves excluding Maori) Chair Helen Atkins. 9.3. APP201378 decided 28 June 2012 Grounds for reassessment was the EPA's application to itself. Decided under sec 62(2)(a) "Significant new information relating to the effects of the substances has become available". However, the legislation doesn't say that sec 62(2)(a) of the HSNO Act says "Significant new information relating to the effects of the substance or organism has become available". That means 1 substance, not many substances (5 or more hazardous categories, 40 products). Invalid? Maybe 5 separate applications? 9.4. Again Maori and issues and concerns for Maori were not included in the determination and decision making for this important issue and where the use of the poisons into or onto our waterways and the air puts us at risk to our health and safety and the safety of our families. Spraying poisons into the water we get our kaimoana and watercress from is inexcusable. It pollutes te mauri o te wai. Significant risk, harm and damage will be put on our unborn and our future generations as well. "The committee has considered Maori perspectives when determining whether there are grounds for reassessment of the substances." Chair Helen Atkins 28 June 2012. This should be revoked as well. Otherwise the EPA will be seen as poisoners of the indigenous people and their kaimoana harbours, rivers and streams, excluding them in the determining and decision making and also as condoning the Regional

SUBMISSION102615


14

Council, MAF and DoC's significant illegal change of use of the substances and which the same Chair decided for in APP201213 as well as for the ficititious use. 10. Poison pesticide products (Conclusion below) Note: I have yet to go through all of the 40 products proposed to be used MSDSs, Labels and Haznotes, HSNO Act approval controls and NIoC and CCID, including all the other hazardous ingredients in the products and any overseas studies and relevant information. I am awaiting the hard copies from the EPA and the attachments. This is just some information below. Some was not dislcosed by the applicants and the EPA (haloxyfop) etc. Also, I've made some comments on some of the pesticide product MSDSs provided in this application and am still looking at them. Will have further information when I've done this and received all the products' current MSDSs and Labels. Some of the pesticide products MSDS & Labels say Very Ecotoxic to fish with long lasting effects, or Very Ecotoxic to aquatic organisms with long lasting effects etc. Some contain hydrocarbons and ethanol. Haloxyfop methyl "1992 Greenpeace Report "Never-Registered Pesticide" USA EPA rejected (haloxyfop, haloxyfop methyl, R methyl ester, P methyl ester). Banned in Norway Significant health and environment hazards health information not fully disclosed by the applicants or the EPA and missing product MSDSs and Label documents; Haloxyfop methyl Fluorinated pesticide Reference - Haloxyfop (DowElanco). 1992 Greenpeace Report "Never-Registered Pesticide" http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/haloxyfop.greenpeace.1992.htm Excerpts - Dow's systemic herbicide haloxyfop methyl - U.S. EPA rejected both tolerance and registration efforts due to concerns the chemical is a "probable human carcinogen" (WHO Class B2 carcinogen) Health and Environmental Hazards Health: Exposure to haloxyfop poses both acute and chronic risks. (USA) EPA denied the registrations because of concern that the pesticides may cause cancer, birth defects, residue problems, or harm to fish and wildlife. (See following case studies.)...

SUBMISSION102615


15

The haloxyfop formulations "Verdict" and "Gallant" include xylenes as inert ingredients. (22) These are known to damage the liver, kidneys and bone marrow, be toxic to the fetus and the nervous system and cause low blood cell count. Repeated exposure to xylenes can cause poor memory, concentration and other effects on the brain. (45)

Important Note - Gallant NF (haloxyfop100g/L) and then Gallant Ultra (haloxyfop methyl 520g/L) pesticides have been sprayed into the Hokianga harbour and 16 or more rivers for Spartina illegally by the Northland Regional Council since 2007 yearly and applied illegally into other Northland waterways by them for years with DoC and all of their dodgy 'Approved Handlers' (see Offences...). Also sprayed with Uptake Spraying Oil (GF-2574 Formulation) Gallant Ultra pesticide has the same HSNO approval for Crest 520.

Newly worded Category in APP201378

Soluble concentrate containing 50 g/litre picloram and 100 g/litre triclopyr as the amine salts category,

Picloram was sprayed over Vietnam by the USA military in the Vietnam War in Tordon 101, Agent White -

http://www.vvi.org/Content/mjournal.htm Tordon Gold Herbicide, Tornado Gold and Victory Gold

Tordon Gold Herbicide and Tornado Gold (CAS 6753-47-5). CAS - 6753-47-5 is on the NZIoC The NZIoC is a database of all the hazardous chemical components of products approved under group standards. -

2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-, compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris[2-propanol] (1:1)

CAS Number: 6753-47-5 Synonyms: Approval Status: 2-Pyridinecarboxylic acid, 4-amino-

3,5,6-trichloro-, compd. with 1,1',1''-nitrilotris[2-propanol] (1:1) (6753-47-5) may be used as a component in a product covered by a group standard but it is not approved for use as a chemical in its own right.

Restrictions / Exclusions: Date Added to Inventory:

1/12/2006

SUBMISSION102615


16

Tordon Pasture Boss Herbicide (GF-2574) is an OSH A2 Carcinogen (as stated in the MSDS in Appendix G MSDS) and has the same CAS 57213-69-1 but it also has 3 other hazardous ingredient CAS numbers, one of which is the OSH A2 Carcinogen. Now Picloram was sprayed in Vietnam by the USA military in the Vietnam War in Tordon 101, Agent White - http://www.vvi.org/Content/mjournal.htm Uptake Spraying Oil by Dow also shows up for Formulation GF2574. It is 'required' (so Dow says) to be used with Gallant haloxyfop, Preside, Radiate and Tordon Max (T-Max) herbicides (see Label). The NRC use it with Gallant Ultra (520g/L) up North here spraying it into/onto our harbours and rivers for Spartina. It is a hazardous adjuvant. Yet on the Uptake Spraying Oil Label in Australia, same product, it lists the herbicides compatible with Uptake Spraying Oil, and Gallant haloxyfop is not on the list but Tordon is. We're faced with unknown synergistic effects. The NRC, Doc and their commercial contractors have been spraying the 2 products together up here into our harbours and rivers for years. The NZ Label for Uptake spraying oil says "ECOTOXIC Do not spray over or allow drift over an aquatic environment." Just like the NZ Gallant Ultra (haloxyfop 520g/L) MSDS and Label says not to do! So thats 2 products, both being prohibited from being sprayed over and drifting over an aquatic environment, and both BEING APPLIED/SPRAYED TOGETHER! (double whammy). Conclusion - If the government seriously wanted to control and eradicate aquatic weeds without using poison chemical pesticides, then they would find natural and ecofriendly ways to do this, which are also in line with our tikanga and values and perspectives around cherishing our taonga and not to poison our people, whanau and unborn and future generations and threaten their health and safety, or our treasured waters and land and our much loved kaimoana. Toxic and ecotoxic chemical pesticides get overused and the weeds get resistant and can also fragment and spread and a cycle gets set up and perpetuated where more and stronger poisons are used. These poisons enter the food chain and ecosystems. Spraying them into waterways is unacceptable. The only opposition to this 20 year unethical and illegal agenda for mass poisoning without consent is a total opposition to it because the AGR and Regional Councils, MAF and DoC cannot be trusted as they blatantly offend against their own legislation the HSNO Act, and don't stick to compliance controls and regulations governing their use of poison pestcides into water and with the collusion of the EPA. Maori rights are ignored. The EPA decision making committee Chairs do not have our best interests at heart, nor our aquatic environments. They serve other interests as does the

SUBMISSION102615


17

ARG. References below: Mauri Ora Jackie References: 1. The HSNO Act 1996 2. Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840/The Treaty f Waitangi 1840 3. Te Whakaputanga 1835/Declaration of Independence 1835 4. All Product MSDS, Labels & Haznotes if any 5. All product HSNO Act approvals and controls, EPA website 6. NZIoC and CCID for all the chemicals and substances 7. 1992 Greenpeace Report "Never Registered Pesticide" -Haloxyfop... http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/haloxyfop.greenpeace.1992.htm 8. Haloxyfop FAO 1995 link http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/JMPR/Download/95_eva/haloxy.pdf

SUBMISSION102615

APP201365 Submission Appendix Submitter: Jackie Pou [email protected]

1

Environmental Protection Authority Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay Wellington NZ [email protected] Jackie Pou PO Box 6 Rawene 0443 [email protected] 5 October 2012 Submission for APP201365 to the EPA Wellington Appendix to submission dated September 11 2012 RE: Modified Reassessment of multiple herbicides to control aquatic weeds APP201365 This Appendix contains further information and evidence in support of my submission and it is not confidential. Please add it onto my Sept 11 submission for the public record. I wish for the EPA to post my submission and appendix in full on your website. There are three documents attached: Attached File: Pou LGOIMA REQUEST REPLY FINAL 12 SEPT 2012.PDF Attached file: APP201443 Decision.pdf Attached File: letter complainant J Pou.pdf Further information and evidence provided: I totally oppose this application and seek the Environmental Protection Authority [EPA] to decline it under Section 63A(6)(a)&(b) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Act. I also want to stress that the EPA and the Agrichemical Reassessment Group (ARG) are acting illegally with this application to try and change the legislation for multiple different hazardous and new organism substances, all in one application. The EPA's HSNO Act approvals and controls application information relates to "a substance" or says that the substances can be included in the same application if they are the same substance and have similar controls ie the same degrees of hazard, unlike this collection of multiple different substances with different concentrations thrown together to suit the ARG and the EPA's combined, grand agenda. These 14 generic categories within the 5 broad categories include 40 pesticide products, which are named within this application plus the other 2 previous Grounds for reassessment applications. Links to these other applications are - APP201213: http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=APP201213 APP201378: http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=APP201378

SUBMISSION102615


2

It's unbelievable that the EPA would even consider doing this. It's an injustice to the people of NZ, tangata whenua and all people living here, as well as to our environment and kaimoana too. It is particularly an injustice to our future generations and the unborn due to the adverse effects of these poisons plus the wide dispersive manner, spraying into the waterways and air. Also breaching NZ's International obligations and best practices and standards. Another important thing the ARG and EPA forgets is that these 14 generic categories and 40 products also contain other dangerous and hazardous toxic and ecotoxic ingredients which are separate to and are additional to the stated substances. There are multiple other substances involved, not just haloxyfop, metsulfuron, triethylamine salts and picloram. Why was the Picloram generic category left out of APP201365? Is it because it's a persistent organic pollutant? It is due to international best standards and practices that these pesticide substances are prohibited from being applied into or onto water and applied in a wide dispersive manner too, being sprayed over or drifting over an aquatic environment. I'm still waiting for the missing the MSDSs and Labels too... I will be commenting on the ARG's application document and Appendices at the Hearing as well as more on the substances and products. However, it is shameful and unacceptable for NIWA scientist-for-hire Paul Champion on page 16 of the document in "7.1 Table 2 Unequivocal identification of substances", to try and pass that pathetic identification off as unequivocal. Even for NZ! Also, there are 40 separate products involved in this. On the official modified reassessment application form on page 4 it says in question 3.1. "The unequivocal identification of the substance." Not "Unequivocal identification of substances" which is very random and non-specific and plural as well. Your form response says, "Please refer Sections 7 and 8 of the application document". But on page 16 of the application document it specifically says "Unequivocal identification of substances" with 13 generic categories listed with one HSR code each and one active ingredient named, yet this is listed under 7.1. "Approvals being reassessed" and is in answer to question 2.1 of the official form. See below what constitutes "The Unequivocal identification of the substance" from the EPA's own information too. Paul Champion’s review of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Fate of four herbicides used to control aquatic weeds - NIWA, wouldn't pass International standards and any International Independent Peer review (unless it was by a Dow or Monsanto employee perhaps), along with his biased unpublished NZ studies. It's amazing how he can dismiss toxicity and ecotoxicological hazards and risks right down to practically non-existent, and "negligible". 'The benefits outweigh the risks' the familiar drone-like catch phrase of the EPA and Paul Champion and the EPA's specialist Decision-Making Committees and Chairs. And how they can turn acute and high toxicity: ecotoxicity and carcinogenic; mutagenic and teratogenic; reproductive, risks into negligible, or insignificant risks. Along with no specified ecotoxicological chronic data. Maybe Paul Champion should be advising the International experts because according to his methodology they all got it wrong. Amazing! EPA information - "If the substance(s) is not unequivocally identified, the application will not meet the statutory requirements and will not be processed Required are the chemical name (Chemical Abstracts Preferred Index name (CA name) or International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), common name, synonyms, trade names, CAS registry number, molecular formula, structural formula, information on impurities/contaminants eg ... dioxin contaminants present, even in trace amounts..., or if the substance contains a polymer, you should identify any unreacted monomers that may be present at the relevant percentages etc." (Paul states in 8.2 Commercial Sensitivity that the application does not contain any information considered to be commercially sensitive...).

SUBMISSION102615


3

"For mixtures, you should provide the information for each component, including non-hazardous components and impurities: the name of each component, the CAS number of each component, the function (eg active ingredient, emulsifier, surfactant, solvent, filler) of each component, and the percent contribution of each component ie the complete composition of the product/mixture. The total percentage should add up to 100%. Correspondingly, you can make a single application covering a group of products with similar composition and similar hazard classification. For example. a line of paint products, which varies only in colour due to relatively minor variation in pigments, could all be grouped together." Unlike this multiple assortment, which is all, lumped together into one invalid application. What a disgrace. The EPA has definitely breached its Duty of Care in many ways with this application and the other 2 and also with past approvals made. There was an incidence of Commercial sensitivity in Nufarm's application to the EPA in 2009 for Crest 520 (haloxyfop methyl 520/Gallant Ultra/Valiant 520). These products are included in this application. Confidential material was supplied and it was not disclosed (see information link further on). Also, as Gallant is teratogenic, then why is it included in this application for use into or onto water for aquatic weeds (Gallant/Gallant NF, Gallant Ultra (aromatic hydrocarbons and the haloxyfop)? I also have support to oppose this application - Resolution That at the meeting in Kaikohe held 27/9/12 whanau and hapu o Hokianga endorsed Jackie Pou’s application, which opposes EPA’s application to modify the illegal use of toxins being used on aquatic weeds in Hokianga Harbour. APP 201365 All agreed. Support Kaumatua to allow them to attend on our behalf of the Hokianga whanau hapu. The purpose of this application contravenes our tikanga and our mana whenua, tino rangatiratanga and sovereignty as acknowledged in He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni 1835 with King William, and then in Te Tiriti O Waitangi in 1840 as well. It is bad enough that the EPA has allowed the Northland Regional Council and Department of Conservation to poison our taonga, our ancestral Hokianga harbour and awa, illegally for 5 years with these pesticides, our kaimoana and us. Our tikanga and perspectives are paramount here. The EPA's Maori Advisory Committee and other Maori groups have no mandate to speak for tangata whenua who will be directly affected. Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao's whakapapa is the Crown and the EPA (EPA Act Section 18(1) 2011). Below is further information provided to substantiate my submission: Further evidence provided below: 1. Offences against the HSNO Act. Northland Regional Council & DoC, illegal use: 1.1. Copy of letter dated 31 August from the Dept of Labour HSNO Enforcement officer in Whangarei re investigation of my complaint into the Northland Regional Council and DoC's HSNO Act non-compliances for their aquatic weed spraying programmes spraying prohibited pesticides into or onto water naming Agpro Haloxyfop 100. See next page.

SUBMISSION102615


4

SUBMISSION102615


5

1.2. Copy of the Spartina Eradication Programme Notice of Intention to Spray within the Hokianga Harbour 2007. NRC resource consent CON20031095001 naming Gallant NF herbicide/pesticide product used.

SUBMISSION102615


6

1.3. NRC Resource Consent information naming Gallant NF product used. NRC Spartina Resource Consent information - "Northland Regional Council commenced controlling spartina in 2003 with a large scale eradication program in the Kaipara Harbour in 2003 and a 15 year program to eradicate spartina Northland wide was approved by Council in 2004. In 2002 and 2003 resource consents were granted by Northland Regional Council for the use of Gallant NF plus Uptake crop oil. These were Con2020963305 for spraying in the Kaipara Harbour which was replaced by CON 20031095001 in 2003 and reviewed in 2010 to remove brand specifics (CON 2010095001). Consent wording is: To undertake the following activities associated with the eradication of Spartina spp grasses by means of aerial and land based application methods of Haloxyfop-P methyl ester (also known as haloxyfop-R methyl ester) and Uptake™ spraying oil throughout the Northland region: 01 Discharge to the coastal marine area. 02 Discharge to air within the coastal marine area. 03 Discharge to freshwater. 04 Discharge to land. This consent has an expiry date of 30 November 2013." 1.4. NRC Spartina Eradication Programme Hokianga Harbour 2012. Note: See old 2003 Resource Consent used instead of the NRC's reviewed 2010 Resource Consent with different conditions. SPARTINA ERADICATION PROGRAMME Notice of intention to spray within the Hokianga Harbour 2012 Northland Regional Council resource consent CON20031095001 The Northland Regional Council. Land Operations Section and Department of Conservation is carrying out an eradication programme of the invasive exotic grass species “SPARTINA” within Northland harbours. We wish to work with all parties to remove this serious threat to Northlands harbours while minimising inconvenience to harbour users. Programme To apply the herbicide Haloxyfop plus Uptake crop oil for the eradication of SPARTINA spp. This program has been ongoing in the Hokianga for 5 years. Land based application methods are to be used at the various sites within to control this regrowth till eradication at each site is achieved. Only very minor amounts of chemical is to be used this season as the spartina infestation density is now very low or non-existant on most sites. Spartina patches to be sprayed in the following marine and adjoining areas Hokianga Harbour Tupuwae River Motukiore Wirinake River Rawene Waima River Matawera Road Motukauri Kohukohu Wairere River Mungamuka River Kahikatoa Mangungu Ivydale

SUBMISSION102615


7

Perunui River Takitahi Opara Other sites if found Intended spraying times Weather and tide permitting, ground based spraying will be undertaken from February till late April 2012. Chemical to be used Haloxyfop plus crop oil Warning. Fish & shellfish should not be gathered from within 500 metres of the sprayed sites indicated, for a period of 5 days from the date of spraying. For further information contact: Doug Foster – Land Management Officer NRC Ph 09 4086600 or 0274 767983 Don McKenzie – Biosecurity Senior Program Manager NRC Ph 09 438 4639 Or Contractor - TAG Vegetation Control - Guy Forbes 09 4076623 1.5. NRC press release information for (illegal) aquatic weed spraying, excerpt, naming Gallant. http://www.nrc.govt.nz/upload/4458/March%2008%20-%20Items%201%20-%207.pdf 1.6. Spartina Eradication Programme File Number: 815.4.1.5 Report from Land Management Officer Doug Foster dated 26 February 2008. "Aerial spraying with the herbicide Gallant is the only practical and cost-effective method for initial control of most large sites due to location and accessibility. Aerial spraying is required for three years and by which time the infestation has been reduced to a size that it can be controlled by ground-based methods. Ground-based methods can be used for initial control of small sites." 1.7. Posted: 27 March 2008 North virtually spartina-free within six years, NRC hopes "... Mr McKenzie says while ground-based methods can be used for initial control of smaller spartina sites, aerial spraying with the herbicide Gallant is the only practical and cost-effective method for initial control at most large sites due to their location and accessibility issues. Aerial spraying is required for three years after which the infestation has typically been reduced to a size that can be successfully controlled from the ground instead.” 1.8. Management and Control of Manchurian Wild Rice File: 815.4.1.10 Report by Biosecurity Officer Peter Joynt dated 26 February 2008. In 2002 the Council obtained a 15-year resource consent to apply the herbicide Gallant NF over water, specifically for the control of Manchurian wild rice. Manchurian wild rice can be controlled and the density of the infestation reduced dramatically if sprayed twice each year, in the spring-early summer and again in autumn. The application of herbicide, although costly, is the most effective form of control. 1.9. Dow AgroSciences Information showing Gallant Ultra replaces Gallant NF: Gallant* Ultra Herbicide

SUBMISSION102615


8

New Zealand's most robust grassweed herbicide has had a radical make over! Gallant Ultra replaces Gallant NF which has a long history of providing excellent control of annual and perennial grassweeds across a variety of crops. Gallant Ultra is 5 times more concentrated than Gallant NF providing end users with a number of new benefits;

• Lower use rates • Each litre treats 5 times the area • Less product to handle • Fewer containers for disposal

Along with these new advances, Gallant Ultra still provides the same outstanding grassweed control and crop safety as Gallant NF. Gallant Ultra can be used selectively in clover, peas, onions, lucerne, nursery and forestry crops. Label link: http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_0537/0901b80380537f98.pdf?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00528.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc MSDS Link: http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_038d/0901b8038038d272.pdf?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00519.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc HazNote Link: http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_038d/0901b8038038d27b.pdf?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00518.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc 1.10. OIA Request response from NRC CEO with attached NRC Resource Consent for 2010 showing that the pesticide used was not named and changed to just "Haloxyfop". See Attached File: Pou LGOIMA REQUEST REPLY FINAL 12 SEPT 2012.PDF 1.11. EPA information to me stating that generic "Haloxyfop" covers 13 separate trade name pesticide products, including Gallant Ultra (classed by the EPA as the same as Crest 520 and Valiant 520). There have been 5 substances approved for import or manufacture for release under the HSNO Act that contain the active ingredient haloxyfop: · Emulsifiable concentrate containing 100 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester [Approval Number HSR000373] · Suspension concentrate containing 17 g/litre haloxyfop[(R)-isomer] as the methyl ester and 500 g/litre terbuthylazine [Approval Number HSR000378] · Ignite [Approval Number HSR002431] · Scorp EC [Approval Number HSR008025] · Crest 520 [Approval Number HSR100054] Note that a HSNO approval is a generic approval, not specific to a particular trade name product. Under these 5 HSNO approvals 13 trade name products are approved:

• Ignite • Fopp 100 • AGPRO Haloxyfop 100 • Scorp EC • GALLANT NF HERBICIDE • AGPRO LIBERATE • Gallant Ultra • Hurricane TBA

SUBMISSION102615


9

• Hurricane • Valiant • Valiant 100 • VALIANT 520 • Crest 520

All of these trade name products contain the active haloxyfop. 1.12. Email dated 16 March 2012 from NRC stating that Gallant was used for Spartina control by their Approved Handler with MSDS for Gallant Ultra [Pg 1 MSD Gallant pdf enclosed]

SUBMISSION102615


10

Pages 1 -5 see below: MSDS Link :http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_038d/0901b8038038d272.pdf?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00519.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc 1.13. EPA Crest 520 application 2009 - See the documents for Crest under our HSNO Application Register.http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/Pages/applications-details.aspx?appID=HSR09042#. 1.14. MSDS Uptake Spraying Oil Link and comments.

SUBMISSION102615


11

Uptake* Spraying Oil - Dow AgroSciences www.dowagro.com/nz/prod/uptake.htm Uptake* Spraying Oil. Required for use with GallantTM, PresideTM and RadiateTM herbicides. Labels: pdf icon, Label (70KB PDF). Safety Data Sheets: pdf icon ... New Zealand Uptake* Spraying Oil Required for use with GallantTM, PresideTM and RadiateTM herbicides. Label Link: http://www.dowagro.com/webapps/lit/litorder.asp?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00062.pdf&pdf=true MSDS Link: http://www.dowagro.com/webapps/lit/litorder.asp?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00063.pdf&pdf=true HazNote Link: http://www.dowagro.com/webapps/lit/litorder.asp?filepath=nz/pdfs/noreg/012-00268.pdf&pdf=true Label information: Contains 520g/L parriffinic oil and 240g/L alkoxylated alcohol non-ionic surfactants ECOTOXICITY Toxic in an aquatic environment. Do not contaminate an aquatic environment with chemical or empty container. Do not spray over or allow drift over, an aquatic environment Exempt from registration pursuant to the AVCM Act 1997 Approved pursuant to the HSNO Act 1996, ERMA Approval code HSR002503 UN Number: 3082 Class: 9 Packing Group: 111 HAZCHEM 2X MSDS Effective Date: 30 January 2007 Product Code: 31354 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ENVIRONMENTAL FATE: Classified BY ERMANZ as ecotoxic in the aquatic environment ECOTOXICOLOGY No relevant information found (NOTE: If this is the case then why is it classified as ecotoxic? There is international data for this. How is it not relevant here?) 1.15. My comments: Due to its ecotoxicity Crest 520 is required to be Tracked under the HSNO Act 1996 regulations (TR1), but ERMA decided to delete that requirement instead. They just negated a whole hazard class, Ecotoxicity, as if it doesn't even exist or matter. It was also only approved on the condition that it was not to be applied into or onto water. "The Committee noted that haloxyfop-P has been recently reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and that this review will be further evaluated by the Agency if there are grounds established for the reassessment of haloxyfop-P-methyl." Was it? And specifically for this high concentration of 520g/L haloxyfop methyl? I doubt it.

SUBMISSION102615


12

Also, Confidential material was submitted. Aromatic hydrocarbons appeared as a hazardous ingredient on Crest 520's MSDS yet these were not openly disclosed in the application. See information on aromatic hydrocarbons below. This application should never have been approved. The ERMA Chair Manuka Henare should be held accountable. 2. Further Offences against the HSNO Act 1996 - Investigation into the Waikato Regional Council and DoC: 2.1. Copy of letter dated 12 August 2012: from Dept of Labour HSNO Act Enforcement Officer in Hamilton, received 31 August 2012, on the investigation into the Waikato Regional Council & DoC's HSNO Act non-compliances for aquatic weed spraying acknowledging their prohibited use. See Attached File: letter complainant J Pou.pdf 2.2. WRC press release July 31 2012 – Waikato Playing Key Role In Aquatic Weed Spraying Efficiency Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 4:08 pm Press Release: Waikato Regional Council "Waikato Regional Council has been playing a central role in moves designed to make spraying of aquatic weeds more cost effective and to get formal approval for such spraying. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has announced today it is seeking submissions on an application to allow a number of herbicides to be used over water to control aquatic pest plants. The herbicides have been used for many years over water already but the application is designed to secure the necessary formal approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. The application is being made by the Agricultural Reassessment Group (ARG), on behalf of 12 regional councils, including Waikato, as well as the Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries, Land Information New Zealand and Mighty River Power. The group is seeking approval to use herbicides containing one of four active ingredients (haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuron-methyl or triclopyr triethylamine). These substances are currently approved for use on land in New Zealand. They target a range of New Zealand’s worst weeds, including Manchurian wild rice, Spartina, alligator weed, yellow flag iris and some grasses and sedges. But they are not formally approved by the EPA for use over water, even though many councils and agencies have been using them to control weeds that can grow in or near water. This gap in approval for use of the herbicides to control aquatic weeds was discovered by Waikato Regional Council’s biosecurity and heritage group last December when, in the interests of efficiency and saving money, it was looking to streamline the consenting process for applying herbicides to aquatic weeds. "As we looked at streamlining our aquatic weed spraying consent process we saw that, while such spraying over water was allowed under the Resource Management Act, we needed approval to do it under HSNO," said programme manager Kevin Collins. "We immediately ceased any spraying of aquatic weeds with the herbicides and approached the EPA about what we needed to do to become compliant with HSNO. The combined application from ARG to the EPA was the end result." Mr Collins said Waikato would work closely with the EPA and the other parties to the application. "We want to make sure we have all the necessary approvals before resuming general spraying of aquatic weeds with the herbicides."

SUBMISSION102615


13

In its application, the ARG states that the use of the herbicides over water will complement existing pest plant control methods and help fulfill the group’s statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act to control and eradicate, where possible, invasive pest plant species. The ARG has evaluated the potential risks to organisms within the aquatic environment from uncontrolled use of the substances on to or into water. It considers that these risks can be reduced by a number of proposed controls on the use of the substances. The ARG’s application was submitted to the EPA last month. The EPA has indicated a decision is likely on the application before the end of September 2012. Meanwhile, Waikato Regional Council is urgently seeking special, emergency permission from the Government and the EPA to use one of the herbicides to spray a small infestation of alligator weed at the Ruahorehore Stream near Waihi "It’s a catch-22. Under our existing resource consent we must spray before September but the EPA decision on the ARG application won’t be issued before then. Alligator weed is a particularly aggressive pest plant and spraying is the most effective way to help stop it spreading when it is growing in an aquatic environment," said Mr Collins. " 2.3. WRC (illegal) aquatic weed spraying excerpts 2006 and 2011 links in my submission page 10. 2.4. APP201343 Waikato Regional Council EPA Decision document 'Special Emergency' for illegal spraying of metsulfuron-methyl poison pesticide into or onto water in the Ruahorehore Stream, Waikato. Might do an analysis of this. It's utter rot. See attached file: APP201443 Decision.pdf 2.5. My comments: Prohibited use is admitted often in the 3 applications and also invalidly used by the EPA as the Grounds for reassessment of these multiple pesticides in APP201213, APP 201378. And the prohibited use is mentioned in this APP201365 Application document, numerous times, and in 16 REFERENCES (all the Regional Councils and DoC etc) as well as in the hardcopy Appendices. Illegal weed management programmes are exactly that, illegal. There is even visual proof of the WRC and DoC Waikato's illegal activities in "Spraying Methods", after Appendix 2 117 of 117 (in the hard copy Appendices) in the 5 photos of their illegal spraying on pages 2, 3 and 4. These also show the 'Growsafe' unqualified, dodgy-as 'Approved Handlers' not wearing any personal protective equipment whilst spraying these toxic and ecotoxic poisons in a wide dispersive manner into or onto water. These are mandatory HSNO Act regulations and controls for the workers safety. No sign of any waterproof gloves, safety goggles, cotton overalls buttoned to the neck and wrist and boots at all. The last photo is an illegal helicopter air drop applying metsulfuron methyl into the Waikato River Delta. Those poor used and duped 'Approved' Handlers. No exposure limits, WES, TEL, or EELs have been specifically assigned for the products they're using either, as is often the case with ERMA and the EPA. It's as if the workers safety means nothing, or the public's, or the environment's or for any any tolerable exposure limits. That's the EPA for you. Dodgy-as. Hazardous poisons also floating downstream to endanger the hapu and whanau and pregnant wahine. It's deplorable! And illegal Resource Consents have been used as the basis for the proposed conditions for this application. The abuse we have to endure is never-ending with you lot. The Waikato Regional Council has already gone ahead with its Region wide Resource Consent to apply these prohibited pesticides for aquatic use in contravention of the HSNO Act 1996. And an illegal RC of the WRC was used for the rigged declared special emergency in August too. So much for their July 31 press release then - "We immediately ceased any spraying of aquatic weeds with the herbicides and approached the EPA about what we needed to do to become compliant with HSNO. The combined application from ARG to the EPA was the end result.

SUBMISSION102615


14

Mr Collins said Waikato would work closely with the EPA and the other parties to the application. "We want to make sure we have all the necessary approvals before resuming general spraying of aquatic weeds with the herbicides." And they're still using banned haloxyfop for Spartina (DoC Waikato), see DoL investigator's letter to me dated 12 August 2012(received 31 August). The product they say they're using is one of the prohibited haloxyfop pesticide products named in this application for 'modification', and the other 2 as well (see further information). Afterall, haloxyfop ain't on the list of pesticides which can be applied into or onto water in the HSNO Act 1996 Key Legislative change 2006 (see number 3 in my submission), not even that one (Agpro Haloxyfop 100). An 'oversight' indeed. How lame is that. 2.6. Illegal use: Enforcement Concerning the illegal use of these pesticides being applied into or onto water, and applied in a wide dispersive manner by many of the Applicants in the ARG, and including this year too, in contravention of the HSNO Act 1996 - The HSNO Act 1996: Section 109 Enforcement 109 Offences

• (1) Every person commits an offence against this Act who— • (e) fails to comply with—

o (i) any controls imposed by any approval granted under this Act; or o (ii) any controls specified in any regulations; or

k) wilfully obstructs any enforcement officer in the course of his or her duties; or 109A Time for laying information

• (1) An information in respect of an offence against this Act that relates to a hazardous substance may be laid by any person at any time within 6 months after the earlier of—

o (a) the date when the incident, situation, or set of circumstances to which the offence relates first became known to the person; or

o (b) the date when the incident, situation, or set of circumstances to which the offence relates should reasonably have become known to the person.

(2) An information in respect of an offence against this Act that relates to a new organism may be laid by any person at any time within 2 years after the time when the matter of the information arose. (3) Subsection (1) is subject to section 109B.

NOTE: Some of these hazardous substances are also new organisms. See the HSNO approvals for the pesticide products and the substances involved and the HSNO Act Interpretation, 'release', 'to import', etc all relate to new organisms. 114 Penalties

• (1) Every person who commits an offence against paragraph (a) or paragraph (aa) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) or paragraph (e) or paragraph (ea) or paragraph (eb) of section 109(1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $500,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $50,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.

3. EPA Act 2011 The EPA is failing to meet its own objective - Sec 12(1)(a)(b)

SUBMISSION102615


15

Functions of EPA 12 Objective of EPA

• (1)The objective of the EPA is to undertake its functions in a way that— o (a)contributes to the efficient, effective, and transparent management of

New Zealand's environment and natural and physical resources; and o (b)enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations.

4. HSNO Act Section 2 Preliminary Interpretation disposal means,—

• (a) in relation to a hazardous substance,— o (i) treating the substance in such a way that it is no longer a hazardous

substance; or o (ii) discharging the substance into the environment as waste; or o (iii) exporting the substance as waste from New Zealand:

• (b) in relation to a new organism,— o (i) rendering the organism biologically inactive in such a manner as to prevent

the occurrence of any future biological activity; or o (ii) exporting the organism from New Zealand o o

NOTE: As the substances which are discharged into the environment are not treated63A in such a way that they are no longer a hazardous substance, then they are discharged as waste into the environment. The spraying of these pesticides into or onto water is a way of discharging hazardous waste into the environment is it not?! Under the guise of 'aquatic weed spraying'. And new organisms are supposed to be exported from NZ as they are not rendered biologically inactive. The MSDS for Gallant Ultra (520g/L haloxyfop methyl)/Crest 520 says "Avoid release to the environment". 5. Also, the day submissions closed, the EPA suddenly Updated its NZ Inventory of Chemicals (NZIoC). See EPA email below - ----- Original Message ----- From: Susan Collier Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:59 PM Subject: NZIoC Update September 2012 This is a notification that the New Zealand Inventory of Chemicals (NZIoC) has been updated. 1. 117 new listings 2. 2 substances have been deleted in this update 3. 9 substances have had their status changed from component to single chemical. September 2012 Updates are given in the following document: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/NZIoC-Update.xls A complete listing of the NZIoC can be found here: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/New-Zealand-Inventory-of-Chemicals.xls If you have any questions regarding the NZIoC please do not hesitate to contact me.

SUBMISSION102615


16

Best Regards Susan 6. Haloxyfop methyl Crest 520 contains Aromatic hydrocarbons, so therefore so does Gallant Ultra and Valiant 520 - Benzene, napthalene. Crest 520 Composition/Information on ingredients Name Haloxyfop-P as the methyl ester CAS 72619-32-0 Proportion 520 g/L Name Aromatic Hydrocarbon CAS 64742-94-5 Proportion 30-60 % Product Name CREST 520 Product Code 00185 Product Type Herbicide Company Name Nufarm NZ Address 6 Manu Street, Otahuhu Auckland 2024 New Zealand Emergency Tel. 0800 651 911 Telephone/Fax Number Tel: 0-9-270 4157 Fax: 0-9-270 4159 Email www.nufarm.co.nz Recommended Use A selective post emergence herbicide for grass weed control in many broadleaf crops, orchards and forestry. Other Information This SDS describes, to the best of our knowledge, the properties of the concentrated product. The physical properties and some of the assessments do not apply to the properties of the product once it has been diluted for application. Acute health effects of the diluted product are likely to be much less severe. Chemical Name: Methyl (R) –2- [4- (3-chloro-5-trifluoromethyl-2-pyridyloxy) phenoxy] propionate Molecular Formula: C16 H13Cl F3 NO4 Synonyms: Trifopsime Any known adverse effects from unintentional use: Spray drift may cause serious damage to other desirable plants. Crest 520 is a selective herbicide; certain plants may be damaged or killed from foliar or root uptake of this product. Do not allow drift outside the target area. Hazard Classification Classified as Dangerous Goods according to the LTSA New Zealand. Risk Phrase(s)

SUBMISSION102615


17

Other Information 3.1D flammable liquid, 6.1D acute toxicant, 6.3B skin irritant, 6.4A eye irritant, 6.9B target organ toxicant, 9.1A aquatic toxicant, 9.3B terrestrial vertebrate toxicant, FLAMMABLE Warning - combustible liquid. TOXICITY Harmful - may be harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. May cause skin or eye irritation. May cause target organ damage from repeated oral exposure at high doses. ECOTOXIC Very toxic to aquatic organisms with long-lasting effects. Selective herbicide - very toxic to some plant species. Toxic to terrestrial vertebrates. Many have been banned or severely restricted in the United States and elsewhere, including most of the chlorphenoxy herbicides, the dipyridyls, lead arsenate and arsenicals, and the nitrophenol/dinitrophenol herbicides. Haloxyfop-methyl : Pasted below, same molecular formula as Crest 520 Molecular Formula: C16 H13Cl F3 NO4 Adverse Effects: Probable Human Carinogen - LIVER Endocrine: Testicular Endocrine: Thyroid PAN BAD ACTOR - Carcinogen http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/haloxyfop-methyl-page.htm Haloxyfop-methyl CAS No. 69806-40-2 ACTIVITY: Herbicide (Aryloxyphenoxy propionic acid) Note: Haloxyfop-methyl (unstated stereochemistry) Systematic Name: Propanoic acid, 2-(4-((3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl)oxy)phenoxy)-, methyl ester Structure:

Adverse Effects: Body Weight Decrease Bone Cancer: Probable Human Carcinogen - LIVER Cholesterol Endocrine: Testicular Endocrine: Thyroid Heart Kidney Liver Other Information Molecular Formula: C16-H13-Cl-F3-N-O4

SUBMISSION102615


18

Entry Year: 1981 Inventing Company: Dow Other Names: BRN 1509615 Dowco 453 Dowco 453ME Haloxyfop methyl ester [ANSI] Verdict Methyl 2-(4-((3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- pyridinyl)oxy)phenoxy)propanoate 2-(4-((3-Chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2- pyridinyl)oxy)phenoxy)propanoic acid methyl ester Manufacturer: Dow Agro (Dow Elanco) Of special interest: PAN BAD ACTOR - Carcinogen May 24, 2000 - Cancer Assessment Document. Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Diclofop-Methyl. (Second Review). Final Report. Cancer Assessment Review Committee, Health Effects Division, US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. "There are eight diphenyl ethers that are structurally similar to diclofop-methyl. Of the chemicals, fomesafen sodium, haloxyfop-methyl (Verdict), oxyfluorfen, acifluorfen sodium, nitrofen, and lactofen were reviewed in the initial CPRC report. All of these chemicals induced liver adenomas and carcinomas in rats and/or mice..." -- organofluorine pesticides highlighted in bold Heath Assessment. US EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 1995 - FAO evaluation "Never-Registered Pesticide" - Greenpeace Report, 1992. Abstracts Haloxyfop, haloxyfop-methyl and haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl - Extoxnet Profile, 1994. Glossary of Pesticide Chemicals, October 2001. A listing of pesticides subject to analysis of residues in foods and feeds by the US Food and Drug Administration. See also Haloxyfop Haloxyfop-etotyl Haloxyfop-P Haloxyfop-R HSNO Controls for Crest 520 Substance Description:

CAS Number:

SUBMISSION102615


19

Synonyms:

Approval Number: HSR100054

UN Number: The relevant HSNO controls are listed below. Where a control has been

varied, the change is shown to the right of the control.

(All) = overall classification for that endpoint, (O) = oral exposure route, (D) = dermal

exposure route, (I) = inhalation exposure route, (A) = algae, (C) = crustacean, (F) = fish

Hazard Classifications

3.1D , 6.1D (All), 6.1D (O), 6.3B , 6.4A , 6.9B (All), 6.9B (O), 9.1A (All), 9.1A (F), 9.1B (A),

9.1B (C), 9.3B

7. Crest 520 also contains Aromatic hydrocarbons, so therefore so does Gallant Ultra and Valiant 520 (Benzene, napthalene). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbons#List_of_PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PAHs are one of the most widespread organic pollutants. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), also known as poly-aromatic hydrocarbonsor polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, are potent atmospheric pollutants that consist of fused aromatic rings and do not contain heteroatoms or carry substituents.[2] Naphthaleneis the simplest example of a PAH. PAHs occur in oil, coal, and tar deposits, and are produced as byproducts of fuel burning (whether fossil fuel or biomass). As a pollutant, they are of concern because some compounds have been identified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. Human health PAHs toxicity is very structurally dependent, with isomers (PAHs with the same formula and number of rings) varying from being nontoxic to being extremely toxic. Thus, highly carcinogenic PAHs may be small or large. One PAH compound, benzo[a]pyrene, is notable for being the first chemical carcinogen to be discovered (and is one of many carcinogens found in cigarette smoke). The EPA has classified seven PAH compounds as probable human carcinogens: benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. PAHs known for their carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic properties are benz[a]anthracene and chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene,benzo[j]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene, coronene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene (C20H14),indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (C22H12) and ovalene.[12] High prenatal exposure to PAH is associated with lower IQ and childhood asthma.[13] The Center for Children's Environmental Health reports studies that demonstrate that exposure to PAH pollution during pregnancy is related to adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight, premature delivery, and heart malformations. Cord blood of exposed babies shows DNA damage that has been linked to cancer. Follow-up studies show a higher level of developmental delays at age three, lower scores on IQ tests and increased behaviorial problems at ages six and eight.[14]

SUBMISSION102615


20

In addition, a 2012 Columbia University study in Environmental Health Perspectives linked prenatal exposure to pollutants and eventual child behavioral outcomes. The study found that exposure to higher levels of PAH was associated with a 24% higher score of anxiety/depression for children ages 6 to 7 than those with low exposure levels. Infants found to have elevated PAH levels in their umbilical cord blood were 46% more likely to eventually score highly on the anxiety/depression scale than those with low PAH levels in cord blood.[15][16] Smaller molecules, such as benzene, are not PAHs. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated 32 PAH compounds as priority pollutants. The original 16 are listed. They are naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene,benzo[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]flouranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, dibenz(ah)anthracene,benzo[ghi]perylene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 8. Pesticide information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticides Health effects Main articles: Health effects of pesticides and Pesticide poisoning Pesticides may cause acute and delayed health effects in those who are exposed.[25] Pesticide exposure can cause a variety of adverse health effects. These effects can range from simple irritation of the skin and eyes to more severe effects such as affecting the nervous system, mimicking hormones causing reproductive problems, and also causing cancer.[26] A 2007 systematic review found that "most studies on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia showed positive associations with pesticide exposure" and thus concluded that cosmetic use of pesticides should be decreased.[27] Strong evidence also exists for other negative outcomes from pesticide exposure including neurological, birth defects, fetal death,[28] and neurodevelopmental disorder.[29] The American Medical Association recommends limiting exposure to pesticides and using safer alternatives:[6] "Particular uncertainty exists regarding the long-term effects of low-dose pesticide exposures. Current surveillance systems are inadequate to characterize potential exposure problems related either to pesticide usage or pesticide-related illnesses…Considering these data gaps, it is prudent…to limit pesticide exposures…and to use the least toxic chemical pesticide or non-chemical alternative." The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[18] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.[30] One study found pesticide self-poisoning the method of choice in one third of suicides worldwide, and recommended, among other things, more restrictions on the types of pesticides that are most harmful to humans.[31]

SUBMISSION102615


21

A 2007 study by the California Department of Public Health found that women in the first eight weeks of pregnancy who live near farm fields sprayed with the organochlorine pesticides dicofol and endosulfan are several times more likely to give birth to children with autism.[32] Environmental effect Main article: Environmental effects of pesticides Pesticide use raises a number of environmental concerns. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, including non-target species, air, water and soil.[18] Pesticide drift occurs when pesticides suspended in the air as particles are carried by wind to other areas, potentially contaminating them. Pesticides are one of the causes of water pollution, and some pesticides are persistent organic pollutants and contribute to soil contamination. In addition, pesticide use reduces biodiversity, reduces nitrogen fixation,[33] contributes to pollinator decline,[34][35][36][37] destroys habitat (especially for birds),[38] and threatens endangered species.[18] Pests can develop a resistance to the pesticide (pesticide resistance), necessitating a new pesticide. Alternatively a greater dose of the pesticide can be used to counteract the resistance, although this will cause a worsening of the ambient pollution problem. Prominent families of herbicides include pheoxy and benzoic acid herbicides (e.g. 2,4-D), triazines (e.g. atrazine), ureas (e.g. diuron), and Chloroacetanilides (e.g. alachlor). Phenoxy compounds tend to selectively kill broadleaved weeds rather than grasses. The phenoxy and benzoic acid herbicides function similar to plant growth hormones, and grow cells without normal cell division, crushing the plants nutrient transport system 9. Pesticide information on Dow and Monsanto - Nobel Prize for Dr. Burzynski via Dr. Rath Health Foundation Whether you are aware of it or not, your food, air and water are the battle ground upon which a titanic struggle between the multinational biotech corporations Monsanto and Dow AgroScience is now playing out. As a result, your health and environment (and that of all future generations) are at profound risk of irreparable harm. Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals) recently announced their development of genetically-engineered corn, soybean, and cotton plants metabolically resistant to the herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), a major ingredient in Agent Orange. What this means for our future is that, if approved for use, vast regions of our country will soon be sprayed with a chemical that has been linked to over 400,000 birth defects in Vietnam. See Also: Dow Brings Back An Agent Orange Ingredient for New GM Plants www.greenmedinfo.com Dow's Deadly Harvest: The Return of Agent Orange. In a flashback as intense and disturbing as a war trauma, Dow

SUBMISSION102615


22

Conclusion: Enough is enough! No more. It's time for the EPA to be held accountable and to exercise a Duty of Care towards the people and the environment of Nu Tireni, New Zealand. Decline the application. Please put the wellbeing, and the health and safety of the people and the environment before these multinational biotech corporations and their despicable agendas. Mauri ora Jackie

SUBMISSION102615

SUBMISSION102615

DECISION

9 August 2012

1. Summary of application Substance Name

Application Code APP201443

Application type To import and use a hazardous substance in a special emergency under Section 49D of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act)

Applicant Waikato Regional Council

Purpose of the application To use the herbicide metsulfuron-methyl to control alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) in the Ruahorehore Stream

Date application received 3 August 2012

Parties consulted On 26 July 2012 the following were consulted:

The Department of Conservation

The Ministry for Primary Industries

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

and

The Ministry of Health

Consideration date 8 August 2012

Considered by A decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority (the Committee):

Val Orchard (chair)

Kerry Laing

Decision Approved with controls

SUBMISSION102615

of 10

Application for approval to import and use metsulfuron-methyl in a special emergency (APP201443)

www.epa.govt.nz

2. Summary of decision

2.1. The application to use metsulfuron-methyl following the declaration of a special emergency regarding

the spread of alligator weed in the Ruahorehore Stream is approved with controls. The approval has

been granted in accordance with section 49F of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act

(the Act).

3. Evaluation and review

Eligibility 3.1. The purpose of the application is to use the herbicide metsulfuron-methyl by discharging onto and

into the Ruahorehore Stream to control alligator weed.

3.2. On 29 July 2012, the Minister for Primary Industries, Hon. David Carter, declared the infestation of

alligator weed in the Waikato Region to be a special emergency. This declaration has been made

pursuant to section 49B of the Act and will be published in the New Zealand Gazette. The special

emergency will expire on 29 January 2013.

3.3. The applicant is proposing to use the trade name product AssociateR 600 WDG in the stream. It

contains 600 g/kg of metsulfuron-methyl in the form of a water dispersible granule.

3.4. This substance was approved under the Hazardous Substances (Pesticides) Transfer Notice 2004

and given the approval number HSR000242.

3.5. The current approval controls specify that the substance shall not be applied onto or into water.

Therefore, an approval is required to use metsulfuron-methyl in the stream because without approval

the use would contravene the HSNO Act.

Information review 3.6. The applicant supplied:

an application in the approved form

a resource consent authorising discharge of metsulfuron-methyl to the Ruahorehore stream for

alligator weed control

the Waikato Regional Council resource consent evaluation report.

3.7. The Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment were consulted on the special emergency

application, pursuant to section 49F(2).

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

3.8. The Department of Conservation supports the Waikato Regional Council's special

emergency application to use metsulfuron-methyl to eradicate an infestation of alligator weed in

Ruahorehore Stream.

3.9. The Ministry of Health referred the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) staff to the Waikato

District Health Board (DHB). The DHB advised that they were not is a position to make any comment

within the short timeframe available. Accordingly, the DHB made the observation that a

precautionary approach should be used for the setting of controls on this approval.

3.10. The Committee notes the Waikato DHB’s comments but as metsulfuron-methyl has already been

approved for use on land does not consider that additional advice is required on the potential public

health effects.

3.11. Nufarm Limited, as the proprietor of the product AssociateR 600 WDG, was advised of the special

emergency application. No comments were received from Nufarm Limited.

3.12. Given the timing issues related to the declaration of the special emergency and the need to progress

this application, it is considered that the consultation undertaken by the EPA staff and by the Waikato

Regional Council during their resource consent process was adequate to inform the Committee’s

decision.

Necessity to use the hazardous substance in a special emergency

3.13. The applicant has provided the following information on alligator weed1:

3.13.1. Alligator weed is one of the most significant pest plant threats in the Waikato region and one of their highest control priorities. As such, it is an “eradication pest” in the Waikato Regional Council’s Regional Pest Management Strategy.

3.13.2. Alligator weed is fast growing and difficult to eradicate. It can grow on land and in waterways, and can tolerate some seawater when growing in flowing water.

3.13.3. Because it can grow in water, alligator weed threatens wetlands, lakes, rivers, dams, drains and other waterways. It clogs them, increasing sedimentation and the risk of flooding. Access to waterways for recreational purposes (boating, fishing) can be blocked by weed infestations and plants may affect whitebait spawning areas.

3.13.4. Alligator weed does not seed in New Zealand but it spreads aggressively from even the smallest stem fragments. It can double its infestation area in less than two months.

3.13.5. It can out-compete pastures and crops, affecting farm production and profit. Alligator weed is toxic to stock and can cause blindness.

3.13.6. Alligator weed is an unwanted organism in New Zealand and a weed of national significance in Australia.

1 Letter from Waikato Regional Council to Ministry for Primary Industries, 29 June 2012

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

3.13.7. Most of the alligator weed in the Waikato Region is in the lower Waikato River and around Hamilton City. However, a small infestation is present in the Ruahorehore Stream near Waihi. The stream is part of the Waihou River catchment, which is otherwise free of this weed.

3.13.8. The stream has a high risk of flooding. A flood would inevitably spread the weed downstream into areas that are uncontaminated.

3.13.9. The applicant considers that the alligator weed within the stream channel, and any found on the stream banks, should be sprayed as soon as possible to prevent any further dispersal of the weed downstream.

Options for weed control

3.14. The EPA is currently processing an application for the reassessment of a number of herbicides,

including metsulfuron-methyl, to determine whether their use into or onto water should be permitted.

(See EPA application APP201365). As a decision on this reassessment may not be made until early

2013 this special emergency application has been made as urgency is required.

3.15. In the reassessment application, the Agrichemical Reassessment Group (which includes the Waikato

Regional Council) indicates that the tools available for targeted control of alligator weed include

mechanical removal, manual removal and chemical control2 and discusses the advantages and

disadvantages of each control option. These are summarised in 3.16-3.19 below.

Mechanical removal

3.16. The Agrichemical Reassessment Group indicates that:

3.16.1. “Mechanical removal of pest plants can be a cost-effective option for the control of land based pest plants. This method typically involves an excavator removing the plant from its location and disposing of it at an appropriate site. Mechanical removal of aquatic weeds has been undertaken by regional councils in the past but this method has proved largely impracticable due to the aquatic nature of sites and limited access. The Waikato River Delta is a good example of this, where alligator weed is present over a vast network of waterways and islands, making excavator access impractical”.

3.16.2. In addition to these impracticalities, there are a number of risks associated with mechanical removal, including:

Increased risk of plant fragment spread downstream when infestations are not fully

cleared or when plants are broken during excavation;

Increased risk of plant spread through contaminated machinery;

Health and safety risks to machinery operators because they need to work on aquatic

margins in unstable areas and in water;

Risk of pest plants appearing and spreading beyond disposal sites; and

2 http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/HSNO%20Application%20Register%20Documents/APP201365_APP201365%20Application%20Document.pdf

SUBMISSION102615

http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/HSNO%20Application%20Register%20Documents/APP201365_APP201365%20Application%20Document.pdf

http://www.epa.govt.nz/search-databases/HSNO%20Application%20Register%20Documents/APP201365_APP201365%20Application%20Document.pdf

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

Risk of other contaminants entering streams (e.g. hydraulic fluids, fuels, etc.)

3.16.3. In almost all cases mechanical removal is not considered a reasonable alternative to agrichemical control of aquatic pests.

Manual removal

3.17. The Agrichemical Reassessment Group indicates that:

3.17.1. Hand weeding is useful in controlling small, localised infestations where aquatic plant infestations do not exceed 1m2. Beyond this size, manual removal is very resource intensive and carries similar risks to mechanical removal, especially:

Increased risk of plant spread through fragments on equipment; and

Health and safety risks to personnel in aquatic environments.

3.17.2. Manual removal is employed, where practicable, in lieu of spraying. However, where the scale exceeds that outlined above, agrichemical control is often the only reasonable and effective method for pest plant control.

Chemical control

3.18. The applicant considers that the use of metsulfuron-methyl is necessary in this special emergency.

Extensive experience of the applicant in the management of alligator weed on land has shown

metsulfuron-methyl to be one of the few effective herbicides for its control.

3.19. A current Waikato Regional Council resource consent3 for the infestation in the Ruahorehore Stream

is for the use of metsulfuron-methyl. Affected parties have been consulted on its use during the

consent process. Alternative herbicides permitted for use in this situation under the HSNO Act, such

as glyphosates, are not effective at controlling alligator weed. They are known to increase

fragmentation causing dispersal of viable fragments downstream.

Conclusion on the necessity to use the hazardous substance in a special emergency

3.20. The Committee may only decline the application if it is satisfied that the hazardous substance is not

necessary for use in the special emergency. In light of the options discussed above, the Committee

is satisfied that it is necessary to use metsulfuron-methyl in this special emergency to control

alligator weed.

3 While there are questions over the validity of the consent as it relates to the use of metsulfuron in or on water (which does not comply with the relevant HSNO requirements), the Committee is satisfied with respect to the consultation carried out in relation to the resource consent.(see 3.31)

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

Hazardous properties 3.21. Under the Hazardous Substances (Pesticides) Transfer Notice 2004, the metsulfuron-methyl

substance is classified as follows:

Hazard Endpoint Water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg

metsulfuron-methyl (HSR000242)

Skin irritancy 6.3B

Eye irritancy 6.4A

Aquatic ecotoxicity 9.1A

Soil ecotoxicity 9.2A

Lifecycle of the substance 3.22. The use of the metsulfuron-methyl substance is adequately managed according to its current HSNO

approval. However, this does not permit its use in or on water, thus prohibiting its use to control

aquatic weeds in water bodies.

3.23. The applicant intends to spray the alligator weed in the Ruahorehore Stream channel and any found

on stream banks. The amount of spray solution required to carry out this work will be less than 30 L

per application. The applicant intends to spray the substance once in August. Repeat applications

may be made in December and January as necessary to kill the alligator weed, with a minimum of 1

month between sprays as per the resource consent.

3.24. The Committee notes that metsulfuron-methyl will persist in the aquatic environment, with an

average hydrolysis half-life of approximately 35 days.

Identification and management of risks 3.25. The applicant identified and assessed potential adverse effects of using the substance in or on water

and detailed proposals for risk management.

Effects on air quality

3.26. The potential exists for off-target effects to occur through spray drift adversely affecting adjacent

landowners and non-target vegetation. The most effective way to ensure that this does not occur is

by employing qualified operators and using best practice handling and application techniques. Only

approved handlers will undertake the activity and they are expected to ensure that conditions are

appropriate for spraying.

Water quality and ecology

3.27. The proposed activity may have an adverse effect on water quality and ecology. Effects are both

direct effects of discharging metsulfuron-methyl into the stream and indirect effects of deoxygenation

of stream water through the decomposition of successfully treated and decaying alligator weed.

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

3.28. It is considered that there is insufficient alligator weed present in the stream for deoxygenation to

impact of in-stream biota

3.29. The herbicide will persist in the aquatic environment and metsulfuron-methyl is highly toxic to a

range of dicots and some monocots and highly toxic to some cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).

However, the concentration of the active ingredient is relatively small and the herbicide has a very

low toxicity to mammals, birds, fish and invertebrates. It is also noted that the Department of

Conservation supports the emergency use of metsulfuron in the Ruahorehore Stream

3.30. If untreated, the spread of alligator weed to downstream sites would have a significant impact on the

stream habitat.

Effects on the relationship of Māori to the environment

3.31. It is noted that the herbicide has the potential to cause the deterioration of the mauri of the

Ruahorehore Stream and taonga flora and fauna species within its catchment. In addition its use has

the potential to inhibit the ability of tāngata whenua to fulfil their role as kaitiaki and maintain the

integrity of their relationship with the stream.

3.32. In the course of preparing the broader resource consent for the discharge of herbicides to water in

the region, the Waikato Regional Council consulted with the following iwi, each of whom provided

written consent to the proposal.

Huakina Development Trust

Ngāti Tamaoho Trust

Maurea Marae

Horahora Marae

Waahi Whanau Trust

Ngā Iwi Toopu O Waipa

Ngāti Karewa Ngāti Tahinga Trust.

3.33. The Waikato Regional Council did not consult specifically for the Ruahorehore Stream or for this

special emergency but reviewed its implications in relation to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Part Act 2000

and the Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan. In that assessment it noted the proposal is consistent with

their provisions and requirements.

3.34. Given the written support provided by iwi to the broader regional consent, and considering the

minimal risk posed to the stream and its associated flora and fauna, the Committee does not

consider the application poses a significant impact to the mauri of the stream or to the role of tāngata

whenua as kaitiaki. In addition, from the available information, there is no evidence to suggest that

the controlled use of metsulfuron-methyl will breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

Evaluation of management plan

3.35. The applicant has provided a management plan that is largely based on the resource consent for the

same activity4. However, the Committee notes that the resource consent requires that 10 days notice

be given to the one property5 with a water take and considers that this should be included in the

management plan.

3.36. With the addition of this notification requirement, the Committee is satisfied that the conditions

included in the management plan shown in Appendix A are adequate to control the adverse effects

of the substance on human health and the environment from this special emergency use.

4. Decision

4.1. The Committee has considered this application made under section 49D and, pursuant to section

49F, is satisfied that the substance is necessary for use in this special emergency.

4.2. Having considered the risks associated with the lifecycle of metsulfuron-methyl for special

emergency purposes, the Committee is satisfied that the controls proposed in the Management Plan,

attached as Appendix A, will result in the substance being adequately managed in accordance with

the Act.

4.3. The EPA has consulted relevant Government agencies in accordance section 49F(2) and the

Committee has specifically considered the views of the Department of Conservation in support of the

application.

4.4. The application to use metsulfuron-methyl to control alligator weed in the Ruahorehore Stream in a

special emergency is thus approved pursuant to section 49F, with the following controls imposed in

accordance with section 49G:

4.4.1. The substance may only be used if managed in accordance with the Management Plan attached as Appendix A.

4.4.2. The approval takes effect on the date of this decision. The date of expiry of this approval is 29 January 2013, the date of the expiry of the special emergency declared by the Minister for Primary Industries.

Val Orchard Date: 9 August 2012

Chair, Decision Making Committee Environmental Protection Authority

4 Regardless of the status or the resource consent, the Committee considers that the measures included in the plan adequately address the matters which must be taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate any actual or potential adverse effects from the use of metsulfuron 5 25B Fisher Rd, Waihi

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

Appendix A: Management Plan

Control of alligator weed Ruahorehore Stream, Waihi Dated 9 August, 2012 The substance: ‘water dispersible granule containing 600 g/kg metsulfuron-methyl (Substance B)” Location of treatment

In and alongside the Ruahorehore Stream where the Stream adjoins Sec 132 BLK XVI Ohinemuri Survey

District.

Target species

The substance shall only be used to control alligator weed.

Management controls

1. The substance shall not be discharged during the months of April, May, September, October and

November.

2. Ten days notice to the one property with a water take shall be given. This property is 25B Fisher Rd,

Waihi.

3. The spraying associated with this approval shall be carried out by a person holding a current approved

handler test certificate, or be under direct supervision of a person holding a current approved handler

test certificate.

4. The concentration of the substance shall not exceed 15 grams of metsulfuron-methyl per 100 litres

water. The volume to be sprayed will not exceed a maximum of 30L of solution per application.

5. The substance may be applied once in August. Repeat applications may be made in December and

January with a minimum of one month between applications.

6. The spraying shall be undertaken by spot spray application via knapsack or handgun and hose.

7. Where residences immediately adjoin the site spraying shall only occur when the wind direction is

away from the properties or when wind speed is less than 5 kilometres per hour in the direction of the

properties.

8. Where the Stream adjoins Sec 132 BLK XVI Ohinemuri Survey District the site spraying shall only

occur when the wind direction is away from Sec 132 BLK XVI Ohinemuri Survey District or when wind

speed is less than 5 kilometres per hour in the direction of the properties.

9. All discharges of the substance shall cease once wind speeds exceed 10 kilometres per hour.

10. The discharge of the substance shall be undertaken in such a way that no damage is caused to native

fauna or flora, or to economic crops by off target drift beyond the boundary of the treatment area.

SUBMISSION102615

of 10


www.epa.govt.nz

Disposal

11. The main option of disposal of spray solution will be to use it in accordance with this approval. Any

leftover spray solution can be disposed of by application to an uncropped area of land.

Monitoring

12. Monitoring of the alligator weed will be carried out within a month after each application.

General 13. The controls regarding packaging, identification, storage, transport and disposal of the approved

substance (HSNO Approval HSR000242) are applicable to this special emergency approval.

SUBMISSION102615

13/08/2012 Jackie Pou PO Box 6 Rawene 0443 File: 5375747 Dear Jackie Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Complaint. On the 28th March 2012 the Department of Labour received your complaint regarding the use of a number of specific herbicides, by Waikato Regional Council (WRC), contrary to the approvals relating to them granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO). In particular that these substances were being applied onto or into water which is a prohibited activity As you are aware the investigation has been complicated and time consuming and I acknowledge your patience whilst it was being resolved. The investigation established that you had correctly identified prohibited application of herbicides by WRC had occurred. This was confirmed by WRC who by way of explanation outlined their historical belief that the HSNO controls and approvals can be overcome by obtaining Resource Consent under the Resource Management Act 1991. It was further explained to me that WRC became aware that this was a mistaken belief at the end of 2011. It was for this reason that they made the joint application to the EPA for an application for reassessment to be considered, the application being one of the documents you have brought to my attention. As you are probably aware the EPA accepted that there were adequate grounds for WRC and others to make application for reassessment and my understanding is that this will be pursued. WRC provided full disclosure of resource consents relating to herbicide use onto or into water. Examination of these consents established that Waikato Conservancy, Department of Conservation (DOC), had been granted a small number which related to the use of Haloxyfop-r methyl for control of spartina weed in tidal estuary areas. As part of the investigation I examined the individual HSNO approvals for all substances you identified. Whilst this served primarily to confirm application of the substances onto or into water is prohibited there is an exception. The approval that relates to the specific brand and product Agpro Haloxyfop 100 does not forbid its application onto or into water. As it is essentially the same

SUBMISSION102615

substance as a number of other brands I queried this with EPA who confirmed that whilst it is an oversight on their part it does allow application of this particular product onto or into water. Specific outcomes are as follows; DOC Waikato, no further spraying until outcome of reassessment by EPA is known. However as they only use Haloxyfop-r methyl if they ensured they used the specific product mentioned above manufactured by Agpro no breaches of HSNO would occur. WRC, Initial discussions with them established their view that, potentially, ongoing spraying may be necessary. For this reason they were put on formal notice that failure to confirm and undertake a voluntarily suspension of all applications of herbicides that could breach HSNO controls/approvals would lead to enforcement action being taken against them. After due consideration, WRC provided such an undertaking. I am aware that there is one site that WRC hold serious concerns for as they believe it has the potential to spread alligator weed throughout the Waihou River catchment. As a result WRC applied for and were granted by the EPA emergency approval to use Metsulfuron-methyl. I have included a copy of the relevant approval for your information. To summarise, your complaint has prevented the ongoing application of a number of herbicides onto and into waterways throughout the Waikato Region, which are activities forbidden by the HSNO Act. Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention. If you are dissatisfied with any aspects of the above, in the first instance, I would suggest you direct all concerns relating to HSNO controls, approvals and emergency powers to EPA, the regulator. For other concerns please do not hesitate to contact me on 07 959 3443. Yours sincerely Chris Floyd For Sevice Manager Labour Group Hamilton

SUBMISSION102615