National Standard for Environmental Risk Management of Industrial Chemicals

Discussion Paper Workshop Outcomes

May 2016

© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2016.

National Standard for Environmental Risk Management of Industrial Chemicals Discussion Paper Workshop Outcomes  is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This report should be attributed as ‘National Standard for Environmental Risk Management of Industrial Chemicals Discussion Paper Workshop Outcomes, Commonwealth of Australia 2016’.

The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment.

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

2

Contents

Introduction..................................................................................................................................4

1 Schedules............................................................................................................................5

2 Environmental Risk Assessment of Chemicals....................................................................5

3 Criteria for Scheduling.........................................................................................................6

4 Risk Management Measures...............................................................................................6

5 Consistency with National and International Approaches....................................................7

6 Terminology.........................................................................................................................8

7 Availability and Communication of Information (including Labelling)...................................8

8 Scheduling Processes.........................................................................................................8

9 Advisory Committee.............................................................................................................9

10 Legislative Implementation..................................................................................................9

11 Review and Appeals Processes..........................................................................................9

12 Compliance, Enforcement, Monitoring and Reporting.......................................................10

13 Costs and Funding for Operation of the National Standard...............................................10

Moving forward..........................................................................................................................10

3

Introduction

In April 2016 representatives from GHD, supported by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and state and territory representatives, attended and facilitated a series of stakeholder workshops on the Environmental Risk Management of Industrial Chemicals Discussion Paper.

Stakeholders from governments, industry and the community were invited to attend these workshops. Workshops were held in:

Adelaide on 1 April 2016

Perth on 4 April 2016

Sydney on 7 April 2016

Melbourne on 11 April 2016

Brisbane on 15 April 2016.

The primary purpose of the workshops was to understand the views stakeholders had on the content of the Discussion Paper and the proposed approach to the National Standard for environmental risk management of industrial chemicals, including scheduling and decision-making.

The Discussion Paper provides an overview of the design and operation of the National Standard, including scheduling and decision-making under the National Standard. The proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper align with the policy intent set out in the Decision Regulation Impact Statement, which was considered and agreed by ministers.

Each workshop was structured in a way that participants were presented an overarching view of the intent of the National Standard.

The participants at each workshop discussed the three main themes of the Discussion Paper:

1. General processes for scheduling

2. Schedules and criteria for scheduling

3. Risk management measures

Feedback received during these workshops will help inform further development of the National Standard.

The purpose of this document is to outline the key themes, questions and comments raised by stakeholders during the workshops on the Discussion Paper.

4

1 Schedules

Comments from stakeholders included:

There was support from stakeholders for increasing, decreasing and maintaining the number of Schedules.

Some stakeholders thought schedules should be differentiated in terms of hazard and risk for ease of communication.

Some stakeholders thought schedules should be differentiated based on the risk management measures under the National Standard.

A better understanding of how chemicals will fall within each Schedule and the resulting risk management measures is desired.

Some stakeholders asked whether chemicals used in emergency response will have special use provisions under the National Standard or whether a special Schedule will be developed for these chemicals.

2 Environmental Risk Assessment of Chemicals

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

Is there an additional assessment required to schedule a chemical under the National Standard?

Why do chemicals scheduled under the National Standard require a risk assessment completed by NICNAS, and why are other risk assessments not appropriate?

Is there the opportunity for an industry self-assessment of chemicals that are likely to be of intermediate concern?

Will the current NICNAS Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation (IMAP) process continue for existing chemicals?

Will reassessment of chemicals by NICNAS take into consideration existing uses and discharges in the proposed discharge location?

Are site-specific factors considered during the assessment of chemicals?

How will cumulative impacts be considered?

How is speciation and bioavailability taken into consideration?

How will the sensitivity of the receiving environment be considered?

How will naturally occurring chemicals be taken into consideration?

5

3 Criteria for Scheduling

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

How will industrial chemicals be allocated to the proposed Schedules?

Do the criteria for scheduling align with international approaches?

How many chemicals will likely be allocated to each concern category or Schedule?

How will the National Standard treat substances with different uses?

Why does the scheduling decision change depending on the use of the chemical?

How will the National Standard address mixtures?

How will chemicals with multiple degradation products of concern be scheduled?

A precautionary approach would be justified for chemicals that have ‘unknown effects’. These chemicals should be elevated to higher Schedules.

The scheduling criteria may be too conservative in terms of the risk quotient thresholds.

4 Risk Management Measures

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

Stakeholders supported a clear approach to identifying and communicating risk management measures for chemicals, noting that there is generally a lack of expertise and capability for individual companies/businesses/users to make decisions about chemical management.

Stakeholders supported an outcomes–based approach to risk management.

Consistent with NICNAS, the Standard should consider volumes released, not volumes used.

Will the risk management measures be mandatory?

Who chooses the risk management measures that are appropriate for the chemicals?

If a chemical is assigned to a particular Schedule, will measures apply across all jurisdictions?

Will states and territories change the risk management measures set out under the National Standard?

Will precedents established across jurisdictions provide a basis for risk management measures?

Will there be any impediments to applying best practice techniques and innovations to meet risk management measures?

How will the National Standard address management and control mechanisms for release to the environment?

6

Is the intention of the risk management measures to reduce emissions or require facility improvement to achieve desired efficiencies?

Will the National Standard have the ability to manage controlled and uncontrolled release to the environment?

How will risk management measures take accidental release into consideration?

Risk management measures need to be suitable in the context where chemicals are used.

How will the Standard approach management of point source releases?

What considerations will be given to environments with high ambient levels of a certain chemical?

Will there be different risk management measures for discharge at specific sites based on sensitivity of the receiving environment?

Will dilution be a risk management measure?

Will the end-of-life for chemicals that are used in products of mixtures be addressed?

For chemicals used in domestic products, how do the risk management measures manage use and disposal for domestic applications?

There is a need to ensure that the risk management measures don’t result in outcomes for the environment that are more detrimental or costly.

5 Consistency with National and International Approaches

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

How effective will the Standard be in providing national consistency?

How will risk management measures be adopted consistently across facilities and states and territories?

It is necessary to align the National Standard with international conventions, systems, adopted methods, particularly the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemical substances.

Are the environment criteria under the GHS likely to change significantly with each version of the GHS?

Will the National Standard integrate and align with existing codes, standards and guidelines, and with existing procedures in place to protect the environment?

Are there opportunities for the National Standard to align with existing tools, such as the National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs), National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC), etc.?

How does the National Standard align with the NICNAS reforms?

7

Is the approach to protection of commercially sensitive information consistent with the approach proposed by NICNAS?

6 Terminology

Comments from stakeholders included:

Clear definitions are required.

Terminology should be consistent with other domestic and international regulatory regimes where the terms are the same.

Terminology should be clearly differentiated where similar terms are different across regulatory regimes domestically and internationally (i.e. Schedules in the Poisons Standard versus Schedules in the National Standard).

7 Availability and Communication of Information (including Labelling)

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

Will assessment outcomes, scheduling determinations and risk management measures be communicated and information made accessible?

Stakeholders noted that information and communication technology tools would be helpful to support availability of information.

Is there the opportunity to include scheduling decisions and risk management measures on the Safety Data Sheet for a given chemical?

Will the National Standard require more adequate labelling, and will a labelling scheme be developed to support risk management of chemicals?

Will information be available to support businesses in determining appropriate ways to implement risk management measures?

Better guidance on controlled use and avoiding release into environment is required.

8 Scheduling Processes

Questions raised included:

How often will the National Standard be amended?

How long will the scheduling process take?

How will chemicals that have already been assessed by NICNAS be treated under the National Standard?

Where will industry have the chance to provide input into the scheduling process?

8

What is the role of states and territories in the decision making process and implementation of the National Standard?

9 Advisory Committee

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

What is the structure and function of the Advisory Committee?

What will be the membership of the Advisory Committee?

It will be important to make sure the Advisory Committee contains independent members.

The Advisory Committee should include a state or territory regulator.

The Advisory Committee should include representatives from industry.

The Advisory Committee should include an expert in emergency response.

10 Legislative Implementation

Questions raised included:

How will the National Standard be picked up by states and territories? Will it be adopted by reference?

How do state and territory regulators plan on interacting with the National Standard and associated risk management measures?

What opportunities will there be to transition to new obligations under the National Standard?

11 Review and Appeals Processes

Questions raised included:

What is the opportunity to appeal and/or review decisions made under the National Standard?

What will be the mechanism(s) for review of the Schedules, criteria for scheduling and risk management measures?

What opportunities will be available to provide information to inform scheduling decisions?

12 Compliance, Enforcement, Monitoring and Reporting

Questions raised and comments from stakeholders included:

9

How will the National Standard be implemented and enforced?

How will jurisdictions apply and enforce best practice?

How will compliance and enforcement be undertaken?

Will mandatory reporting be required for industrial chemicals that fall within Schedule 7 and 8?

What happens if a mixture contains a combination of chemicals in different Schedules?

Will a facility using multiple chemicals in different Schedules need to default to the strictest risk management measures for all chemicals?

How are retrospective discharges going to be dealt with?

If tighter controls are applied, how do household users dispose of product if chemicals are controlled with disposal limitations?

It may be difficult to get information and implement requirements for small to medium enterprises.

Will the National Standard provide NICNAS with greater risk management powers?

13 Costs and Funding for Operation of the National Standard

Questions raised included:

What will the funding arrangements be to support the National Standard and the process for scheduling?

Will the National Standard increase operating costs for businesses and impact manufacturing and business operation in Australia?

Will adequate resources and experience be committed to ensure that the National Standard operates efficiently and effectively?

Moving forward

The Department is working closely with GHD to develop the draft National Standard. Information on further consultation to assist in shaping the National Standard will be provided soon.

10