Public Hearing for APP201977 An application for the modified - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Public Hearing for APP201977

An application for the modified reassessment of Firebird

Dr Anna Ramarosandratana

Applications Advisor Hazardous Substances Team

Staff Presentation

Firebird

Firebird is a selective agricultural herbicide which contains 400 g/L flufenacet and 200 g/L diflufenican as active ingredients. It is intended for use to control annual grass and broad-leaved weeds in autumn- and winter- sown wheat and barley crops.

History of Firebird

An application for Firebird was first submitted by Bayer New Zealand Ltd in 2008. A quantitative risk assessment was undertaken for Firebird. Firebird was approved for release in 2009 (HSR100012). Additional controls were applied to Firebird, including:

Firebird shall not be applied onto or into water. The maximum application rate for Firebird shall be 300 mL/ha, once per season. The method of application of Firebird shall be limited to ground- based application only.

APP201977: Modified Reassessment

In 2013, Bayer NZ Ltd sought Grounds for Reassessment of Firebird to allow a change in the maximum application rate from 300 mL/ha to 500 mL/ha,

• nce per season.

Grounds for reassessment were granted on the basis that information showing a significant change of use had become available. The purpose of this modified reassessment (APP201977) is to determine whether the maximum application rate of Firebird can be changed to allow a maximum application rate of up to 700 mL/ha, once per season.

Submissions

Two submissions were received:

A submission from Federated Farmers of New Zealand supported the application A submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu opposed the application

Where appropriate, information from these submissions has been used to inform our assessment.

Summary of submissions (1)

Submission from Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Federated Farmers of New Zealand noted the economic value of arable crops such as wheat and barley to New Zealand. They also highlighted the importance of early and effective weed control and noted that the early application of Firebird is beneficial as it results in reduced competition between the growing crop and noxious weeds. The submission noted that increasing the label rate will give farmers the option of using the higher rate in situations that require it. Federated Farmers have consulted with its membership and support the application to increase the application rate for Firebird.

Summary of submissions (2)

Submission from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu oppose the application due to the lack of justification for the increased application rate and the lack of benefits given in the application form. They highlight that risks to the environment will be increased with a higher application rate, and note particular concern about beneficial insects, and about the potential effects of spray drift and leaching on nearby waterways, given the toxicity of Firebird to aquatic

• rganisms.

As a result, they oppose the approval of this application but note that if it is approved, a buffer zone should be applied to eliminate spray drift onto taonga species and ecosystems.

Hazard classifications of Firebird

The hazard classifications of Firebird are: These were determined in the original risk assessment for Firebird. No new information was available to re- assess these classifications at the time of reassessment.

Hazard Classification Acute toxicity (oral) 6.1D Contact sensitisation 6.5B Target organ or system toxicity 6.9B Aquatic ecotoxicity 9.1A Soil ecotoxicity 9.2A Terrestrial vertebrate ecotoxicity 9.3C

Human health risk assessment

We conducted a quantitative risk assessment for Firebird at an application rate of 700 mL/ha. The staff note that the hazard classifications of Firebird trigger default controls including a requirement for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when handling the substance. The modelled exposures to operators during mixing, loading and application of Firebird are below the acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL) for both active ingredients. There were no concerns about synergistic effects in the mixture. The risk assessment also showed that the risks of exposure for re- entry workers and bystanders are negligible. Given these outcomes and the requirement for PPE, the staff consider that the risks to workers and bystanders from the use of Firebird are negligible.

Environmental risk assessment: approach

We conducted a quantitative assessment of the ecotoxi- cological risks of Firebird at an application rate of 700 mL/ha. For this assessment we used information from tests conducted with the active ingredients and with the representative formulation of Firebird, as appropriate. There were no concerns about synergistic effects in the mixture. Metabolites of the active ingredients were not independently assessed as these were shown to have lower or similar levels

• f toxicity as the active ingredients.

Environmental risk assessment: key points

Acute risks to algae and aquatic plants, and chronic risks to threatened fish species were identified. To mitigate these risks, a downwind buffer zone for waterbodies is proposed. Risks to sediment dwelling organisms were identified. These risks will be mitigated by a downwind buffer zone. Risks to both common (non-threatened) and threatened non-target plants near the application site were identified. A buffer zone is proposed to reduce these risks to a negligible level. The risks for all other organisms are considered to be negligible.

Environmental risk assessment

Aquatic risk assessment

Spray drift modelling was used to determine the size of buffer zones that would be required to adequately reduce the exposure of aquatic

• rganisms to Firebird.

The EPA adopt an RQ of < 0.1 as the level of concern. Modelling to determine the required buffer zone size was based on the active ingredient flufenacet, as this had the highest toxicity to aquatic organisms. Modelling parameters included the application frequency of once per year, and assumed that Firebird was sprayed from a low boom.

Environmental risk assessment

Aquatic risk assessment outcomes

The staff consider that the following buffer zones are required to reduce the exposure of aquatic organisms to below the level of concern where there is a water body downwind of the application site: Application rate (mL/ha) Buffer zone (fine droplets) Buffer zone (coarse droplets) 500 40 m 2 m 700 60 m 6 m

Environmental risk assessment

Non-target plant risk assessment

Drift models were used to approximate the exposure of non-target plants to Firebird due to spray drift. These identified significant risks to non-target plants in the immediate vicinity (within 1 m) of Firebird application. These risks are to both threatened and non-threatened species and exist whether Firebird is applied at both 500 mL/ha or 700 mL/ha. The models determined that risks to all non-target plants greater than 5 m from the application site are negligible at both application rates The staff therefore propose a 5 m buffer zone to protect terrestrial non-target plants from the effects of Firebird.

Risks to the relationship of Māori to the environment

Firebird has hazardous properties that could lead to cultural risk, such as aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity. Firebird has the potential to cause harm to taonga fish species, including those used for food, if it enters into waterways. The staff note that there is the possibility for Firebird to harm culturally significant terrestrial and aquatic plants such as harakeke (flax) and kowhitiwhiti (watercress). This may also include aquatic plants that are food sources or habitats for culturally significant species. Indirect impacts, that affect the ability of Māori to express their culture, may also occur if plants such as kawakawa are affected and cannot be used for traditional purposes.

Risks to the relationship of Māori to the environment (2)

Risks to soil dwelling organisms such as earthworms are culturally undesirable for a variety of reasons, however the staff note that the risk assessment identified negligible risks to such organisms. Firebird has human health hazard classifications and may therefore pose a risk to taha hauora (human health). The staff consider that the proposed controls, in particular buffer zones for non-target plants and for waterbodies, the prohibition of application onto water, restriction to ground based application and the requirement for PPE will minimise these risks to Māori culture and traditional relationships with the environment. The increased application rate of Firebird also has potential benefits to Māori, including economic benefits and as an alternative to other products that may therefore reduce the risk of weed resistance.

Benefits

The applicant considers that Firebird will provide significant benefits which may include:

The ability for farmers to apply Firebird at a higher application rate where problem weeds or high weed populations are expected. More robust weed control, which may lead to improved crop health and higher yields.

Staff assessment of benefits

The staff accept that the proposed benefits associated with the increased application rate of Firebird are potentially significant. These benefits are also supported by the submission that was made by Federated Farmers of New Zealand.

Existing controls

The controls currently applied to Firebird include the default controls, and additional controls set under section 77A of the HSNO Act 1996, including:

The substance must not be applied onto or into water. The maximum application rate for Firebird shall be 300 mL/ha,

• nce per season.

The method of application of the substance shall be limited to ground based application only.

To manage the risks associated with the use of Firebird at a higher application rate, further additional controls are proposed under section 77A of the Act.

Proposed controls

Variation of maximum application rate control:

This substance must not be applied at rates exceeding 700 mL of formulated product /ha per application (equivalent to 280 g flufenacet/ha and 140 g diflufenican /ha). This substance must not be applied to the same area more than

• nce per year.

Proposed controls (2)

Proposed new additional controls:

This substance must not be applied within five metres of non- target plants. This substance must not be applied within 60 metres of a downwind water body. A label control to communicate these requirements to users of the substance, including the restriction to ground-based application methods and restriction against application onto or into water.

The staff note that the size of the downwind waterbody buffer zone could be reduced appropriately for lower application rates, or if Firebird is applied in coarse droplets.

Overall recommendation

The proposed use of Firebird at a higher application rate raises additional risks, however the staff consider that with the proposed controls in place, the level of risk to human health and the environment, and to Māori culture will be negligible. The staff also consider that the level of risk to society, community and the local economy will be negligible. The staff note that any benefits will outweigh the negligible level of risk posed by application of Firebird at 700 mL/ha with the proposed controls in place. The staff recommend that the application to increase the maximum application rate of Firebird to 700 mL/ha, once per year, be approved.