Hi Matt
The trigger quantities and classes are clear enough (well, relatelively). The Class 5 stuff above seems to be more to do with what is in storage (closed containers) vs what is being manufactured or used (potentially open containers). There are some similar provisions for the flammables (e.g. used as fuel) and toxic/ corrosive substances. If you compare the values in the Schedule from r12.2 and r12.8, with the values in r12.17 - they're basically the same except special case for farms, chlorine and permanent gases. Again, there are "special cases" for other classes too.
What isn't clear in the Regs (because they don't have definitions for "Place" or "Location"), is the meaning of the phrase "place within a workplace", where you may need one or more Hazardous Substance Location(s) if you exceed trigger levels. That was the basis of my question.
But again, that WorkSafe guide that Meihana shared does give an interpretation and definition that seems very clearly to me to say that it is about storing substances in a single location - and not the whole site (or workplace. Further - it then specifically says that means you can split quantities below threshold values and not need a Compliance Certificate.
Although the guide seems to be part of a suite of documents for Agrichemicals, it does say that it applies to flammable and oxidising substances as well as toxic and corrosive ones.
So again, for me at least, that WorkSafe Guide does seem to remove the uncertainty about WorkSafe NZ interpretation (whatever the intent was), and so I will be looking for triggers at a single location and then checking separation between them. From a risk perspective I think that also makes sense as it means if there is an incident - which will usually be at a single location not a whole site - the consequence will be limited.

Thanks Dave
With regards the WorkSafe NZ Calculator - I agree that it's pretty good, but I just tested it by entering 20L of petrol in 3 different locations. The calculator reported that because I now have 60L on site, I now need a Location Compliance Certificate. Which is against what the WorkSafe guide provided by Meihana above says. It would appear that it is only when a quantity in a single location (e.g. store or room - or "a place within a workplace") exceeds the trigger do you need to establish a Hazardous Substances Location, and get a Compliance Certificate. So in theory, you could have hundreds of litres of petrol in your workplace as long as there is never more than 50L in any single location - and there is sufficient separation between them all.
So I think maybe the WorkSafe NZ Calculator - as good as it is - is adding to the confusion?

Thanks Alex - that's helpful!

Thanks Meihana - that is exactly what I've been looking for and does clarify the requirement. We can now show this document to those Certifiers who insist it's the total quantity onsite that is the key one!

We've been using eRoad for a few years now - initially just in heavy vehicles but now across the whole fleet. We do use it to recognise and reward the 5 star drivers, as well as having some coaching conversations (which may progress if they don't respond) with the 1 and 2 star drivers.
Over the years, we've seen a general improvement in driver behaviours (i.e. increase in star-rating), and consequently less damage/ wear and tear and even fuel costs. So overall, a very positive experience.
They're not 100% accurate - but if you're a 1 or 2 star driver, that's not because of the inaccuracy of the unit!

Maybe keep in mind that sometimes the change (as a causal factor in an accident) is only obvious retrospectively - because from the team's perspective, as the saying goes "change is the only constant". So there is a 'work as imagined'-vs-'work as normal' thing - where everyday, teams have to adapt to changing conditions to get the job done. And normally that allows for successful work.
One approach that has struck a chord in the past and may be helpful is the "3 Ds" - Dumb, Dangerous and Different, which may be helpful ("Different" and "Change" are obviously related). Here is Todd Conklin talking about it on his Podcast...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-wq8z1fMwc

Hi Sarah - no I haven't heard of that one before, but we do seem to get problems with various other issues, depending on the Certifier (I'm assuming here that by DGC you mean Location Compliance Certificate).
Under current Regs, there is no "approved handler" requirement - but everybody must be trained for the substances they handle (refer r4.5 for scope of training). So provided you can show that the driver of the forklift has been trained in handling the LPG, that should be sufficient.
I'd be interested to know who the Certifier is that you're using, and what specific training they say is required.

Obviously you can measure and report on both "minor and often" and "major and rare". Companies I have worked for have measured severity as well as frequency of lost time injuries (variations on total time lost per injury per hours worked). My current employer also has targets and reporting around critical risks (e.g. completion of in-field verification, closing actions after high-potential incidents, and undertaking specific projects).
Also consider that most measures - particularly lag indicators - can be "manipulated" to make things look better than they are - especially if performance bonuses are at stake!

Thanks Jan - I'll have a look through it all, I see there's quite a bit. Every day is a learning day!

Hi Trudy
I like that approach - and I'm sure that everybody involved as volunteers will be motivated to look after the safety of their kids and other people around the activity from that moral rather than legal requirements anyway.
Thanks
Chris