Petition to Harmonize the Aerosol Definition

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Petition to Harmonize the Aerosol Definition"

Shauna Higgins
5 years ago
Views:

1 September 28, 2017 Mr. William Schoonover Assoc. Admin. for HM Safety US DOT PHMSA 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE East Bldg., Second Flr (PH) Washington, DC Dear Mr. Schoonover: RE: Petition to Harmonize the Aerosol Definition Pursuant to Title 49 CFR, Part 107, , the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles, Inc. (COSTHA), National Aerosol Association (NAA) and American Coatings Association (ACA) hereby petition the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to harmonize the US Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) with applicable international regulations with regards to the classification, testing, and transport of aerosols. Specifically, CSPA, COSTHA, NAA and ACA request that PHMSA modify the definition of an aerosol to include certain non-refillable gas containers with or without a liquid, paste, or powder. Aerosol Definition The HMR provides a definition of an aerosol in 171.8: Aerosol means any non-refillable receptacle containing a gas compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, the sole purpose of which is to expel a nonpoisonous (other than a Division 6.1 Packing Group III material) liquid, paste, or powder and fitted with a selfclosing release device allowing the contents to be ejected by the gas. This definition is inconsistent with the definition of an aerosol found in the UN Model Regulations (UNMR), the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, the International Civil Aviation Organization Technical Instructions on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI), and the Regulations governing European Road Transport (ADR). The UNMR and the European ADR have included the provision with or without a liquid, paste or powder in their definition of an aerosol since at least To date, there is no data on record of incidents as a result of this broader definition. Forty-nine countries are contracting parties to the ADR and dozens more use the international regulations in the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code using the broader definition of an aerosol.

2 From the UNMR: Aerosol or aerosol dispenser means a non-refillable receptacle meeting the requirements of (embedded at end), made of metal, glass or plastics and containing a gas, compressed, liquefied or dissolved under pressure, with or without a liquid, paste or powder, and fitted with a release device allowing the contents to be ejected as solid or liquid particles in suspension in a gas, as a foam, paste or powder or in a liquid state or in a gaseous state. Disharmony between these definitions leads to costly business operations based upon reclassification, marking and permit requirements. The definition used in the US differs even from our largest export trading partners, Canada and Mexico. The ongoing additional expense to the US economy is avoidable if the definition used in other international codes and regulations can be adopted by PHMSA. These commercial expenses include but are not limited to management efforts of Special Permits, container marking, special storage/distribution and tracking. The additional expenses are, of necessity, included in consumer pricing. Data collected in 2016 indicated a total of 4.6 billion aerosols manufactured in North America 1 with a majority being manufactured and marketed in the US. These aerosol products represent ~$18 billion US dollar sales with a growth projection of $25 billion US dollar sales by Of those 4.6 billion aerosols, many are pure gas units used in consumer and industrial use. The disharmony causes confusion, inconsistency and rework across the industry which in turn causes financial hardship to US suppliers, manufactures and marketers. The disharmony leaves US manufactures and marketers at a disadvantage concerning the $52 billion US dollar sales 3 available in the global marketplace. Regulatory disharmony is seen as a primary restraint to the aerosol industry. A further look at the cost of regulatory disharmony can be found in Attachment A. Earlier discussions of this harmonization generated questions regarding safety of pure gascontaining systems. Safely containing pure propellant systems within specified aerosol containers ( , a and b) is standard practice across the aerosol industry. Industry has set specifications with PHSMA to assure burst strength of containers utilized for all aerosol products. Table 1 shows the relationship of pure propellant vapor pressure and the corresponding container that would be utilized in the marketing of a said propellant. The information found in Table 1 comes from Attachment E. The pressure curves for these individual propellants can be found from two different sources in Attachments F and G. The information in Attachments E, F, and G show that the pressure from these propellants will not exceed the container burst strength, outside of Propane which would require a 2Q container. Attachments B, C and D provide vapor pressure data and curves for mixtures of these propellants, which shows that the mixture of these propellants will not result in pressures greater than the container burst strengths. All of these attachments are from publicly available sources. Table 1: Vapor pressure of pure propellant aerosols at 130 o F and the burst strength of aerosol containers 1 Grand View Research, Inc. Market Estimate and Trend Analysis, Aerosol Market Page Grand View Research, Inc. Market Estimate and Trend Analysis, Aerosol Market Page Grand View Research, Inc. Market Estimate and Trend Analysis, Aerosol Market Page 19.

3 Container burst 130 o F Propellant Name Vapor Pressure 130 o F 2S 2P 2Q n-butane Isobutane Propane * 240* 270 Isopropane n-pentane Dimethyl Ether HFC-152a HFC-134a HFO-1234ze *Due to the pressure from the propellant exceeding the burst strength of the container, the aerosol industry would not use a 2S or 2P container for a Propane only aerosol. Specifically, US specified aerosol containers 2P, 2Q and 2S are tested for pressure retention at the supplier. Metal aerosol containers specified as 2P and 2Q are rated for product pressure generation < 160 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and < 180 psig respectively at 130 F. These aerosol containers are tested at a frequency of 1 randomly selected from each 25,000 units in a production run. Specified aerosol containers in plastic, 2S (rated for products pressure generation < 160 psig at 130 F) are tested at a frequency of 1 randomly selected from each 5,000 units produced. The manufacturer for a finished aerosol product will select the appropriately rated container based upon the product pressure (measured at 130 o F). The voluntary standard and test methods for determining the product pressure can be found in the CSPA Aerosol Guide. Manufacturers will follow these methods regardless if the product is only one propellant, a mixture of propellants or a combination of a liquid and propellant(s). In the US, PHMSA and the aerosol industry have a strong safety record for gas-only aerosols. For example, special permits (DOT-SP 10232, DOT-SP 14188, and DOT-SP to name a few) authorize small pressurized containers of various gases, which meet the definition of a consumer commodity, to be reclassed as limited quantity or ORM-D and shipped with very broad exceptions. Shipment of products under these permits and classifications have shown excellent safety in distribution and market. The consensus position of CSPA, COSTHA, ACA and NAA is that there is no significant impact on safety concerning aerosol containers made of metal, plastic or glass containing a gas, compressed, liquefied or dissolved, with or without liquid, paste or powder. CSPA, COSTHA, ACA and NAA request that PHMSA consider the advantages in harmonizing the Aerosol Definition. Respectfully submitted for above industries, Nicholas Georges Director, Scientific Affairs Consumer Specialty Products Association

4 Attachment A - Attachment B Attachment C - Attachment D - Attachment E - Attachment F - Cost of lack of harmonization in the definition of aerosols for US industry ATB8 Dymel 152a and Isobutane Mixture Technical Instructions ATB9 Dymel 152a and nbutant Mixtures Propellant Properties Table for Safety Manual Properties Chart from Propellant Manual Vapor Pressure Chart DCPC

5 Attachment A The UN Model Regulations and the European ADR have included the provision with or without a liquid, paste or powder, in their definition of aerosol since at least To date there is no record of incidents due to this broader definition. Forty- nine countries are contracting parties to the ADR and dozens more use the international regulations in the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code using the broader definition of an aerosol. Costs Associated Training: Training employees to ship fully regulated versus limited quantity shipments is more extensive. PHMSA reports in its August 6, 2014 HM-224F Rulemaking that the cost for training hazmat employees once is between $300 and $400 each. While COSTHA estimates the cost is greater than that reported we note that training employees on the requirements for shipping fully regulated products is at least twice that for a limited quantity shipments. Packaging: The larger cost for UN Specification packaging is often the testing of the package. Packaging manufacturers report that each UN specification package must be tested and retested. If you do not own your own lab, the DOT 3rd Party labs costs between $2,000 $3,000 every 2 years for each system you have certified. Thus, if one were to ship the same size aerosol as 1 can per package, 12 cans per package and 24 cans per package, the cost for the package testing would be $6,000 - $9,000 every two years. HazMat Surcharges Two small parcel carriers post a range from $32 - $142 per package for dangerous goods/hazardous materials shipments. The lower figure is for ground shipments within the US. One major air carrier posts a fee of $90 per UN number. The cost added makes it prohibitive for US manufacturers to compete in this market. Loss of Business Opportunity In addition to the direct costs noted above there are US companies who do not manufacture in this segment of the aerosol industry because they cannot be competitive with the companies in Europe, Asia and even within North America who are using the international definition for aerosols.

6 Attachment B ATB8 Dymel 152a and Isobutane Mixture Technical Instructions

14 Attachment C

22 Attachment D

23 Attachment E

24 Attachment F

The Aerosol Dispensers Directive. Labelling Requirements

The Aerosol Dispensers Directive Labelling Requirements The Aerosol Dispensers Directive Labelling Requirements The Aerosol Dispensers Directive Labelling Requirements by Charlotte Blackburn, Ph.D., Chemical