HCPA Meets with Department of Transportation (DOT) Officials to Share Four Changes that could have Major Benefits for Consumers and Aerosol Manufacturers
June 19, 2018
On May 14, 2018, HCPA met with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at DOT offices. The agenda for this meeting was to discuss the following topics: Under international harmonization: Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol; Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases) and Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols and separately Water Bath Testing and Alternatives. Representing PHMSA were Howard “Skip” Elliott, PHMSA Administrator; T. Glenn Foster, Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention, Standards and Rule-making Division; Stephen Gordon, Supervisory Attorney Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel; Lad Falat, Director, Engineering & Research Division; and Steven Andrews, Transportation Regulations Specialist. Representing HCPA were Jim Bloome, R.A Jones; Greg Johnson, Sherwin Williams; Jim Johnson, CRC Industries; Resa Manson, PLZ Aeroscience; Doug Raymond, Raymond Regulatory Resources (3R), LLC; Scott Smith, P&G; Lara Currie, Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA); and Nicholas Georges, HCPA.
During the meeting, Administrator Elliott stressed that under the current administration, industry has the opportunity to improve upon its safety record even with activities that would be considered “deregulation” rather than be limited to safety improvements through regulation. For example, during the petition process, PHMSA wants industry to demonstrate “equivalent or better” safety through data while capturing the cost/benefit analysis of any modifications within the regulations. They understand that a number of regulations are outdated and keeping up with newer technology should maintain or improve safety while reducing costs and providing new opportunities, however, industry must be able to support any claim(s). In order for PHMSA to initiate rule-making, they must be petitioned, which is a multi-year process. In the interim, special permits, submitted by participating manufacturer/shipper of product, provide opportunities for products to be shipped while also collecting requisite data to support the petition request(s) and the final PHMSA decision(s).
As an outcome of this meeting, HCPA will be drafting two petitions to submit to PHMSA – one for the international harmonization of regulations (covering both Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases) and Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols) and the second to allow alternative testing to replace the water bath test requirement. HCPA’s petition for the Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol is still being reviewed by PHMSA. HCPA will also be working on special permits with industry to allow the shipment of plastic aerosol products containing flammable propellants and provide the opportunity for innovations in plastic aerosol containers made of materials not currently allowed by DOT regulations.
The following information below is a deeper dive into each of the items.
Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol
HCPA with allied trade associations submitted a petition to PHMSA on September 27, 2017 and was assigned Petition Number P-1707 (Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0131). The goal is to harmonize the definition of an aerosol in the US Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) with the definition found in the UN Model Regulations (UNMR). Steven Andrews (PHMSA) estimated that the review process will take another one to two months. Nicholas Georges (HCPA) will follow up with Mr. Andrews the week after the 4th of July on the status of this petition.
The industry seeks to level the playing field on a global scale with the harmonization of the definition of an aerosol. Gas-only aerosol products go through the same manufacturing processes as other aerosol products, yet are not considered aerosol products when shipped in the US. US manufacturers are subject to extra regulatory burdens, paperwork, and ensuring compliance throughout distribution channels due to special permits that other countries don’t have in place for products that are not considered aerosol under current DOT regulations. The aerosol industry has utilized special permits for decades without transportation incidences, with the oldest permit being on its 21st revision.
Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases)
The goal is to modify the 49 CFR 173.306 so that plastic aerosols containing division 2.1 gases (flammable propellants) are able to be shipped without the need for a special permit. Currently, plastic aerosols do not contain flammable propellant due to the fire codes found in the NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products, and International Fire Code (IFC); however, industry (PARG) has performed the necessary fire tests (utilizing a special permit to properly ship test product) to determine the appropriate fire suppression systems to store flammable plastic aerosols within manufacturing sites, warehouses, and retail stores and HCPA is now working to modify the NFPA 30B to allow the manufacture and storage of plastic aerosols containing flammable propellants. Once the codes are updated, manufacturers and marketers would be unable to ship flammable plastic aerosols due to the 49 CFR 173.306 which currently does not allow limited quantities of plastic aerosols to contain flammable propellant. Metal aerosols do not have this restriction and industry argued that plastic aerosols would not pose an additional hazard that is not present with metal aerosols (a truck on fire will pose the same danger when carrying aerosols, regardless if they are plastic or metal containers). This action would also harmonize US regulations with the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) (49 countries follow the ADR, not just Europe).
Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols
The goal is to modify the 49 CFR 178.33b-5 to not specify any type of resin. Metal aerosol containers have specifications that the container be uniform and not contain any defects, but does not have any composition restrictions. Plastic aerosols are currently limited in the US to compositions of the following resins: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene napthalate (PEN), polyamide (Nylon) or a blend of PET, PEN, ethyl vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and/or Nylon. Plastic containers should have the same specification for uniformity & defect free as metal, and if a plastic resin has the ability and stability to pass the required performance testing (drop test for any new molds/composition, burst test, etc.), then it should be allowed consistent with the ADR. This modification would allow the aerosol industry to continue try and innovate new product and packaging combinations.
Water Bath Testing and Alternatives
The goal is to remove the water bath test requirement and move to a validated performance standard. The water bath test was initially required back in 1947 to check for deformities (and eventually was determined to also be a leakage test) when the manufacturing process of aerosol products was significantly different. Today, aerosol line speeds are considerably faster and the quality throughout the supply chain has significantly increased through the standardization of the industry. Water baths are large in size, have a high consumption of energy and water, while still relying on humans to see defects. There is also a safety component when the water bath is used – due to the higher temperatures, worker safety is at a higher risk. Industry spoke of the range of products being manufactured and that it should be up to the manufacturer to determine the best processes/procedures for their products. With the advancement of aerosol products since the 1940s, the reliance on this one test is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of all products possible in the aerosol product form. New technologies on the market today are better equipped to handle high speed lines, reduce the human element in the detection process, able to detect without endangering employees, and are more sustainable (significantly less energy and water consumption).
On May 14, 2018, HCPA met with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) at DOT offices. The agenda for this meeting was to discuss the following topics: Under international harmonization: Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol; Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases) and Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols and separately Water Bath Testing and Alternatives. Representing PHMSA were Howard “Skip” Elliott, PHMSA Administrator; T. Glenn Foster, Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention, Standards and Rule-making Division; Stephen Gordon, Supervisory Attorney Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel; Lad Falat, Director, Engineering & Research Division; and Steven Andrews, Transportation Regulations Specialist. Representing HCPA were Jim Bloome, R.A Jones; Greg Johnson, Sherwin Williams; Jim Johnson, CRC Industries; Resa Manson, PLZ Aeroscience; Doug Raymond, Raymond Regulatory Resources (3R), LLC; Scott Smith, P&G; Lara Currie, Council on Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA); and Nicholas Georges, HCPA.
During the meeting, Administrator Elliott stressed that under the current administration, industry has the opportunity to improve upon its safety record even with activities that would be considered “deregulation” rather than be limited to safety improvements through regulation. For example, during the petition process, PHMSA wants industry to demonstrate “equivalent or better” safety through data while capturing the cost/benefit analysis of any modifications within the regulations. They understand that a number of regulations are outdated and keeping up with newer technology should maintain or improve safety while reducing costs and providing new opportunities, however, industry must be able to support any claim(s). In order for PHMSA to initiate rule-making, they must be petitioned, which is a multi-year process. In the interim, special permits, submitted by participating manufacturer/shipper of product, provide opportunities for products to be shipped while also collecting requisite data to support the petition request(s) and the final PHMSA decision(s).
As an outcome of this meeting, HCPA will be drafting two petitions to submit to PHMSA – one for the international harmonization of regulations (covering both Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases) and Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols) and the second to allow alternative testing to replace the water bath test requirement. HCPA’s petition for the Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol is still being reviewed by PHMSA. HCPA will also be working on special permits with industry to allow the shipment of plastic aerosol products containing flammable propellants and provide the opportunity for innovations in plastic aerosol containers made of materials not currently allowed by DOT regulations.
The following information below is a deeper dive into each of the items.
Global Harmonization of the Definition of an Aerosol
HCPA with allied trade associations submitted a petition to PHMSA on September 27, 2017 and was assigned Petition Number P-1707 (Docket No. PHMSA-2017-0131). The goal is to harmonize the definition of an aerosol in the US Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) with the definition found in the UN Model Regulations (UNMR). Steven Andrews (PHMSA) estimated that the review process will take another one to two months. Nicholas Georges (HCPA) will follow up with Mr. Andrews the week after the 4th of July on the status of this petition.
The industry seeks to level the playing field on a global scale with the harmonization of the definition of an aerosol. Gas-only aerosol products go through the same manufacturing processes as other aerosol products, yet are not considered aerosol products when shipped in the US. US manufacturers are subject to extra regulatory burdens, paperwork, and ensuring compliance throughout distribution channels due to special permits that other countries don’t have in place for products that are not considered aerosol under current DOT regulations. The aerosol industry has utilized special permits for decades without transportation incidences, with the oldest permit being on its 21st revision.
Reducing Barriers to Use of Plastic Aerosols (Inclusion of 2.1 Gases)
The goal is to modify the 49 CFR 173.306 so that plastic aerosols containing division 2.1 gases (flammable propellants) are able to be shipped without the need for a special permit. Currently, plastic aerosols do not contain flammable propellant due to the fire codes found in the NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products, and International Fire Code (IFC); however, industry (PARG) has performed the necessary fire tests (utilizing a special permit to properly ship test product) to determine the appropriate fire suppression systems to store flammable plastic aerosols within manufacturing sites, warehouses, and retail stores and HCPA is now working to modify the NFPA 30B to allow the manufacture and storage of plastic aerosols containing flammable propellants. Once the codes are updated, manufacturers and marketers would be unable to ship flammable plastic aerosols due to the 49 CFR 173.306 which currently does not allow limited quantities of plastic aerosols to contain flammable propellant. Metal aerosols do not have this restriction and industry argued that plastic aerosols would not pose an additional hazard that is not present with metal aerosols (a truck on fire will pose the same danger when carrying aerosols, regardless if they are plastic or metal containers). This action would also harmonize US regulations with the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) (49 countries follow the ADR, not just Europe).
Reduce the Restrictions on the Types of Resins Allowed for Use in Plastic Aerosols
The goal is to modify the 49 CFR 178.33b-5 to not specify any type of resin. Metal aerosol containers have specifications that the container be uniform and not contain any defects, but does not have any composition restrictions. Plastic aerosols are currently limited in the US to compositions of the following resins: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene napthalate (PEN), polyamide (Nylon) or a blend of PET, PEN, ethyl vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and/or Nylon. Plastic containers should have the same specification for uniformity & defect free as metal, and if a plastic resin has the ability and stability to pass the required performance testing (drop test for any new molds/composition, burst test, etc.), then it should be allowed consistent with the ADR. This modification would allow the aerosol industry to continue try and innovate new product and packaging combinations.
Water Bath Testing and Alternatives
The goal is to remove the water bath test requirement and move to a validated performance standard. The water bath test was initially required back in 1947 to check for deformities (and eventually was determined to also be a leakage test) when the manufacturing process of aerosol products was significantly different. Today, aerosol line speeds are considerably faster and the quality throughout the supply chain has significantly increased through the standardization of the industry. Water baths are large in size, have a high consumption of energy and water, while still relying on humans to see defects. There is also a safety component when the water bath is used – due to the higher temperatures, worker safety is at a higher risk. Industry spoke of the range of products being manufactured and that it should be up to the manufacturer to determine the best processes/procedures for their products. With the advancement of aerosol products since the 1940s, the reliance on this one test is no longer sufficient to meet the needs of all products possible in the aerosol product form. New technologies on the market today are better equipped to handle high speed lines, reduce the human element in the detection process, able to detect without endangering employees, and are more sustainable (significantly less energy and water consumption).