|
|
  Table of ContentsForeword Executive Summary Background Aerosols in the 1990's Why is Aerosol Industry so Resistant to Change? Current Solicitation of Comments Alternatives Endnotes ForewordThe Project on Government Oversight is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that, for over thirteen years, has investigated and exposed waste and fraud in government spending. Our goal is to change the way the government works by revealing examples of systemic problems and offering possible solutions. Our methods include networking with government investigators and auditors whose findings have received little attention, working with whistleblowers inside the system who risk retaliation for exposing waste and fraud themselves, and performing independent investigations into areas we suspect are problematic. In the 1970's, scientists discovered that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as propellants in aerosol cans (among other things) were a leading factor in the depletion of the ozone layer. As a result, hydrocarbon propellants (i.e. propane, butane, isobutane) and ether propellants replaced CFCs in aerosol products. The down side to this alternative, however, is that hydrocarbons are extremely flammable substances, and it appears that the public has not been sufficiently warned and educated about their safe use. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has significant evidence that the propellants can pose significant hazards in normal household use, yet they have not revealed this information to the public. It is up to the EPA to respond to consumer protection needs. Unfortunately it appears that they are reacting to pressure from aerosol manufacturers. The EPA should resist this pressure and change warning labels on many aerosol products, such as total release foggers and space-spray pesticides to warn consumers of the potential dangers. Executive SummaryThe EPA is ignoring its own experts, as well as fire officials who are concerned about the potential dangers of explosions and/or fires caused by routine usage or storage of consumer aerosol products. Instead, the EPA is responding to pressure from the manufacturers of these products who are resistant to changing warning labels. Extrapolating from data the New York City Fire Department collected concerning the increase in fires and explosions caused by aerosols, an internal EPA memo estimated, . . ."when projected to the population of the U.S. at large, suggest an excess of 500 fires/explosions/year in this country."1 (Appendix A) In response to this danger and an increase in the number of accidents caused by aerosol products, in 1987 the EPA proposed new regulations to improve warning labels on them. But their proposed changes were opposed by the aerosol industry. In an EPA memo one official states, "Industry, through the CSMA [Chemical Specialties Manufactures Association], indicated that they would initiate a lawsuit against PR 87-8 [the EPA's recommended labeling requirements] if it were not rescinded." 2 (Appendix B) After much debate, the government succumbed to the legal threats and withdrew their proposal. The business lobby has been able to cut off all warnings that may aid in decreasing the number of fires and explosions caused by aerosols products. An internal EPA memo states:
EPA officials also stated:
The aerosol industry has pushed its weight around and has persuaded the EPA to go easy on them, even though incidents resulting in fires and explosions continue to pile-up. In another internal EPA memo, one official wrote:
Aerosols have become a fundamental method of bringing a variety of products in our every day life. The CSMA has released their 42nd Annual Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey 1992, estimating that 2.989 billion aerosol units were filled in 1992. This estimate is the highest in the history of the aerosol industry (6.2% higher than in 1991, 2.814 billion units filled).6 Products are grouped in different categories depending on their use: animal products (8 million units), miscellaneous (71 million units), food products (190 million units), insect sprays (200 million units), paints and finishes (380 million units), automotive and industrial (455 million units), household products (695 million units), and personal products (990 million units).7 BackgroundAerosol containers are regulated by three different federal agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which regulates pesticide products, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) which regulates non-pesticide products, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) which manages bulk shipments of aerosol containers.10 The DOT has become very effective in regulating this industry. Test methods and labeling seem to be a high priority at the DOT.11 But the EPA and the CPSC have not had the same attitude toward this issue. While the EPA is the major focus of this report, the CPSC virtually has ignored the same consumer safety concerns (i.e. proper testing methods and improved labeling). The EPA in the past has made some effort to look into this issue, while the CPSC has done little to solve the problems aerosols have caused. Ironically, the CPSC is the one federal agency that collects all of the incidence of fires and explosions resulting from aerosol containers and still does nothing to improve protection of the consumer. One must remember that it is the CPSC, as well as the EPA and the industry itself that are at fault for aerosol products accidents caused by the innocence of an uniformed consumer. In the 1970's, scientists discovered that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as propellants in aerosol cans (among other things) were a leading factor in the depletion of the ozone layer. As a result, hydrocarbon propellants (i.e. propane, butane, isobutane and ether propellants) replaced CFCs. The down side to this alternative, however, is that hydrocarbons are extremely flammable substances. The EPA began looking into this issue in the mid-1980's. In 1987 the EPA released PR Notice 87-8, "SUBJECT: Label Improvement Program - Required Labeling for Products Containing Flammable Propellants".12 The Notice said:
PR Notice 87-8 proposed to change the labeling of aerosol products by adding the statement "PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL HAZARDS": to products that contain propane, butane, isobutane, and dimethyl ether as one or more of the propellants. Aerosols in the 1990'sDuring the 1990's the EPA began recording more and more incidents in which aerosol products, particularly total release insecticide foggers (TRIF), caused fires and explosions. The EPA became more aware of the problems associated with products containing hydrocarbons and all of the hazards these products could cause in storage, use, and disposal. The EPA has recognized these dangers:
In the February 20, 1991 issue of the Federal Register the EPA requested a solicitation of comments regarding proposals to change test methods (adopting the closed drum test), and revised precautionary language and autoignition hazards (static charges that may be sufficient to cause a can to discharge). The first proposal was to change testing methods from the flame extension test to the closed drum test. The closed drum test allows the entire product (including the propellant) to be discharged into a 55 gallon closed drum with a spark acting as the ignition source for any reaction that may take place. In one company's response to the closed drum test they state, the test will not add new data, "We already know propane will ignite."18 And even though propane, the propellant, is known to be hazardous, manufacturers have circumvented the testing system by modifying their products in ways that allow the aerosol to pass without a warning label or a reduced one.
The last change proposed in the 1991 notice concerned aerosols' "Autoignition Hazard".20 Hand held aerosols have different safety concerns when auto ignition is involved. Aerosols that are placed on the floor, such as total release foggers, can build a static charge to unacceptable levels.21 It is ironic that manufacturers control static electric charges and protect their workers with grounding equipment in their plants, yet they are arguing to allow the consumer to handle the same product unprotected.22 Business again was able to convince the EPA that this issue was not pertinent and that consumer misuse is the major cause of aerosol fires and explosions.
In comparing the current labels to the EPA's proposed changes one can observe the thorough instructions that the proposed changes would supply the consumer. Under these changes products that contain hazardous propellants will include signal wording to inform the consumer about those materials. The proposed change would also inform the consumer about the hazards of smoking, pilot lights, electric appliances, not properly ventilating a room, as well as the current instructions concerning punctures, incineration and temperatures above 130 F. Industry's hypotheses concerning changing warning labels has revolved around consumer confusion and further misuse, yet the current labeling system is very confusing in itself. The current "Extremely Flammable" label and "Flammable" label carry an extremely similar warning, both warn against puncture, incineration and temperatures above 130 F. The difference occurs in the "keep away from" section of the label; "Extremely Flammable" states keep away from fire, sparks and heated surfaces, and "Flammable" is followed by keep away from heat, sparks, and open flame.24 This is not much of a difference; fire and heated surfaces in the first and open flame and heat in the second. These labels are to protect the consumer against the hazards a given product may contain according to their respective test results. The current generic labeling that accompanies an aerosol is not sufficiently performing this function. Why is Aerosol Industry so Resistant to Change?Why has the aerosol industry established such a front against the EPA and the consumer? A major reason for the aversion to the previously proposed changes revolves around profits. Changing testing methods and labeling will cost the industry in the immediate future due to the redesigning of aerosol products. Changes would alter the current way the production process occurs, and industry would have to shoulder the cost of the new labels. Old labeling would have to be replaced in a specified period of time to be in compliance with regulations, and avoid any penalties. Industry's arguments against changing labels have had many different forms and have often verged on the ridiculous: On the subject of revised precautionary language DuPont Chemicals states, "EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE" warnings on aerosols will have "the potential to confuse consumers and may increase the chances they will misuse the products."25 A similar opinion was also expressed by Speer Products Inc., a manufacturer of aerosols, "We are greatly concerned that the conflicting messages sent to the consumer will result in confusion, distrust and further misuse."26 The manufacturers' association, CSMA, expressed concerns about the experts who would perform the closed drum test, "Obviously, in setting up such an event, very real dangers are presented as to the physical safety of the individual conducting the test."27 Accidents often occur because the public is unaware of the precautions that need to be taken (turn off pilot lights, unplugging appliances, or other steps that may be recommended on a product) and are ignorant to the dangers that may occur if the product is not used properly. It appears that manufacturers of these products are fully aware of the dangers an aerosol can pose and have taken the necessary precautions to prevent these dangers to their workers, however industry seems unwilling to take the same precautions with the general public. What happens when the industry does incur problems with their products? An EPA memo describes a conversation the agency official had with an official from S.C. Johnson & Son, the manufacturers of Raid. According to the EPA official, after discussing testing methods the industry official stated, "his company does not need to worry about the effects of flammability products since its insurance company settles on any damages or injuries."28 (Appendix F) This statement was also verified by an internal EPA Office of Pesticide Programs memo, "Industry does not appear to be concerned as their insurance companies pay all claims."29 It would seem reasonable that the aerosol industry would want to provide a product that would better protect the consumer and not put themselves at legal risk. How many incidents of fires and/or explosions are enough to cause the industry to change its mind about the use of aerosol products? So far it appears that the industry relies on the excuse of "consumer misuse" as the primary reason for accidents caused by aerosol products instead of innocence. Industry should ask itself why this abuse occurs and how the misuse can be prevented. Instead the manufacturers keep trying to find possible ways to get around the system. According to EPA officials, ways of getting around the system are known, "With current approved testing methodology, a 'nonflammable' rating of the hydrocarbons and ethers can be achieved by proper engineering of the nozzle and the delivery system."30 Montford A. Johnsen, Technical Editor for Aerosol Age magazine, agrees with this statement, "The nature of the flame projection test invites the formulator to make modifications of product or package to pass it and thus avoid labeling the product as 'Flammable'."31 Yet consumer misuse is industry's answer to the problem, even though they have been notified of numerous accidents that have been the result of an innocent uninformed consumer. Why would the aerosol manufacturers conduct business in this manner? Money. The propellants in question (propane, butane, isobutane and ethers) are some of the least expensive propellants on the market.32 Alternative propellants would cost more, which could eventually drive up the final cost to the consumer. However, EPA estimates concerning changes in labeling have ranged between $8,000 and $13,000 per product, and "since the cost of changing labels is a one-time cost and does not affect the variable cost of production, it is not likely that a significant portion of that cost would be passed on to consumers."33 This suggests industry would have to swallow the majority of the cost. Though an opponent to the EPA's recommended changes, Johnsen found more accurate labels would not hurt sales. He wrote:
Current Solicitation of CommentsThe EPA is again taking the initiative to change warning labels. Recently the EPA released a notice suggesting changing labels, but only on total release products. The proposed rule states:
This type of aerosol accounted for 11% of the pesticide industry in 1987, according to Aerosol Age magazine, and has become "the product most often cited in these incidents."37 While the EPA admits that a bulk of incidents are caused by foggers or total release products, they conclude, "the number of fires produced from other aerosol uses is also significant."38 AlternativesIn their current effort the EPA is again trying to inform the consumer about the potential dangers aerosol products pose. The Agency has compared the "pros" and "cons" of many different alternatives but has not taken steps to initiate change. Industry is even divided on some of their views, with some manufacturers agreeing with some of the proposed changes for total release foggers and other products. Other aerosol makers oppose all of the proposed changes without any insight into how these products can be made safer for the user. Hydrocarbon and ether propellants are not the only choices the industry has for aerosols, but they are some of the cheapest. Other options include HCFC 22, HCFC 22/HCFC 142b, HCFC22/CFC 11,HCFC 22/1,1,1-Trichloroethane.39 There are also many other alternatives still under development. After the EPA rescinded notice 87-8, the period following was to be a time of examination and observation. But how much has the aerosol industry really investigated this issue? During the period between 1980 to 1990, eighty-nine lawsuits were filed by persons who had aerosol containers explode. This does not include the additional forty lawsuits from the 1970's.40 This information, in addition to the over 400 accidents caused by aerosol products the CPSC has compiled, seems to be sufficient evidence to change the current system.41 Industry has looked down upon alternatives to the current testing and labeling process. Montford Johnsen has suggested two reasons for the failure:
The best alternative is one that can provide the safest results for the consumer. The patron who buys an aerosol product should not have to feel jeopardized from storage or usage of the commodity. The consumer should be given the most thorough explanation that will educate them about instructions, warnings and dangers in an effort to diminish consumer misuse. By providing a full interpretation of the contents and the explosion/fire potential, the consumer may become more sensitive to the product and its capabilities. For the last eight years the EPA has tried to re-educate the public about the safety risks that could save lives and property. We believe changes are needed before the accident databases overflow with victims. This process may cost aerosol manufactures a small amount at first, but in the long run it probably will save lives. Home I Archives I Expose I Search I Donations I Investigations I About Us I Contact Us I Press Room |
||
May 1994
Summary