PHMSA Denies Petition to Classify PU Foam as a Transport Hazmat
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has announced that it is denying a petition filed by the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to classify polyurethane foam and certain finished products containing polyurethane foam (e.g. sofas, insulation)1 as hazardous material for purposes of transportation in commerce.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
(In 2007, PHMSA published a notice seeking comments on a petition (P-1491) filed by the NASFM, to classify polyurethane (PU) foam and certain finished products containing it as a Class 9 hazardous material for purposes of transportation in commerce. The comment period closed in June 2007 and was reopened in May 2008 to allow additional comment on whether there was a more appropriate means of classifying PU foam as a hazardous material. No additional or supplemental information was submitted.)
Petition Argued PU Foam Transport Compromises Safety of First Responders
The petition argued that PU foam, whether in bulk shipments or in finished products, is explicitly listed and controlled as a hazardous material in all phases of manufacturing, construction, and consumer applications. It added that regulations exist across agencies to regulate the use and storage of PU foam, but a gap exists in ensuring its safe transportation, and compromises the safety of emergency responders and the public.
NASFM proposed that PHMSA designate bulk shipments of PU foam as a Class 9 hazardous material, and require carriers to display orange panels with the identification number to identify the presence of PU foam for initial responders.
PHMSA Denies Petition to Classify PU Foam as a Hazardous Material in Transport
PHMSA received 30 comments for its 2007 notice seeking comments, 29 of which opposed the proposal to classify PU foam as a hazardous material. PHMSA states that it has denied NASFM's petition for the following reasons:
Not an unreasonable health risk. The majority of the commenters do not believe that that PU foam, nor products that contain PU foam, meet any defining criteria under the Hazardous Materials Regulation (HMR) (49 CFR 171-180), and do not constitute an “unreasonable” risk to health, safety and property when transported in commerce. PHMSA states that a PU fire does not require special fire fighting agents, procedures, or protective equipment and, therefore, does not pose an unreasonable danger to first responders. Thus, classifying PU foam as a hazardous material is unwarranted and inconsistent with the standards for classification set forth in the HMR.
Does not meet definition & test criteria. PHMSA notes that PU foam products are solid organic materials that, like many other plastic products, were not deemed to meet the “Readily combustible solid” definition and test criteria developed by the Transportation Department and the UN Committee of Experts in 1990. Data submitted by the NASFM did not identify PU foam products as hazardous materials, but rather recognized that PU foam products when exposed to fire will melt into liquid and the flash point of the liquids is outside of the range and criteria of Flammable liquid or Combustible liquid, as defined in the HMR.
Small safety benefits. PHMSA states that the anticipated safety benefits associated with the petition's proposals to classify PU foam as a hazardous material when being transported in commerce would be insignificant. PHMSA states emergency responders are already trained to be aware of hazards associated with vehicle fires due to components built into the vehicle, many of which employ vinyl and other polymers because of their strength and durability.
High implementation costs. PHMSA notes that if the proposal to classify PU foam as a hazardous material was adopted, it could be applied universally to all PU foam products. To attempt to identify, classify, and mark all of these articles and substances for purposes of transportation in commerce would have a large impact. PHMSA states the implementation costs of the petition would far exceed the benefits.
1PU foam is used in a variety of applications including as fill in sofas and mattresses; as insulation in buildings; as crack filler in homes, etc.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 05/16/08 news, 08051635, for BP summary of PHMSA considering to designate polyurethane foam and products as transport Hazmats.)
PHMSA Contact -- Helen Engrum (202) 366-8553
(DN PHMSA-2006-26275, FR Pub 04/06/11)