Navigating New Transport Issues for TGIC and Similar Substances

HazCom 2012 in the United States technically changed nothing in the transportation regulations. The Hazardous Materials Regulation (HMR), as most recently amended by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), transitioned “harmonized” U.S. standards with International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG), International Air Transport Association (IATA) and similar international standards. However, when OSHA aligned with the UN GHS (United Nations Global Harmonized System) Version 3 hazard communication approach, a number of foundational practices changed, causing collateral impact in the transportation arena that is still being discovered. As a result, some are now experiencing the need to classify products as hazardous when using ingredients that were previously considered non-hazardous.

Changing Standards: TGIC

One such substance important to powder coat manufacturers is Triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC). A commonly used crosslinker in various polyester powder coating formulations, questions have been surfacing due in part to the changes made by HazCom 2012 concerning toxicity.

What is new is that HazCom 2012, like other regulations around the globe that recently aligned with UN GHS (including CLP-Classification, Labeling and Packaging in Europe), adjusted classification standards for many hazard definitions (including toxicity), and now requires disclosure of at least the net impact of hazardous materials in formulations as part of the GHS compliant Safety Data Sheet (SDS).

In recent years, comprehensive reviews of the hazardous properties of TGIC have been undertaken to support the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) program in the EU. These reviews provided updated and harmonized hazard information to all suppliers of TGIC, often leading suppliers to re-evaluate their hazard classifications.

Separate from (but related to) these factors, the new SDS standards introduced by HazCom 2012 have increased the amount and nature of hazardous substance information to be disclosed. It is easy to speculate that some instances today, where a product that includes TGIC is now newly hazardous, are the result of formulators receiving more accurate and complete disclosures in the data sheets.

Determining Transit Classification

The current DOT definition identifies toxicity standards for three types: (i) Oral Toxicity, (ii) Dermal Toxicity, and (iii) Inhalation Toxicity. They have very specific measurements and apply rules for determining application to mixtures. Based on the information provided in the SDS accompanying the TGIC used in the formulation, a toxicity level should be calculated for each category. Formulators that are not positioned to make the calculations internally can retain third -party services to provide them. Once the calculations are made and the DOT classifications (if any) are determined, the transit documents can be easily completed.

Caution is advised that the transport standard is tied to the perspective that the length of exposure time to hazards is more limited in the transport environment. Consequently, GHS hazard information must be converted for use in determining DOT hazard classifications.

As an illustrative example, the oral hazard of a mixture classification can be calculated as shown in Table 1 and makes reference to Table 2.

Note that this equation assumes no other powder coating components are classified for acute oral toxicity. In these cases, a more refined equation is applied that takes into account the toxicities of individual components.

Determining Correct Classification An unavoidable complication is that the facts change periodically. In order to avoid misclassifying and mislabeling products for transport, formulators must have a clear view of the potential sources of change that impact their specific production. Factors to watch include:

• Change in data concerning a supplier’s material.
• Differences in hazard properties among multiple suppliers of the same material.
• Changes in relative concentration of materials in formulations

These differences must be tracked at the Bill of Materials (BoM) level so that classification is accurate when a different BoM is used. For those that remain with long-term suppliers, some of the causes of change will be more stable. However, because suppliers experience changes themselves, stability should not be assumed.

A Simple Checklist

If the formulator tracks and manages changes that affect classification of end product, the following checklist should be useful and reliable:

• Maintain continually up-to-date hazard related information concerning all raw materials and other ingredients, tracked and accessible by source.
• Prepare and maintain a usable database of toxicity (or other hazard) calculations to support DOT classification requirements for each material by source and date.
• Maintain accessible and accurate BoMs that trace to specific calculation of toxicity levels that will support DOT classification based on GHS classification.
• Monitor BoMs for accuracy, and eliminate the availability of inaccurate BoM’s to production usage. (Archiving unusable BoMs and related data might be prudent for recordkeeping past appropriateness for production.)
• Periodically confirm that the information used for day-to-day transit documents is accurate for the batch to be shipped.

James Eggenschwiler is an international trade attorney and Director of Global Trade for the Redstone Group, LLC. He can be reached at 614-923-7472 or jeggenschwiler@redstonegrp.com.

Andy Burgess is a Regulatory Director for Regulatory Services International Ltd. He can be reached at +44 1223 969 972 or andy@rsireg.com