Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, November 14, 1994 TAG: 9411150039
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: C-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The agency raised concern over inadequate flammability warnings on the propellants in the mid-1980s but withdrew a proposal for stronger labeling requirements after the industry objected, according to a study by a private group, Project on Government Oversight, which cited internal EPA documents.
But the EPA has revived the proposed regulation, which would require warnings that insecticide foggers are ``extremely flammable'' and that the cans should carry symbols depicting a flame and an explosion. A final decision on the precise warning label requirements is expected early next year.
The fogger propellants have been on the market for years and are widely available in hardware stores and other retail outlets. Last year, 25 million cans were sold, according to industry estimates. They often are a cheaper way to rid a home of roaches, fleas, ants or other insects than calling an exterminator.
But since the 1970s, manufacturers have used highly flammable propane or butane as the propellant that disperses the insecticide over a wide area when triggered. A chlorofluorocarbon that had been used previously was banned in 1978 because of its threat to the Earth's ozone layer.
``The consumer really isn't aware of what's in the aerosol product. You're talking about [propellant] substances that are as flammable, or more flammable than gasoline,'' argues Scott Amey, a researcher for the private Project on Government Oversight.
The group accused the EPA earlier this year of not aggressively pushing for clearer labels as well as more accurate flammability tests not only for fogger propellants, but other spray insecticide containers that use flammable hydrocarbons as the propellant.
Manufacturers argue that the danger has been exaggerated because only a very small number of fires or explosions have been reported - and then as a result of misuse.
The manufacturers agree that some additional warning information should be put onto the cans, but they argue that a symbol suggesting an explosion or a designation of ``extremely flammable'' is misleading and overstates the danger.
``This suggested language may only introduce more confusion,'' S.C. Johnson Co., a major manufacturer of the product, wrote to the EPA. The industry argues that if the foggers are not misused, no danger exists.
But according to the EPA, fire officials in New York City are aware of at least 40 cases in which foggers have resulted in serious fires, including 15 cases in 1990-91 alone. Those are the latest, and only, statistics available from the EPA, but agency officials said they suspect many such incidents go unreported, or are not recognized by fire investigators as involving foggers.
In some cases, fires are attributed to arson because the foggers leave a petroleum-based residue similar to what might be left if a fire had been purposely set, says Jim Downing, head of the EPA's working group on fogger flammability.
by CNB