NEMA Updates CPSC on Coin Battery Safety Efforts

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) members September 1 updated CPSC lab staff as well as Chairman Elliot Kaye on work towards warnings and packaging standards for lithium coin cells. The issue is mitigating children’s access to the ingestible batteries that can cause internal chemical burns. The context is ANSI C18.3M, Part 1, Portable Lithium Primary Cells and Batteries – General and Specifications. Discussion at the meeting included:

Icon: NEMA Government Relations Manager Jonathan Stewart showed a potential warning symbol, including for placement on both batteries and packaging. It is the red prohibition/no symbol (crossed-out circle) over a silhouette child who is reaching for a battery symbol. The cross bar is over the reaching arm. It differs from an earlier version that had a silhouette of a baby in a diaper. The updated child, at CPSC’s suggestion (PSL, 3/9/15), appears older to reflect the population at risk. The newer symbol is borrowed from one used by the American Cleaning Institute, he explained.

There are two working options for indicating the battery – just a black circle with a white plus or that symbol as well as a black silhouette of a cylinder battery with a white plus.

The question is whether circle alone is clear enough to indicate a battery. NEMA participants emphasized that consumers would see it in context – on the packaging and on the battery itself. Stewart explained the possibility of focus group testing but said it would be a large task under ANSI’s Z535 series on safety information.

Part of the testing challenge is that if both the alternate icons are tested (with just the circle symbol versus with both the circle and the cylinder), both would need to be tested with separate groups of at least 50 people according to the ANSI Z535 process. Margaret Meadors, a CPSC human factors staffer, noted that there are ways to create subgroups for assessing different messages such as randomizing what different groups see first. However, questions remained whether that approach would comply with Z535 or if CPSC and others would be comfortable with NEMA working outside of Z535 requirements.

CPSC engineer Doug Lee showed potential options for the circle, including making it an oval and drawing sides so it appears like a three-dimensional coin. Meadors raised question about whether the text should indicate the most serious consequence: “fatal” versus “serious harm.”

Kaye, at his portion of the session, noted the importance of Spanish in the U.S. market. The English/French option derives from the division of the American markets into “North America” as the U.S. and Canada and “Latin America” as South and Central America plus Mexico. The latter gets Spanish and Portuguese. The question remained whether it would be a difficult matter for manufacturers to create an English/Spanish version at least for certain places in the U.S. They emphasized that the limitation is only on the icon and that information in Spanish would be elsewhere where real estate limitations are not as severe. Kaye said he wished CPSC data allowed him to “speak with more authority” on the need to address the Spanish-speaking population. The NEMA visitors acknowledged that the issue will grow in importance given U.S. demographic trends, and they voiced willingness to discuss the matter among themselves.

Battery Tabs: There remains debate about whether it is better to place the icon on the battery via a peel tab or with engraving. There are potential benefits and drawbacks to both. The peel tabs require an action, which reinforces the message. However, they then are gone so are not on the batteries at disposal/recycling, a time Stewart described as the “red zone” for incidents. Further, the person who peels a tab might not be the person who replaces the battery, and there is a question of whether there are data to suggest that peeling a tab affects caution months later (although the hope is that the message would be reinforced with repeated peeling with many batteries and many devices, noted CPSC pharmacologist Cheryl Scorpio). Furthermore, the tabs would not be included in bulk sales to OEMs, so any warning value would be lost for batteries inserted into devices by factories.

Engraving is permanent and universal, but might not be as conspicuous, especially if it cannot be done with contrasting color. It does not have the reinforcing benefit of the tab. At his session, Kaye questioned if there should be a dilemma, asserting that he favors including both to achieve all the benefits and to cancel out the drawbacks of each.

Package Front: Stewart showed a mockup image of the icon on the front, lower left corner of an image of existing Energizer packaging. He simply cut and pasted the icon and a square of white background. CPSC staff, however, were drawn to how the white stood out in contrast to the orange background of the packaging, leading them to emphasize that whatever is done needs to be conspicuous.

The group also looked at options for cut lines to show how to remove single batteries from multipacks with blister packaging without releasing other units. Such options could have an added benefit of mitigating wrap-rage complaints from consumers or via retailers.

Package Back: The group looked at the bulleted warning as it now stands. It has a yellow alert symbol (triangle with exclamation point) followed by “WARNING: Serious Harm if Swallowed.” After that are three bullets:

• Keep away from children
• If swallowed, seek immediate medical help
• For treatment information, call local poison control center

CPSC feedback included putting the verb first, at least for the second bullet (seek); their opinion was not as strong for the third (call). There also was discussion about the desire to emphasize a time limit (two hours) for medical attention given the urgency of the chemical hazard. Stewart noted that there likely would be inclusion of the national poison control phone number not local/regional variations.

Further, the back eventually might have language from UL standards. However, those are in flux as that organization is moving to phase out UL 1642, Lithium Batteries, and replacing it with IEC-based UL 60086-4, Primary Batteries – Part 4: Safety of Lithium Batteries.

Timing: Stewart explained manufacturers’ desire for a transition period to deal with existing stock. He described this as “months not years” and in the range of six to 12 months. He emphasized that the goal is not to allow for stockpiling. Manufacturers at the table pointed out that the need also involves contracts with OEMs. Those would need to be updated. They indicated that the changes likely would be uncontroversial once customers understood they were for safety, but there nonetheless would be a legal obligation to address the contracts. There also might be rare specialty applications for which certain physical changes might affect – or at least raise OEM concern about – battery effectiveness.

Mandatory Rule: Stewart raised the possibility of the association petitioning CPSC to incorporate the standard into its rules. However, he emphasized that there is no definitive plan to do so yet. Rather, he simply was informing CPSC of the long-term possibility. He explained that though the reason involves leveling the economic playing field between NEMA companies who would comply others who might not, it extends beyond economics. If compliant products were pushed out of market share, then the percentage of non-compliant units available would increase.

Lee and later Kaye both replied with the suggestion that the standard has the potential for 15(j) treatment although both also explained such action would need to meet 15(j) requirements that a standard is proven effective and widely followed. Consensus was that the readily-observable mandate would be met. Stewart noted that two of the four existing 15(j) rules involve products made by NEMA members: holiday lights and extension cords. Lee noted there is likely support for mandatory rules outside NEMA, pointing to legislative attempts and the Button Battery Task Force.

Redesign/Materials: This issue would fall outside the question of C18 requirements and involve industry cooperation in seeking design changes to mitigate the risks. Last April (PSL, 4/27/15), the Button Battery Task Force heard about efforts to coat batteries to limit the risks while still allowing them to work. There are proprietary and similar considerations with such collaboration. Currently, there also is a question where to start. Stewart explained attempts to line up a meeting with the Battery Association of Japan in that nation to assess willingness for manufacturers there to participate. Another tack that might need to wait or could run parallel is discussion in the U.S. (perhaps facilitated by CPSC) on what could be done. The dilemma is whether determining what can be done should await the willingness answer. Concurrent tracks raise resource and time issues.

Japanese companies (and those from elsewhere) supply the battery cans (the outside shells) so would be integral to such work. Even with their willingness, the agreement of vendors down the supply chain might not exist.