{"operation":"document","citation":"64 FR 28030","title":"Hazardous Materials: Revision to Regulations Governing Transportation and Unloading of Liquefied Compressed Gases","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"1999-05-24","effective_on":null,"summary":"RSPA is revising regulations applicable to the transportation and unloading of liquefied compressed gases. The revisions include new inspection, maintenance, and testing requirements for cargo tank discharge systems, including delivery hose assemblies, and revised attendance requirements applicable to liquefied petroleum gas and anhydrous ammonia to take account of certain unique operating characteristics. The revised attendance requirements provide a greater level of confidence that a qualified person attending the unloading operation can quickly identify and stop an unintentional release. Further, RSPA is revising requirements for cargo tank emergency discharge control equipment to provide a clear performance standard for passive emergency discharge control equipment that shuts down unloading operations without human intervention. The revised requirements also provide for a remote capability for certain cargo tanks to enable a person attending the unloading operation to shut off the flow of product when away from the motor vehicle during delivery. RSPA is allowing a two-year period for development and testing of emergency discharge control technology. After two years, newly manufactured MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles must be equipped with emergency discharge control equipment that complies with the performance standards; MC 330, MC 331 and certain nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicles already in service must be retrofitted at their first scheduled pressure test after the two-year period. These revisions are intended to reduce the risk of an unintentional release of a liquefied compressed gas during unloading, assure prompt detection and control of an unintentional release, and make the regulatory requirements easier to understand and comply with.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-12860.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-12860.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-99-12860","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1999/05/24/99-12860/hazardous-materials-revision-to-regulations-governing-transportation-and-unloading-of-liquefied","body":"Federal Register, Volume 64 Issue 99 (Monday, May 24, 1999) [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 1999)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 28030-28052] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 99-12860] [[Page 28029]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part II Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171 et al. Hazardous Materials: Revision to Regulations Governing Transportation and Unloading of Liquefied Compressed Gases; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 1999 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 28030]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 177, 178, 180 [Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A)] RIN 2137-AD07 Hazardous Materials: Revision to Regulations Governing Transportation and Unloading of Liquefied Compressed Gases AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is revising regulations applicable to the transportation and unloading of liquefied compressed gases. The revisions include new inspection, maintenance, and testing requirements for cargo tank discharge systems, including delivery hose assemblies, and revised attendance requirements applicable to liquefied petroleum gas and anhydrous ammonia to take account of certain unique operating characteristics. The revised attendance requirements provide a greater level of confidence that a qualified person attending the unloading operation can quickly identify and stop an unintentional release. Further, RSPA is revising requirements for cargo tank emergency discharge control equipment to provide a clear performance standard for passive emergency discharge control equipment that shuts down unloading operations without human intervention. The revised requirements also provide for a remote capability for certain cargo tanks to enable a person attending the unloading operation to shut off the flow of product when away from the motor vehicle during delivery. RSPA is allowing a two-year period for development and testing of emergency discharge control technology. After two years, newly manufactured MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles must be equipped with emergency discharge control equipment that complies with the performance standards; MC 330, MC 331 and certain nonspecification cargo tank motor vehicles already in service must be retrofitted at their first scheduled pressure test after the two-year period. These revisions are intended to reduce the risk of an unintentional release of a liquefied compressed gas during unloading, assure prompt detection and control of an unintentional release, and make the regulatory requirements easier to understand and comply with. DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 1999. Voluntary Compliance Date: RSPA is authorizing immediate voluntary compliance. Incorporation by Reference Date: The incorporation by reference of the publications listed in these amendments has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register effective July 1, 1999. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Karim or Susan Gorsky, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, (202) 366-8553; or Nancy Machado, Office of the Chief Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, (202) 366-4400. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Topics I. Background II. Statement of the Issues III. Comments on the NPRM IV. Revisions to the Regulations A. Prevention B. Identification C. Mitigation D. Implementation Schedule E. Miscellaneous F. Section-by-Section Review V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Background The goal of this rulemaking is to enhance transportation safety by improving the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171- 180) as they relate to the unloading of liquefied compressed gases from MC 330, MC 331 and certain nonspecification cargo tanks. Concerns about emergency discharge control on some of these cargo tanks were identified following an incident in 1996. In 1997, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, ``we'') adopted a final rule under Docket Number RSPA-97-2133 (HM-225; 62 FR 7638, 62 FR 44038, 62 FR 65187) establishing certain temporary alternative regulations in Sec. 171.5 of the HMR under which cargo tanks could remain in service while we evaluated this incident and other situations in which liquefied compressed gases were released unintentionally from cargo tanks during unloading operations. The temporary regulations expire July 1, 1999. On August 18, 1997, we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under Docket Number RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A; 62 FR 44059) soliciting public comment on a number of specific topics related to cargo tank unloading operations of liquefied compressed gases. We received more than 150 comments addressing federal agency jurisdiction; active and passive emergency discharge control systems; suggestions for modification of cargo tank discharge systems; hoses, hose assemblies, and hose management; and vehicle attendance requirements. On July 16, 1998 (63 FR 38456), RSPA established a negotiated rulemaking committee (the Committee) to develop recommendations for alternative safety standards for preventing and mitigating unintentional releases of liquefied compressed gases during the unloading of cargo tank motor vehicles. In a negotiated rulemaking, representatives of interests affected by a regulation meet to discuss the safety issues and to identify potential solutions. The group attempts to reach consensus on a proposed solution and prepares a recommendation for a notice of proposed rulemaking to be made by the agency. This process is intended to give parties the opportunity to find creative solutions, improve the information data base for decisions, produce more acceptable rules, enhance compliance, and reduce the likelihood of court challenges. For this rulemaking, in addition to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Committee consisted of persons who represent the interests affected by this rulemaking, including businesses that transport and deliver liquefied petroleum gases, anhydrous ammonia and other liquefied compressed gases; manufacturers and operators of cargo tanks and vehicle components; and state and local public safety and emergency response agencies. Particular care was taken to identify any unique interests that were determined to be significantly affected by the proposed rule and ensure that they were fully represented on the Committee. The Committee met in plenary and working sessions on seven occasions and developed a number of recommendations for enhancing the safety of cargo tank unloading operations. Among the materials considered by the Committee in developing its recommendations were the prior rulemaking actions in RSPA-97-2133, public comments filed in response to those actions, information provided by regulatory and enforcement officials, and incident data. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking based on the Committee's recommendations on March 22, 1999 (64 FR 13856). The requirements in this final rule replace the provisions of the temporary regulation in Sec. 171.5 with a comprehensive safety program intended to reduce the risk of an unintentional release of a liquefied compressed gas during unloading, assure prompt detection and control of an unintentional release, and make the [[Page 28031]] regulatory requirements easier to understand and comply with. The Committee agrees that the costs imposed by this final rule will be off- set by the benefits. The Committee had no role in preparing DOT's ``Final Regulatory Evaluation'' or ``Environmental Assessment'' and did not consider them in its deliberations. II. Statement of the Issues The goal of all parties to this negotiated rulemaking was to enhance safety in transportation through improvements in the regulations governing the unloading of liquefied compressed gases from MC 330, MC 331, and certain nonspecification cargo tanks. Concerns with emergency discharge control on certain of these cargo tanks were identified in 1996. RSPA issued the temporary regulation in Sec. 171.5 of the HMR to address these concerns as related to the unloading of liquefied compressed gases because information and data gathered during the rulemaking process indicated that the problems were not limited to specific materials or specific cargo tank configurations. The Committee focused its discussions, analyses, and recommendations on liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) and anhydrous ammonia. These are the liquefied compressed gases that are most commonly transported in cargo tanks; as a result, LPG and anhydrous ammonia are the materials most frequently involved in unintentional releases during unloading. However, in this final rule, the Department is addressing safety issues related to unloading of all liquefied compressed gases that present risks similar to or more serious than those presented by LPG and anhydrous ammonia. The issues identified by the Committee apply equally to compressed gases with poison inhalation hazards, refrigerant gases, and compressed gases that present risks similar to those of LPG and anhydrous ammonia. The safety benefits that will be realized from these revisions justify a broad rulemaking approach. As one of its first activities, the Committee examined incident reports of unintentional releases of LPG, anhydrous ammonia, and sulfur dioxide during unloading operations. The data included incidents reported to RSPA as required by Secs. 171.15 and 171.16 of the HMR and other incidents not required to be reported to RSPA that were identified through reports from DOT field office staff, industry representatives, and newspapers. The Committee identified 69 incidents that occurred from 1990 to 1998 and analyzed them to determine how the current regulations applicable to unloading could be improved. More than 54 percent of the incidents resulted in unintentional releases from hoses and hose fittings. Another 37 percent involved releases that originated from equipment on the cargo tank motor vehicle itself, including pump seals, swivel joints, pump flanges, and piping and related fittings such as gauges, filters, and flex connectors. Many of these incidents appeared to result from problems with maintenance, installation, or mechanical damage rather than design flaws. Based on this information, the Committee concluded that improved inspection and maintenance programs for delivery hose assemblies and other discharge system components would prevent many incidents and, thus, would improve the safety of cargo tank unloading operations. However, the Committee also concluded that additional safety enhancements are possible. Thus, the Committee agreed to consider alternative approaches for identifying the occurrence of unintentional releases and reducing their severity by determining which methods or combination of methods provide the most cost-effective means for controlling unintentional releases during cargo tank unloading operations. The Committee heard presentations from manufacturers of a variety of systems designed to shut down cargo tank unloading operations automatically (without the need for human intervention) or by means of off-truck remote shut-off devices. Based on its discussion and findings, the Committee recommended a program combining measures to prevent unintentional releases during unloading operations with measures that will assure quick identification of releases and effective mitigation. Therefore, we are revising the HMR in these areas: Prevention--new inspection, maintenance, and testing requirements for discharge systems, including delivery hose assemblies, on cargo tanks transporting liquefied compressed gases. Identification--revised attendance requirements for monitoring unloading operations of LPG and anhydrous ammonia to take account of certain unique operating characteristics while assuring that the person attending the unloading operation can quickly determine if an unintentional release occurs. Mitigation--revised requirements for emergency discharge control equipment on certain cargo tanks in liquefied compressed gas service to provide a clearer performance standard for equipment that shuts down unloading operations without human intervention and to provide for an off-truck remote capability for certain cargo tanks to enable a qualified person attending the unloading operation to shut off the flow of product from wherever he may need to be during the delivery. The new requirements vary according to the degree of risk involved with the transportation of specific liquefied compressed gases. III. Comments on the NPRM Seven organizations submitted comments on the NPRM. Commenters were generally supportive of the proposals in the NPRM and urged their prompt adoption. Four commenters raised concerns with certain aspects of the NPRM: (1) the Michigan State Police Motor Carrier Division Hazardous Materials Unit; (2) Rutherford Equipment; (3) The Chlorine Institute; and (4) the Sulfur Dioxide Mutual Assistance Response Team. In addition, two organizations that are members of the Committee--the National Propane Gas Association and The Fertilizer Institute-- submitted comments on the Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, which were developed by RSPA to support the NPRM. Also, five individual members of the Committee submitted joint comments on the Environmental Assessment and the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The comments are discussed in detail below. Michigan State Police The Michigan State Police Motor Carrier Division Hazardous Materials Unit (the Unit) endorses the proposals in the NPRM, but notes a potential enforcement problem involving recordkeeping associated with the proposed discharge system inspection and maintenance program in Sec. 180.416. In addition, the Unit opposes the proposal to permit use of the term ``spray-fill'' in place of ``vapor'' for marking cargo tank product inlet lines. Concerning recordkeeping, the Unit states that proposed Secs. 180.416(b)(5) and 180.416(f)(3) do not address where the inspection records are to be kept and for how long. The Unit recommends that the final rule specify that the records are to be maintained at a carrier's place of business for six months (as is required for driver logbooks) or one year (as is required for shipping papers). While the NPRM is not specific on this point, the Committee had intended that the records required by Secs. 180.416(d)(5) and 180.416(f)(3) would be maintained in the same [[Page 28032]] manner as currently required for cargo tank test records in Sec. 180.417. Section 180.417(b)(2) requires the owner of a cargo tank to retain a copy of test and inspection reports until the next test or inspection of the same type is successfully completed. We agree that this requirement is not clear in the NPRM. Thus, the final rule has been modified to include an explicit requirement for retention of test and inspection records in Sec. 180.416 similar to the provision in Sec. 180.417(b)(2). Concerning the use of ``spray-fill'' to designate cargo inlet vapor lines, the Unit states that the terms ``vapor'' and ``liquid'' are not easily misunderstood, but that the term ``spray-fill'' can be interpreted in a number of ways. The Unit recommends that, to avoid confusion on the part of enforcement and emergency response personnel, this proposal be deleted. We do not agree. The industry commonly uses the term ``spray-fill'' to designate product inlet lines that communicate with vapor. This practice helps to assure that there is no confusion about where to connect loading and unloading lines. We do agree with the Unit that the paragraph as drafted is confusing and difficult to follow. We have revised this section for the final rule to clarify that it is only product inlet lines that communicate with vapor that may be designated ``spray-fill.'' Other lines that communicate with vapor, such as vapor equalization lines, must be designated ``vapor.'' Rutherford Equipment The commenter representing Rutherford Equipment is concerned about the procedure proposed in the NPRM for pressure testing new and repaired hose assemblies by operators in the field. The commenter states that the person conducting the visual inspection could be endangered because the rule does not include a requirement that the hose must be restrained or caged during the pressure test. We do not believe that it is necessary to include such a requirement in this regulation. We expect that suitable safeguards will be provided to protect personnel and facilities should a hose fail during a pressure test. Written procedures developed by manufacturers of hoses and apparatus for pressure testing hose assemblies generally include cautionary statements advising persons conducting such tests to take all necessary safety precautions. Therefore, no change has been made to this final rule. The Chlorine Institute The Chlorine Institute comments address: (1) The requirement in the NPRM that emergency discharge control systems must be certified by a Design Certifying Engineer; (2) the proposed definition of ``metered delivery service;'' (3) use of the term ``internal self-closing stop valve;'' (4) the implementation date for the proposed requirement that chlorine cargo tanks be unloaded in conformance with Pamphlet 57 of the Chlorine Institute; and (5) the applicability of proposed Sec. 178.337- 8 to chlorine cargo tanks. The NPRM proposed to require passive shut-down systems, including those installed on cargo tank motor vehicles prior to July 1, 2001, to be certified by a Design Certifying Engineer. The certification would affirm that the system would shut off the flow of product without the need for human intervention within 20 seconds of an unintentional release caused by a complete separation of the delivery hose. The Chlorine Institute states that chlorine cargo tanks have excess flow valves under liquid angle valves that are designed to shut down product flow if an angle valve is broken off. The Chlorine Institute further states that the excess flow valve would also activate ``under the proper conditions'' in the event of a complete separation of the delivery hose. However, the Chlorine Institute is concerned that manufacturers of excess flow valves used on cargo tanks in chlorine service will not provide the required certification because an excess flow valve is only one component of a larger system. System certification was a major issue for the Committee. The Committee recognized that component manufacturers might be reluctant to provide a performance certification for a system of which their component was only a part. Thus, the Committee proposed that a system performance certification be provided by a Design Certifying Engineer, who could be employed by a cargo tank manufacturer, a component manufacturer, a cargo tank owner or operator, or a third party. The performance certification must consider any manufacturing specifications for components used in the system and must explain how the system operates and the parameters within which it is designed to operate. A performance certification for the emergency discharge control system on a chlorine cargo tank would thus explain the function of each element of the system and enumerate the ``proper conditions'' within which the system is designed to operate. The Committee believes that certification of passive emergency discharge control systems installed on cargo tank motor vehicles is critical for successful implementation of the final rule. Therefore, the final rule does not change the proposal in the NPRM for all passive shut-down systems, including those installed on cargo tank motor vehicles prior to July 1, 2001, to be certified by a Design Certifying Engineer. Concerning the proposed definition of ``metered delivery service,'' the Chlorine Institute is concerned that the definition could be misinterpreted if ``metered'' were read to mean ``under the control of a valve or nozzle.'' The Chlorine Institute recommends that the proposed definition be modified to make clear that, in metered delivery service, the flow of product passes through a calibrated measuring device. We do not agree that the proposed definition for ``metered delivery service'' could be interpreted to mean ``under the control of a valve or nozzle.'' The definition proposed in the NPRM for ``metered delivery service'' is an unloading operation conducted at a metered flow rate of 100 gallons per minute or less through an attached delivery hose with a nominal inside diameter of 1.25 inches or less. In this context, ``metered flow rate'' clearly refers to a meter--that is, a calibrated measuring device. Thus, we have made no change to the final rule. Concerning use of the term ``internal self-closing stop valve,'' the Chlorine Institute suggests that, whenever reference is made to an internal self-closing stop valve in the final rule, it should be clear that the rule does not apply to cargo tanks, such as those used for transportation of chlorine, that do not have internal self-closing stop valves. We agree that it is not always clear in the NPRM that certain MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks are not equipped with internal self- closing stop valves and, thus, that requirements applicable to such valves do not apply to these cargo tanks. We have made several clarifications in the final rule. Proposed Sec. 177.840(u) requires operators unloading chlorine from cargo tanks to comply with section 3 of Pamphlet 57 ``Emergency Shut- off Systems for Bulk Transfer of Chlorine.'' The Chlorine Institute asks that the final rule include an implementation date of two years after the effective date of the final rule, or July 1, 2001. This implementation date has been added in the final rule. Concerning the applicability of proposed Sec. 178.337-8, the Chlorine Institute notes that chlorine cargo tanks do not have openings to permit complete drainage; do not have openings that must be closed with a [[Page 28033]] plug, cap, or bolted flange; and do not have back flow check valves. Therefore, the Chlorine Institute suggests that this section should be modified to clarify that it does not apply to chlorine cargo tanks. For the final rule, we have revised the title of paragraph (a) of Sec. 178.337-8 to indicate that it contains general requirements applicable to cargo tank openings and added language specifying that paragraph (a) applies to MC 331 cargo tanks except for those used to transport chlorine. We have also revised paragraph (b) for clarity. Sulfur Dioxide Mutual Assistance Response Team The Sulfur Dioxide Mutual Assistance Response Team (SMART) expresses concern over the proposed requirement for certain cargo tanks to be equipped with an emergency discharge control system that will shut off unloading without human intervention within 20 seconds of an unintentional release caused by a complete hose separation. SMART asserts that a complete separation of a delivery hose ``is not a situation that has occurred in the sulfur dioxide industry'' and, thus, sees no reason for imposition of the proposed requirement on cargo tanks used to transport sulfur dioxide. SMART also states that the technology to meet the proposed requirement does not yet exist and that ``it is unlikely that a device that may be appropriate for propane is going to work for sulfur dioxide.'' SMART is also concerned that its interests were not ``appropriately represented'' on the negotiated rulemaking committee. SMART requests that the final rule except cargo tanks that transport sulfur dioxide from the requirement for a passive emergency discharge control system. Failing that, SMART asks for reconsideration of the proposed implementation date for these systems. From the beginning, our goal has been an open and inclusive process that would enable anyone with an interest in the rulemaking to provide information and to comment on proposals. The notice announcing our intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee (63 FR 30572; June 4, 1998) listed those interests that we believed should be represented on the Committee and invited commenters to identify other interests that should also be represented. The notice identified the Compressed Gas Association and National Tank Truck Carriers as organizations that should be included on the Committee to represent the interests of manufacturers and transporters of liquefied compressed gases other than LPG and anhydrous ammonia. Once the Committee was established, interested parties who were not selected for membership were invited to attend Committee meetings, which were open to the public, caucus with Committee members representing their interest on the Committee, address the Committee or submit written comments on issues of concern, and participate in the informal work groups that were established by the Committee to address certain technical issues and draft regulatory text. Further, in January 1999, we circulated a draft NPRM to the Committee and other interested persons, including SMART's representative, thereby providing an opportunity for interested persons to provide comments in advance of formal publication of the NPRM. At the Committee's February meeting, Committee members and other participants discussed the draft NPRM in detail. SMART's comments highlight the accident history of sulfur dioxide in transportation. We recognize that unintentional releases of liquefied compressed gases during unloading occur infrequently and that events such as complete hose separations during unloading are also infrequent events. However, an unintentional release of a gas that is poisonous by inhalation, such as sulfur dioxide, can have very serious consequences if it is not controlled quickly. The proposed requirement for passive emergency discharge control systems is designed to address potential risks to the public safety associated with such low- probability/high-consequence events. SMART has not provided sufficient information to justify its request for an exception from the proposed requirement; therefore, we have made no changes to the final rule. Although SMART states that technology capable of automatically shutting off unloading in the event of complete hose failure cannot be available within two years, the industry is field-testing several promising systems, and at least one company is marketing a system that appears to meet the performance standard established in the proposed rule. Further, we note that, as is the case with chlorine, cargo tanks used to transport sulfur dioxide currently are equipped with an emergency discharge control system that may well meet the proposed performance standard provided certain operating conditions are met. If so, the existing system can be so certified by a Design Certifying Engineer. Thus, we have made no changes to the implementation schedule proposed in the NPRM. Comments on Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation Several members of the Committee submitted formal comments expressing concerns about specific issues discussed in the Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. All of the commenters reiterated their support for the proposed regulatory program and their certainty that the safety benefits of the proposed program outweigh its costs. Concerning the Environmental Assessment, commenters stated that some of the possible scenarios discussed are so improbable that they are not representative of the risks the new regulations are designed to addressed and should not have been presented. One factor normally considered in an Environmental Assessment is risk to health or safety. In this case, the most significant environmental effects of an unintentional release of material are the health and safety threats at the time of the release to humans, animals, and vegetation. Comments on the Environmental Assessment centered on potential fatality figures cited for several different delivery scenarios. These figures are intended to provide some sense of the upper bound, worst-case, or ``could range up to'' consequences that are possible in an accident. RSPA recognizes that unintentional releases of liquefied compressed gases during unloading occur infrequently and that events such as these are of very low probability. Less extreme outcomes are not as improbable. The safety measures adopted through this rulemaking, however, act to further reduce the likelihood of either category of events or mitigate consequences should they occur. Regardless of differences on how they may choose to portray risks, both RSPA and commenters come to the same conclusion: there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed regulations. Concerning the preliminary regulatory evaluation, commenters were primarily concerned that it understates the costs of the proposed regulations. In several cases, RSPA has adjusted cost figures upwards to reflect information provided by commenters. Where commenters did not offer specific information to support their arguments, RSPA elected to continue to rely on its original estimates. A complete discussion of individual comments received is included in the final Regulatory Evaluation. Notwithstanding their differences in characterizing the costs associated with the proposed program, [[Page 28034]] RSPA and the commenters agree that the costs imposed by this final rule will be off-set by the benefits. IV. Revisions to the Regulations A. Prevention We are revising the HMR to incorporate the following measures to prevent unintentional releases during unloading of liquefied compressed gases: A hose management program, including post-delivery safety checks of hoses and hose assemblies. A new inspection and maintenance program for on-truck components of a cargo tank's discharge system. A visual check of the discharge system and its components prior to each unloading. Hose Management Program The Committee conducted an in-depth analysis of the incident data for liquefied compressed gas spills during unloading. The data indicate that failure of hoses and piping components is the cause of the majority of unloading incidents. In addition, the data show that relatively minor leaks can result in major consequences if a liquefied flammable gas is ignited. For these reasons, the Committee decided that any rule it recommended should contain provisions focused on preventing incidents. Supporting this position is research conducted by Pennsylvania State University's Transportation Institute (PSUTI) under contract with The Fertilizer Institute. PSUTI analyzed the risks involved in deliveries of anhydrous ammonia and the most cost effective way of mitigating those risks. The PSUTI study identified a hose management program as the most cost-effective method of mitigating risks associated with unloading anhydrous ammonia. The majority of the incidents examined by the Committee involved leaks from hoses or failures of hose couplings. An incident in Sanford, North Carolina, in September of 1996 provides an example. In that case, the hose couplings of a newly assembled delivery hose assembly disconnected from the hose when subjected to delivery pressures. Less severe hose failures are more frequent and generally occur as a result of cuts and gouges to hoses that have experienced rough handling, such as being dragged across uneven ground or over rough structures during deliveries. For the reasons outlined above, we are requiring a hose management program for liquid transfer hoses carried on cargo tanks that transport liquefied compressed gases. Although the accident data and analysis focused on unloading operations involving LPG and anhydrous ammonia, the preventive measures are equally applicable to unloading operations for all liquefied compressed gases. The requirements include tests of new and repaired hose assemblies; safety checks of hoses after each unloading; monthly and annual hose assembly inspections; and specific rejection criteria. The hose management program applies to delivery hose assemblies on cargo tank motor vehicles used to transport liquefied compressed gases. For purposes of this rule, a ``delivery hose assembly'' is defined as a liquid delivery hose and its attached couplings. During Committee deliberations, certain Committee members described instances in the field when it is necessary to attach ``adapters'' to the end of a delivery hose assembly to unload product from the cargo tank into the receiving container. Because these adapters are not regularly attached to the liquid delivery hose and its couplings, they are not considered part of the delivery hose assembly for purposes of the hose management program. The hose management program requires an operator to remove and replace damaged hose sections and to correct any defects discovered in hoses or hose assemblies. The operator is required to pressure test a repaired hose at a minimum of 120 percent of the maximum working pressure of the hose before placing it back in service. A pressure test is not required if the operator corrects defects such as replacing or tightening loose or missing bolts or fastenings on bolted hose assembly couplings, provided no slipping of the coupling has occurred. The annual hose inspection must be conducted by a Registered Inspector as part of the leakage test procedures already required by the HMR, making updating of registration unnecessary. For hoses not permanently attached to the cargo tank motor vehicle, the annual hose test does not necessarily have to be done by the same Registered Inspector or at the same time as the leakage test for the cargo tank motor vehicle. Discharge System Inspection and Maintenance Another area of emphasis identified by the Committee with respect to prevention of incidents during unloading was targeted at leaks from piping systems--defined by the Committee to include any component other than the delivery hose assembly that contains product during unloading. Again, the incident data indicate that leaks from piping components during unloading are a cause of a significant proportion of the reported incidents. The Committee heard presentations from two pump manufacturers about how pumps function and how they should be maintained. The Committee also investigated meters and other piping components. Because of the incident data and the constant wear on piping components, we are requiring a program of inspections and tests for piping systems in cargo tanks that transport liquefied compressed gases. The inspection and testing program is similar to the program required for hoses. Piping system inspections and tests must include monthly checks of internal self-closing stop valves for closure, testing of linkages designed to close internal self-closing stop valves during emergencies, visual inspections of all piping system components, and rejection criteria for piping system components. Pre-Delivery Safety Check As an additional means to prevent unintentional releases from cargo tank delivery hose assemblies and piping, the person unloading liquefied compressed gases from a cargo tank must visually check those components of the discharge system that are readily observed during the normal course of unloading. This check must be done before each delivery after the pressure in the discharge system has reached at least equilibrium with the pressure in the cargo tank. This check should assure that all connections are secure and that each component of the discharge system, including delivery hose assemblies and piping, is of sound quality and free of defects detectable through visual observation and audio awareness. B. Identification We are establishing new attendance provisions applicable to unloading of LPG and anhydrous ammonia. The attendance provisions in Sec. 177.834(i), which we are revising for clarity and consistency, will apply to all other cargo tank loading and unloading operations. We are making the following changes to the HMR: A definition for ``metered delivery service.'' Revised regulations for monitoring the unloading operations of LPG and anhydrous ammonia in metered delivery service. Revised regulations for monitoring the unloading operations of liquefied compressed gases. [[Page 28035]] Definition for ``Metered Delivery Service'' The Committee recommended that the attendance requirements in the HMR take account of the differences in design and configuration of cargo tank motor vehicles delivering LPG and anhydrous ammonia. Unloading of LPG and anhydrous ammonia from large-capacity cargo tanks through large-diameter delivery hoses involves the transfer of thousands of gallons of product into large storage containers at a rate of 200-400 gallons per minute. Typically, the vehicle is unloaded through a short delivery hose (less than 25 feet). Note: As an aid to the reader, units of measure in this preamble are expressed in U.S. standard or customary units. In the regulatory text, consistent with the requirements of Sec. 171.10 of the HMR, they are expressed using the International System of Units (``SI'' or metric) as the regulatory standard, followed in parentheses by the U.S. standard unit. Cargo tank motor vehicles that unload LPG or anhydrous ammonia through small-diameter delivery hoses differ in design and operation. These vehicles are used almost exclusively for deliveries in which small volumes of product are transferred to small storage containers at metered flow rates much lower than those used in other unloading operations. The average delivery for these vehicles involves the transfer of fewer than 170 gallons of product at a rate of 40-60 gallons per minute through a delivery hose that commonly ranges from 100 to 150 feet in length. To account for these differences, we are defining a new term-- ``metered delivery service.'' The definition for ``metered delivery service'' is an unloading operation conducted at a metered flow rate of 100 gallons per minute or less through an attached delivery hose with a nominal inside diameter of 1.25 inches or less. Monitoring Unloading Operations for Metered Delivery Service By far the most common unloading scenario for cargo tank motor vehicles in metered delivery service is the delivery of propane for heating and cooking by households and small businesses, and for light industrial applications. In these settings, the vehicle is typically positioned in the customer's driveway, farm lane, or parking area, and the customer's storage container is located to the side or rear of the facility. The storage container may be located more than 25 feet from the nearest point of vehicle access, and can be up to 150 feet away in extreme cases. Fences, buildings, vegetation, or other obstructions may make it impossible to maintain an unobstructed view of the cargo tank from the position of the storage container. The delivery hose on a cargo tank motor vehicle in metered delivery service remains attached and full of product during transit. It is equipped with a hose end valve that the attendant opens and closes to start and stop the flow of product into a customer container in the course of each delivery. As a result, an attendant located at the receiving container has a ready means to shut off the flow of gas in the event of a leak at the connection to the receiving container. An attendant located at the vehicle end of the system could respond to such a leak by closing the vehicle's internal self-closing stop valve, but product in the downstream piping a","truncated":true,"body_characters":166060}