{"operation":"document","citation":"00-0379","title":"United States Senate — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-12-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"00-0379 response to United States Senate concerning 173.32.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0379.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0379.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-00-0379","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2000/000379.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nommandani\nof Transportation\nIrited States Coast Guar\n2100 2NO ST S.W.\nWashington, DC 20593-0001\nStalt Symbot: G-CA/104\nUnited States\nPhone: (202) 366-4280\nCoast Guard\nFAX: (202) 366-7124\n00-0379\n5730\nThe Honorable John Breaux\nUnited States Senate\nDEC 0 1 2000\nWashington, DC 20510-1803\nDear Senator Breaux:\nThis correspondence is in response to the letter you received from Mr. Chapman H. Burguieres,\nJr., President of Magnum Mud Equipment Co., Inc., regarding the use of certain bulk containers\nfor hazardous liquid cargo on board vessels.\nWe have reviewed Mr. Burguieres\" letter of September 1, 2000, and are able to provide you with\nthe following information with respect to the issues that he has raised. The first point with\nrespect to the discontinuation of marine portable tanks (MPTs) in favor of a Department of\nTransportation (DOT) specification for IM 101 (and 102) portable tanks is corroct. The Coast\nGuard took this action primarily for two reasons. First, it allowed industry to begin using the\nDOT standard portable tank, which had greater worldwide availability, for the transfer of\nhazardous liquid cargo while the tank was on board a vessel. Second, this action reduced federal\noversight and costs by removing the Coast Guard from unnecessary, direct competition with the\nprivate sector. This benefit occurred since MPTs. were subject to Coast Guard review, inspection\nand approval while DOT specification IM 101 and 102 portable tanks are approved by authorized\nthird party private sector approval agencies. One aspect of Mr. Burguieres' letter which is in\nerror is his comment that \"just about any hazardous material\" was allowed to be loaded and off-\nloaded (from an MPT) while on board a vessel. Actually, prior to the introduction of DOT\nspecification tanks, MPTs were authorized to handle only about ten hazardous liquids. With the\nregulatory changes that authorized the use of DOT specification IM portable tanks, the number of\nhazardous liquids authorized to be handled was greatly increased to perbaps several hundred.\nThe second issue in Mr. Burguieres' letter addresses differences in requirements between MPTs\nand DOT specification IM portable tanks for the carriage of various acid cargoes. He is correct\nthat for some acids, (only those of higher hazard degree), DOT specification IM portable tanks\nare not permitted to have bottom openings. For these tanks, discharge of the cargo must be\nthrough an opening in the tank's top, typically by pressurizing the tank. The reason for\nprobibiting bottom openings is to reduce the likelihood of cargo loss during transportation by\nprecluding leakage from a valve or other fitting located below the liquid level. While eliminating\nthe bottom openings improves the general safety of these tanks during transportation, we\nrecognize the view raised by Mr. Burguieres that there have been additional safety concems with\nsuch tanks if cargo discharge occurs by pressurization. In response to this concem, and to a\nspecific application from another company which services the offshore oil industry, the DOT\nResearch and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), in accordance with its procedures, has\ngranted an exemption that allows the use of a DOT exemption tank built to essentially the\n173,32\nCOP\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n5730\nSubj: Letter from Mr. Chapman H. Burguieres, Jr., President of Magnum Mud Equipment Co., Inc.\nWe are very aware of the concerns raised by Mr. Burguieres, and Coast Guard personnel have\nhad discussions concerning them with representatives from his company, as well as discussions\nwith other interested parties engaged in this industry. As you know, the objective of the\nrulemaking process is to ensure that all interested parties can provide formal input and comments\nprior to any final determinations being made.\nWe hope this information assists you understanding the various aspects of this issue, and in\nresponding to your constituent. If you have any further questions, please contact the Senate\nLiaison Office at (202) 224-2913.\n• Sincerely,\nCONGRESSIONAL AND GØVERNMENTAL\nCOMMANDER, US. COAST GUARD\nAPFAIRS STAFF\nBy direction","truncated":false,"body_characters":4149}