Girard Equipment, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1U.S.Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. 20590 Special Programs Research and NOV 12 2002 Administration Mr. John Freiler Ref. No. 01-0295 Girard Equipment, Inc. 1004 Route 1 Rahway, NJ 07065 Dear Mr. Freiler: This is in response to your November 9, 2001 letter and subsequent conversations with members of my staff requesting clarification on the replacement of vents on MC 300 series cargo tanks with vents designed for DOT 400 series cargo tanks meeting the performance requirements of § 178.345-10(b)(3) in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 FR Parts 171-180). In addition to člarifying RSPA's position on this issue, you also request that RSPA allow 25 psig maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) MC 307 tanks to have their vents upgraded to DOT 407 vents having a set pressure of 30 psig as required by the requirements for DOT 407 vents as described in § 178.345-10, I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. The interpretation issued by this office by Hattie Mitchell in 1996 is correct. Section 173.33(d)(3) requires the replacement DOT 407 series valve only to meet the original MC 307 cargo tank amended to clarify that only the venting capacity requirements for the 300 series tank need be venting capacity requirements. Thus, the letter to Bill Quade (Ref. No. 01-0247) should be met. In addition, your request to allow MC 307 cargo tanks with a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 25 psig to have their vents upgraded to DOT 407 vents having a set pressure of 30 psig (as required in § 178.345-10 for DOT 407 vents) mușt be submitted as a petition for rulemaking under the requirements of § 106.31 in order for RSPA to consider a rule change. We hope this satisfies your request. Sincerely, Robert A. McGuire Associate Administrator Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 178.345-10 010295#

Page 282/12/2802 23:59 7323824650 GIRARD EQP PAGE 01 February 13, 2002 John Freiler Engineering Manager 1004 US Route 1 Girard Equipment, Inc. Ph: 1-800-526-4330 ext. 618 Rahway, NJ 07065 Fax: (732) 382-4650 E-mail: ifreiler@girardequip.com Michael Johnson Tr. Reg. Spcc. Standards Development, DHM-11 Fax: (202) 366-3012 Dear Mr. Johnson; Thank you for retuming my phone call and discussing my November 9, 2001 letter. During that conversation, we uncovered soine contusion with the second to last paragraph in my letter: It is important to note the word "set pressure". The DOT 407 vent I'm referring to would 49CFR§178/345-10(d)(1): be set nominally at 30 psig and could be set as high as 33 psig as per the roquirements of Settings of pressure relief system.. ss than 120 percent of the MAWP, and no more than 132 percent of the MAW!.. rimary pressure relief system. The set pressure of each primary pressure relicf valve must be r have to be set at no less than 120% of 25 psig or 30 psig and no more than 1 32% of 25 So for the 25 psi MAWP MC 307 tank in question, a DOT 407 venting system would psig or 33 psig. So, a DOT 407 vent having a set pressure of 30 psig is a 25 psig DOT 407 vent. I look forward to talking with you further on this subject on Thursday, February 21ª. Sincerely, John Freiler#

Page 3From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 2 of 9 November 9, 2001 John Freiler Engineering Manager 1004 US Route 1 Girard Equipment, Inc. Ph: 1-800-526-4330 ext. 618 Rahway, NJ 07065 Fax: (732) 382-4650 E-mail: jfreiler@girardequip.com Delmer F. Billings Fax (202) 366-3012 Chief, Standards Development, DHM-11 Dear Mr. Billings; I have recently come into possession of a memorandum (Ref. No. 01-0247) from you to clarifications to the concerning cargo tank regulations in the Hazardous Materials William Quade, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, MC-ECH, which offers up some Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). hardship and confusion, but would also create a safety hazard if they were to be enforced as I feel that the clarifications you offered up are in error, and would not only cause financial written. In your letter, you said: Q3. determined? A3. The flow capacity must be determined using the requirements of the original manufacturer of the pressure relief device. requirements of § 178.340-4. This information should be supplied by the valve#

Page 4From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Dale: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 3 of 9 First I shall discuss why I feel this is in error. This same question arose in 1995 when an officer in the California Highway Patrol made the inquiry of me. I sent a request for larification to your office and received a reply in a letter dated June 10, 1996 from Hatti follows: L. Mitchell, then Chief of Exemptions and Regulations Termination OHMS that read as Dear Mr. Freiler: specified in 4) CF 703(0) Special you said it 33c prigi pending. accordance with § 178.345-10. I apologize for the delay in responding and regret any vents on MC 307 and MC 312 cargo tanks to DOT 407 and DOT 412 vents that are flow rated in inconvenience it may have caused. The answer is no. Section 173.33(d)(3) provides that pressure relief devices or outlets on a original specification to which the cargo tank was design and constructed. I trust this satisfies your inquiry. Hattie L. Mitchell, Chief venting capacity requirements of the original DOT cargo tank must be met whenever a Further, we should consider the intent under which the provision found in § 173.33(d)(3) "The are there a ual Funerie requisery the makes le akard to the so called vents for MC-306 cargo tanks had developed a style of vent for the DOT 406 requirements requirements laid out in § 178.345-10 (b)(3)). Betts Industries, a leading Manufacturer ol that would leak less than one gallon during surge, but those vents had a reduced capacity at the set and flow rate pressures for a DOT 406 cargo tank when compared to the vents herein a MC-306 cargo tank operator could replace his existing vents one for one with th urrently in service on MC-306 tanks. It was felt that a potential safety hazard exister new she lover, norms or ca than tapay as measured ay feed reeiod resurthe following entry in the Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 212, Thursday, November 3, 1994, pg. 55163 & 55169: Section 173.33 Page: 55163: added to paragraph (d) stating that the venting requirements of the original DOT cargo tank Consistent with the changes made in § 180.405(h) in this final rule, a new sentence is 2#

Page 5From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 4 of 9 specification. See preamble discussion for § 180.405(h) specification must be met whenever a pressure relief valve is modified to a more recent Page: 55169: Section 180.405 pressure relief valve must be capable of re-seating to a leak-tight condition after a pressure surge Paragraph (h) specifies that replacement for any pressure replacement for any reclosing Section 180.405(c) authorizes modifying the reclosing pressure relief valves of an MC 306 carg nk motor vehicles. Commentators pointed out that this replacement could result in an MC 3( nik by installing the dual function pressure relief valves which are required for DOT406 carg urgo tank having lower emergency venting capacity than its specification requires: because it ficult to produce a valve that achieves the comparatively high flow rates of the MIC 306 unit Note that our company was the one queried as to the status of Vents available for DOT 407 the DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tanks that have "larger pressure differentials" than their corresponding obsolete MC 307 or MC 312 specification. regarding the 1995 California Highway Patrol inquiry discussed previously, Mr. Kirkpatrick Finally, in discussions with the Late Mr. Ron Kirkpatrick of your office (DHM-22) Faxed me the following letter Dated June 8, 1995: RELIEF DEVICES INSTALLED. ANALYSIS OF VENTING OF MC 307 CARGO TANKS WEITH DOT 407 PRESSURE Both §§ 173.33(d)(3) and 180.405(c)(2) authorizes the modification of pressure relief devices and Labies arous C learly ies argo apes to hi and for which these me peatias ions, the the DOT 407 specification. suthorized. For example, pressure relief devices on the MC 307 may be modified in accordance the DOT 407 type reclosing pressure relief valve (407PRV) would be installed and all parts of the In order to illustrate the steps required to carry out the MC 307 to DOT 407 venting modification, 3#

Page 6Erom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 5 of 9 MAWP. In the MC 307, "one or more device" shall provide "sufficient capacity to limit the tank The venting capacity of the 407 PRV is rated at "not more than the tank test pressure", i.c. 1.5 combination of pressure actuated venting (spring loaded) (PAV), and fusible and/or frangible internal pressure to a maximum of 130 percent" of MAWP. This can be accomplished using any venting devices. a pressure of 130 percent" of MAWP and the set pressure is given as "not less than" - The PAVs are required to have minimum venting capacity of 12,000 SCFH "measured at MAWP. MAWP. - Frangible devices are required to have burst pressures between 130 and 150 percent of - Fusible devices are required to have a minimum area of 1.25 sq. inches, and to operate ai percent of MAWP. a temperature not exceeding 250°F "when the tank pressure is between" MAWP and 130 apacity, with two 3" fusible devices provided to supply the additional emergency flor \ typical MC 307 designed for 25 psig MAWP would have one 3" PAV of about 27,000 SCFI requirenients. MAWP before the fusibles operied. Similarly, if frangible devices were used to provide the bulk of In a fire situation, it is quite possible that the tank intemal pressure could exceed 130 percent of the emergency flow rather than fusibles, internal pressures greater than 130 percent of MAWP could be anticipated under some circumstances. Test pressure for MC 307 is 40 psig or a minimum of 1.5 MAWP whichever is greater, see ! 178.342-7(a). At the minimum MAWP for this cargo tank, 25 psig, test pressure is 1.6 MAWP; al 6.67 psig and above, the test pressure is 1.5 MAWP. The 407 PRV develops rated flo pacities at 1.5 MAWP or les In view of these facts, and considering the following structural considerations: trength for non-ASME tanks, or about 25 percent of ultimate for ASME tanks, an maximum calculated stress values must not exceed 20 percent of the minimum ultimat main ly ding is scound by upected to be called for only under conditions where the installation of a DOT 407 pressure relief system on an MC 307 cargo tank will not compromise the structural integrity of the cargo tank. [Letter presented in its entirety] vents are flow rated at pressures different than those required for MC 307 vents. This Note in the third paragraph, Mr. Kirkpatrick specifically addresses the fact that DOT 407 reflects the view prevalent in the Office of Hazardous Materials Technology at that time, that during an upgrade in venting, the pressures at which the vents are flow rated are those to which the vent was constructed to, i.e. DOT 400-series, and not to the obsolete requirements 4#

Page 7From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 6 of 9 Next, I will address the fact that this ruling, if enforced would result in financial hardship went on new-construction MC 307 cargo tanks. Also, from 1996 through to the present. many owners of MC 307 & MC 312 tanks have upgraded their tanks venting to DOT 407 8 sible and frangible devices. These tanks, which amount to many thousands of units are, t OT 412 specifications so as to remove the need to maintain non-reclosing vents such a 10. That is they are set-to-discharge at 120%-132% of MAWP and are flow rated at the standard industry practice for a decade. tank test pressure, which is the maximum of 150% of MAWP or 40 psig. This has been the If the "clarifications" presented in your memo were to be enforced, it would necessitate the removal and replacement of many thousands of currently legal and safe pressure relief vents, illegal for hazardous materials transport. while stalling vast amounts of commerce by making these many thousands of cargo tanks leakage during surge capability in § 178.345-10(b)(3) which is not found in the original MC 307 venting requirements, but is retroactively applied to any new vent installed after August 31, 1998 in § 180.405(h)(2). So in essence, the code provides for upgrades in venting systems, but the "clarification" presented in your memo would remove the possibility: the only vents your clarification seems to allow are ones that comply in full with the MC 307 venting requirements and not at all with the unique requirements for DOT 407 tanks. The only conclusion a cargo tank operator can come to is that upgrading is in fact not ystems presented in the obsolete MC 300 series cod llowed and that they must immediately downgrade their tanks to the less safe ventin; Finally, this "clarification" as presented in your memo would result in a safety hazard if MC 300-series requirements: enforced. The DOT 400 series venting requirements result in a safer tank than the obsolete The elimination of non-reclosing venting such as fusible and frangible devices when upgrading from MC 300-series to DOT 400-series venting results in greater levels of hazardous material product containment 5#

Page 8,From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM Page 7 of 9 The increase in set-to-discharge pressure from MAWP for MC 300-series product retention capability during a rollover accident to account for venting to 120% of MAWP for DOT 400-series venting allows extra vapor pressure hauled in a 25 pound tank would be fine so long as the static head of the product. For example, a product that produced a 25 psi ver it. This would cause an MC 300-series vent to discharge hazardou iquids into the accident scene, while a DOT 400-series vent, by virtue c - It should also be noted that DOT 400-series vents set and flow rated in accordance with the series cargo tank: requirements for such vents in § 178.345-10 do not compromise the safety of an MC 300- The conclusion of Mr. Ron Kirkpatrick's letter quoted above states that DOT 400-series venting will not compromise structural integrity of MC - 30 sering aDT 400-s they venes at the tank test presure is not a risk to safety since all cargo tanks in hazardous materials service are required to be physically tested to the test pressure on a regular basis of every one to five years as required by § 180.407(c), so we know that the tank is ther defect." See § 180.407(g)(1)(viil apable of withstanding these pressures without "leakage, bulging c - There remains a large safety factor for the cargo tank as, absent the - without any venting related crisis in safety. tanks being inadvertently operated without safety relief devices at all. Also, in this post September 11, 2001 environment, the confusion of throwing so many cargo#

Page 9Erom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Date: 11/20/01 Time: 1:41:34 PM Page 8 of 9 and alter it to agree with current industry practice and with Hattie Mitchell's 1996 In light of these points, I urge you to revisit the clarification you offered up in your memo of the entire venting system being replaced with one conforming to all of the requirements of larification: Note that upgrades to DOT 400-series vents from MC 300-series vents must b at the tanks test pressure. $178.345-(10) including the set-to-discharge pressure of 120% MAWP and the flow rating Also, in the same memo, you stated: pi. A specte origin rs cargo tated vent est a pres series prepare relie devices bat will imit tank pressure to 130% of design pressure (32.5 psig) as required by § 178.342-2(b) eplace the original but will not open until 30 psig Al. allow the unit to he operated above its designed pressure which is in violation of § No, a self closing pressure relief device set above a cargo tank's design pressure would •.• Utilizing the requirements of § 180.407(a)(2) to require that pressure relief device be set at 180.407(a)(2) applies to all specification cargo tanks, not just MC 307 or other obsolete the tanks test pressure would have the effect of making all DOT 407 tanks illegal. Section cargo tanks. DOT 400-series pressure relief vents are required by § 178.345-10(d) to be set to dischar at only res inable onesion is hat 9 180d nome hat 3peparrentl of limitation and not a guideline for setting pressure relief devices on specification cargo tanks. 130% of the design pressure" stems from the venting requirements for MC-307 cargo tanks; Also, the requirement "The pressure relief device must be able to limit the tank pressure to see § 173.342-4(b). However, the provisions of §§ 173.33(d) and 180.405(c)(2) allow the upgrade of venting systems to the corresponding DOT 400-series venting systems. I submit that the only reasonable interpretation of these requirements is that §§ 173.33(d) and obsolete specification cargo tank that is having it's venting systems upgraded. Thus the 180.405(c)(2) allow the appropriate venting sections supercede the venting requirements of requirements laid out for the original MC 307 cargo tank venting system in § 178.342-4 is superceded in its entirety by the venting requirements laid out in § 178.347-4 (which include the requirements of § 178.345-10) with the exception that the capacity requirements laid out in Table III still stand (this table is identical to the DOT 400-series Table I in § 178.345- 10), and thus operators are cautioned against possibly fitting a venting system with insufficient capacity at the new pressures. 7#

Page 10From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty Dale: 11/20/01 Time: 1:41:34 PM Page 9 of 9 MAWP MC 307 tanks to have their vents upgraded to DOT 407 vents having a set pressure In light of these points, I ask if you could revisit your answer and change it to allow 25 psig of 30 psig as required by the requirements for DOT 407 vents as laid out in $178.345-10. I'd like to thank you for your consideration of these points. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone, fax or e-mail and I would be happy to discuss or larify any issues you may have Sincerely, John Freiler Engineering Manager GIRARD EQUIPMENT, INC. Fax: (202) 366-3012 Edward Mazzullo, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards DHM-10, RSPA William Quade, Division Chief, Hazardous Materials MC-ECH // M51200, FMCSA Fax: (202) 366-3462 Charles A. Horan, Office Director, Enforcement and Compliance MC-EC // M51000, FMCSA. Fax: (202) 366-3462 RSPA. Fax:(202) 366-3650 Charles Hochman, Acting Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology DHM-20, Ted Turner, Hazardous Materials Specialist. Fax: (614) 280-6875 8#