{"operation":"document","citation":"01-0295","title":"Girard Equipment, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2002-11-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"01-0295 response to Girard Equipment, Inc. concerning 178.345.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0295.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0295.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-01-0295","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2001/010295.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S.Department\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C.\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nNOV 12 2002\nAdministration\nMr. John Freiler\nRef. No. 01-0295\nGirard Equipment, Inc.\n1004 Route 1\nRahway, NJ 07065\nDear Mr. Freiler:\nThis is in response to your November 9, 2001 letter and subsequent conversations with members\nof my staff requesting clarification on the replacement of vents on MC 300 series cargo tanks with\nvents designed for DOT 400 series cargo tanks meeting the performance requirements of\n§ 178.345-10(b)(3) in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 FR Parts 171-180). In\naddition to člarifying RSPA's position on this issue, you also request that RSPA allow 25 psig\nmaximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) MC 307 tanks to have their vents upgraded to\nDOT 407 vents having a set pressure of 30 psig as required by the requirements for DOT 407\nvents as described in § 178.345-10, I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter.\nThe interpretation issued by this office by Hattie Mitchell in 1996 is correct. Section 173.33(d)(3)\nrequires the replacement DOT 407 series valve only to meet the original MC 307 cargo tank\namended to clarify that only the venting capacity requirements for the 300 series tank need be\nventing capacity requirements. Thus, the letter to Bill Quade (Ref. No. 01-0247) should be\nmet.\nIn addition, your request to allow MC 307 cargo tanks with a maximum allowable working\npressure (MAWP) of 25 psig to have their vents upgraded to DOT 407 vents having a set\npressure of 30 psig (as required in § 178.345-10 for DOT 407 vents) mușt be submitted as a\npetition for rulemaking under the requirements of § 106.31 in order for RSPA to consider a rule\nchange.\nWe hope this satisfies your request.\nSincerely,\nRobert A. McGuire\nAssociate Administrator\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\n178.345-10\n010295\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n82/12/2802 23:59\n7323824650\nGIRARD EQP\nPAGE 01\nFebruary 13, 2002\nJohn Freiler\nEngineering Manager\n1004 US Route 1\nGirard Equipment, Inc.\nPh: 1-800-526-4330 ext. 618\nRahway, NJ 07065\nFax: (732) 382-4650\nE-mail: ifreiler@girardequip.com\nMichael Johnson\nTr. Reg. Spcc.\nStandards Development, DHM-11\nFax: (202) 366-3012\nDear Mr. Johnson;\nThank you for retuming my phone call and discussing my November 9, 2001 letter.\nDuring that conversation, we uncovered soine contusion with the second to last\nparagraph in my letter:\nIt is important to note the word \"set pressure\". The DOT 407 vent I'm referring to would\n49CFR§178/345-10(d)(1):\nbe set nominally at 30 psig and could be set as high as 33 psig as per the roquirements of\nSettings of pressure relief system..\nss than 120 percent of the MAWP, and no more than 132 percent of the MAW!..\nrimary pressure relief system. The set pressure of each primary pressure relicf valve must be r\nhave to be set at no less than 120% of 25 psig or 30 psig and no more than 1 32% of 25\nSo for the 25 psi MAWP MC 307 tank in question, a DOT 407 venting system would\npsig or 33 psig.\nSo, a DOT 407 vent having a set pressure of 30 psig is a 25 psig DOT 407 vent.\nI look forward to talking with you further on this subject on Thursday, February 21ª.\nSincerely,\nJohn Freiler\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFrom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 2 of 9\nNovember 9, 2001\nJohn Freiler\nEngineering Manager\n1004 US Route 1\nGirard Equipment, Inc.\nPh: 1-800-526-4330 ext. 618\nRahway, NJ 07065\nFax: (732) 382-4650\nE-mail: jfreiler@girardequip.com\nDelmer F. Billings\nFax (202) 366-3012\nChief, Standards Development, DHM-11\nDear Mr. Billings;\nI have recently come into possession of a memorandum (Ref. No. 01-0247) from you to\nclarifications to the concerning cargo tank regulations in the Hazardous Materials\nWilliam Quade, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, MC-ECH, which offers up some\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).\nhardship and confusion, but would also create a safety hazard if they were to be enforced as\nI feel that the clarifications you offered up are in error, and would not only cause financial\nwritten.\nIn your letter, you said:\nQ3.\ndetermined?\nA3.\nThe flow capacity must be determined using the requirements of the original\nmanufacturer of the pressure relief device.\nrequirements of § 178.340-4. This information should be supplied by the valve\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nFrom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDale: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 3 of 9\nFirst I shall discuss why I feel this is in error. This same question arose in 1995 when an\nofficer in the California Highway Patrol made the inquiry of me. I sent a request for\nlarification to your office and received a reply in a letter dated June 10, 1996 from Hatti\nfollows:\nL. Mitchell, then Chief of Exemptions and Regulations Termination OHMS that read as\nDear Mr. Freiler:\nspecified in 4) CF 703(0) Special you said it 33c prigi pending.\naccordance with § 178.345-10. I apologize for the delay in responding and regret any\nvents on MC 307 and MC 312 cargo tanks to DOT 407 and DOT 412 vents that are flow rated in\ninconvenience it may have caused.\nThe answer is no. Section 173.33(d)(3) provides that pressure relief devices or outlets on a\noriginal specification to which the cargo tank was design and constructed.\nI trust this satisfies your inquiry.\nHattie L. Mitchell, Chief\nventing capacity requirements of the original DOT cargo tank must be met whenever a\nFurther, we should consider the intent under which the provision found in § 173.33(d)(3) \"The\nare there a ual Funerie requisery the makes le akard to the so called\nvents for MC-306 cargo tanks had developed a style of vent for the DOT 406 requirements\nrequirements laid out in § 178.345-10 (b)(3)). Betts Industries, a leading Manufacturer ol\nthat would leak less than one gallon during surge, but those vents had a reduced capacity at\nthe set and flow rate pressures for a DOT 406 cargo tank when compared to the vents\nherein a MC-306 cargo tank operator could replace his existing vents one for one with th\nurrently in service on MC-306 tanks. It was felt that a potential safety hazard exister\nnew she lover, norms or ca than tapay as measured ay feed reeiod resurthe\nfollowing entry in the Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 212, Thursday, November 3, 1994, pg.\n55163 & 55169:\nSection 173.33\nPage: 55163:\nadded to paragraph (d) stating that the venting requirements of the original DOT cargo tank\nConsistent with the changes made in § 180.405(h) in this final rule, a new sentence is\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFrom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 4 of 9\nspecification. See preamble discussion for § 180.405(h)\nspecification must be met whenever a pressure relief valve is modified to a more recent\nPage: 55169:\nSection 180.405\npressure relief valve must be capable of re-seating to a leak-tight condition after a pressure surge\nParagraph (h) specifies that replacement for any pressure replacement for any reclosing\nSection 180.405(c) authorizes modifying the reclosing pressure relief valves of an MC 306 carg\nnk motor vehicles. Commentators pointed out that this replacement could result in an MC 3(\nnik by installing the dual function pressure relief valves which are required for DOT406 carg\nurgo tank having lower emergency venting capacity than its specification requires: because it\nficult to produce a valve that achieves the comparatively high flow rates of the MIC 306 unit\nNote that our company was the one queried as to the status of Vents available for DOT 407\nthe DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tanks that have \"larger pressure differentials\" than their\ncorresponding obsolete MC 307 or MC 312 specification.\nregarding the 1995 California Highway Patrol inquiry discussed previously, Mr. Kirkpatrick\nFinally, in discussions with the Late Mr. Ron Kirkpatrick of your office (DHM-22)\nFaxed me the following letter Dated June 8, 1995:\nRELIEF DEVICES INSTALLED.\nANALYSIS OF VENTING OF MC 307 CARGO TANKS WEITH DOT 407 PRESSURE\nBoth §§ 173.33(d)(3) and 180.405(c)(2) authorizes the modification of pressure relief devices and\nLabies arous C learly ies argo apes to hi and for which these me peatias ions, the\nthe DOT 407 specification.\nsuthorized. For example, pressure relief devices on the MC 307 may be modified in accordance\nthe DOT 407 type reclosing pressure relief valve (407PRV) would be installed and all parts of the\nIn order to illustrate the steps required to carry out the MC 307 to DOT 407 venting modification,\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nErom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 5 of 9\nMAWP. In the MC 307, \"one or more device\" shall provide \"sufficient capacity to limit the tank\nThe venting capacity of the 407 PRV is rated at \"not more than the tank test pressure\", i.c. 1.5\ncombination of pressure actuated venting (spring loaded) (PAV), and fusible and/or frangible\ninternal pressure to a maximum of 130 percent\" of MAWP. This can be accomplished using any\nventing devices.\na pressure of 130 percent\" of MAWP and the set pressure is given as \"not less than\"\n- The PAVs are required to have minimum venting capacity of 12,000 SCFH \"measured at\nMAWP.\nMAWP.\n- Frangible devices are required to have burst pressures between 130 and 150 percent of\n- Fusible devices are required to have a minimum area of 1.25 sq. inches, and to operate ai\npercent of MAWP.\na temperature not exceeding 250°F \"when the tank pressure is between\" MAWP and 130\napacity, with two 3\" fusible devices provided to supply the additional emergency flor\n\\ typical MC 307 designed for 25 psig MAWP would have one 3\" PAV of about 27,000 SCFI\nrequirenients.\nMAWP before the fusibles operied. Similarly, if frangible devices were used to provide the bulk of\nIn a fire situation, it is quite possible that the tank intemal pressure could exceed 130 percent of\nthe emergency flow rather than fusibles, internal pressures greater than 130 percent of MAWP\ncould be anticipated under some circumstances.\nTest pressure for MC 307 is 40 psig or a minimum of 1.5 MAWP whichever is greater, see !\n178.342-7(a). At the minimum MAWP for this cargo tank, 25 psig, test pressure is 1.6 MAWP; al\n6.67 psig and above, the test pressure is 1.5 MAWP. The 407 PRV develops rated flo\npacities at 1.5 MAWP or les\nIn view of these facts, and considering the following structural considerations:\ntrength for non-ASME tanks, or about 25 percent of ultimate for ASME tanks, an\nmaximum calculated stress values must not exceed 20 percent of the minimum ultimat\nmain ly ding is scound by upected to be called for only under conditions where\nthe installation of a DOT 407 pressure relief system on an MC 307 cargo tank will not compromise\nthe structural integrity of the cargo tank.\n[Letter presented in its entirety]\nvents are flow rated at pressures different than those required for MC 307 vents. This\nNote in the third paragraph, Mr. Kirkpatrick specifically addresses the fact that DOT 407\nreflects the view prevalent in the Office of Hazardous Materials Technology at that time,\nthat during an upgrade in venting, the pressures at which the vents are flow rated are those to\nwhich the vent was constructed to, i.e. DOT 400-series, and not to the obsolete requirements\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nFrom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 6 of 9\nNext, I will address the fact that this ruling, if enforced would result in financial hardship\nwent on new-construction MC 307 cargo tanks. Also, from 1996 through to the present.\nmany owners of MC 307 & MC 312 tanks have upgraded their tanks venting to DOT 407 8\nsible and frangible devices. These tanks, which amount to many thousands of units are, t\nOT 412 specifications so as to remove the need to maintain non-reclosing vents such a\n10. That is they are set-to-discharge at 120%-132% of MAWP and are flow rated at the\nstandard industry practice for a decade.\ntank test pressure, which is the maximum of 150% of MAWP or 40 psig. This has been the\nIf the \"clarifications\" presented in your memo were to be enforced, it would necessitate the\nremoval and replacement of many thousands of currently legal and safe pressure relief vents,\nillegal for hazardous materials transport.\nwhile stalling vast amounts of commerce by making these many thousands of cargo tanks\nleakage during surge capability in § 178.345-10(b)(3) which is not found in the original MC\n307 venting requirements, but is retroactively applied to any new vent installed after August\n31, 1998 in § 180.405(h)(2). So in essence, the code provides for upgrades in venting\nsystems, but the \"clarification\" presented in your memo would remove the possibility: the\nonly vents your clarification seems to allow are ones that comply in full with the MC 307\nventing requirements and not at all with the unique requirements for DOT 407 tanks.\nThe only conclusion a cargo tank operator can come to is that upgrading is in fact not\nystems presented in the obsolete MC 300 series cod\nllowed and that they must immediately downgrade their tanks to the less safe ventin;\nFinally, this \"clarification\" as presented in your memo would result in a safety hazard if\nMC 300-series requirements:\nenforced. The DOT 400 series venting requirements result in a safer tank than the obsolete\nThe elimination of non-reclosing venting such as fusible and frangible\ndevices when upgrading from MC 300-series to DOT 400-series venting\nresults in greater levels of hazardous material product containment\n5\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n,From: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:32:18 PM\nPage 7 of 9\nThe increase in set-to-discharge pressure from MAWP for MC 300-series\nproduct retention capability during a rollover accident to account for\nventing to 120% of MAWP for DOT 400-series venting allows extra\nvapor pressure hauled in a 25 pound tank would be fine so long as the\nstatic head of the product. For example, a product that produced a 25 psi\nver it. This would cause an MC 300-series vent to discharge hazardou\niquids into the accident scene, while a DOT 400-series vent, by virtue c\n-\nIt should also be noted that DOT 400-series vents set and flow rated in accordance with the\nseries cargo tank:\nrequirements for such vents in § 178.345-10 do not compromise the safety of an MC 300-\nThe conclusion of Mr. Ron Kirkpatrick's letter quoted above states that\nDOT 400-series venting will not compromise structural integrity of MC\n-\n30 sering aDT 400-s they venes at the tank test presure is not a risk\nto safety since all cargo tanks in hazardous materials service are required\nto be physically tested to the test pressure on a regular basis of every one\nto five years as required by § 180.407(c), so we know that the tank is\nther defect.\" See § 180.407(g)(1)(viil\napable of withstanding these pressures without \"leakage, bulging c\n-\nThere remains a large safety factor for the cargo tank as, absent the\n-\nwithout any venting related crisis in safety.\ntanks being inadvertently operated without safety relief devices at all.\nAlso, in this post September 11, 2001 environment, the confusion of throwing so many cargo\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nErom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDate: 11/20/01 Time: 1:41:34 PM\nPage 8 of 9\nand alter it to agree with current industry practice and with Hattie Mitchell's 1996\nIn light of these points, I urge you to revisit the clarification you offered up in your memo\nof the entire venting system being replaced with one conforming to all of the requirements of\nlarification: Note that upgrades to DOT 400-series vents from MC 300-series vents must b\nat the tanks test pressure.\n$178.345-(10) including the set-to-discharge pressure of 120% MAWP and the flow rating\nAlso, in the same memo, you stated:\npi.\nA specte origin rs cargo tated vent est a pres series prepare relie devices bat will\nimit tank pressure to 130% of design pressure (32.5 psig) as required by § 178.342-2(b)\neplace the original\nbut will not open until 30 psig\nAl.\nallow the unit to he operated above its designed pressure which is in violation of §\nNo, a self closing pressure relief device set above a cargo tank's design pressure would\n•.•\nUtilizing the requirements of § 180.407(a)(2) to require that pressure relief device be set at\n180.407(a)(2) applies to all specification cargo tanks, not just MC 307 or other obsolete\nthe tanks test pressure would have the effect of making all DOT 407 tanks illegal. Section\ncargo tanks. DOT 400-series pressure relief vents are required by § 178.345-10(d) to be set\nto dischar at only res inable onesion is hat 9 180d nome hat 3peparrentl of\nlimitation and not a guideline for setting pressure relief devices on specification cargo tanks.\n130% of the design pressure\" stems from the venting requirements for MC-307 cargo tanks;\nAlso, the requirement \"The pressure relief device must be able to limit the tank pressure to\nsee § 173.342-4(b). However, the provisions of §§ 173.33(d) and 180.405(c)(2) allow the\nupgrade of venting systems to the corresponding DOT 400-series venting systems. I submit\nthat the only reasonable interpretation of these requirements is that §§ 173.33(d) and\nobsolete specification cargo tank that is having it's venting systems upgraded. Thus the\n180.405(c)(2) allow the appropriate venting sections supercede the venting requirements of\nrequirements laid out for the original MC 307 cargo tank venting system in § 178.342-4 is\nsuperceded in its entirety by the venting requirements laid out in § 178.347-4 (which include\nthe requirements of § 178.345-10) with the exception that the capacity requirements laid out\nin Table III still stand (this table is identical to the DOT 400-series Table I in § 178.345-\n10), and thus operators are cautioned against possibly fitting a venting system with\ninsufficient capacity at the new pressures.\n7\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nFrom: Brenda Rosa 732-382-4650 To: Gail Twitty\nDale: 11/20/01 Time: 1:41:34 PM\nPage 9 of 9\nMAWP MC 307 tanks to have their vents upgraded to DOT 407 vents having a set pressure\nIn light of these points, I ask if you could revisit your answer and change it to allow 25 psig\nof 30 psig as required by the requirements for DOT 407 vents as laid out in $178.345-10.\nI'd like to thank you for your consideration of these points. If you have any questions,\nplease feel free to contact me by phone, fax or e-mail and I would be happy to discuss or\nlarify any issues you may have\nSincerely,\nJohn Freiler\nEngineering Manager\nGIRARD EQUIPMENT, INC.\nFax: (202) 366-3012\nEdward Mazzullo, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards DHM-10, RSPA\nWilliam Quade, Division Chief, Hazardous Materials MC-ECH // M51200, FMCSA\nFax: (202) 366-3462\nCharles A. Horan, Office Director, Enforcement and Compliance MC-EC // M51000,\nFMCSA. Fax: (202) 366-3462\nRSPA. Fax:(202) 366-3650\nCharles Hochman, Acting Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Technology DHM-20,\nTed Turner, Hazardous Materials Specialist. Fax: (614) 280-6875\n8","truncated":false,"body_characters":18907}