AllTranstek LLC — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation

Page 1• of Transportation U.S. Department Washington, D.C. 20590 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Pipeline and Hazardous materials safety Administration DEC 1 3 2005 Mr. James H. Rader Ref. No.: 05-0177 Vice President, Technical Support Services AllTranstek LLC 1101 31" Street, Suite 200 Downers Grove, IL 60515-5650 Dear Mr. Rader: This is in response to your July 12, 2005 letter concerning the applicability of Part 179 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to tank cars. Your questions, and the answers to them, follow: Q1. Does § 179.1(a), (b), and (e) limit the applicability of Part 179 to tank cars "marked" only a "DOT specification? Al. Before responding directly to this question, several precursor elements must be stated. The "marking" definition in § 171.8 includes a "specification" ... "required by this subchapter. " This definition in the DOT regulations does not include a requirement that the specification be applied to the car in a particular manner. Applicable language in the Association of American Railroads Tank Car Manual (see Appendix C, 2.0) defines "marking" and "stamping" separately. Both 49 CFR Part 179 and Chapter 3 of the AAR "stamped" with the as-built specification and other vital information (See §§ 179.100-20 Tank Car Manual require cars to be "marked" per Appendix C of the Manual and and 179.200-24). It is the "stamping" that certifies that the car is built to the specification so indicated. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude, as PHMSA and FRA do, that the marking requirements § 179.1(e), insofar as they relate to the tank specification, and the certification of compliance to that specification, are directed to the stamping of the specification into the head of the tank car and not to the information applied by decal or paint per Appendix C. Further, the Specifications for AAR Tank Car Tanks set out in Chapter 3 of the Tank Car Manual, state, for instance, that AAR 203W and AAR 211W cars are built in accordance with a referenced DOT specification except as otherwise provided in that chapter. (See Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.1.) Under § 173.31(a) all tank cars used to transport a hazardous material must meet the requirements of the specification to which the tank was built. Given the interwoven requirements of the HMR, including Part 179, and the AAR Tank Car Manual, it is not possible to say that§ 179.1(a), (b), and (e) limit Part 179 to only those cars "marked," i.e., stamped, to a DOT specification. Rather, both the HMR and the Tank Car Manual must be read to give the fullest scope and interpretation to each. 178.345-1 148.345.14 050177 179.1#

Page 2Q2. Given the answer in Question (1) above, do the requirements of Part 179 apply to any tank car constructed and marked to an "AAR" specification, including the limitations on the maximum gross weight on rail at 263,000 pounds? A2. As specified in § 179.1(a) Part 179 prescribes the specifications for tanks that ... are to be marked with a DOT specification. As stated in Al, the crucial marking requirement for tank car tanks was the specification stamped into the heads of the tank. Thus, the capacity and gross weight limitations established in § 179.13 (See also § 173.26) apply to tank cars whose tanks are head-stamped with a DOT specification. Conversely, "the weight limitations of § 179.13 do not apply to Class AAR-211W tank cars." (See paragraph 3.1.1, Chapter 3, AAR Tank Car Manual). Q3. Do the requirements of Part 179 apply to tank cars constructed to a "DOT" specification and marked (stenciled) to an "AAR" specification? This is similar to the variable specification plate for highway cargo tanks in §§ 178.345-1(j) and 178.345-14(e). A3. Because the crucial "marking" for the specification of a tank car tank is the head-stamped specification and not an alternative specification painted or decaled on the car, a tank car tank stamped with a DOT specification is subject to the requirements of Part 179. There is no railroad tank car analogous to the highway cargo tank "variable specification plate." I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Tethe z. Michell Hattie L. Mitchell Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.#

Page 3Pollack $179.1 James H. Rade AALTRANSTEK §178.345-1 Vice President Technical Support Service AlITranstek L.L.C TRANSPORTATION MAMAGEMENT & CONSULTING 1101 31st Street, Suite 200 §178.345-14 Downers Grove, illinois 6051: 630.829.9125 (office Markine 630.881.0309 (mobile) 630.339.0277 (efax) 15-0114 July 12, 2005 Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety Robert A. McGuire Research and Special Programs Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Attention: DHM-31 Re: Request for Interpretation Dear Mr. McGuire: (HMRs) with respect to tank cars marked to an Association of American Railroads specification. I am writing to request an interpretation on the applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations The HMRs authorize the transportation of hazardous materials, with low to medium hazards, in tanl espect to a tank car marked to an "AAR" specification, the HMRs require that the tank conform to ihe pecification to which it was constructed.? Based on these federal requirements, I would like you interpretation with respect to the following: 1. Does 49 CFR 179.1(a), (b), and (e) limit the applicability of Part 179 to tank cars "marked" only to a "DOT" specification? 2. Given the answer in question (1) above, do the requirements of 49 CFR 179 apply to any tank car weight on rail at 263,000 pounds? constructed and marked to an "AAR" specification; including the limitations on the maximum gross 3. Do the requirements of 49 CFR 179 apply to tank cars constructed to a "DOT" specification and highway cargo tanks in 49 CFR 178.345-1(j) and 178.345-14(e). marked (stenciled) to an "AAR" specification? This is similar to the variable specification plate for If you need any further information, please let me know. Sincerely, James H. Rader Vice President Technical Support Services ' See 49 CFR 173.240, 173.241, and 173.242. " See 49 CFR 173.31(a)(1) and 180.507(a).#

Page 4AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices M-1002 Specifications for Tank Cars CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3. SPECIFICATIONS FOR AAR TANK CAR TANKS Tanks 3.1 (AAR.100) Specifications Applicable to Class AAR-203W and AAR-211W Tank Car 3.1.1 (AAR.100-1) General DOT-111W specification shown in Table 3.1 (see DOT 179.200 and 179.201) except as provided in Class AAR-203W and AAR-211W tanks must be built in accord with the applicable DOT-103W or the following paragraphs. Where AAR paragraph numbers are omitted, the provisions of DOI 179.200 and 179.201 apply. The weight limitations of 179.13 do not apply to Class AAR-211W tank cars. Table 3.1 DOT specifications for Class AAR-203W and AAR-211W tanks AAR Specification Applicable DOT Specification AAR-203W DOT-103W AAR-203DW DOT-103DW AAR-211A60W1 DOT-111A60W1 AAR-211A60ALW1 DOT-111A60ALW1 AAR-211A100W1 DOT-111A 100W1 AAR-211A100W6 DOT-111A100W6 AAR-211A100ALW1 DOT-111A100ALW1 3.1.2 (AAR.100-2) Approval For the procedure for securing approval, see paragraph 1.4. 3.1.3 (AAR.100-4) Insulation 3.1.3.1 If insulation is applied, insulating material must be approved. 3.1.3.2 Insulation must be covered with a jacket made of approved material that is applied so as to be weather tight. 3.1.3.3 The exterior surface of a carbon steel tank and the inside surface of a carbon steel jacket must be given a protective coating. 3.1.4 (AAR.100-10) Welding requirement of this specification. 3.1.4.1 Radioscopic examination of welded joints of carbon steel or alloy steel tanks is not a 3.1.4.2 Welded joints of aluminum tanks must be radioscoped in accord with Appendix W. 3.1.5 (AAR.100-11) Postweld Heat Treatment heat treated in accord with Appendix W. The portions of carbon steel tanks to which anchorage or draft sills are attached must be postweld 3.1.6 (AAR.100-16) Gauging Devices, Top Loading and Unloading Devices, Venting Devices, and Air Inlet Devices installed, protective housing is not required. When gauging devices, top loading and unloading devices, and venting and air inlet devices are 3.1.7 (AAR.100-17) Bottom Outlets valves may be of any approved design. Bottom outlets on AAR specification tanks must conform to DOT-179.200-17 except that external 12/1/00 C-III-53#

Page 514216 RULES AND REGULATIONS Stato County •Location Map No. State map repository Local map ropository arcas which havo lectivo dato spcolal flood ontlication hazards Rhodo Island. Providenco.... Providenco. - # 11007 0190 07. Ebodo Island, efc.-Coatinued Do.... - Washlogton... .. Bouth Kingstora. T 14009020501......... South Carolina. Charleston. - Folly Beach. Do. Texas. .. Harris. Do. Virginin... Do: XIII of the Housing and Urban Development (Natlonal Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title 17804, Act of 1968), effective Jan, 28, 1969(33 F.B. 408-410, Public Lav 91-152, Dec. 24, 1969), 42 Nov. 28, 1968), 8S amended (secs. afforded an opportunity to participate in this rule making. fleet in order to withstand the rigors of of the present tank car authority to Federal Insurance Administra- U.S.C. 4001-4127: Secretary's delegation of limitation Regarding the imposition of a capacity of 34,500 gallons, many re- the normal railroad environment over tor, 34 F.R. 2680, Feb. 27, 1969; and desig- spondents noted that large capacity tank upgrading must be accomplished before the expected life of the tank cars. This ministrator effective July 22, 1970, 35 ER. nation Acting Federal Insurance Ad- cars tended to reduce the hazard to the considering allowing increase of the 12360, Aug. 1, 1970) public by reducing the number of cars stress loads on equipment and the rail Issued: September 8, 1970. No consideration was expressed for the required for a given volume movement. plant caused by heavier cars. One respondent addressed himself to Acting Federal Insurance CHARLES W. WIECKING, in a greater hazard in the event that the fact that increased capacity will result of the tank car and mentioned the ability the influence of weight on kinetic energy [FR. Doc, 70-11840; Filed, Sept. 8, 1970; Administrator. derailment. tank car is punctured or ruptured in a Large capacity tank cars amount of kinetic energy. Increasing the of & larger mass to absorb a larger 8:45 a.m.] also increase and air pollution. the hazard of soil, water increase in its kinetic energy at equal weight of the tank car produces a linear question of limiting the total gross weight Many responses were addressed to the velocity. This increased kinetic energy in- Title 49—TRANSPORTATION on rail to 263,000 pounds. Some of the creases the likelihood that the tank will data discussed the validity of a weight limitation as a control measure to im- limiting the maximum weight of a tank dent. Therefore, the Board belleves that be punctured or will rupture in an acci- Chapter I—Hazardous Materials Reg- ulations Board, Department on weight-related causative accident fac- prove railroad safety, focusing primarily rupture. car will reduce incidents of puncture and [Docket No. HM-38; Amendment No. 179-4] Transportation tors and the effects on kinetic energy of the tank car. given in current design practice to the Inadequate consideration has been PART 179—SPECIFICATIONS FOR stress failures in track and car parts ac- Causative accident factors show that selection of material thicknesses to com- TANK CARS count for approximately 50 percent of all pensate for greater kinetic enerry levels Restriction of Capacity of Tank Cars. rail accidents. The Board believes that As train operating speeds increase, encountered as tank car weight increases. the relationship between such stress fail- kinetic energy increases exponentially. this The purpose of this amendment to the and Interlocking Couplers ures and car weight is direct. In every example offered citing rail stant despite change in tank car weicht SiT design has been held nearly con- Department of Transportation is to re- Elazardous Materials Regulations of the loads in excess of the proposed limit, par- ticular mention was made of the special varied only as a function of the tensile and capacity, and shell thickness has strict the gross weight and volume ca- pacity of, and require interlocking cou- routing clearances and controls exercised over the movement of these cars. Such It is apparent that the weight (stress) strength of materials and tanks diameter. port hazardous materials. plers on all new tank cars used to trans-. special measures are not present in nor- mal tank car movement, which is the ened as a direct function of capacity related elements have not been strength- On December 11, 1969, the Hazardous situation to which the Board must ad- Materials Regulations Boärd published dress itself. Only one response offered results in a lower factor of safety in The Board believes that this, in elect, Docket No. HIM-38; Notice No. 69-31 (34 design data which showed that due con- larger capacity tank cars as related to F.R. 19553) proposing to amend Part 179 a tank and running gear to obtain the sideration had been given to overbuilding smaller capacity cars. of the Hazardous Materials Regulations as indicated above. In that notice, the margin of safety which is required by the economic impact of the proposed Virtually all respondents mentloned Poard stated its concern with the in- good engineering practice. creasing number of railroad accidents in- Weight related stress failures are recognized that the cost of accidents is weight-capacity limitations. It must be volving tank cars transporting hazardous ton" known to have occurred in existing "100 also a part of the natlonal distributlor materials in which the tank released its weight tank cars which have been in capacity, 263,000 pounds gross costs and is reflected in freight rates contents, through either puncture or rup- service for a period of years. "Fix" pro- economic effect of this rule making, the In order to accurately determine the ing death and personal injury rate re- ture. Reference was made to the mount- rams to correct buckling and fatigue Board retained an independent expert racking at both ends of stub sills on to analyze the overall costs of "large FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 35, NO. 175—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1970 HeinOnline -- 35 Fed. Reg. 14216 1970#

Page 6RULES AND REGULATIONS 14217 capacity" tank cars as related to "smaller capacity" tank cars. The following table proliferation of the problems resulting summarzes his findings: capacity tank cars exceeding 34,500 gal- rom the continued construction of large Chapter X-Inferstate Commerce SUECHAPTER A-GENERAL RULES AND Commission SUITARY OF TANE CAB TRANSPOBTATION COSTS Ions. While the Board recognizes that the LIQUEFIED PEIBOLEUM GAS Crescent City accident involved tank cars [Flith Revised S.O. 1041] REGULATIONS рет ton Dollars Cents per cars would have released much greater range, it believes gallon consequently increased fire hazard and quantities of hazardous materials, with PART 1033—CAR SERVICE COD-milo movement: impact forces weight on rall would have increased the property damage. In addition, the added Distribution of Boxcars 70-ton capacity. 110-ton capacity. 100-ton capacity. 1,000-millo moroment: ton anato 2. 0151 L. 6957 At a session of the Interstate Com- 100-ton capacits 125-ton capacity 13.52 1. 7993 derailment and Board, held in Washington, D.C., on the 70-ton capacity. 110-ton capacits- 10.84 3.1777 11. 0S 2. 7111 Several responses noted the lack of a of certain plain boscars exists on the It appearing, That an acute shortage 100-ton capacity 110-ton copocity. win capacity 14.97 84 2. 8165 4. 3103 "Iebuilt tank car." This term has been readily acceptable definition of the term rallroads named in section (a) para- 16.32 3.8-7 3. 7265 deleted from the amendment pending the on the lines of these carriers are being raph (1) herein; that shippers located 3, 5173 The Board believes that by requiring ing, resulting in a severe emergency and deprived of such cars required for load- in The table indicates that costs involved car differ little from those costs involved utilizing the "100ton" capacity tank installation of interlocking couplers that will resist car telescoping and jackknifing accept newly harvested. grain, or to store causing grain elevators to be unable to car. in utilizing the "125ton" capacity tank incidence of tank head and side puncture in derailments and emérgency stops, the nomic loss; that present rules, regula- grain on the ground, thus creating eco- actually offers sore cost savings over the The "100ton" capacity tank car City, a tank head puncture caused the will be markedly reduced. At Crescent tions, and practices with respect to the belleres public safety warrants the slight "140ton" capacity tank car. The Board use, supply, control movement, distribu- of boxcars owned by these railroads are tion, eschange, interchange, and return reduction in economic efficiency which results from utilizing "100ton" capacity for reasons discussed in the preamble of In consideration of the foregoing and ineffective. It is the opinion of the Com- tank cars. tank cars in place of "125ton" capacity Notice No: 69-31, 49 CFR Part 179 is mission that an emergency exists requir- service in the interest of the public and ing immediate action to promote car cludes that the proposed restrictions on For the above reasons, the Board con- and 179.14 are added to read as follows: In the table of contents, $$ 179.13 the commerce of the people. Accordingly, tank car weight-capacity are in the pub- the Commission finds that notice and Involved in using the "100ton" capacity lic Interest. Until the present problems Tank car capacity and gross weight contrary to the public interest, and that public procedure are impracticable and tank cars are resolved and until evidence effective upon less than 30 days' notice. good cause exists for making this order levels associated with higher unit load- is presented to show that increased stress (B) $ 179.13 is added to read as § 1033.1041 Service Order No. 1041. It is ordered, That: ings on the rail plant and tank car equip- • adequately compensated for, this will re- weight limitation. Tank car capacity and gross (a) Distribution of borcars. Each com- main the Board's conclusion. 1970, must not exceed 34,500 gallons Tank cars bullt after November 30, Interstate Commerce Act shall observe, mon carrier by rallroad subject to the The Board further believes that the couplers on all new tank cars will mate- of interlocking capacity or 263,000 pounds gross weight Existing tank cars may not be its car service: regulations, and practices with respect to incidence of tank head puncture pacity or 263,000 pounds gross weight on as otherwise authorized in subparagraph (1) Return to owners empty, except there have been 19 accidents involving Since the date of Notice No. 69-31, (C) $ 179.14 is added to read as which are listed in the Official Railway (2) of this paragraph, all plain boxcars tank cars transporting hazardous mate- Equipment Register, I.C.C. R.E.R. released causing severe hazard. One such rials in which the contents have been All tank cars built after November 30, Tank car couplers. thereof, as having mechanical designa- accident occurred at Crescent City, Ill., 1970, must be equipped with interlocking and equipped with doors less than 9 feet tion XM, with inside length 44'6" or less wide, owned by the following rallroads: Federal find diministration. FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 35, NO. 175—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1970 HeinOnline -- 35 Fed. Reg. 14217 1970#

Page 7Page 1 of 2 Pollack, Arthur <PHMSA> From: Phemister, Tom <FRA> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 12:15 PM To: Pollack, Arthur <PHMSA> Cc: Schoonover, William <FRA›; Mitchell, Hattie < PHMSA> Subject: RE: Interpretive request by James Rader Arthur: Just as a reminder, l'd appreciate a pdf of the signed letter so we can easily respond to similar interpretive requests. If anyone above you and me on the food chain makes substantive changes, please call or write. Thanks. Tom -----Original Message-.-.. Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 8:31 AM From: Pollack, Arthur <PHMSA> Cc: Schoonover, William; Mitchell, Hattie <PHMSA> To: Phemister, Tom Subject: RE: Interpretive request by James Rader Tom-Thank you for your input and help on the Jim Rader letter. Attached is the latest version we have put on minor format edits) per your request. grid. We have made no substantive changes to your input but are sending you this updated version (with -Arthur -----Original Message--- From: Phemister, Tom <FRA> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:58 PM Cc: Schoonover, William <FRA›; Mitchell, Hattie <PHMSA> To: Pollack, Arthur <PHMSA> Subject: Interpretive request by James Rader On November 8, you sent me a draft letter in response to an inquiry by James Rader of AllTranstek about marking tank cars. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am attaching an alternative text with which FRA concurs; because of the sensitive nature of this attached text. The alternative text is attached in both Word and WordPerfect formats. subject (more later) FRA requests the opportunity to see and agree to any modifications made to the Mr. Rader raises a very interesting set of questions and because both FRA's Staff Director, Hazardous Materials, and I have known the author for many years, we understand that the issue beneath the issue that he formally raises is really the key. Mr. Rader talked about "marking" lank cars and phrased the head stamping required by 179.100-20 and 179-200-24 (non-pressure and pressure cars, his questions that way. The crucial missing step in his questions, but one which DOT must address, is specification stamped on the tank head establishes the specification to which the car was built. Cars respectively). It is clearly understood in the tank car industry, and FRA has so enforced, that the 12/12/2005#

Page 8Page 2 of 2 they are still, at base, DOT cars. Car owners and shippers often make the change in order to take may be built as "DOT-specification" cars and stenciled on the side with an "AAR-specification," but reasons of perceived economic necessity. What they cannot do by merely painting a different advantage of AAR's somewhat less stringent requirements for service equipment (valves) and for other without a Special Approval. DOT and AAR requirements on this point are quite different: 173.26 limits specification on the car is circumvent the quantity and weight restrictions in 173.26 - at least not AAR Tank Car Manual specifically states that "the weight limitations of 179.13 do not apply to Class (via 179.13) the capacity and gross weight of DOT-specification cars while Chapter 3 (at 3.1.1) of the AAR 211W tank cars." Subpart F. We cannot, as stewards of the railroad hazardous materials safety program for DOT, allow FRA's continuing qualification requirements for DOT-specification cars form the basis for Part 180, qualification requirements at the heart of Part 180, Subpart F and a primary purpose of the requirement drastically heavier cars to operate without extra oversight - that is a primary purpose of the re- process has enabled FRA to require structural and equipment betterments beyond the bare minimums that DOT tank cars operated above the limits of 179.13 receive a Special Permit. The Special Permit tank car fleet. of the DOT-specification and that, in turn has contributed to the excellent safety record of the current for tank cars contained in Part 179. They have, and with the continued efforts of FRA and PHMSA, will Again, I appreciate this opportunity to apprise the industry of the sovereignty of the DOT-specifications railroad continue to represent the state-of-the-art in bulk packaging for moving hazardous materials by Please call if you have any questions. Tom Phemister 202 493 6050 12/12/2005#