{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0157","title":"HMT Associates, L.L.C. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-07-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0157 response to HMT Associates, L.L.C. concerning 178.274.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0157.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0157.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0157","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080157R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Ave.. S.E\nWashington. DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nMr. E.A. Altemos\nHMT Associates, L.L.C.\n603 King Street\nAlexandria, VA 223 14-3 105\nRef. No.: 08-01 57\nDear Mr. Altemos:\nThis responds to your letter dated May 9,2008, requesting clarification on the Pipeline\nand Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) March 5,2008 response to Mr.\nDave Bailey [Letter Reference No. 07-0147 enclosed] regarding the performance\nrequirements for shear sections on IMl 01 portable tanks. Specifically, you request\nclarification of Q3 and A3 of that letter. The letter from Mr. Dave Bailey referenced both\nIM101 and UN portable tanks, yet the answer to Q3 does not differentiate the two. You\ncorrectly assert that the performance requirements for IMlOl and UN portable tanks are\ndifferent, and request that 4 3 be revised to reflect those differences. The answer to Q3 of the\nMay 9, 2008 letter is revised to read as follows:\nQ3. In a Safety Advisory Notice (62 FR 37638), PHMSA clarified that internal discharge\nvalves and shear sections are safety devices required on the bottom-outlets of IM\nportable tanks in hazardous material service to prevent significant release of lading\nwhen damage is sustained at the filling/discharge connection. Does the performance\nstandard allow for some leakage of the tanks lading?\nA3(a). For UN portable tanks, the shear section or sacrificial device must break at no more\nthan 70% of the load that would cause failure of the internal self closing stop valve.\nProvided the shear section satisfies this performance requirement, some leakage may\noccur.\nA3(b). For IMl 01 portable tanks, the performance requirement applicable to shear sections\nwas previously specified in 5 178.270-12(d) [Removed: 72 FR 55678 (HM-244);\nOctober 1, 20071 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 17 1 -\n180). The requirement specifies that the shear section must break under strain\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nwithout affecting the product retention capabilities of the tank and any attachments.\nTherefore, there may be no leakage of lading from an IM101 portable tank related to\nthe performance of the shear section.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you require additional assistance.\nSincerely,\nlfU7@f& Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ~ 1 7 8 ~ ~ 7 ' i l ?o 'of ta b 803 KING ST.\nSUITE 300\nACMANDRIA. VA 22314-3105\n703-54@-0727\nFACSIMILE: 703-549-0726\nh 4 k s\nda -015-7\n€.A ALTEMOS\nPATRICIA A QUlNN\nWRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER\n(703) 549-0727, Ext. 11\nMay 9,2008\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials\nStandards (PHH- 1 0)\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\nDepartment of Transportation\n1200 New Jersey Avenue\nSE Building, Td Floor\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nRe: Interpretation letter Ref. No. 07-0147; request for withdrawal or\ncorrection\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nThis is to request withdrawal or correction of your interpretation letter Ref. No. 07-0147,\nwritten to Mr. Dave Baily of Fort Vale Engineering Ltd., as it relates to the requirements for shear\nsections on DOT Specification IM 10 1 portable tanks. Your response to this request at the earliest\npossible time will be greatly appreciated as the subject addressed is at issue in litigation involving\n;F, failure of a shear section on an IM 10 1 portable tank to break cleanly under strain, which resulted\nin damage to the internal discharge valve and loss of contents from the tank - ultimately leading to\nthe evacuation of the neighboring community.\nSubject letter refers both to Specification IM 10 1 portable tanks and DOT Specification UN\nportable tanks. However, this request for withdrawal or correction is made only in the context of the\nsirear section requirements for Speczjkation IM 101 portable tanks. In this regard, I note that the\nshear section requirements for IM 101 portable tanks are significantly different from those for UN\npiortable tanks, or, for that matter, for DOT specification cargo tanks. Therefore, it is respectfully\nrequested that you consider only the regulatory provisions specifically applicable to shear sections\nfor Specification IM 101 portable tanks in your response owing to the unique requirements\n..: . - 'icable under that specification.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nMr. Edward Mazzullo (PHH- 10)\nMay 9,2008\nPage 2\nSpecifically, withdrawal or correction of PHMSA's response to Question 3 in subject letter\nis hereby requested. In this response, it is stated that \"some leakage may! occur\" when the shear\nsection functions under strain. As explained below, I submit there is no bqis whatsoever given the\nmanner in the which the Specification IM 10 1 shear section requirementp are worded, or in the\nregulatory history of the adoption of these requirements, to interpret the intept of those requirements\nas permitting any leakage from the tank when the shear section functions upder strain. In addition,\nPHMSA's response to Question 3 makes specific reference to the shear section breaking at no more\nthan 70% of the load that would cause failure of the internal self-closing stop valve. However,\nnowhere in the Specification IMlOl shear section requirements is thisj or any other specific\nnumerical value cited. Finally, the answer contradicts itself. It states that the device must break at\na load lower than that which would cause failure of the internal self-closing stop valve. But then\nstates leakage of lading may occur. If the shear section must break so as 10 prevent failure of the\ninternal valve, what could possibly be the source of the leakage that the response goes on to state is\npermissible?\nI\nThe shear section requirements for Specification IMlOl portable tanks were previously\ncodified at 8 178.270-1 2(d) in the Department's Hazardous Materials Regplations (the HMR; 49\nCFR Parts 17 1 - 180). These requirements read:\n\"(d) A shear section must be located outboard of each internal discharge valve seat\nand within 10.2 cm (4 inches) of the vessel. The shear section must break under\nstrain without affecting the product retention capabilities of the tank and any\nattachments.\" (emphasis added).\nI submit that these requirements are clear and unambiguous. This is a pure performance\nstandard, absolute in its nature. The shear section must break under strain in such a manner that\nthere is no affect on the product retention capabilities of the portable tank. Obviously, any leakage\nfrom the tank associated with the functioning of the shear section under strain - in particular a\ncontinuous leakage - is irrefhtable evidence that the product retention capabilities of the tank have\nbeen affected. Equally obviously, any damage to the internal discharge valve associated with the\nfunctioning of the shear section under strain - which, for example, results in the valve no longer\nseating properly thereby allowing leakage - is irrefutable evidence that the product retention\ncapabilities of the tank have been affected.\nThis being the case, and given that the Specification IMlO 1 shear section requirements are\nwritten as a pure performance standard, I submit there is no basis to interpret the requirements, as\nwritten, to allow any leakage whatsoever from the tank as a result of the fhnctioning of the shear\nsection under strain. Any leakage resulting from the functioning of the shear section under strain\nis clearly evidence that the product retention capabilities of the tank have! been affected - indeed,\nadversely affected. Thus, the fundamental condition imposed under the Specification IM101 shear\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nMr. Edward Mazzullo (PHH- 10)\nMay 9,2008\nPage 3\nsection performance requirement, that is, that the shear section must break under strain without\naflecting the product retention capabilities of the tank has clearly not been satisfied.\nMoreover, in reviewing the preamble to the Federal Register notice under which these\nrequirements was adopted [46 FR 98881, there is nothing to substantiate that the intent of the\nrequirement, as worded, was to allow any leakage from the tank when the shear section fimctions\nunder strain. There is no evidence to suggest that the words were intended to mean anything other\nthan exactly what they say - that is, that the shear section must function under strain in such a manner\nthat the product retention capabilities of the tank are not affected. Again, any leakage through the\n-- .\ninternal discharge valve as a result of the functioning of the s h e w o n und\ner strain is clearly\niacative of an adverse affect on the ~roduct retention ca~abilitv of the tank. .\nFinally, reference is made in Question 3 to a Safety Advisory Notice that was published in\nthe Federal Register [62 FR 3763 81 relating to bottom outlets on Specification IM 10 1 and IM 1 02\nportable tanks. I would not consider that safety advisory notice to constitute an \"interpretation\" of\nthe applicable requirements of the HMR, and I believe it is doubtful that when PHMSA's\npredecessor agency drafted the notice the wording was considered in the context of the notice being\nconstrued by readers as an interpretation. There is a formal process for publishing interpretations\nof the HMR in the Federal Register - and it is not by means of a safety advisory notice.\nNevertheless, the wording of the notice should not necessarily be interpreted, as was suggested by\nMr. Baily, as allowing leakage provided that the leakage is not \"significant\" (whatever that might\nmean), but rather that the purpose of the shear section is to help prevent the \"significant\" release of\nthe entire contents of the tank that would otherwise occur absent the installation of a shear section.\nTo summarize, the shear section requirements for Specification IM101 portable tanks are\nclear and unambiguous. They provide that the shear section must break under strain without\naffecting the product retention capabilities of the tank. If owing to the functioning of the shear\nsection leakage from the tank internal discharge valve occurs, the product retention capabilities of\nthe tank have unquestionably been adversely affected. Thus, the applicable shear section\nrequirement has not been satisfied. There is no basis whatsoever given the clear and unambiguous\nwording of the applicable requirements, or in the regulatory history of their development, that could\njustify an interpretation that the intent of the requirement was to permit leakage - however significant\nor insignificant that leakage may be. Accordingly, it is requested that as soon as possible subject\n:qterpretation letter be withdrawn or corrected to properly reflect the clear and unambiguous\nprovisions of the Specification IMl 01 portable tank shear section requirements.\nIn closing, I would note that for certain hazardous materials allowed to be transported in\nSpecification IMlOl portable tanks, for example, materials toxic by inhalaion, any leakage -\n~nc\\ud\\ng\"insignif1cant\" leakage, whatever that may be deemed to be - could be fatal. The recent\ninterpretation of the shear section requirements could give rise to unintended consequences in this\n, , , , , . __. _ _ , . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . ._ ....... .... . . . . . . . - .-- - - - - - .. -\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nHMT ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.\nMr. Edward Mazzullo (PHH- 10)\nMay 9,2008\nPage 4\nregard by suggesting that leakage is permissible. Therefore, the interpretation should be withdrawn\nor corrected as requested herein.\nPlease do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions concerning this matter or if you\nrequire additional information.\nSincerely,\nE. A. Altemos\nLnta to DOT - MI01 Shear Scniona.rwpd\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPlpdlne and Huardoua\nM.t.rl.k SIhty\nAdmlnlatratlon\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMr. Dave Bailey\nChief Engineer\nFort Vale Engineering Ltd\nParkfield Works\nBrunswick St\nNelson\nLancs\nUK BB9 OSG\nRef. No. 07-01 47\nDear Mr. Bailey:\nThis is in response to your email on July 20,2007 regarding the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR, 49 CFR 1 71- 180) applicable to shear sections on IM 10 1 and UN portable\ntanks. Your questions are summarized and answered as follows\nQ1. You understand that the shear section or sacrificial device on UN portable tanks must break\nat no more than 70% of the load that would cause failure to the internal self closing stop valve in\naccordance with 5 178.274(e)(l) . You ask if the removal of 30% of the wall section would\nresult in a 70% stress reduction? If so, would this also satisfy the portable tank shear section\nrequirement in 8 178.270- 12(d)?\nA1 . Reduction of the wall section by 30% may satis@ the 70% stress requirement specified in\n§ 178.274(e)(l) provided an analysis of the shear section strength and expected performance\nshows that the shear section would break at no more than 70% of the load that would cause\nfailure to the internal self closing stop valve. Section 178.270-1 2(d) requires a shear section to\nbe located outboard of each internal discharge valve seat and within 10.2cm (4 inches) of the\nvessel. The shear section must break under strain without affecting the product retention\ncapabilities of the tank and any attachments. 1 t' is the manufacturer's responsibility to perform an\nanalysis of the shear section design, dimensions, and expected performance to determine the\norientation of the shear section installation required to meet the minimum requirements of\n$4 178.274(e)(1) and 178.270- 12(d).\nQ2. As far as you can determine the only shear section calculation available is 'ITMA RP 86-98,\n\"Emergency Valve Shear Section Strength Calculation\". Is the use of the TTMA RP 86-98\ncalculation considered the best practice for calculating the valve shear section strength for\nportable tanks?\nA2. The HMR requirement applicable to portable tank shear sections is a performance standard.\nUnder the HMR, various methods of analysis or test may be used to evaluate the expected\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nstrength aud pcrfbrmaace of the sheer section relative to the strmgth of internal self closing stop\nvalve, and their configuration on the tank. The HMR do not specifically ref-ce the lTMA RP\n86-98 shear section strength calculation. However, it is the opinion of this office that the 'ITMA\nRP 86-98 shear section strength calculation is an acceptable method for calculating the expected\nperhnance of a shear section for compliance with the HMR\n43. In a Safety Advisory Notice (62 37638), PHMSA clarified that internal discharge valves\nand shear sections are safety devices required on the bottom-outlets of lM portable tanks-in\nhazardous material ser$ce to prevent significant release of lading when damage is sustained at\nthe filling/discharge connection. You ask f i r confirmation that the pcrhrmancc standard does in\nfkt allow for some leakage of the tanks lading, and that the groove is intended to protect the\ntank.\nA3. Provided the shear section or sacrificial device breaks at no more than 70% of the load that\nwould cause failm of the internal self closing stop valve, some leakage of lading may occur.\nThe sheer section is intended to protect the tank i+om catastrophic f a i h when damage to the\nfillin Jdischarge connection is sustained.\nI hope this satisfies your inquiry. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.\n/ &6f, Standards Development\nOffice of Hazardow Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nFrom: Mauulb. Ed <PHMSA>\nSent: Monday, July 23,2007 837 AM\nTo: Drakeford, Carolyn cPHMSA>\nCc: Hochman, Charles <PHMSA>; Betts, Charles <PHMSA>; Gale, John <PHMSA>; Gorsky, Susan\n<PHMSA>; Mauullo, Ed <PHMSA>; Mitchell, Hattie <PHMSA>\nSubject: FW: shear grooves\nFrom: Dave Bailey [mailto:dballey@fortvale.com]\nSent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:51 PM\nTo: Mamllo, Ed <PHMSA>\nSubject: shear grooves\nDear Ed\nI have was given your contact details by Charles Hochman with. regards to the expectations of the DOT with\nrespect to the design and function of shear sections for lM1Ol and UN portable tanks chapters CFR 49 chapters\n178.270-12 (d) and 178.274 (e) (1) respectively.\nMy first questions relates to the design of the shear sections.\nFrom discussions with Charles Hochman I understand that the 70 stress requirement for failure notated in\n178.274 (e) (1) originates fiom the DOT 407 road tanks sections 178.345-1 (a) 178.345-8 (a) (4) a\nextract from these paragraphs regarding the shear section is below\n\" Shear s e c t i o n means a s a c r i f i c i a l device f a b r i c a t e d i n such a\nmanner a s t o abruptly reduce the wall thickness of the adjacent piping\nor valve material by at least 30 percent.\"\nCharles intimated that the removal of 30% of the valve body wall section would be sufficient. Can you\nconfirm then in simple tenns that the removal the 30% wall section would result in the 70% stress\nreduction and therefore the groove would conforms to the 178.270-1 2 (d) and 178.274 (e) (1)\nAs far as we can determine the only shear section calculation available is.\nTTMA RP 86-98 \"Emergency Valve Shear Section Strength Calculation\".\nIn lieu of any alternative methods other than the wall reduction above we have used the TTMA RP 86-\n98 calculation to determine the 70% shear stress reduction. Would you regard the use of this calculation\nas the best practice to calculate the valve shear section?\nMy second area is regarding the shear groove performance\nI would like to understand the DOT'S expected and accepted performance of the shear grooves. Below is\na extract fiom the DOT in which a realistic view of some leakage may occur and that the groove is to\nprotect the tank.\nI would like to have conformation that this is the acceptance criteria used by DOT\n[Federal Register: August 1, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 148)]\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nPage 2 of 3\n[Notices]\n[Page 41 481 -41 4821\nFrom the Federal Reglster Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n[DOCiD:ffOla~97-l64]\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch and Special Programs Admlnlstratlon\n[Notice 97-61\nSafety Advisory: Certified IM 101 and IM 102 Steel Portable Tanks\nWith Bottom Outlets Without Internal Discharge Valves or Shear Sections\nAGENCY: Research and Special Programs Adminlstratlon (RSPA), DOT.\nACTION: Safety advisory notlce; correction.\nSUMMARY: RSPA published a safety advisory notice in the Federal\nRegister (62 FR 37638) under notice 97-6 on July 14, 1997. The words\n' 'capable of being closed from a location\" were inadvertently omitted\nin the advisory notlce for material quoted fmm 49 CFR 173,32c(g)(2).\nThis document corrects thls error and, for the convenience of readers,\nreprints the text of the July 14, 1997 notlce in its entirety, as\nfollows:\nThis is to notify owners and users of DOT specification IM 101 and\nIM 102 portable tanks with fllllng or dlscharge connections below the\nnormal liquid level that these tanks may be used for shipplng hazardous\nmaterials only if they have internal discharge valves and shear\nsections. Internal discharge valves and shear sections are safety\ndevices required on the bottom-outlets of IM portable tanks in\nhazardous materlal service to prevent significant release of lading\nwhen damage is sustained at the filling/discharge connection. Without\nthose safety features, damage to a bottom outlet is far more likely to\nresult in loss of a tank's entire lading.\nI [[Page 41 48211\nDavid Bailey\nChief Engineer\nFort Vale Engineering Ltd\n+44 (0) 1282 440026\nFax +44 (0) 1282 440046\n- DISCLAIMER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FORT VALE ENGINEERING LTD. This e-mail and the communication\ncontained herein is private and confidential and intended for the specified recipient only. If an addressing or transmission\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nPage 3 of 3\nerror has misdirected this e-mail, it should not be read by anyone but the intended recipient. Please notify the author by\nreplying to this e-mail. If you are not the specified intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or\nrely on this e-mail.\nThis message has been scanned for viruses by Mailcontrol, a service from Blackspider Technologies.\nFort Vale Engineering Limited is a company registered i n England and Wales. Registered number\nRegistered o f f i c e : Parkfield Works, Brunswick Street, Nelson, Lancashire, BBgOSG, England","truncated":false,"body_characters":20504}