{"operation":"document","citation":"08-0251","title":"Barlen and Associates, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2008-10-17","effective_on":null,"summary":"08-0251 response to Barlen and Associates, Inc. concerning 173.301.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0251.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0251.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-08-0251","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2008/080251.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nOCT 1 7 2008\nMr. William Barlen\nBarlen and Associates, Inc.\n24 Gettysburg Court\nAllentown, NJ 085 10\nRef: 08-025 1\nDear Mr. Barlen:\nThis is in reference to your September 14, 2008 letter requesting a clarification of the\nrequirement in 5 173.301(a)(3) of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts\n17 1 - 180) that: \"Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled cylinder is\nshipped from the cylinder filling plant.\" Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer's\ncertification report stating a cylinder has been tested and is being shipped to the customer\n\"leak free\" may be used to satisfy the requirement in 5 173.301(a)(3).\nThe answer is no. Each time that a cylinder is filled, its pressure relief devices must be tested\nfor leaks before the cylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant. The requirement in\n§ 173.301(a)(3) must be read in conjunction with the separate requirement in the preceding\nparagraph that: \"Before each filling of a cylinder, the person filling the cylinder must visually\ninspect the outside of the cylinder. A cylinder that has a crack or a leaking or defective\npressure relief device, or bears evidence of physical abuse, fire, or heat damage, or\ndetrimental rusting or corrosion, may not be filled and offered for transportation.\" 49 CFR\n§ 173.301(a)(2).\nBoth of these requirements apply to the person who fills a cylinder and offers the filled\ncylinder for transportation. They are distinct from the separate requirements in Subpart C of\nPart 178 of the HMR that a cylinder manufacturer must test all completed cylinders for\nleakage and to reject any cylinder that leaks. See, for example, § 178.36(m), governing DOT\nspecification 3A and 3AX seamless steel cylinders, that \"All spun cylinders and plugged\ncylinders must be tested for leakage by gas or air pressure . . .\" Accordingly, each specified\ntest or inspection must be performed in the manner prescribed by the HMR and with\nacceptable results.\nTherefore, as stated, after a cylinder is filled, it must be tested for leaks before being offered\nfor transportation. The person who offers the cylinder for transportation is responsible for\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nensuring this requirement has been met. That person may not rely on a prior certification that,\nat the time of manufacture (which may be many years earlier), the cylinder was tested and\ncertified to be \"leak free.\"\nI trust this adequately addresses your concerns. Please contact us if we can be of further\nassistance.\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\npl( tChe I I\nBARLEN and ASSOCIATES, Inc.\nConsulting to the Compressed Gas Industry\nGovernment Safety\nDepartment of Transportation\n(US and Canada) Hazardous Material Regulations\nCylinder 8 Valve Testing,\nChemical Analysis, UT, Electron Microscope, etc.\nForensic Investigation Consulting\nHattie L. Mitchell\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nI200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\n14 September 2008\nDear Ms. Mitchell,\nI am currently representing a client who manufactures compressed gas shipping containers to DOT Standards\nand Specifications. When they are delivered to the customer the customer is given a test report that includes a\ncertification that the unit being delivered has been tested and is being shipped to the customer \"leak free\".\nThe \"new\" container in question was filled by the customer with a hazardous material who then subsequently\nshipped it to a US Port for shipment to Europe. At the port a port employee noticed that a relief device was\nleaking, i.e. the leak had enough of a velocity that it could be heard at some distance from the container.\nThe reason for this letter is that I have stated to the oter side of this case that under:\n49 CFR 173.301 - General requirements for shipment of compressed gases and other hazardous\nmaterials in cylinders, UN pressure receptacles and spherical pressure vessels.\n(a) (3) Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled cylinder is shipped from the\ncylinder filling plant.\nI.e., that it is the filler's responsibility to check for leaks AFTER the container is filled and that they cannot\nlegally ship a container based only on the container manufacturer's leak test.\nThe opposing side maintains (as paraphrased to remove the name of the companies involved) that:\n\"Such an argument is tenuous because \"the container manufacturing comvany\" provided leak\ntest certifications when it delivered the trailers to the \"the comDany that filled the container\".\nTherefore \"the comDanv that filled the container\" justifiably relied on those certifications and\nput the trailers into service. \"The container manufacturing companv\" will have a difficult time\nconvincing a jury that \"the comvany that filled the container\" should not have relied on ''the\ncontainer manufacturinp companv'fl written certification that leak tests had been performed\nand that the trailers had passed those tests.\"\nThe DOT tube leaked at the relief device and the company that filled the container admits they never leaked\nchecked the tubes after filling and before offering the containers for shipment by common carrier.\nAs I stated, the opposing side maintains that \"Pressure relief devices must be tested for leaks before a filled\ncylinder is shipped from the cylinder filling plant\" does not mean \"after being filled. Your response would\nbe helpful to me.\nSincerely,\nWiUicwM/SwZeM/\nWilliam Barlen\n24 Gettysburg Court, Allentown N.J. -\nOFFICE - 609-223-0019, CELL - 609-802-4627, e-mail - Barlen@optonline.net","truncated":false,"body_characters":5811}