{"operation":"document","citation":"10-0019R","title":"Mr. John Cox — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2011-01-07","effective_on":null,"summary":"10-0019R concerning 180.205, 180.209.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0019r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0019r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-10-0019r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretations/2010/100019-R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n1 200 New Jersey Ave, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJAN 7 1.011\nMr. John Cox\nFire Chief\nP. 0 Box 21\nJamaica, Iowa 50128\nRef. No.: 1O-0019-R\nDear Mr. Cox:\nIt has been brought to our attention that our response to your January 31 email regarding the\ncondemnation criteria in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180)\napplicable to DOT-3AL cylinders manufactured of6351-T6 aluminum alloy was incomplete.\nSpecifically, you asked about conflicting condemnation criteria in § 180.209(m), Appendix C ofPart\n180, and CGA Pamphlet 6.1 regarding these cylinders.\nIn our April 28, 2010 letter, Ref. No.: 10-0019, we said the following:\nSection l80.205(t)(4) requires each specification cylinder manufactured of 6351-T6\naluminum alloy used in self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA), selfcontained\nbreathing apparatus (SCBA), or oxygen service to be inspected for sustained load\ncracking (SLC) in accordance with Appendix C of Part 180 every five years. The inspection\nmust include both a visual inspection and an eddy current examination. Each cylinder with\nSLC that has expanded into the neck threads must be condemned in accordance with\n§ 180.205(i). That is, the cylinder must be condemned when evidence of cracking exists to\nthe extent that the cylinder is likely to be weakened.\nAs prescribed in Appendix C of Part 180, visual examination ofthe neck and shoulder area of\nthe [DOT 3AL] cylinder (described above] must be conducted in accordance with CGA\nPamphlet 6.1. Cylinders with cracks must be condemned, and repair ofneck cracks is not\nallowed. If the visual inspection does not identify cracks in the neck and shoulder area that\nwould require condemnation ofthe cylinder, it must be subjected to an eddy current\nexamination. Ifthe eddy current examination reveals any crack in the neck or shoulder area\nof two thread lengths or more, the cylinder must be condemned.\nIn our April 28, 2010 response, we inadvertently provided partial information in the last sentence of\nthe last paragraph. This letter is intended to clarify the requirements regarding condemnation criteria\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nspecified in Appendix C of Part 180. The correct response is \"[I]f the eddy current examination\ncombined with a visual inspection reveals any crack in the neck or shoulder area of two thread\nlengths or more, the cylinder must be condemned\". Therefore, the letter designated as Ref. No.:\n10-0019 is retracted and replaced by this letter, Ref. No.: 1O-OO19-R.\nWe apologize for any misunderstanding, and hope that it has not caused any inconvenience.\nr\\ Charles E. ;etF0::'\n~l;/A'\nDirector\nb Standards and Rulemaking Division\ncc: Fred A. Nachman\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nOctober 26, 2010\nMr. Delmer Billings\nDirector, Special Permits and Approvals\ndelmer. billings@dot.gov\nMr. Charles Hochman,\nDirector, Technology\ncharles.hochman@dot.gov\nMr. Mark Toughity\nMechanical Engineer, Technology\nmark. tougbi.[y@dot.gov\nMr. Edward Mazzullo, Director\nHazardous Materials Standards\nEdward.mazzullo@dot.gov\nMr. Charles Betts, Chief\nStandards Development\nCharles.betts@dot.g9v\nMr. Wayne Chaney\nSpecial Investigations\nWayne.chaney@dot.gov\nMr. Ryan Posten\nAssistant Associate Administrator\nRyan.posten@dot.gov\nU. S. Department of Transportation- PHMSA\n1200 New Jersey Ave S.E.\nWashington, D. c., 20590-0081\nSubject: Request for Clarification of PHMSA Letter of Interpretation No. 10-0019 reo\nEddy Current Condemnation Criteria\nPHMSA Interpretation # 1 0-00 19 dated April 28, 2010 attempte~ to clarify the issue of\nconflicting condemnation criteria by stating that \"If the eddy current examination reveals any\ncrack in the neck or shoulder area oftwo thread lengths or more, the cylinder must be\ncondemned.\" The wording and apparent intent does not allow for any visual confirmation of\nthose flaws in the neck/thread area. Eddy current examination does not inspect the shoulder area\nfor flaws.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n49CFR180 Appendix C(5) Condemnation Criteria reads ... A cylinder must be condemned if\nthe eddy current examination combined with visual examination reveals any crack in the neck or\nshoulder of2 thread lengths or more.\nIt is our clear understanding of 49CFR180 that a cylinder which fails either hydrostatic test or\nvisual inspection must be condemned. The referenced interpretation No. 10-0019 for VE\nexaminations seems to imply the same thing, i.e., if a cylinder fails hydro, visual inspection or\neddy current examination, it must be condemned. 49CFR180 Appendix C(5) does not say \"or\"\nwhich would clearly require the requalifier to condemn any 6351-T6 cylinder in SCBA, Scuba or\noxygen service whenever a crack in the neck or shoulder area of 2 threads or more is indicated in\nthe eddy current scans, regardless ofwhether or not it can be visually confirmed.\nThe Sept/2000 Nondestructive Inspection of High Pressure Aluminum Gas Cylinders\nReport, page 37, prepared for Mark Toughiry at DOT reads ... Ifthe flaw is not visually\ndetected, it is deemed to be a false positive on the part ofthe eddy current system so the cylinder\nis not rejected based on this false positive. Table 4-1 showed the comparisons of effective\nidentification of flaws by visual vs. eddy vs. UE in detecting neck cracks. Our reading showed\nvisual inspection to pick up as many flaws as eddy examination without false positives.\nDiscussions at CGA Cylinder Spec meetings when this regulation was being promulgated also\nlead us to understand that the Eddy Exam required Visual Confirmation.\nCondemnation criteria quoted above which used the language \"combined with\" did not use the\nword \"or\" or \"and/or\" which would have made it perfectly clear that you could not override an\neddy current scan even if the visual did not confirm.\nIt is our understanding that eddy current machines are not capable of checking the shoulder area\nofa medical cylinder- only the thread area. That area as well as any thread indications can be\npicked up and viewed with an Optical-Plus magnification light. .\nIt is our understanding that it is difficult for the eddy current machine to differentiate a crack\nfrom a tool stop. See Figures 10 and 11 in CGA C6.1- 2006. Accordingly, the visual OpticalPlus\nlight is needed to confirm it to preclude unnecessary condemnations.\nVE examination scans also pickup indications from corrosion, dirt, thread folds, tool stops, etc ..\nHow would the requalification process preclude unnecessary condemnation of 6351-T6 cylinders\nif a visual with a magnified Optical-Plus Light or some other equivalent device wasn't utilized to\nconfirm a true condemnable defect picked up on the VE scan?\nWe also question the regulation in its exemption of C02 cylinders from this requirement as we\nfind a significant percentage of neck cracks that are rejected visually? While they are in a lower\npressure service, they do expand and blow PRDs in high temperature Arizona environments.\nOur mission at Thunderbird is to be compliant and safe without unnecessarily condemning our\nclients' fleet of6351-T6 aluminum cylinders. Our clients rely on our integrity and diligence to\nunderstand and comply with Federal codes and best practices when requalifying their cylinders.\nAccordingly, we were confused by the letter of interpretation. Since we knowlingly overrode\nvisual eddy indications when unconfirmed by visual, are we subject to DOT sanctions of fines,\nincarceration and loss of authorization? What was our liability should injury or death occur?\nWould we lose the trust of our clients and regulators, if we did not do the right thing? Should we\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nignor past requalifications and just change our procedures moving forward, thus exposing our\ncustomers and their clients to noncompliant requalifications and possible injury? Should we\nreport our violation ofthe code to DOT as interpreted by 10-00 19?\nOur decision, first, was to review and the codes and referenced materials. Second, we made a\nweekend review ofall our computerized eddy current scans and overrides to understand the\nextent of this change and prepare a recall notice to get those cylinders back for reexamination\nand condemnation. Third, we prepared this request to ask what is our requirement as to advising\nDOT? How could we get this issue clarified promptly so we could move forward with the\ncorrect procedures as well as how to handle the past requalifications? Not only are we confused,\nbut we are also embarrassed as we base our reputation of knowing these answers?\nWe were advised to recall the recall until clarification is received from DOT as other\nknowledgeable requalifiers, customers and a manufacturer of these cylinders had similar\nmisunderstandings of the regulations. We request a prompt response so we can advise our\npersonnel on how to proceed with future examinations which could result in a 35%\ncondemnation rate of 6351-T6 cylinders. And, finally, we again request that DOT sets up an\nEmail distribution list of all its authorized requalifiers to distribute code changes and letters of\ninterpretation when they are issued.\nRespectfully submitted,\nFred A. Nachman\nPresident\n4209 E. University Drive· Phoenix, AZ • 85034-7315\nPHONE: 602.437.4600 • FAX: 602.437.5052 • EMAIL: fredn@cylinder.com\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":9277}