{"operation":"document","citation":"13-0071","title":"Authorized Testing, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2013-07-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"13-0071 response to Authorized Testing, Inc. concerning 178.36, 180.205.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0071.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0071.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-13-0071","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2013/130071.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nJUL 2 3 1013\nMr. David Fountain\nExecutive Vice-President and General Counsel\nAuthorized Testing Inc.\n2522 Kansas A venue\nRiverside, CA 92507\nRef. No. 13-0071\nDear Mr. Fountain:\nThis responds to your March 28, 2013 request for clarification of the requirements of\n§ 180.205(g)( 4) in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) as\nthey relate to the hydrostatic testing of cylinders manufactured under DOT-SP15555 and\nDOT-SP11670. You state in your request that PHMSA representatives performed a\ncompliance inspection at the Oilphase Products Centre, Schlumberger Oilfield UK plc, in\nAberdeen, Scotland on January 11, 2013. In the follow up letter to the exit briefing dated\nMarch 18, 2013 the facility representatives were told that:\n\"[T]he special permits do not exempt you from the hydrostatic testing\nrequirements listed in the regulation for the manufacturing of DOT 3A\ncylinders, so § 178.36(i)(l) applies. The regulation requires testing to be by\nwater-jacket method, or other suitable methods operated so as to obtain\naccurate data. During our inspection, we observed the use of a calibrated\ncylinder being used to calibrate the system, and observed actual tests being\nperformed using the water jacket method. The water jacket method and the\nuse of a calibrated cylinder to verify accuracy of the test equipment and the\nrequirements pertaining to confirming accuracy of the test equipment using a\ncalibrated cylinder are set forth in § 180.205(g)( 4 ). This section states that the\ncalibrated cylinder must show NO permanent expansion.\"\nIn your letter you question the applicability of Part 180 to the hydrostatic test required during\nthe manufacturing process for cylinders. Your questions are paraphrased and answered,\nspecific to your scenario, below.\nQl. Do the calibration procedures for hydrostatic retesting set forth in§ 180.205(g)(4)\napply to the hydrostatic test required in the manufacturing process of cylinders?\nA2. Section 178.36(i)(l) states that during the manufacturing process ''each cylinder\nmust successfully withstand a hydrostatic test, as follows: the test must be by water-\njacket, or other suitable methods, operated so as to obtain accurate data.\" If one\nchooses to use the water-jacket method, they must confirm this method is operated so\n·---·-·---\n----··-----·--------·-----------------· ---------------· -------------·--\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nas to obtain accurate data. During the requalification process, a cylinder calibrated in\naccordance with§ 180.205(g)(4) must be used to ensure the system is properly\nfunctioning and that all data that is obtained is accurate. For the manufacturing\nprocess, the method to determine that the equipment is properly functioning and that\nall data that is obtained is accurate is not specified. Ifthe hydrostatic testing during\nthe manufacturing process is completed using the water jacket method, the equipment\nshould be calibrated in accordance with § 180.205(g)( 4). PHMSA acknowledges that\n§ 178.36(i)(l) does not directly reference the hydrostatic retesting set forth in\n§ 180.205(g)( 4) and we intend to address and clarify this requirement in a future\nrulemaking.\nQ2. How would a manufacturer be aware that the hydrostatic testing procedure set\nforth in § 180 .205(g)( 4) applies to the manufacturing process set forth in\n§ 178.36(i)(l)?\nA2. Currently, § 178.36(i)(l) does not directly indicate that the hydrostatic testing\nprocedures in§ 180.205(g)(4) apply to the manufacturing process. As such, PHMSA\nacknowledges that a manufacturer may not be aware that the hydrostatic testing\nprocedure set forth in § 180.205(g)( 4) apply to the manufacturing proces~ set forth in\n§ 178.36(i)(l). PHMSA intends to address and clarify this requirement in a future\nrule making.\nQ3. Section 178.36(i)(l) allows hydrostatic tests to be conducted by \"other suitable\nmethods, operated to obtain accurate data.\" In your letter (see attached), you describe\nyour specific procedures and ask if PHMSA would consider your testing method to be\n\"suitable\" and in compliance with§ 178.36(i)(l)?\nA3. We are of the opinion that the method you describe to verify the accuracy of your\ntesting equipment is suitable to obtain accurate data and therefore in compliance with\n§ 178.36(i)(l); however, the results of your test procedure did indicate some\nexpansion of the calibrated cylinder which is not normal.\nWe appreciate you bringing these issues to our attention and intend to address them in a future\nrulemaking. In the meantime, we suggest that you conform to the calibration procedures for\nhydrostatic retesting set forth in§ 180.205(g)(4) when performing the hydrostatic test\nrequired in the manufacturing process of cylinders set forth in§ 178.36(i)(l).\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this office\nat 202-366-8553.\nSincerely,\n~~\nirector,\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nas to obtain accurate data. During the requalification process, a cylinder calibrated in\naccordance with§ 180.205(g)( 4) must be used to ensure the system is properly\nfunctioning and that all data that is obtained is accurate. For the manufacturing\nprocess, the method to determine that the equipment is properly functioning and that\nall data that is obtained is accurate is not specified. Ifthe hydrostatic testing during\nthe manufacturing process is completed using the water jacket method, the equipment\nshould be calibrated in accordance with § 180.205(g)( 4). PHMSA acknowledges that\n§ 178.36(i)(l) does not directly reference the hydrostatic retesting set forth in\n§ 180.205(g)( 4) and we intend to address and clarify this requirement in a future\nrulemaking.\nQ2. How would a manufacturer be aware that the hydrostatic testing procedure set\nforth in§ 180.205(g)(4) applies to the manufacturing process set forth in\n§ 178.36(i)(l)?\nA2. Currently, § 178.36(i)(l) does not directly indicate that the hydrostatic testing\nprocedures in§ 180.205(g)(4) apply to the manufacturing process. As such, PHMSA\nacknowledges that a manufacturer may not be aware that the hydrostatic testing\nprocedure set forth in § 180.205(g)( 4) apply to the manufacturing process set forth in\n§ 178.36(i)(l). PHMSA intends to address and clarify this requirement in a future\nrulemaking.\nQ3. Section 178.36(i)(l) allows hydrostatic tests to be conducted by \"other suitable\nmethods, operated to obtain accurate data.\" In your letter (see attached), you describe\nyour specific procedures and ask if PHMSA would consider your testing method to be\n\"suitable\" and in compliance with § 178.36(i)(l )?\nA3. We are of the opinion that the method you describe to verify the accuracy of your\ntesting equipment is suitable to obtain accurate data and therefore in compliance with\n§ 178.36(i)(l); however, the results of your test procedure did indicate some\nexpansion of the calibrated cylinder which is not normal.\nWe appreciate you bringing these issues to our attention and intend to address t~em in a future\nrulemaking. In the meantime, we suggest that you conform to the calibration procedures for\nhydrostatic retesting set forth in § 180.205(g)( 4) when performing the hydrostatic test\nrequired in the manufacturing process of cylinders set forth in§ 178.36(i)(l ).\nI hope this answers your inquiry. If you need additional assistance, please contact this office\nat 202-366-8553.\nSincerely,\nCharles E. Betts\nDirector,\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n------- ---------\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nJ J11\nAUTHORIZED\nTESTING INC.\n2522 Kansas Avenue • Riverside, CA 92507 USA\nPhone: (951)682-4110 • Fax: (951) 682-6090\n01 Dor1ne !/\n~I ?J(). 205\ntj 118. 3C:,\nC.,ji1.n ders\n13-oorz I\nTo: Standards and Rulemaking Division\nUS Department of Transportation,\nPHMSA,\nEast Building, 2nd Floor,\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,\nWashington, DC 20590.\n28th March 2013.\n1. We write to seek clarification of the required method of demonstrating that hydrostatic\ntest equipment complies within the 1% accuracy requirement for the mamifacturing of\nDOT-SP 15555 and DOT S-P 11670 cylinders.\n2. The query arises following the suggestion of probable IIA violation noted in an Exit\nBriefing after a compliance inspection at Oil phase Products Centre, Schlumberger\nOilfield UK plc, Aberdeen, Scotland on 11th January 2013.\n3. PHSMA Compliance have determined by letter to us dated 18th March, 2013 as\nfollows:\n\"The special permits for both DOT-SP 15555 and DOT-SP 11670 state that these\ncylinders are made in conformance with 3A cylinders and refer you to 178.35 and\n178.36 except as specifically noted therein. The special permits do not exempt you from\nthe hydrostatic testing requirements listed in the regulation for the manufacturing of\nDOT 3A cylinders, so 178.36(i)(l) applies. The regulation requires testing to be by\nwater-jacket method, or other suitable methods operated so as to obtain accurate\ndata. During our inspection, we observed the use of a calibrated cylinder being used to\ncalibrate the system, and observed actual tests being performed using the water jacket\nmethod.\nThe water jacket method and the use of a calibrated cylinder to verify accuracy of the\ntest equipment and the requirements pertaining to confirming accuracy of the test\nequipment using a calibrated cylinder are set forth in 180.205(g}(4). This section states\nthat the calibrated cylinder must show NO permanent expansion.\nThe investigators reviewed the calibration procedures and requirements with you at the\ntime of inspection and discussed with you at length. The determination made by\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPHMSA is that 180.205 does apply in this case, and that proper calibration was not\nachieved on days where the expansion showed greater than zero. \"\n4(a). It seems to us that section 180.201 clearly indicates that the requirements of\nSubpart C, in addition to those contained in part 178, are applicable solely for the purpose\nof prescribing requirements for the continuing qualification, maintenance, or periodic\nrequalification of relevant cylinders.\n(b). In particular, we believe that s.l80.205(g)(4) relates exclusively to the verification of\ncylinder requalification test equipment. It has no bearing upon the test equipment utilized\nin the manufacturing process, and\n(c). The applicable specification in this case does not refer to s.l80, nor is there any\nreference to it in 178.36, nor can anything be found anywhere else, in CGA pamphlets for\nexample, to guide the manufacturer or an IIA to s.l80. This begs one important question,\nhow is the manufacturer and the IIA to know that s.l80 applies (if it does) in a\nmanufacturing compliance audit, in order for them to comply?\nd). We also mention the distinction between the wording in ss.178 and 180. S.l78.36(i)\nrequires the hydrostatic test equipment be operated so as to obtain accurate data. There\nare several ways to show this is being achieved and there is no mention of a calibrated\ncylinder in s.l78, as it is not a necessity to obtaining accurate data. S.l80, however,\nrefers to apparatus calibration; there is only one way to achieve that - by calibrated\ncylinder, which is required under s.l80 requalification testing; but, we submit, not under\ns.l78 manufacturing.\n5. It also seems to us that amongst the practical reasoning behind the rule in s.l80 - that a\nre-tester must use a calibrated cylinder that shows no permanent expansion -lies in the\nfact that the cylinders being re-tested have been in use for years, could be damaged and\ntherefore demand a more rigorous test procedure than does the initial manufacturing\nprocess.\n6. s.l78.36 does of course require the testing apparatus to be accurate but allows the\nmanufacturer and IIA to demonstrate accuracy by other suitable methods than the\ncalibrated cylinder. The process used at the subject facility was as follows:\na). The Hydro system has two gages installed, a master and working gage. The master\ngage meets the required definition of master gage. The two gages are of the highest\nquality with readability far greater than the required 1% of test pressure.\nb). The Expansion measuring device also provides readability of 1 0 times greater than\nthe required .lee. The scales have graduations of .Olccs, not .lee.\nc). weights.\nThe scales are also verified daily for accuracy and consistency by the use of calibrated\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nd). In addition to the Master gage verification method, a calibrated cylinder is\ninstalled instead of a production cylinder in order to verity the low- pressure\nsystem's stability and that it is leak free as described above.\ne). With the isolation valve open, the calibrated cylinder is pressurized to 5000psi and\nheld while observing the two gages ~for accuracy and the expansion weigh bowl for\nany rise or fall indication a system leak. This is then repeated at each 5,000psi\nincrement until the test pressure of 25,000psi is reached. The total expansion is then\nrecorded and noted to be the required expansion at that pressure within the 1%\naccuracy and that readability was also within 1% or .1 cc. The pressure is held long\nenough to note that the water system is tight, stable and without leaks. Then both\ngages are observed to be within the required 1% accuracy and 1% readability at\n25,000psi. In this case, the gages were reading exactly the same with no movement in\nthe weigh bowl. This data was collected after pressurizing in 5000psi increments up to\n25,000psi and holding at each increment.\nf). At this point the operator has already demonstrated the equipment's ability to\nperform well within the 1% accuracy required and evidenced no leaks in the expansion\nindicating system or either of the two pressure gages.\ng). In addition to the above, prior to the beginning of each day, calibrated weights are\nused to ensure accurate data is displayed on the expansion indicating device (gram scale\nwith .01 readability). Both scales indicate 100% accuracy when compared to the calibrated\nweights.\nh). The pressure is then released and when the gages are at 0 pressure, the\npermanent expansion is recorded. The indicated permanent expansion is verified to have\nnot dropped below 0 indicating a possible low-pressure leak in the system and also noted\nto be within the 1% accuracy and 1% or .lee readability.\ni). In this case, the display indicated a permanent expansion of .lee which does not\nhave any bearing on the systems accuracy. The average volume of a jacket the size used\nby OPC is 250 gallons. (This is about 946,350 cc of water and we are talking about 1 tenth\nof 1 cc. There are 9,463,500 increments of .lee in the water jacket.) Even a slight deflection\ncaused by air movement near the scale will affect the display under these circumstances.\nj). The A TI inspector records this data but does not, as a matter of procedure, re-\npressurize the system any number of times in order to finally obtain O.Occ permanent\nexpansion since this is not required for the manufacturer and would not confirm the 1%\naccuracy. Re-pressurizing the system repeatedly only shows that the system can give\ninconsistent readings without making any adjustments or repairs. The chosen method\nabsolutely confirms the system to be accurate and in this case, less than Yz% was noted.\nk). The system demonstrated that it was absolutely accurate in that the gage was exactly\naccurate and the scale was also exactly accurate and the system was otherwise leak free.\nHad it not been leak free, there would have been excessive permanent expansion after\nbeing pressurized for that amount of time. With that in mind, .1 cc would not be\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nconsidered excessive against a total volume of 946,000 cc of water in the displacement\nchamber. (Extreme temperature conditions due to cold weather in Scotland would also\naffect the expansion qualities of the cylinder).\n7. Against the background of all of the above, we ask Standards and Rulemaking to\nclarify the following:\na) does the calibration procedure set forth in s.l80.205(g)(4) apply to the manufacturing\nprocess and in this case?\nb) If so, how are the liAs and manufacturers to know this?\nc) Is the procedure described at length in paragraph 6 above acceptable for contextual,\nfuture usage?\nd) Do Standards and Rulemaking have any other comment and suggestions on this\nsubject?\nWe look forward to your response.\nSincerely,\n2522 Kansas Avenue\nRiverside, California 92507 USA\nPhone: 951.682.4110\nFax: 951.682.6090\nURL:\n\"The contents of this communication are important, private, confidential and legally privileged. In the event\nof your receiving this message or a copy in error, please do not study the text but inform the sender\nimmediately and then erase the document (s) and attachments. Thank you for your co-operation in this\nregard and please accept our apologies for any error and inconvenience.\"\n------------·---","truncated":false,"body_characters":16906}