{"operation":"document","citation":"14-0030","title":"Burdette & Associates, Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2014-07-31","effective_on":null,"summary":"14-0030 response to Burdette & Associates, Inc. concerning 173.32.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0030.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0030.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-14-0030","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2014/140030.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportation\nU.S. Department\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nAdministration\nMaterials Safety\nJUL 3 1 2014\nMr. Michael Burdett, P.E:\nBurdette & Associates, Inc.\nP.O. Box 264\nMilton, LA 70558\nRef. No.: 14-0030\nDear Mr. Burdette:\nThis is in response to your letter dated February 17, 2014, requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) relating to the use of a DOT\nSpecification 57 portable tank with a modified fill opening that exceeds 20 square inches. I\napologize for the delay in response and hope that it has not caused any inconvenience.\nYou describe a scenario where the fill opening of a DOT 57 portable tank is modified with an\n8-inch diameter Camlock coupling and cap. The 8-inch Camlock coupling has an opening of\napproximately 50 square inches. You ask if this modification conforms to the requirements of\nthe HMR.\nAs you pointed out in your letter, the specification for a DOT 57 portable tank included\n§ 187.253-2(a)(1), which stated, \"Any closure for a fill opening in excess of 20 square inches\nmust be equipped with a device to prevent the closure from fully opening without first\nrelieving internal pressure.\" In a final rule published under docket HM-181E (59 FR 38040;\nJuly 26, 1994), the manufacture of a DOT 57 portable tank was no longer authorized as of\nOctober 1, 1996. Therefore, § 178.253 was removed from the HMR. However,\n§ 173.32(c)(1) provides for the continued use of an existing portable tank conforming to DOT\nSpecification 57 if it was constructed before October 1, 1996.\nThe described modifications to the portable tank (the fill opening enlarged to greater than 20\nsquare inches and the installation of a Camlock coupling and cap) does not conform to DOT\nSpecification 57 and the portable tank, so equipped is not authorized for continued use under\n§ 173.32(c)(1). A Camlock coupling and cap acts solely as a quick-disconnect device and\ndoes not prevent the closure from fully opening without first relieving the pressure within the\ntank. In order for the portable tank with a fill opening in excess of 20 square inches to be in\ncompliance with DOT Specification 57, the Camlock coupling and cap or the tank itself must\nbe equipped with a device that prevents the closure from fully opening without first relieving\ninternal pressure. A pressure release device such as a petcock installed on the tank, or on the\nCamlock coupling or cap, would also not conform with DOT Specification 57 unless the\ninstallation also prevented the closure from fully opening prior to relieving the pressure within\nthe tank. While the use of a petcock may effectively relieve the internal pressure from the\ntank it would not prevent the closure from fully opening while the tank is still pressurized.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nA safety hazard exists if a person fails to first relieve the pressure in the tank by opening the\npetcock and opens the Camlock cap while the tank is still pressurized.\nI trust this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nSincerely,\nShane C. Kelley\nActing International Standards Coordinator\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nBurdette & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 264 Milton, LA 70558\nMichael Burdette, P.E. Phone (337) 893-8652 Cell (337) 781-3144\nStevens\nMr. Charles Betts\n3176:340\nDirector of Standards & Rulemaking\nUS DOT\nPortable Tanks\nWashington, D.C.\n14-0030\nMr. Betts:\nI spoke with Mr. Tom Lynch, an investigations agent in the Southwest\nRegional Hazmat Safety Office in Houston, TX office with my concern\nregarding a non-compliance issue and he suggested that I get an\ninterpretation from your office before he would be able to initiate an\ninvestigation. This issue involves the tanks authorized under 49 CFR\n176.340 and are specifically 25 barrel (1050 gallon) containers that are used\nas drill cuttings boxes to transport drill cuttings from offshore drilling rigs\nto disposal facilities onshore.\nAs required by 176.340 these containers are built in accordance with the\nstandards that were set forth for the DOT 57 containers (49 CFR 178.251\n(253) which are no longer authorized for construction. The specifications\nfor openings in these containers are detailed in 178.253-2(a)(1) and state, \"\nAny closure for a fill opening in excess of 20 square inches must be\nequipped with a device that prevents the closure from fully opening without\nfirst relieving internal pressure.\" As an engineer and DOT Authorized\nAgency for Portable Tanks (IA-9702), I have been asked by numerous\nequipment manufacturers and owners if they can put an opening greater than\n20 square inches on these containers for vacuum assisted transfer of oil well\ndrill cuttings. The closure of choice suggested by these individuals is a\n\"Camlock\" Cap which can be viewed at http://www.camlock-fittings.com/cam-\nlock-catalog-1.pdf These closures are held in place by two locking arms that\nclamp on a protrusion mounted on the body of the tank. To remove this\nclosure the two arms are lowered and the closure comes off. There is no\nmeans of relieving pressure and I have personally seen individuals remove\nthese closures, by mistake, while a vessel is under pressure and the results\ncan be dangerous. Mr. Lynch suggested that an interpretation would have\nto come from your office, stating that these closures are not in compliance\nwith the stated requirement noted above before he would be able to.\ninvestigate this issue. Anyone that has worked around these closures knows\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nthey can be unfastened while under pressure but if they are not familiar with\nthem they wouldn't know.\nWhat people are doing is mounting an 8\" in diameter, male camlock fitting\non the tank and capping it off with a cap. This opening is approximately 50\nsquare inches, over double the 20 square inches referenced in the\nregulations. The tanks marked as \"49 CFR 176.340\" are required to have a\npressure relief device set at no less than 5 psig. If one of these closures\nwere to be opened on a container with an internal pressure of 4.9 psig the\nforce being released would be on the order of 245 Ibf, possibly enough to\ncause injury.\nCould you please review this information and give an interpretation as to\nwhether or not this closure meets the requirement set forth in the CFR?\nI can be contacted by email at msbpe@bellsouth.net, by cell phone at 337\n781 3144 or you could call me at my office at 337 289 5127.\nThank you for your consideration in this matter and I hope to hear from you\nsoon.\nSincerely,\nMichael Burdette, P.E.\nMechanical Engineer\nCc: Tom Lynch - Investigator\nSouthwest Regional Hazmat Safety Office, Houston, TX\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nFrom:\nSent:\nBetts, Charles (PHMSA)\nTo:\nMonday, February 17, 2014 2:19 PM\nSubject:\nDrakeford, Carolyn (PHMSA)\nAttachments:\n•Fw: Letter for interpretation\nBettsitr.doc\nCarolyn-\nPlease log and assign to a specialist for response.\nThanks,\nCharles\nFrom: Michael Burdette [mailto:msbpe@bellsouth.net]\nSent: Monday, February 17, 2014 09:02 AM Eastern Standard Time\nTo: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: Fw: Letter for interpretation\nCc: Lynch, Tom (PHMSA)\nHow about with an attachment?\nSorry,\nMike\n-- Forwarded Message ----\nTo: \"charles.betts@dot.gov\" <charles.betts@dot.gov>\nFrom: Michael Burdette <msbpe@bellsouth.net>\nCc: \"Tom. Lynch@dot.gov\" <Tom.Lynch@dot.gov>\nSent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:58 AM\nSubject: Letter for interpretation\nDear Mr. Betts,\nI spoke with Tom Lynch last week with some questions and he suggested I send you a letter requesting an\ninterpretation. Please see the attached letter and see if you can give a read on this. All my contact information is\non the letter if you need to contact me.\nIt looks like I will be making a trip to Washington for a March 17th meeting and if you are there we may be able\nto meet.\nThank you and have a good day.\nMichael Burdette, P.E\nBureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)\nWorkover / Completion Engineer\nBurdette & Associates, Inc.\nMechanical Engineer","truncated":false,"body_characters":8063}