{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0031","title":"Specialty Transportation and Regulatory Services — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-02-26","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0031 response to Specialty Transportation and Regulatory Services concerning 173.24, 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150031.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nof Transportatior\nJ.S. Departmen\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nMateriale Salsazardous\nAdministration\nFEB 2 6 2016\nMr. Joe Connelly\nSpecialty Transportation and Regulatory Services\nP.O. Box 231\nElkton, MD 21922\nRef. No. 15-0031\nDear Mr. Connelly:\nThis is a response to your February 5, 2015 email requesting clarification of the Hazardous\nMaterials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you ask whether under\n49 CFR 173.31(d)(1), tank car bottom outlet valve caps must be removed and manway\ncovers opened when an external visual inspection is performed prior to a tank car being\noffered for transportation.\nThe HMR do not explicitly state that bottom outlet valve caps must be removed to inspect\nthe valve or manway covers opened to inspect the gasket of the covers. However, the HMR\ncontain both minimum inspection requirements for a pre-trip inspection and a performance\nstandard. The minimum inspection requirements provided in § 173.31(d)(1)(ii) require that\nthe piping, valves, fittings, and gaskets must be visually inspected for corrosion, damage, or\nany other condition that make a tank car unsafe for transportation. The performance standard\nis found in § 173.31(d)(2) and requires closures to be designed and closed so that under\nconditions normally incident to transportation there will be no identifiable release of\nhazardous material. See also 49 CFR 173.24.\nSpecific to bottom outlet valves, in 2009, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2009-02 addressing\nthe inspection of tank car bottom outlet valves and assemblies. 74 FR 53321 (Oct. 16, 2009).\nIn that Advisory, FRA specifically noted that although the then-current version of the HMR\ndid not include explicit language requiring the removal of bottom outlet caps during the\nloading process, the performance standard of 49 CFR 173.24 required that packages be\n\"designed, constructed, maintained, filled ... [and the] contents so limited, and closed, so\nhazardous materials to the environment.\"' Accordingly, in order to ensure compliance with\nthat under conditions normally incident to transportation... there will be no ... release of\nthis standard, in the Advisory, FRA recommended that bottom outlet caps be removed during\nthe tank car loading process.\nIf the cap is not removed, there is no way to determine whether\n1 The performance standard of §173.24 is a general performance standard applicable to all packages designed\nthat in § 173.24 but written specific to railroad tank cars.\nto transport hazardous materials. The performance standard of § 173.31(d)(2) is substantively the same as\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\n2\nthe valve is in a condition safe for transportation because an internal defect in the valve may\ngo undetected. In other words, if the bottom outlet cap is not removed, there is no way to\nensure the car complies with the performance standard of either § 173.31(d)(2) or § 173.24.\nSimilarly, without opening a hinged and bolted manway and observing the condition of the\nmanway's gasket, there is no way an offeror can reasonably perform a visual inspection of\nthe gasket and meet the minimum inspection requirement of § 173.31(d)(1)(ii) or know that\nthe gasket meets the performance requirements of either § 173.31(d)(2) or § 173.24. This\nrationale applies generally to other tank car fittings designed to be opened/removed for the\npurposes of loading or unloading and serve as primary or secondary closures (including, for\nexample, plugs or caps on top valves, etc.). In order to ensure compliance with these\nrequirements, an offeror must remove the bottom outlet cap and open the manway cover and\ninspect the condition of the gasket, regardless of whether the offeror used the fitting during a\nparticular loading/unloading event.\nCompliance with the performance standards of §§ 173.24 and 173.31(d)(2) and the minimum\ninspection requirements of § 173.31(d)(1)(ii), is aided by the establishment of specific\nrejection criteria against which the external visual inspections are to be performed (e.g.,\ninspections for corrosion, damage, or any other conditions that make a tank car unsafe for\ntransportation). We expect that inspection procedures take into account all the information\nrequired in §§ 173.24(f)(2) and 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) which includes \"closure instructions...to\neffectively assemble and close the packaging for the purpose of preventing leakage in\ntransportation.\" This information should include gasket type, gasket dimensions, fastener\nspecification, and other information relevant to the gasket's expected performance.\nAdditionally, the inspection procedures should include specific rejection criteria that define\nthe condemnable extent corrosion, the type and magnitude of damage (e.g. cracks, dents,\nscores, etc.), or a clear definition of other conditions identified by an offeror that makes a\ntank car unsafe for transportation.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to\ncontact this office.\nChief, Standards Development\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n2 In the requirements for a pressure leakage test in § 180.509, the regulations clearly distinguish between\n\"permanently\" affixed valves and fittings and those fittings removed for loading and unloading of the tank car\nthus acknowledging the difference in in-service performance requirements. In this section, facilities that\nremove closure for the sole purpose of loading/unloading a tank car are exempted from the requirements to\nperform a leakage pressure test following replacement of these features.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n• .\nSuchak\n§173.31(d)(1) (ii),\nLoad/inload\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\n15-0031\nFrom:\nGoodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nSent:\nTo:\nThursday, February 05, 2015 11:48 AM\nDodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nSubject.\nFW: Manway Gaskets\nImportance:\nHigh\nFYI...\n----Original Message----\nFrom: Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:42 AM\nTo: Goodall, Shante CTR (PHMSA)\nCc: Supko, Ben (PHMSA); Alexy, Karl (FRA); joeconnelly@starsconsulting.org\nSubject: FW: Manway Gaskets\nImportance: High\nShante -\nPlease log and assign to a specialist for response. Please inform the assigned specialist that PHMSA's response must be\ncoordinated with FRA.\nThanks,\nCharles\n----Original Message-----\nFrom: joeconnelly@starsconsulting.org [mailto:joeconnelly@starsconsulting.org]\nSent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:45 AM\nTo: HMASSIST (FRA); Blackwell, Kevin (FRA); Matsinger, Lisa (FRA); Strouse, Larry (FRA); \"Lucinda. Henriksen\"@dot.gov\nCc: Alexy, Karl (FRA)\nSubject: Manway Gaskets\nTo whom it may concern:\nI am requesting clarification on a tank car loading and unloading regulation, specifically 173:31(d)(1)(ii) which requires\nan external visual inspection...of piping, valves, fittings and gaskets for corrosion or damage... Does this mean that !\nhave to remove the bottom outlet valve or open the manway cover to assess the condition of the gasket? Can I leave\nthese opening closed and observe for leakage and make the case that no leakage means that the gaskets are\nserviceable.\nThis has become an issue for some of the loaders that I am working with as the company struggles with different\nanswers from different FRA personnel at their various locations. If you prefer, I can request a letter of opinion from\nPHMSA. Please let me know either way.\nThank You for your attention to this matter\nJoe Connelly\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n.;. \"\"\nSafety First, No Excuses\nSafety First...No Excuses","truncated":false,"body_characters":7421}