{"operation":"document","citation":"15-0031R","title":"Mr. Joe Connelly — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2016-11-14","effective_on":null,"summary":"15-0031R concerning 173.24, 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031r.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031r.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-15-0031r","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/2016/150031R.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nSpecialty Transportation and Regulatory Services\nP.O. Box 231\nElkton, MD 21922\nReterence No. 15-0031R\nDear Mr. Connelly:\nThis is a revised response to your February 5, 2015, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). The Hazardous Materials\nWorking Group of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RAC) seeks to clarify the\nrequirements for use of tank cars, among other requirements in Part 174. At a recent meeting\nof the working group, members discussed our response in Reference No. 15-0031 and\nexpressed their belief that § 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) did not apply to specification tank cars. After\nfurther consideration of our response in Reference No. 15-0031, we have determined that the\nreference to § 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) closure instruction requirements is not appropriate for tank\ncars built to a specification in Part 179. Therefore, Reference No. 15-0031 has been\nsuperseded by this revised letter.\nSpecifically, you asked whether under § 173.31(d)(1), tank car bottom outlet valve caps must\nbe removed and manway covers opened when an external visual inspection is performed prior\nto a tank car being offered for transportation.\nThe HMR do not explicitly state that bottom outlet valve caps must be removed to inspect the\nvalve 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 for 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 § 173.24.\nSpecific to bottom outlet valves, on October 16, 2009, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)\nissued Safety Advisory 2009-02 addressing the inspection of tank car bottom outlet valves\nand assemblies [74 FR 53321]. FRA specifically noted that although the then-current version\nof the HMR did not include explicit language requiring the removal of bottom outlet caps\nduring the loading process, the performance standard of § 173.24 required that packages be\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\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 the\ngasket to meet the minimum inspection requirement of § 173.31(d)(1)(ii) or know that the\ngasket 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 the information\nrequired in § 173.24(f)(2). This information should include gasket type, gasket dimensions,\nfastener specification, 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 tank\ncar unsafe for transportation.\nI hope this information is helpful and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.\nIf you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.\nSincerely,\nAt i fates\nChief, Standards Development\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFrom: Majors, Leonard (PHMSA)\nSent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:41:58 AM\nTo: Alexy, Karl (FRA); Supko, Ben (PHMSA); Betts, Charles (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Response to Joe Connelly, February 26, 2016: 15-0031\nFYI\nFrom: James Rader [mailto: jrader@watcosupplychain.com]\nSent: Monday, August 15, 2016 4:32 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter\nCc: Majors, Leonard (PHMSA)\nSubject: Response to Joe Connelly, February 26, 2016: 15-0031\nI am writing with respect to your letter dated February 26, 2016, to Mr. Joe Connelly, Specialty Transportation and\nRegulatory Services. Mr. Connelly asked if the requirements of 49 CFR 173.31(d)(1) required the removal of the bottom\noutlet cap and opening the manway cover to perform an \"external visual inspection.\"\nI am providing general comments, and a request for clarification as to the applicability of 49 CFR 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) with\nrespect to tank cars.\nPlease let me know if you have any questions.\nJim\nJames H. Rader\nSenior Vice President\nWatco Supply Chain Services LLC\nEngineering and Regulatory Consulting\n(630) 946-3516\njrader@watcosupplychain.com\nwww.linkedin.com/in/jamesraderwatcoconsulting\nConfidentiality Notice and Customer Terms & Conditions\nthe intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of the contents of this communication is prohibited. In such case, vou\nThis transmission may contain confidential and proprietary information, and is intended solely for the use by the individual(s) named as the recipient. If you are not\nshould destroy this communication and notify the sender by reply e-mail. Watco Supply Chain Services shipments moving absent a signed contract move pursuant to\nthe Watco Supply Chain Services Standard Logistics Contract found at http://www.watcosupplychain.com/customers.\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\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\nthat under conditions normally incident to transportation... there will be no... release of\nhazardous materials to the environment.\"' Accordingly, in order to ensure compliance with\nthis standard, in the Advisory, FRA recommended that bottom outlet caps be removed during\nthe tank car loading process. If the cap is not removed, there is no way to determine whether\n' The performance standard of §173.24 is a general performance standard applicable to all packages designed\nto transport hazardous materials. The performance standard of § 173.31(d)(2) is substantively the same as\nthat in § 173.24 but written specific to railroad tank cars.\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\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.\nSincerely\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 6>>>\n\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 I\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\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Kinderen:\nI am writing with respect to your letter dated February 26, 2016, to Mr. Joe Connelly, Specialty Transportation\nand Regulatory Services. Mr. Connelly asked if the requirements of 49 CFR 173.31(d)(1) required the removal\nof the bottom outlet cap and opening the manway cover to perform an \"external visual inspection.\"\nYour response correctly states that the regulations do not explicitly require the removal of the bottom outlet\ncap or opening the manway cover to inspect gaskets. The regulations place the duty on the offeror to perform\nan \"external visual inspection\" and to make a determination whether or not the tank car is \"in proper condition\nand safe for transportation.\" An external visual inspection means that the offeror does not have to dissemble\nvalves, fittings, or closures to make the determination. See the regulatory discussion under Docket HM-201,\n60 FR 49047, 49064 with respect to \"Inspection Requirements Prior to Transportation.\" Accordingly, the\nDepartment correctly drafted the rule to provide flexibility on how an offeror can make the determination,\nwhich may include processes that do not require opening the manway cover or removing the bottom outlet\ncap (e.g., a pressure test). The Department's action provided an additional benefit by allowing a stationary\nsource the ability to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's \"National Emission Standards,\" by\neliminating the need to open a manway cover or remove a bottom outlet cap; thereby, limiting vapor\nemissions. To ensure that offerors properly performed an external visual inspection,\" in the same rulemaking\nthe Department established a \"rebuttable presumption\" standard. This standard emphasizes the obligation\nplaced on those that offeror hazardous materials into transportation to perform a proper inspection, close\nvalves, and to secure each closure.\nYour letter incorrectly states that the notification requirements of 49 CFR 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) applies to tank cars.\nThis section requires manufacturers of a packaging covered by 49 CFR 178 to supply \"closure instructions.\"\nThe specifications for tank cars reside in 49 CFR 179, not 49 CFR 178, and therefore, the regulatory\nrequirement for closure instructions do not apply. As a general practice, however, persons who offer tank cars\ncontaining a hazardous material into transportation incorporate closure instructions in their standard\noperating procedures as a means to comply with the 49 CFR 173.31 standards discussed earlier. I ask that you\nreconsider your statement that the requirements of 49 CFR 178.2(c)(1)(i)(B) applies to tank cars.\nSincerely,\nJames\nRader\nSenior Vice President, Watco Supply Chain Service","truncated":false,"body_characters":15515}