{"operation":"document","citation":"18-0090","title":"American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2019-05-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"18-0090 response to American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) concerning 171.25, 172.101, 172.102, 173.24, 177.834, 178.273, 178.274.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0090.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0090.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-18-0090","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/71321/180090.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n0\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nMAY O 2 2019\nMr. Michael R. Kloesel\nManager\nAmerican Bureau of Shipping (ABS)\nCorp. Container Certification Dept.\n16855 Northchase Drive\nHouston, TX 77060\nReference No. 18-0090\nDear Mr. Kloesel:\nThis responds to your June 11, 2018, email requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials\nRegulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to United Nations (UN) portable tanks.\nSpecifically, you describe several scenarios and observations related to the design, approval,\nconstruction, and use of UN portable tanks. Your questions are paraphrased and answered as\nfollows:\nQ 1. Are UN portable tank manufacturers required to indicate the hazardous material or group\nof hazardous materials intended to be transported to a design approval agency?\nAl. The answer is yes. As prescribed in § 178.273(b )(7)(ii), the UN portable tank design\napproval agen~y must issue a certificate to the manufacturer that refers to the prototype\ntest report, the hazardous material or group of hazardous materials allowed to be\ntransported, the materials of construction of the shell and lining (when applicable) and an\napproval number.\nQ2. Absence of information regarding the specific commodity to be transported in a UN\nportable tank prevents verification of compatibility with the tank. Is this a correct\nstatement?\nA2. The answer is yes. As prescribed in § 178 .27 4(b )(2)(i), portable tank shells, fittings, and\npipework shall be constructed from materials that are compatible with the hazardous\nmaterials intended to be transported. Further, § 178.273(b )(7)(ii) requires that the\napproval certificate issued by the approval agency certify that the UN portable tank\ndesign is suitable for its intended purpose and meets the requirements of the HMR. More\nspecifically, the approval certificate must refer to the hazardous material or group of\nhazardous materials authorized to be transported in the UN portable tank. Thus, the\nspecific commodity intended to be transported in the portable tank must be known\n. beforehand to verify compatibility with the tank.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nQ3. A3. Q4. A4. Q5. A portable tank approval stipulates that an approval to a higher T-Code satisfies the\ndesign requirements of a lower T-Code. Is this a correct statement?\nThe answer is yes, provided certain requirements are met. As prescribed in\n§ 172.102( c )(7)(v), an alternate portable tank instruction may be used if:\n• The alternative portable tank has a higher or equivalent test pressure (for example, 4 bar\nwhen 2.65 bar is specified);\n• The alternative portable tank has greater or equivalent wall thickness (for example, 10\nmm when 6 mm is specified);\n• The alternative portable tank has a pressure relief device as specified in the \"T\" Code. If\na frangible disc is required in series with the reclosing pressure relief device for the\nspecified portable tank, the alternative portable tank must be fitted with a frangible disc\nin series with the reclosing pressure relief device; and\n• With regard to bottom openings-\no When two effective means are specified, the alternative portable tank is fitted\nwith bottom openings having two or three effective means of closure or no bottom\nopenings; or\no When three effective means are specified, the portable tank has no bottom\nopenings or three effective means of closure; or\no When no bottom openings are authorized, the alternative portable tank must not\nhave bottom openings.\nAll UN portable tanks, and not just those required to be U-stamped, must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with Section VIII, Division 1 of the American Society of\nMechanical Engineers (ASME) Code. Is this a correct statement?\nThe answer is yes. As prescribed in§ 178.274(b)(l), shells must be designed and\nconstructed in accordance with Section VIII of the ASME Code. However, as prescribed\nin§ 178.274(a)(2), the technical requirements applicable to UN portable tanks may be\n' varied if approved by the Associate Administrator and the portable tank is shown to\nprovide a level of safety equal to or exceeding the requirements of the HMR. Portable\ntanks approved to alternative technical requirements must be marked \"Alternative\nArrangement\" as specified in § 178.274(i).\nAre materials of construction prescribed in the ASME Code only required on a U-\nstamped UN portable tank?\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nAS. Q6. A6. The answer is no. As prescribed in§ 178.274(b)(l), the materials of construction\nprescribed in the ASME Code are required on all UN portable tanks designed and\nconstructed in accordance with the ASME Code, except as limited or modified in the\nHMR.\nWe have observed offshore portable tanks from Europe designed under an alternative\narrangement that do not meet the remote operation of valve requirements in 6.7.2.6.3.1.4\nof the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. Is this practice\nacceptable in the United States?\nThe answer is yes, provided such portable tanks meet certain requirements. Under\n§ 173 .24( d)(2) of the HMR, a UN standard packaging manufactured outside of the United\nStates in conformance with national or international regulations based on the UN\nRecommendations on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods (UN Recommendations) is\nan authorized packaging, as this term is defined under§ l 73.24(c)(l), when: (1) the\npackaging fully conforms to applicable provisions in the UN Recommendations and the\nrequirements of subpart B part 173 of the HMR, including reuse provisions; (2) the\npackaging is capable of passing the prescribed tests in part 178 of the HMR applicable to\nthat standard; and (3} the competent authority of the country of manufacture provides\nreciprocal treatment for UN standard packagings manufactured in the United States. This\nauthorization is applicable to a UN portable tank approved under an alternative\narrangement issued by the competent authority of the country of manufacture if other\nthan the United States.\nIn addition, when transported to, from, or within the United States, § 171.25( c) requires\nUN portable tanks used to transport gases to comply with the HMR. UN, and other types\nof portable tanks transported to, from, or within the United States must also comply with\nthe following requirements prescribed in§ 171.25(c)(l) - (c)(4):\n■ UN portable tanks must conform to the requirements in Special Provisions TP37, TP38,\nTP44, and TP45 when applicable, and any applicable bulk special provisions assigned to\nthe hazardous material in the § 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table;\n■ International Maritime Organization (IMO) Type 5 portable tanks must conform to\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT) Specification 51 or UN portable tank requirements,\nunless specifically authorized in the HMR or approved by the Associate Administrator;\n■ Except as specified in subpart C of part 171 of the HMR, for a material poisonous (toxic)\nby inhalation, the T Codes specified in Column 13 of the Dangerous Goods List in the\nIMDG Code may be applied to the transportation of those materials in intermodal (IM),\n3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nIMO and DOT Specification 51 portable tanks, when these portable tanks are authorized\nin accordance with the requirements of the HMR;\n• No person may offer an IM or UN portable tank containing liquid hazardous materials of\nClass 3, Packing Group (PG) I or II, or PG III with a flash point less than 100 °F (38 °C);\nDivision 5.1, PG I or II; or Division 6.1, PG I or II, for unloading while it remains on a\ntransport vehicle with the motive power unit attached unless it conforms to the\nrequirements of§ 177.834(0) of the HMR.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nT. Glenn Foster\nChief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nJune 6, 2018\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\nEast Building, PHH - 33\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nSubject: Application of Dangerous Goods Regulations\nDear Sir or Madam,\nABS is in the process of expanding our worldwide presence in the certification of containers carrying\ndangerous goods. We have recently encountered a situation which has resulted in the loss of business due\nto either our misinterpretation or others improper implementation of the regulations.\nWe request a clear interpretation of the four items outlined below which we have been requested to\naccept and certify under our US DOT approval but believe the requests do not meet the intention of the\nregulations.\n1. T-code approval\n• Manufacturers who submit for approval of the design are requesting designs to be approved by\nindicating the T-code only and not specifying the individual or group of commodities with\nassociated UN Numbers at the time of certification.\n• ABS does not believe a design can be properly approved based on the T-code only because of the\nfollowing:\na. Absence of information regarding the commodity would not allow verification of the\ncompatibility between the commodity and the safety equipment/tank/gasket/lining.\nCompatibility is to be verified under 49 CFR 178.274 (b6) and IMDG section 6.7.2.2.7.\nb. The approval process stipulates that an approval to a higher T-code satisfies the design\nrequirements of a lower T-code. However, the Portable Tank Instructions found Section 4.2.5.2.6\nof the IMDG Code require different minimum shell thicknesses, pressure relief provisions and\nbottom opening provisions.\nFor example: If the container is approved as a Tll container and has a bottom opening, in\ntheory, the container is also approved for Tl to Tl0. However, T-codes TS and T8\nthru Tl0 do not allow bottom openings.\nc. According 49 CFR 178.274 (bl) portable tanks must be U stamped when used for Hazard Zone A\nor B toxic by inhalation liquids, or when used for non-refrigerated or refrigerated liquefied\ncompressed gases. Therefore if we do not have the commodities specification we will not be able\nABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive I Houston, TX 77060 USA\nTEL: 1-281-877-6000 I FAX: 1-281 -877-5976 I Email: ABS-WorldHQ@eagle.org I www.eagle.org\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nto identify if the container is required to be U stamped or not. Even considering approval just for\nT codes Tl to T22 (excluding gases), we still not be able to identify if these T -codes fall under\nthe category of Hazard Zone A or B toxic by inhalation liquids.\n2. Stiffener Requirements\n• Manufacturers who submit for approval of the design are requesting the ASME requirements to be\nwaived when the pressure vessel is not required to be ASME U-stamped by an ASME qualified\nInspector under 49 CFR 178.274 (bl). In lieu of meeting the required ASME calculations and\narrangements, a vacuum test is being performed to verify the adequacy of the design.\nFor example:\na. UG-28 Shell Thickness Requirement: The length used in the shell thickness calculation in UG-28\nis based on either the total length of the vessel or the distance between the ring stiffeners. The\nring stiffeners must pass the strength requirements of UG-29 in order to be considered effective\nto reduce.\nb. UG-29 Stiffening Rings for Cylindrical Shells Under External Pressure:\ni. UG-29(a) Stiffener Strength Requirement: Stiffeners which do not meet the requirements\nof UG 29(a) are being accepted by other certification companies. By waiving the strength\nrequirement for the stiffeners in UG-29(a), the spacing used to evaluate the plating can be\nsignificantly reduced allowing for thinner shell material.\nii. UG-29(b) Stiffener Continuity: Stiffeners which do not meet the requirements of UG-29(b)\nare being accepted by other certification companies. Others are waiving the requirement\nthat the stiffeners are to extend completely around the circumference of a vessel. The\nASME Code does however allow alternative arrangements as outlined in the code under\nUG-29(c) but from our experience, the vessels do not meet the criteria to accept an\nalternative.\nAlthough in some cases other than the above example, special shapes may considered in UG-\n19(b) which refers to U-2(g). Section U-2(g) indicates alternatives are subject to the\nacceptance of the inspector but for vessels which do not require a U-stamp, there is not an\nASME qualified inspection involved to make the decision.\nDesigns are being accepted by other certification companies on the basis that because the vessel is\nnot required to be U-stamped by an ASME qualified Inspector, the length used to evaluate the plate\nin UG-28 is always taken as the distance between the ring stiffeners regardless of whether the ring\nstiffeners me~t the UG-29 requirements.\n• ABS believes the pressure vessel must always be design and constructed in accordance with the\nrequirements of ASME VIII Div. 1 as indicated in 49 CFR 178.274 (b)(l). We also believe that our\ninterpretation applies to a vessel which may not be required to be U-stamped.\nIn addition, ABS believes that the calculation provides a factor of safety of 3:1 when a vacuum test\nperformed at test pressure is a factor of safety of 1.0.\nABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive I Houston, TX 77060 USA\nTEL: 1-281-877-6000 I FAX: 1-281-877-5976 I Email: ABS-WorldHQ@eagle.org I www.eagle.org\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\n3. Material Requirements\n• Manufacturers who submit for approval of the design are requesting designs to be approved using\nmaterials which may not meet the requirements of the ASME Code. ASME materials are only used\nwhen the vessel is required to be U-stamp and for example, SANS 50028-7 is being used without an\nevaluation of equivalency.\n• ABS believes that a vessel is to be constructed using ASME material in accordance with UG-4(a).\n4. Remote Operation of Valves\n• ABS has been informed of an issue in Europe regarding the remote operation of valves under\nparagraph 6.7.2.6.3.1.4. There have been many Offshore Portable Tanks certified without meeting\nthe criteria in IMDG 6.7.2.6.3.1.4 and are now continuing to be manufactured under an alternative\narrangement (AA) notation.\nPlease feel free to contact me at the below numbers or Ms. Simone Goncalves at (281) 877-6325 with any\nquestions or comments.\nBest regards,\nMichael R. Kloesel\nManager\nCorp. Container Certification Dept.\n16855 Northchase Drive I Houston, TX 77060\nTel: 1-281-877-6432\nEmail: mkloesel@eagle.org I ABSContainers@eagle.\nABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive I Houston, TX 77060 USA\nTEL: 1-281-877-6000 I FAX: 1-281-877-5976 I Email: ABS-WorldHQ@eagle.org I www.eagle.org\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nJanuary, lkeya CTR (PHMSA)\nFrom: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA)\nSent:\nTo:\nCc:\nSubject:\nAttachments: Monday, June 18, 2018 12:38 PM\nJanuary, Ikeya CTR (PHMSA)\nDerKinderen, Dirk (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA); Benninghoven, Neil (PHMSA)\nFW: Interpretations Requested\nCarriage of Dangerous Goods - Industry Issues.pdf\nGood afternoon lkeya\nOn the basis of Dirk's review and indication that this is appropriately handled as an interp, please assign for action. Neil\nis the contact in PHH-30 that person should work with closely as well as any others needed in PHH.\nThanks!\nShane\nFrom: Benninghoven, Neil (PHMSA)\nSent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:05:23 AM\nTo: Kelley, Shane (PHMSA); Foster, Glenn (PHMSA)\nSubject: FW: Interpretations Requested\nDoes this go to you guys?\nNeil Benninghoven\nApprovals and Permits Division - PHH-30\nPressure Vessels Branch\nPHMSA, U.S. DOT\nOffice: (202) 366-2665\nCell: (202) 573-4342\nFax: (202) 366-3753\nWebsite:https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/\nEast Building, E23-438\n1200 New Jersey Ave., SE\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nFrom: Michael Kloesel [mailto:mkloesel@eagle.org]\nSent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:56 PM\nTo: Approvals (PHMSA) <Approvals@dot.gov>\nCc: Benninghoven, Neil (PHMSA) <james.benninghoven@dot.gov>\nSubject: Interpretations Requested\nDear Sir or Madam,\nPlease find a letter attached identifying items which ABS feels are not meeting the dangerous goods regulations.\nWe have a great need for interpretations of each item identified on the letter to be provided.\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nYour immediate attention would be greatly appreciated as we are losing business to competitors which continue to\ncertify containers as outlined on the attached and as a DAA.\nBest regards,\nMichael R. Kloesel\nManager\nCorp. Container Certification Dept.\n16855 Northchase Drive I Houston, TX 77060\nTel: 1-281-877-6432\nEmail: mkloesel@eagle.org I ABSContainers@eagle.\n2","truncated":false,"body_characters":16421}