{"operation":"document","citation":"21-0097","title":"East Bay Law — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2022-06-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"21-0097 response to East Bay Law concerning 178.65.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0097.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0097.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-21-0097","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/standards-rulemaking/hazmat/interpretations/76556/210097.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\nJune 23, 2022\nMr. Andrew W. Shalaby\nEast Bay Law\n7525 Leviston Avenue\nEl Cerrito, CA 94530-3306\nReference No. 21-0097\nDear Mr. Shalaby:\nThis letter is in response to your September 22, 2021, letter requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to brazed seams on\nDepartment of Transportation (DOT) specification 39 (DOT 39) non-reusable (non-refillable)\ncylinders. We apologize for the delay in responding and hope it has not caused any\ninconvenience. In your letter, you state that you are an expert witness attempting to identify the\nlikely reason for several failures of non-refillable tall torch cylinders produced by a U.S.\nmanufacturer and provide photos and videos of the damaged cylinders. You ask whether the\nphotos and videos linked in your letter illustrate a brazed seam of a DOT 39 cylinder that does\nnot meet the requirements set forth in § 178.65(c)(2)(iii).\nUnder § 178.65(c)(2)(iii), “Brazed seams must be assembled with proper fit to ensure complete\npenetration of the brazing material throughout the brazed joint.” PHMSA cannot determine\nwhether a violation of this standard exists based solely on photographic evidence.\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\n\n<<>>\n\nPollack\n21-0097\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Subject: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA); Hazmat Interps\nFW: Request for Letter of Interpretation re 49 CFR 178.65(c)(2), sent September 22, 2021, product: Non-\nrefillable tall cylinders (Bernzomatic torches)\nDate: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:47:48 PM\nAttachments: 2021-09-22 as-DOT Interp_Ltr_Req.pdf\nGood afternoon Alice,\nPlease see the attached request for a letter of interpretation. Please contact our office with any\nquestions.\nBest,\nSarah (HMIC)\nFrom: andrew@eastbaylaw.com \nSent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:31 PM\nTo: PHMSA HM InfoCenter \nCc: Vega, Joe (PHMSA) \nSubject: Request for Letter of Interpretation re 49 CFR 178.65(c)(2), sent September 22, 2021,\nproduct: Non-refillable tall cylinders (Bernzomatic torches)\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do not click on links or\nopen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.\nDear Mr. Kelley, Mr. Vega,\nDOT/PHMSA:\nWe are submitting a formal request for a letter of interpretation of 49 CFR 178.65(c)(2) with regard\nto non-refillable tall cylinder containers used for propane, propylene, and MAPP fuels, produced by\nmanufacturer Worthington Cylinder Corporation (only manufacturer in USA). The letter is attached.\nWe are also familiar with the confidentiality procedures in 49 CFR 105.30, and requesting a variance\nof procedure. The procedure requires submission of a second set of documents with information\ndeleted, which is impracticable on this matter. We request confidentiality of this submission, but\nunderstand that the request may be denied, and ask to proceed with processing of this request even\nif the request for confidentiality is denied.\nPlease kindly acknowledge receipt of this request.\nSincerely,\nAndrew W. Shalaby\nEast Bay Law\n7525 Leviston Avenue\nEl Cerrito, CA 94530\n\n<<>>\n\nTel. 510-551-8500\nFax: 510-725-4950\nandrew@eastbaylaw.com\n\n<<>>\n\ncorrespondence address:\n7525 Leviston Avenue\nEl Cerrito, CA 94530\nMr. Shane Kelley\nDirector, Standards and Rulemaking\nDivision\nU.S. DOT/PHMSA (PHH-10)\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East\nBuilding, 2nd Floor\nWashington, DC 20590\nphmsa.hm-infocenter@dot.gov\nCopy to:\nMr. Joe Vega\nInvestigator, Western Region\nUS Department of Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration\n3401 Centrelake Drive, Suite 550B,\nOntario, CA 91761\nOffice: 909-937-3279\nMobile: 425-531-5861\nEast Bay Law\nAndrew W. Shalaby\ntel. 510-551-8500\nfax: 510-725-4950\nemail: andrew@eastbaylaw.com\nappointments:\n1417 Solano Avenue\nAlbany, CA 94706\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation re:\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nProduct: Bernzomatic / Worthington\nhandheld torch cylinders, “non-refillable\ntall” containing propane and propylene\nSeptember 22, 2021\nDear Mr. Shane Kelley,\nDOT:\nI am an expert witness working with an entity called United Testing Services LLC in\nCalifornia on identifying the likely reason for several failures of non-refillable tall torch\ncylinders produced by a sole manufacturer in the U.S. The manufacturer is Worthington\nCylinder Corporation. The manufacturer also hired its own expert witness to determine the\ncause of failure of two of the cylinders which severely injured the users. He is Dr. Jeff\nPfaendtner in Minnesota, and appears to be a well-qualified metallurgist. The product is the\none shown in these photos:\n///\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 2\nWe submitted an initial report to the Consumer Products Safety Commission on these\nproducts. The report may be accessed via this link:\nBernzomatic Torch Product Report CPSC\nThis is the full link if needed:\nhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1_fClA3pQiYwXQrMnMCO_MOwb\n_\nzHPAG26/view?us\np=sharing\nMany of these cylinders have failed, causing severe burn injuries and fatalities. These\nphotos show the area of failure of three of the cylinders:\nPage 2 of 7\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 3\nThe inquiry pertains to 49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2), which states:\n“(iii) Brazed seams must be assembled with proper fit to ensure complete\npenetration of the brazing material throughout the brazed joint.\n(iv) Minimum width of brazed joints must be at least four times the thickness\nof the shell wall.\n(v) Brazed seams must have design strength equal to or greater than 1.5 times\nthe minimum strength of the shell wall.\n(vi) Welded seams must be properly aligned and welded by a method that\nprovides clean, uniform joints with adequate penetration.”\nThe manufacturer’s expert, Dr. Pfaendtner, took CT scans and videos which showed that on\nthe two cylinders he tested, there were very large voids in the welding (brazing) compound\nas shown on these photos:\nPage 3 of 7\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 4\nInquiry Photo 1 - Bailey Cylinder\nInquiry Photo 2 - Peralta Cylinder\nThe manufacturer’s expert then randomly purchased a cylinder from Lowes and examined\nit. He found the same voids as shown on this photo:\n(Continued on Following Page)\nPage 4 of 7\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 5\nWe observed large voids on several of these cylinders and have some in our possession.\nThis is a photo of one of the cylinders containing MAPP fuel:\nPage 5 of 7\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 6\nFurther, I personally found and photographed these two cylinders at Home Depot in CA:\nPage 6 of 7\n\n<<>>\n\nRequest for Letter of Interpretation of\n49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2)\nSeptember 22, 2021\npage 7\nWorthington Cylinder Corporation advises that it re-works cylinders with inadequate joints.\nHowever, it’s expert, Dr. Pfaendtner, provided this statement of his findings with regard to\nthe two re-worked cylinders shown above:\n“[A]lso, the combining or mixing of brazing and welding processes on a single\njoint would be inconsistent with proper manufacturing procedures. Anyone\nwith proper knowledge of brazing and welding processes would know that the\ntwo processes should not be combined. This would result in an intermixing\nof the braze alloy with the base metal (copper and steel, respectively in this\ncase), with unpredictable and potentially hazardous consequences with\nrespect to the strength of the joint.”\nWorthington’s expert’s video clips, about one minute in length or less, show the voids of two\nof the failed cylinders. Video clips of the voids in the Peralta and Bailey cylinders can be\naccessed by clicking on these links:\nPeralta_Avonix_360\nhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1CO_9BrMoCACBiOv42qv8IMqzZVD-5hQg/vi\new?usp=sharing\nBailey_\nAvonix_360\nhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pt1x0z6MXDMjz_ItwnbO6ATuVCKeEsFL/view?usp\n=sharing\nWe therefore respectfully request a letter of interpretation of the above-quoted provisions\nof 49 CFR § 178.65(c)(2), and in particular subsection (iii), which states:\n“(iii) Brazed seams must be assembled with proper fit to ensure complete\npenetration of the brazing material throughout the brazed joint.”\nDo the photographs and videos provided on this request letter, showing the voids in the weld\n(brazing compound) of the “Bailey” and “Peralta” cylinders (inquiry photos 1 and 2 above),\nand Pfaendtner cylinder (lower image on p.5), show voids which can be interpreted to be in\nfull compliance with the requirement for complete penetration of the brazing material\nthroughout the joint? Do the voids otherwise fail to satisfy the requirements?\nSincerely,\nAndrew W. Shalaby\nPage 7 of 7","truncated":false,"body_characters":9277}