{"operation":"document","citation":"24-0093","title":"REM Fire Systems Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2025-02-12","effective_on":null,"summary":"24-0093 response to REM Fire Systems Inc. concerning 180.205.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0093.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0093.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-24-0093","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2025-02/240093.pdf","body":"<<>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety\nAdministration\n1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nWashington, DC 20590\nFebruary 12, 2025\nTim Reilly\nREM Fire Systems Inc.\n206 S. George St.\nRome, NY 13440\nReference No. 24-0093\nDear Mr. Reilly:\nThis letter is in response to your October 11, 2024, email requesting clarification of the\nHazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to requalification\nrequirements for compressed gas cylinders. In your email, you provide several photos and a\ndescription of Department of Transportation (DOT) specification compressed gas cylinders that\nwere stored in a warehouse that was destroyed by a tornado. You state that the destruction of the\nwarehouse caused the roof and walls to collapse onto the cylinders. Given this evidence of\nexposure to potential damage, you ask whether these cylinders must be condemned, requalified\n(by testing and inspection) before further use, or may continue to be used without requalification\nuntil their next scheduled test and inspection.\nAs provided in § 180.205(d), a cylinder must be tested and inspected in accordance with the\nrequirements of § 180.205 prior to further use if—\n(1) The cylinder shows evidence of dents, corrosion, cracked or abraded areas, leakage,\nor any other condition that might render it unsafe for use in transportation;\n(2) The cylinder has been in an accident and has been damaged to an extent that may\nadversely affect its lading retention capability;\n(3) The cylinder shows evidence of or is known to have thermal damage, or have been\nover-heated;\n(4) Except in association with an authorized repair, evidence of removal of wall thickness\nvia grinding, sanding or other means;\n(5) For a cylinder subject to paragraph (c)(5) of this section, if there is visible corrosion\naround the neck or under the flange/sleeve, as outlined in Section 4.2 of CGA C-23, it\nmust be removed and examined in accordance with CGA C-23 before being returned to\nservice; or\n\n<<>>\n\n(6) The Associate Administrator determines that the cylinder may be in an unsafe\ncondition.\nBased on the photos you provided, it is likely that the cylinders subjected to the warehouse roof\nand wall collapse may satisfy either of the first two of the listed conditions above that warrant\ntesting and inspection. Specifically, a cylinder that is identified as having any of those conditions\nlisted in § 180.205(d) must be requalified by a PHMSA-approved cylinder requalifier prior to\nfurther use, including both a visual inspection in accordance with the applicable Compressed Gas\nAssociation standard (see § 180.205(f)) and then hydrostatic testing (see § 180.205(g)).\nCylinders that fail the visual inspection or hydrostatic test must be rejected or condemned in\naccordance with § 180.205(i) and (j), respectively.\nGiven the scenario in which the cylinders were recovered, a knowledgeable person, such as a\ncylinder requalifier, might examine them to determine whether a condition exists that meets any\nof the § 180.205(d) criterion. Unfortunately, it is not possible for PHMSA to make a definitive\ndetermination on your behalf whether requalification is required for each cylinder in the\nwarehouse, based solely on the photographic evidence you provided. The person in possession of\nthe cylinder must determine—based on their knowledge, experience, and objective evidence of\nthe condition of each cylinder—whether a criterion in § 180.205(d) has been met.\nI hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.\nSincerely,\nDirk Der Kinderen\nChief, Standards Development Branch\nStandards and Rulemaking Division\n\n<<>>\n\nPatrick\n24-0093\nFrom: INFOCNTR (PHMSA)\nTo: Dodd, Alice (PHMSA)\nCc: Hazmat Interps\nSubject: FW: Formal interpretation\nDate: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 4:43:26 PM\nAttachments: image011.png\nHello Alice,\nPlease see the below interpretation request. Let us know if you need anything.\nSincerely,\nJanaye\nFrom: Tim Reilly \nSent: Friday, October 11, 2024 1:37 PM\nTo: INFOCNTR (PHMSA) \nSubject: Formal interpretation\nCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Do\nnot click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content\nis safe.\nGentlemen:\nI am requesting an interpretation of 49CFR 180.205 (d) (2) or any other section that may be\nrelevant to the following scenario.\nOn July 16 an EF 2 tornado, which is significant – with 135 mph sustained winds, struck Rome,\nNY where our building was located. Our building (only 12 years old) collapsed in the wind\nstorm. Inside the building were several service trucks that were found to be a total loss. Also\nin that structure were several (over 200) Fire suppression cylinders used in Gas island fire\nsuppression. The entire roof system and walls collapsed on top of the cylinders and service\ntrucks. Please see the attached pictures and understand that we removed a lot of debris so\nyou could see the cylinders.\nNearly all of these cylinders were within the 12 year hydrostatic test requirement. There are no\n(or fairly few) visual indicators that these went thru a tornado. There are no dents or\nscratches. My concern is with the unseeable. Welds that may have a slight crack, or may\nhave been weakened could compromise at anytime.\nI feel a sense of responsibility in assuring these cylinders are in the best condition moving\nforward. If an incident occurs in the future with one of these cylinders, I feel it will be blamed\n\n<<>>\n\non me because I put a cylinder involved in a tornado into service, without taking assurances\nthat they were ok.\nI feel all cylinders that have been through this tornado (accident) should be hydrostatically\ntested, at a minimum, to assure its integrity.\nDoes DOT see a requirement for hydrotest? Condemnation? Or can\nthey be placed back into service without any further intervention?\nA timely response would be greatly appreciated as we are disputing with the insurance provider over\nthe need to do this or not.\nThank you for your assistance in this matter.\nTimothy W. Reilly\nVice President\nREM Fire Systems Inc.\n206 S. George St.\nRome, NY 13440\nPhone: 315-336-6111\nFax: 315-339-0143\nNYS License# 12000033226\nTest your smoke detectors … it just may save your life !\nPORTABLE EXTINGUISHERS-FIRE ALARMS–SECURITY–CCTV-CARD ACCESS-GAS ISLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION-COMMERCIAL KITCHEN FIRE SUPPRESSION\nCOMPUTER ROOM FIRE SUPPRESSION-INDUSTRIAL FIRE SUPPRESSION-SPRINKLER SYSTEMS-EMERGENCY LIGHTING-PROFESSIONAL CODE REVIEW\nIF THIS MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED IN ERROR PLEASE DELETE AND CONTACT THE SENDER. ANY UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY\nPROHIBITED.\nLicensed by NYS Dept. of State ID# 12000033226\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>\n\n\n\n<<>>","truncated":false,"body_characters":6885}