{"operation":"document","citation":"98-0604","title":"National Propane Gas Association — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1998-10-05","effective_on":null,"summary":"98-0604 response to National Propane Gas Association concerning 180.407.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0604.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0604.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-98-0604","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1998/980604.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n:\n•\nLaven\n180.V01\nfile.\nSC. 33%,\nNPGA\nNational PROPANE GAS Association\n4301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 340 - Arlington, Virginia 22203 • 703/351-7500 • Fax 703/351-7505\nMarch 20, 1996\nFile: 285.07.11\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Safety\nResearch & Special Programs Administration\n•\nU.S. Department of Transportation\nJ\n400 Seventh St., S. W\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nA member company has approached us with a problem they have encountered in several mid-western\nthese states have reportedly issued citations for violation of the annual leakage test requirements for\nstates with entorcement of the Hazardous Materials Regulation (HIMR). Field inspectors in each of\ncargo tanks ($180.407) in the DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations.\nBecause of the widespread importance of such an interpretation, the company has asked the NPGA to\nobtain a formal interpretation of the provision in question.\nNPGA is the national trade association of the LP-gas (principally propane) industry with a\nmembership of about 3,500 companies, including 37 affiliated state and regional associations,\nmembers in all 50 states. Although the single largest group of NPGA members are retail marketers\nof propane gas, the membership. also includes propane producers, transporters and wholesalers, as\nwell as manufacturers and distributors of associated equipment, containers and appliances. Propane\nin agriculture, in industrial processing, and as a clean air alternative engine fuel for both over-the-\ngas is used in over 18 million installations nationwide for home and commercial heating and cooking,\nroad vehicles and industrial lift trucks.\nThese field inspectors maintain that the leakage test effectively requires that piping segments on a\ncargo tank motor vehicle transporting propane must be tested independently and that leakage past or\nthrough a valve is not permitted. In seeking resolution of this matter, the company contacted\nRSPA/OHMS and received a verbal interpretation that in effect upheld the field inspectors. Such an\nHazardous Materials Regulation.\ninterpretation poses enormous problems that make it virtually impossible to comply with the\nThe requirement for an annual leakage test was adapted as part of the HM-183 amendments. At the\ntime this requirement was adopted, the understanding throughout the industry was that the test was\nto the atmosphere. This understanding was upheld in numerous discussions with OHMS\nintended to determine there were no leaks of the lading through piping joints and other such tixtures.\nrepresentatives and industry members as well as association representatives (myself included). In\nfact, the DOT representatives themselves suggested that leak detector solutions, such as are used to\ncheck a domestic piping system, would be a suitable means of checking the propane piping on a\nlading piping system was required.\ncargo tank motor vehicle! At no time was there an indication that leak detection through valves in the\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nThe MC-331 specification requires that excess flow valves are required in certain critical points as a\nmeans of lading flow control in the event of a major break or separation in the piping system during\nloading or unloading of the lading, in addition to positive shutoff valves in the lading piping. These\nexcess flow valves have been a required feature of a propane cargo tank for many years. Indeed,\nthey are an essential part of the safety design of the cargo containment system for the vehicle.\n1\nIn the event an excess flow valve is caused to operate, the valve is designed to reopen automatically\nwhenever the piping downstream of the valve is made pressure tight through closure of an intervening\npositive shutoff valve or other suitable means. In virtually all designs of these excess flow valves,\nregardless of manufacturer, this automatic re-opening feature is accomplished by allowing a\ncontrolled tlow space for a very small amount of propane to by-pass the closed valve.\nThe interpretation of these field inspectors that all valves in the piping system must be tested to\n8\ndetermine that they provide positive shutoff and that no leakage past the valve is allowed even though\nthe piping system itself is leak tight to the atmosphere means that all of these excess flow valves will\nknowledge does not presently exist, at least in a form approved for use on a tank truck.\nhave to be replaced with an excess flow valve that must be manually opened - a device that to our\n7\nThere has not been any adverse experience with present designs for excess flow valves that would\neven begın to indicate a major re-design of the valve would be in order. The present designs are\nvalves in propane cargo tank motor vehicles would be enormous, especially so since there is no\natner simple mechanically and have operated flawlessly for years. The cost of replacing all these\noperations or safety problems with the present designs.\nThe propane industry remains firm in its belief (1) that the required leakage test is intended to\ndetermine that there are no lading leaks to the atmosphere and (2) that test of individual valves in the\npiping system is not intended nor required.\nWe would appreciate your confirmation that our interpretation and application of §180.407 is correct.\nYour reply at your earliest convenience would be very much appreciated.\nWe would be glad to discuss this interpretation request further at your convenience.\nSincerely,\nW. H. Butterbaugh, CAE\n-\nDirector\nRegulatory Affairs\ncc: William B. McHenry\nGerry Misel\nMike Gorham\nBrian Clayton\nD. R. Meyers\nD. N. Myers\nR. R. Roldan\nBruce Swiecicki\nField Service Directors\nInformation Copies: Daryl McClendon, Sam McTier, Bob Mattocks, and Doug Rinke","truncated":false,"body_characters":5728}