{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0066","title":"Transportation Safety Degussa Corporation — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2000-08-25","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0066 response to Transportation Safety Degussa Corporation concerning 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0066.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0066.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0066","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990066.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nesearch anc\nAdministration\npecial Program\nAUG 25 2000\nMr. John Foglio\nRef. No. 99-0066\nManager, Hazardous Materials\nTransportation Safety\nDegussa Corporation\n65 Challenger Road\nRidgefield Park. NJ 07660\nDear Mr. Foglio:\nI apologize for the delay in responding to your letters concerning the requirement in 49 CFR\n173.31(d)(1)(vi) to carefully inspect a frangible (rupture) disc in a pressure relief device priorto\neach hazardous material shipment. This requirement has its origins in regulations of the Interstate\nCommerce Commission issued in 1921. Its wording was most recently revised in a final rule\npublished on September 21, 1995, under RSPA's Docket Nos. HM-175A and 201 (60 Fed. Reg.\n49098).\nAs the language of § 173.31(d)(1)(vi) states, the purpose of this type of inspection is to check \"for\ncorrosion or damage that may alter the intended operation of the device.\" For that reason, in\nresponse to a comment submitted in a separate rulemaking proceeding under Docket No. HM-216\n(61 Fed. Reg. 28666, 28671; June 5, 1996), we stated in the preamble that RSPA and FRA\nbelieve in order to fully inspect a rupture disc (both top and bottom), the disc must be removed\nfrom the safety vent device. It has been FRA's experience that a rupture disc may appear normal\non the top side, but be severely damaged or corroded on the bottom side.\nYou and others have raised concerns about the language of the present rule and its application to\npersons that forward a loaded tank car received from another location or return a tank car with\nresidue. We anticipate initiating a rulemaking in the near future to address these concerns.\nSincerely,\nboTh\non 1. All.\nEdward T. Mazzull\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n1 13.3)\n990066\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nApr-25-00 10:55am\nFrom-CREANOVA HUL CORP\nT-669\nP. 02/07 F-615\nDegussa: Hüls Corporation\n2 Turner Place, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0365\n732-560-6600\nApril 24, 2000\nCorporati.\nMr. Edward I. Mazzullo,\nDegussa Hü\nStandards, DHM-10\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 7 St. S. W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nRE: Interpretation - Rupture Disc Inspection\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nPlease see attached copy of our letter addressed to you dated March 10, 1999. I called in\nMay in order to follow up and it was sent again on May 25, 1999. We have received\nneither an acknowledgement nor a response.\nWe have now performed a more in depth review of the matter and would like to\nemphasize that the current wording in 173.31 (d) (vi) was established in HIM 175A and\n201, which applied to tank car external visual inspections. It requires inspection of the\npressure relief device, including the careful inspection of the frangible disc for corrosion\nor damage. HM 175A and 201 appeared in the federal register on Thursday, September\n21, 1995. In the preamble it is stated that it is intended to relax the requirements, to\nclarify the purpose of the regulation, to make the regulation more realistic and to\neliminate from the regulation items which were very difficult or expensive to inspect\nsuch as a full inspection of the safery relief valves or excess flow valves. It goes on to say\nthat the regulation previous to this change would impose a duty on the shipper to\ndisassemble and inspect safety valves and excess flow valves prior to each trip. It goes on\nto say \"this final rule does not enlarge the \"to the extent practicable\" standard\".\nIn the preamble to a subsequent final rule, HM-216, there was an interpretation which\ncompletely reversed the above and allowed absolutely no opportunity for comment. HM\n- 216 was completely unrelated to 173.31 (d) (vi) and did not make any changes to that\nsection. It was not a place to give notice to the public of an interpretation which\ncompletely contradicted the intent of the current wording of that section as evidenced by\nthe statements in the preamble 1o HM-175 and 201.\nFurthermore, the interpretation does not take all factors into consideration. As an\nexample, if a material will not corrode the rupture disc, this complete removal of the\nrupture disc to inspect the bottom is not necessary on each and every shipment both filled\nand also containing only residue. It seems to me that something like this needs to be\nproposed. This is a tremendous waste of time and money. Also, I am not sure that this\ninterpretation was carefully thought out. It is too general. Such an inspection in the field\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nApr-25-00 10:55am\nFrom-CREANOVA HUL CORP\nT-669 P.03/07 F-615\nPage 2\ncould be dangerous. It could be that these inspections would be performed by persons\nwho are not qualified to perform them.\nWe were told by CMA that it is intended that there will be a proposal which will address\nand still intends to enforce the interpretation. This is costing us up to $300 on each car\nthis issue. A transfer facility we use is telling us that FRA is still checking their records\nbeing returned to us and it has been costing us that for over a year now. This has added\nup to a substantial amount of money as well as a substantial amount of time being wasted\nin our case.\nCan you advise us how we can get some assurance that enforcement of this, in our case,\nneedless requirement will be postponed pending the outcome of a proposal or can we\nobtain another interpretation from your office considering the above. We are beginning to\nthink that this could go on indefinitely. Please advise.\nSincerely,\nJohn Foglio\nManager, Hazardous Materials\nTransportation Safety\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nMay-25-99 08:27am\nFrom-CREANOVA HUL CORP\nT-170 P.01/02 5-564\nDegussa\n99-0066\nDegussa\nCorporation\nThe last tume me spoke on 1/20 you said\nyou were going to discuss this with Jem Rader\nMr Edward T.Mazzullo, DHM-10 ON someone else it FRA. Do you\n.S. Department of Transportation have anything yet!\n400 7* St, S.W.\nSahe Fight\nWashington, D.C. 20590-0001\nMarch 10, 1999\nRe: Interpretation - Rupture disc Inspection\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nWe recently received word from a transfer facility we utilize that they are no longer able to retum cars\nrupture disc is removed and inspected, both top and bottom, on each shipment for cars loaded and\nwith residue to us as in the past. They told us that FRA said that cars may not be retumed unless the\nthose containing only residue. The transfer facility told us they are not in a position to perform that\nservice and that arrangements would have to be made with a tank repair or emergency response\nestablishes thelr position, attached.\ncompany. Along with their letter to us they forwarded intemal communication from FRA which\nAfter investigating, it was determined that the position of the FRA is that section 173.31 (d)(1)(vii)\nthe safety vent device and carefully inspected, both top and bottom, before each shipment on cars,\nwhich has to do with an EXTERNAL visual inspection, requires that the rupture disc be removed from\ninterpretation which appears in the preamble of HM-216, a final rule which is unrelated to and made\nboth loaded and those containing only residue. The position comes from what seems to be an\nsignificant changes to the requirements without offering opportunity for comments. It is our opinion that\nno changes to the section above. It seems to us that this is not the proper method of communicating\na preamble to a final rule is a method for DOT to explain the reasoning behind decisions made in the\nsame rule and not to offer interpretations to previously published rules/sections.\nreads \" New paragraph (d) reinforces the inspection requirements that must be fulfilled before a tank\nThe preamble to HM 175A and 201, which established the wording in the section being interpreted\ncar of hazardous materials is offered for transportation\". It makes no mention of removing the rupture\nIt is very difficult to understand the requirements if the Department interprets sections in preambles to\ndisc and inspecting both top and bottom. If it did the subject would have been addressed at that time.\nfinal rules that make no changes to those sections.\nThis is a significant change and a subject for rule-making because a lot of money will be wasted based\nrelated consequences of performing such an activity in the field by people who may not be familiar\non a interpretation without giving thought to the financial implications or the possible adverse safety\ninspect the rupture dise on each and every shipment both full and residue. We would have\nwith or Inclined to do such an inspection. We know that it is a waste of time and money to remove and\ncommunicated that if we had the opportunity to comment but we were not offered the opportunity as\nthe requirement/interpretation appeared in a final rule, which was unrelated in the sense that it did not\nchange the section which was being interpreted.\n65 Challenger Road\nRidgefield Park NJ 07660\n201-641-6100\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nMay-25-98 08:28am\nFrom-CREANOVA HUL CORP\nT-170 P.02/02 F-564\nDegussa\nSeptember 10, 1994\nDegussa\nCorporation\nPage 2 Mr. Mazzullo\nCurrently all our facilities perform an extemal check of the rupture disc prior to releasing the car\n(loaded and empty). If all our transter facilities were to make the same decision as the one mentioned\nwhich is a conservative estimate. Having to remove and check the disc as many times as would be\nabove, we would face changes of at least $800,000 per year for inspection by outside companies,\nrequired can lead to potentially incorrect installation, premature weakening of the disc and wom out\nlisc assembly parts. Extra handling alone could lead to two replacements each car per year or abou\nthe majority of the materials we ship are not comosive to the stainless steel rupture discs we are using.\n640,000 in disc costs alone. Keep in mind there is no safety benefit. It has been our experience thal\nWe are hoping to get some sort of interpretation of the section in question which will cause us not to\nwaste a lot of money for absolutely nothing. Please advise. Thank you.\nSincerely,\ngott\nJohn Foglio\nManager, Hazardous Materials\nTransportation Safety\n• Page 2\n65 Challenger Road\nRidgefeld Park NJ 07660\n201-641-6100","truncated":false,"body_characters":10132}