{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0166","title":"Albemarle 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":"99-0166 response to Albemarle Corporation concerning 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0166.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0166.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0166","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990166.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nJ.S. Department\nResearch and\nof Transportation\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nAUG 25 2000\nWashington, D.C. 20590\npecial Program\ndministratio\nJack E. Helms, Ph.D, P.E.\nRef. No. 99-0166\nAdvisor, Transportation\nAlbemarle Corporation\n451 Florida Street\nBaton Rouge, LA 70801-1780\nDear Dr. Helms:\nI apologize for the delay in responding to your letter concerning the requirement in 49 CFR\n173.31(d)(1)(vi) to carefully inspect a frangible (rupture) disc in a pressure relief device priorto each\nhazardous material shipment. This requirement has its origins in regulations of the Interstate Commerce\nCommission issued in 1921. As you noted, the wording of this requirement was most recently revised in\na final rule published on September 21, 1995, under RSPA's Docket Nos. HM-175A and 201 (60 Fed.\nReg. 49098).\nThe language of § 173.31(d)(1)(vi) states the purpose of this type of inspection is to check \"for corrosion\nor damage that may alter the intended operation of the device.\" For that reason, in response to a comment\nsubmitted in a separate rulemaking proceeding under Docket No. HM-216 (61 Fed. Reg. 28666, 28671;\nJune 5, 1996), we stated in the preamble that RSPA and FRA believe in order to fully inspect a rupture\ndisc (both top and bottom), the disc must be removed from the safety vent device. It has been FRA's\nexperience that a rupture disc may appear normal on the top side, but be severely damaged or corroded\non the bottom side.\nYou and others have raised concerns about the language of the present rule and its application to persons\nthat forward a loaded tank car received from another location or return a tank car with residue. We\nanticipate initiating a rulemaking in the near future to address these concerns.\nSincerely,\nfor Tomatt. all.\nEdward T. Mazzullo\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n990166\n173,31 (d)\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nALBEMARLE®\nJACORPORATION\n51 Florida Stre\naton Rouge, Louisiana 70801-178\nFacile: 504-38-8061\nOctober 25, 1999\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nDepartment of Transportation\nResearch & Special Programs Admn.\nWashington, DC 20590\nRef: 49 CFR 173.31 (d) (1) (vi)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nThe Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) has filed comments concerning the interpretation\nof the referenced regulation that has been developed by RSPA and the FRA. However, CMA only\naddressed residue cars.\nIn my letter, dated June 21, 1999, Albemarie's concerns with this interpretation were outlined. Those\ncomments about safety, environmental and legal considerations are still in order\nWe request that RSPA and FRA specifically reconsider these matters for all tank cars affected, not\njust residue cars. These issues are of grave concern to our company.\nBest regards,\nDads. bala\nJack E. Helms, Ph.D., P.]\nAdvisor, Transportation\ncc:\nW. F. Carter\nW. D. Eby\nG. W. Rousseau - HMT Associates\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n/ALBEMARLE®\nMack\nCORPORATION\n8173.31 (d)\n451 Florida Street\nBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70801-1780\nTelephone: 504-388-8011\nFacsimile: 504-388-7686\n99 - 0166\nJune 21, 1999\nMr. Edward T. Mazzullo\nDirector\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nResearch & Special Programs Admn.\nDepartment of Transportation\nWashington, DC 20590\nRef: 49 CFR 173.31(d)(1)(vi)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nWe have learned that RSPA and FRA intend to interpret the explanation in the preamble to HM-216\npublished in the June 5, 1996 Federal Register, concerning 49 CFR 173.31(d)(1)(VI), as establishing\nrequirement for on-going internal examinations of relief devices on tank cars in continual service to\nand from customers of shippers who originally filled these tank cars.\ninternal examinations and comes as a totally unexpected requirement. In addition, the fact that\nIt is confusing that the \"external visual inspection\" prescribed in 173.31(d) is intended to prescribe\nexplanations for this Part 173 rule were given in the subject Federal Register, which change under\naddition, the inspection activity requirement as apparently being interpreted by DOT is unworkable\ndiscussion related to manufacturer's requirements under Part 179, clouds the issue further. In\nin numerous circumstances, both for safety and environmental reasons. The following highlights\nshould help DOT understand our concerns.\nA. Safety and operational considerations\n1. Safety - Hazardous Materials are just that, hazardous. For all our products, plant safety\nbefore it is opened. This would certainly not be possible for most receivers of our shipments before\nprocedures for the protection of personnel and environment require that a tank car must be cleaned\nreturning a car containing the residue of one of our hazardous products to one of our facilities.\n2. Environmental - Shippers would be forced to clean each car before loading so that the rupture disc\ncould be removed for inspection. This could increase the amount of hazardous materials that are\nreleased to the atmosphere during cleaning and/or result in an increase in contaminated water or other\nliquid used in the cleaning operation that would require disposal as a hazardous waste.\n3. Liability - Shippers of hazardous materials would be assuming significant potential liability by\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n. \"\n/\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nOffice of Hazrdous Materials Standards\nPage 2\nallowing a customer to open a tank car to inspect a rupture disc before the tank car is returned for\nrefilling.\n4. Application of tank car facility registration requirements - Every company that receives shipments\nof hazardous materials, even though it might not own a single tank car, would have to be registered\nby the Association of American Railroads as at least a Class F tank car facility. This would be\nrequired for the facility to meet the law per the proposed interpretation.\nB. Regulatory Background\nTwo items published in the Federal Register in connection with tank car rulemaking over the past\nfew years yield contradictory guidance in respect to rupture disc inspections\n1. In the Federal Register of September 21, 1995, in connection with changes to the rules governing\nrupture disc inspection under\n173.31, RSPA stated in a rulemaking preamble under Dockets\nHM-175A and HM-201 that removal of the phrase \"to the extent practicable\" in former rules\ngoverning such inspections, \"does not enlarge the 'to the extent practicable' standard\". In the\nexplanation, RSPA stated the addition of the words \"to the extent practicable\" was \"to clarify the\npurpose of the regulations and to make the regulation more realistic and to eliminate from the\nregulation items which were either very difficult to inspect such as a full inspection of safety relief\nvalves or excess flow valves.\" DOT went on to say in discussing the background to this change that\n\"Read literally, the regulation at that time would impose a duty on the shipper to disassemble and\ninspect safety valves and excess flow valves prior to each trip.\"\nIn the same explanation, RSPA added: \"From the beginning this phrase was meant to, reflect the\npractical impossibility of, for instance, taking the valves apart before each trip.\" Later in the same\npreamble, it was mentioned that \"[T]he provisions would not be substantially changed.\" Unless we\nare to conclude that RSPA is now making a distinction between valves and discs, it would appear\nthat there has been a significant change in understanding of the intent of 173.31(d)(1)(vi). Many\nof the same problems that existed years ago with removal and inspection of valves apply to discs as\nwell. It would not seem that DOT would make such a distinction. Rather it seems, that this historical\ninformation may have been overlooked.\n2. The second statement about this rule came later, at page 61 FR 28671, Federal Register of June\n5, 1996, Docket HM-216, wherein RSPA noted in addressing tank car manufacturing requirements\nwhen making specific reference to 173.31(d), \"that in order to fully inspect a rupture disc, the disc\nmust be removed from the safety vent device. It is important that a careful inspection (both top and\nbottom of the disc be conducted for corrosion and damage\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\n...'\nMr. Edward Mazzullo\nOffice of Hazrdous Materials Standards\nPage 3\nbecause it has been FRA's experience that a rupture disc may appear normal on the top side, but be\nindicate that this also would apply to combination valves with discs in line. Yet, the inspection\nrequirements of 173.31(d) are described as an \"external visual\" inspection.\nThus, it is reasonable that the position now being taken by DOT in explaining the meaning of\nthis regulation, when considering the historical perspective, comes as totally unexpected to the\nregulated community.\nabove were not adequately considered prior to suggesting this new application of the DOT\nIf the report we have received is accurate, we respectfully submit that the issues briefly discussed\nrequirements. If our understanding of the requirements as reported to be interpreted by DOT are\ncorrect, we further request that RSPA and FRA specifically reconsider these matters which are of\ngrave concern to our company.\nBest regards,\nlack E. Helms, Ph.D., P.E.\nAdvisor, Transportation\ncc:\nW. F. Carter\nW. D. Eby\nG. W. Rousseau - HMT Associates","truncated":false,"body_characters":9173}