{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0217","title":"LaRoche Industries Inc. — Hazardous Materials Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1999-11-23","effective_on":null,"summary":"99-0217 response to LaRoche Industries Inc. concerning 174.67.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0217.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0217.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0217","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990217.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nU.S. Department\n400 Seventh Street, S.W.\nof Transportation\nWashington, D.C.\n20590\nSpecial Programs\nResearch and\nAdministration\nNOV 2 3 1999\nMr. Carlton W. Hendrix\nRef. No. 99-0217\nDOT Compliance Manager\nLaRoche Industries Inc.\n1100 Johnson Ferry Road, NE\nAtlanta, Georgia 30342\nDear Mr. Hendrix:\nThis responds to your letter of August 3, 1999, requesting clarification of the attendance\nrequirements for unloading tank cars under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR\nParts 171-180). Specifically, you ask for clarification of requirements for monitoring unloading\noperations with remote cameras and for leaving unloading connections attached to a tank car\nwhen no product is being transferred.\nSection 174.67(i) of the HMR requires a tank car to be continuously attended throughout the\nentire period of unloading and while the tank car is connected to an unloading device. This\nrequirement can be met by human attendance or by use of signaling systems, such as sensors,\nalarms, and electronic surveillance equipment. Human monitoring must be performed by the\nperson responsible for the unloading operation. The attendant may monitor unloading from on-\nsite or from a remote location within the plant. In either location, the attendant must be\nknowledgeable about the product, have the ability to identify conditions requiring action, and\nhave the capability and authority to halt the flow of product immediately.\nIn your letter, you describe a remote monitoring arrangement that involves five different\ncameras, including one focused on the tank car unloading process, flashing to the same monitor\nso that each camera's field of view appears on the monitor once every 1.5 minutes. This\narrangement does not conform to the requirements for monitoring the unloading of a tank car\noutlined above: Observing an unloading operation one every 1.5 minutes is not continuous\nYou also describe an arrangement where two cameras, located at each end of four tank cars\ncoupled together, are positioned so that two cars are visible in each camera's field of view.\nProvided the two cameras allow the attendant a continuous, unobstructed view of each tank car\nand its unloading connections, this arrangement would satisfy the attendance requirements of\n§ 174.67(i).\n174.67\n990217\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nFinally, you ask whether a facility may leave unloading connections attached to a tank car when\nno product is being transferred as long as the tank car is attended by a qualified person or by\nremote monitoring devices. The answer is no. Section 174.67() requires all unloading\nconnections to be disconnected if the unloading operation is discontinued for any reason.\nHowever, numerous facilities hold an exemption from the regulations to permit a tank car to\nremain attached to unloading connections when no product is being transferred. Currently, the\nResearch and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has issued about 80 exemptions that\nauthorize the use of video cameras, process control gauges, flow gauges, and monitors to observe\ntank cars with unloading connections attached when no product is being transferred. Under a\nnotice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published under Docket HM-212 (57 FR 42466), RSPA\nproposed to amend the tank car unloading requirements to remove obsolete or unnecessary\nprovisions and to allow tank cars to remain standing with unloading connections attached when\nno product is being transferred. We are in the process of drafting the final rule for this\nrulemaking. A copy of the NPRM is enclosed.\nI hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact\nthis office.\nSincerely,\nowns I. All\nThomas G. Allan\nSenior Transportation Regulations Specialist\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nEnclosure\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nLA ROCHE INDUSTRIES INC.\nGersky\n00 JOHNSON FERRY ROAD, N.\nLANTA, GA 30342-17\n$174.67\n(404) 851-0300\nAugust 3, 1999\n99-0217\nMr. Ed Mazzullo\nOffice of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nDear Mr. Mazzullo,\nI have recently observed several facilities where Anhydrous Ammonia tank car unloading\noperations are being monitored by remote cameras. While observing these monitoring\narrangements, several questions have come to mind.\nOne facility has five different cameras strategically placed through out the facility. Each\none of these cameras is focused on a single aspect of the facility's operations, including\nthe Anhydrous Ammonia tank car unloading process. Each of the five camera's field of\nview is flashed to the same monitor. It takes approximately 1.5 minutes for all of the five\ncamera's field of view to cycle and appear on that single monitor. Will this arrangement\nmeet the requirements of continuous monitoring?\nAnother facility has four (4) Anhydrous Ammonia tank cars coupled together and each\ntank car is connected to an unloading station. There are two cameras, located at each end\nof the four (4) tank cars, positioned so that two of these cars are visible from each\ncamera's field of view. Obviously the tank car closest to the camera's position has a\nclearer picture of the unloading connections than the tank car farther away. Will this\narrangement meet the remote monitoring requirements?\nThe above facility has been leaving all four (4) Anhydrous Ammonia tank cars connected\nto the unloading stations even though only two of them were in the process of unloading.\nApparently this situation has been observed by a FRA inspector and is considered to be\nacceptable. Bureau of Explosives, Tariff No. BOE-6000-S, Appendix B to Part 209,\nonnections, tightening valves, and applying closures to all openings. Note: If the car i\ntates \"174.67 G) Discontinued unloading without disconnecting all unloading\nattended. this subsection does not apply.)\". Is it acceptable to leave the unloading\nconnections attached to a tank car, as long as it is attended, either by a qualified person or\nby remote monitoring devices?\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nWe would appreciate your assistance in clarifying the regulations relative to the\nobservations noted. I again would like to express my appreciation for the efforts of the\nRSPA personnel in the successful completion of the HM225 Negotiated Rulemaking. I\nthink we all learned something from the experience.\nSincerely,\nCartton Wi. Hendix\nCarlton (Carl) W. Hendrix\nDOT Compliance Manager","truncated":false,"body_characters":6398}