{"operation":"document","citation":"99-0313","title":"Chemical Manufacturers Association — 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":"99-0313 response to Chemical Manufacturers Association concerning 173.31.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0313.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0313.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-99-0313","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/1999/990313.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n400 Seventh St., S.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nResearch and\nSpecial Programs\nAUG 25 2000\nAdministration\nMr. Randy Speight\nRef. No. 99-0313\nMr. Joe J. Mayhew\nChemical Manufacturers Association\n1300 Wilson Boulevard\nArlington, VA 22209\nDear Messrs. Speight and Mayhew:\nI apologize for the delay in responding to your letter concerning the requirement in 49 CFR\nach hazardous material shipment. This requirement has its origins in regulations of the Intersta\n3.3 1(a)(1)(V1) to carefully inspect a frangible (rupture) disc in a pressure relief device prior\nCommerce Commission issued in 1921. The wording of this requirement was most recently\nrevised in a final rule published on September 21, 1995, under RSPA's Docket Nos. HM-175A\nand 201 (60 Fed. Reg. 49098).\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,\nroman yall\nDirector, Office of Hazardous\nMaterials Standards\n990313\n173, 3)\n-\n-\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nEMA\nMACK\nCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION\n$173.31\nNovember 5, 1999\n99-0313\nDirector, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventa Set, I Proérams Administration\nWashington, D.C. 20590\nInterpretation of 49 CFR § 173.31(d)(1)(vi)\nDear Mr. Mazzullo:\nterpretation of the regulations referenced above so as to eliminate the requirement for offero\nI am writing to request that the Department of Transportation DOT) modify its\ni residue tank cars to remove rupture discs in order to conduct an inspectio\nmember companies represent more than 90 percent of the productive capacity for basic industrial\nThe Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) is a non-profit trade association whose\nrear and pays $4.8 billion in rail freight costs. CMA members own and lease many of the tank\nhemicals in the United States. The U.S. chemical industry ships 140 million tons by rail each\ncars used for chemical transportation. CMA members also offer and receive many tank cars\nThe section in question requires offerors to determine that a \"tank car is in proper\ntems, ion and safe for transportation\" through an external visual inspection\" that covers several\n(vi) The pressure relief device, including a careful inspection of the frangible disc in non-\noperation of the device;\nclosing pressure relief devices, for corrosion or damage that may alter the intender\nareful inspection (both top and bottom of the disc) be conducted.\" For three reasons, CM\naspect a rupture disc, the disc must be removed from the safety vent device. It is important that\nurges DOT to modify its interpretation so that this requirement does not apply to residue car\ninspections.\nFirst and foremost, residue cars usually have 99% outage and non-accidental releases\ninvolving ruptures discs are virtually non-existent with 5% or more outage.\nSecond, DOT's interpretation could actually result in an overall decrease in safety.\nRupture disc assemblies include gaskets, specialized bolting, seals, surge protection devices and\nother parts. Continual disassembly and reassembly of the disc system increases the chance for\nhuman error that may damage or result in improper assembly of the overall system.\nAPublic Commitment\nResponsible Care\n1300 WILSON BLVD., ARLINGTON, VA 22209 • TELEPHONE 703-741-5000 • FAX 703-741-6000\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nexpose personnel to the product and impact the environment as well as contaminate the product\nThird, opening a residue tank car to conduct top and bottom inspections could potentially\nwith the atmosphere (which can lead to the corrosion that concerns DOT).\nAs applied to residue cars, the risks of top and bottom inspections of rupture discs clearly\noutweigh the benefits.\nexemption process or for RSPA to issue a revised interpretation.\nCMA sees two possible ways to address this situation, either to work through the\nCMA is aware that DOT has granted Vulcan Chemical an exemption (DOT Exemption\nDOT-E11761) which authorizes transportation of tank cars containing a residue of some certair\n\"lass 8 materials without the removal of the disc for top and bottom inspection. Under this\nexemption, inspection of the disc, in place in the disc holder, is all that is required.\nCMA does not think that is the best way to address the issue because\nhile other offerors can apply to become parties to this exemption or request their own\n• The exemption process and follow-up are cumbersome.\n• All customers shipping back residue cars would have to become parties to the exemption.\n> The exemption number would have to be painted on the tank cars used to transport the\nproduct.\n» An exemption only remains in force for two years, requiring a renewal.\nThe administrative burden placed upon both the shipper and the Exemptions\nBranch would be overwhelming in light of the number of shipments made each\nlay. Further, the low level of risk of exposure from a rail tank car containing a residue does not\njustify the effort of maintaining an exemption for each individual shipper.\napplies to all offerors of rail tank cars containing residue. CMA recommends and respectfully\nTherefore, the more appropriate solution is for RSPA to issue a revised interpretation that\nrequests that RSPA adopt this alternative as the best way to address the issue.\nF41.\nJoe J. Mayhew\nCo-Leader, Distribution Team\nVice President, Regulatory Affairs\nCc: E. Pritchard, FRA\nJ. Rader, FRA","truncated":false,"body_characters":6187}