Wetlines Purging Rules ‘Unenforceable,’ CVSA Says

This story appears in the May 2 print edition of Transport Topics.

The head of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance said a proposed rule requiring that flammable liquids be purged from tank truck wetlines during transport is “for practical purposes unenforceable in the field.”

The written comments by CVSA’s Stephen Keppler to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration were similar to those of a large number of trucking groups that previously have said they are opposed to the proposal.

“As the notice of proposed rulemaking currently reads, it will be very difficult to enforce at roadside,” Keppler said. “In order for any rule to be effective, it needs to be enforceable.”

PHMSA’s proposal, announced on Jan. 27, specifically calls for tank truck carriers that haul flammable liquids either to provide a bumper-like protection for tanker wetlines or install a system to purge the product from the lines.

The rule gives tank truck operators 12 years after the final regulation is published to make the changes on existing tanks. It also requires that all trailers manufactured two years after the rule’s effective date have either protection or a purge system.

The comment period for the rule closed last week. PHMSA did not return calls by Transport Topics seeking comment by press time.

Keppler said current hazardous materials training provided to roadside inspection personnel specifically states that inspectors “shall not open any valve, manhole, pipe cap, or other feature that could result in the release of a hazardous material or potentially expose an inspector to hazardous material.”

Inspectors usually are not trained to handle hazardous materials mishaps, Keppler said.

Keppler’s comments dovetail with objections lodged in comments by American Trucking Associations and National Tank Truck Carriers, which have requested repeatedly in formal comments and congressional testimony that PHMSA withdraw the rule because the cost of compliance would far exceed the public safety benefits.

Both groups also have said the actual process of installing automatic purging systems on existing tanks is far more risky than wetlines highway mishaps because shop workers can be injured or killed if gas fumes escape from a tank.

“The regulatory assessment assumes that there will be no additional monitoring or enforcement costs associated with this rule,” Richard Moskowitz, ATA’s vice president and regulatory affairs counsel, wrote in comments filed April 27. “We agree, since state roadside inspectors are unable to verify compliance with the proposed rule.”

ATA said sight glasses on external product piping are not common. “As such, there is no practical means for an enforcement official to determine how much gasoline remains in an external product pipe,” Moskowitz wrote.

In written comments filed last week, NTTC president John Conley said a device such as a sight glass would have to be installed to enable roadside personnel to view the amount present in the product piping.

“NTTC contends both that the sight glass is an unreliable indicator and that PHMSA has again grossly underestimated the cost of compliance due to the administrator’s failure to include costs associated with installing sight glasses on each affected compartment,” Conley wrote.

CVSA’s Keppler said that before PHMSA proceeds with a final rule, the agency should issue guidance on how to conduct wetlines inspections in a manner that ensures safety.

“In PHMSA’s proposal, one of the suggestions is for roadside enforcement to use a sight gauge during the inspection process,” Keppler wrote. “However, there currently is no requirement for sight gauges in the regulations.”

“In addition, the use of a sight gauge does not permit the officer to determine the volume of the pipe nor the volume of liquid contained in the pipe. Therefore, given the maximum 1-liter product retention limitation requirement in the proposal, for practical purposes it is unenforceable in the field,” Keppler said.

He noted that roadside inspectors do not routinely conduct operations at loading and unloading facilities.

“Their job duties require that they conduct inspections on major highways and arterials where crashes and unsafe operations are occurring,” he said.

John Hamel, president of J&S Transport in Lynn, Mass., asked in written comments submitted to PHMSA how enforcement agencies would perform road-side checks.

“At an NTTC meeting in 2007, a question was asked to a member of the DOT as to how wetlines would be checked roadside,” Hamel wrote. “The answer was quite comical: ‘Tap on the pipes.’ ”

Kevin Kampa, a hazardous materials specialist with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, also told PHMSA the wetlines rule would be “virtually unenforceable” because major refineries — for security, safety and liability reasons — refuse to allow field personnel access to their loading and unloading operations.

“So forget that,” Kampa wrote in comments to PHMSA. “I know. I work in the field as an enforcement officer. They will not allow it.”

Kampa added, “I have been working in the field for 20 years, 11 years as a responder, and have never been at a scene where wetlines releases were an issue.”