Interpretation Response #13-0050 ([Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP] [Mr. Jonathan VanScoyoc])
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name: Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP
Individual Name: Mr. Jonathan VanScoyoc
Location State: PA Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
June 5, 2013
Mr. Jonathan VanScoyoc
Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP
306 Catharine Street
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Ref. No.: 13-0050
Dear Mr. VanScoyoc:
This is in response to your February 14, 2013 letter requesting clarification of the cargo tank attendance requirements under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). Specifically, you seek clarification of § 177.834, which specifies motor vehicle unloading attendance requirements.
In your letter you describe an unloading operation in the refining industry in which a cargo tank containing hazardous materials is connected to a process unit through piping or hoses. This process unit is injected with hazardous materials over a period of 1-2 days. In your subsequent March 15, 2013 email response to a member of my staff, you indicate that the carrier, in all scenarios, is not a private carrier. An attendant, both with and without the tractor (motive power) present, observes this process. The attendants generally include the original carrier (contract or common carrier) who transported the hazardous material, an outside contractor, or a combination of both. Your questions related to this scenario are paraphrased and answered below.
Q1. If a cargo tank has been 1) Delivered and placed upon the consignee’s premises; 2) The motive power has been removed from the cargo tank; and 3) The motive power has been removed from the premises and subsequently the motor carrier (i.e. the driver) returns to unload the cargo tank, is it the motor carrier’s obligation to ensure that a cargo tank is attended by a qualified person in accordance with § 177.834(i)(2)?
A1. No. Under § 177.834(i)(2), the motor carrier is no longer obligated to ensure that a cargo tank unloading operation is attended when the carrier’s obligation for transporting the materials is fulfilled. Specifically, it is no longer the motor carrier’s responsibility to ensure that a cargo tank unloading operation is attended when the cargo tank has been placed on the consignee's premises, and the motive power has been removed from the cargo tank and removed from the premises.
Q2. Do the attendance requirements of § 177.834(i)(3) apply if an outside contractor unloads a cargo tank?
A2. Yes, provided the motive power is on the premises and connected to the cargo tank. Section 177.834(i) requires that a cargo tank is attended by a “qualified” person at all times when it is being loaded or unloaded. According to § 177.834(i)(4), a person is qualified if they have been made aware of the nature of the hazardous material being loaded or unloaded, have been instructed on emergency procedures, are authorized to move the cargo tank, and have the means to do so. The attendee (i.e., qualified person) must also meet the hazmat employee training requirements of Part 172, Subpart H, which specify general awareness, function-specific, and safety training and Part 172, Subpart I, which specifies safety and security plans. Any outside contractor used to fulfill the unloading attendance requirements must be in compliance with § 177.834(i).
It should be noted however, that if the motive power is removed from the cargo tank and removed from the premises, the cargo tank is not considered to be “in transportation” and the unloading operation is not subject to the HMR.
Q3. What is the definition of the term “alert” as referenced in § 177.834(i)(3)?
A3. Although the HMR do not specifically define the term “alert,” the purpose of the attendance requirements is to ensure that each cargo tank is safely loaded and unloaded. The term “alert” is typically defined as “quick to notice any unusual and potentially dangerous or difficult circumstances.” In the event of an emergency, a person that is “alert” will be able to rapidly halt the process and take immediate action.
Q4. Do the attendance requirements in § 177.834(i)(3), specifically the requirement to have an unobstructed view of the cargo tank and delivery hose, apply to the process of unloading a cargo tank with temporary piping rather than a delivery hose?
A4. Yes. Provided the unloading operations are subject to § 177.834(i)(2), the requirement to have an unobstructed view of the cargo tank and delivery hose, would apply to the process of unloading a cargo tank with temporary piping rather than a delivery hose.
Q5. In the event an attendant would need a break, would a second qualified attendant be needed as a replacement during that break?
A5. Yes. Provided the unloading operations are subject to § 177.834(i)(2), a qualified person must be in attendance at all time during the unloading. The HMR does not permit any minimum lapse in attendance.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
Robert Benedict
Chief, Standards Development
Standards and Rulemaking Division
177.834
Regulation Sections
| Section | Subject |
|---|---|
| 177.834 | General requirements |