Odorant Fade in Railroad Tank Cars, 22381-22383 [2012-8970]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices
personal information you provide.
Using the search function of our docket
web site, anyone can find and read the
comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time
or to the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tyneka Thomas ARM–105, (202) 267–
7626, FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800
Independence Ave SW., Washington,
DC 20591. This notice is published
pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20,
2102.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking.
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Docket No.: FAA–2012–0137
Petitioner: Landmark Aviation
Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR
§§ 135.293(a)(2) and (3), 135.293(b),
135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and
135.347
Description of Relief Sought: The
relief sought would allow Landmark’s
wholly-owned subsidiary, Piedmont
Aviation, to receive credit for aircraft
specific training, testing, and checking
by pilots while employed by Landmark
Waukegan, another operating unit of
Landmark Aviation. In addition the
requested relief includes aircraftspecific initial new hire ground and
flight training written, and oral tests,
competency checks, and pilot in
command instrument proficiency
checks.
[FR Doc. 2012–8983 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Railroad Administration
[Safety Advisory 2012–01]
Odorant Fade in Railroad Tank Cars
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 Apr 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
FRA is issuing Safety
Advisory 2012–01 to remind shippers
and consignees of railroad tank cars
containing odorized liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG), of the importance of taking
actions to ensure that a sufficient level
of odorant remains in the LPG
throughout the entire transportation
cycle. FRA is issuing this notice to raise
awareness within the hazardous
materials community, of the potential
consequences of having LPG reach endusers as under-odorized or essentially
non-odorized material due to the
diminishment of the added odorant
during the transportation cycle
(commonly known as ‘‘odorant fade’’).
This safety advisory recommends that
shippers and consignees of bulk
quantities of odorized LPG review their
existing LPG odorization standards and
procedures, and take appropriate
actions to guard against odorant fade in
their shipments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin R. Blackwell, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Hazardous Materials
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and
Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: (202) 493–6315; email:
Kevin.Blackwell@dot.gov); or Kurt
Eichenlaub, Railroad Safety Specialist,
Hazardous Materials Division, Office of
Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493–6050; email:
Kurt.Eichenlaub@dot.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT’s
Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR), Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 171–180, allow
use of the proper shipping name,
‘‘liquefied petroleum gas’’ (or LPG), for
a number of petroleum gases with
properties similar to propane. Much of
the LPG loaded and shipped in the
United States by railroad tank car is
from bulk suppliers to either industrial
end-users or to ‘‘midstream’’ suppliers
who then sell and redistribute the LPG
to commercial, retail, and general public
end-users. In 2010, LPG represented less
than 9 percent of all loaded hazardous
materials tank car shipments originating
in the United States. Because LPG is a
colorless and odorless gas, odorants are
normally added to the material (with the
exception of LPG being shipped to
industrial end-users) in the liquid phase
to enable human detection when its
vaporized gases are released in the
atmosphere. The majority of LPG
produced for non-industrial uses is
odorized by bulk providers of the
material. The presence of LPG in the
consumer supply chain, with either
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22381
diminished levels of odorant or no
odorant present, represents significant
safety risks. Absent sufficient
odorization of the commodity, LPG
leaks can go undetected and ignite.
Diminished or absent levels of LPG
odorant has been determined to have
been a contributing factor in incidents
that have resulted in injuries and
fatalities. For example, a July 30, 2010,
incident occurred at a condominium
construction site in Norfolk, MA, when
a release of LPG from a leaking
connection in the basement of a
building under construction resulted in
an explosion and fire. This incident
resulted in one fatality and seven
injuries. An investigation conducted by
the Massachusetts Department of Fire
Services, Division of Fire Safety,
revealed that the LPG in the storage
tanks at the construction site had
virtually no odorant present, explaining
why no one at the construction site
reported smelling the LPG leak prior to
the explosion. While the LPG involved
in the Norfolk accident did not originate
from a rail shipment, the investigation
into the accident revealed that a large
quantity of LPG—shipped via railroad
tank car as odorized—had been
delivered to commercial and retail endusers with either a diminished level of
odorization or no odorization at all.
Odorization
The proper odorization of LPG is
addressed by a combination of Federal
and State laws and regulations, as well
as by accepted industry standards and
practices. In accordance with the
applicable laws and regulations, LPG
intended for use by non-industrial
entities (e.g., commercial and retail
entities, and the general public) is
generally required to be odorized (or
‘‘stenched’’) to enable the detection of
any unintended release or leak of the
gas. In the context of the rail
transportation of LPG, the HMR require
the odorization of LPG transported in
cargo tanks and portable tanks, but not
railroad tank cars. Specifically, 49 CFR
173.315(b)(1) provides that odorizing
LPG shipments in cargo and portable
tanks with 1.0 pound of ethyl mercaptan
per 10,000 gallons of LPG, or the
equivalent, is an acceptable form of
odorization.1 That section also provides
an exception from the odorization
requirement if odorization would be
‘‘harmful in the use or further
processing of the [LPG], or if odorization
will serve no useful purpose as a
1 Ethyl mercaptan is a colorless organic liquid
with a low odor threshold of 0.4 parts per billion,
thus making it easily detectable by persons with a
normal sense of smell when injected at standard
industry rates.
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
22382
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
warning agent in such use or further
processing.’’ Essentially, this exception
applies to LPG being transported to
industrial end-users.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s requirements
regarding the storage and handling of
LPG found at 29 CFR 1910.110(b)(1)
essentially mirror DOT’s odorization
requirements at 49 CFR 173.315(b)(1). In
addition to these Federal regulations,
the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) has also established odorization
standards that largely mirror the Federal
requirements. See NFPA Standard 58,
paragraph 1–4.1. In addition, most
States have adopted laws, regulations,
or codes that incorporate this NFPA
standard. Further, it is standard
industry practice to exceed the
established regulatory minimums and
add 1.5 pounds of ethyl mercaptan per
10,000 gallons of LPG in order to
combat the effects of odorant fade
should a release of material occur.
Odorant Fade
Under-odorization of railroad tank
cars containing LPG is sometimes
caused by the phenomenon commonly
known as odorant fade. While LPG may
be satisfactorily odorized in accordance
with the above requirements at the
source, there are circumstances that may
cause the odorant added to the LPG to
‘‘fade’’ and render it virtually
undetectable by a person’s sense of
smell. Typically, there are three
different potential causes of odorant
fade: oxidation, container condition,
and gas quality.
This safety advisory focuses on
recommendations to prevent odorant
fade caused by oxidation and/or the
condition of the LPG container. First,
oxidation can cause odorant fade when
the presence of rust in a tank car, or the
subsequent formation of rust over time,
as a result of the presence of oxygen and
moisture, decreases the amount of
odorant that is in the LPG in the tank
due to a chemical reaction between the
odorant and the oxidized (rusted)
surface. The presence of rust causes
mercaptans to oxidize into other
compounds that have a different odor
and lower intensity. Residual oxygen
from air and moisture that may be in the
container can increase the oxidation rate
of rust or even cause new rust to form
where previously none existed,
exasperating the rate at which the
odorant fades.
Next, the condition of the LPG
container itself can also potentially
cause odorant fade. An odorant can
adsorb onto the metal surface of the
container or even potentially be
absorbed into the metal surface itself.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 Apr 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
This process is most likely to occur
when the container is new and has not
previously contained odorized LPG. It
can also occur when the inside of the
container has been left open to the air
while the container is out of service or
after the container has been cleaned and
purged (e.g., when a railroad tank car is
cleaned and purged for repair or service
at a tank car facility and then later
placed back into LPG service).
There are existing industry
procedures that can passivate (or treat)
the interior surface of an LPG container
in order to render the surface inactive so
that the odorant will not be diminished
through oxidation or adsorption/
absorption. Also, there are several
methods available to detect whether
there are adequate amounts of odorant
in LPG at any given point. The simplest,
and most often used method, is a ‘‘sniff
test’’ where a person uses their sense of
smell to detect the presence of odorant.
The person performing a sniff test
should have a normal sense of smell,
uncompromised by such factors as
olfactory fatigue, sinus congestion,
allergies, head colds, smoking, or the
recent use of alcohol or drugs.
Colorimetric tube testing and the gas
chromatography test method provide
more quantitative methods to measure
the concentration of the odorant in LPG.
The colorimetric tube, or stain tube, test
method measures the concentration of
odorant by pulling a measured amount
of LPG through a hermetically sealed
glass tube containing a detecting
reagent. The odorant causes a chemical
reaction resulting in a color change of
the tube material. The quantity of
odorant can be measured by reading the
concentration of the odorant from the
calibration scale that is marked on the
tube. The gas chromatography test
method is the most accurate method
because it separates the various
components of the LPG and odorant for
identification. However, this method is
costly and requires sending LPG
samples to a location that has the proper
equipment and trained personnel to
perform these tests.
Railroad Tank Cars
At present, while DOT’s regulation
discussed above contains an odorization
requirement for LPG transported in
cargo and portable tank containers,
there is no comparable DOT regulation
regarding the transportation of LPG
transported in railroad tank cars. FRA is
currently reviewing this situation to
determine if further action is warranted.
During routine inspections at facilities
that receive railroad tank cars loaded
with LPG, FRA is obtaining data on the
LPG odorization testing procedures
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
being used by industry. FRA is also
collecting data on the number of LPG
shipments that are received yearly, the
number of these shipments that are
shipped as odorized versus nonodorized, and the number of odorized
shipments received that failed
odorization testing or were identified as
having insufficient odorant.
As noted above, there are currently
Federal regulations, State laws, and
accepted industry standards and testing
methods in place to ensure proper LPG
odorization. FRA encourages industry
members to comply with all applicable
requirements and standards. In order to
help prevent odorant fade incidents
involving LPG transported by railroad
tank car, and to facilitate compliance
with existing requirements and
standards, this safety advisory makes
several recommendations below.
Recommended Action: In an effort to
encourage industry members to take
actions to ensure that a sufficient level
of odorant remains in odorized LPG
shipped via railroad tank car throughout
the entire transportation cycle, FRA
recommends that:
1. Facilities that load, offer, receive, or
offload railroad tank cars containing
LPG review their procedures to ensure
they are adequate to address the issue of
‘‘odorant fade’’ and its various potential
causes, and that those procedures
ensure that tank car shipments of
odorized LPG are odorized to meet
applicable regulatory and industry
requirements and maintain sufficient
levels of odorant throughout the entire
transportation cycle. Such procedures
should ensure quantitative testing
methods are used to measure the
amount of odorant in LPG.
2. Facilities that load odorized LPG
into railroad tank cars have adequate
procedures in place to identify if a tank
car received for loading of odorized LPG
has been out of LPG product service for
any extended length of time, is coming
from a tank car repair or cleaning
facility, or has been subjected to any
condition that could lead to corrosion of
the tank.
3. Facilities that load odorized LPG
into railroad tank cars inspect, to the
degree possible, railcars they receive for
signs of oxidation or corrosion, which
can lead to the loss of odorant.
4. Facilities that load odorized LPG
into tank cars take any other corrective
actions needed to ensure sufficient
levels of odorization remain in the
shipment throughout the entire
transportation cycle, such as increasing
the amount of odorant injected into the
LPG, if necessary.
FRA encourages industry members to
take actions consistent with the
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices
preceding recommendations, and to take
other complementary actions to help
ensure the safety of the Nation’s citizens
and railroads. FRA may modify this
Safety Advisory 2012–01, issue
additional safety advisories, or take
other appropriate actions necessary to
ensure the highest level of safety on the
Nation’s railroads, including pursuing
other corrective measures under its
regulatory authority.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9,
2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad
Safety/Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–8970 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; TESLA
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the petition of Tesla Motors Inc’s.
(Tesla) for an exemption of the Model S
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR
Part 543, Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is
granted, because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to
be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard 49 CFR Part 541,
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard. Tesla requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its
petition. The agency granted Tesla’s
request for confidential treatment by a
letter dated December 5, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2012 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, W43–439, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s phone number
is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated October 24, 2011, Tesla
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:16 Apr 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the Model S vehicle line beginning
with MY 2012. The petition requested
an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft
device as standard equipment for the
entire vehicle line.
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant an exemption
for one vehicle line per model year. In
its petition, Tesla provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity,
design and location of the components
of the antitheft device for the Model S
vehicle line. Tesla will install a passive,
transponder-based, electronic engine
immobilizer device as standard
equipment on its Model S vehicle line
beginning with MY 2012. Key
components of the antitheft device
include an engine immobilizer, security
controller, gateway function, drive
inverter and a passive entry transponder
(PET). Tesla stated that its immobilizer
device, which will be installed
beginning with its MY 2012 vehicle
line, will be an upgraded version with
a more robust design than the antitheft
device already installed as standard
equipment on its MYs 2008–2011 Tesla
roadsters. Tesla stated that the new
design of its immobilizer device will
have enhanced communications
between components, prevent
tampering and also provide additional
features to enhance its overall
effectiveness.
In addition to Tesla’s immobilizer
device, an audible alarm (horn) will be
incorporated as standard equipment, but
no visual feature will be provided with
the alarm system. Tesla stated that its
alarm system will activate with any
unauthorized attempt to break in the
front and rear cargo areas. Tesla also
stated that any unauthorized entry
without the correct PET will trigger the
audible alarm. Tesla stated that its
antitheft device has a two-step
activation process with a vehicle code
query being conducted at each stage.
The first stage allows access to the
vehicle when an authorization cycle
occurs between the PET and the
Security Controller as long as the PET
is in close proximity to the car and the
driver either pushes the lock/unlock
button on the key fob, pushes the
exterior door handle to activate the
handle sensors or inserts a hand into the
handle to trigger the latch release.
During the second stage, vehicle
operation will be enabled when the
driver has depressed the brake pedal
and moves the gear selection stalk to
drive or reverse. When one of these
actions is performed, the security
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22383
controller will poll to verify if the
appropriate PET is inside the vehicle.
Upon location of the PET, the security
controller will run an authentication
cycle with the key confirming the
correct PET is being used inside the
vehicle. Tesla stated that once
authentication is successful, the security
controller initiates an encrypted
message through the gateway enabling
the drive inverter to receive the
encrypted message which then
processes the message generating an
encrypted response posting the message
back to the security controller. If the
encrypted exchange yields a result that
meets the security code’s expectations
of the security controller, the correct
exchange will authorize the drive
inverter to deactivate immobilization
allowing the vehicle to be driven under
its own power. Tesla stated that if the
results are not correct and there is no
response to the drive inverter from the
security controller, the vehicle will
remain immobilized and the drive
inverter will retry the exchange until
there is a proper response or it times
out. Tesla’s submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7 in that it meets the general
requirements contained in 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of 543.6.
Tesla stated that the immobilizer
functions will ensure maximum theft
protection when the immobilizer is
active, the vehicle is off and the doors
are locked. Tesla stated that it will
incorporate an additional security
measure that performs when the car is
unlocked and immobilization is
deactivated. Specifically,
immobilization will reactivate when
there are no user inputs to the vehicle
within a programmed period of time.
Tesla stated that any attempt to operate
the vehicle without performing and
completing each task, will render the
vehicle inoperable.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of 543.6, Tesla provided
information on the reliability and
durability of its proposed device. To
ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Tesla conducted tests based on
its own specified standards. Tesla
provided a detailed list of the test
conducted and stated that it believes
that its device is reliable and durable
because it complied with its own
specific design standards. Additionally,
Tesla stated that it has incorporated
other measures of ensuring reliability
and durability of the device. Those
measures include the inaccessible
location of all immobilizer device
components within the passenger
compartment of the vehicle or their
containment in other vehicle
E:\FR\FM\13APN1.SGM
13APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22381-22383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8970]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Safety Advisory 2012-01]
Odorant Fade in Railroad Tank Cars
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2012-01 to remind shippers and
consignees of railroad tank cars containing odorized liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG), of the importance of taking actions to ensure that
a sufficient level of odorant remains in the LPG throughout the entire
transportation cycle. FRA is issuing this notice to raise awareness
within the hazardous materials community, of the potential consequences
of having LPG reach end-users as under-odorized or essentially non-
odorized material due to the diminishment of the added odorant during
the transportation cycle (commonly known as ``odorant fade''). This
safety advisory recommends that shippers and consignees of bulk
quantities of odorized LPG review their existing LPG odorization
standards and procedures, and take appropriate actions to guard against
odorant fade in their shipments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin R. Blackwell, Railroad Safety
Specialist, Hazardous Materials Division, Office of Safety Assurance
and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone: (202) 493-6315; email: Kevin.Blackwell@dot.gov); or Kurt
Eichenlaub, Railroad Safety Specialist, Hazardous Materials Division,
Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6050; email:
Kurt.Eichenlaub@dot.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR),
Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 171-180, allow use of
the proper shipping name, ``liquefied petroleum gas'' (or LPG), for a
number of petroleum gases with properties similar to propane. Much of
the LPG loaded and shipped in the United States by railroad tank car is
from bulk suppliers to either industrial end-users or to ``midstream''
suppliers who then sell and redistribute the LPG to commercial, retail,
and general public end-users. In 2010, LPG represented less than 9
percent of all loaded hazardous materials tank car shipments
originating in the United States. Because LPG is a colorless and
odorless gas, odorants are normally added to the material (with the
exception of LPG being shipped to industrial end-users) in the liquid
phase to enable human detection when its vaporized gases are released
in the atmosphere. The majority of LPG produced for non-industrial uses
is odorized by bulk providers of the material. The presence of LPG in
the consumer supply chain, with either diminished levels of odorant or
no odorant present, represents significant safety risks. Absent
sufficient odorization of the commodity, LPG leaks can go undetected
and ignite.
Diminished or absent levels of LPG odorant has been determined to
have been a contributing factor in incidents that have resulted in
injuries and fatalities. For example, a July 30, 2010, incident
occurred at a condominium construction site in Norfolk, MA, when a
release of LPG from a leaking connection in the basement of a building
under construction resulted in an explosion and fire. This incident
resulted in one fatality and seven injuries. An investigation conducted
by the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services, Division of Fire
Safety, revealed that the LPG in the storage tanks at the construction
site had virtually no odorant present, explaining why no one at the
construction site reported smelling the LPG leak prior to the
explosion. While the LPG involved in the Norfolk accident did not
originate from a rail shipment, the investigation into the accident
revealed that a large quantity of LPG--shipped via railroad tank car as
odorized--had been delivered to commercial and retail end-users with
either a diminished level of odorization or no odorization at all.
Odorization
The proper odorization of LPG is addressed by a combination of
Federal and State laws and regulations, as well as by accepted industry
standards and practices. In accordance with the applicable laws and
regulations, LPG intended for use by non-industrial entities (e.g.,
commercial and retail entities, and the general public) is generally
required to be odorized (or ``stenched'') to enable the detection of
any unintended release or leak of the gas. In the context of the rail
transportation of LPG, the HMR require the odorization of LPG
transported in cargo tanks and portable tanks, but not railroad tank
cars. Specifically, 49 CFR 173.315(b)(1) provides that odorizing LPG
shipments in cargo and portable tanks with 1.0 pound of ethyl mercaptan
per 10,000 gallons of LPG, or the equivalent, is an acceptable form of
odorization.\1\ That section also provides an exception from the
odorization requirement if odorization would be ``harmful in the use or
further processing of the [LPG], or if odorization will serve no useful
purpose as a
[[Page 22382]]
warning agent in such use or further processing.'' Essentially, this
exception applies to LPG being transported to industrial end-users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ethyl mercaptan is a colorless organic liquid with a low
odor threshold of 0.4 parts per billion, thus making it easily
detectable by persons with a normal sense of smell when injected at
standard industry rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's requirements
regarding the storage and handling of LPG found at 29 CFR
1910.110(b)(1) essentially mirror DOT's odorization requirements at 49
CFR 173.315(b)(1). In addition to these Federal regulations, the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has also established
odorization standards that largely mirror the Federal requirements. See
NFPA Standard 58, paragraph 1-4.1. In addition, most States have
adopted laws, regulations, or codes that incorporate this NFPA
standard. Further, it is standard industry practice to exceed the
established regulatory minimums and add 1.5 pounds of ethyl mercaptan
per 10,000 gallons of LPG in order to combat the effects of odorant
fade should a release of material occur.
Odorant Fade
Under-odorization of railroad tank cars containing LPG is sometimes
caused by the phenomenon commonly known as odorant fade. While LPG may
be satisfactorily odorized in accordance with the above requirements at
the source, there are circumstances that may cause the odorant added to
the LPG to ``fade'' and render it virtually undetectable by a person's
sense of smell. Typically, there are three different potential causes
of odorant fade: oxidation, container condition, and gas quality.
This safety advisory focuses on recommendations to prevent odorant
fade caused by oxidation and/or the condition of the LPG container.
First, oxidation can cause odorant fade when the presence of rust in a
tank car, or the subsequent formation of rust over time, as a result of
the presence of oxygen and moisture, decreases the amount of odorant
that is in the LPG in the tank due to a chemical reaction between the
odorant and the oxidized (rusted) surface. The presence of rust causes
mercaptans to oxidize into other compounds that have a different odor
and lower intensity. Residual oxygen from air and moisture that may be
in the container can increase the oxidation rate of rust or even cause
new rust to form where previously none existed, exasperating the rate
at which the odorant fades.
Next, the condition of the LPG container itself can also
potentially cause odorant fade. An odorant can adsorb onto the metal
surface of the container or even potentially be absorbed into the metal
surface itself. This process is most likely to occur when the container
is new and has not previously contained odorized LPG. It can also occur
when the inside of the container has been left open to the air while
the container is out of service or after the container has been cleaned
and purged (e.g., when a railroad tank car is cleaned and purged for
repair or service at a tank car facility and then later placed back
into LPG service).
There are existing industry procedures that can passivate (or
treat) the interior surface of an LPG container in order to render the
surface inactive so that the odorant will not be diminished through
oxidation or adsorption/absorption. Also, there are several methods
available to detect whether there are adequate amounts of odorant in
LPG at any given point. The simplest, and most often used method, is a
``sniff test'' where a person uses their sense of smell to detect the
presence of odorant. The person performing a sniff test should have a
normal sense of smell, uncompromised by such factors as olfactory
fatigue, sinus congestion, allergies, head colds, smoking, or the
recent use of alcohol or drugs. Colorimetric tube testing and the gas
chromatography test method provide more quantitative methods to measure
the concentration of the odorant in LPG. The colorimetric tube, or
stain tube, test method measures the concentration of odorant by
pulling a measured amount of LPG through a hermetically sealed glass
tube containing a detecting reagent. The odorant causes a chemical
reaction resulting in a color change of the tube material. The quantity
of odorant can be measured by reading the concentration of the odorant
from the calibration scale that is marked on the tube. The gas
chromatography test method is the most accurate method because it
separates the various components of the LPG and odorant for
identification. However, this method is costly and requires sending LPG
samples to a location that has the proper equipment and trained
personnel to perform these tests.
Railroad Tank Cars
At present, while DOT's regulation discussed above contains an
odorization requirement for LPG transported in cargo and portable tank
containers, there is no comparable DOT regulation regarding the
transportation of LPG transported in railroad tank cars. FRA is
currently reviewing this situation to determine if further action is
warranted. During routine inspections at facilities that receive
railroad tank cars loaded with LPG, FRA is obtaining data on the LPG
odorization testing procedures being used by industry. FRA is also
collecting data on the number of LPG shipments that are received
yearly, the number of these shipments that are shipped as odorized
versus non-odorized, and the number of odorized shipments received that
failed odorization testing or were identified as having insufficient
odorant.
As noted above, there are currently Federal regulations, State
laws, and accepted industry standards and testing methods in place to
ensure proper LPG odorization. FRA encourages industry members to
comply with all applicable requirements and standards. In order to help
prevent odorant fade incidents involving LPG transported by railroad
tank car, and to facilitate compliance with existing requirements and
standards, this safety advisory makes several recommendations below.
Recommended Action: In an effort to encourage industry members to
take actions to ensure that a sufficient level of odorant remains in
odorized LPG shipped via railroad tank car throughout the entire
transportation cycle, FRA recommends that:
1. Facilities that load, offer, receive, or offload railroad tank
cars containing LPG review their procedures to ensure they are adequate
to address the issue of ``odorant fade'' and its various potential
causes, and that those procedures ensure that tank car shipments of
odorized LPG are odorized to meet applicable regulatory and industry
requirements and maintain sufficient levels of odorant throughout the
entire transportation cycle. Such procedures should ensure quantitative
testing methods are used to measure the amount of odorant in LPG.
2. Facilities that load odorized LPG into railroad tank cars have
adequate procedures in place to identify if a tank car received for
loading of odorized LPG has been out of LPG product service for any
extended length of time, is coming from a tank car repair or cleaning
facility, or has been subjected to any condition that could lead to
corrosion of the tank.
3. Facilities that load odorized LPG into railroad tank cars
inspect, to the degree possible, railcars they receive for signs of
oxidation or corrosion, which can lead to the loss of odorant.
4. Facilities that load odorized LPG into tank cars take any other
corrective actions needed to ensure sufficient levels of odorization
remain in the shipment throughout the entire transportation cycle, such
as increasing the amount of odorant injected into the LPG, if
necessary.
FRA encourages industry members to take actions consistent with the
[[Page 22383]]
preceding recommendations, and to take other complementary actions to
help ensure the safety of the Nation's citizens and railroads. FRA may
modify this Safety Advisory 2012-01, issue additional safety
advisories, or take other appropriate actions necessary to ensure the
highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursuing
other corrective measures under its regulatory authority.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8970 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P