Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
u
= [0
u
A
0.82
(for F=1, see Table A6) Equation 8.1.1b
u
= 2[0
uA
0.82
(for F<1, see Table A6) Equation 8.1.1c
Page 101
F = the environmental factor, equal to 1.0 for noninsulated tank cars, or calculated
as follows for insulated tank cars or thermally protected tank cars, provided
the overall system will remain effective at temperatures up to of at least
1200F:
F =
] 8 0 (1,200-t)
34,500
Equation 8.1.1d
U = the overall thermal conductance of the insulating material at 100F, for
insulation systems having a maximum use temperature of at least 1200 F as
stated by the manufacturer or for approved thermal protection systems. For
all other steel jacketed insulation systems, use U =6.0 Btu/h-ft
2
-F
J = safety factor. For insulation systems having a maximum use temperature of at
least 1200 F as stated by the manufacturer, or for approved thermal
protection systems, use a value of 8. For all other insulation systems, use a
value of 1.
8.1.2 SI Units
NOTE: J added to the following equations
u
= [0
u
A
0.82
(for F=1, see Table A6) Equation 8.1.2b
u
= 2[0
uA
0.82
(for F<1, see Table A6) Equation 8.1.2c
F = the environmental factor, equal to 1.0 for noninsulated tank cars, or calculated
as follows for insulated tank cars or thermally protected tank cars, provided
the overall system will remain effective at temperatures up to of at least
648.88C:
F =
]80(649-t)
391,800
U = the overall thermal conductance of the insulating material at 37.8C, for
insulation systems having a maximum use temperature of at least 648.88 C
as stated by the manufacturer or for approved thermal protection systems. For
all other steel jacketed insulation systems, use U =122.4 kJ /h-m
2
-C
J = safety factor. For insulation systems having a maximum use temperature of at
least 648.88 C as stated by the manufacturer, or for approved thermal
protection systems, use a value of 8. For all other insulation systems, use a
value of 1.
9.0 DERIVATION OF FORMULA FOR FLOW CAPACITY
The definition for F can be typically expressed by the following equation:
F =
] 0 (t
1
-t
2
)
q
Equation 9.0s
where
F = the environmental factor that can vary between 0 and 1
U = the overall thermal conductance BTU/h-ft
2
at 100F
t
1
= the assumed external surface temperature under the fire conditions =1200F
Page 102
t
2
= the temperature of the gas (liquid) at flowing conditions
q = the heat flux from the fire/unit wetted area exposed to fire = 34,500 BTU/h-ft2
J = safety factor
The equation becomes the following:
F =
]0(1,200-t
2
)
34,500
Equation 9.0t
Note the following for approved thermal protection systems or insulation systems having a
maximum use temperature of at least 1200 F as stated by the manufacturer:
Because the thermal conductivity is difficult to find at elevated temperatures, U is
defined as the overall thermal conductivity at 37.77C (100F) multiplied by 2 for a
safety factor.
Assuming that the insulation is rendered 50% ineffective in a fire, the result, again, is
multiplied by 2 for a safety factor.
It is assumed that the heat transfer through the metal connections and fittings
projecting through the insulation is approximately equal to the transfer through the
insulated area. To compensate for this, the temperature is, again, multiplied by 2 for
a safety factor.
The product of the three factors of U is equal to eight, and therefore a factor of J =8 is used in
Equation 9.0t for these systems Equation 9.0t becomes the following
F =
80(1,200-t
2
)
34,500
Reference Equation 8.1.1d
Note the following for jacketed tanks equipped with insulation systems not having a maximum use
temperature of at least 1200 F as stated by the manufacturer:
It is assumed that only 25% of the degraded insulation material is effective in a fire.
For the effective insulation remaining, fire test data suggests a U factor of 0.4 Btu/hr-
ft
2
-F should be used
Taking the above two points into consideration when performing the AFFTAC fire
simulation, a U factor of 6.0 Btu/hr-ft2-F (122.4 kJ /h-m
2
-C ) represents the effective
overall conductance of a steel jacketed insulation system in the degraded condition.
The U factor of 6.0 Btu/hr-ft2-F (122.4 kJ /h-m
2
-C ) takes into account the effects of
elevated temperature, missing or degraded insulation and conductance through tank
appurtances. Therefore, a factor of J =1 is used in Equation 9.0t for these systems.
For a noninsulated container (bare tank), F=1.
For all other cases (insulation, thermal protection, and linings), the value of F should be calculated
and used in Equation 9.0r.
At the April 2012 meeting, J . Sbraiga discussed the approved proposal within the docket. In regard
to comments received on the implementation date the TF recommends J uly 1, 2012 and will work
with AAR to get the CPC published accordingly.
Page 103
At the J uly 2012 meeting, it was request that the TCC look at how this can be implemented and be
ready to discuss at the October TCC meeting. The issue affects the outage requirements for loading
and it was felt that the proposed stencil change would be unusable by some loading racks.
At the October 2012 meeting, J . Sbragia reported on the proposal in the docket. The purpose of the
proposal is ultimately how one is to determine the size of the safety valve. The TF challenge: How
would a tank car shop/loading rack know whether or not the qualification cycle of the safety valve
was based on insulation? One thought was to modify the consolidated stencil to include a stencil that
would identify whether or not insulation was used to calculate the qualification cycle.
Shipper community stated that the outage requirements are not determined by the loading rack they
are determined at headquarters so the idea of adding a stencil to the consolidated stencil would not
work. The TF concluded that the car owner would have to contact corporate headquarters to
determine whether or not the insulation was considered in the qualification cycle. A number of TF
members are concerned about the transmittal of information from the corporate level to the car
owner from a commercial standpoint. Some TF members are specifically looking for regulatory
language to require this communication of information from the corporate shipper headquarters to
the car owner. TF members would like a separate docket opened to discuss the communication of
information from shipper/tank car shop to car owner.
The proposal as it is written in the docket has been agreed to by the TF. Only item needed to be
determined is the implementation date.
Motion made, seconded, API opposed, motion still moves to the executive TCC for consideration.
It was request that TF member J . DeLacerda be removed and replaced by Mustapha Ghazal-Tokko
from Union Tank Car Co.
Page 104
April 2013 Docket: T65.8.1
Sub.1
Thermal Contribution Properties of J ackets
AAR received via email 7/2/2012 the following proposal from TF Chair J. Sbragia
In October 2011, the Association of American Railroads approved changes to Appendix A of the
Specifications for Tank Cars (M-1002) going forward to disallow the use of the environmental
factor, F, for certain insulation systems. More specifically, there are new sizing requirements for
pressure relief devices on new or altered tank cars having a metal jacket and insulation system with
a maximum use temperature below 1200 F. Consequently, these insulation systems no longer
require periodic qualification unless they are loaded to the minimum outage limits allowed by
federal regulations, in which case shippers will require a means to identify them.
To assist shippers in this respect, the task force recommends changes to Chapter 2, Appendix C, and
Appendix D of the Specifications for Tank Cars. These changes will assist shippers in determining
which tank cars may be loaded to the minimum outage limits with respect to insulated tank cars.
With respect to implementation, there is general agreement among task force members that:
All existing jacketed and insulated cars without a line item for insulation in the qualification
stencil will be subject to qualification requirements.
All new cars, cars that undergo PRD modifications (i.e., resizing the PRD to account for
deteriorated insulation), and cars that get repainted will have a line item for insulation added
to the qualification stencil.
If a due date is included in the insulation line item, it will signify that the insulation system is
on a qualification cycle and that the car may be loaded to minimum outage limits.
If the PRD has been sized such that qualification of the insulation system is not required, and
the minimum federal outage provisions for insulated tank cars are not used, the term PP
(for product protection) will be indicated in the due date field of the insulation line item.
Chapter 2
2.4.1 Tank cars must be so loaded that sufficient outage is provided under conditions normal to
transportation. Consideration must be given to the volumetric expansion characteristics of the liquid
and the ambient temperatures to which it will be subjected in transit. Calculations must use the
reference temperatures and outage limits listed in DOT 173.24b (a). For insulation systems that are
included on a periodic qualification program, minimum outage limits specified in the federal
regulations are permissible. For insulated systems not included in a periodic qualification program,
the federal outage requirements for a non-insulated tank car apply.
Appendix C
3.3.3.2 Insulation / Thermal Protection
3.3.3.2.1 The station stencil, year in which a tank insulation or thermal protection is qualified, and
the qualification due date must be applied and/or maintained in the location specified on the
qualification stencil (Fig. C5 or Fig. C9) in letters and numerals at least 1 in. (25.4 mn) high. For
insulation systems used simply to protect the product, enter PP in the due date field and NONE
in the qualified field. See Appendix A to size properly the pressure relief device.
For existing tank cars, the qualification stencil must be modified to include a line item for insulation
systems when tanks are repainted or re-stenciled or when the pressure relief device is re-sized for
any reason. The tank insulation or thermal protection station stencil, qualification date, and due date
may appear on any blank line on the qualification stencil or by adding an additional line. Insulation
must be included in the qualification program for any tank car without a line item for insulation.
Page 105
Note: Figures C5, C6, C7, C8, and C9 would be revised as follows. The paragraph numbers in Figure C7
were renumbered based on the changes above:
STATION STENCIL QUALIFIED DUE
TANK
THICKNESS TEST
SERVICE
EQUIPMENT
PRD
INT
HTR
1
SPGR
1
COATING OR
LINING
1
88.B.2 INSPECTION
STUB SILL
INSPECTION
INSULATION
Fig. C5 Qualification stencil blank
(see Fig. C8 for sample of completed stencil)
1
Stencil COATING or LINING based on the material applied.
2
Stencil INT HTR and SPGR if the tank car is equipped with these systems.
STATION STENCIL QUALIFIED DUE
TANK
THICKNESS TEST
SERVICE
EQUIPMENT
PRD
INT
HTR
1
SPGR
1
COATING OR
LINING
1
88.B.2 INSPECTION
STUB SILL
INSPECTION
INSULATION
Fig. C6 Qualification stencilshown with added lines for additional information
(reference paragraph 3.3.4.11 above)
1
Stencil COATING or LINING based on the material applied.
2
Stencil INT HTR and SPGR if the tank car is equipped with these systems.
Page 106
STATION STENCIL QUALIFIED DUE
TANK 3.3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1.1 3.3.3.1.1
THICKNESS TEST 3.3.3.1.2 3.3.3.1.2 3.3.3.1.2
SERVICE
EQUIPMENT
3.3.3.3.1 3.3.3.3.1 3.3.3.3.1
PRD 3.3.3.3.2.1 3.3.3.3.2.2 3.3.3.3.2.2 3.3.3.3.2.2
3.3.3.3.3 3.3.3.3.4 3.3.3.3.3.1 3.3.3.3.3.1 3.3.3.3.3.1
COATING OR
LINING
1
3.3.3.4 3.3.3.4 3.3.3.4
88.B.2 INSPECTION 3.3.3.5 3.3.3.5 3.3.3.5
STUB SILL
INSPECTION
3.3.3.6 3.3.3.6 3.3.3.6
INSULATION 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.2
Fig. C7 Qualification stencilshown with paragraph references for required items
STATION STENCIL QUALIFIED DUE
TANK ABC-1 2012 2022
THICKNESS TEST ABC-1 2012 2022
SERVICE
EQUIPMENT
DEF-1 2012 2022
PRD 165 PSI DEF-1 2012 2022
INT HTR ABC-1 2012 2022
COATING
GHI-1 2012 2022
88.B.2 INSPECTION ABC-1 2012 2022
STUB SILL
INSPECTION
ABC-1 2012 2022
INSULATION ABC-1 2012 2022
Fig. C8 Qualification stencilsample of completed stencil
Note: Table D4 would be revised as follows. Because of the changes in CGSB 43147 and the proposed
changes for 49 CFR 180.509, the table would be revised by removing the regulatory reference paragraphs
in column 1 and replacing the paragraphs with the qualification stencil inspection and test item.
Table D4. Required tank car qualifications/inspections
Qualification
Stencil Line Item
Description Maximum Interval
(Years)
Tank
Visual Inspection 10
Structural integrity inspection 10
Bottom discontinuity protection, coupler vertical
restraint systems, tank head puncture resistance
system, and top discontinuity protection
10
Leakage pressure test after reassembly of a tank
car or service equipment
After assembly
Page 107
Qualification
Stencil Line Item
Description Maximum Interval
(Years)
Thickness Test Measure remaining shell thickness of tank, heads,
sumps, and domes
See federal
regulations
Insulation /
Thermal Protection
Insulation / thermal protection 10
Service Equipment Valves, fittings, and closures See federal
regulations
PRD Pressure relief devices 10
Coating or Lining Coating or lining for materials corrosive to the
tank
See federal
regulations
Rule 88.B.2
Trucks, draft components, center plate, side sills,
end sills, side bearings (including proper
adjustment), and body bolsters. On jacketed cars,
inspect portions of the bolster visible without
disturbing the jacket.
10
Stub draft sills, sill pads, sill attachments welds
(inboard of bolsters)
With structural
integrity inspection
Stub Sill Inspection
Stub draft sills, sill pads, sill attachments welds
(outboard of bolsters)
At tank qualification
or mileage limit
Table C2, Optional Abbreviations for Tank Car Stenciling, would be revised as follows:
The definition for the abbreviation PP would be revised from Product Purity to Product Purity
or Product Protection.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, J . Sbragia stated that the TF has not met since the last meeting. A
number of task force members have concerns on outage requirements. The TF is at an impasse at this
point in time and therefore a motion was made, seconded, and passed to RFD this docket. It is
understood at this time that safety valves will be sized as if the tank car were insulated.
CURRENT TF: J . Sbragia (Chair), J . Rader, J P Gagnon, M. Ghazal-Tokko, K. Alexy, AD McKisic,
J . Perez, J . Fiore
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES: J . Sbragia 7/2/12
Page 108
April 2013 Docket: T79.3.1
Sub. 1
Designation DOT130AW for New Car Class
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student stated that this is pending modeling results. Information is
being finalized and the TF plans to meet soon.
This docket was opened at the J uly 2011 meeting to develop a specification under 49CFR179.4 for
tank cars constructed under the provisions of DOT-SP15036, designed to transport materials
poisonous by inhalation. The construction of these tank cars are not like any other pressure tank car,
thus requiring a new specification.
A new class, 130, is used for the specification. This tank car consists of a commodity tank supported
by a support structure. The primary function of the commodity tank is to contain the lading. The
primary functions of the support structure are to bear the rail loads and protect the commodity
tank. The commodity tank is connected to the support structure at the manway nozzle, top center of
the two structures. The two structures are otherwise kept concentric by various attachments attached
to one structure while the other.
At the October 2011 meeting, P. Student reported on this new docket. Pat is looking for volunteers to
work on a new standard for DOT130 tank cars. This work stems from the work performed during the
Next Generation Tank Car (NGTC) project. Pat discussed briefly SP-15036. The nature of this
special permit is to authorize the manufacture, marking, sale and use of a non-DOT specification
tank car for transportation of chlorine and certain other materials toxic by inhalation.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, P. Student discussed the support system of the inner tank issue. A sub
task force of Lenard Majors, Ken Dorsey, J P Gagnon, Karl Alexy and Pat Student will investigate
the terms welded condition and weld metal. They will also review how the suspension of the
inner tank was calculated. Ultimately a methodology will need to be determined by this TF on how
to calculate the suspension of the inner tank.
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Student discussed the Draft Version 9 TF proposal which was
provided in the docket. Leonard Majors (PHMSA) will be added to TF and Cheryl West Freeman
will be removed.
Page 109
April 2013 Docket: T79.3.1
Sub. 1
Designation DOT130AW for New Car Class
At the J uly 2012 meeting, P. Student reported on work to develop an alternative for tank anchor. A
suggestion was made to look at what we currently require for all cars for static and dynamic load and
rollover requirements to determine if they are as severe as a 7G-3G-3G requirement. UTC has
modeled the current loads and it indicates that they are in excess of 7G-3G-3G. ARI shared with
UTC what they have done for comparison. The TF needs to develop requirements understandable by
non-engineers. The TF will also need delete the reference to tank anchors and put something else in
its place. A full review of the current tank car specifications might be warranted going forward, but
that is not being contemplated by this TF at this time.
At the October 2012 meeting, P. Student described the new proposal which was provided prior to the
meeting. This is for a new specification in which inter tank is placed in a support structure and the
design is based on a performance standard. The only hard joining structure is at the nozzle. The outer
portion of the tank car is the support structure. TF used existing 105 and 113 regulations for the basis
of this specification. A draft of this specification is under review. The progress is limited on section
regarding the tank anchor due to information collected.
Path forward:
Consider load requirements any freight car must past
Investigate chapter 6 requirements
Instrumented tests had loads well over 7G
AAR received the following material from P. Student via email 4/2/2012
T79.3.1
Develop Specification for Class 130 Tank cars (Proposed)
April 2012 Docket
Significant effort is being expended on defining the requirements of the tank support system.
Similar requirements for DOT Class 113 and Class 115 tank cars were developed in the early
1960s. These requirements are static calculations which the task force considers are not as robust as
current FEA methodologies.
Closing thought from one call, Why is this car any different from any other tank car? And arent
loads in C2 Chapter 6 sufficient? prompted the following question from FRA and TC How could
these tank cars not be seen as different?
Discussion on 179.120-14 Support system for inner tank.
Should the current requirements be kept as a static load? (How and where should loads be
applied.)
or
Should a new load case be defined for dynamic force and duration calculation?
The sense of call was that a dynamic requirement was more robust than a static requirement.
Considering the requirements of Chapter 6 of M-1001 a suggestion is that the inner tank support
Page 110
system should pass a requirement 20% greater than the 1.25M static and dynamic loads in 6.3.5 and
6.3.6 of M-1001, i.e., 1.5M
DRAFT V9 Proposed 179.120 & 121 Class DOT-130
PART 179SPECIFICATIONS FOR TANK CARS
Section Contents
Subpart CSpecifications for Pressure Tank Car Tanks (Classes DOT-105, 109, 112, 114, 120, and 130)
179.120 General specifications applicable to pressure tank car tanks consisting of an inner tank supported
within an outer structure shell (class DOT-130).
179.120-1 Tanks built under these specifications shall comply with the requirements of 179.120, 179.121 and
when applicable, 179.102-3.
179.120-3 Type.
(a) Tanks built under these specifications must consist of an inner tank, a support system for the inner tank container,
and an outer structure shell.
(b) The inner tank must be a fusion welded tank of circular cross section with formed heads designed convex outward
and shall be provided with a manway nozzle on top of the tank of sufficient size to permit access to the interior, a
manway cover to provide for the mounting of all valves, measuring and sampling devices, and a protective housing.
Other openings in the tank are prohibited.
(c) The outer structure shell must be a fusion welded tank of circular cross section with formed heads designed convex
outward.
(d)The design must meet:
(i) The following performance requirement.
(A) The completed tank car head must be capable of sustaining an impact of 1,500,000 ft lbs without loss of
lading, as demonstrated by any of the methods of compliance specified in Appendix C of this part, and
(B) The completed tank car shell must be capable of sustaining an impact of 2,500,000 ft lbs without loss of
lading, as demonstrated by any of the methods of compliance specified in Appendix C of this part.
or
(ii) The design must be approved by the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration.
(f) Carbon steel heads and shells of inner tanks and outer structure shell built under this specification must be
normalized. tank car Heads must be normalized after forming unless specific approval is granted for a facility's
equipment and controls.
179.120-4 Insulation.
(a) If insulation is a specification requirement, the annular space between the inner tank container and the outer
structure shell must contain an approved insulation material. The exterior surface of a carbon steel inner tank, and
the inside surface of a carbon steel outer structure shell must be given a protective coating.
(b) If insulation is a specification requirement, it shall be of sufficient thickness so that the thermal conductance at 60 F
is not more than 0.075 Btu per hour, per square foot, per degree F temperature differential.
179.120-6 Thickness of plates.
(a) The wall thickness after forming of the inner tank shell and heads must not be less than that specified in 179.121,
nor or that calculated by the following formula: t =Pd / 2SE
Where:
d = Inside diameter in inches;
E = 1.0 welded joint efficiency; except for heads with seams = 0.9;
P = Minimum required bursting pressure in p.s.i.;
S = Minimum tensile strength of plate material in p.s.i., as prescribed in 179.1207;
t = Minimum thickness of plate in inches after forming.
Page 111
(b) If plates are clad with material having tensile strength properties at least equal to the base plate, the cladding may be
considered a part of the base plate when determining thickness. If cladding material does not have tensile strength at
least equal to the base plate, the base plate alone shall meet the thickness requirement.
179.120-7 Materials.
(a) Steel plate: Steel plate materials used to fabricate tank shell and manway nozzle must comply with one of the
following specifications with the indicated minimum tensile strength and elongation in the welded condition. The
maximum allowable carbon content must be 0.31 percent when the individual specification allows carbon greater
than this amount. The plates may be clad with other approved materials.
Specifications
Minimum
tensile
strength
(p.s.i.) welded
condition
1
Minimumelongation
in 2 inches (percent)
welded condition
(longitudinal)
AAR TC 128, Gr. B 81,000 19
ASTM A 302
2
, Gr. B 80,000 20
ASTM A 516
2
70,000 20
ASTM A 537
2
, Class 1 70,000 23
1
Maximum stresses to be used in calculations.
2
These specifications are incorporated by reference (IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter).
(b) High alloy steel plate. (1) High alloy steel plate must conform to the following specifications:
Specifications
Minimumtensile
strength (p.s.i.)
welded condition
1
Minimumelongation
in 2 inches (percent)
weld metal
(longitudinal)
ASTM A 240/A 240M
(incorporated by
reference; see 171.7 of
this subchapter), Type
304L
70,000 30
ASTM A 240/A 240M
(incorporated by
reference; see 171.7 of
this subchapter), Type
316L
70,000 30
1
Maximum stresses to be used in calculations.
(2)(i) High alloy steels used to fabricate tank must be tested in accordance with the following procedures in ASTM A
262, Standard Practices for Detecting Susceptibility to Intergranular Attack in Austenitic Stainless Steel (IBR, see 171.7
of this subchapter), and must exhibit corrosion rates not exceeding the following: * * *
Test procedures Material Corrosion rate i.p.m.
Practice B Types 304L and 316L 0.0040
Practice C Type 304L 0.0020
(ii) Type 304L and 316L test specimens must be given a sensitizing treatment prior to testing.
(c) All attachments welded to tank shell must be of approved material which is suitable for welding to the tank.
179.120-8 Tank heads.
(a) The inner tank and support structure head shape shall be an ellipsoid of revolution in which the major axis shall equal
the diameter of the shell adjacent to the head and the minor axis shall be one-half the major axis.
(b) The outer structure shell head shape may be an ellipsoid of revolution in which the major axis shall equal the
diameter of the shell adjacent to the head and the minor axis shall be one-half the major axis, flaged and dished or
flat.
(c) Each inner tank and support outer structure head made from steel which is required to be fine grain by the material
specification, which is hot formed at a temperature exceeding 1700 F., must be normalized after forming by heating
to a temperature between 1550 and 1700 F., by holding at that temperature for at least 1 hour per inch of thickness
Page 112
(30-minute minimum), and then by cooling in air. If the material specification requires quenching and tempering, the
treatment specified in that specification must be used instead of the one specified above.
179.120-9 Welding.
(a) Except for circumferential closing joint in the cylindrical portion of the outer structure shell, each joint of an inner tank
and the outer structure shell must be a fusion double welded butt joint.
(b) The closure for openings and the circumferential closing joints in the cylindrical portion of the outer structure shell,
including head to shell joints, may be a single welded butt joint using a backing strip on the inside of the joint.
(c) Each joint must be welded in accordance with the requirements of AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix W
(IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter).
(d) Each welding procedure, welder, and fabricator must be approved. (See minute comment)
179.120-10 Postweld heat treatment.
(a) Any item to be welded to the outer structure shell must be attached before post weld heat treatment. After welding is complete,
inner tank and all attachments welded thereto and portions of the outer structure shell to which anchorage or draft sills are
attached must be postweld heat treated as a units in compliance with the requirements of AAR Specifications for Tank Cars,
appendix W (IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter).
(b) Welds securing the following need not be postweld heat treated when it is not practical due to final assembly
procedures:
(1) the inner tank support system to the outer structure shell
(2) closures for access openings, and
(3) circumferential closing joint of outer structure shell sections.
(c) Inner tank and welded attachments, fabricated from ASTM A 240/A 240M(IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter), Type
304L or Type 316L materials do not require postweld heat treatment, but these materials do require a corrosion
resistance test as specified in 179.1007(c)(2).
179.120-11 Non-destructive examination Radioscopy.
Each longitudinal and circumferential joint of the inner tank, and each longitudinal and circumferential double welded butt
joint of the outer structure shell and circumferential closing joint of outer structure structure, must be examined along its
entire length in accordance with the requirements of AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix W (IBR, see 171.7 of
this subchapter) or automated ultrasonic testing (automated UT).
179.120-12 Manway nozzle, cover and protective housing.
(a) Manway nozzles must be of approved design of forged or rolled steel, with an access opening of at least 18 inches
inside diameter, or at least 14 inches by 18 inches around or oval. Each nozzle must be welded to the tank and the
opening reinforced in an approved manner in compliance with the requirements of AAR Specifications for Tank Cars,
appendix E, Figure E10 E4 (E5 in 2007 version) IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter).
(b) Manway cover shall be machined to approved dimensions and be of forged or rolled carbon or alloy steel, rolled
nickel when required by the lading. Minimum thickness is listed in 179.101. Manway cover shall be attached to
manway nozzle by through or stud bolts not entering tank
(c) The protective housing must be welded to both the inner tank and the outer shell. Housing must have steel sidewalls
not less than three-fourths inch in thickness and must be equipped with a metal cover not less than one-fourth inch in
thickness that can be securely closed. Housing cover must have suitable stop to prevent cover striking loading and
unloading connections and be hinged on one side only with approved riveted pin or rod with nuts and cotters.
Openings in wall of housing must be equipped with screw plugs or other closures.
(c)(d) The protective housing top fitting protection system and nozzle must meet the performance requirements of
179.102-3(a).
(d)(e) A seal must be provided The joint between the inner tank manway nozzle and the opening in the outer structure
shell must be weather tight.
179.120-13 Openings in the tanks.
Openings in the inner tank container and the outer structure shell for the manway nozzle and those for inspection of the
inner tank during operation must be reinforced in compliance with AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix E (IBR,
see 171.7 of this subchapter). In determining the required reinforcement area for openings in the outer structure shell, t
Page 113
shall be one-fourth inch.
179.120-14 Support systemfor inner tank.
(a) The inner tank container must be supported within the outer structure shell by a support system of adequate strength
and ductility at its operating temperature to support the inner tank container when filled with liquid lading to any level.
The support system must be designed to support, without yielding, impact loads producing accelerations of the
following magnitudes and directions when the inner tank container is loaded so that the car is at its rail load limit, and
the car is equipped with a conventional AAR Specification M901 draft gear.
Longitudinal 7G
Transverse 3G
Vertical 3G
(b) The longitudinal acceleration may be reduced to 3G where a cushioning device of approved design, which has been
tested to demonstrate its ability to limit body forces to 400,000 pounds maximum at a 10 miles per hour impact, is
used between the coupler and the tank structure. The support system must be of approved design. and the inner
tank container must be thermally isolated from the outer shell to the best practical extent.
(c) The inner container and outer shell must be permanently bonded to each other electrically either by the support
systemused, piping, or by a separate electrical connection of approved design.
179.120-14 Support systemfor inner tank. (Sub task force proposal)
(a) The inner tank must be supported within the outer structure shell by a support system of adequate strength and ductility at its
operating temperature to support the inner tank when filled with liquid lading to any level. The support system must be designed
to support, without yielding, loads of the following magnitudes and directions applied to the inner tank.
Longitudinal 7G
Transverse 3G
Vertical (up and down) 3G
Where G is defined as the weight of the inner tank plus the lading weight that would be required to bring the tank car
to its rail load limit.
Any incipient or localized yielding stress singularity appearing in the design calculations must be either justified or
eliminated through remodeling.
179.120-15 Venting, loading and unloading valves, measuring and sampling devices.
(a) Venting, loading and unloading valves must be of approved design, made of metal not subject to rapid deterioration
by the lading, and must withstand the tank test pressure without leakage. The valves shall be bolted to seatings on
the manway cover. Valve outlets shall be closed with approved screw plugs or other closures fastened to prevent
misplacement.
(b) The interior pipes of the loading and unloading valves shall be anchored and, except as prescribed in 173.314(j) or
179.102, must be equipped with spring loaded check valves of approved design, or with excess flow valves of
approved design.
(c) Gauging device, sampling valve and thermometer well are not specification requirements. When used, they shall be
of approved design, made of metal not subject to rapid deterioration by the lading, and shall withstand the tank test
pressure without leakage. Interior pipes of the sampling valve must be equipped with excess flow valves of approved
design. Interior pipe of the thermometer well shall be anchored in an approved manner to prevent breakage due to
vibration. The thermometer well shall be closed by an approved valve attached close to the manway cover, or other
approved location, and closed by a screw plug. Other approved arrangements that permit testing thermometer well
for leaks without complete removal of the closure may be used.
(d) An spring loaded check valve as referred to in this specification, is a device designed to close automatically against
the outward flow of the contents of the tank when the valve above it is closed and maintain the closed configuration in
case the external closure valve is broken off or removed during transit
(e) An excess flow valve as referred to in this specification, is a device, which closes automatically against the outward
flow of the contents of the tank in case the external closure valve is broken off or removed during transit. Excess flow
valves may be designed with a by-pass to allow the equalization of pressures. Need definition fromJP.
Page 114
(f) Bottom of tank shell may be equipped with a sump or siphon bowl, or both, welded or pressed into the shell. Such
sumps or siphon bowls, if applied, are not limited in size and must be made of cast, forged or fabricated metal. Each
sump or siphon bowl must be of good welding quality in conjunction with the metal of the tank shell. When the sump
or siphon bowl is pressed in the bottom of the tank shell, the wall thickness of the pressed section must not be less
than that specified for the shell. The section of a circular cross section tank to which a sump or siphon bowl is
attached need not comply with the out-of-roundness requirement specified in AAR Specifications for Tank Cars,
appendix W, W14.06 (IBR, see 171.7 of this subchapter). Any portion of a sump or siphon bowl not forming a part of
cylinder of revolution must have walls of such thickness and be so reinforced that the stresses in the walls caused by
a given internal pressure are no greater than the circumferential stress that would exist under the same internal
pressure in the wall of a tank of circular cross section designed in accordance with 179.1206(a), but in no case
shall the wall thickness be less than that specified in 179.1211.
179.120-16 Cleaning of inner tank.
The interior of the inner tank and all connecting lines must be thoroughly cleaned and dried prior to use. Proper
precautions must be taken to avoid contamination of the system after cleaning.
179.120-17 Attachments.
(a) All attachments to inner tank container and outer structure shell must be applied by approved means.
(b) Reinforcing pads must be applied to the inner tank where any assembly between the inner tank and outer structure
applies a load. Reinforcing pads must be applied to the outer structure on which anchorage or draft sills are applied.
Reinforcing pads must be in accordance with AAR Specifications for Tank Cars appendix E 15 (IBR, see 171.7 of
this subchapter). Reinforcing pads must be used between external brackets and the inner tank or outer structure
shell, if the attachment welds exceed 6 linear inches of1/4-inch fillet or equivalent weld per bracket or bracket leg.
When reinforcing pads are used, they must not be less than one-fourth inch in thickness, have each corner rounded
to a 1-inch minimum radius, and be attached to the tank by continuous fillet welds except for venting provisions. The
ultimate shear strength of the bracket-to-reinforcing pad weld must not exceed 85 percent of the ultimate shear
strength of the reinforcing pad-to-tank weld.
(c) Attachments not otherwise specified shall be applied by approved means.
179.120-18 Closures for openings.
(a) Closures shall be of approved design and made of metal not subject to rapid deterioration by the lading. Plugs, if
used, shall be solid, with NPT threads, and shall be of a length, which will screw at least six threads inside the face of
fitting or tank.
(b) Openings in the outer structure shell used during construction for installation of support structure components must
be closed in an approved manner. Openings in the outer structure for drainage must have provisions to be closed in
an approved manner.
(c) Openings in the outer structure shell used for inspection of the inner tank during operation must be closed in an
approved manner.
179.120-19 Test of tanks.
(a) Each inner tank container or compartment must be tested hydrostatically to the pressure specified in 179.2211.
The temperature of the pressurizing medium must not exceed 100 F. during the test. The container must hold the
prescribed pressure for at least 10 minutes without leakage or evidence of yielding distress. Safety relief devices
must not be in place when the test is made.
(b) The inner tank container must be pressure tested before installation within the outer structure shell. Items, which
because of assembly sequence, must be welded to inner tank container after its installation within outer structure
shell must have their attachment welds thoroughly inspected by a nondestructive dye penetrant method or its
equivalent.
(c) Repairs in welded joints shall be made as prescribed in AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix W (IBR, see
171.7 of this subchapter).
(d) Pressure testing of outer structure shell l is not required. a specification requirement.
179.100-20 Tests of safety relief valves.
(a) Each valve shall be tested by air or gas for compliance with 179.15 before being put into service.
Page 115
179.120-21 Stamping. Specification plate.
(a) To certify that the tank complies with all specification requirements, each tank shall be plainly and permanently
stamped in letters and figures at least3/8inch high into the metal near the center of both outside heads as follows:
Example of required
stamping
Specification DOT-130A300W
Material AAR TC128B
Cladding material (if any) ASTM A240304
Tank builder's initials Clad
Date of original test ABC
Car assembler (if other than tanker
builder)
000000
DEF
(a)(b) Authorized DOT tank cars with stainless steel identification plates must have their DOT Specification and other
required information stamped plainly and permanently on their identification plate in conformance wit the applicable
requirements prescribed in 179.24(a).
Example of required
stamping
Specification DOT-130A300W
Material AAR TC128B
Cladding material (if any) ASTM A240304
Tank builder's initials ABC
Date of original test 00-0000
Car assembler (if other than tanker
builder)
DEF
179.121 Individual specification requirements applicable to Class DOT-130 pressure tank car tanks.
179.121-1 Individual specification requirements.
In addition to 179.120, the individual specification requirements are as follows:
DOT
specification Insulation
Bursting
pressure (psig)
Minimumplate
thickness
(inches)
1
Test
pressure
(psig)
Manway
cover
thickness
Bottom
outlet
Bottom
washout
Reference
(179.***)
130A300W Yes 750 7/16 300 2 1/4No No
130J300W Yes 750 7/16 300 2 1/4No No
130S300W No 750 7/16 300 2 1/4No No
130A400W Yes 1000 7/16 400 2 1/4No No
130J400W Yes 1000 7/16 400 2 1/4No No
130S400W No 1000 7/16 400 2 1/4No No
130A500W Yes 1250 7/16 500 2 1/4No No
130J500W Yes 1250 7/16 500 2 1/4No No
130S500W No 1250 7/16 500 2 1/4No No
1
Or that calculated by 179.120-6
APPENDIX C TO PART 179
PROCEDURES FOR TANK-HEAD AND SHELL PUNCTURE- RESISTANCE SYSTEMS TESTS
This Appendix provides performance criteria for the impact evaluation of Class DOT-130. Each of the
following criteria describes a collision scenario in which the integrity of the tank must be maintained. These
performance criteria are intended to prevent loss of lading during train collisions and derailments.
(a) Tank Heads.
(1) Objective. The end structures of the tank car must withstand a frontal impact with a proxy
object, which is intended to approximate a loaded freight car, including the coupler with the
knuckle removed. (see figure 1).
Page 116
(2) Fixed rigid punch characteristics and orientation. The fixed rigid punch must have the following
characteristics: It shall protrude at least 1.5 meters (60 inches) from its base and it shall be 0.5
meters (21 inches) above the lowest edge of the commodity tank. The fixed rigid punch must
have cross-section of 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) high by 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) wide, with
1.3 centimeter (1/2 inch) radii on the edges of the impact face.
(3) Tank car characteristics. The tank car must be filled with no more than 10% outage with lading
of the same density as the commodity the car type is intended to carry, and pressurized to at
least 100 psi.
(4) Impact. The end structure of the tank car must withstand a 1,500,000 ft. lb. impact with the fixed
rigid punch, resulting in the tank maintaining its integrity. At the instant of contact, the
longitudinal centerline of the punch must be aligned with the longitudinal centerline of the
tank.
(5) Result. There must be no loss of lading due to this impact. A test is successful if there is no
visible leak from the standing tank car for at least one hour after the impact.
(b) Tank Shell.
(1) Objective. The shell structure of the tank car must withstand a side impact with a proxy object,
which is intended to approximate a loaded freight car, including the coupler with the knuckle
removed (see figure 2).
(2) Proxy object characteristics and orientation. The proxy object must have the following
characteristics: 286,000 pound minimum weight and rigid punch protruding at least 1.5 meters
(60 inches). The rigid punch must have cross-section of 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) high by 15.2
centimeters (6 inches) wide, with 1.3 centimeter (1/2 inch) radii on the edges of the impact
face.
(3) Tank car characteristics. The tank car must be filled with no more than 10% outage with lading of
the same density as the commodity the car type is intended to carry, and pressurized to at least
100 psi. The tank car must be restrained in the direction of impact.
(4) Impact. The end structure of the tank car must withstand a 2,500,000 ft. lb. impact with the proxy
Page 117
object resulting in the tank maintaining its integrity. At the instant of contact, the longitudinal
centerline of the punch must be aligned with the lateral centerline of the tank.
(5) Result. There must be no loss of lading due to this impact. A test is successful if there is no
visible leak from the standing tank car for at least one hour after the impact.
(c) Demonstration of Compliance.
Compliance with the tank-head and shell puncture-resistance system requirement tests above must
be demonstrated by any of the methods prescribed in this paragraph, or by a combination of these
methods. Before a design is implemented based on the methods in (2) through (5) below, the party
seeking to comply must submit all relevant documentation and analysis to FRA and FRA will
acknowledge in writing that compliance with the requirements has been met.
(1) Full-scale testing.
(2) Performance of the test with substructures or models of appropriate scale incorporating those
features that are significant with respect to the item under investigation, when engineering
experience has shown results of those tests to be suitable for design purposes. When a scale
model is used, the need for adjusting certain test parameters must be taken into account.
(3) Calculations, computer simulation, or substructure testing using reliable and conservative
procedures and parameters;
(4) Reference to a previous satisfactory design of a sufficiently similar nature; or
(5) A combination of any of the methods set forth in paragraphs (2) through (4) above.
Page 118
April 2013 Docket: T79.3.1
Sub. 1
Designation DOT130AW for New Car Class
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student stated that this is pending modeling results. Information is
being finalized and the TF plans to meet soon.
CURRENT TF: P. Student, AD, McKisic, G. Sandheinrich, J . DeLacerda, F. Reiner, K. Dorsey,
K. Alexy, J P Gagnon, J . Kappel, L. Loman, L. Majors
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCE: P. Student (4/2/12)
Page 119
April 2013 Docket: T79.3.2
Sub. 1
Consider New DOT113A90W Specification
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that a special permit has been issued which allow
these cars to operate. K. Dorsey stated that efforts are being made allow the transportation of LNG ,
which would lead to a potential new specification DOT113A140W. If this were to move forward a
petition would need to be made to DOT which would include changes to 49 CFR Part 173 and the
172.101 table to allow LNG to be shipped without special permit.
This docket was opened to move tank car specifications from 2 special permits into the regulations.
Under the provisions of 179.4 Changes in specifications for tank cars proposed changes in or
additions to specifications for tanks must be submitted to the Executive DirectorTank Car Safety,
AAR, for consideration by its Tank Car Committee. The Tank Car Committee will review the
proposed specifications at its earliest convenience and report its recommendations through the
Executive DirectorTank Car Safety to the Department. The recommendation will be considered by
the Department in determining appropriate action.
Special permits DOT-SP 11803 and DOT-SP15131 authorize a DOT113A90W tank car for
transportation of argon, nitrogen and oxygen, atmospheric gases. Tank car of this specification have
been used for a number of years with good results.
Changes in the regulations necessary for inclusion of this specification are to 173.319 to include the
requirements for argon, nitrogen and oxygen and to 179.401-1 for additional requirements for the
DOT113A90W specification. The modifications to the sections to accommodate the changes are
show below
AAR received the following recommendation via email 4/4/2012 by P. Student:
Recommendation
The Tank Car Committee through the Executive Director Tank Car Safety recommends to the
Department the inclusion of specification DOT113A90W in the regulations.
173.319 Cryogenic liquids in tank cars
(d) A Class DOT-113 tank car is authorized for the shipment of the following cryogenic liquids
subject to the following additional requirements:
(2) Argon, ethylene, hydrogen (minimum 95 percent parahydrogen), nitrogen and oxygen cryogenic
liquids must be loaded and shipped in accordance with the following table:
Page 120
Pressure Control Valve Setting or Relief Valve Setting
Maximum starttodischarge pressure (psig) Maximum permitted filling density (percent by weight)
Aigon Ethylene Ethylene Ethylene Byuiogen Nitiogen 0xygen
17 6.6
2S 1S2 72 1u4
4S S2.8
SS 127.2 72 1u4
6u 126 72 1u4
7S S1.1 S1.1
Naximum piessuie when offeieu foi tianspoitation 1u psig 1u psig 1u psig
Besign seivice tempeiatuie
Ninus
S2u F
Ninus
26u F
Ninus
26u F
Ninus
1SS F
Ninus
42S F
Ninus
S2u F
Ninus
S2u F
Specification (see 18u.Su6(b)(S) of this
subchaptei)
11SA9uW
11SB6uW
11SC6uW
11SC12uW 11SB12uW
11SA17SW
11SA6uW
11SA9uW 11SA9uW
Page 121
179.401-1 Individual specification requirements
In addition to 179.400, the individual specification requirements for the inner tank and its appurtenances are as follows:
DOT Specification 113A60W 113A90W 113C120W
Design service temperature, F -423 -320 -260
Material 179.4uuS 179.4uuS 179.4uuS
Impact test (weld and plate material) 179.4uuS(c) 179.4uuS(c) 179.4uuS(c)
Impact test values 179.4uuS(u) 179.4uuS(u) 179.4uuS(u)
Standard heat transfer rate
(BTU per day per lb. of water capacity, max.) (see 179.400-4) 0.097 5.8 0.4121
Bursting pressure, min. psig 240 240 300
Minimum plate thickness shell, inches (see 179.400-7(a)) 3/16 3/16 3/16
Minimum head thickness, inches (see 179.400-8(a), (b), and (c)) 3/16 3/16 3/16
Test pressure, psig (see 179.400-16) 60 90 120
Safety vent bursting pressure, max. psig 60 90 120
Pressure relief valve start-to-discharge pressure, psig (3 psi) 30 60 75
Pressure relief valve vapor tight pressure, min. psig 24 48 60
Pressure relief valve flow rating pressure, max. psig 40 66 85
Alternate pressure relief valve start-to-discharge pressure, psig (3 psi) 72 90
Alternate pressure relief valve vapor tight pressure, min. psig 58 72
Alternate pressure relief valve flow rating pressure, max. psig 80 100
Pressure control valve stat-to-vent, max. psig (see 179.400-20(c) (4) 17 Not required
Pressure control valve Optional up to 60 psig
Relief device discharge restrictions 179.4uu2u 179.4uu2u
Transfer line insulation 179.4uu17 Not required
Page 122
April 2013 Docket: T79.3.2
Sub. 1
Consider New DOT113A90W Specification
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Student provided a PowerPoint presentation on the requirements for
the DOT Specification 113A tank cars. Motion made, seconded, and passed to move proposal onto
the executive TCC for consideration.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the table on page 129 should be fixed, tank builders initials should be
move up a row. COD. Request inclusion of DOT113A90W cars in 49CFR179.400 and TC19. P.
Student will provide some additional information. There is a paragraph while will require another
paragraph in 319. The committee agreed to request the inclusion of the specification from DOT and
TC with the addition of the one paragraph.
At the October 2012 meeting, P. Student stated that changes to tank car specifications must go
through the Executive Director of Tank Car Safety of AAR prior to going to PHMSA. Docket open
as information only at this time. Work involves Mr. Student providing information to K. Dorsey.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that a special permit has been issued which allow
these cars to operate. K. Dorsey stated that efforts are being made allow the transportation of LNG ,
which would lead to a potential new specification DOT113A140W. If this were to move forward a
petition would need to be made to DOT which would include changes to 49 CFR Part 173 and the
172.101 table to allow LNG to be shipped without special permit.
CURRENT TF: P. Student
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCE: P. Student (4/4/12)
Page 123
April 2013 Docket: T79.20.27
M/GDE
Review of Richmond Built Stub Sills
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD pending CPC and maintenance advisory (MA).
As discussed at the J uly 2008 meeting, BNSF had a 1973 Richmond Built design has a fatigue cracks
to 1 defect and so a recommended inspection would like to be done on these cars. BNSF is in the
process of developing a fatigue analysis and initial findings indicate that a 10 year interval may not be
enough to prevent failure during transportation. The BNSF representative suggests that an inspection
interval shorter 10 years may be appropriate on these design cars. P. Whelan made a motion to open
up a docket on sill pad and fatigue issues on Richmond Build Tank Cars. The TF will be P. Whelan,
F. Gonzalez (FRA), J P Gagnon (TC), J oe Perez (UTC), J ohn Sbragia (GATX) and Dave Maechling
with additions expected at the October meeting. Charge of TF:. Issues that may impact the conclusion
include what effect the head brace and sill pad modifications may have on fatigue performance.
BNSF has funding to perform fatigue analysis on Richmond Cars.
At the October 2008 meeting, Pat Whelan reported fatigue cracks at the weld terminations at the sill
pad on both sides and is occurring on both ends of the car. An AAR maintenance advisory was issued
on the cars with this fatigue crack issue. A total of 44 cars have been inspected with 19 having defects
and 23 with no defects. It was reported by Pat that some of the cars with weld defects have been
scrapped. TF will look at making recommendations in the near future. P. Allenby has volunteered to
be on the task force.
J P Gagnon mentioned that there are other cars with similar fatigue cracks and this issue should not
solely be focused on Richmond build stub sills. Pat Whelans mentioned that this project is being
funded by BNSF and the focus has been placed on Richmond built stub sills. A few committee
members mentioned possible replacing the docket name with transverse weld defects and broadening
the scope of the investigation.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that fatigue analysis should be completed by the
end of the J anuary 2009. The results should be available by the April 2009 TCC meeting. P. Whelan
will provide K. Dorsey the fatigue analysis report.
At the April 2009 meeting, TF has not met on this docket. BNSF performed a fatigue analysis which
is now complete. The TF can now meet to discuss the ability to detect flaws in the sill pad area with a
focus on a more sensitivity in the critical areas of the stub sills.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, P. Whalen reported the analysis from the 3
rd
party contractor is to be
delivered soon. TF should have a proposal by the October TCC meeting.
Page 124
April 2013 Docket: T79.20.27
M/GDE
Review of Richmond Built Stub Sills
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF has not met recently. He reported that
analysis is being performed on the sill pad weld terminations.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF has not met recently. He reported that
fatigue analysis is complete and that the TF plans to have a recommendation for the TCC by April
2010 TCC meeting.
At the April 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported on the summary of average life and geometries of
test stub sills. Recent fatigue analysis showed a 14% improvement on fatigue life due to the
continuance of the weld around the end of the stub sill pad. TF is developing a recommended
practice.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, P. Whelan mentioned that the TF has the intent to put together a best
practices document for car maintainers on these sills. The goal of the TF is to have a proposal by the
October TCC meeting.
At the October 2010 meeting, P. Whelan discussed the purpose of this docket being opened was due
to a 1973 failure of a Richmond Built stub sill. Analysis has been performed on this sill design with
modifications made in 1974 and 1978. Analysis showed that fatigue life was improved by the use of
a head brace. The TF plans to have a recommended practice for inspection on these sills in the near
future.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported that this TF has not met recently however the TF
plans to have a recommendation by the April 2011 TCC meeting.
At the April 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported on the TF proposal provided in the docket. A motion
was made, seconded, and passed to accept the proposal as written with the revised wording below and
move the proposal to the executive TCC for their consideration:
Item B under #6:
b. Use enhanced Nondestructive Inspection techniques such as magnetic particle, die
dye penetrant, or ultrasonic to identify flaws in the critical area. The Nondestructive
Inspection technique selected must have the ability to reliably detect critical flaws in
this area.
Page 125
April 2013 Docket: T79.20.27
M/GDE
Review of Richmond Built Stub Sills
AAR received this T79.20.27 Proposal via email on April 8, 2011
CPC-1189 was issued J uly 2, 2008 to address a concern that Richmond built non-pressure tank cars
with non continuous stub sill reinforcing pads are susceptible to cracking at the termination of the
stub sill pad welds. These cracks can propagate and result in catastrophic failure of the tank.
Several configurations of this sill arrangement have been analyzed by a task force formed by the
AAR Tank Car Committee and the results are included herein.
1. Several configurations of the Richmond sill were analyzed:
a. The original sill pad as constructed in 1973 (significantly shorter than shown).
b. With a sill pad extension (as shown).
c. With addition of head brace.
d. With attachment welds terminating at the inboard end of the sill pad.
e. With the inboard end of the sill pad welded continuously.
All welding in this area
is critical to the sill
performance.
The sill pad is highlighted in blue in the
schematic at left. All welding performed at
the inboard termination of this sill pad is
critical to the overall sill performance.
All welding is susceptible to development
of fatigue cracks in this area as it is a
high stress region of the tank car. Any
weld discontinuities can act as stress
risers to further reduce fatigue life.
It is the opinion of the task force that the
critical flaw size is approximately inch
(a flaw of this size has potential to result in
catastrophic failure).
Page 126
2. Summary of the average fatigue lives and geometries (see notes):
a. Short sill pad (original Richmond Construction 1973) without head brace =111,700 miles
b. Extended sill pad =127,500 miles
c. Extended sill pad without weld termination =118,400 miles
d. Extended sill pad with head brace =137,000 miles
Notes:
1. These estimates are based on the AAR Railroad Environment Percent
Occurrence Spectrum (REPOS) data and may also be subject to additional
modeling error.
2. Results are provided solely for informational purposes with the intent of
highlighting the critical nature of this region.
3. AAR MSRP C-II Chapter 7 defines fatigue failure as having occurred when a
crack is visible with the unaided eye.
3. The sill extension provides an estimated 14 percent improvement in fatigue life.
4. Wrapping weld around entire end of pad appears to reduce fatigue life 8 percent. However,
several members of the task force reported better performance with this configuration on cars in
actual service. In service performance should be analyzed by the car owner to determine
the best course of action and inspection cycle.
5. Addition of head brace appears to improve fatigue life approximately 7 percent.
Modeling results show the maximum stresses at the weld terminations.
(Note that the stress scale used in this analysis is different than the
continuously welded configuration shown on the following page).
Page 127
6. Recommended Practice:
a. Inspection should be performed at time of Qualification or shorter interval based on fleet
performance.
b. Use enhanced Nondestructive Inspection techniques such as magnetic particle, diye
penetrant, or ultrasonic to identify flaws in the critical area. The Nondestructive Inspection
technique selected must have the ability reliably detectto identify critical flaws in this area.
c. Some fatigue crack initiating defects are:
i. Undersized welds (note weld size must be adjusted if there is excessive gap
between the pad and the tank).
ii. Undercut at toe of welds.
iii. Crater at weld terminations.
iv. Poor weld profile.
v. Poor weld fusion or penetration.
vi. Weld porosity.
vii. Weld overlap.
d. All welding must be inspected and conform to Appendix W.
e. Proper stress relief must be performed after weld repairs per requirements of Appendix R.
Modeling results of a continuously welded pad show the maximum
stresses about the centerline of the tank shell inboard of the sill pad
(note that stress scale used in this analysis is different than the
analysis of the terminated weld configuration).
Page 128
April 2013 Docket: T79.20.27
M/GDE
Review of Richmond Built Stub Sills
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the TF proposal which was provided in the docket.
The committee agreed that AAR staff should issue a second CPC based on the proposal as written.
At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that a second CPC will be issued based on the
proposal written. Mr. Dorsey also stated that a CPC will be issued on all cars that have non-
continuous stub sill reinforcing pads that are susceptible to cracking at the termination of the stub sill
pad welds. It was noted that TC was considering a requirement to use a method with more
sensitivity than visual in this area.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR will create a CPC/MA on this issue with
non-continuous stub sill reinforcement pads.
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Whelan stated that the TF considers this docket closed. K. Dorsey
stated that a CPC has been published on this work. Motion made, seconded, and passed to RFD this
docket. Before moving onto the next docket an industry representative asked what CPC number was
for this docket. It appears that a CPC has not been published therefore this docket will remain open
until a CPC is published.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, they are either continuous or not-continuous tank reinforcement pads.
There will be another MA asking that non-continuous sills need to include focused inspection at weld
terminations and repaired areas. The wording from the previous MA will be modified to include all
sill types.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that an MA was published by AAR for tank cars with
Richmond built stub sills. TCC has asked AAR to publish another MA on all other tank cars
exhibiting the same issue. Docket will remain open until all cars are accounted for.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD pending CPC and maintenance advisory (MA).
CURRENT TF: P. Whelan (Chr), F. Gonzalez (FRA), J P Gagnon (TC), J oe Perez (UTC), J ohn
Sbragia (GATX), D. Maechling, P. Allenby
TF CHARGE: Consider the inspection interval of Richmond built tank cars
REFERENCES:
Page 129
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student discussed the damage assessment TF effort under the AAR
Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee. P. Daum is the project manager. Pamphlet 34 was recently
published which includes the all of the material under paragraph 6.0 from Appendix D which
includes tables D7-D13. Another publication available to industry is the Field Guide to Tank Cars.
The AAR was asked to send one copy to each TCC member. The AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar is scheduled for May 21-23, 2013 in Addison, TX. Information on the event can be found on
the BOE website at www.boe.aar.com
P. Student mentioned that the Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee recently reviewed OT-55 and
that the key train definition is still under review. The Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee is in full
support of the NAR Reduction Task Force Contact Network Phase I project.
This docket was established to improve and maintain communications between the Hazardous
Materials (BOE) Committee (formerly Bureau of Explosives Steering Committee) and the Tank Car
Committee, recognizing that the HAZMAT Committee deals with several matters of interest to the
tank car industry. At the 7/97 meeting, it was noted that PJ Student has joined the Tank Car
Committee and will serve as the liaison between the Hazmat Committee and the TCC.
At the October 2002 meeting, P. Student reported that the AAR Hazardous Materials Committee
would be working on Canadian Clear Language issues at their December meeting. The TCC asked
that AAR Hazardous Materials Committee to address the following item discussed by the TCC at the
J uly 2002 meeting:
With respect to the proposal to increase puncture resistance for all tank cars, the committee agreed
(at the J uly 2002 meeting) that, rather than increasing the specification requirements for all tank cars,
railroad representatives should work through the BOE steering committee to develop risk-based
packaging requirements for specific commodities. Where the BOE committee feels it appropriate, the
TCC will consider enhanced packaging requirements for these commodities. M. Lyden asked that
shipper groups be included in the development of any list of commodities that would require
enhanced packaging. P Student reported that the BOE/HAZMAT committee would take this up as
new business at their December 2002 meeting.
At the J uly 2003 meeting, Pat Student reported that the next meeting of this committee will be in
three weeks. Paul Williams has left TTCI for a position with NS. This committee will be
commenting on HM-206B. He also noted a TSA meeting coming up in Baltimore concerning car
marking and security issues.
At the J anuary 2004 meeting, P. Student reported that the position of staff assistant to this committee
has not yet been filled. HM-223 comments have been submitted, and a petition has been filed on
HM-229.
At the April 2004 meeting, P. Student reported that there is still no replacement for P. Williams as the
BOE/Hazmat Staff Assist. The BOE Hazmat Committee is still working on a shipping description
data base.
Page 130
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison (Cont)
At the October 2004 meeting, P. Student reported that P. Pierce is the new staff assistant for the
BOE/Hazmat Committee. The BOE Hazmat Committee is asking for access to tank car materials of
construction from UMLER to fill in needed information the FRA accident reports.
At the J anuary 2005 meeting, Pat Student reported that Pat Pierce is the new staff support for BOE.
At the April 2005 meeting, P. Student reported that there are 3 new BOE inspectors in training to fill
vacancies. The plain language HazMat instructions are being worked on as well as the Spanish
language version of the instructions.
At the J uly 2005 meeting, P. Student reported that the hazardous materials seminar went well and
attendance was very good. It will be held in Kansas City again next year.
At the October 2005 meeting, P. Student reported that OT-55H had been modified to include TIH
materials in Zones A, B, C, and D plus Anhydrous Ammonia.
At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Pat student reported that the shipping description database for Mexico
has been completed. The BOE/Hazmat committee would like to see more rapid adoption of top
fittings protection requirements for all cars. They may ask also for reconsideration of some of the
wording used in the nonmetallic parts standard adopted by TCC.
At the April 2006 meeting, P. Student reported that his committee was working on comments to
HM-215f and blocking and bracing issues.
At the J uly 2006 meeting, P. Student reported that OT-55-I (CPC-1174) has been issued. The 2007
BOE conference will be held in Kansas City.
At the October 2006 meeting, Matt Forister was introduced as a new TTCI staff person who will be
assisting the BOE/Hazmat Committee and the NAR group.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, P. Student reported that the BOE/Hazmat committee had opened a
docket on threaded connections. The Hazmat seminar will be held in Kansas City May 22-24, 2007.
At the April 2007 meeting, P. Student reported that the Hazmat Committee supported the TCC
activity on threaded connections. The NARRI reporting system is being reviewed for possible
modification. The committee is reviewing switching speeds and consist accuracy.
At the J uly 2007 meeting, P. Student reported that the BOE/Hazmat committee would be discussing
AAR 600 at their August 2007 meeting.
At the October 2007 meeting, P. Student reported on the activities of the BOE/Hazmat committee. He
noted that there are activities underway involving surge suppression devices, AAR 600 and an OT-
55I update. This years seminar will be held in St. Louis May 20-22, 2008.
Page 131
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison (Cont)
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, Pat Student gave a briefing on the issues being considered by the Haz
Mat (BOE) Committee such a train placement issues, AAR-600 and the hazardous material
description database migration.
At the April 2008 meeting, M. Forister discussed work on AAR 600. The committee should receive a
report on the direction of AAR 600 at the October meeting.
At the J uly 2008 meeting, P. Student reported that AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Seminar was
held in May in St. Louis, MO. There were 522 industry professionals attended the 2 day event.
2008 seminar had a 4% increase in attendance from last year. The next BOE Seminar will be held at
the Westin Crown Center in Kansas City, MO. Committee is working on a form to gather data on
rupture disc failures. The committee has note a need to identify how different commodities differ in
mechanism of failure. US Hazardous Materials Instructions for Rail and the Instructions for Handling
Hazardous Material Intermodal Gate Operations were completed J une 25, 2008. No changes to OT-
55.
At the October 2008 meeting, P. Student reported on the upcoming AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar which is to be held in Kansas City, MO at the Westin Crown Center, May 19-21, 2009. It
was reported that pamphlet 34 will be published in the BOE Tariff 6000 and the recommendation
from the Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee to the Tank Car Committee on removing the AAR
600 standard from the Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices M-1002.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that the BOE Seminar will be held in Kansas City,
MO at the Westin Crown Center, May 19-21, 2009. Registration information can be found at
http://boe.aar.com. The Haz Mat (BOE) committee will review changes to OT-55 due to the HM246
Final Rule. The committee nominated David Schoendorfer of Norfolk Southern, who has received
approval from his management, to replace P. Student as the Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee
Liaison when P. Student retires.
Damage assessment was mentioned by D. Simpson from CN. He had mentioned that the TCC might
want to consider a national damage assessment protocol. D. Simpson was curious if the BOE hazmat
committee had discussed to some degree the agreement of one damage assessment protocol? P.
Student replied that this topic was not on the agenda and therefore not discussed at the last BOE
committee meeting. It was noted that if there was a national protocol local incident commanders
would be less likely to overreact when evaluating accidents.
D. Simpson also asked is there was any way to combine the following PHMSA Final Rule
publications into a single document: Enhancing Rail Transportation Safety and Security for
Hazardous Materials Shipments, TSA Final Rule: Rail Transportation Security, alert train list, and
OT-55: Recommended Railroad Operating Practices for Transportation of Hazardous Materials?
AAR will review the question
Page 132
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison (Cont)
At the April 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that the AAR 22
nd
Annual Hazardous Materials
(BOE) Seminar will be held on May 19-21 in Kansas City, MO at the Westin Crown Center.
Information on the seminar can be found at http://boe.aar.com/. J . Wasserman will be this years
keynote speaker. Holden Proefrock and NAR Grand Slam Award will be given at the general session
on Tuesday May 19
th
. Final copy of the ERPG for ethanol and phosphoric acid are not available. The
OT-55 circular was revised to indicate that a key train definition is now 1 car instead of 5. Through
the efforts of NS with the complete support from all Class I railroad members a DVD of Pamphlet 34
will be available on the NAR website for download.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, P. Student reported on the work involving cross boarder shipping paper
information. The BOE recognized T. Phemister at the Annual Hazardous Materials (BOE) Seminar
in May with the Holden Proefrock Award. Both frangible disks and vacuum relief valves are topics
of interest to the BOE committee.
The following will be added to the BOE Committee Docket for August.
Damage assessment - to discuss a recommended practice for national damage assessment.
Review of the design and performance of Vacuum Relief Valves (TCC Docket T50.54)
Emergency Response Guidelines for Ethanol and Phosphoric Acid are published: Both of these
ERPG reports are available on the AIHA website at http://www.aiha.org/content/
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that T. Phemister (FRA) was awarded the Holden
Proefrock award during the general session at this years AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials Seminar in
Kansas City, MO. Pat reported that the NAR Reduction Task Force reports to the Hazardous
Materials Committee and therefore the committee will review the NAR RTF documents. The United
States Hazardous Materials Instructions for Rail and Instructions for Handling Hazardous Materials
Intermodal Gate Operations will be reviewed in the near future. On October 14
th
a hearing was
scheduled in Washington, DC involving PHMSA on the proof of concept for electronic shipping
papers. The committee recently reviewed OT-55 and one item being considered is a no-bill no-pull
policy.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that an update will be provided at the April 2010
TCC meeting.
At the April 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that the 23
rd
Annual AAR/ BOE Hazardous Materials
Seminar is scheduled for May 25-27 2010 at the Westin Crown Center in Kansas City, MO. The
2011 Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials Seminar will be held in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott
Union Station.
P. Student reported that CPC-1210 Supplement 1 to OT-55-J was published on March 15, 2010.
Changes were made to Appendices A, B, and C in order to incorporate the latest information
available. The hazmat committee has been directed to review the overall purpose of OT-55.
Page 133
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison (Cont)
At the J uly 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that BOE Chief Inspector Allen Maty was awarded the
Holden Proefrock award during the 2010 Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials Seminar in Kansas
City, MO. The committee has performed a review on OT-55 and will vote on the recommended
changes at the August 2010 BOE Committee meeting. A half day meeting has been set aside for the
committee to plan the 2011 Seminar which will be held in St. Louis, MO on May 24-26.
Updating pamphlet 34 will be under review to determine if it needs to be done more often and
republished in the BOE tariff. The 2009 annual hazmat report has been published and provided to
committee members.
At the October 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that BOE Chief Inspector Allen Maty was awarded
the Holden Proefrock award during the 23
rd
Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials Seminar in
Kansas City, MO. The 24
th
Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials Seminar will be held in St. Louis,
MO at the Marriott Union Station on May 24-26, 2011. A call for abstracts was emailed to the
industry on October 1, 2010. Abstracts are due by October 31, 2010.
P. Student mentioned that the Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee recently reviewed OT-55 and
that the key train definition is still under review. The Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee is in full
support of the NAR Reduction Task Force Contact Network Phase I project.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, P. Student reported that the 24
th
Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous
Materials Seminar will be held in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott Union Station on May 24-26, 2011.
Ray Kasey was replaced by Kevin Blackwell as the FRA liaison on the Hazmat committee. OT-55L
was published in December 14, 2010 which changed the definition of a key train back to five cars
from one car. By request from the RWWC the Hazmat Committee established a task force to oversee
all BOE publications and established a task force to provide direction for the hazmat/tank car
curriculum being offered at the Security and Emergency Response Training Center (SERTC) in
Pueblo, CO.
At the April 2011 meeting, P. Student reported that the 24
th
Annual AAR/BOE Hazardous Materials
Seminar will be held in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott Union Station on May 24-26, 2011. A BOE
Publication TF has been established and the TF charge is to validate BOE publications produced,
create a process flow for reviewing BOE Publications with sign off of each publication, and to
review the content of the Emergency Handling of Hazardous Materials in Surface Transportation.
The Field Guide to Tank Cars is one of the publications under review by this TF. The TF welcomes
any and all feedback on the content of this publication. The content feedback form for Field Guide to
Tank Cars is now available on the following two websites:
http://www.boe.aar.com/boe-publications.htm
http://www.boepublications.com/field_guide.html.
The AAR 600 intermodal database has been inactive since May of 2009. M. Maday from Union
Pacific was appointed by Pat Student from Union Pacific to be the UP representative on the
Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee. At this point P. Student will continue to be the hazardous
materials (BOE) committee representative on the tank car committee official known as the
hazardous materials (BOE) committee liaison.
Page 134
April 2013 Docket: T80.4
Sub. 1
AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison (Cont)
At the J uly 2011 meeting, P. Student stated that the next AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Committee meeting is schedules for first week in August.
At the October 2011 meeting, P. Student announced that the next Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar is scheduled for May 22-24, 2012 in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott Union Station. Mr.
Student reported on the recently established BOE publications TF and stated that it was established
to review and validate BOE publications. The Field Guide to Tank Cars is one publication that was
recently published and comments on the content of this publication are welcome by the industry.
Comments can be made via the BOE publications website or the BOE website. Pamphlet 34 is
another publication in which this TF will handle.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, P. Student announced that the next Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar is scheduled for May 22-24, 2012 in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott Union Station. P. Student
stated that there are proposed changes to OT-55 pending final discussion.
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Student reported on the upcoming Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar scheduled for May 22-24, 2012 in St. Louis, MO at the Marriott Union Station. The BOE
Publications TF is current working on revising Pamphlet 34 based on recommendations from the
Tank Car Committee.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, P. Student mentioned the manway cover gasket information from Pamphlet
34 into the manual. The Haz Mat (BOE) Committee has not seen the actual wording for
consideration. Once it gets submitted, it will get done.
At the October 2012 meeting, P. Student reported that the BOE committee submitted comments to
FRA on the OTMA HMG-127 guidance document. The BOE Publications TF has been working on
several BOE publications one of which is Pamphlet 34. AAR will ensure that the changes to
Pamphlet 34 are provided to the BOE Publications TF so that approval can take place by the AAR
Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student discussed the damage assessment TF effort under the AAR
Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee. P. Daum is the project manager. Pamphlet 34 was recently
published which includes the all of the material under paragraph 6.0 from Appendix D which
includes tables D7-D13. Another publication available to industry is the Field Guide to Tank Cars.
The AAR was asked to send one copy to each TCC member. The AAR Hazardous Materials (BOE)
Seminar is scheduled for May 21-23, 2013 in Addison, TX. Information on the event can be found
on the BOE website at www.boe.aar.com
LIAISON: PJ Student
REFERENCES: PG Kinnecom 7/31/02 (OT-55-E), 1/7/04, 5/14/04 (CPC-1161, OT-55-F), 3/1/05
(CPC-1165, OT-55-G), 8/26/05 (CPC-1171, OT-55-H), 8/4/06 (CPC-1174 Sup. 1)(OT-55-I)
Page 135
April 2013 Docket: T87.6
Sub.1
Develop Standards for Non-Pressure Cars Transporting Ethanol and Crude Oil
Recent Activity: See Below. (Information Only)
This is an active docket under the executive TCC session. It was agreed upon by the TCC that
worked performed under this docket will be disseminated under Sub 1. This docket will strictly be
used to report on activity performed under executive TCC docket T87.6.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that information will be provided in this section after
discussion has taken place under executive session.
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the work performed by this TF has been sent to
PHMSA for consideration. PHMSA provided material to the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation requested a rulemaking.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, there is a request to modify paragraph 2.7 to include a requirement for a
high capacity pressure relief valve. K. Alexy reported on a recent derailment where a train entered
curve and derailed. 3 ethanol cars were involved with the 2
nd
car sustaining a shell puncture and a
subsequent fire. It was noted that the bottom outlet valves worked as designed with no releases
reported. Top fittings were not damaged. The orientation of the relief valves placed them under the
liquid level. At this time there is no derailment cause. It was reported that 32,000 gallons of ethanol
was recovered from the three derailed cars. Two of the car sustained an 18 foot and 30 inches long
thermal tear. The 30 inch tear occurred in a weld. It did not take long before heat induced tears
released product. It was reported that the cars had 2% outage. A coupon was cut out of the cars with
the heat induced cars and will be analyzed. All three cars were built in 2007. The cars were #12, 13,
and 14 in the train consist.
ACC, CI and API asked that ethanol and crude oil action be separated from the larger packing group
I & II petition. They are submitting a petition to PHMSA to put it into their format. We have a
recommendation to PHMSA asking for safety relief valve requirements for ethanol and crude oil
tank cars. Should AAR adopt the additional relief valve requirements recommended to
PHMSA into the AAR standard? It was suggested that the TCC could use paragraph 2.7 publish a
standard. The goal would be to insure that cars empty before a shell failure. The committee agreed to
form a TF. J . Rader chair, M. Richardson, AD McKisic, J . Perez, J P Gagnon, J . Sbragia, A. Richter,
K. Alexy, L. Lowman, F. Gonzalez, W. Woodall, L. Majors. The committee asked that TCC to write
PHMSA to support to recent petition by API, CI and API to accelerate the crude oil and ethanol
standard. It will only support the acceleration of crude oil and ethanol, not the separation of
commodities from the current petition.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated the CPC that was published on section 2.7. Petition
P-1577 is waiting for response from PHMSA.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the ANPRM has not been published.
REFERENCES:
Page 136
April 2013 Docket: T87.6.1
Sub.1
Proposed Pressure Relief Valve Requirements for Ethanol and Crude Oil Tank Cars
Recent Activity: see below.
During the J uly 2012 meeting, it was suggested that the TCC could use paragraph 2.7 publish a
standard. The goal would be to insure that cars empty before a shell failure. The committee agreed to
form a TF.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that P-1577 had recommendations for safety valve
sizing. The goal was to increase the size of the safety valves on these cars to reduce the breaching
event of the car when in a pool fire situation. The flow rate being considered is 27000 scfm (standard
cubic feet per minute). Paragraph 2.7 may need to be modified to include this recommendation.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, P. Student provided a summary of the TF efforts to date. Third party
review of the AFFTAC model related to this work is being planned. There was some analysis
perform using the most recent version of AFFTAC. The analysis shows that the safety valves would
go beyond 100 minutes with significant amount of product remaining in the tank car. The TF has a
few ideas on how to address this issue. The TCC recommended that the TF continue their work to
determine the boundary conditions. Valve manufacturers on the TF also have some ideas on how to
make the valves work too.
TASK FORCE: P. Student (Chr), J . Perez, L. Loman, L. Strouse, J . Bolds, N. Gambow, T.
Treichel, T. Sisto, K Dorsey, C. Machenberg, J Rader, W. Woodall, Dan Welsh,
M. Nunez
CHARGE: Proposed Pressure Relief Valve Requirements for Ethanol and Crude Oil Tank
Cars
REFERENCES:
Page 137
April 2013 Docket: T90.20
M/GDE
Integrity of Threaded Top Load/Unload Connections
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the information provided in the background for the
provision for an alternative thread pattern. There was a typo error in the proposal the reference to
SAE 2 should be SAE 2.
A motion was made, seconded and passed with the type error corrected to the July 2012 proposal
provided in the docket. AAR will publish a CPC on this activity.
The AAR has received information about a tank car (ACFX 95722) that was leaking through the top
fittings. The configuration of the fittings arrangement made it very difficult for the responders to
mitigate the leak, and the fittings position, coupled with the protective housing being in tight
proximity, forced the responders to use methods other than their normal procedures to make the
repair. The leaking valve was a threaded connection that was able to take approximately a full turn
from the position the responders found when they arrived at the car.
At the October 2006 meeting, P. Student discussed the problems found on the tank car in question.
He requested that the global issue of threaded fitting connections to tank cars be reviewed. This
docket will be moved to Sub. 1. A TF was formed consisting of P. Student, GE (TBD), and UTCC
(TBD). Other members will be solicited at the next meeting of Sub 1.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, P. Student noted that further issues have been encountered with
threaded connections recently. This docket is COD for TF work.
At the April 2007 meeting, volunteers were solicited for the TF (shown below) to review this issue.
At the October 2007 meeting, P. Student updated the committee on the TF work and discussed the
issues being worked.
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, it was reported that there has not been a TF meeting however a
strawman is being developed to initiate discussion. COD
At the April 2008 meeting, AD McKisic discussed alternative thread designs that may solve issues
with the current threads used in the industry. Under the current TF direction flanged nipples with
threaded fitting would also be prohibited. Comments should be forwarded to P. Student.
At the J uly 2008 meeting, this task force is considering whether to make a recommendation for no
threaded connections on any primary closures over 1 in size. Trinity asked for consideration for
hydraulic hose type connections. TF will take another look at the use of the various non tapered
thread systems and will have report at the October 2008 meeting. A motion was made to remove
threaded connections as a primary closure on all new tanks built after December 31, 2008. There was
no second. All comments need to go to P. Student and the task force will bring something to the table
at the October Meeting.
Page 138
April 2013 Docket: T90.20
M/GDE
Integrity of Threaded Top Load/Unload Connections (cont)
At the October 2008 meeting, P. Student from UPRR reported the need to prevent NPT threaded
fittings on tank cars. The TF is considering alternative thread types to replace NPT. P. Student
proposed the following: On cars ordered built new after December 31, 2008, primary closures using
NPT threads are prohibited. It was decided by the TCC that more information needs to be presented
before this can be approved.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that the TF agreed that NPT threads are the central
issue. It was noted that at this time applications for threaded fittings can not be denied. A letter might
be appropriate to notify the proponent that significant amount of discussion on threaded fittings and
that these types of fittings may be prohibited in the near future. The TF will meet the last week of
J anuary 2009.
At the April 2009 meeting, P. Student described the proposal in the docket. The two charges start on
page 169. A meeting will be held within the next few days to wrap-up to recommendations. Anyone
who has comment should send them to P. Student so a final proposal can be drafted.
H. Bart and F. Reiner will be added to the TF.
Via e-mail dated 3/15/07, the following issues were raised concerning threaded connections.
Valve Threaded Connections:
This section of the docket addresses the NAR's experienced in transit due to loose eduction and
vapor valves on general purpose (non pressure) tank cars. This does not address any issues
observed at the loading/unloading facilities. The issue of worn NPT threads should be addressed in
the facilities' operating procedures and tank car maintenance plans. The group has thoroughly
researched the use of NPT threads and recognizes that this connection is not ideal for multiple
assemblies/disassemblies.
Background:
1. NAR's attributed to loose eduction and vapor valves represent 19 % of NARs related to
threaded connections on non-pressure cars
1
2. Additionally, NARs attributed to loose plug/cap at the eduction valve and vapor valve
represent 25% of NARS related to threaded connections on non-pressure cars
1
.
Recommendation:
The source of NAR's are directly related to threaded valves and loaders/unloaders not properly
removing the valves' plugs. By adopting a threaded by flange valve on new constructed general
purpose tank cars by TBD, this would eliminate a NAR source.
For existing general purpose tank cars, the task force is not recommending retrofitting. However,
the group is proposing that a Tank Car docket (T90.20) address other means of securing thread
valves to prevent them from being loosen at the loading/unloading sites. If the valve is not flanged
to the fittings plate, alternative methods for a threaded connection may include:
1. Tack weld the pipe nipple to the valve and fittings plate.
2. Provide a mechanical stop to the valve.
Alternative methods for a threaded connection are to be applied at the cars next shopping.
Page 139
April 2013 Docket: T90.20
M/GDE
Integrity of Threaded Top Load/Unload Connections (cont)
Non-Valve Threaded Connections reference Sulphuric Acid Cars:
This section of the docket addresses NPT threaded connections on Sulphuric Acid tank cars, used
as the primary closure for the liquid line.
Background:
1. Around 20% of NARs recorded on sulphuric acid cars are related to NPT threaded connection
at the liquid lines
1
. Note that additional incidents are recorded during the unload process and not
recorded as NARs.
2. Some shippers and car owners are equipping cars with alternative closures to replace NPT
connections. Currently approximately 30% of the North American sulphuric acid cars are
equipped with alternative closures (most of them installed within the last 7-10yrs).
Recommendations:
The group is proposing that a new Tank Car docket (or existing T90.20) address the following:
1. Minimize the use of NPT threaded connections for tank car connections that require multiple
(3+) assemblies within the tank car service equipment qualification period, especially the liquid
line (eduction pipe) connection closed with a pipe cap/plug. The use of 1 or smaller NPT plugs
for vent lines is acceptable provided Item 2 requirement is met.
2. Require the tank cars primary connection below a NPT plug/cap be flanged or otherwise
stabilized from turning when the plug/cap is turned.
3. Develop/approve NPT closure alternatives that minimize the wear and tear from multiple
assembling.
4. Eliminate NPT connections as primary closures on liquid lines.
5. Develop a standard for the liquid line closure.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, P. Student provided the update on this docket via handout with the outline
of edits. Recommendation 7 was withdrawn. The committee agreed proposal with the changes as
written below (shown in underlined blue):
The task force has 2 charges.
TF Charges:
1. Investigate attachment of valves by means of threaded connections/closures and make
recommendations.
2. Investigate the requirements for secondary closures and recommend changes to M-1002 to
clarify allowable securement types, performance that should be achieved and verification of
service performance required for devices.
Background:
Numerous NARs have been attributed to use of NPT threads attaching fittings to the tank car tank
and closure to the fittings.
In its deliberations the task force realized the need to define primary closure and secondary
closure to aid progress. Research in M-1002 did not yield any definitions. The terms are
Page 140
frequently used. As a result the task force offers these definitions to be added to Table A2 of
Appendix A.
Recommendation 1:
Therefore the task force recommends that the following definitions be added to Appendix A, Tank
Car Valves and Fittings under 2.0 Definitions.
Primary fitting or closure: The first device after the tank that closes the flow of liquid or
vapor. Examples include valves, pipe plugs, caps, and blind flanges.
Secondary fitting or closure: The first device downstream from the primary closure that
closes the flow of liquid or vapor if the primary closure would be normally operated.
Examples include valves, pipe plugs, caps, and blind flanges.
Charge 1 - Primary Fittings
In reviewing this charge the task force came to the following conclusions:
applies to new construction
applies to 1 or greater connections, would not include sample lines or thermometer wells
applies to all valves / fittings with a one or greater connection, liquid vapor, air valves,
vacuum relief valves and frangible disc holders
recognizes use of threads other than American National Standard Taper Pipe Threads (NPT)
(ANSI B1.20.1) (Note: NPT in 171.8 refers to NBS Handbook H-28 (1957) 171.7
reference is National Bureau of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151, USDC NBS Handbook H-28 (1957), 1957
Handbook of Screw-Thread Standards for Federal Services, December 1966 Edition.
Referred to in 179.2(a). Direction to FRA, 171.8 reference needs to be updated to the
1969 version.)
when a primary fitting is attached to the tank car by means of an alternate thread, and the
primary fitting has a secondary closure, the primary fitting must have some mechanical
means to prevent rotation.
Therefore, the task force recommends that a new paragraph be added in Appendix A, 4.0
SPECIFICATION FOR DESIGN AND APPLICATION, 4.3 Design Considerations.
Recommendation 2:
That the following be added to Appendix A, Tank Car Valves and Fittings under paragraph 4.3
Design Considerations:
4.3.9 On cars ordered built new after date to be determined, the use of tapered pipe threads
such as American National Standard Taper Pipe Threads (NPT) (ANSI B1.20.1) to attach a
primary fitting having a connection 1 or greater in size is prohibited. at any point between the
tank car and the primary fitting. When non-NPT non-taper pipe threads are used as means of
Page 141
attachment and the primary fitting has a secondary closure, a mechanical stop must be
employed to prevent rotation of a fitting.
When a hole 1 or greater in size is reduced to less than 1 by means of a bushing or threaded
insert, the bushing or threaded insert must be seal welded.
C. Charge 2 - Primary Closures:
In reviewing this charge the task force came to the following conclusions:
Any changes to threaded closures of the tank car would require changes in the infrastructure
of the loading / unloading facilities. This would require a commitment between a shipper
and a fittings supplier to develop and possibly service trial a new system and is beyond the
scope of the task force.
All threads shall should be inspected including gauging for excessive wear, corrosion, pitting
when the tank car is under going any service equipment qualification event.
When a fitting is replaced and has damage tapered threads for the threaded closure, the NPT
tapered pipe threaded closure shall should be replaced at the same time.
Recommendation 3:
That the following be added to Appendix A, Tank Car Valves and Fittings under paragraph 4.3
Design Considerations:
4.3.10 On cars ordered built new after date to be determined, the use of tapered pipe threads
such as American National Standard Taper Pipe Threads (NPT) (ANSI B1.20.1) to attach a
primary closure having a connection 1 or greater in size is prohibited.
Recommendation 4:
That the following be added to Appendix D, Retest and Qualification Requirements under 3.2.3.2
3.2.3.1 as the 5th and 6th bullets:
When a liquid and or vapor valves are is replaced and have has damaged closure threads, the
closure itself must be replaced.
All threads shall should be inspected including gauging for excessive wear, corrosion, pitting
or any other defect.
D. Charge 2 - Performance of fittings / closures:
In reviewing this charge the task force came to the following conclusions:
"Liquid tight" as presently defined in Table A2 General Definitions is a performance
standard, not a definition. "Leak tight" should be defined instead.
Liquid and vapor fittings and their closures should be rated for the pressures they could see in
service.
Page 142
Recommendation 5:
That the definition of liquid tight be deleted and the following definition be added to Appendix A,
Tank Car Valves and Fittings under section 2.0 Definitions:
Leak tight: A fitting or closure that shows no indication of leakage on the downstream side
when a pressure is applied to the upstream side. All final fittings and closures must be leak
tight under loading conditions and during transportation.
Recommendation 6:
That Appendix A, Tank Car Valves and Fittings under paragraph 4.3 Design Considerations be
modified as follows:
4.3.6, 4.3.6.1 and 4.3.6.2 be renumbered 4.3.6.1, 4.3.6.2 and 4.3.6.3 respectively.
A new paragraph 4.3.6 be added.
4.3.6 All primary and secondary fittings and closures, except pressure relief devices, must be
designed to be leak tight.
Recommendation 7: Withdrawn
That Appendix A, Tank Car Valves and Fittings paragraph 4.2 Pressure Rating be modified as
follows:
Pressure containing parts of all devices covered by this appendix must be designed for a
pressure not less than the maximum pressure to which the devices will be exposed. the higher of
the tank test pressure or the start to discharge pressure of the pressure relief valve.
Recommendation 8:
That the following be added to Appendix D, Retest and Qualification Requirements under 3.2.1
Definitions as the first bullet under "Bench Test"
Valves or fittings are to be tested to the pressure to which they can be subjected in service.
Comment: The task force determined that all fluid seal joints of a fittings assembly (primary fitting,
secondary closure, secondary fitting, and final secondary closure) were not addressed as to "Leak
Tight".
Recommendation 9:
That the following be modified in Appendix D, Retest and Qualification Requirements under 3.2.1
Definitions in the first bullet under "Leak Test"
Page 143
Except for pressure relief devices, valves and fittings are to be tested in both the
open/plugged and on-plugged closed positions. The purpose of this test is to determine the
integrity of the fluid seal joint between a valve or fitting and the tank, to determine pressure
retention integrity of a valve, and to determine the pressure retention integrity of the operable
valve seat by a visual inspection through the valve port opening at the time of test, and to
determine the integrity of the fluid seal joint between the valve or fitting and the closure.
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that recommendation 7 was withdrawn and the
executive committee agreed to the proposal with the changes as written. P. Student recommended on
behalf of this TF for this proposal to be adopted. Comment was made under Recommendation 1 that
the TF should provide a clear understanding of what is meant by the following:
Charge 1 Primary Fittings
applies to all valves / fittings with a one or greater connection, liquid vapor, air valves,
vacuum relief valves and frangible disc holders
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that the proposal in the docket was approved at the
last TCC meeting in October 2009 and is ready for publication via a circular letter. K. Dorsey will
publish a circular letter and Appendix A of M-1002 will be modified accordingly. FYI
At the April 2010 meeting, TCC agreed to RFD this docket.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that when CPC-1233 was published, which
incorporate the proposal from this docket, it included wording to prohibit the use of NPT threads to
attach a primary fitting having a connection 1 inch or greater on cars ordered built new after J uly 1,
2012. However, it did not offer an alternative standardized thread design replacement. Therefore this
docket was re-opened to investigate which one standardized alternative thread design should be
used. The purpose of one standardized thread design is to allow for interchangeability of valves and
fittings.
AAR received the following TF recommendation via email 3/29/2012:
Recommendation:
Non-taper pipe thread should be NPSM, National Pipe Straight Mechanical. Actual design to be
SAE J 514 O-ring boss. For sizes greater than 2 inches 12 pitch thread shall be used.
The task force feels that this style will contribute to reduction in NARs because of the presence of
an O-ring, boss and mechanical stop on the bottom male threads.
Concern:
The misapplication of an NPT fitting to a tank car designed for NPSM or vice versa. The task force
believes that presence of the boss on the female side will provide sufficient indication. NPT female
threads start at the beginning of the opening. The boss of the proposed thread is greater in diameter
of the corresponding male threads thereby allowing an initial loose fit, where as NPT to NPT
requires immediate thread engagement.
Page 144
April 2013 Docket: T90.20
M/GDE
Integrity of Threaded Top Load/Unload Connections (cont)
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Student provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposal provided
in the docket. The TF was asked to define what was meant by alternative thread design. TF
recommended the adoption of the proposal provided in the docket. A motion made, seconded, and
passed with the understanding that the editorial committee will talk to Kirk Warner about the
concerns he address that this is for fittings not closures. The proposal will be moved to executive
Tank Car Committee for consideration in J uly.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the committee agreed that For sizes greater than 2 inches a 12 pitch
straight thread shall be used with provision for O-ring. For sizes under 2SAE J 514 O-ring boss
will be used. TCC needs to define O-ring for this purpose.
At the October 2012 meeting, COD
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the information provided in the background for
the provision for an alternative thread pattern. There was a typo error in the proposal the reference to
SAE 2 should be SAE 2.
A motion was made, seconded and passed with the type error corrected to the July 2012 proposal
provided in the docket. AAR will publish a CPC on this activity.
TASK FORCE: P. Student (Chr), J . Perez, F. OBrien, L. Loman, T. Sisto, T. Mannas, M.
Richardson, A. Richter, L. Strouse, J . Bolds, M. Clark, M. Williams, T.
DeKoning, L. Verhey, L. Gorman, R. Phelps
CHARGE: Investigate attachment of valves by means of threaded connections/closures and
make recommendations
REFERENCES: P Student 8/12/06, 3/29/12; J . Perez 3/15/07
Page 145
April 2013 Docket: T90.23
A/C
Consider Revision of A8.1.3 Alternate Flow Capacity
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated FRA has a total containment study ongoing involving
sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. Information provided from this study will have an
impact on this docket.
Present
8.1.3 Alternate Flow Capacity
As an option to the requirements of paragraph 8.1 above, any tank car transporting a non-regulated
material, Class 8 material, or other material for which the regulations permit the use of non-
reclosing pressure relief device [ref. DOT 173.31(b)(2)] requires a pressure relief device with a flow
capacity not less than 1,100 scfm, providing that the start-to-discharge pressure does not exceed 165
psi. This paragraph applies whether the car is equipped with a rupture disc device or a pressure relief
valve. This paragraph does not apply to any material requiring a flow capacity, as calculated per
paragraph 8.1, that exceeds 19A0.82 (conventional units) or 0.06A0.82 (SI units), where A is the
same value used in the paragraph 8.1 calculation.
At the April 2009 meeting, questions were raised concerning certain sulfuric acid products and the
wording of Appendix A Paragraph 8.1.3 Alternate Flow Capacity (of safety relief valves/devices). A
suggestions has been made to alter the wording of the paragraph (R. Triche 3/31/09) alternatively a
better understanding of the product might eliminate the issue as was done with HCL (F. Reiner
10/20/09). In discussions with FRA, it was determined that what ever is done the goal would be that
the car survives 100 min in a pool fire.
K. Dorsey reported that there is at least one type of spent sulfuric acid car could require a different
calculation for flow capacity in the valve. It was noted that as a commodity there are multiple
varieties of spent sulfuric acid as a corrosive, some contain organics and behave in a markedly
deferent manner than non-organic varieties. The committee agreed to open a docket on this issue. P.
Student will be the Chair, R. Phelps, R. Heald, and J . DeLacerda from UTLX. The charge will be to
identify an alternative method for flow capacity.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, this docket was COD
The following update was received via e-mail dated 3/31/10
Task force is reviewing 8.1,3 Alternate Flow Capacity for use of the value of 1100 scfm for sulfuric
acid and other high boiling liquids. Preliminary work for 98% acid yields
Alternate Flow Capacity 1,100 scfm
Unknown Commodity Method 15,000 scfm
Actual Properties Used 9,200 scfm
AFFTAC Analysis 1,100 scfm (The actual rate required is smaller)
1100 scfm was proposed by T50.37-93 and subsequently adopted in 1998.
Page 146
April 2013 Docket: T90.23
A/C
Consider Revision of A8.1.3 Alternate Flow Capacity
The task force is considering:
a. No modifications are required.
b. 1100 scfm is larger than necessary based on AFFTAC results and accident experience and
needs to be reduced.
c. Other means to address the flow requirements for corrosives with high boiling points.
TF is also examining effect of surge suppression device on flow capacity and at a minimum is
correlating to AFFTAC and reviewing accident data.
At the April 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that further work needs to be performed by the TF.
M. Clark and a Midland representative (TBD) will be added to the TF.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, this docket was COD for TF work.
At the October 2010 meeting, P. Student stepped down as chair of this TF and L. Loman agreed to
be the new chair. COD pending TF work
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, this docket is COD pending TF work.
At the April 2011 meeting, L. Loman stated that this docket will be COD pending other TF work in
progress on other TCC dockets.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported this docket will be COD pending other TF work in
progress.
Staff Note: The chair of this TF was passed from P. Student to Larry Loman.
At the October 2011 meeting, L. Loman stated that work will start up after completion of the work
under docket T65.8.1.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that he will contact L. Loman to let him know that
the proposal under docket T65.8.1 passed during J anuary 2012 TCC meeting and that this task force
can now start their work again. COD
At the April 2012 meeting, COD pending T65.8.1 TF results.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, it was reported that there is an FRA investigation of total containment of
caustic. COD for TF work.
Page 147
April 2013 Docket: T90.23
A/C
Consider Revision of A8.1.3 Alternate Flow Capacity
At the October 2012 meeting, COD
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated FRA has a total containment study ongoing involving
sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. Information provided from this study will have an
impact on this docket.
CURRENT TF: L. Loman (Chr), P. Student, R. Phelps, R. Heald, and J . DeLacerda, M. Clark
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES: P Student 3/31/10
Page 148
April 2013 Docket: T90.24
A/C
Review of Appendix A 1.2 Approvals
Recent Activity: See Below.
This docket was opened to discuss whether or not fittings other than valves that are bolted to the car
need Tank Car Committee approval (i.e. spools, blind flanges, and pressure plates).
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on this new docket with respect to pressure
containing components that do not currently require TCC approval. This docket is COD pending TF
work.
At the April 2011 meeting, L. Loman stated that the TF has yet to meet but plans to hold their first
teleconference sometime in J uly. K. Cook will be added to the TF.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Warner stated the TF plans to have a final recommendation by the
October TCC meeting.
At the October 2011 meeting, L Loman reported that the TF is struggling on the definition of fittings
and is undecided on which type of facility would be allowed in the future to manufacture fittings
registered or certified.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that due to one of the TCC TF having an impasse
on what the definition of tank car tank should be has led to this TF struggle to properly define
pressure retaining components and valves/ fittings. K. Dorsey stated that one option is that if any
component(s) are welded to the tank then it is a part of the tank and if any component(s) are
mechanically fastened then the component(s) are considered a valve or fitting. One TCC member
stated that the nozzle should be considered as part of the tank since post weld heat treatment is
required after the nozzle is welded to the tank. COD
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that this TF is no longer charged with determining the
definition of a tank car tank; however they will continue their efforts on the appropriate language to
defining pressure retaining components and whether or not fitting other than valves that are bolted to
the tank car tank need to be approved by the TCC (i.e. spools, blind flanges, and pressure plates).
At the J uly 2012 meeting, L. Lowman has taken over as chair of this docket. COD for TF work.
At the October 2012 meeting, L. Loman stated that the TF is working on what components of a tank
car need to be approved by the AAR. One TF thought is that all components approved by the AAR
would have a marking requirement. The definition of primary and secondary closure as well as
definition of pressure retaining components will be considered by this TF.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
Page 149
April 2013 Docket: T90.24
A/C
Review of Appendix A 1.2 Approvals
As agreed during the October 2012 meeting, TCC Docket T90.22.1 Consider Requirements for Dry
Disconnect Fittings used as Secondary Closures is now under this docket T90.24. Below is the
T90.22.1 TF work:
Recently questions have been raised on the use of zero emission fittings as
secondary closures with quick disconnect (dog eared) caps covering the openings
for pressure cars. There are currently no requirements for retest or maintenance on
valves used as secondary closures even when those valves are not further
protected by threaded closures. Should the TCC require inspection and test of
valves used in such a manner?
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey asked the committee if secondary valve
should be tested and qualified if used in a manner to hold pressure. TCC
suggested a TF be formed to look at secondary closures and determine if a
standard needs to be developed.
At the April 2009 meeting, his docket will be reassigned to TCC Subcommittee 1
agenda.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR is working on the
wording and will present to the TCC soon. COD
At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that he is reviewing the
wording and will make the necessary editorial changes. RFD
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there is a requirement in
Appendix D of M-1002 that requires a test of the secondary closure. This
requirement will remain even after the re-write of Appendix D. RFD
At the April 2010 meeting, TCC agreed to RFD this docket.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that this docket is being re-opened
to determine if a secondary closure should be allowed in monomer service. The
reason is due to recent events where monomer products are being trapped in
between the primary valve and the dry disconnect valve (secondary closure). If
the monomer hardens between the primary valve and secondary closure the car
cannot be unloaded. One of the reasons quick disconnects are used on tank cars is
to address EPAs concern to stop product leakage, however if there is no way to
drain product between the dry disconnect and primary valve prior to placing the
car into service the monomer material can harden causing an unsafe situation.
The TF will review the requirements for dry disconnect fittings used as secondary
closures. It was noted that plugs, blind flanges, and caps are exempt from
secondary closure approvals.
Page 150
April 2013 Docket: T90.24
A/C
Review of Appendix A 1.2 Approvals
TF Members: Paul Williams (TF Chair), Scott McLeod, Pat Student, and Chris
Edmonds, Chris Crisafulli, Karl Alexy, and Scott Murray.
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the reasoning for opening this
docket and explained that if monomer remains between the primary closure and
the secondary closure prior to placing the car into service the monomer material
can harden causing an unsafe situation. COD pending TF work. The following
individuals will be added to the TF: Keith MacCauley and Penny Parker
At the J uly 2012 meeting, it was reported that there were three failures where the
valve secondary closure. K. Dorsey will develop a proposal for consideration in
1.3.6. It will reflect that secondary closures should not affect primary closures.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that secondary closures do not
need technical approval by the AAR. However two issues exist: one is with
product being trapped between the primary valve and the secondary closure and
two is the primary valve operation being impeded by the secondary closure. A
proposal will be drafted to address the two issues addressed above.
Motion to move this docket to T90.24, seconded, and passed to move this under
T90.24.
CURRENT TF: P. Williams (TF Chair), S. McLeod, P. Student, and C.
Edmonds, C. Crisafulli, K. Alexy, S. Murray, K. MacCauley, P. Parker
TF CHARGE: The TF will review the requirements for dry disconnect
fittings used as secondary closures.
REFERENCES:
CURRENT TF: L. Loman (Chair), T. Dekoning, M. Richardson, D. Prince, K. Warner, K. Cook, J .
Fiore, C. Edmonds, K. Obrien, J . DeLacerda, AD McKisic, T. Sisto, M. Clark
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
Page 151
April 2013 Docket: T92.14.1
Sub.1
Consider Permanent Marking for AAR Class Cars
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the proposal provided in the background was discussed. This proposal
references the federal rule and removes language from Appendix C. There was considerable
discussion on how the DOT stamp on older tank cars would be handled. The committee agreed that
securement words should be handled first before addressing this proposal. Securement wording
included in this proposal and a final proposal is expected for the April 2013 TCC meeting.
This docket has been opened to discuss the marking of AAR class cars. It has been determined in
response to a question by PHMSA that AAR class cars steel stamped DOT would need to comply
with all DOT requirements regardless of the stenciled specification.
As an alternative it may by possible to utilize an operating plate similar to the identification plate
found in Appendix C as is done on cargo tanks.
AT the J uly 2008 meeting, it was reported that an FRA inspector noted an AAR class tank car due for
inspection because it was built to a DOT spec with a head stamp indicating DOT, but operated as an
AAR spec tank car. PHMSA responded to an inquiry by the car owners representative that when a
tank car is built/stamped to DOT spec, it has to be maintained to a DOT spec or all DOT markings
must be removed. It is hoped that this issue can be resolved without having to grind the DOT spec off
heads of tank cars. Because newer cars are allowed to use two operating plates they are not included
as part of the issue. A task force was formed and assigned to develop a proposal to add an operating
plate to the older cars. Other packages have a provision that allows both operating and building
plates. TF members: J . Byrne (Chr), P. Student, A.D. McKisic, M. Richardson, T. Phemister, D.
Maechling, J P Gagnon, and H. Weber.
At the October 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that a petition to DOT is in order to clarify the issues
identified in this docket. T. Phemister (FRA) mentioned it was not intended that the DOT stamp be
ground off cars.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, J . Byrne reported there is no new information at this time. A TF
meeting will be scheduled soon and hope to have a proposal by April 2009. R. J achim from Union
Tank will join the task force.
At the April 2009 meeting, J . Byrne reported that no progress has been made at this time. Review the
need to use the operating plates. P. Student will provide J . Byrne with pictures and information
already performed on this issue. D. Mullins from GATX will be added to the task force. COD
At the J uly 2009 meeting, J . Byrne recently requested a teleconference with the TF. This TF is
working on changes to appendix C. COD
At the October 2009 meeting, J . Byrne mentioned that the TF met in September. The TF is
reviewing the need to use the operating plate. The TF is still reviewing the proposal and will meet
October 15
th
.
Page 152
April 2013 Docket: T92.14.1
Sub.1
Consider Permanent Marking for AAR Class Cars (Cont)
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the TF meeting held on October 15, 2009. The TF
reached consensus that AAR cars do not need special permits. Postweld heat treatment and weld
repairs are primary concerns raised by the regulators. TF plans to address the concerns with
recommendations to follow.
At the April 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that the TF has raised the question how does one
ensure that a qualified DOT spec car meets all specifications. TF plans to meet soon to discuss next
action required.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported on the reasons that tank cars are operated as AAR
specifications. The AAR specification tank cars provide an ongoing service trial for non hazmat
service. The regulatory concerns are around the maintenance performed between AAR and DOT tank
cars in particular post weld heat treat requirements. TF agreed to develop a proposal for how cars are
maintained under AAR specification and what will be needed to upgrade from and AAR to DOT
specification.
At the October 2010 meeting, J . Byrne reported that the TF met during the J uly TCC. The TF plans
to develop a proposal explaining how cars are maintained under AAR specifications and determine
what is needed to upgrade an AAR specification car to a DOT specification car. J . Byrne stated that
both the US and Canadian regulators would ultimately have to agree to the TF proposal.
Staff Note: Add D. Mullins and R. J achim to the TF
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, this docket is COD pending TF work.
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that during the recent Arcadia, OH derailment the
mechanical fastener material used to mount the tank identification plates to the body bolster had
melted and therefore the material used to mount the tank identification plates will be under review
and discussed by the executive TCC members. This docket is COD pending TF work.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed that the current type of mechanical fastener materials
used to mount the tank identification plate to the body bolster is no longer sufficient. The material
used must be able to survive a fire. It could be made from the same material as the identification
plate. A motion made, seconded, and passed to have the AAR editorial committee develop the
appropriate wording for the type of material used to fasten the tank identification plate to the body
bolster.
At the October 2011 meeting, J . Byrne requested that the disposition of this docket be discussed at
the next executive TCC meeting.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, J . Byrne discussed the need to move this forward to PHMSA as a
petition from the TCC.
Action Taken by Tank Car Committee: a motion was made, seconded, and passed to move forward
on a petition to PHMSA on this docket. K. Dorsey and J . Byrne will work on the wording of the
petition.
Page 153
April 2013 Docket: T92.14.1
Sub.1
Consider Permanent Marking for AAR Class Cars (Cont)
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR is drafting a petition on this subject to both
Transport Canada and PHMSA.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, HM-216B makes reference to two information plates. One plate would
have the manufactured information and the other would indicate operating information. Appendix C
will need to reflect this requirement.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that a modification to the language in Appendix C
related to the specification plate needs to reflect the regulatory language recently changed by final
rule HM-216B.
TF Proposal provided to AAR via email by TF chair on 1/3/2013
This docket proposes to revise the Association of American Railroads, Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices, Section C, Part III, M-1002, Specifications for Tank Cars, Appendix C
paragraph 4.0 to coincide with the final rule issued under Docket HM-216B; incorporating DOT
special permit, SP-12905. This change recognizes the use of a permanent specification plate to
identify the characteristics of an as-built tank, and the use of an additional plate to identify the
operating characteristics of the tank. For example, building and maintaining a tank to a DOT
class, but operating the tank to an AAR class. The additional operating plate, as outlined in the
federal regulation, will denote changes to the as-built design and will help ensure the maintenance of
the tank to the class of construction (unless the conversion is permanent).
Appendix C, paragraph 4.0 would be completely revised as follows:
4. TANK IDENTIFICATION PLATES
4.1. After J uly 25, 2012, to certify compliance with federal requirements, the tank manufacturer
must install two identical permanent identification plates in accordance with 49 CFR 179.24.
4.1. When a modification to the tank changes any of the information shown on the tank
identification plate, the car owner or the tank car facility making the modification must install an
additional variable operating identification plate on the tank in accordance with 49 CFR 179.24
(a)(3).
4.2. Tank car owners may apply the tank identification plate or and, when required, a variable
operating specification plate on any tank car built before J uly 25, 2012.
4.3. The tank car owner must replace any illegible or missing identification plates. The car owner
must use the information on the tank specification plate attached to the opposite end of the car, or
from reconstructed information if both plates are missing.
4.4 Conversions
A pressure car tank that is permanently converted to a lower pressure specification must have the
new specification and conversion date stamped on the outside of the manway nozzle or flange, in
3/8-in. (9.52-mm) letters, on the left side of the car.
Page 154
April 2013 Docket: T92.14.1
Sub.1
Consider Permanent Marking for AAR Class Cars (Cont)
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the proposal provided in the background was discussed. This proposal
references the federal rule and removes language from Appendix C. There was considerable
discussion on how the DOT stamp on older tank cars would be handled. The committee agreed that
securement words should be handled first before addressing this proposal. Securement wording
included in this proposal and a final proposal is expected for the April 2013 TCC meeting.
CURRENT TF: J . Byrne (Chr), P. Student, A.D. McKisic, M. Richardson, D. Maechling, J P
Gagnon, H. Weber, D. Mullins, R. J achim
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
Page 155
April 2013 Docket: T92.17
A/C
Review Stencil Requirements for Tank Cars
Recent Activity: See below.
This docket has been opened to review stencil requirements for tank cars. It has been requested that a
TF review the requirements for inspection data and station information to determine if the stencils are
necessary and the information provided by the stencils represents what industry feels is needed by
shippers and responders.
Review Stencil Requirements for Tank Cars
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the committee asked for clarification of this request.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that efforts need to be made to ensure that all
markings required by TC, DOT, and AAR requirements are still useful to the tank car community.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
CURRENT TF: T. Dekoning (Chr), D. Mullins; M. Richardson, K. Dorsey
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
Page 156
April 2013 Docket: T93.19.1
M/GDE
Review Paragraph D6.2 and E4.3.5.3
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the information in the background. Modify
pamphlet 34 from the language in Appendix D. The references to gasket requirements in Appendix
D will reflect Appendix E.
K. Warner requested the review of Appendix D and E via a TF. He mentioned the gasket
configuration differences between D6.2 and E.4.3.5.3. Companies are applying newly developed
gaskets that dont meet the requirements in these appendices. Suggest modifying D6.2 to mirror
what is in appendix E. This would allow alternatives. New docket will be created.
Current Wording M-1002, Appendix D, D6.2
6.2 Gasket
Install a new gasket compatible with the commodity to be transported. Gasket size shall be as
specified by the car manufacturer on the applicable manway style chart (Tables D7 through D12). As
an alternative, manway nozzle rim style gaskets shown in Table D13 may be used, provided the
gasket seats and seals properly. Care shall be exercised to remove existing commodity, old gasket,
and gasket cement from gasket seating surfaces before carefully installing the new gasket.
Current Working M-1002, Appendix E, E.4.3.5.3
4.3.5.3 Any gasket configuration that produces an effective seal and provides adequate retention may
be applied at the manway; however, the hinged manway cover must also be able to properly retain
and effectively seal when equipped with the standard gaskets listed below:
Elastomeric a/ gasket: 21 11/16 in. O.D. 19 1/2 in. I.D. 1/4 in. thick
Hard gasket: 21 5/8 in. O.D. 19 1/2 in. I.D. 1/8 in. thick
a/ Elastomeric refers to a solid rubber type material, such as EPDM, Viton, Buna-N, or
Neoprene, without any reinforcement or fibers.
At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey report that a request was made at the last meeting to review
the gasket compatibility. K. Warner reported that the TF met and received guidance from FRA. TF
should have a proposal prepared by the next TCC meeting.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Warner reported that the TF has not yet reached consensus,
therefore a teleconference will be set up in the near future. TF might have a proposal prepared by the
April 2010 TCC meeting. AAR will add Larry Lowman and Scott Murray. Replace J . Sbraiga with
T. Sisto and replace Peter Gubricky with Mike Clark.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Warner reported that the TF met March 19. The TF have consensus
on 3 recommendations for the TCC consideration. It was agreed upon by the TCC to place the
proposal into the minutes in order to provide the industry the background of the proposal and the
current positions. Comments are due to kirkwarner@comcast.net by J une 1
st
.
Page 157
April 2013 Docket: T93.19.1
M/GDE
Review Paragraph D6.2 and E4.3.5.3
K. Alexy, J P Gagnon, C. Edmonds, P. Langley, J . Bolds, J . Becherer, H. Schneider, and D. Reed
were added to the TF.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Warner discussed that the TF plans to have a revised proposal by the
October 2010 TCC meeting.
At the October 2010 meeting, K. Warner reported that a total of 19 members participate on this TF.
K. Warner discussed the 7 recommendations provided in the docket. A motion was made, seconded,
and passed to move the 7 recommendations to the executive TCC for consideration.
Comments provided during the October 2010 TCC meeting included:
Comment 1: TCC agreed to have AAR editorially correct the wording in recommendation number 3.
The recommendation is below and editorial changes by AAR are underlined:
The task force further recommends that additional wording be inserted into D6.2, reiterating that is
the offerors responsibility to select the proper gasket material to retain the commodity within the car.
(This is to be done editorially by AAR staff.)
Comment 2: Under recommendation number 5 it states There has been a concern raised that this
definition is not in strict accord with CFR 180.509 and 173.31(d)(2) requirements and this may need
to be addressed.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the TF proposal provided in the docket. It is
unclear at this time which document should contain the TF proposal information. One option
mentioned was Pamphlet 34 however it is unclear at this point whether or not the Hazardous
Materials (BOE) Committee is willing to undertake the maintenance and publishing of the tables in
Pamphlet 34. K. Dorsey reported that further work on this proposal is needed.
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR is preparing to incorporate the proposed
wording into M-1002. COD
The following recommendation was received via e-mail dated 3/31/10
1. The task force recommends removing the tables D 7-13 from M-1002, establishing the NAR
group as the responsible group, and publishing them in Pamphlet 34, with the car builders and gasket
manufacturers on the NAR working group being responsible for updating the information in D7-13.
When the tables are taken out of Appendix D, a reference to Pamphlet 34 is to be inserted. There is
a new gasket material class that needs to be added to all tables.
2. The task force recommends that additional wording be inserted into D6.2 reiterating that is the
offerors responsibility to select the proper gasket to retain the material within the car.
3. It was the consensus of the task force, that a new section should be added to the instructions of
Chapter 1 of M-1002, that gaskets/seals were not to be considered in the approval of an application
Page 158
for a Certificate of Construction and that a change in gaskets should not have to require a 4-2
submission. It is suggested that this be inserted into Chapter 1.4.3.
While the recommendation of the task force is based upon a consensus position, Union Tank Car
went on record as dissenting. They have requested that their dissenting position paper be forwarded
to the AAR subcommittees for consideration. The dissenting points are listed by recommendation.
Recommendation 1 - Dissent Position.
UTC justification for position:
The manway cover, tank nozzle and gasket are designed by the tank car manufacturer as a system.
This system is critical to content retentions, and is integral to the tank as a pressure retention
component system, i.e. a primary seal to the pressure vessel. It is a tank closure.
Proposal received 7/17/2010
Task Force T93.19.1 Recommendations
The Task Force has now met twice, had numerous phone calls and emails and has majority
agreement on the following proposals. The Task Force has representatives from car builders, car
owners, lessees/shippers, gasket manufacturers, FRA and consultants participating.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1
A new section should be added to the instructions of Chapter 1 of M-1002, that gaskets/seals
were not to be considered in the approval of an application for a Certificate of Construction
and that a change in gasket material should not have to require a 4-2 submission. It is
suggested that this be inserted into Chapter 1.4.3.
This recommendation was further amended by a vote of 12-3 that:
The Appendix R should amended editorially by AAR staff to state that an R- 1 is not required
when manway gaskets/seals or secondary closure gaskets/seals are changed to a different
material.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2
1) Moving the existing D7-D13 tables from M-1002, to Appendix U, in Section 2 and also into
Pamphlet 34. (Note: P. Student advised that the Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee was
willing to undertake the maintenance and publishing of the tables in Pamphlet 34 with
information provided by the NAR Task Force and TCC.)
2) Establishing a NAR working group comprised of, at least, car builders and gasket
manufacturers. Responsibilities include:
a) Reviewing submittal requests for additions, deletions, and modifications to the current
D7-D13 charts. The review will verify certain design criteria which were considered by
the submitter associated with good practices for the design of pressure retaining joints,
including but not limited to material selection, joint geometry, retention, torque
requirements, sizing, testing and verification.
b) The NAR working group will review the manway gasket figure drawings to determine
if by changing acceptable gasket dimensions, where possible, a consolidation of the
number of different manway gaskets could be achieved.
Page 159
c) Communicating reviewed changes to the Hazardous Material (BOE) Committee for
publishing into Pamphlet 34 and to the TCC for updates to Appendix U. (It is hoped
that these may be accepted by the TCC as editorial changes as the AAR does not approve
gaskets. This will speed up the process of updating figures in M-1002.)
d) This review process is to be mirrored in Pamphlet 34 to communicate what is required
to make changes to the pamphlet.
3) Once published in Pamphlet 34:
a) Appendix D to be modified by removing Tables D.7-D.13 and references thereof and
placing the tables into Appendix U.
b) Place reference to Pamphlet 34 and Appendix U in Appendix D where appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3
The task force also agreed that an amended recommendation 2 would be retained. As rewritten, the
recommendation to modify Appendix D 6.2 is as follows.
6.2 Gasket/Seal
Exercise care when removing the old gasket/seal and any gasket cement from the
gasket/seal seating surface before installing a new gasket/seal. Install a new gasket/seal
compatible with the commodity as required in Appendix A3.2.4.
Gasket/seal size must correspond to:
The manway style chart (Tables D7 through D12 - This will
have a new designation when added to Appendix U), or
A manway nozzle rim style gasket shown in Table D13 (This
will have a new designation in Appendix U),
provided the gasket seats and seals properly, or
A gasket designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix
E4.3.5.3.
The task force further recommends that additional wording be inserted into D6.2,
reiterating that is the offerors responsibility to select the proper gasket to retain the
material within the car. (This is to be done editorially by AAR staff.)
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4
It was agreed by the task force that Appendix E4.3.5.3 needed to be rewritten. The proposal for
the modified E4.3.5.3 follows. The second part of the sentence in the current E4.3.5.3 becomes
E4.3.5.4 and the current E4.3.5.4 become E4.3.5.5.
E4.3.5.3 Any gasket configuration that produces an effective seal (Ref. App
E.2) and provides adequate retention may be applied at the manway.
E4.3.5.4 The hinged manway cover must be able to properly retain and
effectively seal when equipped with the standard gaskets listed below:
Page 160
Elastomeric
a/
gasket: 21 11/16 in. O.D. 19 1/2 in. I.D. 1/4 in. thick
Hard gasket: 21 5/8 in. O.D. 19 1/2 in. I.D. 1/8 in. thick
a/ Elastomeric refers to a solid rubber type material, such as EPDM,
Viton, Buna-N, or Neoprene, without any reinforcement or fibers.
E4.3.5.5 Modified designs that are not in accord with the above criteria must be
submitted for approval.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 5
It was determined that a definition of effective seal was needed, and that it should be placed
into E2.0, Definitions.
Effective Seal - Any flanged, threaded, or other gasket fitting design that as tested using
approved NDT-LT procedures (Ref App T 3.0), meets the acceptance criteria.
There has been a concern raised that this definition is not in strict accord with CFR 180.509 and
173.31(d)(2) requirements and this may need to be addressed.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6
The Task Force recognized the need to amend the gasket sizes to be listed in Appendix U and
Pamphlet 34 to allow for manufacturing tolerances. The tolerances determined by the NAR
working group will need to be included in the tables in Appendix U and Pamphlet 34.
RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 7
The NAR working group will be charged with establishing new set dimensions for the new
gasket materials that do not fall into the hard or elastomeric categories. (This new type of
material is in use today.)
The following comments were received 7/17/10
Regarding Recommendation #1:
1. Since this recommendation was not 100% agreed to by the TF members, it is appropriate to also
state that is was not unanimous and what the vote was, yea and nea.
2. I do not agree that the Tables should be removed from M-1002 for these additional reasons.
3. Those tables were created for all to use, shippers, tank car facilities, etc, etc.
4. The tables state the manway style and the gasket size. If the tables were removed, tank car
facilities would not know how to stencil the tank car.
5. The gasket size in the tables came from the car builders and are supposed to be the correct size for
that manway. If there is any information that a gasket size(s) should be changed, then bring the info
to the T/F and let's change it.
Page 161
6. If there is any information that a gasket size should be adjusted so that the same size fits more
than one manway, then too, bring the info forward and let's work on it.
7. I disagree that it is the product handlers responsibility to have the Tables (D7 - D13) on the
loading rack and that they do not use the tables because they do not have a copy of M-1002. The
stenciling is on the car top platform for the product handler to use, not to use M1002. Also, I
disagree that a product handler would go the NAR web site to obtain a Pam-34 and the manway style
and gasket size. The shipper should provide that information to his product handlers.
8. I would appreciate it if this dissenting opinion is added to the minutes.
The following comments were received 7/17/10
UTLX did not agree with the below proposal to remove D7-13 table from C-III. This
information should be retained as a tank car specification for use by tank car repair facilities
and car owners. UTLX does not object to have this information mirrored in Pamphlet 34 and
having the NAR group review and provide the ground work for revising the tables for new
materials and sizes, and presenting a recommendation to the TCC for revision of these tables
in C-III.
The task force recommends removing the tables D7-D13 from M-1002, establishing the NAR group
as the responsible group, and publishing them in Pamphlet 34, with the car builders and gasket
manufacturers on the NAR working group being responsible for updating the information on
figures D7-13. When the tables are taken out of Appendix D, a reference to Pamphlet 34 is to be
inserted. There is a new gasket material class that needs to be added to all tables.
The task force agreed that the figures in Appendix D, figures D7-13, are to be left in Appendix D,
until the work of the NAR group to update the figures, including a new class of materials, is
completed.
UTLX recommends in section shown below, further defining effective seal, and add a section
to C-III with requirements of testing, i.e. NDT reference. This is necessary to provide a
method to meet the requirements of the section shown second below, designed to conform
this the 4.3.5.3. This addition could be further discussed by the Task Force.
4.3.5.3 Any gasket configuration that produces an effective seal and provides adequate
retention may be applied at the manway.
A gasket designed to conform to the requirements of Appendix E4.3.5.3.
UTLX recommends to revise the below wording of proper gasket to further reflect the
language of the CFR 173.24 e.(1), to ensure that such packagings are compatible with their
lading. It is of the opinion of UTLX that the TF formally propose the wording changes to the
TCC, to properly reflect the intentions of the TF, as the wording can easily be misstated and
confused to include gasket size in addition to gasket materials.
The task force further recommends that additional wording be inserted into D6.2, reiterating that is
the offerors responsibility to select the proper gasket to retain the material within the car. This is to
be done editorially by AAR staff.
Page 162
April 2013 Docket: T93.19.1
M/GDE
Review Paragraph D6.2 and E4.3.5.3
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that during the process of incorporate the proposed
wording into M-1002 AAR identified a reference discrepancy and therefore will have to investigate
why this occurred. COD
At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the recommendations provided in the docket.
This docket will remain open pending the publication of the proposal.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the proposal for appendix E of MSRP Section C
Part III (M-1002) which has requirements for manway gaskets needs to be sent to the AAR
Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee for consideration.
The goal is to have AAR publish a CPC prior to the April TCC that will include the proposed
changes to Chapter 1, Appendix D, and Appendix E.
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR is still reviewing this material. The
Hazardous Material (BOE) Committee is currently addressing the recommendation of moving
existing D7-D13 tables from M-1002 into Pamphlet 34; however these tables will remain in M-1002
and maintained there.
Pat Students name on the TF will be replaced with BOE Hazmat Committee Liaison.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, AAR is working to include the appendix E diagrams for Pamphlet 34. The
E diagrams need to be reviewed. Industry wants the ability to use gaskets which reduce NARs but
are not necessarily those indicated in the table included in appendix E.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated the efforts still continue on getting all
recommendation put into the applicable CPC.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the information in the background. Modify
pamphlet 34 from the language in Appendix D. The references to gasket requirements in Appendix
D will reflect Appendix E.
CURRENT TF: K. Warner (Chr), Hazardous Materials (BOE) Committee Liaison, AD McKisic,
J . Perez, T. Waggoner, R. Spring, M. Clark, S. Murray, L. Loman, T. Sisto, K.
Alexy, J P Gagnon, C. Edmonds, P. Langley, J . Bolds, J . Becherer, H. Schneider,
D. Reed
TF CHARGE: To have consistency of Appendix D and E under E.4.3.5.3 and D6.2.
REFERENCES: K Warner 12/9/09, 3/31/10, 7/17/10
Page 163
April 2013 Docket: T93.20
M/GDE
Review Appendix D for Compliance with Current 49 CFR 180 Inspection Requirements
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the Certificate of Test form that is provided in M-
1002 or one provided by the manufacturer is appropriate. Better traceability is desired and therefore
the preference is to have a standardized form required to be provided to the purchaser. At the current
time there is no standardized form and some information may not be included on some of the present
sheets.
This docket was opened to address discrepancies between Appendix D and the current inspection
requirements of 49 CFR 180 as well as determining the need for a requirement to use an AAR
approved Certificate of Test Form, if so for what activities, and clarify the conditions under which
service equipment could be retested. Descriptions of the specific issues are as follows.
Service Equipment Qualification Clarification
Review the recent changes to Appendix D paragraph 3.2.3. This docket would clarify the
requirement to remove service equipment from the tank car for disassembly, cleaning, reassembly,
and bench testing (i.e., to the tank test pressure). Clarification is needed to ensure consistent
practices throughout the maintenance network. This task force would also review and suggest
changes, if required, for the missing Non-Integral to Tank Flow Chart in paragraph 3.2.3.
Appendix D, Paragraph 4.0
Review Appendix D, paragraph 4.0. As written, this section only applies to hydrostatic testing of
tanks, retesting of pressure relief valves, and retesting interior heater coil systems. This section does
not cover the additional service equipment, safety system, thickness test, structural integrity, or
lining / coating inspections required by 49 CFR 180. The goal of this task force would be to update
Appendix D, paragraph 4.0, as needed, to the current federal regulations and industry standards.
Certificate of Test Forms
Review Appendix D, paragraph 5, Certificate of Test form. This task force would review the
current figure D4, Certificate of Test Form for accuracy and to update the form with respect to the
new service equipment inspection requirements in 49 CFR 180, and the nondestructive testing
requirements in Appendix T. In addition, the task force should consider the need to require a
certificate of test form for new pressure relief devices and service equipment. Currently, pressure
relief device manufacturers do not provide a Manufacturing Test Certificate for a new device. The
task force should also consider if a manufacturing test certificate is needed for liquid and vapor
valves, bottom outlet valves, or any other type of service equipment.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the service equipment qualification issue,
Appendix D paragraph 4.0, and the certificate of test forms which were all provided within the
docket. A TF will be established at the April 2010 TCC meeting.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to address discrepancies
between Appendix D and the current inspection requirements of 49 CFR 180. K. Dorsey discuss the
following three topics; service equipment qualification clarification, Appendix D paragraph 4.0, and
the certificate of test forms which were all provided within the docket. TF members include: L.
Loman (Chr.), D. Mullins, D. Prince, D. Ronzani, T. Phemister, R. J achim, T. Muller, J . Fiore, L.
Verhey
Page 164
April 2013 Docket: T93.20
M/GDE
Review Appendix D for Compliance with Current 49 CFR 180 Inspection Requirements
At the J uly 2010 meeting, this docket was COD for TF work.
At the October 2010 meeting, L. Loman and K. Dorsey will work on the TF charge. COD
Staff Note: M. Clark and GE (TBD) will be added to the TF
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey had stated that there are slight differences between MSRP
Section C-III and the federal regulations in regard to the inspection requirements. The TF would like
to iron those differences out. COD pending TF work.
Staff Note: J ohn Cheresnowsky from GE will be added to the TF.
At the April 2011 meeting, L. Loman reported that the TF has not had a chance to meet recently.
COD
At the J uly 2011 meeting, this docket was COD
At the October 2011 meeting, L. Loman reported the following:
Under Appendix D paragraph 4.0 what do we do with hydro test? Should appendix T TF handle
hydro test? The appendix T TF will discuss the appendix D paragraph 4.0. TF is collecting
information to come up with a new proposal for a new certificate of test form.
L. Loman stated that the TF is at an impasse on clarifying service equipment qualification.
Maintenance procedures versus qualification procedures need to be reviewed to determine what is
required and when. K. Alexy will be added to the TF.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, COD
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Alexy will be added to the TF.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, it was noted that HM-216B included changes that will need to be reflected
in M-1002. COD.
At the October 2012 meeting, L. Loman stated that the TF is to focus on the standardizing the
certificate of test form for pressure relief valves only.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the Certificate of Test form that is provided in
M-1002 or one provided by the manufacturer is appropriate. Better traceability is desired and
therefore the preference is to have a standardized form required to be provided to the purchaser. At
the current time there is no standardized form and some information may not be included on some of
the present sheets.
CURRENT TF: L. Loman (Chr.), D. Mullins, D. Prince, D. Ronzani, R. J achim, T. Muller, J . Fiore,
L. Verhey, J . Cheresnowsky, M. Clark, K. Alexy
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
Page 165
April 2013 Docket: T93.22
M/GDE
Alternatives to Qualification Markings
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
This docket was opened to discuss an alternative approach to the current requirements for tank car
qualification markings. The thought behind this effort is to make it easier for car owners to manage
their fleets using an electronic database to store tank car markings and stencils. It was noted that any
proposal presented by this TF must be reviewed and agreed upon by the regulators, owners, carriers,
and shippers.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to discuss alternative
approaches to the current requirements for tank car qualification markings. COD pending TF work.
At the April 2011 meeting, D. Mullins provided a handout on alternatives to qualification markings
using the internet. The goal stated in the handout is to evaluate and possibly establish the concept of
removing qualification markings from tank cars and replacing them with a web link mark directing
people to an on-line web-based system that presents the same information that is marked on the car
today. This would be an option for those owners willing and able to meet the requirements the TF
would establish. Doug explained some of the existing problem car owners have today and how this
system can help solve some of those problems.
Comments:
1. How often would the database be updated and by who?
2. What if someone doesnt have internet capability or they have it and lose connection?
3. Accuracy of data?
The following individuals will be added to the TF: K. Alexy, J P Gagnon, and D. Nestler
K. Dorsey stated that the TF Charge will need to be established for this TF. The current TF charge
currently under this docket is for another docket.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, this docket was COD
At the October 2011 meeting, D. Mullins reported on the alternative approach to the current
requirements for tank car qualification markings. He stated that there are other AAR committees
focusing on the removal of certain markings. TF working document is available through request
from TF chair Doug Mullins.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, P. Whelan stated that the EEC is reviewing the need for certain
stencils on rail cars in general because the information is provided electronically. A third party
contractor has been hired to investigate this topic. D. Mullins is in conversation with this contractor.
COD
Page 166
April 2013 Docket: T93.22
M/GDE
Alternatives to Qualification Markings
At the April 2012 meeting, D. Mullins provided a PowerPoint presentation on an alternative
approach to the current requirements for tank car qualification markings. Doug provided a handout
on the alternative approach. One option discussed was the removal tank car markings and replace it
with an electronic identification system. The following comments were provided:
If the markings were removed from the tank car this would cause issues for emergency
responders.
If electronic devices were used around cars that they must be intrinsically safe.
Electronic readers typically have a short range; this would cause a problem in an emergency
response situation.
The economics would need to be evaluated before this was to be implemented.
QR codes cannot be used by all devices and therefore limits its capabilities.
Replace Rob Sech with Don Fredbeck and add Todd DeKoning to the TF.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, it has been proposed that it might be possible to remove some markings
from the tank car and make them available electronically. The problem is that electronic
communication of the information would have to be available everywhere. Another suggestion was
to move stencils to top of car where loaders can see it.
At the October 2012 meeting, D. Mullins reported that the alternative communication effort behind
this proposal is no longer going to reside at the TCC it will be handled by the EEC. The only item
that will be discussed with the TCC is the alternative to the tank car qualification marking.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
CURRENT TF: D. Mullins (Chair), K. Warner, R. J achim, P. Student, J . Hayes, K. Alexy, J P
Gagnon, D. Nestler, T. DeKoning, D. Fredbeck, T. DeKoning
TF CHARGE: Recommend Alternative Means of Recording and Disseminating Qualification
Information
REFERENCES:
Page 167
April 2013 Docket: T94.1.4
M/GDE
Review Appendix E 4.1.6
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD pending publication of an additional CPC.
This docket was opened to review Appendix E 4.1.6. The following recommendation was received
to address issues when slip tube gauging devices are removed and replace with magnetic gauging
device.
There is a wording change needed in M-1002 for cars being altered to remove slip tube gauging
devices under Chapter 1, par. 1.3.9. App. E. 4.1.6 appears to mandate that the manway covers on
such cars accommodate capping kits. As I recall, this was not the intent of the rule change in 1.3.9
in 2004. In order to clarify the intent, I propose the changes shown below:
Current Wording:
M-1002 CHAPTER 1
1.3.9 Gauging
Effective August 1, 2005, tank cars equipped with slip tube gauging devices must have them
removed no later than the next tank qualification event.
M-1002 APPENDIX E
4.1.6 Cars built or altered after December 1, 2003, for transportation of Class 2 or PIH materials,
with the exception of those listed below, must have manway covers that are designed to
accommodate capping kits. Sufficient clearance for capping kits must exist above and around all
fittings.
Accommodations must be made for closures and safety chains. Port openings must be of a suitable
size for capping kit brackets and must be oriented to facilitate capping. See Figs. E29 and E30 for
typical capping kit dimensions and clearance requirements. The following cars are excepted from
this requirement:
Cars transporting carbon dioxide
Class DOT-113 and AAR-204W cars
Proposed Wording:
M-1002 CHAPTER 1
1.3.9 Gauging
Effective August 1, 2005, tank cars equipped with slip tube gauging devices must have them
removed no later than the next tank qualification event. Cars altered under this rule need
not meet the capping kit requirements of Appendix E paragraph 4.1.6.
Page 168
April 2013 Docket: T94.1.4
M/GDE
Review Paragraph E 4.1.6
M-1002 APPENDIX E
4.1.6 Cars built or altered after December 1, 2003, for transportation of Class 2 or PIH materials,
with the exception of those listed below, must have manway covers that are designed to
accommodate
capping kits. Sufficient clearance for capping kits must exist above and around all fittings.
Accommodations must be made for closures and safety chains. Port openings must be of a suitable
size for capping kit brackets and must be oriented to facilitate capping. See Figs. E29 and E30 for
typical capping kit dimensions and clearance requirements. The following cars are excepted from
this requirement:
Cars transporting carbon dioxide
Class DOT-113 and AAR-204W cars
Cars altered to remove slip tube gauging devices under Chapter 1, par. 1.3.9
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, P. Student and C. Machenberg were added to the TF. COD
At the April 2011 meeting, P. Student stated that this should be editorial but he will get with TF and
work on a proposal for the next TCC meeting. Allen Richter will be added to TF.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, this docket was COD.
At the October 2011 meeting, COD
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the proposal provided within the docket.
Action Taken by Tank Car Committee: a motion was made, seconded, and passed to publish a CPC
on the proposal as written.
Staff Note: P. Student is the TF chair.
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the approved proposal provided in the docket. A
CPC will be published by AAR seeking comments.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, COD for AAR staff.
At the October 2012 meeting, COD pending AAR publication of CPC.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD pending publication of an additional CPC.
CURRENT TF: P. Student (Chair), C. Machenberg, A. Richter
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
Page 169
April 2013 Docket: T94.11.1
M/GDE
Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, S. McLeod discussed the proposal in the background. Clarification has
been provided within the proposal as requested by the TCC. The TCC would like the proposal to be
reviewed by the TF again, specifically on the location of the grounding lugs location on the body
bolster assembly. TF plans to have a finalized proposal by the April 2013 TCC meeting.
It has been note that the TDG requires that for goods having a primary or subsidiary classification of
2.1, 3, 4, or 5 measures are taken to prevent exposure of the dangerous goods to any source of
electrical hazard and to dissipate static electricity;" It was suggested that making grounding lugs
mandatory and of a specific performance design might fill this requirement.
J P Gagnon reported that TC concern is with resistance from tank to ground through the trucks.
Alternative approach would include going from tank to ground without going through the truck. TCC
mentioned that the tank bolster has always been the best place for dissipating static electricity. This
issue at some point might be included in to Pamphlet 34. P. Student, K. Warner, A. Ash, and S.
McLeod will head up the Task Force. Comments should be sent to Scott McLeod at
scott.mcleod@cn.ca.
At the April 2009 meeting, S. McLeod reported that any comments or suggestion are due to S.
McLeod by May 15
th
. COD
At the J uly 2009 meeting, Scott McLeod reported that the TF had a teleconference call last month. A
draft proposal will be sent to AAR for review.
Added to TF: W. Woodall (Trinity), S. Murray, M. Untermeyer, G. Sandheinrich. M. Richardson.
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Student reported that the TF has held several calls to discuss the
need to acquiring information from the builders to see what can be used for grounding lugs. TF will
survey shippers to see what the customers needs are before providing a proposal to the TCC.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, P. Student reported that no work has taken place since the October
2009 meeting.
At the April 2010 meeting, S. McLeod reported that the TF is looking for technical assistance in
regard to the electrical bonding and grounding and how static charge is to be dissipated. K. Dorsey
and S. McLeod will work on expanding the charge to include bonding. J . Becker from Trinity was
added to the TF.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, this docket was COD for TF work.
At the October 2010 meeting, this docket was COD pending TF work.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, COD pending TF work.
Page 170
April 2013 Docket: T94.11.1
M/GDE
Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars
At the April 2011 meeting, S. McLeod reported that a proposal should be ready by the October 2011
TCC meeting.
The following update was received via e-mail dated 4/9/10
The Task Force had two teleconferences this quarter and carry-over work from last quarter, work in
progress included:
M-1001, Paragraph 4.3.5 requirements were discussed for general freight cars. The M-1001
requirements also apply to tank cars, per M-1002, Chapter 2.2.8. Discussion took place about
grounding tank cars through the rails as noted in the M-1001. The wording in M-1001 needs
to be brought to the TCC attention.
Engineering work needs to be done to understand grounding electrical charges. This
recommendation is to be brought to the full AAR TCC meeting in April recommending
further study and looking for participation from the floor. How is the static charge to be
dissipated, so that engineering design changes can best be made to resolve the issue?
The task force continued to collect information via questionnaires from shipper's groups
(ACC, Chlorine Institute, Fertilizer Institute and Sulfur Institute members).
The potential of a tripping hazard when grounding lugs were applied near ground level. More
information is needed on how to mitigate.
The Task force is asking the following recommendations be put forward to the Tank Car Committee
membership in the April meeting.
1. "The task force recommends to the TCC that further study is necessary to resolve the
grounding wording requirements in M-1001, Paragraph 4.3.6 and M-1002, Chapter 2.2.8."
2. "The task force recommends to the TCC that further study is necessary to understand
grounding electrical charges, how static charge is to be dissipated and best practice for
engineering design changes." The task force is looking to it's membership technical assistance.
Background documents:
From M1001 Updated 04/07
4.3.6 Electrical Bonding Car Grounding
The design of the car shall provide for the bonding of all parts so as to ensure an electrical ground
through the car wheels, where electrical isolation is possible, a bonding wire or suitable equivalent
shall be provided for in the design of the car or component.
From M1002 Updated 10/2007
2.2.8 Electrical Bonding
The car design must meet the electrical bonding requirements of AAR Specification M-1001,
paragraph 4.3.6.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the TF recommendations provided in the docket. The
TF seeks guidance from the TCC on whether or not a study is required to understand how static
charge is to be dissipated and the best practice for engineering design change. It was stated that
funding would be required for a study.
Page 171
April 2013 Docket: T94.11.1
M/GDE
Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars
The TCC would like the TF to recommend a mounting location and indicate in the recommendation
that grounding should not take place on or near valve and fittings. Comments were made that
grounding lugs may or may not have continuity. They are also not mandatory. TF plans to develop a
proposal based on the input provided during this meeting.
At the October 2011 meeting, S. McLeod provided the TF draft proposal on electrical grounding
studs during the meeting. So far no consensus has been made within the TF on this draft proposal.
The TF will continue to look for a standardized location for grounding studs.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, COD
At the April 2012 meeting, S. McLeod provided a PowerPoint presentation on TF efforts. Included
in Scotts presentation was the TF proposal on grounding requirements for tank cars. Scott clarified
that the intent of the proposal is be applied to all new cars ordered after a certain date and to apply to
stub sill tank cars only. A motion was made, seconded and passed to move the proposal forward to
the executive TCC for consideration after editorial changes are made to ensure comments were
addressed in regard to other potential grounding lugs locations and that testing for continuity is made
a requirement.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the TF Chair will provide wording correction to staff.
At the October 2012 meeting, TF provided information to AAR staff on October 17, 2012.
AAR received the following information on October 17, 2012 from the TF as is ready for
consideration by the executive TCC:
Original
2.2.8.2 Electrical Grounding
All tank cars are to have two (2) welded electrical grounding lugs, accessible on opposite sides of the
car, on the body bolster assemblies (BL and AR). The grounding lugs are to be made of stainless
steel material, welded in place. The grounding lugs will be free of paint to ensure electrical
continuity between the grounding lugs, bolster and tank shell. Additional bolted grounding studs or
welded grounding lugs may be added on the car, except no grounding point will be in a location that
hinders the safe operation of tank car loading / unloading. This requirement is in effect for tank cars
ordered after Month / Day / Year.
Added edits for clarification in Italic:
2.2.8.2 Electrical Grounding
All tank cars are to have two (2) welded electrical grounding lugs, accessible on opposite sides of the
car, located on the inside horizontal plane of the body bolster assemblies (BL and AR). The
grounding lugs are to be made of stainless steel material, welded in place. The grounding lugs will
be free of paint to ensure electrical continuity between the grounding lugs, bolster and tank shell.
Additional bolted grounding studs or welded grounding lugs may be added on the car, except no
grounding point will be in a location that hinders the safe operation of tank car loading / unloading.
This requirement is in effect for stub sill tank cars ordered after Month / Day / Year.
Page 172
April 2013 Docket: T94.11.1
M/GDE
Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, S. McLeod discussed the proposal in the background. Clarification has
been provided within the proposal as requested by the TCC. The TCC would like the proposal to be
reviewed by the TF again, specifically on the location of the grounding lugs location on the body
bolster assembly. TF plans to have a finalized proposal by the April 2013 TCC meeting.
Chris Crisfulli and Chris Edmonds will be added to the TF.
J . Becker and G. Sandheinrich will be removed.
CURRENT TF: S McLeod (Ch.), P. Student, K. Warner, A. Ash, W. Woodall, S. Murray, M.
Untermeyer, C. Crisfulli, C. Edmonds, M. Richardson
TF CHARGE: Investigate Grounding Requirements for Tank Cars
REFERENCES: S McLeod 4/9/10
Page 173
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.4
M/GDE
Review Manway Cover Design for Non-Pressure Cars
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
This docket was opened at the request of the NAR TG to review the design and application of hinged
and bolted manways with the goal of eliminating NARs
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, D. Maechling was selected as TF Chair. P. Student, A. Richter, A.D.
McKisic, J . Perez, A. Degutis, P. Brady, and T. Sisto were added to the TF. TF will review the new
manway designs.
At the April 2009 meeting, it was noted that D. Maechling has agreed to chair this TF. The TF will
hold a teleconference within the next few weeks. Contact information is needed to be sent to Mr.
Maechling at DMaechling@arleasing.com. F. Gonzalez, R. Triche, and J . Engel will be added to the
TF.
Via e-mail dated 4/21/09, API wished to be recorded as opposing the removal of the hinged and
bolted style manway. It is offered that the available data may not support such an action and that
some products do not lend themselves to alternative arrangements. API believes
that more effective training, equipment and component selections, improved repair procedures and
inspection/supervision of loading/unloading operations is a much more effective method of
decreasing NAR's than the removal of hinged and bolted manway covers.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that comments were submitted by API opposing the
removal of hinged and bolted manway covers because they are useful. D. Maechling reported on the
recent meeting held by the TF. Several proposals were given during the meeting with some
countering one another. Therefore the plan is to address the existing manway cover as is and see
what can be done to improve the positive seal, improve training of employees, and develop a
procedure to be included in pamphlet 34. COD
At the October 2009 meeting, D. Maechling reported that only existing manway covers will be
review to see what can be done to improve positive seal. The TF has not met since J uly. The TF
plans to review procedures for properly closing the manway cover. K. Dorsey mentioned that within
the industry there are individuals replacing manway bolts with incorrect bolts. The TF will address
the issue of industry not using the appropriate bolts.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, D. Maechling reported that the TF held a conference call on October
19, 2009. It was decided to have D. Maechling draft two proposals one for existing cars and one for
new cars. The goal is to have the proposals ready by the April 2010 TCC meeting.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the TF proposal that makes changes to pamphlet
34 and appendix D of M-1002. The proposal has been provided below for industry review. TF has
narrowed the focus to current manway covers only. It was also note that any review of pamphlet 34
should include a change to harmonize safety valve allowable start to discharge pressure requirements
with the federal requirement.
Page 174
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.4
M/GDE
Review Manway Cover Design for Non-Pressure Cars
At the J uly 2010 meeting, D. Maechling had discussed the proposals to amend pamphlet 34 and
Appendix D Section 6 of M-1002. The TCC recommended edit the last sentence in the proposed
section 6.4.5 to read Safety eyebolts must conform to original construction or approved modification
requirements. The committee agreed to approval the proposal including the editorial change to
section 6.4.5 to Appendix D Section 6. K. Dorsey will work with D. Maechling on the wording to be
added to Appendix D from Pamphlet 34.
At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal provided in the docket. K. Dorsey
will work with D. Maechling on a finalized proposal based on the TCC direction provided below.
Change 1:
The TCC agreed to remove the word gas within the proposal under Appendix D 6.5.1.
NEW 6.5.1 Any repairs to the gasket seating surface or cover replacement requires the manway to
be gas tested for leaks per Appendix T unless a hydrostatic tank retest is performed, subjecting the
tank cars manway cover and gasket to tank test pressure.
Change 2:
The TCC agreed to add the words or approved modification within the proposal under Appendix D
6.4.5.
NEW 6.4.5 Inspect the safety eyebolts to ensure that the cover cannot be opened while the tank is
under pressure. The limiting dimension for proper function is the manway cover must be raised
between approximately to 1 to enable the eyebolts to clear the slots of the manway cover. If the
safety eyebolts nearest the manway cover handle can be removed from the cover slots with the
remaining eyebolts in place the safety eyebolts are not functional. Safety eyebolts must conform to
original construction or approved modification requirements.
Change 3:
The TCC agreed to remove F under Pamphlet 34 section B recommendation and replace with
reference to M-1003.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the proposal provided in the docket will require
a review by the Hazmat Committee prior to approval. COD
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the work under this docket has been completed
and the docket will remain open as information only.
Proposal received via e-mail dated 5/24/10 which includes the charges of T94.21.4 and T94.29;
AAR Task Force T94.21.4 Proposed Amendment to Pamphlet 34
B. Loading of Tank Car
Before Loading a Tank Car
Add:
16. If equipped with a hinged and bolted manway thoroughly inspect the manway nozzle and cover
assembly assuring that:
Page 175
a) The manway cover is functional, properly aligned and centered on the manway nozzle, hinge pin
operates freely, is in place and not bent, cut or damaged and the eyebolt slots and ears are not bent,
worn, damaged or deformed. The cover must be free of commodity or other build up that would
prevent proper operation of the eyebolts. The area adjacent to the gasket sealing surface must be free
of commodity or other build up that would interfere with adjacent surfaces and adjacent areas must
be free of corrosion or damage that would allow passage of commodity with the cover in the closed
and bolted position.
b) The manway nozzle sealing surface is free of gouges, nicks, corrosion, displaced metal, residual
commodity and remnants of old gaskets.
c) The manway gasket is in place, intact, has not taken a permanent compression set that interferes
with sealing, is the style and design compatible with the manway nozzle assembly and is of a
material compatible with the commodity.
d) The eyebolts, nuts and washers are not bent, damaged, corroded, and the assemblies are free of
excess paint or commodity. Nuts and washers must be of size to fully bridge the eyebolt slots and
washers must not be deformed. The manway nozzle is equipped with safety eyebolts at the proper
locations opposite the hinge side of the nozzle.
e) The eyebolt pins and hinges are not bent, damaged, deformed or worn to the extent to prevent free
movement of the eyebolts and proper engagement in the manway cover eyebolt slots.
f) Manway hinges, hinge pins, eyebolts, safety eyebolts and eyebolt nuts, pins and washers must
conform to original construction requirements or the tank builders most recent hardware design
requirements applicable to the manway arrangement. Replacement components must be
dimensionally and functionally equivalent to original construction components. Manway
arrangements not meeting original construction requirements or configuration are to be considered as
unapproved modifications to a fitting and must be repaired back to the original approved design;
unless the manway arrangement has previously received AAR approval for modification.
Add:
After Loading a Tank Car
21. When securing a manway cover tighten the bolts using the appropriate star pattern and internal
procedures. Lubricate manway eyebolts as required to maintain serviceability of the bolts and to
ensure that proper torque values are achieved. Verify that the manway cover ears have not deformed
or bent out of plane due to the torque applied to the eyebolts.
AAR Task Force T94.21.4 Proposed Amendment to Appendix D Section 6
6.4 Eyebolts and Nuts
6.4.1 Inspect eyebolts and nuts for corrosion, damaged threads, excess paint and residual
commodity. Any defect that prevents the required nut engagement by hand is cause for cleaning,
repair or replacement.
6.4.2 Gauge the major and minor diameters of the external eyebolt threads over the nut clamping
surface using a calibrated GO-NOGO gauge per ANSI/ASME B1.2, Table 1, or equivalent
calibrated gauges. The limiting dimensions of the external threads shall be to the Class 1A standard
as that defined in Table 10 of the ANSI/ASME B1.2 standard or the manufacturers limit of
allowances. Gauge the internal major diameter, minor diameter and of the nut (when the nut is
removable) using a GO-NOGO gauge per ANSI/ASME B1.2. The limiting dimensions of the
internal nut threads shall be the Class 1B standard as that defined in Table 10 of the ANSI/ASME
B1.2 standard.
Page 176
6.4.4 Inspect to ensure that all manway eyebolt nuts on a car are of the same configuration and size
(i.e. heavy square or heavy hex). Inspect to ensure that all manway eyebolt nuts and washers are of
sufficient size to bridge the eyebolt slots in the manway cover. Inspect to ensure that eyebolt
manway washers are not cupped, corroded or deformed. Any nut or washer found undersize, cupped,
corroded or deformed are to be replaced. Replacement washers are to be 3/16 minimum thick
hardened washers or equivalent. Nuts are to be replaced if wear or corrosion prevents the use of a
standard wrench for which the nut is sized.
6.4.5 Inspect the safety eyebolts to ensure that the cover cannot be opened while the tank is under
pressure. The limiting dimension for proper function is the manway cover must be raised between
approximately to 1 to enable the eyebolts to clear the slots of the manway cover. If the safety
eyebolts nearest the manway cover handle can be removed from the cover slots with the remaining
eyebolts in place the safety eyebolts are not functional. Safety eyebolts must conform to original
construction requirements.
6.5 Testing
6.5.1 Any repairs to the gasket seating surface or cover replacement requires the manway to be gas
tested for leaks per Appendix T unless a hydrostatic tank retest is performed, subjecting the tank
cars manway cover and gasket to tank test pressure.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that based on the agreement to move merge docket
T93.23 with this docket paragraph 16(f) will be removed from the proposed amendment to pamphlet
34 and the wording added as a new section 6.4.6 to the proposed amendment for Appendix D. A
motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the proposed amendments for both Pamphlet 34
and Appendix D as revised.
Approved revisions are:
Pamphlet 34: under section Before Loading a Tank Car item 16 paragraph (f) was removed.
Appendix D: The paragraph removed from Pamphlet 34 will be added to a new section 6.4.6 as
indicated below:
add:
6.4.6 Manway hinges, hinge pins, eyebolts, safety eyebolts and eyebolt nuts, pins and washers must
conform to original construction requirements or the tank builders most recent hardware design
requirements applicable to the manway arrangement. Replacement components must be
dimensionally and functionally equivalent to original construction components. Manway
arrangements not meeting original construction requirements or configuration are to be considered as
unapproved modifications to a fitting and must be repaired back to the original approved design;
unless the manway arrangement has previously received AAR approval for modification.
Page 177
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.4
M/GDE
Review Manway Cover Design for Non-Pressure Cars
At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR needs to make the modifications to
Appendix D.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, the Tank Car Committee agreed to move all TF work from T92.23 to
this TF work. Below is T93.23 Replacement of Eyebolts during Qualification material:
This docket was opened to review the ability to replace bolts on hinged and bolted manways
during qualification. This docket will initially be handled by K. Warner and K. Dorsey
Because eyebolts are critical to achieve a good seal on manways during transportation it was
suggested that eyebolts should be replaced at time of tank car qualification.
At the January 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to review the
ability to replace bolts on hinged and bolted manways during qualification. K. Dorsey and
K. Warner will be added to the TF. COD
At the April 2011 meeting, K Dorsey discussed the need to expand the TF charge to include
the review of how fasteners are marked and identified. The following individuals were added
to the TF: L. Hooper, R. Jachim, T. Sisto, J. Hayes, C. Crisafulli, J. Cheresnowsky, M.
Lashinski, A. Shaffer, and K. Warner (Chair)
At the July 2011 meeting, D. Maechling stated that the efforts being made by this TF directly
relates to the issues under T94.21.4. K. Warner stated he would be agreeable to merge this
TF with T94.21.4. By doing this the proposed amendment to pamphlet 34 under T94.21.4
would have to be modified so that the wording under item 16(f) be moved to the proposed
amendment to appendix D under a new section 6.4.6.
Therefore Appendix D
add:
6.4.6 Manway hinges, hinge pins, eyebolts, safety eyebolts and eyebolt nuts, pins and
washers must conform to original construction requirements or the tank builders most
recent hardware design requirements applicable to the manway arrangement. Replacement
components must be dimensionally and functionally equivalent to original construction
components. Manway arrangements not meeting original construction requirements or
configuration are to be considered as unapproved modifications to a fitting and must be
repaired back to the original approved design; unless the manway arrangement has
previously received AAR approval for modification.
At the October 2011 meeting, S. Murray reported that the TF met recently. S. Murray
discussed the TF additions to Appendix D which were provided in the docket. There will be
no change to how the inspections are performed today. COD
At the January 2012 meeting, the Tank Car Committee agreed to move this TF work to TCC
docket T94.21.4.
Page 178
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.4
M/GDE
Review Manway Cover Design for Non-Pressure Cars
CURRENT TF: K. Warner (Chair), K. Dorsey, S. Murray, L. Hooper, R. Jachim, T.
Sisto, J. Hayes, C. Crisafulli, J. Cheresnowsky, M. Lashinski, A. Shaffer
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES:
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed the changes to Appendix D. COD pending
confirmation that all information has been published in Appendix D.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the combined proposal will be adopted in pamphlet 34 and Appendix D.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the TF work will be published in CPC.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
CURRENT TF: D. Maechling (Chr), P. Student, A. Richter, J Becherer, J . Perez, A. Degutis, P.
Brady, and T. Sisto, F. Gonzalez, R. Triche, J . Engel
TF CHARGE: Review the manway cover arrangement of non-pressure cars and make
recommendations to eliminate NARs.
REFERENCES: K Warner 4/21/09; D Maechling 5/24/10
Page 179
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.5
M/GDE
Review of Hinged and Bolted Manways
Recent Activity: See Below.
This docket was opened to review the ability to eliminate hinged and bolted manways and review
redesign options.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey discussed that this docket was opened to review the ability
to eliminate hinged and bolted manways as well as review redesign options. G. Sandheinrich was
elected to be TF chair and plans to work with K. Dorsey on the TF Charge. COD pending TF work
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that this docket was opened to investigate options for
alternative hinged and bolted manways. G. Sandheinrich and K. Dorsey will work on establishing the
TF charge.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the TF is to evaluate hinged and bolted manways
design and determine if they can be redesigned or eliminated. One main reason for evaluating hinged
and bolted manway is due to the fact that they are the leading cause of NARs in the rail industry. H.
Weber will assign someone from the Sulfur Institute to participate in the task force. K. Warner and
Robyn Heald (CI) will be added to the TF. Need to be able to develop a methodology. A TF charge
needs to be established.
At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there are companies working on new designs
of manways.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, COD pending TF meeting.
At the April 2012 meeting, G. Sandhienrich stated that the TF recently met and established the TF
Charge.
TF Charge: To develop a performance standard for manway assemblies that will target the reduction
of NARs.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the TF is focusing on loose bolt cause of NAR. The difficulties in setting
up a closure for both hard and soft gaskets has been identified as a source of discrepancies. The TF is
waiting for input from the NAR Reduction TF to complete their work.
At the October 2012 meeting, COD pending AARs discussion with TF chair on TF charge.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that alternative designs are being brought to the
market place for service trial. TF awaiting NAR RTF work. COD.
Page 180
April 2013 Docket: T94.21.5
M/GDE
Review of Hinged and Bolted Manways
CURRENT TF: G. Sandheinrich (Chair), M. Richardson, D. Prince, F. Gonzalez, M. Clark, N.
Gambow, J . Gulitis, J . DeLacerda, AD McKisic, T. Sisto, P. Brady, C.
Machenberg, S. Lithgo, M. Heller, R. Heald, K. Warner, S. Lassonde
TF CHARGE: To develop a performance standard for manway assemblies that will target the
reduction of NARs.
REFERENCES:
Page 181
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic stated that the group is focused on TC-128 properties.
New steel testing is being pushed back a little due to ATCCRP and evaluation of low sulfur TC-
128B. The low sulfur TC-128 was produced by one of the mills by accident, and will be tested as part
of the ATCCRP. It was stated that the low sulfur TC-128 analysis results show better charpy values.
This docket was created as a result of two independent dockets concerned with tank car tank
materials. Docket T95.7-81 was created to review all tank car steels as to their suitability in the
railroad environment. Many issues were resolved under that docket, which was closed in October
1991, after the publication of Report RA-03-9-59 entitled Evaluation of New Steels for Tank Cars,
Phase II. At the time the docket was closed, interest in opening another docket to further pursue
improvements to TC128 steel was noted. Docket T95.23-93 was opened in J uly 1993 to consider
possible changes to M-1002 regarding the maximum level of Columbium, or a combination of
Columbium and Vanadium, permitted in TC128 Grade B steels.
It was decided at the March 1995 Committee meeting that docket T95.7.1-95 would be opened, with
its main emphasis on the evaluation of microalloyed steels for use in tank car tank construction
At the March 1996 meeting, the Committee expressed interest in this matter and suggested that
Mr. Stone proceed with plans for testing of candidate materials. This docket was progressed to the
M/GDE working group, which, at the J uly 1996 meeting, appointed a task force to study this matter.
At the J uly 1998 meeting, WL Garfield reported that the task force has identified five ASTM
specifications that merit further study: ASTM A656, A737, A808, A841, and A945. Further
discussions with suppliers regarding weldability and formability are needed. The task force will also
work on bringing TC128, Grade B, in line with current manufacturing practice with respect to sulfur
and silicon content.
At the J uly 1999 meeting, it was noted that A737 and A945 will be studied as possible future
replacements for TC128.
At the October 2000 meeting, the task force reported it had narrowed the bids on conducting the tests
to two. Weld consumable manufacturers are being consulted with regard to the candidate materials.
By letter dated 11/15/00, TT Treichel distributed the RPI-AAR Tank Car Safety Research Project
Steels 2 report, Metallurgy, Properties and Commercial Availability of Microalloyed Plate Steels
(RA-03-6-63/AAR R-938).
Page 182
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
At the October 2001 meeting, the following Task Force update was received:
The task force feels that the present tank car steels perform well in normal service and that the
objective of this work should be to develop steels with enhanced accident performance.
Improved low-temperature properties and better fire resistance are among the suggested goals.
The task force proposes that improvements be made in two steps:
1. Near-term, easily achieved improvements to the current specifications,
2. Adoption or development of new alloys.
In support of the first objective, the task force recommended making certain improvements to
the chemistry of TC128 and adopting certain restrictions to the chemistry of ASTM A516
when used for tank car tanks. (See docket T95.7.3 for this development.)
Adoption of new tank steels will require substantial study and testing. No funding has been
allocated for this work at the present time.
At the J uly 2002 meeting, T Dalrymple reported that samples of candidate new steels have been
delivered to the car builders for evaluation.
At the J uly 2003 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that Trinity Industries and Union Tank Car have
each pressed two heads out of the new candidate steel, ASTM 841. The heads were pressed using
both warm and cold techniques, and coupons have been cut from the material and sent to BNSF labs
for testing.
The following is a synopsis of the testing results performed on ASTM A841- Grade C Class 2
material, extracted from an e-mail dated 2/9/04.
A total of 28 room temperature tensile tests were conducted after the samples had been held at
1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, and 1600 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour then air cooled These
results are available on request, to summarize the tensile properties of the steel was not adversely
affected until recrystallization temperatures were reached, 1400 Fahrenheit and greater. These
tests revealed forming of the tank heads from the plates should not be conducted above 1300
Fahrenheit, nor should normalizing be done after forming the plates.
ISG concluded, "Even though acceptable toughness was obtained in the as-rolled plates, the head
forming operation (cold or warm forming) appears to exacerbate the toughness variability
between the normal and segregated regions. Therefore, unless plates can be produced with
minimal segregation and property variation in the as-rolled condition, control-rolled ASTM A841
Grade C Class 2 microalloyed steel does not appear to be a good candidate to replace the current
TC 128B (normalized C-Mn-V) steel."
At this time no further testing of this material is considered necessary. The Task Force is willing
to continue to look for other low carbon alloy steels which may not develop these segregated
bands with martensite streaks. Future direction from the Tank Car Committee to the Task Force
on docket T95.7.1 is recommended.
Page 183
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
At the April 2004 meeting, T. Dalrymple noted that this docket needed to be broken up and reported
that A841 testing has been stopped. This docket will be divided into the following dockets.
1. Future Tank Car Tank Steels (this docket)
2. Charpy Testing Requirements for Production Steels (T95.7.2)
3. NTSB Recommendation on Fracture Toughness of Tank Steels (Given to T79.32)
4. Modifications to Current Steel Specifications (T95.7.3)
At the J uly 2004 meeting, it was agreed that the title of this docket will be changed to, New Steels
for Tank Car Tanks. P. Student will send AAR staff a reference to the Northwestern University
group doing steels research.
At the October 2004 meeting, T. Dalrymple reported that there are no new candidate steels being
proposed at this time. R. Sims noted that the last candidate still could be provided by an alternative
supplier, who thinks they can solve the manufacturing issues. However this supplier could not
produce one-piece plates for tank heads.
At the J anuary 2005 meeting, P. Whelan updated the committee on task force progress. This docket
is COD.
At the April 2005 meeting, P. Whelan reported the TF is developing protocol to evaluate future
candidate steels.
At the J uly 2005 meeting, this docket was C.O.D. for task force work.
At the October 2005 meeting, P. Whelan reported that ASTM A841 is under consideration again for
use in tank shells. The committee agreed to present this option to the RSI companies. Ipsco Steel
suggested X-70 might exhibit good toughness also for tank shells. P. Kinnecom noted that there are
many opportunities for improved steels if the shell material is considered separately from the steel
used for the tank head. The task force was asked to identify candidates so that DOT/TC exemptions
could be pursued prior to prototype construction.
At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Pat Whelan updated the committee on progress in identifying steels to
be used for tank car shells. At this point there is no replacement for TC128B being investigated for
use in forming heads, but ASTM A709, A841, and X70 or X80 series pipe steels are being considered
for use in tank shells. A Northwestern University grade 70 steel formulation has been suggested;
however, it is not currently in production and therefore is unavailable for testing. Richard Bodnar of
Ipsco Steel has been added to this task force.
Via e-mail dated 1/13/06, P. Whelan provided the following task force recommended actions:
In response to the TCC request, the New Steels Task Force recommends ASTM-A709 Grade HPS-
70W be considered as a good candidate for possible use in the manufacturing of tank car shells.
Page 184
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
Use of ASTM-A709 Grade HPS-70W was recommended by Mittal Steel. This steel is currently
used extensively in bridge construction. HPS-70W can be stress relieved without loss in
toughness, so a hybrid car with HPS-70W shell and TC 128B head may be possible. The task
force also intends to follow up with Ipsco (who manufacture the X-70 and X-80 linepipe steels) as
to their recommendations for "best" candidate. The task force also desires to get an Ipsco
representative (Richard Bodnar) on the task force on a permanent basis.
Link for basic info on HPS-70W http://www.intlsteel.com/PDFs/bridges.pdf
NUCu - Grade 60 & 70 - This steel was developed by Northwestern University and has significantly
higher (compared to TC-128B) toughness. However, the high copper content could
Ger. C, which can be added on to existing orders). However, Mittal Steel said that the NUCu
steels do offer attractive properties and should be evaluated, especially if HPS-70W is not found
suitable.
A841- will also be revisited. New production techniques may eliminate problems with initial trial
run.
At the April 2006 meeting, P. Whelan discussed the testing of A709 and X70 type steels for the use in
tank car shells.
At the J uly 2006 meeting, P. Whelan reported that funding for testing of TC-128B (transverse Charpy
tested), X-70 and A709 are being sought. This docket is COD for TF work.
At the October 2006 meeting, P Whelan reported that the TF has developed a test plan for the
candidate steels and has requested funding.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, P. Whelan reported that funding is now in place for the acquisition of
the test steels. H. Taber has retired from this TF. M. Williams, F. Gonzalez and L. Strouse will be
added to the TF. It was noted that this TF might want to open dialogue with the groups from SWRI
and TCI working on steel issues to avoid duplication of effort and share information. D. J eong
reported that he has an advanced copy of the SWRI steels report but that it is not available for
publication at this time.
At the April 2007 meeting, P. Whelan discussed the work being done on the candidate steels.
Currently the suitability of the material for production forming is being evaluated.
At the J uly 2007 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF is still investigating the use of pipeline
steels for tank car production.
At the October 2007 meeting it was reported that tests on X-70 type steel was progressing at ARI.
Page 185
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, M. Williams reported that ARI has done some tests of HPS-50 steel
forming it into tank heads. They attempted to press some tank heads from X-70 steel, but could not
get in form needed. ARI pressed 6 head blanks and formed 4 heads. Three of four would have been
usable in production. The next step is to do charpy testing, grain structure analysis to confirm the
steel properties. ARI plans to report on the results at the April meeting. COD
At the April 2008 meeting, M. Williams reported that the ARI report on the performance of X-50 will
be available in the near future.
At the J uly 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that the strength and toughness properties of TMCP Steel
HPS 50W are as good as or better than those of TC 128 grade B normalized steel. The head forming
trials demonstrated that the TMCP steel could successfully be formed at a warm forming
temperatures. There may be some issues with cold forming heads with this material. Future tests with
the TMCP steels should investigate other aspects of tank construction such as weld ability and the
properties that result from welding.
At the October 2008 meeting, M. Williams provided a handout to the TCC on the activity of this
docket. Future plans include confirming mechanical test at BNSF lab, investigate the effect of Post
Weld Heat Treat (PWHT) on welded specimens, connect with LeTourneau University research on
HPS 50W welding, and cold forming tests with Union Tank Car.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that union tank will perform the cold forming
operation. Samples of the material will be shipped soon to BNSF. BNSF lab will duplicate the same
mechanical test performed by ARI.
At the April 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that testing was performed at ARI. M. Williams was
promoted to VP of Operations. UTC is about to begin cold forming operations. G. Sandheinrich will
be added to the TF.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that ARI is very active with HPS 50W steel testing.
No results from union tank on cold forming. It may be a few years before a car builder could actually
build a car.
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that HPS 50 bridge steels are being tested. Hot and
Cold head forming has been successfully performed, however two concerns were mentioned. The
charpy test results show there is a wide variation in tensile strength and the weld test have low
charpy results. ARI and Union Tank were recognized for their efforts. Literature research will be
performed by the TF on this type of steel.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that research is ongoing. He mentioned that the
results from the charpy test on the weld metal itself are decreasing due to matter being picked up
from the parent steel. The steel currently being tested is used in bridges all across the country.
At the April 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the results from the charpy test on the weld
metal itself are decreasing due to matter being picked up from the parent steel. COD
Page 186
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
At the J uly 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that testing continues. COD
At the October 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the interest is still there to find better steels
however additional funding is needed to continue testing new steels. COD
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF meets on a monthly basis. The TF is
still interested in HPS-50 even though it is hard to weld. DHS has expressed interest in performing
test on new tank car steels. The TF plans to have a representative from DHS on the next TF
teleconference call to find out more about what specific test DHS wants to perform. DHS will also
discuss what funds are available for this type of testing. The NGTC TF performed tank car steel
testing during that project that this TF is willing to review. Pete McKeighan will be added to the TF.
At the April 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF became aware that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were recently
performing ballistic testing on steels and SSAB was able to provide a sample of X70 steel. The TF is
interested in comparing X70 steel to TC-128. TF is looking for funding from the government to
continue their investigation of new steels. TF still needs to iron out best practices for forming, needs
to understand the impact of post weld heat treatment, and determine the appropriate criteria to be used
when selecting steel for tank car construction.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, P. Whelan stated that they are in phase 2 of testing. Currently testing
HPS-50, low sulfur TC-128, and X-70 pipe steel. Car builders have been involved in constructing
samples for testing purposes. COD
At the October 2011 meeting, P. Whelan stated that this TF meets monthly. The TF continues the
investigation of three different steels: TC-128 with Low Sulfur content, X-70, and HPS-50. TF is
very interest in low sulfur content TC-128 because test results show that there is an improvement to
charpy impact values by 2X. It is unknown the cost to implement low sulfur content TC-128 into
production. Current test proposal include the additional weld testing on all steels. BNSF is looking to
purchase new tank cars with low sulfur content TC-128. They are actively seeking quotes from
builders. TF plans on approaching RSI and FRA for funding the remaining tank car steel testing
related to the work under this docket.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, P. Whelan stated that the TF plans to request funding from FRA for
testing HSLA-80, which was recommended by DHS. TF wants to expand its investigation on TC-
128 low sulfur and HPS-50 steels in order to test the consistency and reliability between heat
treatments. TFs intent is to acquire a test plate of X-70 steel to determine welding capabilities.
Preliminary information on HSLA-80 is that it has a much higher charpy values compared to other
steels used in tank car manufacturing; however these charpy values are calculated based on the as
rolled values and may change in forming. It was stated that HSLA-80 cannot be normalized. This
steel is currently used in the construction of Navy destroyers. HSLA stands for High Strength Low
Alloy
Page 187
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.1-95
M/GDE
Consider New Steels for Tank Car Tanks (Continued)
At the April 2012 meeting, P. Whelan stated that the TF continues the review of TC-128 low sulfur
steel. Pat stated that the TC-128 low sulfur steel has potential for better upper shelf energy. HPS-50,
HSLA-80, and X-70 will continued to be reviewed on the capabilities of heat treatment and
normalization. Short term focus is on TC-128 low sulfur steel. TF is waiting on input from the
ATCCRP
The following individual will be added to the TF: Pete Thompson
At the J uly 2012 meeting, with Pat Whelans departure this TF will need a new chair. The TF is
waiting for information from ATCCRP.
At the October 2012 meeting, C. Hybinette reported that the TF met the week prior to the TCC
meeting and stated that the TF is compiling data and when complete Roger Sims will summarize the
information in a report. TF is reviewing whether or not low sulfur TC-128 will provide greater upper
shelf energy. TF effort continues on getting samples of low sulfur TC-128 material. Inclusion
content on steels is also being looked at by the TF. A matrix was developed regarding the properties
of steels and improvement of properties for enhancements to puncture resistance. Carl Hybinette
from Union Tank Car is the new TF chair.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic stated that the group is focused on TC-128 properties.
New steel testing is being pushed back a little due to ATCCRP and evaluation of low sulfur TC-
128B. The low sulfur TC-128 was produced by one of the mills by accident, and will be tested as
part of the ATCCRP. It was stated that the low sulfur TC-128 analysis results show better charpy
values.
CURRENT TF: C. Hybinette (Chr), R. Sims, F Gonzales, L. Strouse, H Guzel, G. Sandheinrich, M.
Manohar, B. Heitmann, B. Kowing, A.D. McKisic, C. Barkan, T. Treichel, P.
McKeighan, P. Thompson
TF CHARGE: Investigate New Steels for Use in the Construction of Tank Car Tanks
REFERENCES: PJ Daum 1/21/04 (Handout); TH Dalrymple 5/19/03, 8/24/03, 9/10/03, 11/02/03,
11/03/03, 1/15/04, 1/16/04X3, 1/19/04, 3/28/04X2, 3/29/04, 5/26/04, 6/1/04, 6/9/04,
10/4/04, 10/15/04; TT Treichel 9/10/03, 11/10/03, 2/24/06, 10/11/06; G. Dahlman
10/16/03, 11/3/03, 2/9/04, 6/1/04, 6/8/04, 10/2/04; P Kinnecom 03/27/03, 03/28/03
(CPC-1150), 6/20/03 (CPC-1154), 8/25/03, 5/25/04, 10/19/06, 10/24/06; C
Hybinette 1/6/05; P Whelan 1/13/06, 4/25/06, 10/10/06; M. Williams 7/21/08
Page 188
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic stated that low sulfur steel is being tested. The process of
producing this steel will be under discussion. The TF will also investigate the effect of lowering the
yield strength.
This docket was separated from docket T95.7.1 to address modifications to current steel
specifications for tank car tank fabrication.
At the October 1999 videoconference, WL Garfield reported that a proposal to change ASTM A612
to 0.025% max for sulfur will be considered at the next ASTM meeting. The Tank Car Committee
approved that level for TC128.
By letter dated 2/28/00, TH Dalrymple summarized Trinitys recent findings regarding normalized
heads, and requested that the issue be reviewed by the task force for this docket. Trinity has found
that a certain chemical composition of TC128-B, although within acceptable tolerances, can produce
inconsistent results after the head forming/normalizing process. Contributing factors may be a
broadly defined specification, the international scope of the steelmaking industry and market, and the
presence of elements that normally are not reported but may affect the properties of the final product.
Because of these issues, Trinity desires to develop improved specifications for current tank car steels.
By letter dated 6/5/00, PJ Daum reported that recent Union tests on TC128-B material supplied by
domestic mills showed proper Charpy values, due to proper control of chemical composition. He
asked whether the same benefits might also be possible through appropriate limits on trace elements
within the current specification, as was discussed under Docket T95.23-93.
By e-mail dated 12/7/00, M Manohar confirmed that Bethlehem Steels petition to adopt a sulfur
maximum of 0.025% for ASTM A612 (lowered from 0.035%) had been approved by ASTM. Steel
made to this limit will be specified as ASTM A612-00.
At the October 2001 meeting, the following Task Force update was received:
The T97.5.1 task force feels that the present tank car steels perform well in normal service and
that the objective of this work should be to develop steels with enhanced accident
performance. Improved low-temperature properties and better fire resistance are among the
suggested goals. The task force proposes that improvements be made in two steps:
1. Near-term, easily achieved improvements to the current specifications,
2. Adoption or development of new alloys.
In support of the first objective, the task force recommended making certain improvements to
the chemistry of TC128 and adopting certain restrictions to the chemistry of ASTM A516
when used for tank car tanks.
Page 189
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the J anuary 2002 meeting, the proposed revisions to TC128 and ASTM A516 chemistry were
approved.
At the J uly 2002 meeting, possible means to identify the current TC128 material were discussed. The
possibility of approaching ASTM to give TC128 an A612 designation or adding a year designator, as
in TC128-02, were offered as possible solutions. As an important note, tank cars are currently being
built from TC128 made to the specification approved by the TCC in 01/2002.
CPC-1154 was issued 6/20/03 to adopt the revised specifications for TC128 and ASTM A516 steels
used for new tank car production, effective for new cars ordered after 6/30/2003.
Via e-mail dated 6/24/04, M. Manohar advised that the changes to ASTM A516 are now effective
(A516-04). A footnote to Table 1 now permits increased manganese content, provided lower carbon
is used. As long as the carbon content is kept low, the Mn content in steel supplied to ASTM A516-
70 could exceed the current limit of 1.20% (Heat Analysis) in the AAR spec for A516-70 for tank
cars. The wording of the AAR spec may have to be changed to accommodate this revision
At the October 2004 meeting, Pat Whelan agreed to chair this docket.
At the J anuary 2005 meeting, The task force recommended the adoption of the ASTM update to the
A516 specification. The committee agreed to this proposal. T. Dalrymple will provide the necessary
edits for M-1002 to AAR staff.
At the April 2005 meeting, it was agreed that AAR staff will publish a circular letter with editorial
modifications to the A516 Grade 70 steel specification, modified to revise M8.1. CPC-1169 was
issued 6/24/05 for comment and the change was implemented in CPC-1170, dated 8/1/05
At the J uly 2005 meeting, it was decided that three comments from the T95.7.2 task force will be
addressed by this task force.
2. Trinity has agreed to run some transverse Charpy tests on CO2 plate to verify the properties
and document the rationale for exempting CO2 plates from the new requirement.
4. The Task Force agreed that current silicon requirements should not be changed without testing
to ensure that there are no adverse effects. ISG to provide sample plates to Trinity for testing.
5. The TCC may want to consider some means to track cars built with this new steel
requirement. (Kinnecom, Daum and Dalrymple to develop a notation to include on the 4-2
forms to denote that steel is transverse Charpy tested.
T. Dalrymple issued data from testing of high-Silicon steel. The only deviation from specification in
tests run so far was a test indicating the sample was outside the upper tensile strength limit for
TC128B. He questioned the reason for a maximum strength value in the specification.
At the October 2005 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the Charpy requirement for CO
2
tank car steel
was still under review. Ipsco has agreed to provide steel samples to the manufacturers for testing a
0.50 % Silicon content in TC-128 for all thicknesses.
Page 190
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Pat Whelan reported that there are two issues facing this task force,
silicon content of TC128B and the upper tensile strength limit on TC128B. The task force is still
working towards consensus on these issues.
Via e-mail dated 1/13/06, P. Whelan provided the following task force recommended actions:
1. The need for upper tensile limit on TC-128B - There is still some dissention in the Task Force
regarding the need for an upper tensile limit on TC-128B. The main concern is that certain
processes currently used in forming heads can significantly work harden the material - there will
be a point at which this is detrimental to the tank.
2. High silicon TC-128 - The task forcedoes not recommend a waiver be granted to produce up
to 50 nonpressure cars with higher (0.45% target) Silicon content at this time.
Discussion - Current Silicon content for plate thickness " and under is 0.15% to 0.40% by
weight while plates over " thick are allowed 0.15% to 0.50%. High silicon samples tested OK
at Trinity Industries with the only exception being that the upper tensile limit of 101 KSI was
marginally exceeded. However, the sample was only marginally over the current maximum
silicon content of 0.40%. Further testing should be done with steel closer to the proposed 0.50%
in order to fully understand the effects.
3. Charpy test results comparing longitudinal orientation (required for CO2 tanks) at -50 Vs
transverse at -30 are still pending. It is the option of the task force that there is no significant
difference, however, it is also the desire of the task force to have data supporting this position.
At the April 2006 meeting, Pat Whelan noted that the upper tensile strength limit for steels was
necessary; however the TC128B upper limit should be reviewed to determine if it is the appropriate
value. The task force is now ready to recommend a waiver for the production of 50 non-pressure tank
car tanks containing TC128 using the higher silicon content limit. During the executive session the
committee requested that the task force return with a test plan and a long-term tracking method for
cars built using the higher silicon content steel.
At the J uly 2006 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF is working on finalizing the requested test
plan. This docket is COD for TF work.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, P. Whelan discussed the proposed test plan with the committee. The
committee approved the following test plan (for each builder to produce up to 50 cars using the
proposed higher Silicon content steel) with the two noted additions (100ksi max. tensile strength and
provide in-service updates).
At the April 2007 meeting, it was agreed that the AAR would provide an authorization letter to each
car builder permitting them to produce up to 50 test cars in accord with the foregoing.
Page 191
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the October 2007 P. Whelan discussed a proposal to add the note, If steel meets all other material
requirements the upper tensile limit would be 110 ksi.
50-CAR TEST PLAN FOR TANK CARS CONSTRUCTED OF Si-MODIFIED TC128
1. Steel used to be in the 0.40-0.50% silicon range with 0.45% being the target goal.
2. Perform welding procedure qualification tests for all welding processes and materials to be
used in the construction of the tanks. All testing to be in accordance with M-1002, Appendix
W.
3. Procedure qualification tests are to include tensile strength specimens, side bends, and Charpy
VEE Notch (CVN) samples tested at -30F for base plate, Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), and
weld metal. CVN to be transverse to the rolling direction.
4. Perform periodic testing on head trim during production to assess consistency of properties.
Tests are to include tensile strength specimens and CVN in the transverse direction.
5. Inspect by qualified method, dye penetrant (PT) or magnetic particle (MT), head knuckles and
straight flanges on 1 in 5 heads. Inspection to be on both the inside and outside surfaces for a
total of 2 square feet on each surface.
6. Spot check (using dye penetrant (PT) or magnetic particle (MT)) fillet welds on 1 in 5 cars,
for a total length of 6 feet, to include at least 2 feet in the attachment of the head shoe
reinforcing pad to the tank.
7. The committee will require periodic updates after cars have been produced and entered
service.
Points 5 and 6 are to assure no cracking problems in production. The Task Force does not feel this
will be an issue since steel of this silicon content is currently being used.
Two points added at the J anuary 2007 meeting.
1. High silicon TC-128 must meet 100k max tensile.
2. The TCC would like interim updates periodically after the cars have been produced and entered
service.
At the J uly 2007 meeting, AAR staff reported that a letter had been issued to each car builder
indicating that the test car production had been approved.
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, the committee agreed to add the note If steel meets all other material
mechanical properties after forming the upper tensile limit would be 110 ksi. to the TC-128
specification.
At the April 2008 meeting, P. Whelan updated the committee on the current proposals for TC-128B.
Page 192
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the J uly 2008 meeting, it was reported that there has been no interest with builders to produce the
higher tensile strength TC-128 steel cars due to the liability. It was suggested that non-pressure cars
would be the favorable place to test this steel formulation. It was reported that 50 units of higher
silicon steel content cars are currently in service.
At the October 2008 meeting, there was no activity on this docket. COD
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, it was reported no tank car builder has produced cars with the higher
tensile strength steel.
At the April 2009 meeting, COD
At the J uly 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF will review and evaluate the charpy test
results. Proposal might be available by the October TCC meeting.
T. Phemister mentioned that there are conversations at FRA requiring tougher charpy standards on
286K cars. Nothing formal has been said but it is being discussed.
Remove TF Member: T. Dalrymple.
P. Whelan will send the K. Dorsey an email of the active TF members.
At the October 2009 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF is reviewing the high silicon content in
thinner steels. Weld testing still needs to be performed on test plates which is planned to be tested at
Union Tank. P. Whelan recommended that the proposal submitted in 2008 be sent to the executive
committee for approval. The recommendation was agreed to by the committee.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, this docket was COD.
The following recommendation was received via e-mail dated 3/25/10
1. C-III 2.2.1.1 requires that pressure cars must be made of A516, A537, or TC128 but Table M10.1
in Appendix M only lists A516 and TC128.
Recommendation That A537 be added to table M10.1 in Appendix M.
Discussion although it is thought that this steel is no longer used for construction there may be a
use in the future (much easier to keep than to try to add back).
2. 49 CFR 179.100-3 requires head shields and shells for all pressure cars to be
normalized. The Task Force believes that the DOT intent was for heads and shells for
carbon steel pressure cars be normalized. As currently written, cars constructed of
stainless steel or aluminum would also have to be normalized.
Recommendation That DOT be petitioned to revise CFR 179 as noted above.
Page 193
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
Proposal dated 2/4/2008 shown below Accepted 10/09.
5.5 Tensile Properties
The material as represented by the test specimens must conform to the tensile properties prescribed in
table M3.
Table M3. Tensile requirements for AAR TC128 steel
Property Grade B
Tensile Strength, psi (MPa) 81,000 to 101,000 (560 to 695)
b/
Yield strength, psi (MPa) Min. 50,000 (345)
Elongation in 8 in. (200 mm) % Min. 16.0
a/
Elongation in 2 in. (50 mm) % Min. 22.0
a/
For material under 5/16 in. (7.94 mm) thick, a reduction of 1.25% must be made from the
specified percentage elongation for each decrease of 1/32 in. (0.794 mm) of thickness below
5/16 in. (7.94 mm). For material over 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) thick, a reduction of 0.5% must be
made from the specified percentage elongation for each increase of 1/8 in. (3.18 mm) of the
thickness above 3/4 in. (19.0 mm). This reduction must not exceed 3%.
b/
Tensile strength may be as high as 110,000 psi (760 MPa) provided that all other applicable
mechanical properties requirements are met in the as-applied condition.
At the April 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported on the 2 recommendation provided below. Motion
made, seconded, and passed to move both recommendations to the executive TCC for consideration.
1. C-III 2.2.1.1 requires that pressure cars must be made of A516, A537, or TC128 but Table M10.1
in Appendix M only lists A516 and TC128.
Recommendation That A537 be added to table M10.1 in Appendix M.
Discussion although it is thought that this steel is no longer used for construction there may be a
use in the future (much easier to keep than to try to add back).
3. 49 CFR 179.100-3 requires head shields and shells for all pressure cars to be normalized. The
Task Force believes that the DOT intent was for heads and shells for carbon steel pressure cars
be normalized. As currently written, cars constructed of stainless steel or aluminum would also
have to be normalized.
Recommendation That DOT be petitioned to revise CFR 179 as noted above.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that AAR staff will write a letter to FRA about
normalization of aluminum and stainless steel cars. P. Whelan wrote a letter to car builders asking
them to consider building a car with higher silicon content steel as a test.
At the October 2010 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF is looking to find a builder that is
willing to commit to testing a higher silicon content steel. Once this happens then a service trial can
be setup. COD
Page 194
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported that there is no tank car builder at this time that is
interested in testing higher silicon content steel. TF has asked the builders to get a quote
independently on low sulfur TC-128 steel in order to determine if it is worth pursuing.
The following 2 recommendations from the April 2010 TCC need to be addressed by the executive
TCC.
1. C-III 2.2.1.1 requires that pressure cars must be made of A516, A537, or TC128 but Table M10.1
in Appendix M only lists A516 and TC128.
Recommendation That A537 be added to table M10.1 in Appendix M.
Discussion although it is thought that this steel is no longer used for construction there may be a
use in the future (much easier to keep than to try to add back).
2. 49 CFR 179.100-3 requires head shields and shells for all pressure cars to be normalized. The
Task Force believes that the DOT intent was for heads and shells for carbon steel pressure cars
be normalized. As currently written, cars constructed of stainless steel or aluminum would also
have to be normalized.
Recommendation That DOT be petitioned to revise CFR 179 as noted above.
At the April 2011 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF has asked the builders to get a quote
independently on low sulfur TC-128 steel in order to determine if it is worth pursuing. COD
At the J uly 2011 meeting, P. Whelan stated that sulfur plays a significant role in the toughness of
steel. The two TF recommendations provided in the docket were discussed. AAR can take action on
recommendation 1 by adding A537 to Appendix M table M10.1. The second recommendation would
involve FRA being petitioned to revise 49 CFR Part 179.
At the October 2011 meeting, P. Whelan stated that the specifications for high silicon steel are still
being worked on. TF believes that normalization of all pressure cars should only be done on carbon
steel tank cars and not to aluminum or stainless steel tank cars. K. Dorsey reported that A537 was
added to appendix M in the recently published CPC-1237.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, P. Whelan stated that TF recently reviewed the comments received on
CPC-1237 and they would like to withdraw one of their proposed changes. Specifically bullet a
from the proposed CPC-1237 which matches bullet b in the TCC docket which states:
b/
Tensile strength may be as high as 110,000 psi (760 MPa) provided that all other applicable
mechanical properties requirements are met in the as-applied condition.
At the April 2012 meeting, COD
Page 195
April 2013 Docket: T95.7.3
M/GDE
Consider Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
At the J uly 2012 meeting, P. Whelan reported that the TF is looking at reducing sulfur in the current
TC-128 spec. There is an AAR report indicating a 4x improvement in charpy values could be
achieved. However, lowering the sulfur content to 0.007 - 0.008 range would result in an increase in
the cost that would have to be discussed. The goal of the TF is to quantify the potential gains in
performance and make a recommendation. It was reported that HSLA-80 and X-70 are weldable, but
the TF is waiting for direction from ATCCRP. Final Appendix M was published with the table
correction.
At the October 2012 meeting, one item up for discussion is the yield point of TC-128 and whether or
not 50 ksi steel is necessary in TC-128 in all cases. C. Hybinette from Union Tank Car is the new TF
chair.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic stated that low sulfur steel is being tested. The process of
producing this steel will be under discussion. The TF will also investigate the effect of lowering the
yield strength.
CURRENT TF: C Hybinette (chr), R Sims, F Gonzales, L Strouse, H Guzel, G Sandheinrich, M
Manohar, B Heitmann, B Kowing, A.D. McKisic, C Barkan, T Treichel
TF CHARGE: Develop Modifications to Current Steel Specifications
REFERENCES: PJ Daum 1/21/04 (handout), 7/19/05; TH Dalrymple 09/08/02, 5/19/03, 8/24/03,
9/10/03, 11/02/03, 11/03/03, 1/15/04, 1/16/04X3, 1/19/04, 3/28/04X2, 3/29/04,
6/9/04, 1/30/05, 2/8/05, 7/19/05, 7/20/05; TT Treichel 9/10/03, 11/10/03;
M Manohar 6/24/04, 8/24/05; G. Dahlman 10/16/03, 11/3/03, 2/9/04; P Kinnecom
03/27/03, 03/28/03 (CPC-1150), 6/20/03 (CPC-1154), 8/25/03, 2/8/05, 6/24/05
(CPC-1169), 8/1/05 (CPC-1170), 8/13/07; P Whelan 1/13/06, 1/17/07 (handout),
2/4/08, 3/25/10
Page 196
April 2013 Docket: T146
Sub. 1
Tank Car Committee Meeting Schedule
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, the TCC agreed to the following schedule:
TANK CAR COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
YEAR DATE MEETING LOCATION TOUR
2013 J uly 24-25 TCC Chicago, IL
2013 October 16-17 Subs Pueblo/CO. Springs, CO.
2014 J anuary 22-23 TCC J acksonville, FL
2014 April 16-17 Subs Dallas, TX
2014 J uly 16-17 TCC Roanoke, VA (Alt Chicago)
2014 October 15-16 Subs Atlanta, GA
J anuary changed from 16-17 to 23-24
April 24-25 Kansas City, MO instead of Atlanta, GA
At the October 2005 meeting, it was agreed that the October 2006 meeting will be held on the 18th
and 19th of the month in Raleigh, NC. The subcommittee meeting format was discussed and it was
decided to leave the current structure unchanged; however, the working group and subcommittee
chairs were requested to prompt task force chairs for input prior to each meeting. J .P. Gagnon noted
that brief summaries of the history of issues might help participation from the large group. The
meeting structure will be reviewed after the next full meeting.
At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Paul Kinnecom noted that the October 2006 TCC meeting is in conflict
with the dates of the RMWC meeting. The committee decided to leave the dates for the tank car
committee meeting unchanged and, if necessary, have the chairman participate in the RMWC
meeting by phone. Date and location of the J anuary 2007 TCC meeting was set for J anuary 17-18,
2007 at J acksonville, FL.
At the April 2006 meeting, it was decided that the April 2007 Tank Car Subcommittee meetings will
be held in the Greater Houston area on the 18th and 19th of the month.
At the J uly 2006 meeting, P. Kinnecom updated the committee on the plans for the October 2006
TCC meeting. The meeting is now scheduled to be held in Kansas City at the Hyatt Regency Crown
Center the week of October the 11
th
. The J uly 2007 meeting will be held in Calgary, AB on J uly 18-
19. H. Weber listed some suggested changes to the meeting structure. AAR staff will make name tags
available so that newer attendees will be able to identify individuals. It was requested that use of the
microphones be enforced, and a request was made for the executive committee members to give more
information, such as position in their organization, when introducing themselves at the sub-committee
meetings. A small group met and discussed changes to the meeting schedule and the committee
agreed that the schedule for the October 2006 meeting would be as follows:
Page 197
April 2013 Docket: T146
Sub. 1
Tank Car Committee Meeting Schedule (Cont)
Day 1 (Oct 11)
7:30-9:30 Sub 1 and Sub 2 Working Groups (2 rooms)
10:00- 12:00 NAR and (if necessary) AX (full room)
1:00- 5:00 pm Sub 1 (full room)
Day 2 (Oct 12)
8:00- Sub 2 (full room)
Executive and private sessions to follow Sub 2 (Until the chairmans plane departs)
The purpose of the day 1 breakout sessions is to allow the Sub-committee chairmen to progress TF
charges and encourage more diverse participation within the working groups in preparation for the
subcommittee meetings. It was commented that there may be a need for a 30 minute break to
configure the room from the breakout sessions to the full room.
At the October 2006 meeting, the new format for the meetings was discussed.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, the committee agreed to hold the October 2007 meeting in Chicago on
the 10
th
and 11
th
. J . Swezey guarantees good weather for the meeting.
At the April 2007 meeting, the committee agreed to change the location of the October 2007 meeting
from Chicago to a Texas location (Staff note: A meeting location in the Ft Worth area has been
determined.) The J anuary 2008 meeting will be held in J acksonville, Fl on J anuary 16-17.
At the J uly 2007 meeting, the committee agreed to hold the April 2008 TCC meeting in the greater
Houston area on the 16
th
and 17
th
of the month and Cary, N.C. was selected for the J uly 16-17, 2008
meeting.
At the October 2007 meeting this docket was COD.
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, the committee agreed to add the following dates to the meeting
schedule,
Kansas City October 15-16, 2008
J acksonville, J anuary 21-22, 2009
At the April 2008 meeting it was decided to hold the October 2008 meeting with NAR opening the
session followed by Sub. 1. There will be no subcommittee meetings prior to the beginning of the
sessions. AAR staff will investigate putting the meeting schedule on the AAR web site.
At the J uly 2008 meeting, the committee agreed to the schedule shown above.
At the October 2008 meeting, the welding task force, MGDE, and the NAR group typically meet the
day before the meeting so it was suggested reserving a few more rooms for task forces to meet. TCC
agreed with the suggestion.
Page 198
April 2013 Docket: T146
Sub. 1
Tank Car Committee Meeting Schedule (Cont)
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey mentioned that several members have travel restrictions;
therefore the schedule should be reviewed. K. Dorsey suggested possible holding a teleconference in
place of the J anuary meeting. A motion made to change the meeting location from Montreal, Quebec,
Canada to Chicago, IL for the J uly 22-23 2009 was agreed to by the committee. Both FRA and
GATX mentioned possible meeting space that may be available for this meeting.
At the October 2009 meeting, the committee agreed to the dates and locations for Tank Car
Committee meetings shown in the table provided.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule.
At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule.
J anuary 19-20, 2011 in J acksonville, FL for the Executive TCC. April 20-21, 2011 in Atlanta, GA for
TCC Subs.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule.
The following dates and locations for Tank Car Committee meetings have been established.
YEAR DATE Meeting Location
2011 April 20-21 Subs Atlanta, GA
2011 J uly 20-21 TCC Montreal, Canada
2011 October 19-20 Subs Houston, TX
2012 J anuary 18-19 Subs J acksonville, FL
Staff Note: The J uly 2011 meeting location has been moved to Chicago after AAR consideration.
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported on the tank car committee meeting schedule. K.
Dorsey stated that AAR recently provided a list of approved locations for AAR technical meetings.
The following dates and locations for Tank Car Committee meetings have been established.
YEAR DATE Meeting Location Tour
2011 J uly 20-21 TCC Chicago, IL
2011 October 19-20 Subs Houston, TX
2012 J anuary 18-19 Subs J acksonville, FL
Page 199
April 2013 Docket: T146
Sub. 1
Tank Car Committee Meeting Schedule (Cont)
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the next executive Tank Car Committee meeting is
scheduled for J uly 18-19 in Chicago, IL and the next sub Tank Car Committee meeting will be held
in St. Louis, MO on October 17-18.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, the October 2012 meeting might move to Kansas City, MO as it has been
difficult to find space in St. Louis. Staff will look into the St. Charles convention center.
April 24-25, 2013: Atlanta, GA.
J uly 24-25, 2013: Chicago, IL
At the October 2012 meeting, the TCC agreed to the following schedule:
2013 J anuary 23-24 TCC J acksonville, FL
2013 April 24-25 Subs Atlanta, GA
2013 J uly 24-25 TCC Chicago, IL
J anuary changed from 16-17 to 23-24
April 24-25 Kansas City, MO instead of Atlanta, GA
AAR received an email and letter from Salco Products and Conbraco Apollo on December 7, 2012
extending an invitation to the Tank Car Committee to host one of the meetings in South Carolina.
At the J anuary 2013 meeting,
October 16-17, 2013 Pueblo, CO/Colorado Springs
J anuary 22-23, 2014 J acksonville, FL
April 16-17, 2014 Dallas, TX
J uly 16-17, 2014 Roanoke, VA (Chicago, IL second choice)
October 15-16, 2014 Atlanta, GA
REFERENCES:
Page 200
April 2013 Docket: T147
Sub. 1
Subcommittee Structures and Procedures
Recent Activity:
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic is the new member for RSI and J oe Perez is off. AAR
needs both Brian Paine and AD McKisic bios for the TCC ballot committee.
Via e-mail date 12/27/04, J . Seeberger has been appointed to represent the Short Lines on the TCC.
At the J anuary 2005 meeting, the following changes were made to the committee structure.
Appendix A/C Vice Chairman: H. Gassen
Appendix M/GDE Chairman: J . Swezey
P. Daum has replaced H. Taber as a voting member of the committee.
Via e-mail dated 12/27/04, J . Seeberger has been nominated to join the tank car committee as the
Short Lines representative.
At the J uly 2005 meeting, H. Weber was made chair of Subcommittee 1. H. Gassen will be the new
Chairman of A/C with J . Seeberger being the Vice Chairman.
Via e-mail dated 9/16/05, Frank Reiner has been named the new VP of Transportation and Storage
for the Chlorine Institute and will represent them on the committee.
At the October 2005 meeting, F. Reiner was introduced as the new representative of the Chlorine
Institute.
At the J anuary 2006 meeting, Paul Kinnecom announced that Ferromex has changed its name to KCS
de Mexico. The procedures for obtaining a seat on the tank car committee were discussed.
Via e-mail dated 1/20/06, P Guffain forwarded correspondence in which the Fertilizer Institute
requested consideration for membership on the TCC. They have been requested to identify a
candidate.
At the April 2006 meeting, membership on the TCC was discussed and new members introduced.
Via e-mail dated 6/14/06, the TCC charter was amended to increase it membership from 22 to 23
members.
Via e-mail dated 6/22/06, T. Waggoner and A. Richter were added to the Tank Car Committee.
At the J uly 2006 meeting, there were minor edits suggested to the committee representative list that
AAR staff will incorporate in the next background.
At the J anuary 2007 meeting, it was noted that J . Byrne is now a voting member of the committee. T.
Dalrymple has taken up the position of silent observer. R. Sobilo is the new chairman M/GDE.
At the April 2007 meeting, B. Fronczak discussed the changes to the committee membership.
Page 201
April 2013 Docket: T147
Sub. 1
Subcommittee Structures and Procedures
At the J uly 2007 meeting, B. Fronczak noted that companies wishing to have new individuals
representing them on the TCC should forward information to AAR staff so that the formal
nomination process can be completed. S. Lauver announced that the October 2007 meeting would be
his last as a TCC member for UP.
Via e-mail dated 8/30/07, J . Sbragia and K. Dorsey have been added to the TCC. Also, L. Orborny
will assume the UP chair on the TCC at the J anuary 2008 meeting.
At the October 2007 meeting the need to review the committee positions was discussed.
At the J anuary 2008 meeting, it was commented that the committee would like to make sure dockets
get out at least two weeks before the meeting. Also want to see minutes a month after the meeting.
Committee assignments were made and the roster reviewed.
At the October 2008 meeting, Bob Fronczak mentioned that J . Perez from Union Tank Car will apply
for tank car committee membership as Randall Triche has stepped down. D. Maechling will be added
to the RSI members of the committee.
At the J anuary 2009 meeting, D. Maechling of ARL was approved by the nominating Committee for
membership on the TCC. The TCC unanimously approved Mr. Maechling for committee
membership. Question was raised: Should RSI members be approved automatically? Response from
the TCC: keep the system currently in place. J . Perez from UTLX will provide a resume for the TCC
review. If approved by TCC J . Perez will replace R. Triche. B. Finn will provide a list of AAR-RSI
members.
At the April 2009 meeting, R. Fronczak reported that J . Perez has been approved for TCC
membership. G. Sandheinrich is replacing M. Williams, but since ARI is not on the TCC, there is no
need to for approval for membership on the committee until ARI rotates back on the TCC.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, it was reported that ARL will be a new voting member and occupy an RSI
voting position in 3 years.
Add J Perez and D Maechling.
Remove: Randal Triche, Chief Product Engineer, Union Tank Car Company (7/18/07)
Remove: J ohn Sbragia, Manager Design and Development, GATX Corporation (8/30/07)
At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that current CN representative D. Simpson has
stepped down and S. McLeod will be taking his place on the Tank Car Committee. Editorial change
will be made to remove the Chairman from D. Meyler and identify T. Mannas as Chairman of the
TCC.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, R. Fronczak reported that current CN representative D. Simpson has
stepped down and S. McLeod will be taking his place on the Tank Car Committee. Ferrocarril
Mexicano (Ferromex) representative Milagros Fajardo Montiel in no longer with the company and
therefore a request has been sent by AAR to Ferromex asked them to provide a new representative.
Page 202
April 2013 Docket: T147
Sub. 1
Subcommittee Structures and Procedures (Continued)
The nonimating committee has recomended J orge Francisco Gallardo J imnez be accepted as the
representive Ferrocarril Mexicano.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the the nonimating committee has recomended
J orge Francisco Gallardo J imnez be accepted as the representive Ferrocarril Mexicano (Ferromex).
Via email dated 7/7/10, the nominating commttee approved J im Kozey as a candidate to represent CP
on the TCC.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, the committee agreed to accept J im Kozey as the representative for CP and
J orge Francisco Gallardo J imenez as the representative for Ferromex on the TCC. T. Mannas was
recognized for his past 2 years as TCC Chair. P. Whelan is now the TCC Chair. K. Dorsey will
contact C. Culley to see if he would accept the position of TCC vice chair.
J . Kozey was elected and approved to be the vice chairman of M/GDE replacing P. Whelan
T. Mannas was elected and approved to be the vice chairman of TQI Group replacing D. Meyler
P. Williams was elected and approved to be the chairman of Ax/NAR Group and vice chair to be
determined based on Chief BOE Inspector (A. Matys) replacement
AAR will provide the TCC members the roster of all members, the TCC docket structure, and the
TCC charter.
At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey introduced the new Tank Car Committee Chairman Pat
Whelan (BNSF) and new Vice-Chairman Paul Williams (NS). J im Kozey (CP) and J orge J imenez
(Ferromex) are new members on the Tank Car Committee. Rotation of RSI representative on the
Tank Car Committee will occur at the J anuary 2011 Tank Car Committee meeting. Chet Culley
(KCS) recently notified AAR that he will no longer be able to participate on the TCC but has
recommended a replacement which will be discussed at the J anuary 2011 TCC meeting.
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that J . Seeberger notified AAR via letter that he is
retiring and would no longer be able to participate in TCC meetings. Tim Mannas (CSX) announced
during the meeting that he will be retiring in 2011. K. Dorsey reported on the following Tank Car
Committee and subcommittee assignments.
1. Carl Akins replaced Chet Culley as the KCS representative on the TCC
2. Kevin Flahive replaced Todd Waggoner as theTFI representative on the TCC
3. Tony Manrique replaced J oe Perez as the Union Tank Car Company representative on the TCC
New or Current Previously Assigned
Subcommittee 1 Chairman: Harold Weber
Subcommittee 2 Chairman: Mike Richardson
Appendix A/C Chairman: Al Richter J im Seeberger
Appendix A/C Vice Chairman: Frank Reiner Al Richter
Appendix M/GDE Chairman: J ohn Byrne
Appendix M/GDE Vice Chairman: J im Kozey
Appendix B/R/W Chairman: Lou Oborny
Page 203
April 2013 Docket: T147
Sub. 1
Subcommittee Structures and Procedures (Continued)
Appendix B/R/W Vice Chairman: Andy Ash
TQI Group Chairman: N. Scott Murray Todd Waggoner
TQI Group Vice Chairman: Kevin Flahive Tim Mannas
Ax/NAR Group Chairman: Paul B. Williams
Ax/NAR Vice Chairman: Scott McLeod TBD
Editorial Group Chairman: Ken Dorsey
The current subcommittee working group assignments are now as follows:
Subcommittee 1 Chairman: Harold Weber
Subcommittee 2 Chairman: Mike Richardson
Appendix A/C Chairman: Al Richter
Appendix A/C Vice Chairman: Frank Reiner
Appendix M/GDE Chairman: J ohn Byrne
Appendix M/GDE Vice Chairman: J im Kozey
Appendix B/R/W Chairman: Lou Oborny
Appendix B/R/W Vice Chairman: Andy Ash
TQI Group Chairman: N. Scott Murray
TQI Group Vice Chairman: Kevin Flahive
Ax/NAR Group Chairman: Paul B. Williams
Ax/NAR Vice Chairman: Scott McLeod
Editorial Group Chairman: Ken Dorsey
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that J orge Gallardo the J orge Francisco Gallardo
J imnez of Ferrocarril Mexicano will no longer be on the TCC. AAR needs the resume from Alberto
Federico Chavez Mojica whom is scheduled to replace J orges position on the TCC for Ferrocarril
Mexicano.
Tony Manrique is replacing J ohn Byrnes position on the TCC committee under non-railroad tank car
builder/lessor
As of 4/21/2011 - Non-Railroad Tank Car Builder / Lessor in Order of Seniority
J oe Perez, Director of Fleet Engineering, Union Tank Car Company (7/22/09)
Dave Maechling, Director of Fleet Operations, American Railcar Leasing (7/22/09)
Tony Manrique, CITRail (4/20/2011)
(Staff Note: Andy Ashs title should be changed from manager to director.)
At the J uly 2011 meeting, AAR needs to letter ballot the TCC for Andy Shaffer and Chris
Machenberg. Both have cleared the nominating subcommittee.
Page 204
April 2013 Docket: T147
Sub. 1
Subcommittee Structures and Procedures (Continued)
At the October 2011 meeting, AAR reported that the TCC approved both Andy Schaffer and Chris
Machenberg as Tank Car Committee members. A. Schaffer from Watco Mechanical Services will
hold the ASLRRA seat on the Tank Car Committee and C. Machenberg from CSX will hold the
CSX seat on the Tank Car Committee.
At the J anuary 2012 meeting, COD
At the April 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that this will be Pat Whelans last meeting as TCC
Chair and that Paul Williams will be the next TCC Chair starting J uly 2012. Allen Richter will be
the TCC vice-chair.
At the J uly 2012 meeting, B. Siebold and J . Rader were voted in as members of the TCC. RSI needs
to assign someone to take the seat of Tony Manrique formerly of CIT.
At the October 2012 meeting, COD
The following individual will replace the TCC member position previously held by Tony Manrique:
Brian Paine, CIT Rail, Brian.paine@cit.com
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, AD McKisic is the new member for RSI and J oe Perez is off. AAR
needs both Brian Paine and AD McKisic bios for the TCC ballot committee.
CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE TANK CAR COMMITTEE
(As of January 2013)
Railroad Members in Order of Seniority
1. Patrick J . Student (Hazmat Committee Liaison), Director Hazardous Materials
Management, Union Pacific Railroad Company (5/22/97)
2. Paul B. Williams, (Chair) Assistant Manager Hazardous Materials, Norfolk Southern
Corporation (4/30/04)
3. Allen Richter, (Vice Chair), Manager Hazardous Materials, Conrail (6/22/06)
4. Lou Oborny, Union Pacific Railroad, Manager of Mechanical Engineering, Union
Pacific Railroad, (11/01/07)
5. Andy Ash, Director, Dangerous Goods, Railway Association of Canada, (1/29/08)
6. Marco Antonio Gonzales Garza, Environmental Risk, Kansas City Southern de
Mexico (04/15/09)
7. Scott McLeod, Dangerous Goods Officer, CN Railway (1/20/10)
8. J im Kozey, Manager Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Pacific (7/21/10)
Page 205
9. J orge Francisco Gallardo J imnez, Railway Analyst Engineering, Ferrocarril
Mexicano (7/21/10)
10. Carl Akins, Manager, Environmental Engineering, KCS (11/24/10)
11. Chris Machenberg, Manager of Hazardous Materials Field Services, CSX
(10/19/2011)
12. Bruce Siebold, System Mechanical Engineer, BNSF Railway, (7/18/12)
13. J im Rader, Senior Vice President, Watco Compliance Services L.L..C. (ASLRRA),
(7/18/12)
Association of American Railroads
14. Ken B. Dorsey, Executive Director Tank Car Safety, Association of American
Railroads (5/29/97)
Non-Railroad Shippers in Order of Seniority
15. Harold H. Weber, Director Industrial Programs, The Sulphur Institute (10/18/93)
16. R. Mike Richardson, Clay Producers Traffic Association (1/22/98)
17. Kirk L. Warner, Consultant, American Petroleum Institute (API) (1/1/04)
18. Frank X. Reiner, Vice President Storage and Transportation, The Chlorine Institute
(9/16/05)
19. N. Scott Murray, Manager Rail Planning & Operations Exxon Mobil (4/18/08)
20. Kevin Flahive, Director Rail Transportation , Koch Fertilizer Company (11/24/10)
Non-Railroad Tank Car Builder / Lessor in Order of Seniority
21. AD McKisic, Senior Director Product Development, Trinity Rail (1/23/13)
22. Dave Maechling, Director of Fleet Operations , American Railcar Leasing (7/22/09)
23. Brian Paine, AVP Fleet Maintenance, CIT Rail (10/24/2012)
REFERENCES: RE Fronczak 07/24/02, 09/23/02, 1/23/06, 6/22/06, 6/29/06, 10/04/06, 9/10/07;
N. White 12/12/02, 7/7/10; D. Richmond 12/20/02: L Arlinghaus 03/31/03; P
Kinnecom 03/31/03, 12/27/04, 1/23/06, 1/31/06, 3/30/06, 6/01/06, 6/14/06,
6/27/06, 9/19/06, 3/9/07; C Gordon 12/01/03; D Schoendorfer 4/30/04; S Elliott
4/26/04; K Shaver 9/16/05; P Guffain 1/20/06, 4/06/06; W Schoonover 3/28/06; P
Daum 4/11/06; H Weber 4/12/06; R VanderClute 4/14/06; E. Harris 8/1/06; D
Simpson 9/19/06; T. Heidkamp 3/9/07; P Kinnecom 8/30/07; T Schick 3/25/08
Page 206
April 2013 Docket: T200.124.1
M/GDE
Proper Bar Configuration for GATX Underframe Cars
Recent Activity:
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that once the paper version of the configuration is
turned into electronic format it will be sent to GATX engineering department prior to creating a CPC.
COD
This docket has been opened to facilitate communication of several instances of tank shell failure due
to improper application of bottom reinforcing bars or improper modification of bars that had been
initially correctly applied. In the cases investigated a common thread was that GATX engineering
instructions had not been followed and unacceptable stress concentration had been created in the shell
resulting in failure. Owners of GATX designed bar reinforced cars are to note that focused evaluation
and inspection of the bar attachment welds and the configuration of the bars should be considered.
At the J uly 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that the purpose of this docket is to distribute
information on the proper bar configurations on GATX bar underframe cars. A attempt will be made
to create a CPC that will address the possible configurations in a general manner and emphasize that
all modification to the cars need proper engineering analysis and will need to be sent into the AAR
for TCC approval. GATX will not be mentioned in the circular.
At the October 2009 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR found the original application for proper
bar configuration. All modifications to these cars need proper engineering analysis and the analysis
will need to be sent to AAR.
At the J anuary 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that J . Sbragia will provide to the appropriate
parties the diagrams for proper bar configurations. K. Dorsey will provide J . Sbragia the original
application for proper bar configuration. It was mentioned that modifications to GATX underframe
cars were not all performed by GATX. K. GATX cannot take responsibility for the non-approved
bar configurations.
At the April 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR is still in search of all files related to this
docket. Once all material is collected a guide will be published on the proper bar configuration for
GATX stub sill cars. Car owners will ultimately have to determine if they meet the requirement that are
approved by the EEC and then engineering would have to be done to become approved.
At the J uly 2010 meeting, this docket was COD for TF work.
At the October 2010 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that there are some organizations that have installed
bar configuration on the cars that are not in accord with the original approved drawings by AAR.
Other organizations have made modifications to the bar configurations that are not in conformance.
AAR plans to publish a CPC that will notify the industry of the appropriate bar configurations. COD
At the J anuary 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR has located all files related to this docket;
however the clarity of the scanned material is not the best so another scan will take place. AAR plans
to publish a CPC that will notify the industry of the appropriate bar configurations.
Page 207
April 2013 Docket: T200.124.1
M/GDE
Proper Bar Configuration for GATX Underframe Cars
At the April 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey reported that AAR will publish a CPC notifying the industry of
the appropriate bar configurations soon. It might require changed to Appendix Y of MSRP C-III M-
1002.
At the J uly 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that the original drawings of the bar configurations were
done by hand and AAR need them to be converted to CAD. Once this is done a CPC will be
published indicating to the industry what the proper bar configurations should be.
At the October 2011 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that AAR continues on these efforts.
At the April 2012 meeting, COD
At the J uly 2012 meeting, AAR located the original maintenance instructions for the bar cars. That
will be provided to GATX. Depending on conversation with GATX, might want to re-publish the
original instructions.
At the October 2012 meeting, K. Dorsey stated that once the paper version of the configuration is
turned into electronic format it will be sent to GATX engineering department prior to creating a
CPC. COD
At the J anuary 2013 meeting, COD
CURRENT TF:
TF CHARGE:
REFERENCES: